Dag, a newspaper in the Netherlands hosted an online survey with these questions. Select "Yes" or "No" the questions and the computer would map your reply to replies deduced from the position papers of the presidential candidates.
Unfortunately, a yes or a no answer was often incomplete. We retake the test below -- offering better answers.... Then we suggest whom to support and why. Here's the test:
Gun Control
People should have a background check and obtain a license before they can buy a gun
Yes
No
A better answer -- A background check can help prevent dangerous people from obtaining guns. A license is different than a background check, and many states have operated successfully without requiring licenses for long guns. The issue of gun control has several other facets unaddressed here. The first is whether the Second Amendment provision to keep and bear arms meant a state militia or individuals. Elsewhere the Constitution deals with the rights of citizens. There is no reason this clause should be different. An alternative argument is that citizens need to be prepared to defend themselves to participate in a state militia and to defend themselves when the state cannot.
Stricter gun control will not reduce crime
Yes
No
A better answer -- A high percentage of crimes are committed with unregistered guns. Rather than the strictness of gun control, gun control should be minimal, sensible, and effective. Using a weapon in a crime is a greater crime than the crime itself and should be penalized more.
All semi-automatic weapons should be banned
Yes
No
A better answer -- There is no correlation between a weapon's semi-atomatic nature and its use in criminal activities.
Environment
The effects of global warming are grossly exaggerated
Yes
No
A better answer -- Global warming is not predictible. The data used for predictions is not uniform, and prominent models using that data show wildly different results. The effect of the reduction of human contributions is unclear, and the cost to the quality of life, especially for the least of us, has not been prpperly evaluated. Even so, it pays to be prudent. We should educate ourselves to be sensitive to our environment and to the cost of profligacy, and act accordingly.
An additional carbon tax on fuel will effectively reduce pollution
Yes
No
A better answer -- The equation is not so simple. A carbon tax brakes the economy which is the best means the least of us has to improve quality of life. Worse, it puts great power into the hands of a few holding the levers of politics. And it presumes they have the insight to efficiently know hwat is best for the rest of us.
The US should never sign international treaties on climate change that limit economic growth
Yes
No
A better answer -- Since the middle ages it has been the market economy that has been the prime force to raise individuals from being tied to the land and the squalor that implied. Economic freedom gave people food, homes, education, health care, leisure time, and the opportunity for more. The process for reaching such a treaty today is cumbersome and unlikely to result in a satisfactory result.
Iraq
The US had every right to invade Iraq
Yes
No
A better answer -- The concerns expressed by the United States to the United Nations about Iraq were clear, unambigulous, and valid. It was the United Nations that failed to respond according to its charter and to the Declaration of Human Rights. The United Nation's proper response was corrupted by the Oil for Food Scandal. The United States acted, according to what was understood at the time, in the vacuum left by the United Nations.
The US is safer because of the invasion of Iraq
Yes
No
A better answer -- As posed, the question suggests the comparison of safety is between then, before the invasion of Iraq, and now. The question does not address the dangerous potential that Iraq under Saddam would pose, if he continued to undermine the United Nations sanctions, continued to obstruct the United Naitons weapons inspectors, continued to lust after such weapons, continued to support exporting violence, and continued to oppress his own population.
The new president should begin to bring home all US troops from Iraq immediately
Yes
No
A better answer -- In a power vacuum it is not that there is no power, it is that thugs of all variety will move in. The consequences of immediate withdrawal go beyone the immediate health of our troops to do permanent damage to any future time our troops might be invited to help another country. It will cost Americans more in the long run than any immediate withdrawal would save.
Economy
The best way to reduce the federal deficit is to raise taxes
Yes
No
A better answer -- The federal deficit can be looked at as a fixed amount, or as a portion of the gross domestic economy (GDP). It is important to realize that the impact of the federal deficit can be reduced by growing the economy. In general, increasing taxes puts brakes on the economy. The question focuses too much on only one of the gauges of the economic enginge, but not the most important one.
