If "economic" and "social" issues are separate spheres....

[All Along The Watchtower]

...then why are most Americans fairly consistently "left-leaning" (in the American sense) on both social and economic issues or "right-leaning" on,again, both social and economic issues?

In other words, the actual number of people who are "social liberals and economic conservatives" or vice versa is fairly small, actually. Most people, whether they are liberal, moderate, or conservative, are the same orientation in terms of "social" and "economic" issues.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because this classification is overly simplistic and misleading. General mindset and attitude toward the progress is a much more effective criterion to separate right and left than the position on two "liberty-vs-authority" perpendicular axes.

[TJ in Oregon]

I think it's because most Americans don't so much have opinions and philosophies on particular issues and then from those form political views as we like to think they do on here. I think most people first identify as one side or the other and that then determines many of their views.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'd have to agree with both TJ and Tony here.

[Lief 🗽]

The whole political compass/axis thing is a fraud propagated by libertarians.

[Blackacre]

Because the axis may work better on a global scale, where you have communists and "classical liberals" to deal with

[Politico]

I think it's because most Americans don't so much have opinions and philosophies on particular issues and then from those form political views as we like to think they do on here. I think most people first identify as one side or the other and that then determines many of their views.

This. It does not help that the dogmatic types in each party tend to stress adherence to conformity. That said, Republicans are far more tolerant of libertarianism than the Democratic Party (Democrats are "tolerant" of ideas until they find out there are other ideas than leftism). I would even argue that Republicans are now more tolerant of social conservatives who believe in an active role for the state in economic affairs (i.e., right on social issues but left/center on economics issues), but that group is definitely the one in the wilderness right now.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The whole political compass/axis thing is a fraud propagated by libertarians.

You are easily one of my favorite posters here.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The whole political compass/axis thing is a fraud propagated by libertarians.

You are easily one of my favorite posters here.

Yeah, Lief is absolutely right. Making "liberty" the defining value of the entire political specrtum reflects a pretty blatant bias.

[Vosem]

General mindset and attitude toward the progress is a much more effective criterion

I find this attitude about 'progress' -- said as if it is inevitable -- to be very dangerous and quite scary, to be honest. Where does that put me?

[Antonio the Sixth]

General mindset and attitude toward the progress is a much more effective criterion

I find this attitude about 'progress' -- said as if it is inevitable -- to be very dangerous and quite scary, to be honest. Where does that put me?

I guess it is possible to have this view and still be a leftist (after all there are many forum leftists who would agree with you). However, this distinction, when articulated a bit, is still a better way to make sense of labels like right and left than a bidimensional graph.

[minionofmidas]

The whole political compass/axis thing is a fraud propagated by libertarians.

You are easily one of my favorite posters here.

Yeah, Lief is absolutely right. Making "liberty" the defining value of the entire political specrtum reflects a pretty blatant bias.

No, but using that strange definition of "liberty" does.

[King]

A proper spectrum would be "progressive/traditional" economic/social scores.  People who value old things, such as classical economics and Christian morality, and people who like to try new things such as Keynesian and human rights.

[Politico]

General mindset and attitude toward the progress is a much more effective criterion

I find this attitude about 'progress' -- said as if it is inevitable -- to be very dangerous and quite scary, to be honest. Where does that put me?

It makes you a rational individual, not an aspiring member of an American Politburo.

When did it become progress to promote taking from one group to give to another? To actively celebrate the notion of a government that rounds up people and takes their property (e.g., wealth, firearms, etc.) as deemed fit by the "progressive" state? Or trying to move from free speech to free speech as defined by "progressives"?

Real progress is only achieved when you grow a free market economy, where people are free to choose how to allocate their resources without the government breathing down their neck. We are a long way from that, particularly for the poorest who are supposedly being helped by all of this "progress" of Obama and Co.

The legacy of Obama will be managing our "lost decade" at home, giving BS speeches that are out of touch with reality, and pioneering the art of drone attacks. "Progress"? That's a laugh riot.

[King]

When did it become progress to promote taking from one group to give to another? To actively celebrate the notion of a government that rounds up people and takes their property (e.g., wealth, firearms, etc.) as deemed fit by the "progressive" state? Or trying to move from free speech to free speech as defined by "progressives"?

About 100 years ago.

[Indy Texas]

Well, first of all, you're assuming it's impossible that there can be a correlation between economic and social views (that someone who is socially left-leaning is more likely to be economically left-leaning as well, and vice versa, or the same with right-leaning people).

