Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Do your views align more with Republicans, Democrats or Independents? Answer 12 questions in a new Pew Research Center quiz to learn where you fit on the political spectrum. Explore how you compare to other Americans by age, gender, race and religion.
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
72 Comments:
This poll is completely bogus. I also notice that Tea Party people are almost all the way to the right.
TP folks are mostly liberterians who are split on abortion and usually hold very socially liberal views and are not particularly religious. These guys must be getting their ideas about the Tea Party from a Mary Kay meeting in West Texas.
The only way you can score "moderate" is to answer the questions as a leftist would. The thing seems to be based on Fareed Zakaria's latest screeching about Republicans where he completely mischaracterizes them to the point that one starts to wonder if dear old Fareed is in possession of all of his faculties.
My mood always darkens when I find myself feeling the need to come to the defense of the Republicans.
If you "mostly agree" with everything. You're a moderate slightly to the left. If you "mostly disagree" with environmental laws and "mostly" agree with the other BS, you're a moderate slightly to the right.
Pew stinks.
Boy, somebody's in a bad mood today :-P
Well, that was three minutes of my life I can never get back.
The poll is BS. Where are the Libertarians? Where are the questions about war? The division of church and state?
According to the poll there's not enough space on the right to accommodate my views. But the classification of my religious views as evangelical is completely wrong.
Where's the question about the Eisenhower Enlightenment?
This is 'bout some bullshit.
According to this quiz, I 'fit in' between conservative and very-conservative Republican. Given my rigid opposition to the use of the coercive state to force my values onto others while making them pay for it, any Republican attempting to try me on for size will find me a pretty poor fit, indeed.
"TP folks are mostly liberterians who are split on abortion and usually hold very socially liberal views and are not particularly religious"...
Where is this TEA party branch located at methinks?
In the TEA party clique that I'm affiliated with in N. St. Louis county (near St. Louis, Mo) has approximately 170 or so members as of the last head count (we don't have membership cards) and not a one of them fill the bill of your description...
Its not really suprising that would be stark differences in various TEA party groupings...
This is 'bout some bullshit.
Here is a much better quiz.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz
I toldya' JM, any time I'm forced to defend Republicans......grrrrrrrrr
The ones I knew in CT did. How would you describe your group, Juandos?
"Given my rigid opposition to the use of the coercive state to force my values onto others while making them pay for it, any Republican attempting to try me on for size will find me a pretty poor fit, indeed." -- Dave
Gibberish.
The Tea Partiers that I've met and talked to are, for the most part, hardcore conservatives. The idea that libertarians are leading the way is nonsense. You are just as likely, if not more likely, to find "libertarians" at an Occupy Wall Street demonstration as at a Tea Party event.
Well, Che, I guess the people I know personally in the NYC area and those I don't know personally but know their views who sympathize with the loosely held together Tea Party are very different. Everyone I've met (which is by far not everyone) is hard-core libertarian.
I'm not aware that anyone is "leading the way" in any meaningful sense since it's hardly an organized movement bound together by little more than an agreement that the government is too big, too intrusive and spends too much.
So, maybe I should take back the "mostly" part because my impression is set by the people I met. I doubt very much that Pew has a better read of the Tea Party.
Pretty cool, I came in EXACTLY where I thought I was: VERY slightly left-of-center. It said I matched the views of an independent, which is largely how I think of myself.
I scored right where I thought I would on the test in your link, Vangel.
Sigh. It's amazing the things we waste our time on waiting out insomnia. As if these polls change anything....
Methinks
"Sigh. It's amazing the things we waste our time on waiting out insomnia. As if these polls change anything.."
But how would we know how to label ourselves without the help of these quizzes? :)
methinks,
I'm pretty sure that the views of Tea Party members vary considerably from region to region. Furthermore, fully 40% of the Tea Party resides in the South. That's based on a 2011 Reason-sponsored poll.
So, maybe I should take back the "mostly" part because my impression is set by the people I met. I doubt very much that Pew has a better read of the Tea Party.
The Tea Party seems to be a problem for everyone. The Democrats hate it because most of the members are against big spending. The Republicans hate it because half of its members are small-government Conservatives and Libertarians. The Libertarians hate it because around half its members are Social Conservatives who support more wars and bigger government.
But how would we know how to label ourselves without the help of these quizzes? :)
Sarcasm aside, I know many people who think that they are small-government Conservatives who support government expansion. Look at someone like Paul Ryan. He claims to be a Fiscal Conservative whose 'draconian' budget increases spending and only makes meaningful cuts to the proposed increases in the budget. Is that really what a Conservative is? And if it is we will need new definitions and new words.
