Politics! Come inside for controversy and intrigue! - 16 Nov 2007 - 5 views

Current mood:indescribable

You can take this quiz over on the USA Today's website (yes that's a hyperlink). It gives you a series of questions and compares your answers to those of the presidential candidates to show you who are most inline with. Below are my answers and justifications. After taking the quiz (and scaling the issues for importance which you can do at the end) my top candidates came out (not at all surprisingly) to be 1. Dennis Kucinich, 2. Mike Gravel, and 3. Ron Paul. Cheers

Question 1: Should the United States have invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussain
My answer: No, the US never should have gone in.
Why: I favour isolationist tendencies and am particularly opposed to offensive war – especially if I feel the war is unjust, and the Iraq was is as unjust as it gets.

Question 2: What should happen to the US troop levels in Iraq?
My answer: Withdraw most US troops as rapidly as possible, beginning immediately.
Why: My real answer is more extreme – I want to see all foreign troops withdrawn completely and immediately. I want no foreign troops left in the region and want to see no permanent bases left there. I believe that the war is both illegal and immoral. I also believe that US militarism and neo-colonial attitudes are the reason that the rest of the world is so hostile to theUS. If the US genuinely wanted peaceful relations with the Middle Eastthen they'd leave the region alone – the Middle East doesn't hate the West because it's Western, but because Western nations try to force their values upon Middle Eastern nations. I find this topic fascinating , if you're interested read Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order by Samuel Huntington – he predicts everything going on in the world now back in the mid 1990s.

Question 3: Should the US government continue to fund the Iraq war?
My answer: No, because the US presence in Iraq is encouraging terrorists.
Why: Again, my real answer is a bit more extreme – because I feel that the war is both illegal (because it does not represent the will of the people and was originally justified on information that was both incorrect and intentionally misleading) and unjust/immoral. Although I do completely agree that it encourages terrorists.

Question 4: What should the federal government's emphasis be in dealing with illegal immigration?
My Answer: Establish a new programme for temporary migrant workers, also known as guest workers.
Why: This is a bit more convoluted… I'm an amateur historian – I actually enjoy reading history books. Because of this, events that have happened in the past often have a big influence on my beliefs of the present. Therefore, the reason I have very open policies towards immigration (especially towards Mexican and South American immigration) is because in the historical context I think it helps rectify the misdeeds of the US (and for that matter the Spanish and Portuguese) in reference to these regions (eg: The Monroe Doctrine, Manifest Destiny, genocide of Native Americans, stealing Texas, California etc. from Mexico, etc. etc.)

Question 5: What should happen to the illegal immigrants already in theUS?
My answer: Allow illegal immigrants to stay in the US and provide a path to citizenship that includes paying fines, learning English and meeting other conditions.
Why: See above. Some people seem to think it's week, but I've always thought the, "I'm not a Native American. Are you?" argument for open immigration policies was compelling. I should note though that I don't completely agree with the answer in the quiz; I don't think they should pay fines.

Question 6: What's the best way the federal government can get more people covered by health insurance?
My answer: By establishing a national health insurance programme.
Why: The US is the ONLY first world nation that doesn't have some form of socialised healthcare. Part of my desire to move to Europe, I'll admit, is because of this issue. The US already spends twice as much per capita as either Canada Britain on heath care. It certainly could afford it. Furthermore, the arguments about how socialised heath care systems are busted (especially in reference to Canada) is silly (and I've only every heard Americans use them – every Canadian I've ever met loves their health care system); statistics don't lie – life expectancies, susceptibility to disease etc. are all worse in the US. The US desperately needs national socialised health care that focuses on preventative medicine. The reason the US doesn't have it is because of deliberate stubbornness and antagonism (see the metric system) and greed on the part of politicians and big business (because a socialised system, if done properly, would necessarily require the dismantling of health insurance companies). Unfortunately, the prognosis is grim and I don't think socialised healthcare will ever come to the US. or

Question 7: What should be the federal government's priority in reducing health care costs?
My answer: Move to a single-payer, government-backed insurance system.
Why: See above. Also I think the "capitilisation" of healthcare argument is a joke, intended to maintain the profitability of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and not based on empirical evidence. I feel that the point of government is to maintain and provide social stability (only), and health is certainly an issue of social stability.

Question 8: What should the government do about same-sex couples that want to get married?
My answer: It should be allowed and treated the same as marriage between a man and a woman.
Why: This question is fun! So my argument is this. Fact – according to the social contract that binds all US citizens there is separation of church and state. This means both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Therefore, religion, under no circumstances may enter statuary deliberation and religious arguments are moot. To me, the concept of "marriage" is religious. Since religions are under no obligation provide equal rights to its adherents they are certainly free to define marriage as "Man + Woman". But because marriage is religious I oppose it as a legal classification. Therefore, I oppose both heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage in a legal context. However, I understand the need of a marriage-like concept of legal classification – certainly there are issues of children, money, property, etc. But both heterosexual and homosexuals face these issues and need clarification upon them, so I favour the concept of "Cohabitational Contracts" (I made this word up!). Since it's void of any religious undertones there are no reasons to make divisions and definitions specific of gender (or number too for that matter). … That being said… I understand that my argument is purely academic, semantic, not at all pragmatic, and would never happen… so being in favour of gay marriage is the second best thing.

Question 9: What would be the best way to improve the federal income tax system?
My answer: Scrap the entire system and start over.
Why: I'll admit – this topic is the one I'm far and away the least knowledgeable of. Viva la Revolucion? Not exactly, but I've certainly got sympathies for it. I wish I could specify that I don't want my taxes going to military spending, but citizens ear-marking their own taxes is unrealistic. My feelings towards taxation are this – rich people should pay a whole lot more, poor people should pay a whole lot less. Therefore, I'd oppose any regressive tax.

Question 10: What would be the best way for the federal government to deal with global warming?
My answer: set mandatory caps on carbon emissions.
Why: I should note that I also agree with the answers, "Create a "cap-and-trade" system…", "Set a tax on fuels based on the amount of carbon emissions…", and "Invest in alternative energy sources." The environment is a big deal – and frankly if you decide to have children you have a moral and biological obligation to ensure that it doesn't turn into a piece of shit. Also have you ever heard of the Holocene extinction? No! Go back and read that link. I like the Kyoto treaty, and believe that this is one of those instances where the Free Market could actually work to make a positive change. Of course there also needs to be caps, regulations, harsh penalties, social change and alternate fuels (actually there already are, LED and solar technology has come very far, but because the patents are owned by Japanese companies and not GE the US government acts as though they don't exist), so "persuade" companies to compete, but I'd definitely like to see them compete over being environmentally friendly.

Question 11: In terms of experience, which of the following matters most to you in a presidential candidate?
My answer: Has served as governor or mayor.
Why: I actually don't care about experience one way or they other. As long as they're sincere, honest, not compelled by special interest groups, progressive, have no agenda, not an ideologue, and seem to care I think they're qualified. This is why I like Ron Paul so much – not because I agree with what he says, but because fits those qualities; a candidate's character can certainly overstep ideology. I chose governor/mayor for no other reason than because I like Bill Clinton.