Where do you place yourself on the political spectrum? Explain why you take your position.

I placed myself "Moderately Right".

This is due to the fact that I have traditionalist beliefs, and am solidly conservative on social issues. However, I lean left on environmental issues. I am also for education grants to needy students (Pell Grants and such). I am also against the death penalty (except in extreme cases, such as Bin Laden and horrific serial killer cases).

That takes me out of the "Solidly Right" category, into a more moderately conservative position.

I believe in the sanctity of life from conception to death.

I believe the government is for, by, and of the people, not the people for the government.

What I see as a rising entitlement culture within America, I see as dangerous to our Democratic Republic. We have a generation of those who have problems with the idea of self-sufficiency.

I don't have a problem with help to those in need. However, I do have a problem with a structure which (for example) says it's okay to give rich elderly persons prescription drugs with taxpayer dollars.

I believe in the benefit of captialism (when it is regulated to prevent abuse), and that the best in the worker comes from a good work ethic in having the ingrained ability to want to work for one's own benefit. This is another danger of the entitlement culture, where the worker isn't motivated by ethic as he's simply given benefits without having to work for them. That tends to lead to a lazy and spoiled society, I think (what I like to call the 'couch potato' society).

In the immortal words of JFK (what is today representative of conservative thought):

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

 

Moderate Left.

I do believe in federal responsibility to provide certain services to its citizenry, and that there are certain rights which ought to extend to everyone, regardless of race, color, gender, or creed.

I also believe that outside of health care and education, fiscal responsibility is the watchword of elective spending (i.e., I see no problems with health care or education running in red ink).

There are more reasons, but I'm guerilla-posting from work.

 

I put myself moderately right, but I believe in the government being accountable, big businesses being accountable, hell, everybody being accountable. I think we need to cut spending, we don't need a national healthcare program. I shudder at the thought. Bad enough we have social security and the entitlement mentality THAT creates. I believe in self-sufficiently, and I don't like bail outs of big corps, but it's going to happen anyway. I don't like this cultural war on religion, especially Christianity. I don't like the liberal-leaning medium attempting to turn our kids into mush-heads filled with one-sided political ideals. I don't agree with abortion. I do believe in the death penalty. I think we're being over-taxed. I think a flat tax would be a better idea, but will have to continue to ponder on that.

Okay, maybe I should've checked extreme right.

 

I placed myself under "Moderatly Left". On most of the issues, I tend to lean towards the Democrat side, because that is what I believe. However, on a few issues, I agree with the Republicans more (Death Penatly, Abortion).

 

While I marked myself as solidly left, but I'm certainly closer to moderate then extreme. I stand firmly entrenched in the Democratic Party.

From studying the history of the Democrats and where I stand on issues, I find myself most like the 'New Deal' style as in Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy.

I highly recommend checking out this site and seeing where you stand on the chart. It may prove to be enlightening to many people here.

Political Compass

 

None of the above.

 

I would have to say slightly left.

 

Not to undercut this thread, but I did start the federal government role thread on the same premise as this one.

However, this thread is poll-based, so I think the two threads can peacefully coexist.

I placed myself as solidly left, for reasons that I explain in the government role thread (link is above). I'm too lazy to repost all of it, but here's a good excerpt:

I support more government activity and spending in domestic areas (including homeland security), less in defense/military, and less in personal or cultural areas (so-called "blue laws") that have to do with private and individual decisions.

Btw, DM, based on what I've read from your posts, I don't believe for a moment that you're a moderate. Your stances on the environment, education and the death penalty hardly outweigh your solid conservative beliefs on just about every other issue. And for the record it's not something to be ashamed of; I highly respect people who are solid on both sides.

 

liberalmaverick: I would suggest sticking to analyzing your own positioning rather than judging others' positioning, especially since your ideology may get in the way of evaluating such a thing objectively.

Others who actually know me know that I am not the staunch hard-right conservative that you would like to label me to be. I'm no Kool-Aid drinker.

