The New York Times’s opinion section has started a new series whose purpose is outlined in the article below by
But America is not young anymore. Whereas it was once spry and excitable, it is now creaky and soft. The country that passed Prohibition and created Social Security now spends decades dithering over how large a role the government should play in health care. The country that went to the moon shrinks at the challenges presented by climate change. Its bold and expansive political imagination has atrophied.
There are, of course, reasons for this settling. As the historian Daniel Immerwahr argues in a guest essay, hard partisanship makes it difficult to create coalitions for sweeping changes. Wars, which once smashed through gridlock, no longer lead to collective action.
Not all of the big changes were completely — or even ambiguously — good. The economic boom of the industrial age was fueled by the blood and sweat of exploited workers; the country’s westward expansion came at the expense of Native Americans. But America in its youth was a country confident and unafraid to confront the future. What if it could recover that spirit of invention and restlessness, the risk-taking that formed this country? What would it change? What could it be?
This is the idea behind Snap Out of It, America!, a new series from Times Opinion. It will present not a single, cohesive vision but an array of ambitious ideas from across the ideological spectrum to revitalize and renew the American experiment.
The series will come out every Wednesday, but I’m not going to be paying a lot of attention. Click on the screenshot to read Kewku’s whole article
Now the fun part: a quiz! Yesterday, as part of this series, the Times decided to revitalize America by imagining not two but six political parties falling on a two-dimensional plot of social conservatism and economic conservatism. There’s a brief intro of the seemingly thin rationale at the screenshot below:
America’s two-party system is broken. Democrats and Republicans are locked in an increasingly destructive partisan struggle that has produced gridlock and stagnation on too many critical issues — most urgently, the pandemic and climate change.
There is no reasonable or timely way to fix this broken system. But there is an alternative: more parties.
It is not so hard to imagine a six-party system — and it would not even require a constitutional amendment.
The description of how to get to such a system is below. But first, whether you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent (or other), in the 20-question quiz below, you can discover which new party would be the best fit for you.
Now that’s gonna work. We’ll have the Christian Conservative Party, the Patriot Party, the American Labor Party, the Growth and Opportunity Party, the New Liberal Party, and the Progressive Party.
Which one would you belong to given your social and political views. Click on the screenshot below to take the 20-question quiz. At the end it will slot you into one of the six parties and tell you a bit about it. If you want to skip the quiz and read about these imagined parties, just go here.
Here’s the first of 20 questions; many of them are about race:
I took the quiz twice independently several hours apart, and both times fell into the same party. (I didn’t remember my answers to the first round.)
This is a description of that party:
The New Liberal Party is the professional-class establishment wing of the Democratic Party. Members are cosmopolitan in their social and racial views but more pro-business and more likely to see the wealthy as innovators.
Its potential leaders include Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, Eric Garcetti and Beto O’Rourke. Based on data from the Democracy Fund’s VOTER survey, this party would be the best fit for about 26 percent of the electorate.
I guess I can’t be unhappy with that, as I’m on the liberal side of both economics and social attitudes. Still, I don’t know what this means, what I’m supposed to do about it, or how I can use my slot to revitalize America.
Of course you’ll want to know where you fall, too, so comment below and we’ll put a quiz here showing where readers fall.
Loading ...h/t: Paul
I’m guessing we aren’t going to see many Christian Conservative Party voters in this poll.
Amen!
Or Muslims
And yet, here I am
Yes. Among the “not many”.
If this is not achieved by a revolution that might become violent, it may be achieved by starting a third party that has an agenda with two main points:
– proportional representation in parliaments (county, state, federal). I think many people are fed up with the extremists on both sides, and want more choice.
– getting judges and lawyers out of the political process. Laws must be made by parliaments, executed by governments, and implemented by judges. People should be fed up with the inaction caused by litigation.
The party should implement these changes and issue new elections. It seems impossible under the current circumstances. But starting a political reform party would be the first step.
“People should be fed up with the inaction caused by litigation.” When Richard III said “Let’s kill all the lawyers,” he wasn’t suggesting that as a positive step towards better government, but as the removal of an impediment to his ambition. What is litigation except an individual trying to secure his rights? Who else is going to look out for them? Not the government; it has big plans, and your pesky rights are an annoyance.