Jet Beagle,
Thank you, that's very informative. After looking at your link, I still don't agree that PEW should have put the TP quite as far to the right as it did. There is bias so significant in this poll as to make it useless.
Vangel,
I don't hate the Tea Party because it represents people who refuse to be chattel of the state and who have the temerity to speak up. I don't hate the TP because all of them agree that the government is too big, too intrusive and too expensive and that's a start. And I agree with those things.
I don't demand perfection because it's an unreasonable thing to demand of human beings.
Ron H.,
I was lost until a quiz found me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"... half its members are Social Conservatives who support more wars and bigger government." -- Vag
In our last encounter, when I said that you couldn't possibly be more stupid, I didn't mean it as a personal challenge.
In our last encounter, when I said that you couldn't possibly be any stupider, I didn't mean it as a personal challenge.
What did I say that was not factual? The Sarah Palin wing of the party is made up of social conservatives who see no problem with the warfare state. The other half are libertarians who oppose most of the views that Palin holds.
"What did I say that was not factual?
The Sarah Palin wing of the party is made up of social conservatives who see no problem with the warfare state."
Asked and answered.
"The Sarah Palin wing of the party is made up of social conservatives who see no problem with the warfare state."
Asked and answered.
I'll play.
1. Is the Palin wing Social Conservative?
2. Does the Palin wing of the Tea Party call for a meaningful cut in military spending?
"The ones I knew in CT did. How would you describe your group, Juandos?"...
Well methinks I would describe them as pretty conservative politically, finacially, and morally...
If I had to guess I would say that a slight majority of the group would be 'old line, JFK type democrats' in their sixties and seventies...
There is also a fairly good representation of people in their late thirties and into their fifties that own small businesses and hence have a pretty good grip on basic economics...
For me its a comfortable group...
"The Libertarians hate it because around half its members are Social Conservatives who support more wars and bigger government"...
Ding! Ding! Ding!
vangeIV that has to be the pseudo benny/larry g award winning comment of the week...
Juandos,
In any group of people, I don't expect total agreement on every nuance of every issue. For instance, I sympathize with Vangel's anti-government anarchist views, but I still think he's insane. On the other hand, I like crazy people way more than thugs, so I like Vangel.
In the Soviet Socialist Republics of the Northeast, to sympathize with socially liberal views was normal even for Republicans. I don't know any TP people where I live now and I seem to be surrounded by conservatives. But, even those with very conservative views who are deeply religious have amazed me by a willingness to do away with drug laws and embrace allowing other people to do things they consider immoral. I, btw, consider taking drugs, overeating and other behaviours to be not such good ideas, I'm just not willing to interfere with other adults' ability to decide for themselves. I've lived in the conservative South twice now and I find that on net, conservatives tend to be more open to allowing people the freedom to decide for themselves than liberals. In a way, the conservatives are more liberal than liberals.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
vangeIV that has to be the pseudo benny/larry g award winning comment of the week...
Sarah Palin is one of the 'leaders' of the social conservative wing. That is a fact. Those people have little in common with the individuals who are for limited government and want to see the welfare and warfare state to be eliminated.
"Those people have little in common with the individuals who are for limited government and want to see the welfare and warfare state to be eliminated"...
Well vangeIV there is absolutely nothing factual about your statement, zilch, zero, nada...
Where you come up with some of this baloney I can't even begin to guess...
BTW have you ever been to a TEA party rally where Ms. Palin was one of the speakers?
"But, even those with very conservative views who are deeply religious have amazed me by a willingness to do away with drug laws and embrace allowing other people to do things they consider immoral"...
Well methinks those are fine, lofty words even but there's still the fly in that oinment, government overreach...
Yeah, it would be great to end the war on the drugs and the billions wasted on it...
Do you think government would let that sort of control just go?
No I don't....
Those same extorted tax dollars would then be spent on people who crashed and burned via drug use via some sort of mandate...
Let me give you a local example...
Everytime a new casino opens up here in Missori or across the river in Illinois the government (both fed & state) mandates (unfunded BTW) some sort of gamblers' counselling service...
Who do you think is going to end up stuck with that cost?
Merely the other gamblers and casino companies?
I wish!
Over time the cost of these services reaches into the wallets of everyone who doesn't play...
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm not arguing against any of that, Jaundos.
Basically, if you're smart, you have already figured out how to slip between the government's fingers as it tightens its grip or you will figure it out. When too many people slip away or the system implodes, there will be real change. Until then, it seems all we can do is complain.