I am moderately conservative, and unlike the hard left (like yourself) and the hard right, I can see the other side's point of view when I find it to be reasonably put. I may even agree with said opposing point of view in certain cases.

 

Well DM, to me you hold some fairly conservative views, and its your on those views you act. I see how you are liberal on other views, but you are far right enough on the other views to have me view you as mostly conservative, but guess I can see how you woudl then classify yourself as a slightly or moderartly liberal or whatever. But your views on homosexual unions seems extreme to me, since mainstream America supports some sort of civil union benefits.

 

My social views are indeed on the conservative line (except for the death penalty stance, as in only performed under certain conditions), OWM, but other parts of my ideology are much more moderate. When it comes to marriage and family and the sanctity of human life, I tend to take the traditional line.

I'm not the type of individual that can't give credit to the other side. The staunch right and staunch left are generally unable to even recognize that the opposition has good ideas and may even (gasp) do a good job.

For the most part, I am conservative. That's why I chose 'moderately conservative'. I'm a generally conservative guy who can see the other side's point of view. I'm not a 'Rush Limbaugh' or 'Ann Coulter' type of conservative, as that would place me in the 'staunch' conservative category. The extreme would be your militia-type thought process, as on the left it is the 'MoveOn' and 'Michael Moore' types. The 'staunch' left is the 'Al Franken' group, although moderate liberals can tend to agree with commentators like Franken, just like moderates on the other side can occasionally agree with Limbaugh and Coulter.

I have a great deal of respect for Joe Scarborough, and his line of thinking is close to my own in many respects.

 

Darth Mischievous:
I would suggest sticking to analyzing your own positioning rather than judging others' positioning, especially since your ideology may get in the way of evaluating such a thing objectively.

I meant no offense and obviously you would know yourself best. However, if I overreached in judging your political position, I would say you overreached in judging my sense of objectivity.

Others who actually know me know that I am not the staunch hard-right conservative that you would like to label me to be. I'm no Kool-Aid drinker.

I see you as I see you. I gain no advantage from you being a solid conservative.

I am moderately conservative, and unlike the hard left (like yourself) and the hard right, I can see the other side's point of view when I find it to be reasonably put. I may even agree with said opposing point of view in certain cases.

I interpreted political position as one's beliefs on the issues and general political ideology, not how well they accept or understand the other side.

I perfectly understand the other side's rationale, and I do veer towards the center on a few issues like gun control. I have consistently allied myself with libertarians like darth_paul in threads dealing with social and conservative issues, something the leaders of the Democrats - the party of the left - might not do. For example, I disagreed with the 2000 Democratic Platform on the issue of drugs; they supported aggressive enforcement of drug laws, I don't. I don't know if this changed for the 2004 Platform but I don't imagine it has.

Anyway, unlike many other Democrats, I do admit to being solidly left and I am proud of it, and I think that's where and what Democrats need to be and do. But that doesn't mean I don't understand conservative ideology. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

In conclusion, I do see the other side and I am more objective than you may think. I always justify my positions and arguments against conservative ones with facts and/or rationale, so accusing me of looking through Kool-aid or what not is as illogical as if I had accused you of the same thing. I don't think anyone believes in something for no reason, and that includes you and I.

In regards to your position, I saw someone who was for small government in public areas, more government in social issues, an aggressive and unilateralism-accepted foreign policy, and I thought that moderate or liberal positioning on the environment, education, and death penalty was too small to outweigh your conservative views on every other issue. Moreover, I've had the benefit of reading a lot of your posts, so my statement wasn't just some shrill off-the-wall knee-jerk BS. It was a conclusion formulated on what you've said both here and on other threads.

 

You're entitled to your opinion and your general worldview, liberalmaverick, but it simply doesn't reflect the reality of my politic. Your scales of perception are so heavily tilted in one direction, that it is impossible for you to judge my positioning with objectivity. Hence, you see me as an 'hard right-winger', which simply isn't the case. The same sort of thing comes out of the 'staunch right' from guys like Rush Limbaugh in presuming to judge his opponents: e.g., Rush (on the other side) does the same as you have here. This lends credence to your positioning (as stated by yourself to be) on the 'solidly left'.

