Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Political Ideology Poll


Political Ideology Poll  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of the following ideologies are you more favorable than negative towards? [Choose all that apply]

    • Authoritarian Socialism, such as Communism, Maoism, Leninism, Stalinism.
    • Democratic Socialism or Social Democracy, such as those in Scandinavia or advocated by Bernie Sanders or AOC
    • Left Libertarian or Libertarian Socialism, such as advocated by Noam Chomsky.
    • Puritan Libertarian, such as advocated by Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, etc.
    • Hybrid Libertarianism, such as advocated by Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.
    • Progressivism, such as followed by Elizabeth Warren and Jay Inslee.
    • Mainstream liberal, which would include Biden, Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Obama, etc.
    • Left-leaning moderate, including Manchin, Sinema, and many Southern Democrats.
    • Bipartisan moderate, there is no real representative, except maybe Chief Justice John Roberts and maybe Charlie Baker of MA.
    • Right-leaning moderate, including Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski, Larry Hogan, and many Northwest Republicans.
    • Mainstream conservative, such as Rubio, McConnell, GW Bush, etc.
    • Traditionalist conservative, such as Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, and arguably Rand Paul. Generally, Biblical-inclined politicians who can be critical of Trump.
    • Nationalist Populists - Trump & closest followers.
    • Fascism - which would include the historical varieties eradicated in Germany, Italy, and in Spain.
    • Anarchists
    • Military dictatorship
    • Enlightened despotism
    • Constitutional monarchy
    • Authoritarian monarchy
    • Pure Democracy or direct democracy
    • Other (mention below)
  2. 2. Will you let us know which of the ideologies best fit you?

Recommended Posts

I think Warren progressivism fits me the best. I'd say I'm like 50% Warren, 25% Sanders/AOC, and 25% something completely off the charts. The latter is because I think the former two philosophies will be best accepted by more tolerance towards individual states. For this reason, I am actually strangely for allowing states to manage progressive policy so long as it is keeping pace with a progressive movement. I'm also tolerable of an opt-out clause for states strongly opposed to progressivism, but it will be at the expense of federal aid. I also think that progressive competition is healthy. So the reason for state-based progressivism is so that all the eggs aren't in the basket of the federal progressivism, which will operate mostly as a pace car to determine which states are doing their progressive jobs and which aren't. The federal program will adjust based on which of the state programs are showing the most success. The federal program will be for states that don't develop their own plans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly like Silent Liberty, even if I can also be considered as a mainstream liberal.

I was very close to pick mainstream conservative in the ideologies I positively view but I prefer moderate republicans who can get stuffs forward than the ones who don't compromise to get more freedoms.

Mitt Romney earned a lot of respect from me in the way he joined Collins, Portmann and Murkowski in their Respect for Marriage Act advocacy and by playing a key role in the Mormon Church's endorsement of it. It's in these kind of moments that he can become a real uniter as a politician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think mainstream conservative fits well enough but I borrow a lot from right leaning moderates. (I am more favorable of the people in that faction.) And some from traditionalist. (However I do not like most of the people in the traditionalist faction. Favorable figures for me include Mike Pence, and Mike Pompeo perhaps. Not a fan of Ted Cruz at all, nor Rand Paul.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being perfectly honest my beliefs fall so far outside the mainstream that I don't think I can really give you a glib answer with regards to what my political ideology is. I consider myself something of a technocratic-transhumanist. I am not a Libertarian, as I believe that a strong, powerful, virtuous state is essential to a strong, powerful, virtuous people, nor am I a Conservative - I believe that firearms need to be restricted, I believe in LGBTQ+ rights, and I support opening America's borders - or even a Progressive - I'm opposed to drug legalization, abortion-on-demand, and the abolition of the death penalty. I'm both a globalist - I believe that a unified humanity to essential to our long-term prosperity both on, and off of Earth - but also something of a nationalist - I believe that America, and Western-Culture is (as much as I hate contemporary western culture) superior to the cultures found in much of the Third World. With regards to economics I'm a pragmatist, I don't care what color the cat is as long as it catches mice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say how I describe my ideology doesn't really fall into the traditional spectrum. I usually describe myself as economically center-left and socially libertarian, which using the given ideologies would probably be Social Democracy with a Libertarian twist.

  • Based 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the ones listed likely Hybrid Libertarianism intertwined with the economics of puritan Libertarianism. If you wanted to be more specific, I identify as a Bleeding Heart Libertarian who is sympathetic to the idea of Anarchism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I would most identify with the progressive label, even if I'm sort of politically homeless nowadays. I'm fairly socially libertarian and a bit more critical of government performance than the social democratic wing of the Democrats, and my top issue, democracy reform, isn't among the top priorities for any listed ideology right now; It's even opposed by the establishment of the Democratic Party (the Nevada RCV initiative was a demonstration of this). I'm more antiestablishment than current progressives, and I also just have gripes with some current leaders of the faction (looking at Elizabeth Warren and her asinine crusade against "greedflation"). So, yeah, progressive works for me, I'm just not connected to any particular politician or movement right now, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Edited by The Blood
  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I'm gonna go slightly off topic and talk about something not listed, or maybe it's close enough to "direct democracy" that it falls there:  "Liquid Democracy".

Liquid Democracy is a form of direct democracy, except you're able to give your vote as a proxy to another individual who can collect votes to increase their voting power, but also it's not an all or nothing, you can designate your vote to only transfer on certain issues, or transfer to person A for say, tax issues, and person B for diplomatic issues, etc, while retaining your vote yourself for all other issues.  I'm not necessarily a proponent of this idea, but I do find it fascinating.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

For a long time -- more than a decade -- I proudly considered myself to be an independent moderate.  I would have proudly voted for JEB! Bush as recently as 2020.  Then the Republican party shifted hard to the right (starting at the selection of VP Sarah Palin) and is now so insane that my unchanged independent moderate views now have me somewhere between "left-leaning moderate" and "Mainstream liberal."

I don't think Democrats are right about every issue.  I'm anti-drug and pro-war, to name two.  But the Republican party has become so insane that I can't ally with them even on the issues that I stand against Democrats on.

More generally, I tend to consider myself as an establishmentarian and a realist.  Sure, leaving things as-is isn't a flawless plan, but neither is literally any other plan.  So until you're ready to have a serious conversation about the flaws in your plan (or anyone else's plan that you support), then you're not ready to have a serious conversation about your plan at all.

I support building on what we have and fixing the things that need fixing, but not in tearing things down without a plan of how to replace it with something that will be undeniably better.

Edited by MrPotatoTed
  • Like 1
  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...