These schemas (political spectrum, political compass) are mostly helpful because they are diagrammatic. People think in diagrams, which bring abstract ideas into clearer focus. People also tend to think in dualisms and hierarchies rather than in hybrids. But a feedback loop exists between the "spectrum" or the compass and how people self identify politically. In other words, I've always imagined myself center-left on the political spectrum. The political compass told me I was leaning left-libertarian, and I've absorbed that designation into my identity. But is it true?
The political compass actually needs two additional dimensions to become more accurate. If the current compass describes political freedom in the X axis and economic freedom in the Y axis, it needs a Z-axis for personal freedom. And it needs to operate in a fourth dimension, in time, as well. This accords with an idea of being as unstable, a process of becoming rather than a fixed quantity.
A theory is helpful if it captures enough of the world to at least illuminate whatever problem one is trying to solve. A problem I once had was trying to explain to my fellow students how libertarianism is not simply “right-wing” (along with fascism, racism, etc.). A version of the political compass seemed to solve that problem in many cases: https://jclester.substack.com/p/the-political-compass-and-why-libertarianism
On the traditional political compass, I tend toward left-libertarianism. My issue with conventional American libertarianism which fuses with the right is that it privileges "corporate" and oppositional liberty over/against individual liberty. I see this especially in the question of climate, i.e. should corporations be relatively unregulated and allowed to pollute, even if that pollution risks harming individuals. It also extends to other questions such as gun rights: should my right to possess any weapon, no matter how destructive, be privileged over your right to personal and bodily safety? I agree that libertarianism is not naturally of the "right wing" but at least in the American context there's a great deal of fusionism with right wing politics. It's seen primarily through the lens of economic libertarianism, and is highly selective about the social/political issues it allows in.
These schemas (political spectrum, political compass) are mostly helpful because they are diagrammatic. People think in diagrams, which bring abstract ideas into clearer focus. People also tend to think in dualisms and hierarchies rather than in hybrids. But a feedback loop exists between the "spectrum" or the compass and how people self identify politically. In other words, I've always imagined myself center-left on the political spectrum. The political compass told me I was leaning left-libertarian, and I've absorbed that designation into my identity. But is it true?
The political compass actually needs two additional dimensions to become more accurate. If the current compass describes political freedom in the X axis and economic freedom in the Y axis, it needs a Z-axis for personal freedom. And it needs to operate in a fourth dimension, in time, as well. This accords with an idea of being as unstable, a process of becoming rather than a fixed quantity.
A theory is helpful if it captures enough of the world to at least illuminate whatever problem one is trying to solve. A problem I once had was trying to explain to my fellow students how libertarianism is not simply “right-wing” (along with fascism, racism, etc.). A version of the political compass seemed to solve that problem in many cases: https://jclester.substack.com/p/the-political-compass-and-why-libertarianism
On the traditional political compass, I tend toward left-libertarianism. My issue with conventional American libertarianism which fuses with the right is that it privileges "corporate" and oppositional liberty over/against individual liberty. I see this especially in the question of climate, i.e. should corporations be relatively unregulated and allowed to pollute, even if that pollution risks harming individuals. It also extends to other questions such as gun rights: should my right to possess any weapon, no matter how destructive, be privileged over your right to personal and bodily safety? I agree that libertarianism is not naturally of the "right wing" but at least in the American context there's a great deal of fusionism with right wing politics. It's seen primarily through the lens of economic libertarianism, and is highly selective about the social/political issues it allows in.