• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Left or Right?

Left or Right?

  • left

    Votes: 25 51.0%
  • right

    Votes: 24 49.0%

  • Total voters
    49
political compass is bull****...the questions are messed up.

This is one of the better political tests I've taken, but it may take you about 10 minutes

Political Spectrum Quiz - Your Political Label

My results:

You are a left moderate social authoritarian.
Left: 6.3, Authoritarian: 1.55

7x17.gif


Foreign Policy:
On the left side are pacifists and anti-war activists. On the right side are those who want a strong military that intervenes around the world. You scored: -4.88

n26.gif


Culture:
Where are you in the culture war? On the liberal side, or the conservative side? This scale may apply more to the US than other countries. You scored: -5.07

c25.gif
 
I'd disagree *shrugs*
Anyway, I retook some of those quizzes, and this is where I ended up.
pcgraphpng.php

position.jpg


Economic Left/Right: 1.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21

Honestly, it's sort of what I expected.

I ended up just a couple to the right and a couple up from you :shock:
 
lol with those results you have no right to call yourself a liberal :p

I guess not, I think it is the economics questions. But when I call myself a libertarian everyone here starts yelling at me that I'm a liberal :lol:
 
Please, the guy's clinging to his gun and a bible. I know you feel about religion. Seriously, what social issue would you say you're anything other than liberal on?

Against bail outs
For fiscal responsiblity (living within your means)
Pro civil liberties (against wire taps, etc.)
Against prohibitiion
For reforming the criminal justice system
For the right to bear arms and practice self defense
For reductions in foreign aid (with the exception of humanitarian efforts)
Against censorship (particularly the internet)
For enforcing immigration laws
Neutral on abortion (emphasize reduction of abortions rather than criminalization)
For reorganization of public school system
Against the death penalty
For tax reform

Just to name a few.
 
I guess not, I think it is the economics questions. But when I call myself a libertarian everyone here starts yelling at me that I'm a liberal :lol:

Come to the right side where you belong. :)
 
For those interested in the results of the politicians that you send to your legislatures, this is a great site that's based on voting records:

http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm

I'm not sure about state and local politicians, but you can look up the results of Senators and Congressmen/Representatives and find out where they are on the spectrum as well. According to this site, my Congressman (Representative Chris van Hollen) is a hardcore lib :lol:

EDIT: it DOES track state legislators and politicians as well.
 
Last edited:
For those interested in the results of the politicians that you send to your legislatures, this is a great site that's based on voting records:

OnTheIssues.org - Candidates on the Issues

I'm not sure about state and local politicians, but you can look up the results of Senators and Congressmen/Representatives and few them on the spectrum as well. According to this site, my Congressman (Representative Chris van Hollen) is a hardcore lib :lol:

EDIT: it DOES track state legislators and politicians as well.
I wish it were more useful for me, lol.
Between Schumer, Gillibrand and (every) NYC politician in the house, it's a tie between very liberal or very very liberal, lol.
 
I wish it were more useful for me, lol.
Between Schumer, Gillibrand and (every) NYC politician in the house, it's a tie between very liberal or very very liberal, lol.

haha same, between van Hollen, Benjamin Cardin, and Barbara Mikulski they're all very liberal, very very liberal, or hard-core liberal. but I don't mind one bit :mrgreen:
 
Come to the right side where you belong. :)

I don't know, I disagree pretty strongly with some of those who are "conservative" on DP. Unless you mean right like goldenboy or iamitter, those are the two posters whom I tend to agree with most on this board when I read posts.
 
My Political Views
I am a right moderate social authoritarianRight: 3.91, Authoritarian: 1.71

28x17.gif


n70.gif


It's official, I'm a neo-con.
 
Last edited:
Redid that other quiz. You are a center-right social libertarian
24x29.gif


Foreign Policy: You scored: -8.39
n8.gif


Culture: You scored: -5.15
c24.gif
 
I'm really curious for those who consider themselves neo-cons/interventionist in terms of foreign policy, it seems to me that intervention is a much more liberal concept than it is in the conservative Burkean sense, which is why I don't think neo-conservatism is very conservative at all. What do you guys think about this?
 
