American Political Ideology Test

STRONGLY IN FAVOR. Free trade is always in the people's interest. The U.S. should have open trade with every country in the world. The government has no right to make restrictions on imports or exports. NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO should be expanded and made less restrictive over time. Globalization is good.

IN FAVOR. Free trade is in our national interest because it provides economic growth and jobs. The U.S. government should only restrict free trade when it poses a security risk, including environmental and labor safeguards are acceptable if they can be successfully negotiated into trade agreements, but should not be used as a pretext to stop trade agreements.

OPPOSED. Free Trade should be replaced by Fair Trade. Free trade is not in our national interest when it poses a risk to job security, causes humanitarian problems overseas, or results in environmental damage. Globalization should focus on benefiting people instead of benefiting multinational corporations.

STONGLY OPPOSED. Americans should buy from other Americans because that creates American jobs. We should restrict trade with any country which costs us jobs or which creates a trade deficit. Globalization is just another means of corporate influence over our society.

NO OPINION or there other other policy options regarding trade.

STRONGLY IN FAVOR. The U.S. has an obligation as the leaders of the world to maintain a strong military and we have an obligation to our service personnel to pay them adequately.

IN FAVOR. The U.S. should consider carefully before making cuts. For example, base closings have hurt local economies, and reducing military personnel has put pressure on employment.

OPPOSED. Build smart, not necessarily big. Money is often better spent on issues other than defense. The U.S. should cut back on troops stationed abroad and focus on quality of our troops instead of quantity.

STRONGLY OPPOSED. Defense spending includes huge amounts of pork-barrel spending and should be reduced dramatically. The U.S. should change their Defense policy to one of defense, instead of one where we police the world. Pull U.S. troops out of Europe, Japan, Korea, and elsewhere. We are wrong to have a military that is as large as the rest of the world combined.

NO OPINION or there are other options.

STONGLY IN FAVOR. Immigration restrictions are basically racist because they keep out Hispanics and other non-whites. We should reform US immigration laws and use them to increase our diversity and cultural tolerance. Social services should be offered to all residents of the United States regardless of immigration status. Illegal aliens should be offered amnesty if they prove themselves as productive members of society.

IN FAVOR. The government should make few restrictions on immigration. If the number of immigrants is too high, establish an immigration fee and raise it until the number of immigrants is acceptable or change the immigration quotas by some other method.

OPPOSED. Maintain legal immigration while enforcing against illegal immigration. Tighten our borders and decrease substantially or stop all immigration so we can address domestic problems.

STRONGLY OPPOSED. We should strictly enforce our immigration laws by increasing border patrols, and we should crack down on illegal immigrants already in the U.S. by deportation and by removing all their social benefits. In the long run, we should decrease immigration.

NO OPINION or there are other policy options regarding immigration.

STRONGLY IN FAVOR. The Patriot Act is unpatriotic. The terrorists are winning because they have forced us to limit our Constitutional civil rights. We should not give up our liberties in exchange for security, because if we do we will end up with neither.

IN FAVOR. Homeland security needs should be balanced with respect for civil rights, and the Patriot Act goes too far. The sunset clause (automatic phaseout) should apply to all aspects so that the Patriot Act automatically disappears when the War on Terror is ended. Some provisions should be repealed immediately, because they grant too much power to the federal government and restrict our Constitutional rights too much.

OPPOSED. To win the War on Terror, we need powerful tools to fight a new and powerful enemy. Hiding behind "civil rights" arguments coddles the terrorists and encourages them to strike again. We need to counter-attack the terrorists with financial weapons and legalistic weapons as well as military weapons.

STONGLY OPPOSED. means you believe: The president should be granted all the means necessary to fight the War on Terror. When dealing with terrorists who want to destroy our country, stretching the definitions of torture and the Geneva Convention is necessary. Remember the victims of 9/11 first, and focus on preventing another 9/11 rather than focusing on civil rights of terrorists.

NO OPINION or that there are other ways to reform the Patriot Act and other national security policies.

STONGLY IN FAVOR. Public funds should be used for political campaigns. The best way to reduce the influence of big-money lobbyists and special interests is to remove as much money as possible from campaigning. Free television time would be a good start.

IN FAVOR. Reforms are needed in campaign finance, in order to reduce the influence of moneyed interests. Those reforms might include restrictions on personal donations to political campaigns; restrictions on corporate, labor union, or PAC donations; and restrictions on PAC activities.

OPPOSED. Politicians will always find loopholes in any campaign finance reform, so the best approach is just to monitor campaigns for lawbreaking and leave the rest to the press. Better reporting of donations would be useful.

