Ten questions to decide if you are left, right or center

[GuyInTaiwan]

Not sure about the first question as there are hawkish camps on both sides of the aisle.

[ChewDawg]

Ha! It's a crock. The Manning Center ("I love that word: ReeeForm!") is cooking the books to encourage people to self-identify as conservative.

Maybe they are trying to make conservatism seem more normal, yes. But if you dial my score back from more conservative than average, I'd think you'd get somewhere nearer the center than the center of left or center of right.

I think Jaboney's image of reform country [Alberta] as conservative is terribly out of date! Alberta's largest city [Calgary] has a Muslim mayor, its second largest city [Edmonton] has a Jewish mayor, and its female premier [Canadian version of Governor] is a very progressive conservative that just won re-election with centre-left and centre support beating out a very right wing woman [first female versus female race]. It's more diverse, richer, more white collar, and more cosmopolitan than most parts of the country. It ain't redneck country anymore. If only the rest of the country were so diverse in its political representation, so wealthy, so productive, and so professional, especially compared with the East.

Furthermore, even from an academic standpoint, Jaboney's got it wrong. Reform, traditionally as a party in the 90s, relied just as much on left-wing populism in Western Canada as right-wing populism. Manning may have been a centre-right conservative but a lot of Reform's base in Western Canada wasn't. They would never have done so well for so many years without getting populist left/right votes. In other words, hardly cooking the books to make people self-identify as cons.

[BigJohn]

Not sure about the first question as there are hawkish camps on both sides of the aisle.

Not strictly looking at Dems and Repubs in DC, but ratheralong a more neocon vs. Carterite axis.

[GuyInTaiwan]

BigJohn: Yet where would libertarians fit on that? What about paleocons? There are plenty on the right who are, and have always been, against interventionism.

[ChewDawg]

1. Did you support the second Iraq war that deposed Saddam Hussein? Yes.
2. Do you believe that affirmative action is overall a good thing? It's a terrible thing. You're treating a historical wrong by promoting another type of racism.
3. Do you believe that Keynesian economics has some value in kick-starting a stalled or flagging economy? Not much.
4. Do you believe that government spending in most modern Western democracies is too high, and that painful cuts to social programs - such as happened in the UK in recent years - would be in the best interests of most Western nations? Yes, painful cuts are needed in many countries.
5. Do you believe that the financial sector in many modern democracies is under-regulated, and that therefore generally tighter regulations and more objective supervision are in order? Just about right.
6. Do you support a carbon tax to reduced GHG emissions? Nope.
7. Do you believe we need tighter environmental regulations in the West? Nope.
8. Do you believe that communism is evil and must be defeated? I think the former communist nations (e.g., Russia and China after Deng) are more capitalist with less tax than most North American/European nations these days.
9. Do you believe that there should be higher taxes on the rich, at least until debt and deficits are under control? Nope, why punish wealth creators and give money to unaccountable bureaucrats?
10. Do you believe that socialism has some positive value in terms of balancing out capitalism? Not at all.

[BigJohn]

BigJohn: Yet where would libertarians fit on that? What about paleocons? There are plenty on the right who are, and have always been, against interventionism.

I agree and I know that there is no perfect way I can do this. I am trying for a rough analysis.

Neocons and peaceniks are the two poles of an axis that can translate beyond the US. The war may have been US led but involved other Nato allies etc from other Western democracies.

[BigJohn]

@ChewDawg:

I will finalize the questions within a day or two based on input and then do a scoring system. Please hold on a bit longer and then we can all compare answers. Thanks!

[GuyInTaiwan]

BigJohn: I wouldn't use a question about a specific war though because someone might have particular issues with a particular war. I would use a broader question regarding military interventionism.

[BigJohn]

BigJohn: I wouldn't use a question about a specific war though because someone might have particular issues with a particular war. I would use a broader question regarding military interventionism.

I see you concern here, however, it is hard to make a question about military interventionism without being specific. I mean, a lot of people supported Desert Storm or even taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan, but not Operation Iraqi Freedom. Almost everybody supports GI's and marines in WW2, but many hate the war in Vietnam.

How would one ask a clear, evocative question without being specific?

[GuyInTaiwan]

BigJohn: I'm not entirely sure, but I think that's a problem with trying to squeeze someone's entire view on foreign military operations into one question.

People can have very nuanced opinions about this. Someone might, for instance, have wanted Saddam Hussein removed in the First Iraq War, and in theory have supported the idea of finishing the job later. However, they might have been very upset about how the Second Iraq War was conducted, or even the pretexts for starting the war.

Perhaps a question specifically talking about intervention when there is no clear existential threat to one's country? Even that still wouldn't really allow people to have a nuanced view.