Where do you consider yourself politically (Poll)

[zoobyshoe]

...which does not preclude answering the poll!

Poll: Do you still beat your wife?

Please check only one:

Yes

No

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The questions from Evo's link seemed to lack nuance and have a lot of dichotomies (not unlike this poll). In any case, here's mine

 

[russ_watters]

The questions from Evo's link seemed to lack nuance and have a lot of dichotomies...

They are purposely designed that way in order to force people to take a stand. Otherwise, people tend to select the middle too often.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I believe that this poll is due to the upcoming American elections and American values would hold here. @StatGuy2000, please specify if your poll is for Americans for the upcoming elections. If it's not, I don't see the point of the poll.

The poll was actually inspired more from the upcoming elections in Canada, where I'm from (our federal election is scheduled for October 19), but yes, the American presidential elections of 2016 also played a (small) factor in it.

When I talk about the liberal-conservative bias, I am specifically thinking of the political spectrum as it exists in Canada, which is in certain ways similar to the spectrum that exists in the US and to other English-speaking countries (UK, Australia).

Specifically, among the values that I would consider to be liberal/progressive would include the following (but are by no means exclusive):

1. The importance of egalitarianism and social progress in society.

2. The belief that governments must play an active role to ensure that societies aim toward a more egalitarian society (this would include things like providing strong social programs, taxing the richer citizens more heavily to provide a strong social safety net, etc.)

3. Strong emphasis on civil rights for all citizens.

4. De-emphasis or lack of emphasis on religion in society.

5. Related to #4, the belief that governments and other large social institutions (including private firms, religious organizations) should not be involved in "legislating" morality to the wider society. This would include, among others, such issues like abortion, birth control, same-sex marriage, decriminalization of marijuana use, decriminalization of prostitution, etc.

 

[Dembadon]

Sounds hippie, so I said "strongly disagree".

 

[StatGuy2000]

Ditto, but most liberals would probably disagree that I'm an environmentalist...which is fine, because I tend to disagree that they are.

russ, as an intelligent and thoughtful individual (based on your many posts here on PF) who work in the STEM field and understands the concept of evidence, I really have to ask why you could in all seriousness consider yourself a card-carrying Republican, when over the past several decades we've seen countless Republican politicians express their ignorance of, and hostility of, science and the scientific evidence.

As an example, consider the following Salon article:

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/11/evolution_and_the_gops_2016_candidates_a_complet_guide/

This has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, it's about accepting the scientific method and scientific evidence.

 

[Dembadon]

 

[StatGuy2000]

My political compass (caveat: I agree with Ryan above that the questions lack nuance, so I don't feel that the questions in Evo's link accurately capture my political orientation).

 

[russ_watters]

russ, as an intelligent and thoughtful individual (based on your many posts here on PF) who work in the STEM field and understands the concept of evidence, I really have to ask why you could in all seriousness consider yourself a card-carrying Republican, when over the past several decades we've seen countless Republican politicians express their ignorance of, and hostility of, science and the scientific evidence.

[Thanks for the compliment]
The way I see it, both sides are similarly hostile to science, particularly when it comes to environmentalism - the left just pretends not to be, whereas the right is open about their hostility. The basis of my above statement:

Which is more damaging to the environment:
1. A Republican who favors coal, fracking and nuclear power and believes Global Warming is a conspiracy?
2. A democrat who favors solar and wind and vehemently opposes nuclear power and fracking?

The irony is that the environmentalist on the left favors preventing global warming, but takes positions that cause it to get worse, while the anti-science Republican denies global warming, but takes actions to fix it!

You might argue - and I agree - that the Religious Right is more specifically hostile toward science than any other group (extreme environmentalists tend to believe science is on their side, Republicans openly acknowledge they do not like science), but a lot of those issues are relatively low impact. Ie, which is a bigger issue, global warming or brain death? Or stem cells? And ironically, both extremes include opposition to vaccines.

 

[Intrastellar]

That was not done on purpose

 

[Czcibor]

Big boxes, not little boxes. People want to be unique: they want their own little box, not to be collected into the same big box as everyone else.

Problem is that people may feel annoyed if put boxes scaled for a different country.

