The Michael Knowles Show - Michael Knowles Takes the Political Compass Quiz

Episode Date: July 17, 2021

Michael Knowles of The Daily Wire takes the political compass quiz! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hey, everybody, Michael here. Have you ever taken the political compass test? This is one of those things. It goes around the internet, and it's really flawed because it tries to put you in a box, and you can't be put in a box. You're too special for that. But I took it. I took it because I have noticed these days, even among conservatives,

most conservatives are kind of liberal. You know, they kind of agree with liberal premises. So I took the political compass test to figure out exactly where I fall. I want to know where you fall. Take a listen. and then take the test and then let me know where you land. I'm very excited to take the political compass test. It's become very popular because people are obsessed with themselves.

They don't really care about politics or anything. They just want to answer questions about themselves for like 15 or 20 minutes. So listen, I'm not better than that. I'll go right in and do it. I remember I saw this test a while ago. I remember it was kind of a left-wing thing. Like I didn't agree with all the questions. But I guess we'll just have to see.

So it's along the left-right line. We know that difference. And then there's another axis, which is authoritarian or libertarian, meaning you could be a left libertarian. That would be some like free love hippie, right? And then you could be a left totalitarian or authoritarian. That would be like Bernie Sanders, whose honeymoon's in the Soviet Union. Or you could be a right-wing libertarian, which would be sort of like Rand Paul or Ron Paul, his father. Or you could be a right-wing authoritarian, which would be like Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun.

I bet I'm going to be closer to Genghis Khan and Atila the Hun, but we will answer the questions and wait and see. First question. If economic globalization is inevitable. So right off the bat, we know that this test is just bogus because globalization is not inevitable. We proceed. If economic globalization is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of transnational corporations. Well, to quote Mitt Romney, corporations are people, my friend. So it's hard to draw that neat distinction. This is an extremely dumb question.

But I guess if at the heart of this question is should economics serve purely abstract ends or should it serve human ends, then it should serve human ends. Very dumb question. So I am going to agree. I won't strongly agree, but I'll agree. I'd always support my country whether it was right or wrong.

Agree. Of course I would. How can your country be wrong, just like completely totally wrong? It can go through challenging political times, It can have bad or dumb leaders, but your country itself is your country. I could no more renounce my country that I could renounce my own family. No one chooses his or her country at birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it.

Well, it's foolish to be proud of everything because pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall. However, I suspect the way this test is using pride is like affection or loyalty or love of country. That's often what people mean when they say national pride. So I will strongly disagree with that. Our race has many superior qualities compared with other races. Well, obviously, if we're referring to the Sicilians, my swarthy skin would be something, our ability to knead pasta as a superior quality. This is a tricky question, because I suspect what they're getting at is civilization or culture.

Very often you'll hear civilizations referred to as a race, but that's very different than the sort of essentialist biological sense of race, which is how we're born. It's difficult to know what they're saying. probably we should err on the side of them writing a very bad question here. And since there is neither Jew nor Greek nor slave nor bond in Christ Jesus, I have to vote against the apparent racism. I will say that I disagree with that.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Yeah, I agree. You know, friend for a time. Maybe not your friend forever. But certainly for a time, that's how politics works. That's how human relations work as well. Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified. Well, there's no such thing as international law, so I guess I strongly agree with that.

There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment. I strongly disagree with that. I love these people. You know, the people who complain about entertainment and politics going together as if that hadn't always been the case. If going back to ancient Greece and Pericles, when we refer to the greatest, most entertaining orations of all time, we're not talking about the most famous politician. How about Abraham Lincoln? You think that guy wasn't entertaining? He did a road show with Stephen Douglas.

Give me a break. Best presidents of our recent history. Ronald Reagan, Hollywood actor, Donald Trump, reality TV host. People are ultimately divided, more by class than nationality. Strongly disagree. That's what Marx thought, and it turned out not to be true. And we saw that play out in the 20th century.

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. Really, you can do two things at one time. You don't need to just pick one or the other. But I think at the heart of this question, should we prioritize abstract economic concepts, or should we prioritize people? And I would probably prioritize people. Now, the argument for saying inflation is more important here

is because then everybody's property diminishes in value. But the argument for saying unemployment is the bigger issue is that people are made to work. From the moment that our first father, Adam, was in the Garden of Eden, he had a job to do. He was naming the creatures. He was gardening. Then he gets kicked out of the garden,

and he's got to till the soil and get his food from the sweat of his brow. So employment here is very important to the human person. I will disagree. Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation. I agree. A lot less regulation than we have right now, but in principle, I agree. From each according to his ability to each according to his need is a fundamentally good idea.

