The Trouble with Political Graphs and Tests

Politics is a complex and dynamic phenomenon that involves many dimensions, factors, and perspectives. However, some people try to simplify and quantify it by using graphs and tests that claim to measure one’s political views and allegiances based on their opinions on various issues, such as Ukraine/Russia, Palestine/Israel, socialism/capitalism, etc. These graphs and tests are often presented as objective and scientific tools that can help people understand themselves and others better, and even guide their political choices and actions. However, in this article, I will argue that these graphs and tests are reductive, biased, and irrelevant, and that they ignore the complexity and diversity of human beliefs and realities. I will also challenge the notion that political labels such as ‘libertarian’ and ‘communist’ are meaningful or consistent, especially in the context of a heavily regulated capitalist economy like the US. I will conclude by suggesting that people should be more critical and curious about the flags and symbols that they see and wave, and that they should not let them define or divide them.

One of the most popular and influential political graphs is the Political Compass, which plots one’s position on two axes: economic (left-right) and social (authoritarian-libertarian). The Political Compass website offers a test that consists of 62 propositions that one has to agree or disagree with, and then assigns a score that determines one’s coordinates on the graph. The website claims that this test is based on extensive research and analysis, and that it can reveal one’s true political orientation, beyond the conventional and misleading left-right spectrum. However, a closer look at the test reveals several problems and flaws that undermine its validity and usefulness.

First, the test is based on a false dichotomy between economic and social issues, as if they were separate and independent domains. In reality, economic and social issues are intertwined and interdependent, and often have reciprocal effects on each other. For example, one’s views on immigration, health care, education, or environmental protection cannot be reduced to either economic or social dimensions, as they involve both aspects. Moreover, the test assumes that there is a linear and consistent relationship between one’s views on different issues, as if they were derived from a coherent and stable ideology. However, people’s opinions on various issues are often influenced by many factors, such as personal experience, emotions, values, culture, religion, media, education, etc., and they can change over time and across contexts. Therefore, it is unrealistic and misleading to expect people to have a consistent and predictable pattern of responses to the propositions in the test.

Second, the test is biased and loaded with normative and ideological assumptions that favour certain positions over others. For example, many of the propositions are framed in a way that implies a moral judgment or a value preference, such as “If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations” or “No one chooses their country of birth, so it’s foolish to be proud of it”. These propositions are not neutral or factual statements, but rather expressions of opinions or beliefs that one may agree or disagree with for various reasons. Moreover, some of the propositions are vague, ambiguous, or oversimplified, such as “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” or “Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified”. These propositions do not specify the context, the criteria, or the consequences of the actions or situations they refer to, and they leave out many important details and nuances that could affect one’s judgment. Furthermore, some of the propositions are irrelevant or outdated, such as “There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment” or “Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races”. These propositions do not reflect the current state of affairs or the most pressing issues in the world today, and they seem to be based on outdated or obsolete concepts or categories. Therefore, the test is not a fair or accurate measure of one’s political views, but rather a reflection of the test-makers’ own biases and agendas.

Third, the test is irrelevant and meaningless in the context of the real world, where politics is not a matter of abstract principles or theoretical models, but a matter of concrete actions and practical consequences. The test does not take into account the historical, cultural, social, or economic realities that shape and constrain the political choices and opportunities of people and groups in different countries and regions. For example, the test does not consider the fact that the US is a heavily regulated capitalist economy, where the government intervenes in many aspects of the market and society, such as taxation, spending, regulation, subsidies, bailouts, etc . Therefore, the labels of ‘libertarian’ and ‘communist’ that the test assigns to some of the positions on the graph are not meaningful or consistent, as they do not correspond to the actual policies or practices of any existing or feasible political system. Moreover, the test does not account for the fact that politics is not a static or fixed phenomenon, but a dynamic and evolving one, where new issues, challenges, and opportunities emerge and require new responses and solutions. Therefore, the graph and the test are not relevant or useful tools for understanding or engaging in politics, as they do not reflect the complexity and diversity of the political landscape and the political actors.

In conclusion, I have argued that the use of simplistic and inaccurate graphs and tests that try to measure people’s political views and allegiances based on their opinions on various issues is problematic and misleading. I have shown that these graphs and tests are reductive, biased, and irrelevant, and that they ignore the complexity and diversity of human beliefs and realities. I have also challenged the notion that political labels such as ‘libertarian’ and ‘communist’ are meaningful or consistent, especially in the context of a heavily regulated capitalist economy like the US. I have suggested that people should be more critical and curious about the flags and symbols that they see and wave, and that they should not let them define or divide them. Instead, I have proposed that people should adopt a more nuanced and flexible approach to politics, that recognizes the multiplicity and variability of political dimensions, factors, and perspectives, and that seeks to understand and address the specific and changing needs and interests of people and groups in different situations and contexts.