The tax cuts for people with a higher income should be reversed
Yes
No
A better answer -- Sweeping statements about tax cuts ignore that a stimulus should be finely focused and paid for in a way that does not dampen the original intent. Singapore recently tried a program, in times of high unemployment, to cut the employer's share of the payroll tax. One should be careful of the gross generalization. Besides, this question really is a stalking horse for income redistribution.
The government has no responsibility to provide retirement funds
Yes
No
A better answer -- Whether the government should or not, we have a long history of "supplementing" retirement. Whether the government should or not, it is the mechanics of the current program that put that program at risk. Congress went beyond what was prudent to extend benefits by indexing benefits beyond the rate of inflation.
Income
Mortgage lenders should be more tightly controlled
Yes
No
A better answer -- The subprime adjustable mortgages at risk make up only about 4% of the total number of martgages. To date, only one small bank has failed and over the last couple of years, no banks have failed. The kind of control that needs to be exercised may be limited to typical consumer problems such as bait-and-switch and false representation.
People with higher incomes should receive less Medicare benefits
Yes
No
A better answer -- Questions like this mischaracterize the problem. The question is not one of Medicare benefits, but one of income redistribution -- When does one group that chances to have political power get to take money from another group of people, for whatever reason. The answer should be "rarely" because there are other approaches that work and the goal should be to empower people to care for themselves.
The federal government should reduce income inequality
Yes
No
A better answer -- This is the "Robin Hood" issue: When can one group of voters steal money from another group to give it to a third? Expressed another way, does this country favor liberty or equality? Liberty embraces property rights. Property rights really mean that we own the fruits of our own labor. Equality implies that someone else owns the property rights to our own labor. When someone else owns the fruits of our own labor, we call it feudalism. And that, thank goodness, is a world we have left behind and don't care to revisit. Income inequality isn't the sin some make it out to be. If a million people like something you make well enough to give you a dollar each, you are a millionaire -- which should not give someone else, envious of oyur success, permission to share it with others. The important issue is not income disparity, but who are needy, what do they require, how should that need be addressed, and how long should it take.
National Security
The US should reduce its financial contribution to the UN
Yes
No
A better answer -- The United Nations was structured according to what was possible at the time it was created. It's flaws have become magnified over time. Despite approval of the Declaration of Human Rights, championed by Eleanor Roosevelt, the United Nations has failed to stand up for them. An interantional organization like the United Nations is important, but only so long as it values the minimum requirements of society upon which citizens throughout the world, and in the United States, depend. Our financial contributions, and the bully pulpit, are the tools we have available to make the United Nations better. A coalition of democracies within the United Nations would add to our voice to help the United Nations reform and succeed.
Iran is not an imminent threat to world peace
Yes
No
A better answer -- Imminent is a silly and irrelevant word. A problem need not be imminent to be real and require immediate attention. Dealing with a problem early is often best. Hitler was not an immediate problem for America until he became a very costly problem for America.
The US should decrease its spending on defense
Yes
No
A better answer -- Certainly spending one some programs needs to be increased, and on others needs to be reduced. The question is really a stalking horse for reallocating funds to other non-military matters.
Family
Same sex marriages should be made legal
Yes
No
A better answer -- "Marriage" stands independent from the importance of assuring the enumeration and codification of equal access for partners.
Abortion should be made completely illegal
Yes
No
A better answer -- When "yes" or "no" are the only acceptable answers, nuances are overlooked. The discussion needs to grow up for the problems at the heart of the issue to be noticed and resolved. Credit Roe v. Wade for guidelines that allowed practical decisions to be made with consideration due all parties. Mothers were foremost in the first trimester, the unborn in the last, and society's interest in the uncertain middle case. Some, asserting the sanctity of life, would reverse Roe. However, judges are not allowed to assert sanctity of life. Sanctity is a religious concept, not a legal one. Judges can have reverence for life. Revering life gives it priority. But, Americans revere not just life, but quality of life, which is why Americans, along with life, have championed liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Americans have brought liberty to more people in the world than any culture in history. The critically unresolved issue, is how does our country propose to take care of unwanted children. Economists discovered the greatest predictor of success in school is the wantedness of children. Those in favor of abortion cheat children out of existence while those opposed cheat them with a curse of a lifetime of unwantedness. Those who oppose abortion seem to favor liberty so long as it allows them to impose their will on others. Those who favor abortion seem to prefer a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Both sides need to decide it makes more sense to remove babies out of unwantedness and put them into loving, caring homes.
