Many political debates here have included references to The Political Compass, which uses a set of 61 questions to assess one’s political orientation in terms of economic left/right and social libertarianism/authoritarianism (rather like the “Libertarian diamond” popular in the US).
And so, every so often I will begin a thread in which the premise for debate is one of the 61 questions. I will give which answer I chose and provide my justification and reasoning. Others are, of course, invited to do the same including those who wish to “question the question”, as it were. I will also suggest what I think is the “weighting” given to the various answers in terms of calculating the final orientation.
It might also be useful when posting in these threads to give your own “compass reading” in your first post, by convention giving the Economic value first. My own is
SentientMeat: Economic: -5.12, Social: -7.28, and so by the above convention my co-ordinates are (-5.12, -7.28). Please also indicate which option you ticked.
Now, I appreciate that here is often dissent regarding whether the assessment the test provides is valid, notably by US conservative posters, either because it is “left-biased” (??) or because some propositions are clearly slanted, ambiguous or self-contradictory. The site itself provides answers to these and other Frequently Asked Questions, and there is also a separate thread: Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading? Read these first and then, if you have an objection to the test in general, please post it there. If your objection is solely to the proposition in hand, post here. If your objection is to other propositions, please wait until I open a thread on them.
(The above will be pasted in every new thread in order to introduce it properly, and I’ll let each one die before starting the next. To date, the threads are:
Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading?
Political Compass #1: Globalisation, Humanity and OmniCorp.
#2: My country, right or wrong)
**Proposition #3: No one chooses their country of birth, so it’s foolish to be proud of it.
SentientMeat (-5.12, -7.28) ticks Strongly Agree.
My agreement with this is not quite as straightforward as my disagreement with #2’s “My country, right or wrong” but still strong enough to warrant a Strongly Agree. However, I appreciate that there is far more scope for a difference of opinion between non-radical, “moderate” people here than the IMO highly authoritarian bias of #2. I also feel that this proposition is worded with a little clever conservative bias since Agreement requires one to describe people as “foolish”, a rather harsh adjective, when “puzzling” or “myopic” might have been easier to Agree to. Nevertheless, I stick with my tick.
Pride is an ugly sentiment, unbecoming of one who seeks to understand the world. There is, of course, nothing wrong with appreciating, liking or even loving a given country (whether or not it is where you were born); its culture, its rich history, the characteristics of its people you find endearing etc. And one can certainly enjoy singing a “national” song or cheering a sports team wearing “national” colours along with people you consider to share a bond with. One might even be proud to represent one’s country in some way, since it demonstrates some level of excellence or ability which one has personally attained.
But being proud of one’s country? This entails an unhealthy “them and us” mentality, perhaps even a feeling of superiority which is, I believe, outright dangerous. And everyone has to be born somewhere - what word describes somebody who is proud of the geographical location of their birth?
“Fool”, I say. Authoritarianism thrives on nationalism, which a clever man once described as “an infantile disease; the measles of the world”. By saying “fool” I believe I garner, say, a further -0.25 on the social scale.