« How do you Achieve Something? | Main | Armies of Davids »

September 12, 2006

Political Scorecard

A recent comment annoyed me, and being annoyed, I decided to list out my political positions. Being a geek, I decided to score them. (OK, the comment was recent at the time, but then I forgot to publish the entry. It's still relevant, so here it is.) So here's how this works: I list an issue, my position on that issue, the importance of that issue to me, the positions of various political parties, how well their positions agree with mine, and how they score on that issue.

My importance scale is:
0 — This issue is of no consequence whatsoever in policy terms. Not only will I put out any effort (other than occasional rhetoric) to get my positions passed, but if their antithesis passes instead, I won't much care.
1 — I care about this, at least theoretically, and it would effect my voting and political donation patterns.
2 — I care about this quite a bit, and it would strongly effect my voting and political donation patterns. Alternately, this would be a 3 if the issue were to seriously come up as a policy differentiator, but in reality it's only going to come up around the margins, rather than challenging the core of the issue.
3 — I care about this so deeply that it could be the sole determinant of my vote. In fact, if moves far enough away on enough of these issues, it would be sufficient to push me to emigration or rebellion.

A party's agreement with me is scored as follows:
0 — Their policy position is essentially or actually antithetical to mine. Discussion is meaningless because no compromise position can be reached. A pox on them!
1 — Their policy position is strongly opposed to mine, but there are points for discussion, which could lead to them seeing things my way.
2 — Their policy position matches mine closely enough that I am not unduly concerned about them getting their way.
3 — They agree with me completely, showing their great wisdom and deep understanding of the issue.

A party's score, then, is the product of the importance of the issue to me and their agreement with me on the issue. I couldn't figure out how to put this into a readable table, so I settled instead for a series of tables.

The War

Person	Position	Importance	Agreement	Score
Me	Fight aggressively at home and abroad: no quarter given, because none will be given us. At the same time, let's not try to kill all 1.2 billion Muslims or do to Islam what Rome did to Carthage. The point is to remove the threats of jihadi terrorism and of nuclear weapons in the hands of unstable regimes. We need to dramatically expand the military, perhaps even back to Cold War levels, because we could be fighting Iran, Syria and potentially Saudi Arabia, and at the same time we will need to maintain the ability to defend Taiwan should China decide to attack.	3
Democrats	"The war is largely a matter of police work and intelligence in the US, combined with cooperation with our allies abroad. By understanding the root causes of terrorism, such as poverty and corruption and inefficient social services, we can work to end terrorism. We should vigorously pursue the terrorists in Afghanistan. We should not attack sovereign countries without the agreement of the UN and involvement by pretty much all of our allies. In particular, we should work with our allies to diplomatically resolve any crises arising from a rogue nation developing nuclear weapons. If a Democrat is President, though, we'll act just like the Republicans are now. (Witness our bellicosity in 1998.)"		1	3
Republicans	We should vigorously pursue the war at home and abroad, and should ensure that Americans are not attacked in the US ever again. If that means attacking nations that support terrorism, or are in the process of developing nuclear weapons and are a potential threat to the US, then we should destroy those nations with our allies if possible, and without them if necessary. All Muslims are not the enemy; Islam is not the enemy; the jihadis are the enemy. We believe that the key to eliminating terrorism is eliminating the failure of the Arab/Muslim nations that has caused frustration to boil over into terrorism.		2	6
Libertarians	We should treat the "war" as a police issue at home, and should not fight abroad.		0	0

The Economy

Person	Position	Importance	Agreement	Score
Me	The economy is largely the domain of private individuals. Government's role should be limited to the actions of the Federal Reserve in setting money supply and interest rates. By and large, it's a good idea for the government to not interfere, but it is also necessary to recognize that moderate interference in the economy (such as spending more in a recession or using tax policy to encourage some actions and discourage others) can have a salutary effect on increasing prosperity and, in particular, on decreasing immiseration.	2
Democrats	The economy is almost entirely the responsibility of the Federal government, and should be regulated to produce fairness and eliminate poverty, even if that means confiscatory taxation, massive wealth transfer and/or forcing businesses to adopt socially progressive policies.		1	2
Republicans	The economy is almost entirely the responsibility of the Federal government in cooperation with corporations and small businesses, and should be regulated to reduce income inequalities and poverty, even if that means high taxation, massive wealth transfer and/or forcing businesses to adopt policies convenient to Republicans politically.		1	2
Libertarians	The economy is entirely the domain of private individuals. Period. Well, OK, the government can mint money, but that's it.		2	4