As you can see, I've already gone through the five stages of grief and I'm now at "acceptance"
And...uh...if they have to set up a dumb gambling education center or whatever, they're better off with one that teaches people not to place bets on negative expectancy games and teaching them to play poker.
"As you can see, I've already gone through the five stages of grief and I'm now at "acceptance""...
Well methinks I'm stuck somewhere between bull headed resistance and acceptance...:-(
"if they have to set up a dumb gambling education center or whatever, they're better off with one that teaches people not to place bets on negative expectancy games and teaching them to play poker"...
Oh no that would never work methinks...
None of these petty bureaucrats running these scam services would countenance a reduction in size of their little empires...
there-in lies a very large part of the problem, Juandos. Public Choice 101.
Alright, I'll bite. What are "socially liberal views"?
Do social liberals believe that the state has both the authority and the mandate to immerse and indoctrinate children in a state sanctioned set of moral values even when those values are anathema to those of the parents of the child?
Do social liberals agree with laws that allow minor children, as young as 12, to have access to state provided birth control and abortion without their parents consent?
Well vangeIV there is absolutely nothing factual about your statement, zilch, zero, nada...
Where you come up with some of this baloney I can't even begin to guess...
Where do I get it from? Well, the early Tea Party founders is a good start.
And Palin's support for foreign wars is not a secret. She said as much during the previous campaign. And has been saying it ever since.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoiwXJCdX_A
From a 2010 NY Times-CBS document National Survey of Tea Party Supporters:
Responses of persons self-identified as Tea Party Supporters
22. If you had to choose, would you rather have a smaller government providing fewer services, or a bigger government providing more services?
Smaller govt/fewer services 92%
Bigger 4%
Depends 2%
67. Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry OR gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry OR there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship?
Marry - 16%
Civil unions - 41%
No legal recognition - 40%
94. Think about past elections in which you have voted, including national and statewide elections. Would you say you always vote Republican, usually vote Republican, vote about equally for both parties, usually vote Democratic, or always vote Democratic?
Always Republican 18%
Usually Republican 48%
Equally for both 25%
Usually Democrat 3%
Always Democrat 2%
Never vote (vol.) 1%
DK/NA 2%
107. Are you, or is any member of your immediate family, currently receiving Social Security retirement benefits?
Yes - 48%
No - 51%
Some people think of themselves as evangelical or born again Christians. Do you ever think of yourself in either of these ways?
Yes - 39%
No - 58%
Generally speaking, do you usually consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what?
Republican - 54%
Democrat - 5%
Independent - 36%
No, Che. I mean that people have the right to conduct their lives the way they want without interference. Within reason. Tolerance of alternative lifestyles and ingestion of materials you may not approve of personally - like drugs or raw milk.
Interesting, JB. In your opinion, does PEW place the TP in the right spot on the continuum?
"I mean that people have the right to conduct their lives the way they want without interference. Within reason. Tolerance of alternative lifestyles and ingestion of materials you may not approve of personally - like drugs or raw milk." -- Methinks
Just not tobacco, salt or sugar.
As a conservative, I absolutely believe in a persons right to "conduct their lives the way they want without interference. Within reason", and I reject the idea that that is in anyway a defining characteristic of "social liberalism". I think that you will find that the vast majority of conservatives are more than willing to tolerate alternative lifestyles provided they are not required to celebrate, condone or immerse their children in them. Unfortunately, that is exactly what "social liberals" demand.
Do you really believe that liberals are tolerant of the "lifestyles" of those whose worldview they do not share? When was the last time you visited a college campus, or watched a Hollywood movie? I have never met these tolerant "liberals", they must be as rare as unicorns.
Just not tobacco, salt or sugar.
Those too.
You do not think that it is liberal to allow people to live their lives as they would like? I find that very liberal.
Just don't confuse real liberalism with what the hot mess on the left. They aren't liberal. They're fascists.
I think that you will find that the vast majority of conservatives are more than willing to tolerate alternative lifestyles....
I think you'll find that's what I said upthread (yesterday's response to Juandos).
As you can see, I've already gone through the five stages of grief and I'm not at "acceptance".
The fact that we have too much government and will continue to have too much government is not in doubt. That does not mean that one has to accept it as a negative when it comes to his/her condition because it is still very possible to live free in a land of serfs.
When was the last time you visited a college campus, or watched a Hollywood movie? I have never met these tolerant "liberals", they must be as rare as unicorns.
