The Three-Axis Political Compass

Economics, domestic policy, and foreign policy should each be measured individually.

Ever taken a political test and got a result that looked like this?

Well, that’s probably not the most accurate political test.

The problem with a one-axis political test like the one above is that political views are nuanced. Just because you have a liberal or conservative perspective on social issues doesn’t mean that you will have the same perspective on economic issues.

A perfect example is the classic libertarian, who tends to lean liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues. On a one-axis political test, these liberal and conservative views would typically balance each other out and yield a “centrist” result. Anyone who listened closely to Gary Johnson’s platform during his campaign last year would know that he’s anything but a centrist.

Startlingly, the same “centrist” result can be attained among steadfast Stalinists on a one-axis political test. As Stalinists are economically liberal and socially authoritarian, their contrasting viewpoints converge towards the center of the spectrum when mixed.

In other words, on a one-axis political test, Milton Friedman would be virtually indistinguishable from Joseph Stalin — both as centrists. That’s kind of a problem.

It doesn’t take an esteemed political scientist to see the issue here.

The Political Compass test, a personal favorite of mine, offers a solution to this problem. With two scales — a vertical authoritarian-libertarian scale and a horizontal economic left-right scale — these key nuances are brought to light. Friedman is seen for what he truly is (a libertarian capitalist) and Stalin for what he truly is (an authoritarian leftist).

On the two-axis Political Compass spectrum above, Friedman would be placed in the lower right corner and Stalin would be placed in the upper left corner— far apart from one another, and rightfully so.

In addition to being simply more accurate, the Political Compass also allows for many telling revelations about international politics. For example,

While often portrayed as a “centrist,” France’s Emmanuel Macron actually resides on the extreme end of libertarian capitalism.

Establishment Democrats — including New Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — are far closer ideologically to the Republican establishment than they are to the “Berniecrats” and progressives within their own party.

While the political views of the Tories have remained relatively stagnant, the UK’s Labour Party has shifted dramatically leftward (and libertarian-ward) from Miliband’s neoliberalism in 2015 to Corbyn’s democratic socialism in 2017.

But as cool as the Political Compass is, the tool is still imperfect, at least from the way I see it. Perhaps in an effort to be more visually appealing (two dimensions are aesthetically much preferable to three dimensions), the Political Compass combines domestic policy and foreign policy into the same vertical authoritarian-libertarian axis.

This seems to gloss over a lot of the nuances within the libertarian-authoritarian axis. Some politicians, for instance, are anti-war but socially restrictive on issues like gay marriage (non-interventionist authoritarians) while others are pro-war but in favor of marriage equality (interventionist libertarians). This vital nuance is hidden on a single libertarian-authoritarian axis.

A prime example is the establishment wing Democratic Party, which tends to be on the libertarian side of domestic issues (e.g. gay marriage, abortion) yet on the authoritarian, interventionist side of many foreign policy issues (e.g. support of increased US presence in Syria).

On the Political Compass’ 2016 U.S. Presidential Election chart, Hillary Clinton was labeled +5 on the authoritarian-libertarian scale (where +10 is authoritarian and -10 is libertarian). This seemed a bit harsh for someone who, on domestic issues like gay marriage and abortion, is no explicit authoritarian. The +5, then, is primarily a result of her hawkish foreign policy stance — say, the mean of a +8 on foreign policy and a +2 on domestic policy. This distinction is really important, yet it is invisible on the Political Compass.

Paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan have the same problem, but for the opposite reasons. Buchanan is strongly conservative on domestic social issues—vehemently opposed to gay marriage, abortion, and even teaching evolution in school — yet is well distinguished from the neocons on issues of foreign policy, as a longtime, vocal dissident of the Iraq War. Buchanan’s varying levels of authoritarianism (high on domestic issues yet comparatively low on foreign policy issues) are a vital distinction that the Political Compass omits.

The Fix

Now, I’m no expert whatsoever in the science of political test making, but I created a homemade representation that seems to fix the flaw: a Political Compass with three axes instead of two — Economic Policy, Domestic Policy, and Foreign Policy. On each axis, a “1” represents more government and a “0” represents less government.

Economic Policy refers to a government’s control of monetary affairs. As protectionism, taxes, regulations, and social programs expand, we get nearer to a “1.”

