Are you a neoconservative?

Or are you more of a realist, liberal or isolationist? Take this quiz and find out.

It's only 10 questions but I found it to be a decent little quiz and accurate in my case.

My result: Liberal (shocker)

Liberals…

Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy
Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.
Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions
Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
Oppose American imperialism
Support international law, alliances, and agreements
Encourage US participation in the UN
Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor

Historical liberal: President Woodrow Wilson
Modern liberal: President Jimmy Carter

I am not believing this!

According to these idiots, I'm most likely a liberal!

"Liberal

Liberals…

Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy
Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.
Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions
Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
Oppose American imperialism
Support international law, alliances, and agreements
Encourage US participation in the UN
Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor


I have no idea how they came to this conclusion based on the answers I gave!

LOL!

Not surprisingly, I also scored "Liberal".

Thomas - this may actually be the first time our posts have shared any form of agreement

(Though I'm not confident about the results - knowing our differences of opinion about certain things, it seems unlikely that your political bent would be the same as mine!)

Fun quiz, either way.

And yeah, I don't mind being a screaming lefty liberal.

Then again, I don't vote. So it's not as if it matters.

TC, when are you going to accept the fact that you are a bleeding heart liberal?

Hehe, and either ECK or Colonel a long while back tried to tell me this wasn't true:

Based on your answers, you are most likely a neoconservative. Read below to learn more about each foreign policy perspective.

Rock, rock on, let the $h$^-storm on JJ commence

Really, though, is anyone surprised?

Neoconservative
Neoconservatives…

* Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower
* Share unwavering support for Israel
* Support American unilateral action
* Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security
* Promote the development of an American empire
* Equate American power with the potential for world peace
* Seek to democratize the Arab world
* Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies

Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt
Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan

You know, Teddy is probably my favorite prez, and Reagan ranks up there, too. I was going to suggest Teddy for the Greatest American poll here on ATS before Gradey got me thinking about Dave Schippers. I don't entirely agree with creating an American empire, but rather our proliferation of the ideal that human life is precious and not a commodity. Also, I don't unwaveringly support Israel, they screw up, too, and I'm more than happy to point out when they drop the ball. Heh, only thing is, I don't think they drop the ball all that often.

Let the flame-fest begin, or accept that we don't see eye to eye on political matters

Ok, now that I see the definition of neoconservative, let me point out my differences.

I don't want us to be challenged, and I'd prefer we not challenge others. I don't care if another is a superpower in light of that.
I believe that Israel is a prophesy come to pass, and I believe the Bible when it says God will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel, but I don't believe that means that everything they do is right and that we have to cheer them on no matter what they do. However, I believe that Israel is basically a good nation, so there isn't any reason to curse them.
I support unilateral action in saying that we have to worry about our own well-being since nobody else is likely to do it for us. Even if it means preemptive strikes, not on "perceived" threats, but real ones.
Yes, I see American power as a stabilizing force in the world, because there are several rogue nations who are morally bankrupt. Having a strong nation around to deter the dangerous regimes from doing stupid stuff is a good idea. This only works, though, if the U.S. doesn't become morally bankrupt as well.
I do not like "Democracy", as all that means is mob rule with military control. This being the case, I am not for "democratizing" the Middle East. I'd like to see people have the opportunity to live in a nation that was set up as mine was to begin with. Maybe, if a fresh bunch of people pulled it off, we could see how it is supposed to be done and try to do it again ourselves!

In essence, bullet statements are hard to swallow. Especially by a group who claims Reagan was a "neocon". He wasn't. He was much better and much smarter.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
In essence, bullet statements are hard to swallow. Especially by a group who claims Reagan was a "neocon". He wasn't. He was much better and much smarter.

The term neo-con has been demonized. neo-con, by its very wording, means a new conservative. It's not new, but there had to be a name for Rush Limbaugh and his ilk that held more punch than just calling him a conservative. Just like the right is attempting (and doing a decent job, sadly) to demonize the label "liberal", the left created and demonized the term "neoconservative". Unfortunately for the left, conservatives took that title and made it into a badge of honor, part of the demonization of the word liberal. Limbaugh (I'm guessing, I don't listen to the angry, name calling idiot, I'm kinda basing this off of Hannity, whom I do enjoy listening to) considers himself a Reagan conservative. Those very concepts Reagan made popular, such as peace through power, have been demonized by the left who, to be rather trite and inflammatory, believe we can sit down at a summit with the terrorists and negotiate a peace treaty. We can't, I don't believe so, anyway, and that makes me a neocon.