Using embryos for stem cell research is acceptable as it enables us to find cures for diseases
Yes
No
A better answer -- Like for the abortion issue, reverence for life and sanctity of life need to be distinguished. Fortuneately, this issue may become moot as it becomes possible to use embryonic stem cells without destroying the original embryo. The larger question that needs to be faced is that, as science discovers more about humanity, when and how can we use what we learn.
Immigration
To prevent illegal immigration, the US should complete the fence along the entire Mexican border
Yes
No
A better answer -- Secure borders are important, but a fence may not be the best way to secure those borders. In fact, a fence may give the nation a false sense of security.
All illegal immigrants without a criminal record should be given the right to stay in the US legally
Yes
No
A better answer -- Neither "yes" nor "no" offers a practical resolution to the situation on the ground. It would be as inappropriate to reward illegal entry as it would be to deny an avenue to citizenship for those who have invested so much in their American lives and their American communities. The problem is to put them on a path to citizenship that does not trump other, law-abiding would-be citizens who are trying to follow current procedures.
Illegal immigration threatens our national security
Yes
No
A better answer -- Many things threaten our national security, and, equally, we have to be certain that preoccupation with national security does not overwhelm many other things. There will always be danger and uncertainty, but our diversity adds to our resiliance and to return to isolationism would be a mistake.
Health Care
Providing health care is not the responsibility of the government
Yes
No
A better answer -- People need to be personally invested in the cost of their health care to have an incentive to control costs. Government is not personally invested in the cost of health care (see the unfunded mandates from New York's legislature). Competition works to keep health care costs in check, so encourage competition. But government is interested in the health and quality of care offered to its citizens.
US law should obligate all companies to provide health care insurance for their workers
Yes
No
A better answer -- It was US law -- wage and price controls in the 1950s -- that got us into this mess in the first place. The idea that government is the answer flies in the face of experience after experience. Companies offered inexpensive health care as a perk when the government limited business' freedom to pay people more. More significantly, when companies serve as an intermediary, consumers have the true cost of healthcare hidden from them, and legislators hide behind companies when they mandate insurance requirements without paying for them.
The government should provide health care coverage for the millions of uninsured Americans
Yes
No
A better answer -- Efficient operations require market competition to find the ever-shifting sweet spot between whether do do something oneself or to contract with others. Experience has shown government is not an efficient operator.
Law and Order
The death penalty helps deter crime
Yes
No
A better answer -- Whether or not it deters crime, it sets up the untenable circumstance where innocent people can, and have been, put to death. Implicit in our justice system is the concept that if the system errs, it should be on the side of the innocent.
The government should spend money on keeping drugs off the streets, not on treating drug addicts
Yes
No
A better answer -- More money is spent because we, as a society, have yet to address the question whether, as science teaches us more about the chemistry of the brain, if, when, and how can it be done safely by individuals.
For each crime there should be a fixed minimum sentence
Yes
No
A better answer -- The judicial system has operated successfully as a third arm of our government and that independence deserves to continue. That said, it was designed to administer law, not make it. An activist judiciary, creating new causes of action, is a misuse of the bench.
Education
Better teachers should be paid higher wages than their colleagues
Yes
No
A better answer -- While merit should be rewarded, wages are not the critical problem of education, and merely throwing money at education will not solve it. The problem is a classic one, described in detail by Adam Smith, who was as suspecious of unions as he was suspecious of government. It is the marketplace that has brought excellence to this country, and despite its problems, the marketplace fares better than too much control.