Strongly disagree. That's Marx's idea. It's immoral. And just as a practical matter, it never, ever works. And actually, at the founding of our own country, after the pilgrims landed here from the Mayflower, they got out, they tried to practice this idea of from each according to his ability to each according to his need, and it turned out nobody worked because some other guy would work for him, and then you would get according to your needs. So strongly disagree.

It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled branded consumer product. It's a wonderful reflection on our society that we have so many choices in drinking water. So we can either slum it with the tap water or we can go with the fancy Fiji. And we get to choose which one we want. Works for me, man. Strongly disagree. Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold. What should it be?

What's the alternative? What the left wants to pretend is the alternative is we're all just living like kumbaya, having a great time. But really, land will always be a commodity that is controlled by a person or a group of people. The question is, do you want it to be controlled by people like you and me or by the government, for instance? Certainly not the government. So I strongly disagree with that. It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply, manipulate money and contribute nothing to society.

Who is that? Who does that refer to? Probably the Ninkum Pupu wrote this question thinks it refers to people on Wall Street, like investors or bankers or something, as though they're just sitting at a desk like shuffling piles of money around. That's not how the financial services industry works. Financial services adds liquidity to markets.

Investors invest money in companies that create jobs, they create products. It's so dumb. So I reject the premise of the question, but even getting at what they're trying to say, strongly disagree. Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade. Strongly agree.

The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders. I disagree with that. I mean, it's hard. I'm right in the center on that. I mean, that is the primary objective of a company is to deliver a profit to its shareholders. But a company does have other roles in society.

And actually, the reason it's complicated is because the neglect. of those roles in society can generate a lot of bad PR and ultimately stop the shareholders from getting their profits. So, dumb question, really, I would throw the whole thing out, but if I have to try to get at the heart of what it's saying, I guess I would slightly disagree. The rich are too highly taxed. Strongly agree. The rich pay all the taxes in this country. And so, sure, the vast, vast majority of taxes in this country. And so, yeah, I think they are probably too highly taxed. And I can't wait to become one of those rich who is too highly taxed and then maybe

we'll lower them. Those with the ability to pay should have access to higher standards of medical care. That's not even a normative question like should or should not. It is simply a descriptive matter that it has always been and will always be the case that people with more money have access to more stuff. Any reasonable person would have to strongly agree with that, not as a matter of should or should not, but it's just the way the world always works. It's like saying, The sun should shine. Strongly disagree. Well, okay, man, good luck with that one. Governments should penalize businesses that mislead the public. What do you mean mislead the public? If we're talking about how markets do need structures around them and guardrails, then sure, I guess I slightly agree.

But again, very dumb question. A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies. Yeah, free markets need to protect against certain monopolies, sure. The freer the market, the freer the people. Yeah, generally that's true. Not always, though. You know, especially when you look at the international sphere, if you have no barriers to trade, for instance, and you're outsourcing all of your jobs to another country, and some other country is not playing fairly,

and they have a ton of barriers to trade, and they're illegally subsidizing their aluminum industry, and I'm actually just talking about China here, then certainly it is not the case that the freer the market, the freer the people. So I guess I kind of agree, but, you know, come on. Write better questions, guys. Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened,

should always be illegal. Strongly agree. All authority should be questioned. It's very difficult to make that statement because any rational discourse has to begin with certain premises. A equals A. A plus B equals B plus A. I can't prove those things, but that's where I begin from my assertion. Like I would have to assume if I'm having a rational discourse that truth exists. So you have to assume certain things. Chesterton put it well. He said, there is a thought that stops thought and that is the only thought that ought to be stopped. So I have to very slightly disagree. And I for an eye and a

tooth for a tooth. That's a description of justice, but then forgive your enemies and pray for your persecutors is a description of mercy. So I guess as a description of justice, I agree with that. But what is it describing? Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theaters or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis. I disagree with that. Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory. I strongly disagree with that. All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind. This is what I'm. What the hell does that mean? I guess I'm going to disagree with that.

I don't even know where that's going. Good parents sometimes have to spank their children. Yeah, I guess so. Not a huge fan of corporal punishment, but sometimes you've got to do it, I guess. It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents. Yeah, it's natural. Probably shouldn't encourage it if you're a parent,

but that is natural. Strongly agree. Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offense. Disagree. I don't really care. I just hate that potheads try to make marijuana legal. like the civil rights struggle of our times. Give me a break, guys.

