Personality Cafe banner

Which political type are you?


  • Total voters
    487
1 - 20 of 231 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,290 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Political Personalities

In a way much like MBTI, I've come up with a very, very basic way of classifying political stances. In a way, it looks like MBTI, but acts like the Big 5 in that each trait absolutely IS a sliding scale -- NOT an absolute -- and it certainly is possible to be right on the line. People of the same type will definitely differ from others within the type; this is a very broad classification system, but I thought it was kind of interesting. It's not perfect, but...yeah, interesting. See what you think (I'm open to helpful suggestions), or perhaps what type you are!

I'm a DLIP (Internationalist Libertarian), for example: weaker on the D but strong everywhere else. A dL|I|P, if you will. :happy:


The Dichotomies
Diplomatic vs. Unengaged: International relations
Hands-On vs. Laissez-Faire: Economic issues
Individualistic vs. Conventional: Social issues
Militaristic vs. Passive: Military intervention

Foreign Policy Temperaments
DMs: Activist
UMs: Interventionist
DPs: Internationalist
UPs: Isolationist

Domestic Policy Temperaments
HIs: Liberal
HCs: Statist
LIs: Libertarian
LCs: Conservative

The Sixteen Types
DHIM: Diplomatic, Hands-On, Individualistic, Militaristic; Activist Liberal
UHIM: Unengaged, Hands-On, Individualistic, Militaristic; Interventionist Liberal
DHIP: Diplomatic, Hands-On, Individualistic, Passive; Internationalist Liberal
UHIP: Unengaged, Hands-On, Individualistic, Passive; Isolationist Liberal
DHCM: Diplomatic, Hands-On, Conventional, Militaristic; Activist Statist
UHCM: Unengaged, Hands-On, Conventional, Militaristic; Interventionist Statist
DHCP: Diplomatic, Hands-On, Conventional, Passive; Internationalist Statist
UHCP: Unengaged, Hands-On, Conventional, Passive; Isolationist Statist
DLIM: Diplomatic, Laissez-Faire, Individualistic, Militaristic; Activist Libertarian
ULIM: Unengaged, Laissez-Faire, Individualistic, Militaristic; Interventionist Libertarian
DLIP: Diplomatic, Laissez-Faire, Individualistic, Passive; Internationalist Libertarian
ULIP: Unengaged, Laissez-Faire, Individualistic, Passive; Isolationist Libertarian
DLCM: Diplomatic, Laissez-Faire, Conventional, Militaristic; Activist Conservative
ULCM: Unengaged, Laissez-Faire, Conventional, Militaristic; Interventionist Conservative
DLCP: Diplomatic, Laissez-Faire, Conventional, Passive; Internationalist Conservative
ULCP: Unengaged, Laissez-Faire, Conventional, Passive; Isolationist Conservative

Explanations
Diplomatic: This deals with international relations. Diplomatic types favor cooperation, diplomacy, and interconnectivity with other nations. They’re often more internationally-minded. People of this type can range from those who simply want to maintain international alliances and cooperation to those who truly want a more united world with less (or no) focus on boundaries.
Unengaged: This deals with international relations. Unengaged types favor more autonomy as a country, less focus on international relations, and minimizing outer ties and obligations. People of this type can range from those who simply want to minimize their country’s dependence on others to those who truly want to stay separate from the rest of the world with nearly pure self-focus.
Hands-On: This deals with economic issues. Hands-On types favor either government intervention/regulation in the economy or, on the extreme end, government control of the economy. People of this type can range from those who simply want to regulate big business in a liberal capitalism sort of way, as well as cater to the needy, to those who support a genuinely socialist sort of economy.
Laissez-Faire: This deals with economic issues. Laissez-Faire types favor the minimization of government intervention in the economy. People of this type can range from those who prefer the minimization of government spending and taxes to those who would rather the government simply steer clear of providing services in the realm of money and business, and everything left in private hands.
Individualistic: This deals with social issues. Individualistic types favor minimal government regulation and authority in terms of peoples’ actions, determining right and wrong, and maintaining safety and security. People of this type can range from those who think social regulation should be left on smaller scales to those who think the government should stay entirely out of personal matters.
Conventional: This deals with social issues. Conventional types favor at least some government regulation and authority in terms of peoples’ actions and determining right and wrong. People of this type can range from those who think some issues require government regulation for safety and the good of society to those who think it ought to be up to the government to regulate right and wrong and take any necessary measures to keep its people safe.
Militaristic: This deals with military intervention. Militaristic types favor a more aggressive approach to dealing with the rest of the world and likely a larger military. People of this type can range from those who think the military ought to be there to help other countries and causes when needed to those who want an actively aggressive military that wages wars when deemed appropriate.
Passive: This deals with military intervention. Passive types favor a less active approach to dealing with the rest of the world and likely a smaller military. People of this type can range from those who think it’s best to keep the military out of pursuing causes and getting involved in the matters of others to those who think wars should be defensive alone, or even those who disapprove of the use of force entirely (or at least think it ought to be reserved until there is no other option).

