One of the great outreach programs that libertarians often utilize is the world’s smallest political quiz. It’s designed to provide individuals some insight into what they in fact believe when it comes to their political ideology. I’ve participated in these booths at public events and invariably most people tend to score in the upper quadrant that favors liberty rather than the lower one that suggests a more nefarious authoritarian streak. A recent variation of this test got me thinking about the test more than the conclusions that are typically reached.
Most people in the
For this particular variation of the test, it asks you to rate the level of involvement you would have the government involved in when it comes to censorship, religion, marriage, guns and drugs. On a personal rights basis it basically asks if you should be free to buy a foreign product (as if the nature of a product could be so xenophobically conceived), control your child’s education, shop for health insurance and keep or risk your own money. Presumably these will be things that any given individual finds favorable in terms of their own lives and pursuits. Only the very odd or the determined miscreant might go towards the more oppressive alternative. But what if the gestalt of the questions were modified ? Say it asked something like, do you feel we have an obligation to protect the weakest members of society ? Perhaps this could be translated into the world’s smallest test of compassion. Only the worst of the self involved freaks would say no right ? Add a similar question about safety and security and suddenly everyone is a reasonable fascist when it comes to protecting the children.
It’s not clear to this Examiner that political ideology can fit neatly into a box or on a straight line. Do libertarians feel better after spending the entire day getting people to agree with us? The answer is yes. In many ways it validates our convictions and provides a little hope in a world gone mad in authoritarianism. But I would say that we have an even greater obligation to attack entire systems of thought and real governance. It is what brings us wars and financial meltdowns. When the most fundamental relationship between individuals becomes so horrifically distorted by the chronic abuse and apologies for statism, a biased simplistic test is not enough.
Comments
The fundamental premises of any such quiz are the same ones inherent in the Nolan's famous analysis itself:
- Freedom and security (or self-governance vs. being governed) are in fundamental tension
- Many (if not most) policy issues can be classified as either economic or personal/civil
- "Left/liberal" usually means valuing economic security but civil liberty
- "Right/conservative" usually means valuing economic liberty but civil security
Once you accept these premises, you've accepted the reality of the basic Nolan Chart analysis. Premise 1 yields "lines", and premise 2 gathers the lines into a two-dimensional "box". To reject all "lines" and "boxes" outright is to deny the concepts of value tension and policy dimensions.
Yes, individual issue questions can be framed in a way to invite a choice for liberty and against security. And yes, my questions are framed to positively phrase the libertarian position on each issue, and to induce securitarians to confront the tension between security and liberty. An authoritarian could indeed rewrite my quiz along these lines:
How safe should you be:
- From foreign competition for your job?
- From poor financial planning for retirement?
- From providing inadequate education for your kids?
- From the temptations of drugs and sex?
- From exposure to too much political advertising?
- From godlessness in government?
Yes, the more naive a person is about public policy, the more their stated preferences can be nudged by issue framing. However, that doesn't mean that any of the four premises above are false, or that a Nolan test can nudge liberals and conservatives right out of their quadrants while still leaving the donkey and elephant parties in place.
I suspect that Eric's real complaint here is that, as an anarchist, he does not want to admit that there can be degrees of one's commitment to liberty. If you're not against "statism", and aren't "attacking the entire system" of it, then you must be offering "apologies" for it. Eric's Nolan Chart would say you're either perched on the tippy-top northern ledge of anti-statism, or else you're sliding inexorably to the southernmost pit of authoritarianism. It's pretty easy to see which whose analysis is more "simplistic".
Brian - Let's start with your first post, you conclude; "To reject all "lines" and "boxes" outright is to deny the concepts of value tension and policy dimensions." Not sure I reject it outright, so much as admit that it doesn't seem so clear to me.
Your second post is simply taking more time than I did to make my point. Which is, that the test loses value with such an easy switch.
You continue on the third post with this; "or that a Nolan test can nudge liberals and conservatives right out of their quadrants while still leaving the donkey and elephant parties in place." I believe we agree that this is unlikely to happen.
"If you're not against "statism", and aren't "attacking the entire system" of it, then you must be offering "apologies" for it." Now here you go putting words into my mouth and ideas in other's heads. This either/or premise lacks nuance much as the test does. By no means am I trying to scratch a reformers old wounds with such a stark portrayal.
I guess I wouldn't try to invoke or cling to such a chart to begin with. It's top heavy for liberty and I think that the charge for Liberty takes more than a handy reference piece. Further more, applying it to real politicians like Ron Paul and deriving conclusions based on what you surmise their answers to be is quite strained in my estimation. I just don't consider this 'analysis' in any regard. But, I never did bother to go beyond an undergraduate degree in political science, so I could be a bit off on all this great stuff.
What about questions like should the United States only go to war after an official proclamation of war ? Is health care a right ? Clearly placing these questions on a sliding scale is unnecessary and each involves their own implicit bias and historical baggage. The process could be endless in that regard. Systems of thought (Keynesianism for example or realist foreign policy) are what elites in either ruling sect rely on and use when they promulgate their policies. Strong cases against them require sustained and respected avenues of attack. It's not to say that applying an anarchist paradigm is the solution as you imply. But you are the one certainly stuck in the boxes (your own chart and the assertion of what you think I'm thinking or asserting). You make references to fanciful positions (of mine presumably)on the very chart that I'm implicitly rejecting.
What I also claim is that you can't disagree with the validity of the class of charts like this unless you also disagree with at least one of these four premises:
- Freedom and security (or self-governance vs. being governed) are in fundamental tension
- Many (if not most) policy issues can be classified as either economic or personal/civil
- "Left/liberal" usually means valuing economic security but civil liberty
- "Right/conservative" usually means valuing economic liberty but civil security
I didn't see where you disputed any of these premises, or where you disputed that the validity of the chart is equivalent to their conjunction. Unless you do, I don't really see where you are disagreeing with what I'm actually trying to say -- which is ironic, given your complaint about me allegedly putting words and ideas into various parts of your head.
...it is the most effective, interesting, fair, and comprehensive analysis+marketing that can fit in those 20 square inches of space for an audience who care about a broad range of issues and who are persuadable that neither Left nor Right is a good fit for them. If you think that in 20 square inches you can better explain and market the LP's spectrum of positions, while still somewhat fairly and accurately capturing our differences with the Left and the Right, I would LOVE to see you do it. I bet you can't.
The standard for validity of an empirical analysis is whether it cleaves nature at its joints. Your standard seems to be that an analysis should leave almost nothing unexplained, and of course I don't claim that my analysis does this. I admit that this analysis is designed to double as an outreach tool, framing these 20 issues in the ways that the LP wants Americans to think about them. You seem to think that this technique is both ineffectual and somehow duplicitous. I'm of course not claiming that this outreach tool is magically effective, or that it is completely unbiased. What I claim is that...
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!