Find Out Where You Stand

The Deceptive Simplicity of Pure Ideologies

A Pittsburgh Post-Gazette op ed of June 1911

Congress, someone points out every day, appears to be almost wholly polarized: with liberals on one side and conservatives on the other. But many suspect, sometimes backed up by one poll or another, that the rest of the country is not so bifurcated, that countless citizens of ours have not been captured by one or another ideology but merely lean this way or that, everywhere harboring reservations.

Rather than try to compete with pollsters by also counting noses, I’ve devised a simple test that might help readers know just where they stand on that continuum and, by inference, others of our countrymen. Answering my questions may tell you what you already know; but you also might learn something about yourself that had been veiled, obscured.

First, two cautions. I am not dealing here with contentious cultural or social issues, such as abortion, but only economic ones. My little test is mighty crude; the reader must judge whether it is better than nothing.

Let me begin by describing a fictional, utopian United States where [a] everyone who wants to work and is able to do so has a job; [b] everyone has access to competent health care; [c] the elderly and the handicapped are not left destitute; [d] the country’s budget is usually in balance.

My test is aimed at those who agree that each of these four conditions constitutes a good thing, even if they doubt that they are attainable. You are now invited to state what you are willing or not willing to have the government do to bring us closer to such a desirable society.

Regarding [a], jobs, give yourself three points if you think the government should create public jobs to keep down unemployment; two points if the government should spend money to stimulate the economy; one point if the market should be left to solve employment problems.

Regarding [b], health care, three points for a single-payer system like Canada’s; two points for government to subsidize health insurance as needed; one point for government to provide, at most, vouchers for private health care.

Regarding [c], Social Security, three points for raising the payroll tax to preserve the retirement disability system; two points for increasing the age of eligibility; one point for privatization.

Regarding [d], the budget, three points for raising taxes to balance it; two points for raising taxes and cutting government spending; one point for reducing spending only.

The highest score possible is 12 points, representing dyed-in-the-wool liberals, strong believers in an active government. The lowest score possible is three points, representing staunch conservatives who believe in the smallest government possible.

Now note that there remains a considerable range of nine steps between the poles. Indeed, while I have always thought of myself as a committed liberal, my position turns out not to be that pure.

For jobs, I get two points for government stimulus. For health care, I would be happy with subsidies, another two points. For Social Security, I’m for some tax increase together with upping the age of eligibility, giving me two and a half points. Finally, to balance the budget, I also take the middle ground: both raise taxes and reduce spending, for another two points. That comes to eight and a half points — a wishy-washy liberal, far from a pure liberal’s 12.

What’s true of me might well be true of you; indeed, a sizeable fraction of the voting population likely hold positions far from either extreme. Let’s let Congress know.

Rudolph Weingartner is a University of Pittsburgh professor emeritus of philosophy (rudywein@comcast.net). The second edition of his “Fitting Form to Function: A Primer on the Organization of Academic Institutions” will be published in June.