Good grief. It's also different than booze in that booze has always been in our civilization, going back to the ancient, ancient old-timey days. Christ's first miracle is turning water into wine for drunk people. So it's been around a long time. That's why prohibition didn't work. But marijuana is just some new foreign lib thing. So it seems to me better not to introduce that into our culture.

The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs, Strongly disagree with that. People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce. Strongly disagree with that. The left, I think, strongly agrees with that. You know, in Iceland last year, there was a headline. They said, Iceland has eradicated Down syndrome. Said, you eradicated it what?

Like, you came up with a cure for it? And it turned out, no, they just kill all the people who have Down syndrome in the womb. So that's not good. The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline. Dumb question, but I guess I'll agree. There are no savage and civilized peoples. There are only different cultures. Strongly disagree.

eyes. So, you know, you look around, I mean, gosh, look at so many modern cultures are more savage than tribal cultures. Those who are able to work and refuse the opportunity should not expect society's support. Strongly agree with that. When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things. I guess I do agree with that. First generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country. I disagree with that. What's good for the most successful corporations is always ultimately good for all of us. Strongly. disagree with that. Corporations in corporate America is probably the leading leftist institution in the country. They're the ones who go along to get along with anything because all they care about is

dollars and cents. So it might be in their interest to embrace some stupid gender theory or something, but certainly not in our interest. No broadcasting institution, however independent its content should receive public funding. No, I disagree with that. You need broadcast for certain public functions, but I do agree that we should probably pull some funding from those left-wingeres at NPR. Our civil are being excessively curbed in the name of counterterrorism. I disagree. A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system. I disagree with that because we won the Cold War. So it seems like we had the advantage. Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be

worried. I strongly disagree with that. You're kidding me? You got the government blackmailing you for that weird thing that you do when you close the blinds? I don't think so. The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crime. Strongly agree with that. The purpose of criminal justice is justice. A secondary advantage of criminal justice is rehabilitation, a tertiary advantage is deterrence. But the point

of it is the justice. It is retributive. It's you commit a crime, you've got to get punished for it. And hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully, as Dr. Johnson once observed. In a civilized society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded. Well, all civilization has had higher.

hierarchy. So, yes, of course. Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all. Well, this is a dumb question because abstract art by definition represents something. It's abstract, right? It's not a still life of an apple or something. It's abstract, so it is representative of something else. But very often, it's just complete nonsense. And right, that should not be considered art. In order for something to be art, it has to be creative, not just a bunch of blotches that you randomly throw on a canvas. Not a well-phrased question, but I strongly agree. In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.

I just said that. It's like they're reading my mind. Yes, strongly agree. It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals. What do they mean by that? Do they mean some criminals are beyond rehabilitation? That's true. But do they mean that we shouldn't rehabilitate any criminals?

No, that's crazy. I'll strongly disagree. The business person and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist. Well, yes, in that they keep the blood moving through our economy, right? that they keep things going. If you didn't have people to come and fix your toilet, that civilization would collapse in about a week or so. But of course, when we think about civilization, we think about culture.

That's what defines a civilization. So I will disagree with that. Everybody has a role to play. Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers. Assume by a homemaker, they're not just referring to making sandwiches. I assume by homemaker they're referring to raising children. If you're a mother, then you do have a responsibility to raise children. And it's more important if you have children than making some widget at a factory.

So, sure, yeah, I agree with that. Again, poorly phrased, I wouldn't use their phrasing. But, you know, this test obviously was written by a lib. Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries. Nah, give me a break. Strongly disagree. Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity. I do agree with that.

You know, little kids want to rebel. bell against everything and they're like rebels without a cause and they're pissed off at their parents. And it's much more mature, however, to recognize that you didn't just pop into being and out of thin air. You come from a tradition and maybe you want to improve that tradition, sure, but you have to reconcile yourself to reality before you can do that. Astrology accurately explains many things. So this one maybe could be unexpected. I think that's possibly true. Like I'm not someone to totally write off astrology. You know, the Bible tells us not to consult astrologers, not because astrology is totally completely without any merit or reality. They tell us not to

because it's evil and it compromises our free will. So I guess it, I don't know, does it accurately explain many things? What does astrology do? You mean the things you read in the newspaper or astrology suggesting that there is some rhythm to the universe? I guess I would have to agree, but I would encourage you. Never consult astrologers. You cannot be moral without being religious. You can be accidentally moral. And most people who say they're not religious are very religious. The actor Idraselba just said that the earth, which is a rock, by the way, gave us coronavirus because it's pissed off that we're throwing litter into the streets or we're throwing plastic to the baby turtles. So that's a religious idea that's called pantheism. Some people say they're

not religious at all, but actually men can become women because your body has nothing to do with who you really are. That's a religious idea that's called Gnosticism. So their morality, which is a perverted morality, that even that has a basis in religion. Strongly agree. Charity is better than Social Security is a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged. Who's disadvantaged?