I do not think that the political system is so bad over here. Some things may be better in the US, but most countries in Europe have a better functioning political system than the US. I would say, the US political system is an evolutionary dead-end, broken beyond repair, captured by special interests. As Fukuyama said, the success of the United States was not the result of its political system (to put it mildly). Copying a political system may be a way out. Perhaps, you do not like democratic decision making, and prefer the dictatorship of the Supreme Court?
The first sentence of this post was dropped somehow. It was: I live in a European country.
Wrong play, wrong monarch. “Let’s kill all the lawyers” was spoken by Dick the Butcher (a commoner and no relation to King Richard) in Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part 2.
Sounds like you’ve been reading Rousseau. (You can do worse.) I’m referring to nivtric’s first post.
Not really, but I have read Francis Fukuyama.
It says I’m closest to the New Liberal Party, but where my dot appears on the graph looks just as close to the American Labor Party. (Maybe the spirit of my late father, a long-standing union man, was using me as an amanuensis.😉) Anyway, I’m now interested in Lee Drutman’s book and am thinking of getting involved with FairVote again. https://www.fairvote.org/
That’s where I wound up, too, and probably for the same reason.
Similar, I ended up the same distance from the New Liberal and Progressive parties. Apparently I’m more socially conservative than the Progressives and less economically conservative than the New Liberals. Given that most self proclaimed progressives don’t seem to like me much once I start saying things like, “where’d that come from?” or “that’s not what the evidence suggests,” I’m not convinced of this test’s accuracy.
Most of the questions are formulated such that the available answers just don’t work for me, and I suspect for many other people too. It’s an exercise in choosing which of the available answers is the least bad rather than which accurately represents my view on the issue the question is trying to probe. Par for the course for these sorts of tests.
+1
Would it have killed them to include a ‘depends’ option? I also would question whether groups that call themselves ‘economically conservative’ are actually that – when you look at the downstream impact of the cost of not spending dollars now.
Another thing that stood out to me was The New Liberals supposedly being “more likely to see the wealthy as innovators.” I’m really not sure what “The New Liberals” are, except by the description in the article, but that doesn’t jibe with my experience of people that tend to self-describe as any kind of liberal these days. Most would tend to think that is false and smells like something arrived at via the same voodoo reasoning as “trickle down” economics. Innovation may lead to wealth, and it might take money to realize, though not necessarily the innovator’s money, but the wealthy as special case innovators? Nope.
I don’t have a subscription to the New York Times (and never will) so I can’t take the quiz. Please remember that not everyone has the same subscription list, or any paid subscriptions at all.
As a paid subscriber, I get a couple of free shares per month. Try this link. Don’t be put off by the long and winding URL; it’s the code to the unlocked article.
Quiz: If America Had Six Parties, Which Would You Belong To? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/09/08/opinion/republicans-democrats-parties.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuonUyYiZ_tU1Gw5CRWySB4B991re1L-XkPs7nn74LS-TDixP1_kfB4mL8kHWIKZuYtw4xT2HX5pZOaUzRfFpiO9DOkgnAy-Znqy5orVXaSMktdD0GWIww5_XVLsk8CHnKTHnd-ohmeWz-hmKa2b1XPTehWkrcQ80vZszdwqg3yBZw63OEPVnmYUrhYdXDZt4QDgGYymOrqOoX004YIPaG0mavgomWOhZWSXRlcqe498DdQZVC1HBSxBv8Dp2qYMcaJ5MYvGJf1N3c9H-gL4SFmVjMIyoYpU3TITVnLlu2qXfjgQmco9A-F0BPF5oq714HA
I used this link. Thanks!
I did too! Thanks Another New Liberal
Me too (no hash tag)!
That link did not work on my table top, but it did work on my phone. Strangely enough (or not) I’m almost exactly where our host is a minuscule amount lower in the graph (a tad socially less conservative), but I guess the little discs would touch., if one would superpose the graphs.
I note that (at present ) 87% of the responders (myself included) are in the lower left quadrant: less socially conservative and less economically conservative.
However, I always considered myself economically conservative, but socially progressive (the right lower quadrant). It would be interesting to find out how the score was calculated.
Is there anybody in the upper left quadrant: socially conservative but economically progressive)? There is no ‘party’ there, but did anybody end up in that quadrant?
I feel the same. I identify as a fiscally conservative, socially progressive liberal. However, I probably differ from some who identify the same in that I consider long term economic consequences of policy decisions. Clean air, in the long run, is cheaper to us as a society than polluted air. We’ll pay for the asthma and other health effects down the road. Basic health insurance for all now is cheaper than waiting until folks go to the ER, and so on and so forth.
