Topic: About the Chart
The Nolan Chart Survey and Anti-Centrist Bias

---

The Indepublicrat self-identifies as a centrist, and so was pleased when the Nolan Chart's short survey resulted in a star roughly centered in the diagram's amusingly-colored "gray area." However, as a centrist, the Indepublicrat must protest an inherent bias in the survey.

---

by The Indepublicrat
(centrist)
Tuesday, January 1, 2008

The Indepublicrat self-identifies as a Centrist, and so was pleased when the Nolan Chart's short survey resulted in a star roughly centered in the diagram's amusingly-colored "gray area." However, as a Centrist, the Indepublicrat must protest an inherent bias in the survey.

Each question attempts (with varying success) to break down a complex issue into four "ideologically pure" viewpoints: Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, and Statist. Since a moderate, neutral, or centrist position is not presented, survey takers are forced to select the least objectionable extreme, pulling them toward one or another of the compass points. Hence, a Centrist who leans slightly toward the left or right would be artificially propelled in that direction by the cumulative effect of several questions.

The Indepublicrat humbly suggests the following hastily-drafted additions that may not reflect a scientific understanding of "Centralism" but at least offer a middle-ground alertnative to the current answers:

[02 Jan 2008 update: Comments on this entry have been hugely helpful to me in understanding that being a "Centrist" is more of a process than a destination.  The process is one of understanding, incorporating, and attempting to find common ground among disparate positions.  The Indepublicrat maintains that this process is better than picking an ideology and becoming entrenched in it, although it does mean that no identifiable "Centrist position" may exist on a given issue because different Centrists will apply their own experiences and priorities to end up in different places.

The positions described below, originally labeled as proposed Centrist alternatives to those in the survey, should instead be read as the positions of one particular Centrist who is looking to promote debate.

The Indepublicrat is still new to political blogging, so thanks you for your patience!]

1. Speech, Assembly, Press, Internet, and Property Rights

• Government should not restrict speech, press, media or Internet. The rights of free citizens who don't violate other people's rights must be respected and protected at all times. Exercise of eminent domain should be extremely limited and its use avoided whenever possible. Private property and privacy rights should be protected at all times.
• Speech, assembly, press, and Internet should be free except when it comes to protecting against terrorism and other threats to public safety. Free speech zones can be established to protect the right of free speech while insuring security at public events. Eminent domain should be maintained in practice, but it should not be available merely as a means to enrich private developers via enforced land transfers.
• My view: Content-neutral regulation of speech, assembly, press, and Internet expression is permissible, but only when the government has an overwhelmingly compelling reason that can not be accomplished by any other means. The government should attempt to balance private property and privacy rights on the one hand with legitimate community interests on the other, as with the provision of neighborhood sex offender data to parents concerned about the safety of their children.
• Speech, assembly, press, and Internet should be free except when controversies such as global warming have already been settled and legitimate public policies would be undermined by its few remaining detractors. Property rights should be subject to the needs of the government but otherwise should be respected.
• Government should regulate speech, press, media, Internet, and property rights at its own discretion within reason as needed to meet all of government's many obligations.

2. Guns

• The Second Amendment only applies to "militias" (such as the National Guard), and thus there is no specific protection afforded by it to individuals. It should be up to the government to decide the degree to which guns should be regulated for the public good.
• The Second Amendment to the Constitution clearly protects the right of all individuals to bear arms. Government regulation of guns is a violation of the Second Amendment. Having the right to self-defense is meaningless without also having the means to defend yourself. An armed society is a peaceful society, is the best defense against criminals, and serves as a deterrent against government tyranny. Gun control has encouraged society to become lax and negligent in teaching and training on the safe handling and maintenance of weapons by individuals.
• My view: The Second Amendment was written in an era of flintlock muskets by people who would have been appalled by the easy accessibility of assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, improvised explosive devices, and suicide vests. With dirty bombs and suitcase nukes around the corner, we should revisit this issue while there's still time to take a big step back from the brink of destruction.
• In general, I support the right to bear arms. However, it is prudent to have government regulate arms via registration requirements and other regulations to insure that mentally unstable people can't get guns and go on shooting rampages.
• Gun control is essential and must continually be made stronger if we're ever going to reduce and hopefully eliminate gun violence in this country.