I mean, that's loaded terminology anyway. Charity is better in that charity is a moral exchange. So when I give charity, some guy asks me for charity, I feel the grace, the goodness, the virtue of that act of charity. The beggar feels gratitude to me for what I did,

and that's a nice moral relationship. Taxation, which is what they're talking about here with Social Security, there is no moral relationship. I think Dinesh D'Souza once explained this. As the beggar asks me for my sandwich, I'm eating my sandwich and enjoying it. And then Barack Obama rides up on a white horse and points a gun at my head and says,

give the beggar your sandwich. I don't feel the act of charity because I didn't choose to give charity. The beggar doesn't feel gratitude, he feels entitlement. And Barack Obama feels that he's done something productive, even though he's done nothing at all other than point a gun at my head. I guess I would have to agree. Some people are naturally unlucky. Yeah, I think that's true. I agree. Strongly agree. People have disadvantages. Sometimes our suffering

can become a great advantage because it deepens our understanding of the world. It is important that my child's school instills religious values. I strongly agree. The trouble is, in public schools, they're instilling all the wrong kind of religious values. They're instilling gender theory in pre-kindergarten in Brooklyn. That's really happening right now. They instill all sorts of madness. often they instill a hatred of one's country. They instill a hatred of one's civilization. So I do agree that it's important. We just got to make sure they're teaching the right religious values. Sex outside marriage is usually immoral, strongly agree. A same-sex couple in a stable, loving relationship should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption. Well,

I suppose that you've got to weigh the alternatives here. Are you talking about a world in which There are zillions of newborn babies who are being put up for adoption and not enough homes for those newborn babies to be adopted into. Because that's not the world we live in. The world we live in, there are 32 couples waiting to adopt for every newborn that's put up for adoption in the United States. So at that point, you have to come to a decision. What is the best place for a child to be raised in? And if you believe that men and women are different and they complement one another and that a child ought to have a right to a mother and father, then surely,

you have to disagree with this question, which I do. Pornography depicting consenting adults should be legal for the adult population. Well, this question ignores federalism, for one. It ignores the wills of local populations. It ignores the type of pornography, some of which is truly obscene, and we would jail people for it on the federal level as recently as 10 or 11 years ago. So I would have to disagree with that. Not strongly disagree, but disagree.

What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state. I don't know. What's going on in there? Is the guy like smacking the lady around and tying her up and putting cigarettes out on her forehead? Because then I think it is the business of everybody. Some people say you can't legislate morality. All laws legislate morality. So I disagree with that. No one can feel naturally homosexual. I think people can probably feel naturally homosexual. Now, what you do at that point is probably a question for your religious point of view or your moral or ethical point of view, but I'm sure

there are natural longings. These days openness about sex, has gone too far. Strongly agree. I just read a New York City sex guide to surviving the coronavirus pandemic and it was the filthiest document I've read in probably years. So yeah, it's gone too far. I actually, I tweeted it out and it got so much play they ended up deleting it. So I'm doing my part to turn back the tide of the sexual revolution. Let's see where I stand. Okay, so it's telling me all the different places. So like Stalin is the authoritarian left. I said Bernie Sanders. Gandhi is the libertarian left. Hitler is the authoritarian right. Thatcher. is the authoritarian right.

I like that they, the only one of these grids that they put two people into is Hitler and Margaret Thatcher. Like, okay, guys, cool. Everyone else, libertarian right is Milton Friedman, libertarian left is Gandhi, authoritarian left is Stalin.

But then you got Hitler, Hitler, and Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady. Okay, the Iron Cross and the Iron Lady. I am, as I predicted, slightly on the authoritarian right. 1.5 to the right on economics. And I scored a 3.69 to authoritarian.

So I'm almost exactly where I predicted that I would be, despite all of their extremely dumb questions. I think that makes me a traditional conservative. I'm glad that we've gone through this all. And I hope that you, like so many other people on the internet, can be bored enough and self-obsessed enough to take this quiz and waste 25 minutes so that you can find out what you already knew at the very beginning.

Cheers.