For example - do you support constitutional monarchy, Russ? No? So in this case for quiz scaled for United Kingdom you would for that question be marked as "radical left wing". A few more questions, like whether you support idea of state church or upper chamber of parliament with hereditary peers, and you'd discover being by British standards centrist, at best.

My perception with discussions like this is that because people don't like to be put in big boxes, they argue against them instead of just answering the question as best they can. Like it or not, though, people get put in boxes all the time -- they must be in order to analyze group beliefs. Or, to vote in an election: An election is almost literally putting yourself (your vote) into a box.

When I answered this quiz a year ago I got in the centre. Does it mean that I'm so centrist, or just they are not asking me questions in which I'd give very radical answers, because, based on their US-centric view, no-one shares such views?

Classically, liberalism is essentially synonomous with "personal freedom", including private property ownership. But as the wiki on the political spectrum points out, modern liberals (in general) favor social freedom, but oppose economic freedom (private property). And vice versa for conservatives. That's why tax rates are higher in more "liberal" countries. So in that way, the current usage of the word "liberal" doesn't match the original meaning -- it's just a label for the box. But in my googling for information about European political parties, it appears to me that the usage by the OP and in the US is the accepted usage in Europe too, so I don't understand why you are arguing this. Liberal, socialist, democrat, progressive: these are all related/linked ideologies on the left side of the political spectrum, differing largelly in degree, and often put under a "socialist" umbrella (just like the right side is put under a "capitalist" umbrella, highlighting the two extremes): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_European_Socialists

OK, you are teaching us American unique feature. In Europe, when someone calls himself liberal, that should be translated to American English as "soft line libertarian". If someone in Poland calls himself "liberał" it means that he wants to lower taxes and slash safety net.

 

[WWGD]

russ, as an intelligent and thoughtful individual (based on your many posts here on PF) who work in the STEM field and understands the concept of evidence, I really have to ask why you could in all seriousness consider yourself a card-carrying Republican, when over the past several decades we've seen countless Republican politicians express their ignorance of, and hostility of, science and the scientific evidence.

As an example, consider the following Salon article:

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/11/evolution_and_the_gops_2016_candidates_a_complet_guide/

This has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, it's about accepting the scientific method and scientific evidence.

To be fair, there is anti-science on the left, with anti-vexxers, radical feminists and Wiccans, etc. Embarrassingly- enough, a good chunk of the country is anti- intellectual, or at least ignorant on the basics of science, evidence, basic statistics and the scientific method.

 

[StatGuy2000]

To be fair, there is anti-science on the left, with anti-vexxers, radical feminists and Wiccans, etc. Embarrassingly- enough, a good chunk of the country is anti- intellectual, or at least ignorant on the basics of science, evidence, basic statistics and the scientific method.

I concede that there are anti-science elements on the left, including the anti-vaccine activists (although from what I gather, the anti-vaccine activists doesn't appear to be particularly found more heavily among Democrats than Republicans -- this is a bipartisan anti-science movement), radical feminists who regard science as being anti-female, Wiccans, etc. But from my reading of it, these anti-science elements are very much part of the fringe, and no Democratic candidate, at least in recent years, have ever openly supported positions (as far as I'm aware of) that was truly contrary to scientific evidence. Certainly no Democrat has ever been openly opposed to or reject evolution, as one particular example.

I fully agree with you that an embarrassingly large chunk of the US population is anti-intellectual and ignorant of the basics of science, evidence, and the scientific method, of which the strong influence of Christian fundamentalism and the poor quality of science education in public K-12 schools in many parts of the country are to at least partly to blame.

 

[BobG]

economic= -3.63 social= -2.62

Moderate.

Different questions and slightly different results from a different one I recently did. The other one I did I was practically right smack dab in the center (+1 economic and -0.5 social).

The selection and wording of the questions can have an effect on a person's results. I don't have a particular ideology that guides my decisions. I tend toward a more pragmatic view with each situation viewed individually. I think the questions tend to be worded to reflect current arguments (vs a more historic view of issues). For example, saying the rich should be taxed more than average wage earners probably earns me a "liberal" rating in today's world, while the historic issue hasn't been whether tax rates should be higher for rich people - it's should the rich be taxed more than half their income.