Creationism should be taught in science classes in school
Yes
No
A better answer -- The question shows a deep misunderstanding of science, which does not presume to know the answer, but projects hypotheses according to what is discovered. Mandating what will or will not be taught, is an abuse of government.
More government funding should go into public schools, not to education vouchers
Yes
No
A better answer -- If the quaality of education were simply tied to money, one could easily answer this question. There needs to be a way to vote "no confidence" and to hold a mirror up to educationists to show them why.
Terrorism
Anti-terrorism legislation, such as the Patriot Act, unacceptably violates civil liberties
Yes
No
A better answer -- Threats to civil liberties come as often from the left as from the right. Hate speech legislation undermines the minimum requirements of society, which must be open to criticism, even though what is said might be something one does not wish to hear. That said, the opportunity to offend, does not imply the necessity to do so.
Some form of torture is acceptable if it can prevent terrorist attacks
Yes
No
A better answer -- Torture has always to remain an option, but a society like ours should never resort to it. As it happens, one of the reasons Americans won the Revolutionary War, was because of their humane treatment of prisoners.
Iraq is just one front in a broader fight against islamic terrorism
Yes
No
A better answer -- The war is not against islamic terrorism, but for society -- for civilization. To fight that war, one must know the minimum requirements of society, because conveying that insight that is the only way to win. Too often the conversation becomes confused because people fail to distinguish between different cultures and the edges where any two cultures meet. We need to understand the requirements for society.
So, of all the presidential candidates, which one best represents the answers given? Well, it doesn't really matter, because the list of viable candidates can be winnowed down without comparing their policies to the listed answers. They chceck themselves oit of the competition for other reasons:
Lets examine the list of candidates, Democrats first:
Barack Obama -- No. With his arm around Al Sharpton, the race pimp, Obama demonstrates political epediency takes precedence over principle. Obama claims cynicism is our greatest threat, while he cynically bludgeons his opponents. John Kerry endorsing Obama in SOuth Carolina says, "We are electing judgement and character." Right. A man of principle who doesn't care to use them. Sorry.
Hillary Clinton -- No. Although a master of political trickery, more worrisome is her complete ease rewriting her history in her own mind -- Travelgate, the Rose billing records, Hillarycare. She tells us her own version of history that is somewhat at odds with what happened and she doesn't seem to notice. She's always the victim and other peole made her do it. She was for the war in Iraq before she was against it and against the surge before she made it work. She is a poor judge of character: Aside from Bill, she still has Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's secretary of state, on her team.
John Edwards -- No. His expressed concern for social justice is at odds with how to achieve it. He's a trial lawyer who expects people not to look at his history or his record. Bogged down by his 28,000 sq. ft. home. and $400 haircut, the man speaks to us as if his audience cannot see.
Now let's run down the Republicans:
Ron Paul -- No. Unrealistic and dead wrong.
Mike Huckabee -- No. A clever demagogue who uses his faith as a weapon in a most unChristian way. He wants to meddle in your affairs as much as any contemporary Democrat would. He's part of the Arkansas politics that brought us the Clintons. His bromides on international affairs boil down to restoring relationships and building positive attitudes -- all slick and an inch deep. Factcheckers have a field day with Huck, and who wants a President like that.
John McCain -- Not likely. He opposed free political speech with the unworkable, meddling, heavy-handed McCain-Feingold legislation. His socialistic economic opposition to the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts points towards policies that have failed before.
Mitt Romney -- Romney promotes American values, but seems only able to make anecdotal reference to those values. Challenge him to explain from whence they spring. And when the platitudes mount, bail out.
Rudy Giuliani -- Giuliani has a problem with values, similar to Romney, although he approaches them from a different quadrant.
Fred Thompson -- The only choice left, and fortunately the most reasonable. He favors low taxes, a strong defense, and reduced federal government. He's calm, steady-handed, and focused on what matters.
While I don't agree with some of his positions, he seems to take those positions because they stand up to his critical scrutiny. That means he can grow with experience. Plus, he doesn't tolerate BS from the coiffed mainstream-media talking heads. Above all, he knows there are dangers out there that need to be faced.