I was in the upper left. There is no party in that quadrant. I was placed in the American Labor Party, which is lower left quadrant. The lower right quadrant seems like it should not have a party in it either, based on the confidence regions of the parties shown later in the article; but for some reason the Growth and Opportunity Party is placed in the lower left.
GCM
You can. I don’t have a subscription either. However you may not think it’s worth your time.
You need to create an account/login with password. Then navigate your way through about 3 screens of “are you sure you don’t want to upgrade to our much superior pay service?” Then you can see this quiz and other articles they give out free.
I did all that but still hit a paywall, just the amounts varied.
StephenB’s link worked on my phone.
I guess the woke are left and below the extreme low left corner outside the the graph.
I don’t have a subscription either, but I find that opening any nytimes.com link in an anonymous/private browser window fools the web server into thinking you’ve never been to the site before, and showing you pretty much any content. It has the additional benefit that your browser doesn’t become infested with cookies from nytimes.com.
Well, you get a certain amount of access to the NYT for free, so I was counting on that for this quiz. Quit your damn kvetching! Look at the hints above about free access.
I took this quizyesterday and also got closest to New Liberal Party. However, when they tell you the percentage of people who voted similarly, it shows the highest percentage from the South, which cannot be valid.
Yeah, that stat about the South had me scratching my head, too. But then I got to thinking about why Beto O’Rourke, a Texan, is listed as a possible leader of this party. Maybe it’s because the large cities of Texas are becoming stronger bastions for Democrats. Maybe we’re on the verge of a tipping point where Texas and Georgia do flip solidly blue. Maybe, too, hell will freeze over.🥶🤔
I suspect it’s because the majority of liberals in the South would identify most strongly with the “New Liberal” ideas, while liberals in other regions would identify with the other options in greater proportion.
— Molly Ivins
Good quote, Ken. Speaking of Beto, Texas, and liberals, I’ve been thinking about Molly and Ann Richards, too.
I came a bit closer to “Progressive”, but I don’t take this too seriously, especially given the absence of questions on foreign policy, Max Boot, the WP columnist came out in the same area, but I know that he and I differ on a lot (I’m a life-long Democrat; he’s a never-Trump Republican),so I suspect we would rarely vote the same way.
I am a Canadian Citizen, but not born here. I usually vote Liberal both provincially and in federal elections.
I took the vote for a joke and to be fair a lot of the questions are not that relevant to Canada, notwithstanding I ended up close to the “Patriot” party,Phew!
I fit closest into the New Liberal Party according to this quiz. Farther left on the economic scale, but about the same axis on the social scale. I tend towards the “left libertarian” in most quizzes like this.
Well, somehow this life-long atheist should be a member of the Christian Conservative Party. I am not convinced that that is a good label, since the only obvious religious question was on abortion, and I said it should be legal in all cases. I am inclined to think that the “christian” label is intended to be invidious. I also question the meaning and weight given to “somewhat disagree” vs. “somewhat agree” on some of these questions: Don’t they mean the same thing?
The quiz didn’t ask me any questions about religion. On the assumption that the questions are the same for everybody, they have gone purely by your political preferences.
C’mon, I know you weren’t born yesterday and fully understand how these five point scales work.
I don’t know if the use of “Christian” was meant to be invidious but I agree it’s curious given the lack of religious questions. It certainly assumes a lot.
I’m a few mm SW of you, Jerry. Smack dab in the middle of the lower left quadrant.
I can’ take the quiz since I gave up on my NYT subscription quite some time ago. However, I have little doubt that I’d be closest to the New Liberal Party, probably just ever so slightly right on the graph of where PCC(E) is, based on my results on previous such tests. I won’t muddy YOUR quiz results with my presumed results, however.
I did it in a private browser session, signing up with a throwaway email address.
Smart
Did you try the link Stephen B gave in comment 4?
I am not a subscriber, but just clicking on the screenshot of the title took me straight to the article and quiz.
Yup, depends on how many free NYT articles you have viewed in the past.
It tells me I need to sign up for it or something. Maybe I’ve seen too many free articles already this month.
Yes, that’s likely the case.
New Liberal, but I’m very close to the center of the triangle formed by New Liberal, Progressive and American Labor.
fwiw, this was precisely my placement too.