Activist: This deals with foreign policy. Activist types are both Diplomatic and Militaristic. They favor an active stance in the world, both in peaceful and forceful relations. People of this type think the best approach to dealing with the rest of the world is to be as involved as possible, although this often means promoting the country’s values on a world scale as opposed to uniting the world’s cultures. This can range from those who want to promote a more generally global-thinking world to those who would use any means necessary to spread their causes. Think modern-day America.
Interventionist: This deals with foreign policy. Interventionist types are both Unengaged and Militaristic. They favor a more detached yet forceful stance in the world. People of this type think the best approach to dealing with the rest of the world is to remain independent while using force when necessary. This can range from those who want to stay relatively isolated but still fight when needed to those who would prefer for the country to pursue its own causes throughout the world without necessarily preserving outside cultures. Think Imperialist-era England or Spain.
Internationalist: This deals with foreign policy. Internationalist types are both Diplomatic and Passive. They favor a more involved yet decidedly peaceful stance in the world. People of this type think the best approach to dealing with the rest of the world is to focus on cooperation and diplomacy. This can range from those who value varying cultures and pacifism as well as recognize a need for global collaboration to those who would have a united global community. Think Canada or the smaller countries of Europe.
Isolationist: This deals with foreign policy. Isolationist types are both Unengaged and Passive. They favor a detached stance in the world in all respects. People of this type think the best approach to dealing with the rest of the world is to focus internally and avoid getting caught up in outside concerns. This can range from those who think it’s best to first solve the country’s internal issues before worrying about anything outside as well as minimizing unnecessary external obligations to those who would rather avoid dealing with non-domestic obligations altogether. Think Switzerland.

Liberal: This deals with domestic policy. Liberal types are both Hands-On and Individualistic. They favor a true mix of self-rule and governmental regulation, namely the freedom to make social and personal decisions but the help of the government in economic matters. People of this type can range from those who would prefer a regulated capitalist republic to those who would prefer a true socialist republic. Think social democracy or democratic socialism (i.e. most European countries) on the extreme end, or the American Democratic Party on the less extreme end.
Statist: This deals with domestic policy. Statist types are both Hands-On and Conventional. They favor an overall powerful government, from regulating individual actions to helping in economic matters. People of this type can range from those who think the government should get involved whenever there are problems to those who trust the government over the individual to make the right decisions and maintain order. Note that most Statists will be weak Statists and won’t necessarily be communists or anything remotely similar; modern-day America could be argued as having moderate Statist leanings. Think communism or fascism on the most extreme end (i.e. China or North Korea), or most politicians on the less extreme end.
Libertarian: This deals with domestic policy. Libertarian types are both Laissez-Faire and Individualistic. They favor an overall smaller government, largely avoiding regulation of both individual actions and the economy. People of this type can range from those who prefer minimal regulation that remains on a smaller scale to true anarchists who trust the individual over the government. Think early America on the less extreme end, and anarchy or anarcho-capitalism on the more extreme end.
Conservative: This deals with domestic policy. Conservative types are both Laissez-Faire and Conventional. They favor a true mix of self-rule and governmental regulation, namely a free market but the regulation of the government in individual actions. People of this type can range from those who prefer a largely free market with government intervention on important social issues to those who would have the government minimize any economic actions while having authority over right and wrong. Think theocracy on the extreme end, or the American Republican Party on the less extreme end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,521 Posts
That is amazing. You have pretty much done it.
I am a ULCM according to that.
Out of curiosity what are you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: agokcen

