Moral Politics Quiz

[mathqueen]

I hope this dosen't mean I'm a right wing, Bible thumping, fundamentalist conspirator, - with a philosophy that says we have the right to pursue happiness but the government does not have the responsibility to provide it!

Your Score

Your scored 2.5 on the Moral Order axis and -4 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

1. System: Conservatism

2. Variation: Moderate Conservatism, Economic Conservatism

3. Ideologies: Capital Republicanism

4. US Parties: Republican Party

5. Presidents: Richard Nixon (96.88%)

6. 2004 Election Candidates: George W. Bush (88.10%), John Kerry (74.14%), Ralph Nader (56.42%)

Statistics

Of the 343519 people who took the test:

1. 0.5% had the same score as you.

2. 75.3% were above you on the chart.

3. 20.1% were below you on the chart.

4. 14.6% were to your right on the chart.

5. 77% were to your left on the chart.

Wanna switch eh eh eh???

[forrestkc]

I think you said you went to Baylor. Maybe its just peer pressure as to why you became a Republican, as it looks like you are a true Democrat at heart. Don't worry about it, Liberals are much more hip and cool than conservatives are anyway...

LOL perhaps!! Or I've been corrupted by my VERY liberal colleagues (teachers are usually very left-wing ya know....).

Or, your just more liberal than you thought you were.

Its not so bad to be a liberal, JFK summed it up nicely all the way back in 1960:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.

Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.

In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."

And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.

This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort.

The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.

Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.

[mathqueen]

Quit trying to convert me forrest!!! Must.............look............away................

[forrestkc]

Quit trying to convert me forrest!!! Must.............look............away................

Welcome to the club because I think you have already been converted.

[mathqueen]

I will not concede defeat. I will remain strong in the hope that that quiz was WRONG somehow. Until then, I will gladly share the title with you, but with MUCH grumbling and complaining! fellow "liberal". Ok, I think there was some freedom in saying that word out loud, but it feels so WRONG!

[mathqueen]

You know what I am having trouble with forrest? All this time believer in Jesus = conservative republican for me. I am against abortion (it is murder), I believe the homosexual lifestyle is wrong, etc. How can I be a liberal? Educate me oh wise one. And thanks for the JFK speech too.

[KeilanS]

You know what I am having trouble with forrest? All this time believer in Jesus = conservative republican for me. I am against abortion (it is murder), I believe the homosexual lifestyle is wrong, etc. How can I be a liberal? Educate me oh wise one. And thanks for the JFK speech too.

Perhaps you are like me. Strongly conservative in terms of moral issues (very against abortion, very against homosexuality, etc.) yet somewhat liberal in terms of the economy. I would still vote for the conservatives in an election (they tend to take the Christian side in moral issues) but I don't completely disagree with the liberals.

[forrestkc]

You know what I am having trouble with forrest? All this time believer in Jesus = conservative republican for me. I am against abortion (it is murder), I believe the homosexual lifestyle is wrong, etc. How can I be a liberal? Educate me oh wise one. And thanks for the JFK speech too.

Perhaps you are like me. Strongly conservative in terms of moral issues (very against abortion, very against homosexuality, etc.) yet somewhat liberal in terms of the economy. I would still vote for the conservatives in an election (they tend to take the Christian side in moral issues) but I don't completely disagree with the liberals.

This is a bit off topic, but you say you are very against homosexuality. You are a Canadian right, what would you propose that your government do about homosexuality?

(I don't want in anyway to turn this into a debate, just curious as to what you think the role of government should be on that issue)

[KeilanS]

You know what I am having trouble with forrest? All this time believer in Jesus = conservative republican for me. I am against abortion (it is murder), I believe the homosexual lifestyle is wrong, etc. How can I be a liberal? Educate me oh wise one. And thanks for the JFK speech too.

Perhaps you are like me. Strongly conservative in terms of moral issues (very against abortion, very against homosexuality, etc.) yet somewhat liberal in terms of the economy. I would still vote for the conservatives in an election (they tend to take the Christian side in moral issues) but I don't completely disagree with the liberals.

This is a bit off topic, but you say you are very against homosexuality. You are a Canadian right, what would you propose that your government do about homosexuality?

(I don't want in anyway to turn this into a debate, just curious as to what you think the role of government should be on that issue)

I think it should be illegal to marry two men or two women and I would like my government to pass laws to make it illegal. Canada is typically far more liberal morally than the US, and well, I hate that.

I admit that I'm a little confused by your question though, I would expect most Christians to share my opinion on the government laws regarding homosexuality.

[nebula]

Or, your just more liberal than you thought you were.

Its not so bad to be a liberal, JFK summed it up nicely all the way back in 1960:

My parents were registered Democrats until the 1980's. They told me that the Democratic party is not what it used to be. It used to be that Democratic values were more aligned with Christian values than the Republicans were. But things have changed.

What JFK said may have been true then. But now, we see a completely different liberalism ruling the party.