Monday, July 28, 2008

Political Litmus Test

In (dis)honor of the investigation about how employees were routinely hindered from advancing or how prospective employees were not hired at the Justice Department because of their answers to politically-motivated questions (for an article, click HERE), heck, let's do our own political litmus test.

Questions:
1) What term would you select to indicate your political affiliation?
a) Democrat
b) Republican
c) Liberal
d) Libertarian
e) Progressive
f) Old School Conservative
g) Independent who usually votes Republican
h) Independent who usually votes Democrat
i) Anarchist
j) Green Party
k) Likes the Green Party but votes Democrat since it's a viable option
l) Neo-Conservative
m) Free-Market Fundamentalist
n) New Deal Democrat
o) I vote the way my parents taught me to

2) Yes or No, should there be a strict separation of church and state?

3) Yes, or No, should we get out of Iraq ASAP, but logistically with a sixteen-month timetable?

4) Yes or No or Maybe, US trade policies should protect American industries ?

5) Are you "pro-choice" or "anti-abortion"?

6) Yes or no, do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the D.C. handgun ban?

7) Yes or No, do you believe that gun ownership in our time connects with the need for "a well regulated militia" as stipulated in the second amendment?

8) Yes or No, did President Clinton deserve to be impeached?

9) Yes or No, does President Bush deserve to be impeached?

10) Yes or No, should political candidates wear flag lapel pins at all cost?

7 comments:

travolta said...

Heh, nice 'neutral' choices. BTW, would you expect a Democratic administration to act differently? My answers:

1) b/d, mostly Libertarian, but I vote Republican since it is a viable option (like your k)

2) Yes

3) No, we should not "get out ASAP" since that means choosing to lose a war that we are currently winning (although it is not yet won).

4) No, US Trade policies should promote free trade

5) Mildly "pro-life"

6) Yes.

7) Gun ownership is an individual right as spelled out by the 2nd amendment.

8) Yes, Obstruction of Justice by the head of the Executive Branch is a serious offense.

9) No.

10) "At all cost"? No. Follow your beliefs but be prepared for the reaction since our Flag is a very potent symbol.

Quintilian B. Nasty said...

Hey, I've modeled this "test" after the various polls we see all the time, polls that don't care for subtlety and nuance and demand yes or no answers.

So, in many respects, this poll is sponsored by the either-or fallacy, a well-known rhetorical ruse many folks exploit and fall into using.

It's sort of like how people talk about the surge's effectiveness. Sunni leaders getting together and working with the Americans happened before more troops went to Iraq. So there are more factors "on the ground" than just more troops that have contributed to the decrease in violence in Iraq.

And my opinion is that we lost the war long ago because the war was predicated on the idea that there were WMDs and Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda. Also, people in a country have to want democracy to happen. I'm sure many of the Iraqis wanted Saddam gone, but I'm not so sure how much they want a democracy. I do think they want jobs, and electricity though.

I hope either the McCain or Obama administration will act differently. Heck, even Generalissimo Dubya's "Daddy" selected Souter, so I don't think past administrations have had had the kind of draconian litmus tests that Dubya and his minions have enacted.

Certainly, administrations usually pick people they're familiar with to some extent, but the plethora of people in the Bush administration with law degrees from that fly-by-night law school of Regent University is strange but not surprising.

I'll have my answers up later, hopefully after more of my readership have responded, such Kenson, TD Dem, Seddy, Gil, Foz, others? Bueller? Bueller?

Kenson said...

1)H (but probably not this year)
2)Yes
3)No
4)Yes (to an extent to level some playing fields)
5)Sweden (Note: I often pull a “Kerry-Obama” on this issue)
6)Yes
7)Yes……But more exclusively more so for all the southern states for two reasons: 1) The south are a different breed, and 2) (since we have no real immigration enforcement and system) states bordering Mexico should be able to collectivley arm themselves against drug lords and illegals.
8)Legally – I guess a yes ??? I say that b/c after thinking about it I lean more to a no b/c of the fact that his impeachment situation never had anything to do with his day job. He never should have been as it was a huge waste of taxpayer expense to find out that Clinton stuck Little Clinton in places.
9)No, not so much……But he and President Cheney (sic)should be heavily investigated for cooking the books leading up to the Iraq war. Specifically Cheney for his expansion of Veep Powers and manipulation of pre-war governmental reports.
10) No forkin way…….A pin means jack shit.

C-Biscuit said...

1. h. I don't like to be pigeon-holed.
2. No. As long as there's no endorsement, and everybody is treated equal, I got no problem with "faith-based initiatives."
3. No, not ASAP. We need to start getting out, but can leave a security vacuum.
4. Yes, trade policies should protect American industry, but our stance must not be overly protectionist. Free trade is a two-way street, we need to make sure our industry gets its piece.
5. I'm "anti-choice". Women should do what I TELL them to do with their bodies.
6. Yes, I agree with overturning the ban.
7. No.
8. No. The Republicans were just mad cuz all their mistresses were either old and worn out, or men.
9. Yes. Where to begin...
10. No, no pins. But it would be kinda cool if they all got tattoos they could whip out any time.

Quintilian B. Nasty said...

1) I like the Green Party but vote Democrat since it's a viable option (k) in most instances, but I also lean toward (n) New Deal Democrat.
2) Yes, there should there be a strict separation of church and state although various forms of "ceremonial deism" don't bother me.
3) Yes, we should get out of Iraq in a sixteen-month timetable, especially since Iraqi leaders seem to validate that timetable.
4) Maybe in some cases.
5) I'm "pro-choice."
6) No, I don't agree with the 5-4 decision to overturn the D.C. handgun ban.
7) No, I don't think gun ownership in our time connects with the need for "a well regulated militia." That portion of the amendment is similar to the one about quartering troops, both concerns specific to the late 18th century. We didn't have a standing army in the 1790s, did we?
8) Nope
9) Yep
10) Flag lapel pins shouldn't mean squat, but unfortunately people are sheep-like. Discussion about lapel pins reminds of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer gets beat up for not wearing an AIDS ribbon: "You must wear de ribbon!"

travolta said...

"We didn't have a standing army in the 1790s, did we?"

Umm, sort of. The U.S. Army dates back to June 14, 1784. It wasn't really a 'standing army' until mid 1790s or so.

BTW, you do know that all of us are legally in the United States unorganized militia, right?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC311

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age..."

So, one possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that all of us are in the militia, so we have the right to bear arms in service of the militia.

Quintilian B. Nasty said...

Interesting. Thanks, travolta.