Also, particularly in a two-party system, your political views more or less become a function of which "product" you decide to purchase in November of even-numbered years (do I pick the red box or the blue box?). The product is a bundle of social and economic views. We have two bundles to choose from. The manufacturers of the product chose their respective bundles with the goal of obtaining as much market share as possible.

The lion's share of voters think about who they're going to vote for with about as much effort as a disinterested participant in a March Madness bracket pool. I know that's hard for the sort of people on this forum to understand. Most people don't think about this stuff at any point apart from maybe a few weeks before election day. Voting Republican or voting Democratic is simply a force of habit, like the fact that I always buy Tide laundry detergent. Why do I buy Tide? Because that's what my mother used when I was growing up; that's what her mother used. I can't give any rational explanation for it. And there are plenty of people who vote the way they do for similar reasons.

[Del Tachi]

The whole political compass/axis thing is a fraud propagated by libertarians.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The whole political compass/axis thing is a fraud propagated by libertarians.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Really the problem is that any standard for evaluating the merits of a policy could also be used as a standard for categorizing other standpoints. So just as we have a political compass that categorizes views according to their attitude to libertarian notions of "freedom" and "government intervention", you could have an egalitarian compass where views get boxed together based on whether they promote equality in different areas, a Catholic compass where being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty would get represented as applying contrary principles, and so on and so forth. What the most natural way is to categorize political views is itself a question of political theory; it doesn't stand outside on purely neutral ground.

[RI]

TJ is largely correct about how this plays out in practice in the United States (and elsewhere I presume). As far as the political spectrum goes, it certainly exists in a theoretical sense, but there are many different spectra to choose from. The one displayed on this site, for example, does not have a monopoly on "truth." A more proper spectrum would have far too many dimensions to represent visually, which reduces the incentive for people to create such spectra on the internet; people like the visual placement relative to each other. A system in ℝ^n with each individual corresponding to a n-tuple vector (perhaps a bivector if you take into account that people often "float" ideologically) could have some interesting applications.

I disagree with the notion that tradition/progress should be a primary foundation as these things are very relative and rather uninformative of actual motivations. Tradition is largely a function of the past, but the past is not a static date but a range of possible values. Progress is also relative. Progress toward what? Is your progress the same as mine? Furthermore, progress often implies a false narrative of human history based upon a linear or near-linear progression toward self-defined and self-normatized goals, ignoring much of the complexity of human history and assumes that a fixed end is preordained; this flaw is also evident when people discuss the concept of evolution.

I think that within a proper context, the political compass, as we often use it, can be informative and insightful despite its libertarian-oriented definitions of "liberty" and "freedom," but only with the knowledge that it is one variable to consider of infinite possible derivations and that its biases are present and known.

[TNF]

I don't think they're separate. You cannot have true social freedom without having economic freedom. (When I say economic freedom, I don't mean the Reagan-Bush way but rather the Roosevelt-Truman-Johnson way, i.e. social democracy)

[Link]

...then why are most Americans fairly consistently "left-leaning" (in the American sense) on both social and economic issues or "right-leaning" on,again, both social and economic issues?

Is there a poll that proves this?  Most people I talk to when questioned carefully are an amalgam of various political viewpoints on different issues.  There are also a lot of people that are kind of libertarian.  For example we may not approve of certain things for ourselves but we don't think the government should be in the business of telling other people to adhere to our personal moral code.  And then on other issues we may have strong feelings about them but we don't think implementing those ideas is practical.  I personally think the country would be better off if we banned ALL guns.  Well maybe would could have some very tightly regulated guns for hunting or sport shooting.  But I realize that isn't practical so I wouldn't be inclined to vote for someone that ran on such a platform.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

TJ was pretty much correct.  Most people pick the one or two issues they really, REALLY care about, whether it be the economy, abortion, healthcare, etc.  They look at the political discourse through that lens, and identify with the party that comes closest to that position.  This gives them this wonderful, fuzzy feeling about that party.  Well... once you have that, you're a lot more open to everything else they have to say, aren't you?  

Example: my mom loved Hillary in 2008 because #1 on her list was to have a woman President.  That didn't pan out... but she sure did hate that Obama, despite the fact they agreed on everything except him being a man.  That carried right through to the election; she even throwing some nice things out there about Sarah Palin, whom she agreed with about literally nothing, because she's a woman.