But, the link probably reflects where I stand in today's environment. Views that would have been considered "conservative" 30 years ago get you booted out of the Republican Party today.

Evo's link provides a better picture than a one dimensional line. I still think it needs a third axis, though, for foreign policy.

(I should draw this. I actually ordered 3-dimensional paper last time my work asked for supply orders. They rejected me the first time, because I wrote 3-dimensional paper on the requisition sheet. I had to call it "isometric bond paper" in order to get them to buy me some. Now that I got the supply guys at work to actually buy me 3-dimensional paper, I need to find a way to use it. Hmm, maybe I can draw 3 red lines.)

 

[tom aaron]

I concede that there are anti-science elements on the left, including the anti-vaccine activists (although from what I gather, the anti-vaccine activists doesn't appear to be particularly found more heavily among Democrats than Republicans -- this is a bipartisan anti-science movement), radical feminists who regard science as being anti-female, Wiccans, etc. But from my reading of it, these anti-science elements are very much part of the fringe, and no Democratic candidate, at least in recent years, have ever openly supported positions (as far as I'm aware of) that was truly contrary to scientific evidence. Certainly no Democrat has ever been openly opposed to or reject evolution, as one particular example.

I fully agree with you that an embarrassingly large chunk of the US population is anti-intellectual and ignorant of the basics of science, evidence, and the scientific method, of which the strong influence of Christian fundamentalism and the poor quality of science education in public K-12 schools in many parts of the country are to at least partly to blame.

I need some category of 'Scientific pragmatist'.

I dislike Conservative neanderthalism and equally dislike Liberal anti-science political correctness.

To blame in the USA?...lots to go around: Christian fundamentalism but also liberal anti-Nature mediocrity. Censorship at both ends of the spectrum.

 

[Tosh5457]

Here's mine

Could you please provide an example of such an economic policy by Social-Democrats that could be considered free market? Frankly, what I tend to see from people on the left side of the spectrum is that they consider outcome to be freedom, and it really isn't.

Sure, I can give plenty of examples from my country. In Portugal the Social-Democrats, who are the majority in the coalition with the People's Party, and clearly more right-wing than them, are applying many necessary cuts in government spending, privatizing public companies (even too many unfortunately, like the ones on monopoly sectors), reducing global corporate tax rates, reducing tax rates for exporting companies, renegotiating public contracts made by the previous socialist government to save tax payers money in useless spending, and so on...

 

[Bystander]

9: None of the above (Disgusted)

 

[Czcibor]

By occasion my stats:

Economic Left/Right: -1.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.77

So (allegedly) centrist.

(when I was younger I used to be simply right wing)

 

[micromass]

Here's mine:

 

[micromass]

[Thanks for the compliment]
The way I see it, both sides are similarly hostile to science, particularly when it comes to environmentalism - the left just pretends not to be, whereas the right is open about their hostility. The basis of my above statement:

Which is more damaging to the environment:
1. A Republican who favors coal, fracking and nuclear power and believes Global Warming is a conspiracy?
2. A democrat who favors solar and wind and vehemently opposes nuclear power and fracking?

The irony is that the environmentalist on the left favors preventing global warming, but takes positions that cause it to get worse, while the anti-science Republican denies global warming, but takes actions to fix it!

You might argue - and I agree - that the Religious Right is more specifically hostile toward science than any other group (extreme environmentalists tend to believe science is on their side, Republicans openly acknowledge they do not like science), but a lot of those issues are relatively low impact. Ie, which is a bigger issue, global warming or brain death? Or stem cells? And ironically, both extremes include opposition to vaccines.

Sure, you are correct that both Republicans as Democrats are hostile to environmentalism. That does answer why you prefer not to identify as a Democrat on these issues, but not why you like to identify as a Republican? Why just identify as neither? Do you believe that you must identify as one or another?

 

[russ_watters]

Sure, you are correct that both Republicans as Democrats are hostile to environmentalism. That does answer why you prefer not to identify as a Democrat on these issues, but not why you like to identify as a Republican? Why just identify as neither? Do you believe that you must identify as one or another?

