Redstate

Although I do feel major discomfort in Michelle Malkin being in that same group.

Although some of my comments here don't always seem to reflect it.  I tend to play "devil's advocate" more often than some.

I think that it's unfortunately weighted in the Enterpriser direction, because it's impossible to give real priorities (i.e., is this issue important to you?).

Thus, if you accept standard conservative positions on several of these issues, you end up as Enterpriser - even if you care more about other issues.

Since I'm slightly more statist and less pro-business than my colleagues, and did strongly agree on the social questions, I ended up as a Social Conservative.

I think it is still useful.  It shows that those who follow news very closely (as the Pew results show) are often Enterprisers, Upbeats, or Liberals.  Well none of us are liberals.  And Upbeats are more conflicted and ambivalent than Enterprisers.  Most Republican activists (both the pro-market and the social wing) are going to be Enterprisers.  That isn't all that surprising.  The "elites" of each party are rather ideologically consistent.  It is those who don't spend their day reading news articles and debating issues who fall into the other categories.

Put differently, we have more in common than we recognize sometimes.

their questions either:

"We should all be willing to fight for our country, whether it is right or wrong"

vs

"It's acceptable to refuse to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong "

Pushes you into one side or another, when I would rather answer  "If you joined the military and a war breaks out you fight.  If you are not in the military and a war breaks out, it's acceptable not to fight."

Some of the others force an answer that I would never say, but there is no "I neither agree nor disagree".

Oh, and I wasn't an enterpriser.

I'm a liberal.

Riddle me this.  Liberals opposed the Iraqi war more than any other group, but now a majority of them believe we should stay the course.  Why?  My theory is that the humanitarian aspect of the mission has some appeal, coupled with the fact that a pullout would leave those people at the mercy of the insurgents.  Any of you Enterprisers (very, very scary) have a different theory?

I came out in the Upbeat group. As always with such gimmicky polls some of the questions were vague, and some offered a false dichotomy. For example, the immigration questions failed to differentiate between legal immigration and illegal immigration.

A couple of surprises in the policy results: just about every group was in favor of making deficit reduction a priority, although the people in DC seem not to have gotten that memo. And support for the use of torture was much higher than I would have thought possible.

My guess is that many people who opposed the original invasion believe that if "you break it, you fix it."  So they support staying the course for a different reason than people who supported the war originally.  Those who supported the war want to "finish the job" which means leaving Iraq with a stable, representative government that can defend itself against the terrorist threat.

Almost everyone supports deficit reduction.  I bet almost everyone would support "cutting government waste" and making government "smaller" too.  But those opinions are shallow.  People don't often vote on them directly.  If you're a farmer who supports smaller government and Washington cuts farm subsidies then you're probably not so happy.  Ditto steel tariffs.  Ditto protectionism.  The few who are "harmed" by ending subsidies will vote accordingly while the many who gain a little will hardly notice.  Unfortunate, but true.

BTW, I think your point regarding the current flux in Iraq is well made and has a great deal of merit.  It's one to which I also subscribe (isn't that scarry?  an 'enterpriser' agreeing with a 'liberal'?  can the unity of cats and dogs be far behind?  </snark&gt)

While my personal results are not a surprise  (being the recovering Libertarian I am), I too will admit to a bit of discomfort with being lumped in the same group as Michelle - though she is a babe of first order.

That pretty much describes my belief.  See, we're not all bad!

One of the interesting things about the Iraqi situation has been the growth of Republican internationalism.  After the shooting is all said and done, and (hopefully) Iraq has stabilized, I wonder if there may be some common causes for international issues between left and right, against the nativist, isolationist center.  For instance, you and I are almost in lockstep about immigration issues.  As a volunteer for the Peace Corps, you're actually a gigantic leap beyond me in terms of international participation and activity.  Very interesting dynamics, which could lead to very interesting politics in the future.

Here's a fun anecdote for you.  When I was an intern at Heritage and we went around naming our favorite Presidents, I named Wilson.  That got a good discussion going.  This was pre-Iraq War.  I've learned more about Wilson (i.e. his domestic politics) and wouldn't put him on a pedastal but Wilsonian Internationalism was one of my more liberal views (along with gay rights and tolerance-issues).  Watching Republicans adopt the pro-democracy (neo-con) agenda and many Dems argue against the domino theory of democracy in the Middle East was one part of the recent realignment that put me in the Rep. corner.  The rise of an intolerant left really sealed the deal as I see both parties have their intolerant wings and no one has the upper hand (although Reps have learned to smack theirs down more quickly: compare Lott, Trent to Dean, Howard).

I think globalization and the War on Terror might allow internationalists to join causes.  In fact, if anti-Bush sentiment wasn't so high on the left, I think more leftists would applaud his pro-democracy stances and pressure on the Middle East.  I hope whoever follows him continues with the belief that the only long-run solution to the War on Terror is to help create free societies in the Middle East.

One question: When will we learn that we need to intervene to stop genocides?  At this point, it seems that "Never again" seems to mean we will never again intervene.

There are several issues where the "elites" of the enterprisers and liberals seem to agree.  Both are more pro-immigration for example.  And both see international issues as more important than their partisan compatriots.  Both groups are generally white, upper-middle class, and well-educated.  So there is some reason to believe they would agree on some issues.

Let's find the appropriate 527 and air it!

Part of the problem is the whole unilateral war thing - some of the left will never support offensive war, more fool they, but much of the left would have been assuaged by a more mulitlateral approach.  But now that we're there, the opportunities for nation building (yay!) are endless.

Enterpriser ... except in the gender demographic - I'm in the minority  ;)

Which may not surprise you, but I did say most corporations make a fair profit and and said yes to other pro-business sounding questions.

I did say that I thought that government was too involved in morals....

I was not all that dovish on national security.

Nevertheless, I do consider myself a liberal...., so there may be a method to the madness.

but there are so few pacifists in the Democratic party.  That was a weird question, IMHO.

last weekend.  Boy is that a bigger stain on Clinton's Legacy than the one on Monica's dress.

I can't believe we didn't send in some troops to stabilize that mess.

The opposition to outsourcing/offshoring of jobs was solid across the board, with only "enterprisers" dissenting, and then by a 1% plurality not even a majority.

Does this betoken support for at least a degree of economic nationalism (a card which neither party has been willing to play)? Maybe not if the economy continues on track, but if things go south that could be another story.

Well an anti-immigrant, nationalist, xenophobic party could rally around Lou Dobbs and mount a Ross Perot stype 3rd party campaign to throw everything for a loop.

It's rather sad.  No partisan points here, but the Rwanda Genocide is big stain on his legacy.  And Americans ability to ignore genocides as long as they are in Africa does bug me.  I was an African Studies minor and spent time in Kenya with the Peace Corps.  There is no reason we should treat the Balkans differently than Africa.  No matter who is in charge in the U.S.

I'm a Social Conservative.

I was actually a bit surprised..before the survey, I assumed I'd be an enterpriser, but while taking it (and having already read the Pew write up), I thought I'd fit more into the Upbeat category.

I was a lot more tepid on foreign policy and on business than I assumed most Enterprisers were.