Progressive, but similar placement.
New Liberal. I’m marginally less socially conservative but significantly more economically conservative than Jerry.
https://sincereflatteryblog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/screenshot-2021-09-09-at-16.36.21.png
Six parties are great and all, but that only makes sense in a parliamentary democracy, which we are not.
I’m not sure I understand why your republican system would preclude a multi-party system if there was a proportional representation scheme.
Well, it’s basically impossible in our first-past-the-post system, yeah. Even if six parties are theoretically consistent with the Constitution, the winner-take-all methods of electing Congresscritters guarantees a race to the two-party bottom.
Not just theoretically, there is no mention of political parties in the Constitution. In fact, George Washington warned about “the baneful effects of the spirit of party” in his farewell address.
The two party system comes from our first-past-the-post voting system.
Indeed,. Here in the UK it is possible, albeit rarely, for a candidate outside of the two party system to win in one or two of our 650 electoral constituencies – but the chance of a third party breaking through and governing is pretty impossible as things stand.
As a Brit, I fail to understand Bernie S&r’s (I know it’s no longer ampersand day, but it’s fun!) ability to stand as for election as President as a Dem, and expect the Dems to regard him as such, but then sit in the Senate as an independent. Presumably, that’s exactly why the US doesn’t have the six parties the NYT poll is proposing?
Bernie Sanders is not, and never has been, a member of the Democratic Party. The parties make the rules for their nominating processes. The Dem party rules allow for an independent to try to gain their nomination. And Bernie nearly did it — twice!
I had some friends, more liberal than I, who were very angry with the DNC for not supporting Bernie and for actively supporting their internal candidates. I just said, why would they support an insurgent, non-member, who was trying to coopt their “means of production” for his own ends?
I like Bernie; but I voted for Amy Klobuchar (not because she is from my home state) and then support Biden as the best chance (well-confirmed) of cleansing the White House of the Orange Menace (Voldemort; POTUS 45), which was all I really cared about in 2020.
Bernie would never have beaten Voldemort (despite all the woke Monday-morning quarterbacking) simply because this video (Bernie saying he’s a Socialist) would have played 24/7 in the lead up to the election*. I am fully convinced that Biden only defeated Voldemort because of how badly Voldemort fumbled the COVID-19 pandemic reaction by the US government. We dodged a bullet by that small a margin.
(* I think only USians can grasp how toxic the word “socialist” is in US electoral politics.)
Having six (or more) political parties would have many virtues. First, as the quiz illustrates, it would more closely approximate the actual views of the electorate, a more democratic arrangement than the US duopoly. Second, it would impose on US government the exotic concept of coalition, so common in the Nordic countries and Israel, and so alien to the thinking (sic) of Mitch McConnell and his like. Third, related to the last, it would diminish the trend, now so drastic in the Republican Party, to subordinate all matters of governance to naked power politics and demagoguery. Fourth, it might enable electoral law changes toward proportional representation, which is already commonplace in much of the civilized word (not, of course, the US).
Not being a communicant of the NYT, I am barred from the quiz. But my
guess is that I would end up in the exact center of the cross-hairs, where no political party at all is shown. This location might correspond to something like Macron’s En Marche, Center Partiet in Sweden, or Yesh Atid in Israel.
New Liberal, and I’m not even a US Citizen.
It emerged this week that Boris Johnson’s former Svengali, Dominic Cummings, has designs on your political system. He thinks that for only a small investment of a couple of million dollars it would be possible to find a candidate to beat Trump in the Republican primaries, beat Biden in 2024, and take an axe to USG bureaucracy, including abolishing the Pentagon. Lucky you.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1485900/joe-biden-news-us-president-remove-from-office-dominic-cummings
(Apologies for posting a link to the Daily Excess: it’s the only one I could find that isn’t behind a paywall)
New Liberal here.
Ezekiel Kweku sure glosses over a lot of US history in aid of some catchy prose. For starters, he overlooks that this nation has been riven by a civil war, the backlash against the New Deal, and a pair of Red Scares — not to mention the cultural tumult of what looms in the public consciousness as “The Sixties.”
As a Brit I enjoyed that but there were a number of questions that are just not an issue here (abortion for example) but for what it is worth I am a New Liberal (which matched my UK Liberal Democrat credentials!)
