I scored 5.5 on Moral Order and -6 on Moral Rules.
They called me a Paleoconservative (colorful)/Conservative neoliberal. It was pretty good, except that I am not an isolationist (though I am an America First type - since I believe that a government’s sole responsibility is to its own citizens).
I’m going to check out the rest of the site. Nice find, Gabe.
Uh-oh! Are you therefore, like “Blank Cheque”, worrying about whether you and G.W. Bush were “separated at birth”?
:)
Anyway, glad you found the site enjoyable. I sure have. Much fun.
... I would adjust Kristol’s definition of a neoliberal to read: A neoliberal is a person mugging before reality.
Could you explain that, please, “Blank Cheque”? Your re-definition sounds intriguing, and I want to make sure I understand it, rather than just guess. Thanks.
Mugging is a Brit/Canadian term for making faces, showing off, or otherwise posing in an unrealistic way before a camera or audience that is generally not much impresssed with the conduct.
Or were you being facetious when you wrote “Surprise!!”?
Incidentally, I must say, I was a tiny bit surprised at my own results. In my case, I was surprised that I was as close to Reagan as I ended up being, according to this test. Not least because I’m an atheist, which I would have thought would push my profile up and to the left on the matrix. The fact that it didn’t is quite intriguing. My best (so far) explanation for the “ChicagoGabriel"/Reagan perfect match is that the “weighting” of my atheism was perfectly offset by that of my experience as someone who was born and grew up behind the wall that Reagan urged Mr. Gorbachev to tear down during that memorable speech.
Mugging is a Brit/Canadian term for making faces, showing off, or otherwise posing in an unrealistic way before a camera or audience that is generally not much impresssed with the conduct.
It can have the same meaning in American English and I like your use of it.
ChicagoG: Thanks for explaining that. I was sort of joking, because I already knew that I am a Conservative.
I need to take the test again. I know—or at least I feel—that I am more of a Conservative than the elder Bush. To tell you the truth, I did not like the first Bush. Anyway, I am among the cluster of the Presidents on the right side of Gerald Ford, and that’s a relief.
By the way, someone said the other day that if Hillary is elected Presdient, we will have had 36 years — over a third of a century — of a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. Does that sound like a political elite to you?
By the way, someone said the other day that if Hillary is elected Presdient, we will have had 36 years — over a third of a century — of a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. Does that sound like a political elite to you?
Being anti-dynastic was the primary goal of the founders. They would all be disgusted with this two family run on executive power. Doubly so, since these are mediocre representatives, at best. W had a chance to be great but couldn’t find his way.
... I would adjust Kristol’s definition of a neoliberal to read: A neoliberal is a person mugging before reality.
Could you explain that, please, “Blank Cheque”? Your re-definition sounds intriguing, and I want to make sure I understand it, rather than just guess. Thanks.
Mugging is a Brit/Canadian term for making faces, showing off, or otherwise posing in an unrealistic way before a camera or audience that is generally not much impresssed with the conduct.
Thank you. Yes, much about being a neoliberal does indeed strike me as having a lot more to do with “showing off” and “posing” about caring for humanity in general at the expense of caring about real people in particular. Hence, the chance that a neoliberal would come up with “unrealistic” and therefore harmful (e.g. “the road to hell is paved with good intentions") solutions is quite high.
As in:
“It is easier to love humanity as a whole than to love one’s neighbor”—Eric Hoffer
... I would adjust Kristol’s definition of a neoliberal to read: A neoliberal is a person mugging before reality.
Could you explain that, please, “Blank Cheque”? Your re-definition sounds intriguing, and I want to make sure I understand it, rather than just guess. Thanks.
Mugging is a Brit/Canadian term for making faces, showing off, or otherwise posing in an unrealistic way before a camera or audience that is generally not much impresssed with the conduct.
Thank you. Yes, much about being a neoliberal does indeed strike me as having a lot more to do with “showing off” and “posing” about caring for humanity in general at the expense of caring about real people in particular. Hence, the chance that a neoliberal would come up with “unrealistic” and therefore harmful (e.g. “the road to hell is paved with good intentions") solutions is quite high.
As in:
“It is easier to love humanity as a whole than to love one’s neighbor”—Eric Hoffer
The irony that lefties never have cottoned onto is that humanity is made up of individuals. The best way to protect humanity, is to guard the rights of individuals. Lefties seem to thing the best way to protect humanity is to deny the rights of individuals. What we got here is a failure to reconcile this cognitive dissonance.
Your Score
Your scored 1 on the Moral Order axis and -5.5 on the Moral Rules axis.
Matches
The following items best match your score:
System: Conservatism
Variation: Economic Conservatism
Ideologies: Conservative NeoLiberalism
US Parties: Republican Party
Presidents: Ronald Reagan (95.06%)
2004 Election Candidates: George W. Bush (82.18%), John Kerry (76.51%), Ralph Nader (57.78%)
Statistics
Of the 317855 people who took the test:
0.6% had the same score as you.
