Map My Politics

THE DEFICIT DIMENSION – Hawks, Doves and Moderates

The primary objective of the Map My Politics website is to place users within one of the political ideologies that populate the two-axis chart of relative economic and social freedom. Choices in our political quiz are designed with that goal in mind. There are some issues, however, that do not correlate particularly well with some or most of the chart’s ideologies. Accordingly, we also use our quiz to indicate a user’s political ideology on three additional dimensions, one of which is relative restraint in deficit spending.

Broadly speaking, the dimension of ideological fiscalism relates to how inclined someone is to believe that the government should not borrow excessively so as to risk running unsustainable federal deficits that cause some combination of unhealthy inflation, diminished economic growth or – in extreme cases – currency devaluation and credit defaults. Those holding a more debt-averse viewpoint are said to be deficit “hawks” while those holding a contrary position are said to be deficit “doves,” with moderates falling somewhere in the middle.

The dimension of relative deficit hawkishness does not necessarily correspond with a particular political ideology. For example, there are neoconservatives who believe the need for a large military budget outweighs concerns about deficit spending, just as there are liberals who advocate for higher taxes in order to balance the federal budget. While it is often true that an ideology on the more laissez-faire (rightward) side of the x-axis of economic freedom might be more deficit-averse than one on the less free market (leftward) side, this is not uniformly so. For instance, a left-leaning social libertarian might support strong environmental regulations and a robust social safety net, but she might also believe in not running deficits so that long-term economic growth is maintained. Similarly, a right-leaning populist might favor less corporate regulation and welfare spending in general, but he might be sufficiently worried about immigration and overseas outsourcing of jobs to be willing to protect domestic industries with trade barriers and import tariffs that increase both the overall federal debt and the cost of government borrowing.

Those who are more moderate in their relative fiscal hawkishness tend view matters as more situational. In other words, the particular facts in a given situation might indicate the correct course of action rather than an ideological disposition. Typically, Americans tend to be more willing to incur government deficit spending in times of national crisis, such as during wartime or in an economic downturn. The historical pattern is that once the crisis has passed, a shift then occurs towards running surpluses until a more balanced budgetary posture is regained. Often, as with other expressed political beliefs, it can be more of a “do as I say, not as I do” situation. As with the additional political dimension of environmentalism, deficit austerity necessarily invokes some measure of economic scarcity. As such, it’s often inconvenient to politically advocate for fiscal restraint, especially when there are tempting spending programs in the wings, even though the consequences of budget profligacy are unpleasant.

Just as there is little correlation between restraint in federal borrowing (or its opposite) and one’s position on the MMP Two-Axis Chart, deficit hawks, doves and moderates can be found in both of the main political parties. While the Republican Party historically might have been viewed as more debt-averse than the Democratic Party, it’s useful to remember that the last administration to preside over a balanced budget was that of a Democratic president (Bill Clinton) and that some of the largest increases in the federal deficit have occurred under Republican presidents (Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush). At Map My Politics we believe that political preferences are ultimately more about ideology than party. For this reason, our quiz includes in a user’s results their position on deficit spending, this important additional ideological dimension.

For further reading about the deficit dimension, click here.

To return to your Results page and the Map My Politics Ideology Chart, where you can learn more about other ideologies, click here.

Maintaining and improving our Map My Politics site requires significant effort and expense. So if you appreciate our work to advance the understanding of – and participation in – democratic governance, please consider a modest donation. Your generosity is most welcome!