Your Political Profile

[BMT]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...artoonquiz.htm

BMT

[Goggles Pizano]

Hmmm. Die hard Republican I am! How did they know?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Boy, BMT, that was a long quiz!

You are a pure, unabashed, die-hard Republican loyalist. You remain fiercely dedicated to fighting the twin evils of terrorism and liberalism, and you'd walk across a field of land mines if it meant casting a deciding vote for a Republican president. In your view, there is no higher form of patriotism than defending America against the Democratic Party and every elitist, French-loving, religion-mocking, America-hating, terrorist-appeasing ideal for which it stands.

[Peregrino]

I even like the way they describe "Die-Hard Republicans". Peregrino

[aricbcool]

You are a devoted Republican. You tend to walk in lockstep with the party, even if you have not agreed with every decision Republican leaders have made. The few differences you have are nothing compared to your complete and utter disdain for the Democratic Party and the elitism, cowardice, and godlessness for which it stands.

"elitism, cowardice, and godlessness for which it stands."

AMEN

[SnafuRacer]

You are a solid Republican. You are not as fiercely ideological or uncompromising as others in the party, but nonetheless remain a reliable supporter. If you could have your way, you'd like to see Republican leaders take a slightly more pragmatic approach on certain issues - and dial down some of their nakedly partisan and bitterly divisive rhetoric.

I am not as dialed into the national politics as some of you, but the above result kinda mirrored my convictions.

[Trip_Wire (RIP)]

I didn't take the test; however, I feel that I am a "die hard" Republican! The last Democrat that I voted for was JFK!

Ok I took the test today! Here is the result:

You are a pure, unabashed, die-hard Republican loyalist. You remain fiercely dedicated to fighting the twin evils of terrorism and liberalism, and you'd walk across a field of land mines if it meant casting a deciding vote for a Republican president. In your view, there is no higher form of patriotism than defending America against the Democratic Party and every elitist, French-loving, religion-mocking, America-hating, terrorist-appeasing ideal for which it stands.

Pretty accurate!

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Goggles Pizano

Hmmm. Die hard Republican I am! How did they know?

Oh, well. So was I. My wife says that the Huns are out to the left of me somewhere.

Pete

[jon448]

I got the same one as Aric.
Is it just me or is anyone else kind of annoyed that the "quiz" is basically just seeing how you respond to partisian attacks? Maybe this is just my youthful idealism(see naivity) but I think all of the partisian political problems we're going through right now is the biggest problem in America. I usually don't agree with Dems but I don't think its right to hate or trash them because they see the best way to help America is through a different means then most members of the GOP believe.
To be honest I think the party system is outdated and it would help America if we did away with it.
Now that I said that I can't wait for the attacks to begin

[Peregrino]

Let's see if I've got this right: You want to eliminate the two-party system we currently have. Why, when it serves the politicians so well? What would you advocate replacing it with - a parlimentary system? Europe (and other socialist bastions) seems to function so well with their own version of the "theater of the absurd". By comparison we have a functioning polity. The extremes of the two parties use the same tactics to diametrically opposed ends (Fascism and Socialism (not really opposed, both represent total loss of most freedom; for the average citizen it's mostly a flavor thing)), and the centerists could properly be called "Republicrats" since their actions (though not necessarily their rhetoric) are virtually indistinguishable one from the other. The American "sheeple" are obviously content with the theatrics, why rock the boat? Inquiring minds, etc. Peregrino

[Books]

First off, my political quiz found me to be "You are a moderate. You agree with Democrats on some issues and Republicans on others, while rejecting the blind, naked partisanship of both sides. You base your vote on issues rather than ideology and principle rather than party, which makes you the quintessential swing voter the media loves to fawn over." Basically I think most of what passes as politics is ridiculous. As far as foreign policy goes, I side with Kissinger and JFK. I'm also a civil libertarian. When they said don't tread on me, I believed it.

Peregrino wrote, "Fascism and Socialism (not really opposed, both represent total loss of most freedom; for the average citizen it's mostly a flavor thing" I would comment that he's correct that they're not opposed. The opposite of Fascism would be a Democracy and either one could be Socialist. In terms of lost of freedom though, of the two, Fascism is certainly the greater limiter of freedom.

A bit of clarification: Socialism is a "Robin Hood" approach to economics, not government. It's not without merit, but applied too far can hog tie economies. As a capitalist, I believe that humans (as a polity) are innately greedy, selfish creatures. Socialism is an effort by some to force some mercy, equity and justice into what appears to the Socialist as a slightly evil way of conducting business. As I see it, the truth is that capitalism isn't immoral, its amoral. This produces harsh realities for some (the poor and downtrodden) and for the compassionate that's too tough to handle. Remember that the original Socialist were devout Christians trying to apply Godly principles to governement. We should be thankful. The Lefty Democrat in this country is still to the right of most European Social Democrats.

Back to the point? Our two party system is hegemonic and while Republicans and Democrats state they're diametrically opposed, in terms of economics, they're pretty equal. The joke goes, the Corporations own the Republicans and rent the Dems. Both parties are big, strong, and loaded with cash. At no time in the near future will we see a multi-party system.

My point is also that democracies are slow, messy things. Contrarialy, localizing control and having only two parties allows us to cut through a lot of red tape. Having essentially a Republican Exec, Sen, and Judicial branch of governement also helps.

Do I think having a multi-party system would be good for government and healthy for the population? Yes. Would it slow us down? Yes. Will it ever happen? Probably not in my lifetime. There's too much money involved in keeping things the way they are.