That's not what I said. I said that they are hostile to science when it comes to environmentalism. But to answer the questions:
1. Yes, I believe I must identify as one or the other.
2. Republican policies, while based on anti-science views, produce better scientific results on key parts of this issue*. That's deliciously ironic, but the point to me is that the policy itself is what matters, not the philosophy behind it.

*I'm specifically referring to global warming/carbon emissions. I consider it the most significant environmentalist issue today. However, I also consider GM/organic food to be an issue of considerable importance.

 

[russ_watters]

But from my reading of it, these anti-science elements are very much part of the fringe, and no Democratic candidate, at least in recent years, have ever openly supported positions (as far as I'm aware of) that was truly contrary to scientific evidence. Certainly no Democrat has ever been openly opposed to or reject evolution, as one particular example.

I can't tell if the word "open" is the key word in that passage (you said it twice, so...) but to me it is more important that they support scientifically sound policies than that they say the like or dislike science. I'm more of a "where the rubber meets the road" guy and I don't find it particularly relevant whether a person's anti-science views are "open" or covert.

 

[William White]

Some questions were a bit dodgy.

Left -8.88
Libertarian -3.59

 

[OmCheeto]

My score:
View attachment 86317

Anyone else thrown by this question?
"Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries."

What does that even mean? Sounds hippie, so I said "strongly disagree".

I believe we discussed this at one point or another. Ah ha! Young Om on the downsides of Globalization [PF] 1/1/2008

Looking back over it though, it looks as though the multinationals lost most of the law suits.
But I selected "strongly agree", based on the memory.

ps. Here's my new and improved leanings:

Anyone know how to find the old ones? I have a feeling that I'm moving to the right and up, as I pro/regress into my senior years.

 

[StatGuy2000]

That's not what I said. I said that they are hostile to science when it comes to environmentalism. But to answer the questions:
1. Yes, I believe I must identify as one or the other.
2. Republican policies, while based on anti-science views, produce better scientific results on key parts of this issue*. That's deliciously ironic, but the point to me is that the policy itself is what matters, not the philosophy behind it.

*I'm specifically referring to global warming/carbon emissions. I consider it the most significant environmentalist issue today. However, I also consider GM/organic food to be an issue of considerable importance.

russ, I'm curious as to why you feel you must identify as either a Democrat or a Republican. If the issue is based on the particular policy concerned (btw, I am skeptical of your claim that Republican policies actually produce better scientific results on key parts of the issues you raise, to the extent that these policies are actually Republican issues as opposed to issues with bipartisan support, but that's a separate argument), then wouldn't it be more logical to consider yourself an independent, and support or oppose a given policy based on their merits, regardless of which political party that policy originated from? Why do you feel you need to align yourself to a particular political party?

Even though I identify myself as largely left-of-centre in my political views, I am first and foremost an independent. I am not a member of any political party, either in Canada or the US (I'm a dual citizen living in Canada, and hence can vote in both Canadian & American elections), and I support a given political party based on a range of views and policies and whether those policies make sense.

 

[Bystander]

Anyone know how to find the old ones

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...al-compass-this-election.648912/#post-4141851

 

[Czcibor]

Or even older?
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/where-are-you-on-the-political-compass.57168/

 

[Choppy]

Much like others I have a difficult time answering questions like this.

On some issues I lean right. On other issues I lean left. It's not because I sit on the fence. I have strong opinions about certain things, but I like to think that I am open enough to be swayed by an accumulation of evidence.

I really didn't like that quiz that Evo posted because I felt that for a lot of the questions my answer was very dependent on the specific wording. For example, I rarely if ever believe in absolutes when it comes to politics and yet many of the questions seemed to be worded that way.

 

[zoobyshoe]

russ, I'm curious as to why you feel you must identify as either a Democrat or a Republican. If the issue is based on the particular policy concerned (btw, I am skeptical of your claim that Republican policies actually produce better scientific results on key parts of the issues you raise, to the extent that these policies are actually Republican issues as opposed to issues with bipartisan support, but that's a separate argument), then wouldn't it be more logical to consider yourself an independent, and support or oppose a given policy based on their merits, regardless of which political party that policy originated from? Why do you feel you need to align yourself to a particular political party?