A multiple party political system would not work in America because of the massive of amounts of money corporations and the rich put into politics, something considered absurd in most civilized countries. The party leaders control the money spigot, and in America a party without billions to spend is no more effective than your average local kook running for city council and getting 12 votes.
Actually, the flood of dark money that has entered politics since the Citizens United case has weakened the Party system, since big-dollar and corporate donors can fund candidates directly, and much of what was once done by the parties is now performed by political action committees, especially so-called “super PACs.”
This is, in part, what allowed someone like Donald Trump to capture the GOP presidential nomination in 2016, despite having almost no support among Republican Party officials or GOP national officeholders (although, once he was elected, and they saw the hold Trump has over his cult, they all fell rapidly in line behind him, for fear of the wrath of that cult, which has essentially become synonymous with the Republican Party base).
My dot was SE of Jerry’s: “The New Liberal Party is the professional-class establishment wing of the Democratic Party. Members are cosmopolitan in their social and racial views but more pro-business and more likely to see the wealthy as innovators.
Its potential leaders include Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, Eric Garcetti and Beto O’Rourke. Based on data from the Democracy Fund’s VOTER survey, this party would be the best fit for about 26 percent of the electorate.”
Make that due south
In ye olden days of wooden ships and iron men, they used to use a compass rose with 128 points (rather than the 360° we’re accustomed to today), with names like South by Southeast by three-quarters South.
Feel free re-adopted that system for fixing your position on the five-party political grid. 🙂
👍😁
The town of Palisade in western Colorado has street names like 4 3/8 Avenue, and, even weirder, D 3/4 Street.
They should have included a Green Party even though the USGP is gone from the scene. I consider myself a radical environmentalist, anti economic growth, industrialism and globalization, but I am a socially radical person, pro abortion etc, while being a fiscal conservative. I ended up as American Labor even though American labor unions are often corrupt and anti environment. I favor a parliamentary system of several parties because it minimizes extremism on all sides and allows people to find a real home with other like-minded people. I detest the Democratic Party (almost as much as the Republican party) because it is as pro capitalist pro Wall St. as Republicans but glosses it over by being socially progressive and thus attracting the anti gun pro abortion crowd, most of whom couldn’t care less about the environment or economic inequality and who now support the new woke/cancel culture/Identity Politics gangs who are destroying our Constitution and our freedoms.
Only one comment to make;
(re the bolded bit); From the Times? The New York Times? Maybe from years past but not anymore.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
Another New Liberal here, a bit more progressive than Jerry, based on where my dot fell. I have a high regard for Jim Hightower, for those who might know of him.
Molly Ivins’s old buddy, an old-school Texas economic populist. The one who said there’s nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes & dead armadillos.
New Liberal … dead smack in the middle of the left hand bottom quadrant.
Incidentally, the exact same position when taking the http://www.politicalcompass.org quiz. This quiz is not so US centric and provide a commentary on elections for a few countries. And there are more probing questions.
Somewhat to my surprise, I ended up in a similar position on the Political
Compass, a little higher up (toward authoritarian) in the left bottom quad.
Couldn’t take the quiz (paywall); but I would tag myself closest to the New Liberal location on the graph; but about the point you (Jerry) are at on the vertical axis and closer to the center on the L-R axis.
Try clicking on StephenB’s link at #4 above – worked for me.
Thanks!
That worked, thanks Jez and Stephen.
It placed me just slightly to the right and slightly above Jerry’s dot and said I am most closely aligned to the Growth and Opportunity Party. I disagree with the latter assessment: My dot is much closer to the New Liberal Party and its description fits my self-assessment much better. But I am “higher” on the socially conservative scale.
This seems correct to me (the placement, not the assignment of a “party affiliation”). I am lower-left quadrant for sure (liberal) but not woke. Call me a classical liberal (but not libertarian). (I find that I align well with Andrew Sullivan, except for his love affairs with Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Reagan. I thought Reagan was Attila the Hun (I was 19 when he took office). Boy! did I have some learning to do about the GOP over the next four decades!)
I’ll also say this: I think the New Woke have pulled the margins of the lower left quadrant further down and left.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I found myself near the bottom left. What’s surprising, though, then I took a similar quiz in Australia, I was far closer to the centre. It makes me suspect that if I were American, I’d be labelled one of those “radical socialists” and I would go insane with the politics around me.
It seems like the four quadrants of the US version are mostly just the top right quadrant in the international political compass.