79.8% were above you on the chart.
15.7% were below you on the chart.
23% were to your right on the chart.
71.1% were to your left on the chart.
I’ve been rummaging some more around the aforementioned website, and came across yet more intriguing (at least to me) potential topics.
This is about overlaying the “U.S. Presidents” map onto the “Religions” map. Let me point out, by all means, that the website authors themselves are describing the “Religions” page as being “under construction”.
Be that as it may, ...
The Protestantism section encompasses the area between (-3, 1) and (4, -5), the Judaism section encompasses the area between (-6, -1) and (4, -4), and Catholicism encompasses the area between (0, 5) and (6, -2).
With all that in mind, what struck me is that JFK’s (Catholic), LBJ’s (Disciple of Christ), and Bill Clinton’s (Baptist) profiles all fall within the section of Judaism that does NOT overlap with any other religious affiliation: ((-6, -1) to (-3, -4)).
Now, keeping the aforementioned “Under construction” caveat of the website’s creators in mind, it strikes me that this might be an interesting angle to the question of, as a previous PL topic thread put it, “Why are Jewish Americans Largely Democrat??”.
After all, the section encompassing the aforementioned 3 Presidents’ (JFK, LBJ, and Bill Clinton) profiles is just about symmetrically opposite to the one associated with extremely authoritarian Islam and National Socialism, interestingly enough.
I’ve been rummaging some more around the aforementioned website, and came across yet more intriguing (at least to me) potential topics.
This is about overlaying the “U.S. Presidents” map onto the “Religions” map. Let me point out, by all means, that the website authors themselves are describing the “Religions” page as being “under construction”.
Be that as it may, ...
The Protestantism section encompasses the area between (-3, 1) and (4, -5), the Judaism section encompasses the area between (-6, -1) and (4, -4), and Catholicism encompasses the area between (0, 5) and (6, -2).
With all that in mind, what struck me is that JFK’s (Catholic), LBJ’s (Disciple of Christ), and Bill Clinton’s (Baptist) profiles all fall within the section of Judaism that does NOT overlap with any other religious affiliation: ((-6, -1) to (-3, -4)).
Now, keeping the aforementioned “Under construction” caveat of the website’s creators in mind, it strikes me that this might be an interesting angle to the question of, as a previous PL topic thread put it, “Why are Jewish Americans Largely Democrat??”.
After all, the section encompassing the aforementioned 3 Presidents’ (JFK, LBJ, and Bill Clinton) profiles is just about symmetrically opposite to the one associated with extremely authoritarian Islam and National Socialism, interestingly enough.
In the interest of playing Devil’s Advocate I write, not entirely without belief, that religion is not politics and politics is not religion. Furthermore, if the Democrats made a sincere effort to win over the pro-life faction of the American Public, by holding, for example, that Roe vs. Wade was a flawed decision in that it over-rode states rights, there would be no reason Christians couldn’t/wouldn’t switch parties. My personal inclination is hold by my statement that religion is not politics and vice versa, but I am not sure how confident I am in making the statement. Certainly the fact that Jewish-Americans predominantly vote Democrat would suggest that I am wrong. Still, Black Americans also predominantly vote Democrat even though theirs is not a religious tie to the party. Anybody have any ideas?
I had no idea how to answer the one about “All cultures are equal, some cultures are better than others,” etc.
Not surprising.
What exactly is a “culture”
Do you have the same problem determining what a “human” is? After all, a human is just a collection of individual molecules that are held together - not unlike a chair or an ameoba.
and how do you measure the relative values of different cultures?
It’s an opinion question. Of course, since you don’t even know what a “culture” is you would have a terrible time trying to compare different (non-existent, to you) cultures.
You present a perfect example of silly leftist reasoning (or lack, thereof).
Actually, I have a very clear idea of what a “human” is. If somebody talks about “humans,” I believe that I understand what is under discussion.
Do you?
Since you can’t tell me what “culture” is, either, does that make you a silly leftist?
“can’t”? Where did you get that from? A culture is the “personality” of a group of people. Now, I’m sure that you have problems even defining what the personality of an individual is so there is no hope that you would be able to comprehend the collective personality of a group.
But, if you don’t like that, why don’t you just take the dictionary definition of “culture”:
the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group;
And I note that you didn’t dive into the question of what makes one culture “better” than another.
What makes one individual personality “better” than another? It’s a question of personal opinion.
The Soviet Union turned out more and better concert pianists and concert violinists during the Cold War than the U.S. did. Would you agree that Soviet culture was better?
No. Who cares about concert pianists and violinists?
Why don’t you just admit that you are incapable of making any sorts of judgements?
