Political compass for the21st century

[Bill the Piper]

Eric the Green Wrote:I read you as saying that yellow is all about the market, not democracy. If it's primarily about the market, that's conservative. In fact, it's the heart of conservatism today, and remember, it's placed as the extreme right pole on the Europe-oriented political compass charts. In the Nolan chart it is upper right.

Liberal democracy leans liberal; that is, moderately to the left. The pure yellow that would be the same as libertarian still values civil rights and democracy, personal and social freedoms. If the Nolan circle is divided into the quadrants, then upper left is the libertarian left, and that's where most American liberal democrats would be found. The peace movement is there, shared among liberals and libertarians, and the opposite is militarism located in the social/conservative lower right (group vs. group). The more progressive wing of liberals today would be close to or at the left-wing pole. I don't see much of a place for the heart of liberalism today on your chart.

But the classical liberalism of the 18th century is basically what libertarians aspire to, and would be the same thing except classic liberals were not as extreme in their free market ideology, and more dedicated to human rights and democracy than libertarians today. This ideology is also called neo-liberalism. It hasn't gone anywhere. Allied with various shades of social conservatism, it is currently dominant in the USA government, and has been for 40 years.

Democracy is no longer the goal, at least in the West. It has been achieved and is the starting point for modern politics. I don't know where a "democracy first" person would go. Probably close to the centre, at least if we're talking about the extant form of democracy. Neoconservatives value democracy much, and I place them near the centre. The same for Christian democrats. They are centrist, although of a different flavour than neo-cons. It might be that wanting to preserve the existing form of democracy is a centrist trait. Expanding it, on the other hand, as in "participatory" or "direct" democracy is IMHO a Red trait, since it's closely related to workplace democracy, which is desired by all Reds except the totalitarian Bolsheviks.

A countercultural liberal values democracy as a means of political self-expression. A Purple extremist is however very likely to prefer anarchy.
A libertarian might prefer democracy because it's less likely to interfere with the market than an authoritarian system. Many libertarians don't agree with that and see an enlightened autocracy as more conducive for the market, like Moldbug.
A traditionalist is least likely to support democracy. Divine or natural law cannot be changed by voting. Still, High Toryism was once a thing in Britain, and it brought traditionalism and some form of democracy together. Pashtun tribal system is also a restricted form of democracy within traditionalist, where only clan elders can vote.
A moderate nationalist could support democracy as well, as expression of the will of the nation. Many 19th century European nationalists wanted democracy, and fought against the cosmopolitan monarchies. But democracy is not conducive to nationalists' militaristic goals, so most of them choose autocracy.
A working-class Red leftist also wants democracy, because it's an expression of equality. Autocracy is hierarchical by definition. Bolshevism is undemocratic, but this is a result of a nationalist admixture. I've decided to rename this sector as EGALITARIAN, as communism is only an extremist form of it.

The final verdict: democracy is a procedure, a very good one, but my judgement still depends on why one supports it.