Drugs

Person	Position	Importance	Agreement	Score
Me	The government has no business regulating what products or substances people can purchase or use. In attempts to regulate drugs, for example, the Federal government generally strays into tyranny, such as no-knock warrants and long prison terms and regulation of funds transfers abroad.	1
Democrats	Drugs should be legal. But to the extent that they're not, it's important that the issue be manipulated for Democratic political advantage, for example by painting Rush Limbaugh as a hypocritical drug addicted fascist.		2	2
Republicans	Drugs should be illegal. Anything we have to do to keep them that way is just fine.		0	0
Libertarians	The government has no business regulating what products or substances people can purchase or use. In attempts to regulate drugs, for example, the Federal government generally strays into tyranny, such as no-knock warrants and long prison terms and regulation of funds transfers abroad. Besides, we really, really want to light up, man.		3	3

Taxation

Person	Position	Importance	Agreement	Score
Me	Obviously, taxes are necessary to run the government: it's not and should not be a business. Income taxes are particularly a problem, for two reasons: progressive taxation punishes economic advancement, leading to less of it; and the side-requirements to enforce income taxation, such as looking through your bank accounts without a warrant and preventing large money transfers abroad, lead the government to behave tyranically. We would be better off with a flat tax, and even better off with a consumption tax (in either case, with a significant up-front exemption to protect the truly impoverished).	3
Democrats	Taxes are good. Income taxes are especially good, and the more progressive they are the better. The more taxation the better, because the government can then efficiently make decisions about who should have what amount of money, ensuring fairness by reducing the incomes of high earners to raise the incomes of low earners. Besides, we have a lot of special interests to buy off.		0	0
Republicans	Taxes are good, but they need to be lower than they are now. In fact, it might even be wise to look at things like a flat tax or a consumption task. But don't look too closely, because we have a lot of special interests to buy off.		1	3
Libertarians	Taxes are evil. If we can't have an anarchy, the government should be restricted to funding itself through user fees and import duties.		2	6

Health Care

Person	Position	Importance	Agreement	Score
Me	It's none of the government's business. Providing the indigent with free health care, and the poor with subsidized health care, is a good idea for policy reasons, but other than that the government should stay out of it. Giving a tax credit to everyone for health care is OK, but giving a tax credit just to businesses leads to all kinds of problems.	1
Democrats	Nationalized health care is best. If we can't have that, we'll settle for excessive regulation.		0	0
Republicans	Giving tax credits to businesses is best. And massive, massive wealth transfers is also good, because it buys votes.		0	0
Libertarians	It's none of the government's business.		3	3

Energy Policy

Person	Position	Importance	Agreement	Score
Me	We shouldn't have one. It's not the government's job to decide what forms of energy to use, or how to get them: let the market handle that.	1
Democrats	It's the government's job to specify what energy sources we use, who can use them, how much, what they will cost and so on.		0	0
Republicans	I suppose an energy policy would be a good idea. Absent that, why don't we just drill everywhere for oil and call it an energy policy.		1	1
Libertarians	We shouldn't have one.		3	3

The Environment

Person	Position	Importance	Agreement	Score
Me	Don't soil your nest. The government should get involved only in so far as it is necessary to prevent you from soiling my nest.	2
Democrats	It's the government's job to specify how everything will be done that might effect the environment. Including breathing and the allowed percentage of methane in cow farts.		0	0
Republicans	A clean environment is good. But not at the expense of prosperity.		2	4
Libertarians	Why is the government at all involved in this, again?		2	4

Immigration

Person	Position	Importance	Agreement	Score
Me	Legal immigration should be easy. Illegal immigration should be hard.	2
Democrats	Illegal immigration should be easy. Legal immigration should be heavily bureaucratic and time-consuming.		2	4
Republicans	Legal immigration should be hard. Illegal immigration should be hard, but we're really not going to put any effort into it.		2	4
Libertarians	Immigration should be pretty much completely uncontrolled.		1	2

Freedom of and From Religion

Person	Position	Importance	Agreement	Score
Me	Both.	3
Democrats	From, certainly.		2	6
Republicans	Of, certainly.		2	6
Libertarians	Both.		3	9

Freedom of Expression

Person	Position	Importance	Agreement	Score
Me	Yes.	3
Democrats	Mostly.		2	6
Republicans	Mostly.		2	6
Libertarians	Yes.		3	9

Freedom of Peacable Assembly and of Association

Person	Position	Importance	Agreement	Score
Me	Yes	3
Democrats	Yes, for individuals. No, for groups or businesses; the government has to regulate membership and customer practices to protect minorities.		2	6
Republicans	Yes		3	9
Libertarians	Yes		3	9

Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Person	Position	Importance	Agreement	Score
Me	Yes. Except for area weapons (nuclear, chemical, biological, perhaps FAEs or cluster bombs).	3
Democrats	Not so much, no.		0	0
Republicans	Personal arms, yes, but not crew-served weapons or vessels or aircraft or armored vehicles with weapons.		2	6
Libertarians	Yes.		3	9

Freedom From Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

Person	Position	Importance	Agreement	Score
Me	Yes	3
Democrats	Yes, if the Republicans are in office.		1	3
Republicans	Yes, if the Democrats are in office.		1	3
Libertarians	Yes		3	9

Eminent Domain

Person	Position	Importance	Agreement	Score
Me	The government has no business taking private property. For practical reasons, like the ability to have roads, there will from time to time need to be exceptions, but these should meet stringent tests of need and be accompanied by excessive compensation, because you're not just taking someone's property, you're forcing them to change their lives in the process.	3
Democrats	Not so much, no.		0	0
Republicans	Mostly.		2	6
Libertarians	Eminent domain is an abomination. Better to have no roads at all.		2	6

Law Enforcement

Person	Position	Importance	Agreement	Score
Me	It's important to have a small number of well-defined laws, and enforce them vigorously (particularly criminal law). The rights of defendants must be protected completely, while also ensuring that justice is served, rather than technicalities (like whether two pages are stapled or paper-clipped together).	3
Democrats	The law should more or less be enforced, particularly those laws that disproportionately target Republicans.		1	3
Republicans	The law should more or less be enforced, particularly criminal and drug laws. White collar crimes, not so much. Defendants currently get way too many protections, though.		1	3
Libertarians	What very few laws should exist should be vigorously enforced, preferably by private citizens.		3	9

Torture

Person	Position	Importance	Agreement	Score
Me	We should not torture people. However, harsh, even humiliating, treatment of captured enemies is not the same thing as torture.	2
Democrats	We should not torture people. "Torture" includes anything from playing loud music or making people cold on up. Unless Democrats are in office.		1	2
Republicans	We should not torture people. "Torture" and "people" are up for definitional debate. Unless Republicans are in office.		2	4
Libertarians	We should not torture people.		3	6

Federalism

Person	Position	Importance	Agreement	Score
Me	I'm for it.	3
Democrats	We're against it.		0	0
Republicans	We're against it.		0	0
Libertarians	We're for it.		3	9

Gay Marriage

Person	Position	Importance	Agreement	Score
Me	Fine, if you want to.	0
Democrats	Yes, and we'll do anything we can to make it stick.		2	0
Republicans	We're against it.		0	0
Libertarians	Fine, if you want to.		3	0

Abortion

Person	Position	Importance	Agreement	Score
Me	Bad idea. Getting the government involved would be a worse idea.	0
Democrats	Abortion is good for womyn and children. No, really!		0	0
Republicans	We're against it. You should be against it, too. By law.		0	0
Libertarians	Why is this a political issue again?		3	0

Now, I picked those issues because they are important to me, or because they were on my mind. If you want me to address other issues, or if you disagree with my characterizations (not my ratings: that's not your place), let me know, and I'll be glad to update. This is kind of fun, actually.

OK, and here are the results:

Of a maximum possible 123 points, given my importance ranking, the Democrats get 37 (about 30%), the Republicans 63 (about 51%), and the Libertarians get 100 (about 81%). So, if I agree so much with the Libertarians, why am I ruling them out? Well, as long as we're at war, the government is not our most dangerous enemy, so the Libertarians are out of the running, because they flunk on the war and do best on issues that, if we lose the war, they will have little chance of implementing anyway. (If the Libertarians would change their position on the war, I'd start voting for them again: I don't vote "strategically", which is little more than accepting second best in voting.)

This is pretty skewed by the choice of issues, because I put the basic freedom issues in there, where the Libertarians pretty much clean up from my point of view. A longer list of issues would moderate the list somewhat, and change the percentages. In particular, most of the issues where I would disagree with the Libertarians aren't in this list; on the other hand, they aren't there because they aren't a big deal to me (or because I didn't think about them), rather than because I'm trying to inflate Libertarian numbers. For an example of how this changes nothing, see the last two issues (abortion and gay marriage).

Also, some of the issues are really big, like the economy, while others (like energy policy) are really small. Some way of chunking up the issues better would probably be a good idea. But then I'd have to think, and it's late already.

Posted by jeff at September 12, 2006 7:38 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/846

Comments

Posted by: Brian Medcalf at September 12, 2006 3:18 PM

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at September 12, 2006 5:05 PM

Posted by: Brian Medcalf at September 12, 2006 6:25 PM