I decided to mess with this a little. I decided to use the test to see the highest Authoritarian score I could get. I answered either Strongly Disagree or Strongly Agree only and with questions that can be answered in a clearly conservative fashion, I would mark Strongly Agree. Such as the question regarding whether the Christian Religion should be in taught in schools, I marked Strongly Agreed.
So, in messing with things I got this score:
Economic Left/Right: 6.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 8.15
However, I was doing this to see what it would take to see how high of an Authoritarian score I could get.
So I guess the lesson is this thing is not a true test of finding out one's political leanings and can be easily messed with.
And now I wonder if there is anything out there than can actually provide a real accurate score without being messed with. I don't think there is.
In one sense they are very authoritarian. But it all depends on how one defines authoritarian.
In partisan politics, of course, the claim will always be something akin to "the other party is the one who's Authoritarian and mine is not".
In regards to the test I think if you did the opposite you'd get a similar score on the other side of the graph.
But as for me, my own personal definition of Authoritarian, when it comes to politics, is that any party who wants to increase the size of government and increase it's powers over the citizens is an authoritarian party, regardless of the motivations behind it. I'm sure there are probably some weaknesses you can point out, but for the large part it pretty much bears out.
Such as when you consider the dictionary definition:
1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2. of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.
But for the most part, political tests like those shouldn't be trusted because they can always be manipulated.
People always confuse disagreements with ignorant.
It's a test to see what your political leanings are. It is not accurate and only speaks of terms of right/left and libertarian and authoritarianism. It does not consider things like left and right have different meanings in other countries. It doesn't consider that Democrats can be different than liberals nor does it consider that Republicans can be different from conservatives. Nor does it consider the beliefs of other political parties either. At least as far as I know.
Why would a person want to cheat on a personality test, unless they wanted to lie to themselves?
Because you assume that this is the only reason for doing something like this and therefore since it can be the only reason everybody who does this is the same.
Which is not true.
I notice you used the word leanings. Your use of the word recognizes the purpose of the test. Maybe you don't know what "leanings" means.
Every time I have a disagreement over something people claim this. Or they call me a child because I don't think like them and are always very rude to me like you have been. A disagreement is not the same thing as not being able to comprehend what something means. If I had a dollar for every single time this happened to me I'd be a rich man.
Actually it's you who wants to fit everything in a box, and your continued efforts to pester me show this.
I've actually read the Tea Party's official website. With you playing the race card it seems you haven't and are just following the party line. Which is ironic considering your little rant about me because I have my own beliefs about things. Not to mention how easily you've defined the Tea party as racists when you really haven't read anything about them except what your fellow liberals say about them. And I haven't known a liberal yet who does not call each and every single one of them racists because of a few loud mouthed idiots in the party as well as calling them Teabaggers as an insult.
So I'm sure you'll just continue to pester me just because I have my own beliefs. I suppose you just can't help yourself.
And that's the difference between me and you. I don't pester you or other people just because they have different beliefs than other people.
No, I wasn't and didn't, it was you who was making the claim that I was making the claim.
And I do address the issues. I have my own way of doing things and you just can't stand it.
And I have very unique points of view. People always get frustrated to no end because I do things my own way on my own time.
I know, people like you can't stand it.
And unlike you I am not an intellectual elitist who has to control the debate. I actually have more respect for people with different beliefs than you do.
So you know me personally? You know what I do or do not know? Weird?
You said they were all afraid of brown people. That's calling them racist.
You do realize that this is a debate site don't you? This is not a site to allow Tram Law to pontificate without him having to defend his arguments. If you don't like people calling you out on the crap you post, quit posting it. Or maybe you could address the issues people bring up with reasonable arguments and lay off the personal attacks. A thinker skin would help your posting a lot.
It is you who are pontificating and trying to define things. You are also being very rude to me and I don't see you treating anybody else this way. And all because I wasn't using the reply button. You continue to pester me.
I am not posting crap. These are things I believe. I always get somebody like you who can't stand my views on things and they have to do what they can to be rude and condescending to me to drive me off.
It is you who are intolerant of other people's views.
Maybe you should Google Mark Williams. I can show you endless examples of racism in the Tea Party movement. How many examples of Tea Partiers disavowing the racism can you provide?
The fact of the matter is it is you who are generalizing and I will simply not read websites like that who have to play the race card for the lemmings who can't think for themselves. Why don't you actually read their website and see their beliefs?
But I doubt you'll read anything about it because you're locked into your "they're all racists crap, each and every single one of the hundreds of thousands" of them.
But don't mistake this for support of racism. I do not support racism. I am against using it as a political tactic.
If you really wanted to debate you would stick with the issues rather than playing the race card. This is a very common tactic among you liberals. And you guys collectively judge and entire group of people.
Such as calling Arizona racists for the anti-illegal immigration laws.
If you want to debate, debate or discuss, and stop being so rude to me. If you want to challenge me to a formal debate, do so. But I am not likely to engage you as I am not a good formal debater.
I am not an intellectual elitist. And I have my own way of doing things. When you accept that the better off you'll be.
And where were people like you when during the primaries Hillary's camp was constantly playing the race card against Obama?
And I hope everybody else is being entertained by our little spat.