Domestic Policy refers to social issues inside a country’s borders. More restrictions on immigration, marriage equality, reproductive rights, free speech, and drugs would constitute a “1.”

Foreign Policy spans international affairs, such as wars abroad and regime change. Interventionists would have higher scores on this metric.

Of course, these pillars are not equal in magnitude — economic policy is probably the most weighted and wide-spanning — but I’d argue that this type of display gives a more accurate and comprehensive representation of different political viewpoints.

For example, the Three-Axis Political Compass for the four major candidates of the 2016 Presidential election would probably look something like this (not based on data):

Economic Policy: Johnson, Clinton, and Trump have all emphasized deregulation at different extremes. Johnson’s utopia would consist of a federal income tax of zero, while Clinton and Trump have emphasized certain limited amounts of federal control (progressive taxes and protectionism, respectively), but are in large part advocates of the same neoliberal deregulation espoused by Johnson. By far and away, Stein is the furthest left economically.

Domestic Policy: Stein and Johnson are consistently opposed to mass surveillance, deportations, and harsh social restrictions, and therein earn low scores. Trump is on the entirely opposite end of the spectrum, as evidenced by his affection for immigration bans, defunding Planned Parenthood, and imprisoning journalists. Clinton is a mixed bag, with support for abortion and (eventually) gay marriage, but a history that has expanded mass surveillance (vote for the Patriot Act), imprisoned non-violent drug offenders (support for the 1994 Crime Bill), and attempted to restrict free expression (sponsorship of the Flag Protection Act of 2005).

Foreign Policy: Johnson and Stein again find common ground with their non-interventionist, anti-war outlooks, another indicator that a progressive-libertarian alliance is not all that far-fetched. Meanwhile, both Trump and Clinton endorse interventionism to a large extent, be it “take out their families” for Trump or initiating a No Fly Zone in Syria for Clinton.

In the end, splitting the authoritarian-libertarian axis in two provides fascinating new information that is integral to a true understanding of a politician’s philosophy.

And this representation is not only useful for analyzing politicians — it also applies to ideologies:

Paleoconservatives are mixed in terms of both economics (support of both deregulation and protectionism) and foreign policy (support of both isolationism and nationalism). Their domestic approach, however, is anything but mixed, with strong traditional and anti-immigrant sentiments.

This is distinguished from the neoconservatives, who remove the protectionist and isolationist elements of paleoconservatism and operate essentially as social Darwinian war hawks, the current state of the Republican Party establishment.

The neoliberals — the status quo of the Democratic Party — aren’t all that different, with a brand of hawkishness and deregulation distinguished from the Republican vision in name only. The major difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the former endorses greater restrictions on domestic liberties, while the Democrats are typically more hands off.

Democratic socialists prefer that the government stay uninvolved in foreign wars and private lives, and believe that most government activity should be concentrated on regulating the economy and providing social services.

Libertarians have a similar ideology to the democratic socialists on domestic and foreign matters, but couldn’t disagree more on fiscal issues.

Takeaways

We can use the Three-Axis Political Compass in a variety of ways. For instance, if you want to find the approximate difference between two candidates or philosophies, simply find the sum of the differences in their results. Referring to the table above, the sum of differences between neoliberals and neoconservatives is [0+0+1 = 1]. Meanwhile, the sum of the differences between neoliberals and democratic socialists is [1+1+0 = 2]. From this we can infer that neoliberals are ideologically more akin to neocons than they are to democratic socialists. This yields a good explanation for why Clinton is more similar to Trump [0+0.5+0 = 0.5] than she is to Stein [0.75+0.5+1 = 2.25], or Sanders for that matter.

The Three-Axis Political Compass also dispels the notion that progressives and democratic socialists are by definition supporters of “big government.” In fact, with a score of one, democratic socialists actually prefer a smaller government than the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, whose thirst for imperialism and domestic authoritarianism earn them a two.

It is also noteworthy that an increase in governmental power over the economy is not necessarily equivalent to an increase in institutional power over the economy. As the role of the government in the economy decreases, the role of private corporations (institutions all the same) increases — a zero-sum game of sorts. Only anarcho-syndicalists like Noam Chomsky can fathom an economic system truly devoid of institutional power.

The Test

Yes, I did create a (rudimentary) test so that you can see where you stand on these three axes. You can take the test by clicking here.