I have been to a few 'lectures' and debates where the 'tolerant liberals' never let the speakers say anything. During one debate one of these individuals threw the mace at the South African Ambassador and broke the arm of the person sitting next to him. During another they drowned out the libertarian who was arguing that the government had no business running the educational system and guaranteeing access to those that could not afford to go to college without working. But I have also heard conservatives viciously attack speakers who argued that individuals own their bodies so if they wanted to smoke pot the government had no moral authority to stop them.
I am so far right you can't see me any more... :^D
Since I'm a small-l libertarian, this quiz is shiite.
I'm with methinks, this thing is pretty bogus.
Smallest political quiz:
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%
>>> You are just as likely, if not more likely, to find "libertarians" at an Occupy Wall Street demonstration as at a Tea Party event.
Che, I won't argue with the idea that TPers are generally more conservative, in the "small government, don't tread on me" sense of the term. This they have in common with libertarians. Libertarians, however, would NEVER be found at ANY OWS venue, if they were any more libertarian than RINOs are Republican. Any so-called "libertarian" found among the OWS crowd is a "Bill Mahar" style "liberaltarian"... they don't have any clue whatsoever what libjavascript:void(0)ertarianism is about beyond the drug pro-legalization position.
....libjavascript:void(0)ertarianism...
This computer is so fucked up. :-/
That does not mean that one has to accept it as a negative when it comes to his/her condition because it is still very possible to live free in a land of serfs.
It is, but you can live even freer free of this country.
Oh bloody Hell,
who were the "end the fed" guys at OWS? I thought there were libertarians there, it's just that they weren't as amusing as the strung out, screwed up hippies.
methinks: "In your opinion, does PEW place the TP in the right spot on the continuum?"
I really do not know, methinks. I believe that Tea Party folks are united only by two things:
1. the desire to reduce the size of government;
2. distrust of Democrats.
Beyond that, I'm not sure Pew or anyone else can accurately categorize Tea Party supporters.
My guess is that Tea Party supporters in the South and Midwest will be more likely to agree with the social views of fundamentalist Christians. Tea Party supporters in the East and West are less likely to.
a Harris poll from earlier this year reveals that Tea Party Supporters are more likely than the general population to favor spending cuts in all areas except one: defense spending.
If Tea Party supporters believe in a more literal interpretation of the Constitution, then it is easy to see why 2/3 of them view defense spending as off limits. Providing for the general defense is one of the enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution.
I personally do not agree that defense spending should be off limits, and I have so informed my elected representatives. But I do understand why a Constutionalist Tea Party member might put defense spending at the bottom of a prioritized list of programs to be cut.
That Constiututional reference in the last post should have been:
"Provide for the common defense"
Smallest political quiz:
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%
Same as me.
Che, I won't argue with the idea that TPers are generally more conservative, in the "small government, don't tread on me" sense of the term. This they have in common with libertarians. Libertarians, however, would NEVER be found at ANY OWS venue, if they were any more libertarian than RINOs are Republican. Any so-called "libertarian" found among the OWS crowd is a "Bill Mahar" style "liberaltarian"... they don't have any clue whatsoever what libjavascript:void(0)ertarianism is about beyond the drug pro-legalization position.
Sorry but I don't think that the OWS crowd is homogeneous. Some of the libertarians there are probably just as pissed off at the crony capitalism and the WS bailouts than many of the socialist types that one expects to oppose free market capitalism.
who were the "end the fed" guys at OWS? I thought there were libertarians there, it's just that they weren't as amusing as the strung out, screwed up hippies.
From what I have seen reported and from the interviews it is obvious that libertarians and anarchocapitalists were part of the protests. Given the fact that WS is against free market capitalism I don't really see the problem.
I really do not know, methinks. I believe that Tea Party folks are united only by two things:
1. the desire to reduce the size of government;
2. distrust of Democrats.
The original Tea Party founders were not trusting of Republicans either. After all, it was GWB who increased the size of government to obscene levels and began the bailout and TARP nonsense. The social conservatives in the Tea Party may be Republicans but I doubt that many of the libertarian types would vote for a Republican who did not stand against war and for real spending cuts and increased individual liberty. While Obama is horrible on civil liberties I doubt that Romney would be much better. Certainly Bush wasn't. The same is true about warfare. Obama is terrible but Romney may actually be worse.
The best thing that American voters can do is cast their votes for the Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate. But I doubt that most Americans have the courage to vote for someone who can't win.
Jet:
"I personally do not agree that defense spending should be off limits, and I have so informed my elected representatives. But I do understand why a Constutionalist Tea Party member might put defense spending at the bottom of a prioritized list of programs to be cut."
