E!! The True Conservative Story™

This test is pretty interesting.  (Thanks goes out to Dr. Michael Clifford for pointing me to it.)

I’ve taken the Pew Research Center political spectrum test and others in the past, but this one is a little different.  This not only shows you where you are on the Left/Right axis but also charts you on the spectrum between Authoritarian/Libertarian.  (You’ll see what I mean after you take the test and have your “dot” plotted.)

You can also see where other famous and notorious persons fall on the chart, which is interesting in and of itself.  (For example, I would have thought I was sort of a Maggie Thatcher type, but it turns out I am way more libertarian than she.  I am at exactly the midpoint between the two extremes; she was more to the authoritarian side.)

I’d love to hear where everyone ends up (especially those of you I know either personally or via the blogosphere).  Takes 5 to 10 minutes to answer the questions and the results are instant.

UPDATE:  Getting lots of feedback that people are dissatisfied with the quality and/or clarity of the questions in the test.  The Venerable Mr. Crum says he came out a “centrist” on both the “x” and “y” axis – but rightly points out that on the issues he is often more to the right than me (who came out 6 squares right of center).

For more on the Christopher Buckley thing, here’s his latest post, and Rich’s note on The Corner yesterday.  (Don’t miss the part where Buckley changed the header of his post from the patently dishonest “I Was Fired” to the fully accurate ”Buckley Bows Out”)

Here’s my three cents:

(1)  Those who cancelled their subscription to National Review over this matter are being silly. The magazine’s value is not negated by what any one contributor (or ex-contributor) does or says on any one day. NR is more than a great conservative political journal; it his an American Icon. You’d no more stop reading it than you’d swear off apple pie and ice cream.

(2)  It appears that Christopher Buckley is exaggerating all over himself in an effort to create a stir and invite publicity as he breaks away into his brave new world.

What does Christopher mean by saying that Rich Lowry “rather briskly” accepted his resignation and that he is saddened by the “disavowal”?

Does he mean there was not a satisfactorily lengthy pause preceding Rich’s agreement to his departure?  Was Christopher’s ego disappointed at not receiving the expected number of murmured regrets and “it’s a damn shame”s?

Or did he think, as I suspect, that his resignation would not be accepted?  Was the act more a gesture than a genuine offer, and is he now in a snit because Rich and Jack Fowler had the ill manners to take him at his word?

Regardless, to say there was/is “acrimony” on the part of NR is surely going too far. I’ve seen nothing but friendship and warmth extended Buckley’s way from everyone at NR and on The Corner, so the insinuation that there is an air of rancor and animosity feels like Complete and Utter Nonsense.

(3)  There is much more that could be said in re: to Christopher’s comments about WFB’s occasional support of liberal Democrats (all far better men than Obama appears to be), rigorous standards of candor (which Junior seems to be lacking), and independence of thought and action (which were genuine and never for show).

But, it is all well known. WFB was a singular man. He was always himself, and never embarrassed or dishonored his friends (or even his enemies) by being small of heart or deed.

The son does not honor the father with all this elaborate and unpleasant flailing around.  A graceful exit would have been a more fitting tribute to the man we all loved…and miss terribly in these difficult days.

(UPDATE: Anne of Idaho, who is reading D.H. Lawrence, sends an unrelated yet serendipitous quote.

“And he began to feel, coldly and cynically, that among all her distress there was a luxuriating in the violent emotions of the scene in hand, and the situation altogether.”

Re-stated: Christopher Buckley is being a drama queen, and it is causing me to feel more indifferent to his plight than I otherwise might.)

Andrew Klavan and Queen Victoria   – posted by [Peter Robinson] @ The Corner @ NRO

Today on Uncommon Knowledge, novelist and screenwriter Andrew Klavan, author of the new thriller, Empire of Lies, explains why he’s no longer a liberal:

The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I don’t have to lie. I don’t have to pretend that men and women are the same. I don’t have to declare that failed or oppressive cultures are as good as mine.

Leftism has outlived its own failure by hiding itself within the most labyrinthine construct of social delicacy since Victoria was queen.

To watch that Victorian contsruct of social delicacy being utterly demolished — brilliantly and merrily  — click here. 

 And now for a few Cons:

Politically speaking, it sort of undermines a large part of the case against Obama:  inexperience, lack of credentials, lack of foreign policy and national security know-how.

She has never worked in D.C. so there will be a steep learning curve – and probably a few slip-ups.  (Then again, McCain will make sure she has a great staff.)

And then to all those on the Right who have called the Obama candidacy an example of Tokenism, there’s this question:  Would Palin would been picked if she were a man?

And the Unknowns:

How will the female thing play?  The pro-choice feminists will all hate Palin, but the female Republican base might show up in never-yet-seen numbers.  Bitter and disaffected Hillary supporters might vote for her out of spite.  Or they might see her as a threat to Hillary in 2012 and decide they don’t want her anywhere near D.C.

(And what about the guys?  Will men vote for her because she’s got great legs and is just waaaay better looking than Biden?)

Also, how will she do on the stump?  Can she hold her own?  Will she make any major gaffes (which will cause the opposition to Shriek and Point at her Inexperience)?  Will Biden handle her well or come off looking like a bully when he goes up against her?