Even though I identify myself as largely left-of-centre in my political views, I am first and foremost an independent. I am not a member of any political party, either in Canada or the US (I'm a dual citizen living in Canada, and hence can vote in both Canadian & American elections), and I support a given political party based on a range of views and policies and whether those policies make sense.

I don't get it either. I find Russ' insistence that people should try to fit themselves into the best possible choice, even if that's the lesser of all evils, to be eccentric:

Big boxes, not little boxes. People want to be unique: they want their own little box, not to be collected into the same big box as everyone else...

My perception with discussions like this is that because people don't like to be put in big boxes, they argue against them instead of just answering the question as best they can. Like it or not, though, people get put in boxes all the time -- they must be in order to analyze group beliefs. Or, to vote in an election: An election is almost literally putting yourself (your vote) into a box...

You can't argue your way out of a box by arguing about the label. We could easily re-name them "Box 1" and "Box 2" if that would help, but it doesn't change anything so it should not be necessary......but still your problem and not the poll's. Everyone needs to average their own views and weigh them against the choices in this poll and actual elections and pick the closest fit.

But sometimes these are the wrong boxes...

...which does not preclude answering the poll.

When I posted the infamous "buggered" question (post #31), Russ ignored all his own above rationalizations and declined to pick a category for himself, despite the fact he doesn't seem to have left anyone a good reason for questioning any poll.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't get it either. I find Russ' insistence that people should try to fit themselves into the best possible choice, even if that's the lesser of all evils, to be eccentric:

When I posted the infamous "buggered" question (post #31), Russ ignored all his own above rationalizations and declined to pick a category for himself, despite the fact he doesn't seem to have left anyone a good reason for questioning any poll.

Actually, I missed that post, but I don't get the relevance. No one is trying to trick or trap anyone here, though I definitely agree that people are reacting as if they are being trapped!

I really don't get this either. Don't you people vote? How do you avoid - almost literally - placing yourself in a box? But to be a bit more specific:

I'm curious as to why you feel you must identify as either a Democrat or a Republican... then wouldn't it be more logical to consider yourself an independent, and support or oppose a given policy based on their merits, regardless of which political party that policy originated from? Why do you feel you need to align yourself to a particular political party?

Even though I identify myself as largely left-of-centre in my political views, I am first and foremost an independent. I am not a member of any political party, either in Canada or the US (I'm a dual citizen living in Canada, and hence can vote in both Canadian & American elections), and I support a given political party based on a range of views and policies and whether those policies make sense.

There's two reasons, one legal and one practical:
1. I vote in Pennsylvania and in Pennsylvania, you must be registered to a political party in order to vote in that party's primary elections. Some people (my parents have done it, but I haven't) switch their party registry when they see a primary election they consider important and want to vote in it.

2. What you are saying implies you think I always vote Republican. I don't, but I usually do. So as a matter of practical reality, that makes me a Republican. Frankly, I think a great many people who self-identify as "independent" are just not self aware or are too belligerant regarding the "boxes" issue to accept what they are. Just look at the poll above: a full 50% voted for "moderate" or "none of the above", when the reality is that for those who took the quiz, the swing is pretty solidly to the left:
Very Right: 0
Right: 4
Middle: 1
Left: 1
Very Left: 4

I assume some of the disconnect is due to people who are so very far left that they labeled themselves "none of the above" because "very liberal" wasn't far enough left to capture them.

You guys almost sound mad that I'm not on your team (or just that I'm on the Republican team), which is flattering, I guess, but remember: we've only talked about one issue here: how the parties interact with science. As you should all be well aware, my views on economic freedom are very solidly Republican, and economics is basically half of what government is about.

By the way, "eccentric": (of a person or their behavior) unconventional and slightly strange.
This is a few years old, but in 2012, a record high, 42%, self-identified as "independent" (in 2005, it was an equal 33%, 33%, 33%).
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx

It is my perception that people are either not self-aware enough to know where they fit or just don't like being put in boxes, so they purposely falsely self-label, but either way, that leaves 57% who self-identify as Democrat or Republican. So no, my position on the issue of whether to self-identify as the closest to me even if it doesn't exactly fit is not "eccentric", it's the majority position. Yours is the "unconventional" position.