I think the key word here is "defense". In my opinion it is mostly used for spending that really stretches the definition.
Actual defense would require a much smaller budget.
Actual defense would require a much smaller budget.
More than 500 bases in more than 100 countries around the world is not about defense. It is delusions of empire.
VangelV said: "More than 500 bases in more than 100 countries around the world is not about defense. It is delusions of empire."
So who would you rather have control the high seas and the trade routes: us or the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, or Norks? Note that "No One" is not an option. Someone WILL fill that vacuum, sooner or later. So, us or them?
So who would you rather have control the high seas and the trade routes: us or the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, or Norks? Note that "No One" is not an option. Someone WILL fill that vacuum, sooner or later. So, us or them?
Nobody is an option. And what does the bombing of Syria, or the attack on Iraq have to do with trade routes again?
Note that the Chinese are doing very well when it comes to getting their supplies and products to market without all those bases and all those expenses. Does the American taxpayer really have to pay for protecting Chinese owned ports in Africa?
OBH "This computer is so fucked up. :-/"
Most computer failures I've experienced occurred somewhere between the keyboard and the chair. :)
Jet,
I have to agree with your assessment. The fact that Pew felt the need to put the TP on the continuum at all says a lot more about Pew than the TP.
Ron H :"I think the key word here is "defense". In my opinion it is mostly used for spending that really stretches the definition."
I agree. But I believe that Tea Party supporters who oppose defense spending cuts are still being ideologically consistent. They incorrectly believe that the current level of spending is required for national defense. But they are correct in arguing that defense spending is constitutionally defensible and most social spending is not.
vangeiv: "Nobody is an option. And what does the bombing of Syria, or the attack on Iraq have to do with trade routes again? "
Let's not forget that the reason Congress authorized the invasion of Iraq was to prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling in to the hands of Islamic terrorists. We are at war with those terrorists: they attacked our nation in 2001 and have attempted to do so in subsequent years.
It is true that no weapons of mass destruction were found. It is clear that the Bush-Cheney administration either lied to us or else committed a huge error in judgment. But the rationale for invading Iraq was consistent with the Constitutional duty of the federal government to provide for the common defense.
I agree. But I believe that Tea Party supporters who oppose defense spending cuts are still being ideologically consistent. They incorrectly believe that the current level of spending is required for national defense. But they are correct in arguing that defense spending is constitutionally defensible and most social spending is not.
They are not correct. Arming al Qaeda in Libya and Syria has nothing to do with national defense. Having hundreds of bases abroad has nothing to do with national defense. The game is about empire, not defense.
Let's not forget that the reason Congress authorized the invasion of Iraq was to prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling in to the hands of Islamic terrorists. We are at war with those terrorists: they attacked our nation in 2001 and have attempted to do so in subsequent years.
Really? Saddam had no WMDs. But by supporting al Qaeda in Libya you bet that the terrorists got WMDs from Gaddafi's arsenal.
And the terrorists that attacked the US were supported, funded, and trained by the US. It may have escaped your attention but the US military continues to work with those terrorists to overthrow Assad.
It is true that no weapons of mass destruction were found. It is clear that the Bush-Cheney administration either lied to us or else committed a huge error in judgment. But the rationale for invading Iraq was consistent with the Constitutional duty of the federal government to provide for the common defense.
We know they lied. Joseph Wilson found out that the 'evidence' about uranium purchases from Niger was false. Cheney was so pissed off that he outed his wife as a CIA operative. Many analysts pointed out that the 'evidence' was made up crap and Powell was pissed that he was used by Bush to fool the UN. The electorate was played. Accepting the same lies again is foolish.
"We know they lied. Joseph Wilson found out that the 'evidence' about uranium purchases from Niger was false. Cheney was so pissed off that he outed his wife as a CIA operative. Many analysts pointed out that the 'evidence' was made up crap and Powell was pissed that he was used by Bush to fool the UN. The electorate was played. Accepting the same lies again is foolish"....
LMAO!
Only a clueless liberal moonbat would consider Joseph Wilson a valid source of information...
vangeIV repeatedly steps in it again and again...
LMAO!
Only a clueless liberal moonbat would consider Joseph Wilson a valid source of information...
Wilson was shown to be right while your buddies Bush and Cheney were wrong. There were no WMDs. The Curveball information was wrong and the Niger forgeries were forgeries. You can't spin this fact. Cheney and Bush lied.
Post a Comment
<< Home