·
Registered
Joined
·
675 Posts
DLCM: Diplomatic, Laissez-Faire, Conventional, Militaristic, i.e. "activist conservative"

I'm one of the few people you guys will meet who openly embrace the neo-conservative label. I'm comfortable with the way "activist" was described above, though I can't say the same thing for conservative.

A conservative wants to maintain a framework of behavioral incentives that allow the past and the future to link up in a rational way. This is the principle explaining why a conservative says markets and families go together. Too many baby-mommas, i.e., individualism, will lead to statism --more police to fight crime, more remnants of broken families clamoring for freebies, etc. -- which is why the ideas of libertarianism/permissiveness are never workable in the short-run. Statism is unstable for the opposite reason -- government handouts quickly lead to not more social solidarity, but more baby-mommas, so it easily degenerates into liberalism. This is why there is a only left-right dichotomy, and not a third or fourth alternative.

I also believe liberalism is unstable, though unlike statism and libertarianism, it is unstable in the long run, not the short run. Liberals want more and more entitlements to pass off to the next generation, while creating more and more incentives that delegitimize and decrease the number of families and children. More concisely, we can't rationally say we're going to pass our bills off to our children and not have any. This will be a huge problem during our lifetimes, though the worst to come is still a decade or two away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,290 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
That is amazing. You have pretty much done it.
I am a ULCM according to that.
Out of curiosity what are you?
I'm a DLIP (Internationalist Libertarian), for example: weaker on the D but strong everywhere else. A dL|I|P, if you will. :happy:
Ta-da! DLIP, I am -- or dL|I|P.

I'm glad you like it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,736 Posts
Thank you, this is quite well made.

I'm a DLIM, or a DLIm if preferences are expressed. This would make me an "activist libertarian," to which the term Neoliberal might well apply. Indeed, it is on military issues more often than any other that I markedly disagree with the Libertarian party.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,978 Posts
I think this is pretty cool, thanks for sharing. I think it does have some limitations though, particularly in that it's not really precise enough. For example, if I'm, say, a Leninist, I'd seem to fall roughly in the same sphere as someone like FDR, but our ideologies couldn't be farther apart. This seems particularly problematic with political ideas like socialism, fascism, and many varieties of libertarianism and anarchism (from left-anarchism to anarcho-capitalism) that are kind of off the binary scale you seem to be using here. The criteria seems to be mostly built around the political divisions of modern liberal democracy and I'm not sure those apply so well to a fascist or a communist (for example). I also don't think the liberal/conservative/statist/libertarian thing makes a great deal of sense...those labels aren't necessarily opposed to each other (except liberal/conservative and statist/libertarian I guess). I understand these things are just models though and they're not going to be perfect, just giving you a little feedback :)

For the record based on your model I'm either a DHIP or a DHIM, depending on whether you think support for class warfare (but not necessarily international warfare between states) is passive or militaristic.

EDIT: Actually after reading your descriptions of the liberal/statist/conservative/libertarian categories it makes more sense than I thought at first, sort of misunderstood that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,558 Posts
I'm a republican who's hands-on and individualistic, as for any other temperaments I might have, I haven't done much research yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: agokcen

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,569 Posts
Very interesting, a truly excellent composition :)

DHIM: Diplomatic, Hands-On, Individualistic, Militaristic; Activist Liberal

I enjoy thinking of the possibility of a "World Government" based upon diplomacy,a focus on potentials and a cultural variety that produces a fundamentality of common purpose(the action there-in) and the great potential(both good and bad) that this may entail..

