Liberals, classical liberals, classical conservatives, libertarians, centrists, "moderates", "independents", corporatism, and neo-liberals appear across three of the four sectors of the chart (and arguably all four considering that corporatism spans most of the right side of the chart) despite being outright synonymous in some cases or otherwise quite similar in many respects. Because who needs even the barest semblance of consistency?

Also, you have to love them putting Jackson of all people on the side of liberty and freedom, rather than tyranny. Between him leading US forces in the annexation of Florida, his threats to use military force if South Carolina didn't accept the tariff "of abominations", that whole, you know, Trail of Tears thing, and his vehement opposition to abolition he sure was on the side of freedom and not tyranny, yes sir. I could probably find issue with the other three in the circle, but frankly I don't know enough about them... apart from the fact that I wouldn't put Wilson close to progressive if my life depended on it.

Apparently freedom and liberty are proportional to the amount of government in a particular country? Classic. Then there's sticking theocracy between collectivism and military interventionism because... why not? Also, you gotta love "secular moralism". Then there's saying that democrats trend towards socialism proportionally to republicans trending towards corporatism. The equation of military and economic intervention with one another as being equally tyrannical is also pretty hilarious. The fact that they're almost certainly using "communism" to refer to Stalinist Leninism-Marxism, rather than a stateless, money-less society in which people own their own labour goes without saying I suppose.

I'm sure I could come up with something else, but my brain is refusing to process anything else about this image at this point.