HT to ProgressNowAction.org.
The title link is to another political map questionaire. It is a bit long at about 50 questions including a short number of demographic questions. Interesting but still lacks a good map of grouping similar thoughts together. Below is the results of the blogger from ProgressNow.
Although the map of the famous people on the map is just subjective, it shows some bias by the presenters. Look at the religious leaders. A strong supporter of the family with an exhaustive family background in the Babtist ministry is placed on the far left as ultra permissive in social spectrum (Martin Luther King, Jr.). But we do not know what his stand on abortion, gay rights, affirmative action...
What would Martin Luther King do?
Would any of the modern Babtist ministers placed in the same area? Second it is nearly slanderous to place Jerry Falwell next to Bin Laden. Now I know that you could say some of his statements are out of the mainstream, but honestly did Jerry kill Larry Flynt when he was ridiculed in Larry's magazines or issued a fatwa?
| You are a |
You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test
Has any group indentified themselves as a totalitarian form of government? This chart shows Stalin and Mao as totalitarians when in reality they were socialist? And most fascists did not believe in free trade and open markets and wanted government to control (if not own) all aspects of the economy for the good of the mother country. Standard procedure to paint republicans as fascist even though it is more closely tied to socialism.
And of course the left tries to paint the picture that libertarians are closely related to anarchist. But there are more groups that are anarchist from the left IMHO.
In closing I want to put the comments by the site here:
Explanation Of Results
We wanted to get beyond the two catch-alls of American politics, the Democratic and Republican parties, and see where people actually stand. Parties can bring together people with marginally differing values and make collective action easier. But party platforms can misrepresent their constituents, and blind loyalty to a party can convince individuals to harbor inconsistent views.
The goal of this test was to exactly classify your personal politics, without the traditional labels. We avoided the edgy party issues and focused on fundamental values. Your score is a measure of what you believe in, economically and socially.
Higher permissiveness, on either axis, indicates a "live and let live" philosophy. Of course, we're almost conditioned in America, "Land of the Free", to think positively of such a philosophy. But practically speaking, permissiviness (or its opposite, regulation) can create any number of outcomes:
For example, on the economic axis, a highly permissive system, like the American system of the early 1900s, might mean things like low taxes and increased scientific innovation. It might also result, as it did back then, in unrestricted child labor and millions of poor people with black lung.
At the other end of the economic spectrum, a highly regulated system might conserve the environment, establish national health care, and eliminate poverty. But as we've learned from the Soviet system, extreme regulation can also lead to stagnation, sameness, and unhappiness.
Sorry one last comment. Highly regulated systems (totalitarian/socialist/fascist) tend to be the lowest on environmental preservation. And I would say even the health care and elimination of poverty was poor under most of those systems also.