Elgalad
Bully!
Warning, Long Post! Mauer posted a link to THIS SITE which has an excellent test one can take to better visualize where one's politics lie in relation to others.
These were my results:
You scored 3 on the Moral Order axis and -6.5 on the Moral Rules axis.
Matches
The following items best match your score:
1. System: Conservatism
2. Variation: Economic Conservatism
3. Ideologies: Conservative NeoLiberalism
4. Parties: Republican Party
5. Presidents: Ronald Reagan (95.06%)
6. 2004 Election Candidates: George W. Bush (88.95%), John Kerry (66.85%), Ralph Nader (48.22%)
This test is very useful, but I noticed it focuses on only two political poles: Moral Rules (Interdependence/Collectivism vs Independence/Individualism) and Moral Order (NonConformance/Flat Moral Order vs Conformance/Structured Moral Order). This does help create a sense of where one's basic politics lie within one's current society, but it really doesn't address two other aspects that modify our belief structure.
The first is World View. Now Moral Rules accurately depict the variation between an individual's viewpoint and society's viewpoint: "Do you believe the group should be more important or the individual?" But Moral Rules do not address how a person sees their relationship with people outside their own society. This begs a new question then, "Do you view your society (nation) and allies who share your politics as more valuable, or the total global society (world) as more valuable?" This really is a separate question from the first, because there have been many examples through history of persons who shared beliefs in Collectivism or Conformance but very different views on the issue of Nationalism vs Globalism.
Four examples: Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler, and Josef Stalin. Using the base graph from the initial two questions, one could easily place these four gentlemen in the four quadrants, Stalin in the upper left, Hitler in the upper right, Churchill in the lower right, and Roosevelt in the lower left. This placement makes them all seem diametrically opposed to each other. But in reality, some of these men had some very common views in regards the "big" world picture. Roosevelt and Stalin were the two closest I think. Each saw the world as not a collection of nations, but a larger community of mankind. They had very different desires of what to make that 'uber' community resemble of course (Roosevelt wanted Independence, Stalin sought Interdependence), but they had no compunctions about influencing other nations directly whether those nations wished it or not. When I refer to Stalin's 'globalism' I am primarily referring to his actions After WW2 rather than during it. Roosevelt's of course were before the War and during it, up until his death. Even so, I would label both of these men 'Globalists'.
Winston Churchill on the other hand, likely never saw any direct gains to be made from closer associations with the global community in general. The United Kingdom was thrust into World War II. Even though they declared war with Germany after the invasion of Poland, it was clearly inevitable that war would occur. But I do not think war with Germany was something anyone in England Really wanted, especially Churchill. I am going to label Churchill more of a Moderate Nationalist (centrist towards Nationalist) on this Nationalist/Globalist scale. During the war, he worked with ideological opponents (Stalin, primarily). His actions after the War though, reflected a desire to promote the interests of the UK and its allies (USA, Canada, Australia, other Western European nations) over global interests. He was one of the first to see the eventual stalemate forming between Western Democracy and Eastern Communism/Stalinism.
Adolf Hitler was by anyone's definition, an ardent Nationalist. He promoted a system of extremely structured conformance as well as strong interdependence/collectivism. But these were only the building blocks of Nazi Germany. His goal was something a little larger: a Germanic Hegemony over all of Europe. I honestly do not believe he intended anything more (global domination) and he certainly didn't seek to work With other nations to achieve his dream, he used the power of his own society to crush all who opposed him. He did share some aspects of his politics with Churchill and others with Stalin, but departed from both severely on the subject of Nationalism/Globalism.
Nationalists might not always see their nation as the 'best' the world has to offer, but instead might simply want to keep their culture and government free from global influence and control (protective economic tariffs, promoting purchase of goods manufactured within that country, military free from international control or criminal punishment). Globalists on the other hand may not always want to eliminate borders and unify the world under one theme, but instead find ways to create common interests between nations that did not exist before, for the betterment of all humanity (global pollution laws, open free trade, Amnesty International investigations into abuses and other crimes against humanity).
This new scale or axis seems very different from the other two and if it were to be graphically added to the existing ones, it might create a cube.. but instead I think a sphere might be more appropriate. The reason being the other unaddressed aspect of political beliefs: Conviction.
Conviction is about how dedicated an individual is to reaching their goals in Moral Rules, Moral Order, and World View. It varies from a pure Idealist (one who sees the world in only two shades, black and white, and will perform any action to achieve their goals) to the pure Pragmatist (one who sees the world in all its shades of grey and recognizes that compromise is often a preferable alternative to endless political debate or confrontation). This usually varies with the age of the individual.. but not always. It's true that when we are younger, our dreams are still fresh and nothing seems impossible. But as we grow older, life teaches us a harsher reality. Of course there are many examples of youthful cynics and elderly dreamers, but I think this rule generally applies.
So if we have three axis now: X for Moral Rules, and Y for Moral Order, and Z for World View.. where would a fourth fit? Well, the plotting of a point in a three dimensional space does not have to be only on the surface of a three dimensional object.
I see Conviction as the 'Magnitude' of a line stretching from the center point of all political views to the extreme distance from that center. Pragmatists would fall close to the center point (reflecting the realistic view that though there are many different political beliefs, all only succeed in separating humanity from each other, and compromise is the key to lasting harmony) while Idealists would be on the fringe ~ constantly trying to pull the whole sphere (ball) towards their individual view.<drumroll> So in answer to the Initial Question posed by ComradeDavo..
I am a (mostly) Pragmatic, Nationalistic, Independent, Conformist.
Gah, that's a mouthful.
Ah heck, just call me "Joe Six Pack," that basically covers it.
-Elgalad