Don't fall into the trap of believing the demonization of a term, Thomas Crowne. Many liberals have fallen into this trap and have taken to calling themselves progressives. Liberalism is an awesome thing, we absloutly need it. Without liberalism, this country couldn't be nearly as great as it is today, if it even still existed. It's just the linguistic ballet both sides play, and we plebes in the system have to learn to see through the smokescreens. If you're a liberal, be proud! You care for the suffering and welfare of everyone, be they human or not! If you're a neocon, be proud! You love the ideals for which your country stands, namely liberty, and want to bring that ideal to the world. If you consider yourself any other label, be proud! We need all of them to make this country great. Without a balance, we become a totalitarian goverenment. No one, on any of the many political sides, wants that.

Never be ashamed of what people call you, even if they demonize your beliefs through that title, if you truely believe in what you stand for. Never be ashamed of who you are.

[edit on 7-11-2005 by junglejake]

Uh, Jake, I've been me for the last 41 years. If someone doesn't like it, tough!
The neoconservative is a new creature. Conservative ideology is nothing new, but neoConservatism is different.
Liberalism, on the other hand you say we need it. Why is that?

To clarify what I am, so that nobody misunderstands the difference between neo conservatism and paleoconservatism, I make it clear that I am a Constitutionalist. I haven't found many in either of the mainstream ideologies who really take to heart what the Founding Fathers intended. While Conservatism might be closer, they are still quite a ways off.

They need to understand this, and vote accordingly:
www.constitutionparty.com...

[edit on 11-7-2005 by Thomas Crowne]

Sorry for hijacking the thread, Lecky...Well, not too sorry, or I'd not be making this post

First, to Thomas, how is neoconservativism different, besides an increase in government power and presence in the increase of a military presence? Also, as you said, you've been you for 41 years. I've been me for about 8, and I was a neocon before I even knew what the term was.

Next, I've seen that you consider yourself a constitutionalist, and nothing I've seen has shown otherwise. However, we create these labels in order to fit people into neat, easy to quantify slots. The fact is, the labels are misleading. I don't entirely agree with conservatism across the board, just as I'll bet there's some things in being a constitutionalist you disagree with. Quite frankly, the only label that can apply to me is that I'm Jake, and I believe what Jake believes.

Now, why do we need liberalism? Without liberalism, we would not have a judiciary system that assumes innocence until proven wrong. We wouldn't have workers unions, which, before they became corrupt, saved many Americans from attrocious working conditions. Without liberalism, we wouldn't have welfare. It has gotten out of hand, but anybody can have the world fall out from under them and need a little help until they get their feet back on the ground. We would still have slavery were it not for liberalism. We would still have segregation if it weren't for liberalism.

There needs to be a balance between state and human. I stand for the ideal for which America stands, personal liberty. I stand for the ideal, a liberal stands for the individual. While I would be ok with the removal of one for the ideal, a liberal would fight tooth and nail for the rights of that one. If we lose sight of the goal, we lose our direction. At the same time, when that goal is the individual, we can lose sight of the goal while striving for the ideal. By having a healthy balance of people looking at the tree and people looking at the forest, we keep one another in check. I don't want to know what this country would become if I called all the shots, just like I wouldn't want to know what this country would become if Rant called all the shots. Moderation is the key to success. If you get too extreme, in either direction, you lose the goal, the ideal.

Here is a piece of work that might explain a bit of the differences to you, and the history.
www.lewrockwell.com...

As far as liberalism removing slavery from our society, you are assuming that because we grew enough to know that the Blacks were as much human as the Whites, it must have been a liberal idea. I do not agree with that assumption. The liberals did not create our judicial system, eitehr.
AS far as the unions, do you consider that "liberal"? I don't, and I've been in two, so far, and a steward for one. As far as them being corrupt, we've progressed a long way since the movie, "Hoffa"'s days, so don't naturally connect unions with the word "corruption". They are no more corrupt than the next organization that is made up of and run by humans.