3. Homosexual Marriage

• Homosexual relationships should be granted a civil stature similar to marriage without necessarily calling it "marriage."
• The government should pass laws that favor whatever view the majority of the population supports regarding homosexual relationships, including homosexual marriage.
• My view: There is no compelling reason for the government to withhold marriage recognition, benefits, or protections on the basis of sexual orientation, just as there is no compelling reason to withhold marriage recognition on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity. The term "civil union" is a wishy-washy compromise that pleases nobody.
• There should be no laws regarding homosexual relationships among consenting adults. It is a private, contractual matter between free, private individuals that should not be regulated.
• Homosexuality is an abomination, is banned by the Bible, and should be illegal in all cases.

4. Foreign Policy

• A strong defense requires playing an active, interventionist role in world affairs. As the last remaining superpower, we have a moral duty to police the world at any cost, or else we will surely pay the ultimate price. If we don't militarily wipe out terrorism, the terrorists will wipe us out. We must resolve to win no matter how long it takes. It's better to strike now than to pay later for our inaction.
• America should play an active role in world affairs. We need to move toward more world government, particularly when it comes to issues such as global warming. The war on terror should rely heavily on diplomatic action. Military intervention should be used when there is a threat to our sovereignty, but this position can and should be reversed whenever public opinion turns against it.
• My view: As the proud owners of the world's most powerful military and most vibrant economy, the United States will be condemned and vilified internationally whenever we try to act as the world's police force, as in Iraq, as well as those times when we choose not to act and, through our inaction, allow atrocities to occur, as in Dafur. It's a situation in which we can do nothing but try our best to maximize the help and minimize the harm of our military, economic, and humanitarian roles.
• The role of our government, and the role of the United Nations, should be constantly expanded to help insure that all of the world moves toward democracy. Complaints that government is too big already are simply counter-productive and should be ignored.
• "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none," said President Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address. America's interventionist policies over the past 100+ years have done little or nothing to reduce international instability, have led us into an endless series of wars, and have cost us dearly in American lives and money. The best defense of our borders is to defend our rights and liberty, not to sacrifice them while constantly growing our gigantic military, led by a parade of Presidents who repeatedly stick our nose into other countries' affairs.

5. National ID Card

• There should be no national ID card. Period. The issuance of required National IDs controlled via interconnected databases will effectively end all privacy in this country.
• We need a national ID card in order to prevent events like the attacks of 9/11 but without intruding too far into the personal privacy of the innocent.
• My view: We already have passports, Social Security cards, and drivers licenses that are becoming increasingly standardized among the states. Some combination of these documents should be sufficient to deter terror attacks while preserving privacy.
• National ID cards should be permitted but greatly restricted in scope because the potential for danger to personal liberty is present.
• I'm not at all concerned about having a national ID card. Only the guilty need to worry.

6. Corporate Welfare

• The government has a duty to insure that all individuals have food, clothing, and shelter and should also invest in private industry whenever it deems such investment to be in the public interest.
• End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business.
• My view: Subsidies should be available to help small business owners including farmers and to prevent vital industries from relocating overseas. Such subsidies should be reviewed on an ongoing basis by impartial reviewers who are not beholden to the industries under review.
• Government involvement is necessary where private industry can't do the job all by itself. As an example, agricultural subsidies should continue to support small farmers.
• Corporate welfare should be eliminated for big business, but the social safety net for individuals should be retained.