Interested to see if I get bashed on this one.

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Books

The opposite of Fascism would be a Democracy and either one could be Socialist. In terms of lost of freedom though, of the two, Fascism is certainly the greater limiter of freedom.

Interested to see if I get bashed on this one.

I'm not going to bash, but I am going to invite you to study your position a bit more. Fascism is also an economic system. It's all about who controls the instruments of production. Check the dictionary - "ism" describes economic systems, "cracy" describes political systems. Do not confuse the rhetoric of WWII bashing the Axis powers with a true picture of social, political, and economic reality. The Germans and Italians were a lot happier under fascism than the Russians and Chinese under socialism (don't even begin to claim they were communist in anything other than name). They were rightly condemned for their politics - not their economics. All were at least nominally democratic. They were just selective about who was enfranchised. The Nazis were very democratic right up until the start of hostilities - then they voted Hitler everything he needed to seize and maintain power for the duration of the "emergency". That is a standard model pretty much everywhere. I stand by my contention - the practical differences for the average citizen between fascism and socialism are nil. The common man gets screwed either way. Only laisse faire capitalism (Milton Freidman) rewards the average person for initiative and industry. It's always easy to be compassionate when the money comes out of somebody else's pocket, aka socialism. Peregrino

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Check the dictionary - "ism" describes economic systems, "cracy" describes political systems.

You and I think alike, but I don't think this statement is entirely correct.

http://www.m-w.com/

Main Entry: ism
Pronunciation: 'i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: -ism
: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory

Main Entry: -cracy
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French -cratie, from Late Latin -cratia, from Greek -kratia, from kratos strength, power -- more at HARD
1 : form of government; also : state having such a form <monocracy>
2 : social or political class (as of powerful persons) <mobocracy>
3 : theory of social organization <technocracy>

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Main Entry: Na·zism
Pronunciation: 'nät-"si-z&m, 'nat-
Variant(s): or Na·zi·ism /-sE-"i-z&m/
Function: noun
Etymology: Nazi + -ism
: the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the National Socialist German Workers' party in the Third German Reich including the totalitarian principle of government, state control of all industry, predominance of groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>
- fas·cist /-shist also -sist/ noun or adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·tic /fa-'shis-tik also -'sis-/ adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb, often capitalized

Main Entry: com·mu·nism
Pronunciation: 'käm-y&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

[Books]

Good catch Peregrino, I agree. I should pay more attention to my Greek. From an online encyclopedia:

"While failing to outline a coherent program, fascism evolved into a new political and economic system that combined corporatism, totalitarianism, nationalism, and anti-Communism in a state designed to bind all classes together under a capitalist system. This was a new capitalist system, however, one in which the state seized control of the organization of vital industries." I couldn't have written it better.

That said, the Nazi's were Socialist. One example of a Fasistic Socialism.

And I agree that Laissez-faire (as opposed to dirigisme) in theory gives more oppportunity to the regular Joe. However, in modern times, most western governements are a combination of the two. The US's bailout of the airline industry after 9/11 is a good example of what many call corporate welfare or corporate socialism. Some might call the bailout a double standard for a free market economy, the consequences of not doing so would have been disasterous. What we have is more Pro-Business than true Laisses Faire.

Personnally, I'm a fan of the Buddhist Middle Path hence my moderate approach.

Marxist social evolution would have people "evolve" to a pure communism. I think we can all agree this is BS. The Chinese and the Soviets were nominally proletarian, certainly dictatorships. Ineffective at manageing economies and extremely harsh on their people.

So yes, for the Joe on the street, freedoms were nil for both systems.

You wrote, "They were just selective about who was enfranchised." Definately, and my contention remains that having a multi-party system would keep such things from happening. Further checks and balances. . .

Books

[jon448]

sorry to take so long to get back to you I was out PT'ing in the rain... gotta love it

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Let's see if I've got this right: You want to eliminate the two-party system we currently have. Why, when it serves the politicians so well? What would you advocate replacing it with - a parlimentary system? Europe (and other socialist bastions) seems to function so well with their own version of the "theater of the absurd". By comparison we have a functioning polity. The extremes of the two parties use the same tactics to diametrically opposed ends (Fascism and Socialism (not really opposed, both represent total loss of most freedom; for the average citizen it's mostly a flavor thing)), and the centerists could properly be called "Republicrats" since their actions (though not necessarily their rhetoric) are virtually indistinguishable one from the other. The American "sheeple" are obviously content with the theatrics, why rock the boat? Inquiring minds, etc. Peregrino

Well I don't agree with the parliamentary system. I wouldn't really say our polity is functioning because the "Republicrats" depending on their party are getting pushed more to the left and the right. And as we are at each other's throats more and more the poles are pushed futher and further apart which just isn't maintainable in a republic such as ours. Also if you look at today's republican party there is ALOT more top down control then there ever has been in history. If you see one person dissent from the ranks automatically they're a "republican in name only" and Fox News jumps all over them.
I just think that we should have people run on what their ideas and beliefs actually are not what A)their party "stands for" and B)what they think will get them elected. I mean I think the party system was a huge help in the days before the amount of information avaliable to the public was a large as it is today. To be honest this idea might not work for tons of reasons but I believe that it can't be much worse then what we have today.
I wouldn't really say the American "sheeple" are content with the theatrics I just believe that as of this point nobody honestly believes that the system can be changed. There's just so much inertia in a system like we have that to change it would require almost a whole new revolution or even something as extreme as a civil war.
-Jon