Again, those that actually know me know that I'm a reasonable conservative (your average, moderate variety garden conservative) and not one that totes the party line. There are certain issues which I do not compromise on, but the same can be said for anyone, including those on the moderate left end.

 

Centrist, obviously.

E_S

 

I said moderately left. I am a liberal Christian and an open-minded independent. I like some of the things that the Constitution Pary candidate says, but I would not vote for him. I like what Ralph Nader says, and I would prefer someone like him on the Democratic ticket, but I am for Senator Kerry. God bless America.

 

I went for Solidly Right (Bare in mind that I am British so the political centre is somewhat different to america) although I tend to dislike the idea of labeling people left or right wing. I prefer to call my self a traditionalist conservative. If I had to sum up my beliefs in a few words it would be family, country and responsibility. My conservatism is based on my desire to protect that which I value.

I am socially conservative in almost every regard: pro death penalty, anti abortion and anti gay marriage/civil unions. I believe that marriage and family life are the bedrock of our society, providing for civility, an orderly society and our greatest protection against the incursions of the state.

In foreign policy I remain deeply sceptical about war and foreign intervention but I am fully prepared to support such actions and accept their consequences when I believe that they are necesary or the right thing to do. I believe that all nations have the right to take proportionate measures to defend themselves.

I am a fiscal conservative in that I believe in balanced budgets. I broady support free market economics (with some regulation) but recognise this more as a means to an end rather than a principle in itself. Unquestioned support for free markets is not at all conservative, it is much more the stuff of classic liberalism. So called conservatives have done immeasurable harm to things that they should have valued in the name market forces and free trade. If it comes down to a choice between market forces and protecting, for example, the country side from over development I will always favour the latter. It enrages me that many conservatives seem to prefer conserving their worship of market forces instead of conserving something of real and lasting value.

 

Rather than being between the extereme left and the extreme right, I hold one of the two positions that both the extreme left and the extreme right both lie between. (The other being authoritarianism.) On a typical political spectrum representation, I'm pretty much straight up, although not at the very peak of the diamond.

I consider myself far more liberal than conservative, though this does not necessarily reflect itself on the skewed Left/Right system we use in this country.

For the most part, I'm going to be with the Right on about half the issues and the Left on about half the issues, and am going to feel that, most of the time, neither side carries its position far enough.

-Paul

 

Moderately left. Very liberal on social issues, and pretty balanced on economic ones.

 

Moderately Right

Foreign-policy - I am a full-tilt neoconservative. They have the best idea of what we have to do.

Taxes/fiscal policy, I want major restructuring. Flat tax along the lines of Dick Armey and Steve Forbes.

I take a number of socially conservative positions, but I also think the government needs to butt out of things. The FCC should lay off Howard Stern. I am very skeptical of the folks who want to restrict immigration. I also don't like most aspects of the culture wars. My major objection to gay marriage is the use of judicial activism to enact it as opposed to allowing the people to determine that re-definition. I think an unborn child should have the same legal consideration as any other peson (i.e., aborting the pregnancy is only allowable in cases where death or grave bodily harm is imminent and unavoidable - too many occur now).

I think the courts are deciding too many issues that should be decided by the people's elected representatives.

 

I can't believe how many of you are scared away from "solid" labels.

I don't think my view is as skewed as Darth Mischievous thinks it is.

For example, let's consider a scale from 1 to 100, 1 being most conservative and 100 being most liberal (by United States standards).

Where would you put the following politicians?

1. President George W. Bush (R):

2. Vice President Richard B. Cheney (R)

3. Secretary of State Colin Powell (R)

4. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.)

5. House Republican Leader Thomas Delay (Tex.)

6. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.)