The questions seem more designed to corral people into groups that make for a more entertaining or sensationalized divisions rather than actually trying to capture a persons true feelings about certain topics.
Some are pointedly specific while others are broad to the point of bing useless. How do you feel about reducing regulation of business?
Way too generalized. Only the actual changes to regulation would yield a useful answer, not just how you feel about decreasing regulation in general. For example, changes in regulation about child safety would get you really different responses compared to decreased regulation concerning drug safety or carbon emissions.
The question about police forces, you can change the scope of their work without decreasing the size, so that question really leads to mischaracterization about what people really want.
The question about the economy being unfair is just dumb. Even if the economy was completely fair, which it couldn’t be, would there still be poor people? Of course there would be. The crux of the issue lies more in the question How do we lead people out of poverty?
Then the question about raising taxes on income over $200,000 is absurd since the number proposed in recent political races was $400,000 if I remember right. And that doesn’t even begin to capture the real essence of “taxing the rich” since that more specifically is about how mega-rich people hide wealth and disguise income so that it isn’t taxed as income. Asking more nuanced questions here would yield widely differing results in the survey.
Do wealthy people spur innovation is a really stupid sensationalistic question. Drive, intelligence, business savvy, problem solving, even desperation drives innovation, all of which may not be connected to wealth at all. How you ask the question make a big difference.
I think the whole thing just stinks and is entertainment more closely resembling World Wide Wrestling than any kind of useful debate.
“It is not so hard to imagine a six-party system — and it would not even require a constitutional amendment.”
Right, it is not so hard to imagine a quantity of six of most anything. (At least until fairly recently it has not been so hard.) I wonder how many people – NYT readers or not – the writer apparently thinks believe that a constitutional amendment is required to bring a political party (“faction” per the framers) into existence.
I gather that one can remain an independent in a six-party system. (I wonder to what party the NYT would assign one who holds that sex is not “a social construct.”)
New Liberal. Is the (hidden) purpose to spark change? Once revolution/change happens, then a small, organized, often radical group–the Woke–grab the reins, directing the change–as did Communists in Russia 1917. Sure, our two parties do not yield what could be wished for. but, really, change to a parliamentary or coalition system of governance? That means Constitutional Convention.
I pay for the Times as I live here and there’s no way to know what’s going on otherwise. I’d never be invited out. (I’m not techie enough to trick the Times into thinking I’m a new reader each time – though I wish I were).
I like the science, international and some op-eds… but the woke and the woo-woo make me regret my subscription at least once a week.
D.A.
NYC
ps apparently I’m a f**king aries and I “shouldn’t immediately discount dowsing.” Damn it.
Reads like many/most of the readers of this blog are New Liberal, which I will say is not representative of those not living on the coasts. I think the only solution to the US political morass is dissolution. The thought that Jim Inhofe and Bernie Sanders can really “govern” the same country is ludicrous.
I believe the political divisions, Madison’s factions, of the populace of the USA have become so intractable that we are on an inexorable course of partitioning the country, which is, indeed, a form of dissolution of the nation.
As dismal as our political landscape is I just don’t see how any kind of partitioning could even work. We fought one civil war over this once and I just don’t see anything like it happening again. I do think it is entirely possible that we’ll see some kind of insane insurgency movement of Christo-fascist militia/terrorist cells causing a lot of misery. But that’s pretty far from the country being partitioned.
I don’t believe this is the forum for a lengthy discussion of this topic, so I’ll just respond by saying that a conscious, intentional partitioning would forestall the misery that you referred to above. (I’ll let you have the last word, if you’d like. 🙂)
We’ll, disagreements happen here all the time! In any case I’ll just point out that any partition (assuming it feasible) would only push the conflict into more local context. Where would my state land? (Wisconsin). We’re divided, much to my dismay. Partition is no way out, I’m afraid.
Agreed…maybe that will be a good thing.
I believe it will be a good thing if it will enable us to avoid violence and achieve a peaceful coexistence. Also see my response to GBJames above.
Got American Labor Party as the category but my dot is between American Labor and Christian Conservative Party. I’m socially conservative and economic liberal. The quiz was wrong in having empty space on the upper left quadrant or even someone that occupies the upper right quadrant but doesn’t support nativism/nationalism or very conservative economic policies. Also if you’re leftist on immigration that pegs you more socially liberal.