STRONGLY OPPOSED. Campaign donations are free speech, and should not be limited for corporations nor for individuals. PACs and 527 committees should be similarly allowed free speech via unlimited spending on any issue or any candidate they choose.

NO OPINION or there are other policy solutions regarding campaign funding and contributions.

STRONGLY IN FAVOR. Our retirement funds should not be entrusted to the government. The entire Social Security system should be run the way we currently run IRAs, Keogh plans, 401(k)'s, and other private pension plans.

IN FAVOR. The Trust Fund might be invested in the stock market or via some other private investment vehicle. Individuals should be given at least some control over how their retirement funds are invested.

OPPOSED. Social Security should remain under federal control, but you want reforms on how the Trust Fund is handled. In particular, the `Lockbox Bill' is a good first reform, since it keeps the system secure while avoiding privatization.

STRONGLY OPPOSED. Social Security should remain forever under federal control to ensure that all Americans have a secure retirement. The Trust Fund should not be invested in anything like the stock market, since that would introduce undue risk.

NO OPINION or there are other ways of reforming social security.

YES. References to God violate the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. The United States is a secular nation that respects people of all faiths and those who have no religious beliefs.

Yes, but it's okay to leave current references because they don't give any indication to any specific god but don't create future references.

No. They are a reminder of the Judeo-Christian principles that helped found this country and the 1st Amendment only prevents the establishment of a national sect. References to God on government property don't violate the 1st Amendment.

NO. This country, was solely Founded on Judeo-Christian values. The 10 Commandments have underpinned Western laws for centuries and they should be displayed in court houses and other government buildings.

STRONGLY IN FAVOR. Too few Americans have adequate health insurance. The government should make funds available for more complete coverage, or should expand existing government-run coverage to all citizens. A single-payer system would solve most healthcare problems.

IN FAVOR. The government should provide coverage or subsidize health insurance for at-risk groups such as children and the elderly. Society benefits when more people are covered. Universal health insurance is a good goal, although some market methods can work as well as government systems.

OPPOSED. While more thorough health coverage is a noble idea, further health coverage should be promoted through non-government means.

STRONGLY OPPOSED. Nationalized health care would entail a government takeover of a large portion of the economy and undue intrusions into our personal medical histories. Remove the federal government from the health care industry. The private sector does a better job at providing health insurance to citizens.

NO OPINION or there are other policy options on funding health care.

YES. The 2nd Amendment gives Americans the absolute right to own guns so they can protect themselves from criminals and oppressive government. That was the Founders intention.

Yes but with restrictions. Some background checks can keep them out of the hands of convicted felons and the mentally ill but leave it to the states. Don't take away guns from responsible owners and educate people about gun safety.

No but don't outlaw all guns. Expanded background checks, bans an assault weapons, and limits on how much ammunition one can posses is a good way to stop gun violence.

NO. There are too many crimes involving guns. They should be outlawed. The 2nd Amendment only applies if you're part of the militia.

NO OPINION or there are other ways of creating effective policy.

STRONGLY IN FAVOR. A progressive income tax is one of the cornerstones of modern society. Its premise is that the wealthy contribute proportionally more than those with lower incomes. That is the right way to run our tax system, and we should keep it that way.

IN FAVOR. Flatter taxes benefit the wealthy more than the lower and middle class. We should focus tax relief on the majority of taxpayers instead of on the richest few percent, while preserving important deductions like mortgage interest and charitable donations.

OPPOSED. A Flat Tax would simplify the entire tax system. It would get rid of loopholes that drive tax-avoiding behaviors. And it would remove most deductions and the special interests that come with them. In the meantime, tax cuts benefit the economy in both good economic times and bad economic times.

STRONGLY OPPOSED. Ideally, the income tax and the IRS should be abolished. Perhaps a national sales tax, like the FairTax, is a good replacement. Lower and flatter taxes are a good first step.

NO OPINION or there are other ways of reforming taxes.

STONGLY IN FAVOR. Affirmative Action makes up for past injustice. Until blacks, women, and other minorities are proportionately represented in the upper classes of the economy and the workplace, society owes them a hand up. Government should actively enforce Affirmative Action laws in private companies.

IN FAVOR. Under-represented groups should be favored, but perhaps basing results on formal quotas goes too far. Nevertheless, the government should prosecute companies which discriminate against women and minorities.

OPPOSED. Affirmative Action is a noble idea, but should not be enforced by government. Government should enforce an end to racial prejudice, period.

STRONGLY OPPOSED. Affirmative Action is better described as Reverse Discrimination. Quotas based on race and gender are wrong, whichever race or gender they favor. Under-represented groups should fend for themselves without government intervention.

NO OPINION or there are other policy options regarding race discrimination.