Welfare is a liberal concept, you are correct. That was the brainchild of FDR, and it has not beenthe remedy of anything. As a matter of fact, it has raised taxes, lowered self esteem, created a subculture of nonproducers, and taken true compassion out of the hands of the communities, placed it into the hands of the government, and made it an ineffectual mess where most of the tax money is spent on the beaurocracy than those it is supposed to help. Thanks, liberalism, we didn't need that!

There is nothing too "extreme" about the country being as it was supposed to be. Every time "do-gooders" have tinkered with the system, they've only made it worse. And, on top of that, I firmly believe they know what they are doing when they screw things up. They are making the public more reliant on the government and less of rugged individuals who pride themselves on self-reliance.

Realists…

Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision.

Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa.

Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations.

Believe strong alliances are important to US interests.

Weigh the political costs of foreign action.

Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest.

Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell

Sounds about right to me.

Liberal
Liberals…

* Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy
* Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.
* Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions
* Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
* Oppose American imperialism
* Support international law, alliances, and agreements
* Encourage US participation in the UN
* Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor

Historical liberal: President Woodrow Wilson
Modern liberal: President Jimmy Carter

no surprise here

It's nice to be different....

Isolationist
The term isolationist is most often used negatively; few people who share its beliefs use it to describe their own foreign policy perspective. They believe in "America first." For them, national sovereignty trumps international relations. Many unions, libertarians, and anti-globalization protesters share isolationist tenets.
Isolationists…

* Are wary of US involvement in the United Nations
* Oppose international law, alliances, and agreements
* Believe the US should not act as a global cop
* Support trade practices that protect American workers
* Oppose liberal immigration
* Oppose American imperialism
* Desire to preserve what they see as America's national identity and character

Historical isolationist: President Calvin Coolidge
Modern isolationist: Author/Commentator Pat Buchanan

Although I'm not 100% crazy about being classified with Buchanan...

Realist

Realists…

Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
Weigh the political costs of foreign action
Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest
Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell

Even though I'm not American I took the quiz anyway

Based on your answers, you are most likely a liberal.

* Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy
* Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.
* Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions
* Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
* Oppose American imperialism
* Support international law, alliances, and agreements
* Encourage US participation in the UN
* Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor

No complains here.

ATS finaly let me log in.
Now to my quiz results.

Realist
Realists…

* Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
* Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
* Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
* Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
* Weigh the political costs of foreign action
* Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest

Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell

Your options are pretty limted with the quiz.

Here's me:

Isolationist

The term isolationist is most often used negatively; few people who share its beliefs use it to describe their own foreign policy perspective. They believe in "America first." For them, national sovereignty trumps international relations. Many unions, libertarians, and anti-globalization protesters share isolationist tenets.

Isolationists…

Are wary of US involvement in the United Nations
Oppose international law, alliances, and agreements
Believe the US should not act as a global cop
Support trade practices that protect American workers
Oppose liberal immigration
Oppose American imperialism
Desire to preserve what they see as America's national identity and character


That's me all right. I say just leave everyone else in the world alone. America first!

I say we should disconnect from the UN--pronto.

Isolationist

The term isolationist is most often used negatively; few people who share its beliefs use it to describe their own foreign policy perspective. They believe in "America first." For them, national sovereignty trumps international relations. Many unions, libertarians, and anti-globalization protesters share isolationist tenets.

Isolationists…

Are wary of US involvement in the United Nations
Oppose international law, alliances, and agreements
Believe the US should not act as a global cop
Support trade practices that protect American workers
Oppose liberal immigration
Oppose American imperialism
Desire to preserve what they see as America's national identity and character
Historical isolationist: President Calvin Coolidge

Modern isolationist: Author/Commentator Pat Buchanan

originally posted by xpert11
Your options are pretty limted with the quiz.

Agreed. Definately some tough questions and the choices were somewhat limiting. I could have gone a couple different ways on a few of 'em(Israel and N. Korea specifically). But all-in-all fairly accurate, however generic.

I just chose the option that was closest to what I believe. I'm against foreign entanglements. Everyone just keep to themselves.

Just go away and leave me alone.....

isolationist.....

lol!!!
personally, I think their test is a little screwy....I'm more of an independence type person, which is why I don't like the why we meddle in every other's country's affairs.....the less countries we are dependant on, who are dependant on us (same thing really), well, the better off we are. so it labeled me an isolationist.