7. Senate Republican Leader William Frist (Tenn.)

8. Senate Democratic Leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.)

9. Former President William J. Clinton (D)

10. Former Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. (D) (pre-2001)

11. Former Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. (D) (post-2001)

12. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.)

13. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.)

14. Senator John F. Kerry (D-Mass.)

15. Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.)

16. Former Governor Howard B. Dean (D-Vt.) (post-2001)

17. Senator Richard Santorum (R-Pa.)

18. Senator Gordon Smith (R-Ore.)

19. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.)

20. Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)

21. Senator Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.)

22. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.)

23. Radio commentator Alan Keyes (R)

24. Film maker Michael Moore (I)

25. Consumer activist Ralph Nader (I)

Here are my answers (I made the numbers all multiples of five so it'd be easier to compare):

1. President George W. Bush (R) 25

2. Vice President Richard B. Cheney (R) 15

3. Secretary of State Colin Powell (R) 40

4. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) 25

5. House Republican Leader Thomas Delay (Tex.) 15

6. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) 90

7. Senate Republican Leader William Frist (Tenn.) 20

8. Senate Democratic Leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) 85

9. Former President William J. Clinton (D) 80

10. Former Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. (D) (pre-2001) 75

11. Former Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. (D) (post-2001) 85

12. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) 90

13. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) 90

14. Senator John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) 90

15. Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) 85

16. Former Governor Howard B. Dean (D-Vt.) (post-2001) 90

17. Senator Richard Santorum (R-Pa.) 10

18. Senator Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) 15

19. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) 35

20. Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) 40

21. Senator Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.) 50

22. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) 50

23. Radio commentator Alan Keyes (R) 5

24. Film maker Michael Moore (I) 95

25. Consumer activist Ralph Nader (I) 95

I didn't put anyone at extremes; 100 would be Karl Marx or Chairman Mao Zedong, 0 would be an anarchist.

---

Both [b]JediSmuggler[/b] and [b]Darth Mischievous[/b], two people whom I view as solid right, have placed themselves as moderate right.

Also, [b]Marcus-Aurelius[/b] if you support Ralph Nader you would probably be solid, if not extreme, left.

 

[Reagan]There you go again, liberalmaverick.[/Reagan]

Do you remember my results in the 'political test' thread which reinforces the fact that I am 'moderately' and not 'solidly' conservative?

My score:

Economic Left/Right: 2.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: 0.77

(With "0.00" being centrist.) Many in this forum who took that test swung left with " - " numbers (example DS77, a moderately liberal guy scored:

Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -1.90

A 'solidly left' guy, in this case OWM, scored:

Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.77

Gonk, another 'solidly left' guy, scored:

Economic Left/Right: -4.12
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -3.74


A 'solidly right' guy, in this case JediSmuggler - of whom you are referring to, liberalmaverick, scored:

Economic: 7.00
Authoritarian/Libertarian: 1.69).

This lends credibility to your point that JediSmuggler isn't 'moderately conservative' but 'solidly conservative'. However, you can't compare his positioning with my own, even if we agree on certain issues.

Ender_Sai, is moderately left of center (even though he claims centrist tendencies, but it is relative as to where you live - in his case Australia, where his position is in the center according to the politic there - so his case does have a point):

Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -2.72


So, you can see, I am rather moderately conservative, and not a 'solid' hard-right winger.

However, this thread is a poll where one sees themselves, and the way I see myself is reflected in that test which places me as being moderately conservative.

 

I'm an extreme supporter of the Me Party, which is made up solely of me and dedicated only to elevating me above everyone else.

And whenever I don't make it on the ballot (which would be in every election ever) I support whichever candidate will serve the needs and petty, greedy desires of, uh, me.

 

Darth Mischievous: Alright, since you know yourself best I won't challenge your self-classification. But I won't change my own opinion of you either.

I do think that this question is all based on individual perspective.

 

extreme right:
opposed to a central government, all domestic affairs should be handled by the state governments, national goverment should handle all international affairs.