Last edited:
These tests show slightly different results.

pcgraphpng.php.jpg

19x28.gif
 
Last edited:
I had to retake it because I lost the link to my cultural score. Another non-surprise.

c62.gif
 
I had to retake it because I lost the link to my cultural score. Another non-surprise.

c62.gif

I found a lot of the morality questions to be purposefully ambiguous, wondering if anyone thinks the same thing. Morality is a vague term that exists in the eye of the beholder, imo.
 
I'm really curious for those who consider themselves neo-cons/interventionist in terms of foreign policy, it seems to me that intervention is a much more liberal concept than it is in the conservative Burkean sense, which is why I don't think neo-conservatism is very conservative at all. What do you guys think about this?
I actually don't consider myself a neo-con. As far a "intervention", I'm supportive of it if it advances our national security interests. I know that's a bit vague.
 
I found a lot of the morality questions to be purposefully ambiguous, wondering if anyone thinks the same thing. Morality is a vague term that exists in the eye of the beholder, imo.
Some questions seemed a little weighted too in the way they were phrased, like if you chose a certain answer you're clearly a moron. LOL

All in all though, not a bad exercise. Thanks for the link.
 
Im as right wing as our Founders......as Libertarian as our Forefathers......

The First Right Wing Extremists
Paupers-In-The-Land-Our-Forefathers-Conquered.jpg

.
.
.
.
 
Im as right wing as our Founders......as Libertarian as our Forefathers......

The First Right Wing Extremists
Paupers-In-The-Land-Our-Forefathers-Conquered.jpg

.
.
.
.

Like Alexander Hamilton?
 
Here are my results, no surprise to me really.

13x33.gif


n33.gif


c28.gif
 
I actually don't consider myself a neo-con. As far a "intervention", I'm supportive of it if it advances our national security interests. I know that's a bit vague.

My own foreign policy views are rather ambiguous. If anyone is familiar with the four different schools of thought regarding foreign policy this is a good article.
Why Obama Must Reconcile His Inner Jefferson with His Inner Wilson - By Walter Russell Mead | Foreign Policy

I know it requires you to log in in order to view it so most of you might not be able to see the whole article, but here's a breakdown of the four schools according to this article:

In general, U.S. presidents see the world through the eyes of four giants: Alexander Hamilton, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson. Hamiltonians share the first Treasury secretary's belief that a strong national government and a strong military should pursue a realist global policy and that the government can and should promote economic development and the interests of American business at home and abroad. Wilsonians agree with Hamiltonians on the need for a global foreign policy, but see the promotion of democracy and human rights as the core elements of American grand strategy. Jeffersonians dissent from this globalist consensus; they want the United States to minimize its commitments and, as much as possible, dismantle the national-security state. Jacksonians are today's Fox News watchers. They are populists suspicious of Hamiltonian business links, Wilsonian do-gooding, and Jeffersonian weakness.

Moderate Republicans tend to be Hamiltonians. Move right toward the Sarah Palin range of the party and the Jacksonian influence grows. Centrist Democrats tend to be interventionist-minded Wilsonians, while on the left and the dovish side they are increasingly Jeffersonian, more interested in improving American democracy at home than exporting it abroad.

In terms of which school I most identify with, I believe i'm more closely aligned with a Wilsonian foreign policy than any other school of thought. I believe we should intervene in humanitarian crises (i.e. Darfur in the late 2000s, Rwanda in the mid-1990s, Sudan more recently, etc.) However, the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have also colored my position on Wilsonian foreign policy a little, and I think intervention, while in some cases can and should be done, must also be carefully planned out.

In Bosnia/Yugoslav wars, because NATO only committed air assets and not ground troops, thousands of people still got massacred and there was a massive migration of Kosovars back to Albania. On the other hand, committing ground troops could potentially also have unforeseen consequences as you are now officially engaging in war with a conventional army and nation-state and that could have severe potential political and legal consequences. I think this is the dynamic that Obama is currently having to walk a fine line over with regard to Libya.

In cases where we should intervene, however, I believe that it should always be a multilateral endeavor with the international community behind us, and that planning and strategizing and focusing on an end game and an exit strategy are very important.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom