Use code 109957.

[policraticus]

August 09, 2017

Dear Political Typology quiz group creator,

Our records indicate that you created a version of Pew Research Center’s 2014 Political Typology Quiz for your community or group. Access to the results from 2014 community quizzes will no longer be available after September 1, 2017, as we prepare to release an updated version of political typology and a new quiz this fall.

If you would like to save the data from your community quiz, we recommend copying, taking a screenshot or printing the results page before September 1.

http://www.people-press.org/quiz/political-typology/results/group/109957/

So, I have no clear memory of doing this. But apparently, 265 talk_politics members took the quiz and their results have been duly tabulated by PEW. I offer this as a look back at the way we were, in 2014. Post-Obama, pre-Trump; post-last Korean Crisis, pre-next Korean Crisis, etc, etc.

Make of it what you will.

Comments

[airiefairie]

Fascinating. When did this quiz take place?

[fridi]

2014. And it's right in Obama's term, it's hardly post-Obama.

[policraticus]

I meant post Obama election, not post presidency.

[johnny9fingers]

We used to have an audience, you know?

And not just some of Uncle Vlad's minions. But some policy wonks tuned in from time to time, at least in Blighty. And weirdly so did some of the intel bods civil servants, just keeping an eye, if you see what I mean. Thankfully we aren't quite as relevant now.

Chum of mine, now quite high in what used to be the Special Branch, I met him at a funeral, hadn't seen him for donkey's years, and always on the, er, right of politics (Army, Private Security of a very expensive nature, Special Branch, etc) betrayed far too much awareness of the stuff that I'd written on here. And this sort of political debate thing ain't his bag, if you see what I mean. As for the policy wonks, that could have been because I had met them over dinner and held my point, politely, and then they took notice. In the old days I often wrote with a few of those folk in mind, hoping to push some of their buttons into behaving or at least thinking properly. You couldn't tell in any certain fashion if anyone was reading, unless they happened to mention it when you met, but you wrote into the void nevertheless.

But the "I saw your bit on that political page, and I have some quibbles..." has happened more than once; but not for a few years. But I would have been involved here with or without oversight. It is still the best open political discussion board on the web. And folk from all parts of the political agenda are allowed and encouraged, within the terms of good manners, codified as the comm rules.

[oportet]

Hard-pressed Skeptics is definitely the coolest band name out of the bunch.

[abomvubuso]

Sounds very much indie.

[oportet]

Steadfast Conservatives would probably be a decent bluegrass band

[johnny9fingers]

Only if Ted Nugent was forced to play the banjo. Plugged into a Marshall on 11.

[johnny9fingers]

I can't recall it either. But I was a participating member in all of these sort of things because my position would have been that of an outlier, even if I agree with many "liberal" precepts. And as an outlier you have to state your position, obvs.

Monarchist, Macmillanite, High Tory. Anti-Nazi, anti-Fascist, in favour of a mixed economy and a good well-funded health service. Medium to high tax believer, because that's what modern life costs. No objection to private anything as long as the basic public stuff is sorted for everyone else. In favour of managing tradition into the new era, thereby promoting continuity, removing the worst and exploring; looking for the best.

See what I mean by outlier?

[mahnmut]

Can't really figure out how can someone in their sane mind be monarchist. But then, Sir Terry Pratchett had some pretty interesting views on the subject, so what do I know. :-)

[johnny9fingers]

You don't have HM as your monarch.

As long as they want to do the job. Of elected heads of state in her reign, only Mandela approaches her stature. (Also the job constrains the individual, and thankfully isn't dependent upon whomsoever Rupert decides should be next. Which has to be a big win.)

[mahnmut]

And what if the monarch happens to be a madman, and you're stuck with a crazy woo-hoo?

[johnny9fingers]

Happened before. More than once. We took the piss and got over it. And the Monarchs in question never had "democratic legitimacy" so lampooning them was fine. But as it happens, in the post-Victorian world, the job makes the person. The only one not up to the job was Edward VIII - David to his family. All the others have done pretty damn good jobs. Unlike any run of presidents of any nation since Victoria's death.

I don't fix things if they're not broken. And if they are doing a better job than anyone else's Heads of State, I'm content with that. I mean think Trump, Bush, Zuma, Mbeki, Holland, Sarkozy or Her Maj?

[nairiporter]

Case in point about Zuma:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/weakened-south-africa-president-faces-new-no-confidence-vote-by-parliament/2017/08/08/b1524160-7baf-11e7-b2b1-aeba62854dfa_story.html?utm_term=.b0d1eb070cfb

[johnny9fingers]

It seems both Mbeki and Zuma were/are perfectly content to squander Mandela's legacy to feather their own nests. This is not how it should be. When the best of us gives an example we do have to try to live up to it.

South Africa had the greatest elected leader since Churchill, De Gaulle, or FDR; greater even, because he was more magnanimous and better at reconciling by showing how to do it right. The legitimacy conferred on some others by having been imprisoned by the apartheid regime has started to come unstuck. It is becoming more and more obvious that some of these guys weren't selfless freedom fighters if personal profit became easily available. Can't blame them I suppose, when you see what the leeches in finance extract from folk and then reward their big players with. All those big and powerful politicians like to be on equal terms with hedge fund managers. Because... isn't it their due?

We should never pander to expectations of politicians in office: they are our servants as well as our legislators. Sometimes they need a reality check. We've rather had that in the west and in parts of the Arab world. And neither has turned out well. So we need to hold them to account in considered ways, not in some stupid fucking knee-jerk Brexit, nor in electing a narcissist with no concept of truth, fiction, or even basic sense to the highest office. But we are where we are, alas.

[johnny9fingers]

BTW I fear even elected Presidents are, er, sometimes susceptible to a bit of crazy woo-hoo. When it happens to the King, we get the shrinks in and put the poor blighter in a straightjacket. You chaps can't do that to your Presidents, now, can you?

[policraticus]

Sure we can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Plus, there is also your everyday run of the mill impeachment, which doesn't require much beyond some kind of malfeasance followed up by enough political will, to be successful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution

[johnny9fingers]

Thank you for that. It reminded me how honourable Nixon had been during the Eisenhower presidency.

Gods, Nixon was a tragedy, to himself as well as to the US. But he would have gotten away with it today, of course.

[policraticus]

Nixon's history does read like tragedy. But I'm not so sure he could weather the storm today, given the kind of person he was. What allows a president to overcome impeachment isn't guilt or innocence. It is reserves of personal popularity and the support of a party that controls either the House or the Senate. Nixon was never well liked (like Clinton)and he was never ruthless enough to be truly feared (like LBJ). When push came to shove in the House of Representative, the GOP members folded, and without a majority in the Senate, Nixon could see that the end was a foregone conclusion, no matter what his arguments were. Given those circumstances, Trump should be campaigning very hard to keep control of both Houses, but especially the House of Representatives, the only place where articles of impeachment can be generated. If he loses the House, look for impeachment articles to be preferred ASAP, regardless of their objective merit.