From my point of view that's because of false definitions.
Democrats have been defined as left, but are in fact right wing authoritarians.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2024
If you believe they would be anywhere near left, you easily get the impression that left and right are no longer valid definitions and you get to statements like your "I don't fit easily into any classification".
Furthermore many self nominated "analysts" force the two dimensions of the political spectrum into a single one, getting to the most absurd definitions, such as "far right" which in a 2 dimensional view isn't far right, but "far authoritarian".
Aside of such false definitions, it's really easy to locate yourself.
Take the above link, look at the graph split into 4 quadrants
1st dimension, horizontal left-right is exclusively economics, right is favoring of the rich, left is economically balanced policies.
2nd dimension, vertical liberal-authoritarian is exclusively social aspects, liberal freedom vs authoritarian patronizing.
Top-right is where most politics in the western world is located, enforcing the favoring of the rich by patronizing the population.
Bottom-right is where people like Musk are, the so called "Libertarians", knowing that money rules the world they want total freedom for the rich, as little government as possible, believing their money will keep the mass of the people under control. Doesn't work, never has, because liberal freedom allows the population to demonstrate in the streets. Macron tried in France a right-liberal approach when he first became president, got massive protests nationwide near instantly from the "yellow vests" and moved to the right-authoritarian quadrant within weeks. Or in short, Libertarians are in the liberal half of the spectrum only until they get to power. Other than that the bottom-right quadrant of the spectrum is empty worldwide.
Top-left is where you find communists and socialists, massive authoritarian patronizing while the political leaders fill their own pockets, but other than themselves they do not favor the rich, they simply take whatever they can get from everybody, a rather distorted idea of "balanced policies" that leaves most of the population in poverty.
Bottom-left is where you find 90+% of the worlds population, wanting economic policies that benefit the whole population, not just the richest 0.01% and don't want to get patronized by corrupt politics.
Once you get these definitions straight, you can easily locate entire countries in the spectrum.
China isn't socialistic, they aren't located on the top-left, they run top-right "state capitalism", where the government owns the majority of businesses, but still allows for private businesses (such as US corporations) to operate in the country, while the government runs the typical policies of favoring the rich by patronizing the population.
The so called "far right" isn't far right, as you can see for example in France, where LePen is located near the center in the horizontal dimension
https://www.politicalcompass.org/france2024
while Macron is the furthest to the right.
The so called "far right" is in fact "far authoritarian", which is what facism is all about and it currently gains popularity in the general population because the bottom-left quadrant of the spectrum is near empty in most countries (with the exception of France) of the western world, at best there are some badly organized miniature parties like the American Greens, and a population facing a choice in elections that offers only authoritarians will choose the ones that are at least economically not all that far to the right. Latest when you include the false definition of Democrats being on the left and the false impressions that gives to the low educated population, you get why the so called "far right" is on the rise in the western world.
Trumps proposal of cutting military spendings in half is a gigantic leap to the left, because it's an economic policy that cuts big time into the money the rich shareholders of the military-industrial complex are pocketing.
Whether he pulls it through and whether that results in top-left or bottom-left politics remains to be seen. Personally I'm afraid he'll move to the top-center, where the fascists are.
reply
share
Sparky (2717)
5 days ago
Semantics will get you somewhere I guess. I looked at the link. The graph is four colors, I saw no information as to how they were plotted or what criteria was involved in their placement. Furthermore the 'information' has been provided by the site linked with no other credits given.
The Overton Window has indeed shifted and appears to be shifting again. In the end the Bard's words on names and their ultimate impact is applicable here, and the people have spoken. Are you attempting to sway my position on the terms used or something else?
reply
share
MarkPh (1026)
5 days ago
Not at all, I'm a liberal, I let you believe whatever you want to believe, I'm just explaining how I use the politicalcompass to maintain my opinion that left-right and liberal-authoritarian have always been and remain to be what they originally were, what has changed is only the media propaganda that has falsely defined several things to what they weren't before and from there has led many people to believe that the definitions of left and right shall have changed.
I for one do not ignore the facts of the original definitions, I rather ignore the media propaganda suggesting it shall have changed.
You have apparently not even looked at the graph for more than a second, or else you wouldn't have stated "no information as to how they were plotted or what criteria was involved" but would have noticed the bold black text on all 4 sides of the graph explaining in one simple word which side means what.
Also it seems you didn't read the text below the graph where it expains where they got their data from.
"We have analysed speeches, manifestos and, crucially, voting records in the compilation of this chart."
It's as easy as "a Democratic party that has voted in Congress and Senate alongside Republicans for an ever increasing military budget even beyond of what the military asked for, cannot be left-liberal".
reply
share
Sparky (2717)
5 days ago
I never claimed you were anywhere on the political spectrum. You are welcome to call anything what you want, it changes nothing. English changed over so many years but you can dig up and learn Old English and use it in public insisting that it is the true iteration, or you could use the modern parlance- you have free agency here.
I said I looked at the graph and I did. I saw those words, but there are no real measurements are there? And the description they provide that you quote here: "We have analysed speeches, manifestos and, crucially, voting records in the compilation of this chart" tells me nothing about their methodology. Actual studies are transparent while this one just essentially tells us 'trust us dude'. The last quote you provide there is a statement that declares something is either one thing or the other with no room for a grey area, the exact opposite of the method the graph uses.
reply
share
MarkPh (1026)
5 days ago
"The last quote you provide there is a statement that declares something is either one thing or the other with no room for a grey area, the exact opposite of the method the graph uses."
You don't realize how absurd your argument is there?
The military budget is just one piece of the overall picture, if it were for this one alone Republicans and Democrats alike would be located in the top-right corner of the spectrum, so close to the border of the spectrum that the dots indicating their position would overlap the borderlines of the spectrum to the right and to the top.
Only in combination with other factors, such as giving tax breaks to the richest, cutting social programs, letting infrastructure crumble because theres no money left after cutting taxes on the rich, it gives the overall picture where Democrats are a bit less to the right and a bit less high up on the authoritarian scale and that's what you call the "grey area".
reply
share
Sparky (2717)
5 days ago
"You don't realize how absurd your argument is there?"
I didn't provide an argument I made a statement of fact.
reply
share
MarkPh (1026)
4 days ago
In fact a false fact, but at least reason enough to add you to the other advice resistant fools on my ignore list.
reply
share
Sparky (2717)
4 days ago
What I said is true about your statement. Whether the statement you made is true or false is not my responsibility. And advice? You gave none. But let's say you did- you block those that don't immediately heed your advice? No offense but you don't even understand the words being used here. If anyone needs advice it's you, and my advice to you is to shore up your educational fundamentals before you go attempting to preach to and change others. It's easy to perceive faults in others even when none are present, but most couldn't recognize their own faults if they were a growth on their face.
reply
share