Sunday, August 13, 2006
The first TigerHawk opinion poll consists of consecutive paired statements. Choose the statement in each pair that is closest to your opinion (even if you disagree with both alternatives).
UPDATE: Yes, there is a purpose to all of this. Just answer the farookin' questions and check back later.
The question on proportional representation can only be answered by "It depends on the country". Fiji, for instance, has special problems. So does any country with two distinct groups in a ratio such as 60:40. Britain, OTOH, works best with first-past-the-post.
I never doubted that the results here would be thus as I took the poll.
As such dichotomies necessarily oversimplify, there might be subtleties or exceptions to any of the questions that could be valid. A minor caveat.
The checklist of Transnatiional Progressivism from original work by by Jonh Fonte. I have used it similarly to look at actions here, here, definitionally to help destcribe Transnational Terrorism though not specifically called out, contrasting it to Jacksonianism. A nice and quick poll!
I suspect that my answers were generally common to most readers of this blog...with the exception of the first question. I identify with the place where I live and America, in that order, because I live here, as does my family, and the whole history of my family is bound up with this place (I'm a southerner of course).
I can understand how those born elsewhere might feel differently (I probably couldn't relate to them if they didn't.), but I don't understand the ethnic group-hyphenated American thing at all. Guess I'm a proper 19th Century nationalist thank you very much.
The format was a little confusing, especially when one of the items was composed of two sentences. I wasn't quite sure how the boxes lined up. Also, it seems possible to check both boxes in any "pair". The final question, about world citizenship, wasn't entirely straightforward. In fact I think I'm a citizen of the world precisely because I'm an American... and the national identity is defined by a universalist ideological perspective rather than an ethnic identity. But strictly speaking being a "world citizen" doesn't convey any of the rights associated with citizenship, because there's no democratically elected representative body that could enforce those rights. So the notion of having obligations without rights is something I just find unappealing. (And rights without obligations, while perhaps appealing, is probably illegitimate.)