(I'm a bit of a Utopian hehe..)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,134 Posts
Wow! This is way more descriptive than those silly political compass classifications.

My type: DL|I|P Internationalist Libertarian.

Internationalist: This deals with foreign policy. Internationalist types are both Diplomatic and Passive. They favor a more involved yet decidedly peaceful stance in the world. People of this type think the best approach to dealing with the rest of the world is to focus on cooperation and diplomacy. This can range from those who value varying cultures and pacifism as well as recognize a need for global collaboration to those who would have a united global community. Think Canada or the smaller countries of Europe.

Libertarian: This deals with domestic policy. Libertarian types are both Laissez-Faire and Individualistic. They favor an overall smaller government, largely avoiding regulation of both individual actions and the economy. People of this type can range from those who prefer minimal regulation that remains on a smaller scale to true anarchists who trust the individual over the government. Think early America on the less extreme end, and anarchy or anarcho-capitalism on the more extreme end.
 

·
MOTM Jan 2012
Joined
·
6,514 Posts
Diplomatic: This deals with international relations. Diplomatic types favor cooperation, diplomacy, and interconnectivity with other nations. They’re often more internationally-minded. People of this type can range from those who simply want to maintain international alliances and cooperation to those who truly want a more united world with less (or no) focus on boundaries.

Unengaged: This deals with international relations. Unengaged types favor more autonomy as a country, less focus on international relations, and minimizing outer ties and obligations. People of this type can range from those who simply want to minimize their country’s dependence on others to those who truly want to stay separate from the rest of the world with nearly pure self-focus.

Laissez-Faire: This deals with economic issues. Laissez-Faire types favor the minimization of government intervention in the economy. People of this type can range from those who prefer the minimization of government spending and taxes to those who would rather the government simply steer clear of providing services in the realm of money and business, and everything left in private hands.

Individualistic: This deals with social issues. Individualistic types favor minimal government regulation and authority in terms of peoples’ actions, determining right and wrong, and maintaining safety and security. People of this type can range from those who think social regulation should be left on smaller scales to those who think the government should stay entirely out of personal matters.

Passive: This deals with military intervention. Passive types favor a less active approach to dealing with the rest of the world and likely a smaller military. People of this type can range from those who think it’s best to keep the military out of pursuing causes and getting involved in the matters of others to those who think wars should be defensive alone, or even those who disapprove of the use of force entirely (or at least think it ought to be reserved until there is no other option).

Internationalist: This deals with foreign policy. Internationalist types are both Diplomatic and Passive. They favor a more involved yet decidedly peaceful stance in the world. People of this type think the best approach to dealing with the rest of the world is to focus on cooperation and diplomacy. This can range from those who value varying cultures and pacifism as well as recognize a need for global collaboration to those who would have a united global community. Think Canada or the smaller countries of Europe.

Isolationist: This deals with foreign policy. Isolationist types are both Unengaged and Passive. They favor a detached stance in the world in all respects. People of this type think the best approach to dealing with the rest of the world is to focus internally and avoid getting caught up in outside concerns. This can range from those who think it’s best to first solve the country’s internal issues before worrying about anything outside as well as minimizing unnecessary external obligations to those who would rather avoid dealing with non-domestic obligations altogether. Think Switzerland.

Libertarian: This deals with domestic policy. Libertarian types are both Laissez-Faire and Individualistic. They favor an overall smaller government, largely avoiding regulation of both individual actions and the economy. People of this type can range from those who prefer minimal regulation that remains on a smaller scale to true anarchists who trust the individual over the government. Think early America on the less extreme end, and anarchy or anarcho-capitalism on the more extreme end.
ULIP/DLIP...I bolded the areas that I agreed with the most.
 
  • Like
Reactions: agokcen

·
Registered
Joined
·
533 Posts
DLCM: Diplomatic, Laissez-Faire, Conventional, Militaristic; Activist Conservative

i wasn't sure what to do so i picked the one which had all of my preferences. they aren't in order but i figure order probably doesn't matter much. i like order, okay!
 
1 - 20 of 231 Posts
Top