The guidelines for the paper: 12pt, Times New Roman/Calibri are the only acceptable font types, 1 margins on the paper, double-spaced and appropriate citations for the paper. If you use direct quotes from a website use quotes and tell me where you are getting the information from for your paper

Now, the questions you need to answer for your paper:
1.)    Where did you fall on the Political Compass? Do you think this is an accurate representation of who you are? Why or why not? Was this where you thought you would be when you began the quiz?
2.)    Who is your US House Representative (you can find this information by looking here: https://www.house.gov/ and use the text box in the top right hand corner that asks for your zip code)? Does your Representative align with your outcome on the Political Compass? What party are they from? (you can use the zip code 77382 for this question)
3.)    What are your most important issues (MIS) as it relates to your ideal representative? Does your member share those issues? Does this make it more or less likely to support the candidate? Are there other issues your member does support that would help you support or not support them?
4.)    Does the party your member is from represent your issues? Use the national party platforms for your representative. Does this make it more or less likely for you to support the party? Are there other issues your members party does support that would help you support or not support the party?
5.)    Finally, where do you think the majority of the class falls on the Political Compass? Do you think this is because of the location of your school or something else? Which famous/infamous political leader were you closest to on the graph? What are your thoughts on this association? What song would you pick based on your association as shown by the Political Compass?

In the introduction, we explained the inadequacies of the traditional left-right line.

single left-right axis
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line its fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. Thats the one that the mere left-right scale doesnt adequately address. So weve added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

cartesian plane with horizontal left-right axis and vertical authoritarian-libertarian axis
Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( ie an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (ie extreme deregulated economy)

chart with Stalin, Gandhi, Friedman, Thathcher, Hitler
The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal anarchism championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Americas Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily right wing, with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of todays Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs
U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the free market, in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion.

The Chart presents: Economic Left/Right: -1.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77