I just joined this site as a columnist. I was meaning to write an article about an anecdotal story that demonstrated the kindness and diversity of Indiana which is amplified into the country of the United States. However, when a columnist first signs up, they are directed to take the questionnaire that will determine their placement on the Nolan Chart.
I was appalled by the questionnaire. Without knowing the backdrop, without having ever visited the site before, I could tell that the author of the questionnaire and, thus, probably the site was a staunch libertarian. The questions posed by the questionnaire all but forces people to label themselves as a libertarian.
I decided to do a little reading in the "About the Chart" section and noticed that another columnist had a similar reaction. Phaedrus wrote that "the questions asked of new authors are all framed to toss nearly every sane person into the libertarian bucket." I completely agree with Phaedrus' assessment.
I am a conservative libertarian, a liberty-minded conservative. In national politics, my big issue is federalism (or the lack thereof). At the national level, I agree with nearly every issue of the Libertarian Party's platform. However, at local and state levels, I am very much a conservative. I believe that there are some things that a local government should do that many other libertarians do not agree with. For example, I believe that states and localities have a responsibility to their citizens to provide a "free" education in the form of public schools. I believe that the state should provide public transportation and that speed limits are a necessary evil for the safety of everyone.
So, as I answer the questions I find that even though I'm trying to answer some of the questions as a conservative, I cannot. Instead of being a conservative leaning libertarian or a libertarian leaning conservative, as I expected, I became a full blown libertarian. Obviously, there is something very wrong with the questionnaire.
In the comments of Phaedrus' column, the owner of the site, Walt, seems defensive toward his wording of the questionnaire. He states that he based his questions and answers on reliable sources such as the Social Security Administration. While I'm this statement is true, these reliable sources have failed him. The questionnaire was completely off-target when it diagnosed me and other columnists seem not quite cozy with the questionnaire, either.
Again, in the comment of Phaedrus' column, Walt asks for suggestions. I believe that there are two clear ways to solve the issue: increase the number of questions and phrase each question to be a hard-hitting, deeply philosophical question akin to the kind you'd find from a Political Science professor. Or, the questionnaire could be rephrased to the vague euphemisms of each party's platform. For example, the RNC platform on the issue of social security:
| President Bush is committed to keeping the promise of Social Security and is confident we will succeed. | ||
| Favors legislation that calls for voluntary personal accounts as a part of a comprehensive solution. | ||
| The Republican party wants to see Social Security permanently strengthened without raising payroll taxes and will not change benefits for today's retirees or near-retirees. | ||
The phrase "voluntary personal accounts" sounds much more appealing to me than "government-managed solution[s]." By using such euphemisms, the questionnaire is gauging more along the lines of how one associates himself instead of a small and severely limited "scientific" analysis.
©2007 HammerDR, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Monday, December 24, 2007
Last modified: Monday, December 24, 2007
The views expressed in this article are those of HammerDR only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. HammerDR is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by HammerDR of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By HammerDR |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: creator
Date: 2007-12-24 12:37:09
Hi HammerDR,
Welcome to Nolan Chart!
And, thanks for saying what I've been thinking since Day One but haven't had time to express! :)
Posted By: Colette von Hessen
Date: 2007-12-24 13:23:39
Hi HammerDR,
Thank you so much -- nice to know I'm not alone in this. I did write that to Walt in an e-mail because I do NOT feel I am a libertarian with a big-L. I don't even fell I am completely a full-fledged small-l libertarian. Like you, I am either conservative-leaning libertarian or libertarian-leaning consevrative (whicehever you prefer). The people I have found myself most closely aligned with over the years have been Tucker Carlson, Andrew Sullivan, and, not surprisingly, Ron Paul. I am against amnesty for illegal aliens and I am very pro-life. This is a far cry from libertarianism (at least considering the way the pro-abortionists have hijacked the LP). A long time ago the LP left that out of their official platform (abortion), which isn't a pefect solution, but did not take the pro-abortion position. Immigration is not as important to me as protecting unborn children, but it is important, nonetheless.
Glad to see you here!
ColetteÂ
Posted By: Colette von Hessen
Date: 2007-12-24 13:29:02
Also, I am considering changing some of my answers to reflect my more conservative viewpoints. What about you guys? I don't feel entirely comfortable with that, but it might be more comfortable than being falsely labelled as a "libertarian."
ColetteÂ
P.S. check out www.indyrepublic.com -- I have room for 4 other bloggers who are limited government conservatives (that shoudl be a resundant phrase, but these days, sadly it is not).Â
Posted By: DigitalBob
Date: 2007-12-24 17:04:33
My wife took the survey and it put her as far liberal. I love her anyway. She's all heart :).
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2007-12-24 17:50:25
I retook the test and just fudged answers to get my little star more in alignment with where I stand politically.
In the gosh dern middle of everyone else, it seems.
Â
I believe full blown Libertarianism discounts two groups, the irresposible rodents (a small minority with the power to cause great destruction), and the common-sensical majority (a group that can admit that cigarette smoke is offensive to non-smokers, and an infringement on their rights not to breath poison, as an example.)
So I agree with a degree of collectivism whereby citizens choose to set bounderies in their own societies.
I am just non-plussed by having it done federally, in a one size fits all manner.
Â
Â
Â
Â
Posted By: PaulThomasLasVegas
Date: 2008-01-13 21:04:21
The basic flaw in this measurement device is NOT ONLY in the testing but in the format upon which it is imposed.The chart claims to display the results upon a true up-down left-right diagram when in fact it does NOT use polar opposites to map the results.If Up is Libertarianism or the lack of control upon peoples lives- then down would be total control Totalitarianism.If Left is extreme financial control by the State [Communism] than Right would be Total control of financial implements by Private sources [Capitalism].What i would add than also that the center of the chart should either show use of force [Fascism] or Non use of Force, [Socialism] or the reverse which depending upon which center you choose, Either could be correct though if common vernacular seems to say Center is a non-Fascist condition it seems to suggest that the center should be Socialist.Here we use the terms as they are properly derived not as they are politically derived i.e. Fascism signifies use of force Fascia or muscle and Social Indicating that people cooperate with one another as in a Social environment - without use of force [Constitutional - We the People...].We now see that all argument either devolve to a use of force or to a cooperative social interaction regardless of the type of question being posed. This is real life experience, and it suggests the meeting of the minds in either of only two planes. Cooperative or Belligerent.This would also easily show how those who use force or those who use cooperation can easily drift from one philosophical position to another IF the position on the outermost argumentative post is imposed upon the corrected chart by means of a circle contacting all of the various philosophical points as a point of entry or exit to another position and how regardless of how the reduction of the argument is achieved it is the same solution contained within all philosophies. Cooperation or use of force.So my corrected chart would contain an outer circle like Saturn's Rings called Fascism touching all four corners of the poles, in each direction up down and left right, and with the Center now shown as Socialism, The chart is now corrected to show the TRUE extremes of the agreement in all cases. I use the word all because if one doesn't like using just the four poles in this diagram one can add additional poles for any needed additional arguments.If this becomes necessary perhaps what one is really looking for is a circle!The EXISTING options for mapping ones political beliefs now become: Use of Force vs. Cooperation [Fascism vs.Socialism], Who Owns What [Capitalism vs. Communism], and How much Liberty or Lack of it one is permitted [Libertarianism vs Totalitarianism].If someone would care to diagram this for others to provide a visual i believe it might help to conceptualize.