7. Trade and Money

• Trade that isn't fair isn't free. Fair trade practices should be enforced as needed to insure free trade while maintaining reasonably open borders. The Fed's policies should be revised to help the poor rather than the rich.
• The government should involve itself in the regulation of trade as needed to insure a healthy economy at all times. The Federal Reserve system has made our money supply the most stable in all history.
• My view: Regulation of trade is necessary to discourage our trading partners from unduly profiting from human rights abuses, exploitation of child labor, or the use inexpensive but dangerous manufacturing practices such as the substitution of lead paint for non-toxic alternatives. Monetary policy and fiscal policy should work hand-in-hand to help regulate the economy and prevent severe slowdowns or out of control inflation.
• End government barriers to international free trade. The regulation of trade tends enrich selected interest groups and industry captains at the expense of everyone else. We must move away from the inflationary approach of the Federal Reserve by re-adopting a hard money approach and dissolving the Federal Reserve system. Ever wonder why prices of everything (including real estate) keep going up over time? The Federal Reserve system is the culprit. President Woodrow Wilson, who signed the Federal Reserve Act into law regretted his decision three years later saying, "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country."
• Trade should be free in general, but it should be controlled as needed to insure that our borders are protected against outside threats. Monetary policy under the Fed has generally been good for our economy. Hard money can't keep up with a modern economy.

8. Social Security

• Social Security should be maintained and protected by the government, although we do need to offer individuals an alternative government-managed solution if they so choose.
• Social Security is a vital part of the social safety net and should be properly funded and protected at all times. If necessary, make big business and the rich pay for any shortfalls.
• My view: Social Security should not be viewed as a government-managed retirement fund, nor should it take the place of private retirement planning. Social Security is a system that allows those who currently can work to help provide for those who currently can not, due to advanced age or disability. When demographic trends change the ratio of workers to retirees, adjustments to the system should be made as needed without politicizing the issue.
• Government has an obligation to provide for people in their twilight years, and Social security is a proper expression of governmental control. The system is sound and does not need anything more than minor adjustments from time to time.
• Let people control their own retirement and they'll retire richer and better off. The Social Security system is already bankrupt, despite what the politicians and bureaucrats keep telling us. Allow individuals to choose for themselves whether to opt out of the Social Security system. If we force everyone to remain in its pyramid scheme, the end result will be disastrous. We must act now before Social Security becomes completely insolvent.

9. Health Care

• Government regulation of health care is the main cause of the health care industry's upward spiraling costs. The FDA, EPA, Medicare, and a host of other bureaucracies have created mountains of regulations that have led to the deaths of thousands and even millions of people who were denied needed treatments and resources. The cost of creating new treatments is also out of control because of this regulation. The only way to make health care affordable again is to get government out of the health care business.
• Health care costs are spiraling primarily due to lawsuits. We need to place caps on these suits while avoiding socialized medicine. Where possible, we should reduce regulation to save money. The rising cost of health care is primarily the fault of Liberal politicians and lobbying groups.
• My view: Increasing health care costs are the result of many factors including fraud, waste, profiteering, R&D, malpractice, inefficiency, improved care, delayed treatments, unhealthy lifestyles, and an aging population--in no particular order. There is no silver bullet solution, and any proposal that only addresses one or two of these things is simplistic and incomplete.
• Government regulation has gone a long way toward making health care universally accessible and safe, but there's a long way to go. We need universal health insurance to insure all Americans are adequately protected.
• Private enterprise has failed to deliver satisfactory health care. Government's role is clear: fix the problem.

10. Taxes, Spending, and the National Debt

• There should be no limits placed on the ability of government to raise sufficient revenue to do all the jobs government should be doing better, as expressed via majority rule.
• Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more. This will have an incredibly positive impact on the economy starting at its very lowest and smallest levels. The national debt must be paid down rather than endlessly increased, or we'll soon face national bankruptcy.
• My view: Everybody wants a government that provides them, personally, with more services while collecting from them, personally, fewer taxes. A savvy electorate should realize that rosy campaign promises to this effect are invariably lies and that fiscal responsibility should be the order of the day.
• The budget should be balanced and fully funded at all times, rather than actually cutting spending on a permanent basis. As needed, the national debt should be expanded to insure that there is sufficient funding for government operation and military growth needs. Occasional, temporary tax cuts should be offered in token amounts to keep the taxpayers mollified.
• We should be emphasizing the good that government can do to help people without getting all wrapped up in the costs involved. By spreading the load, such good can be spread out fairly and evenly. Progressive taxation helps insure that the rich don't live at the expense of the poor. However, we want to make sure we don't place too much of a burden on the middle class.

©2008 The Indepublicrat, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, January 2, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of The Indepublicrat only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. The Indepublicrat 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 The Indepublicrat of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.