APSR Study Gets NY Times Coverage
Just noting that the American Political Science Review study I mentioned a few days ago did make the national media - it's in the New York Times. There's also a Times article on a June 10 study in Science on the influence of inferences of competence based on facial appearences on the outcome of elections.
A few people have asked in the comments about the availability of the APSR article on-line. Unfortunately, you have to pay for it, but anyone interested in doing so can find it here.
posted by Stephen Medvic @ 6:19 PM
19 comments
19 Comments:
You can find this article online for free at: http://www.apsanet.org/content_17283.cfm
This article confirms what many conservatives already believe ... that liberalism is a mental disorder, capable of being passed on to the next generation.
There are far too many otherwise intellegent people who honestly believe that our troops stationed at GITMO conduct atrocities comparable to those of Hitler and Pol Pot, as reported by the leaders of the Democratic Party and parroted by their loyal and misdirected followers.
The GITMO/Hitler example of irrational political thought is but one of many that proves brain function is flawed.
Interesting (but not surprising) that mental disorders are linked to genetics. The disorder prevents the victim from personally recognizing and acknowledging the existance of their mental condition, which is quite common with most mental illness issues. A cure is unlikely, as brain reprograming is difficult, expensive and not thought to be needed by the victim and their politically like-minded families.
Youre not a reagan republican, youre a dobson republican.
I don't think that any serious person believes that what is happening at Gitmo is comparable to the atrocities of Hitler and Pol Pot. What is distinctive of liberals is our unwillingness to accept "At least it isn't as bad as the Holocaust or the Killing Fields" as an adequate defense of what we're doing. If the United States wants to view itself, and to be viewed by others, as a unique force of good in the world, then we have to hold ourselves to very high standards. That means that outrage is appropriate even against misdeeds that aren't nearly as bad as those perpetrated by others.
There is something interesting about the phenomenon of conservatives lambasting liberals for not putting our troops on a high enough pedastal, of having too little faith in their moral fiber. Conservatives typically oppose most forms of gun control, and one of the chief arguments they give for this view is that an armed citizenry is a necessary safeguard against an oppressive state. Ignore the fact that this doesn't seem to have panned out in Iraq, where gun ownership was apparently widespread. (I guess a "Reagan Republican" will be pro-Saddam anyway, as Ronnie himself was.) What strikes me is that this argument assiumes that American troops might allow themselves to be used as agents of oppression, so that it might be necessary for us to try to kill our own soldiers. If everyone in an American uniform is some kind of moral paragon who could never be guilty of a human rights violation, then surely we don't all need guns in our homes to guard against them.
At 1:33 PM, Dale said... "I don't think that any serious person believes that what is happening at Gitmo is comparable to the atrocities of Hitler and Pol Pot."
ReaganRepubican says... Tell that to the leaders of the DNC. They obviously have a different opinion.
Dale says... "If the United States wants to view itself, and to be viewed by others, as a unique force of good in the world, then we have to hold ourselves to very high standards. That means that outrage is appropriate even against misdeeds that aren't nearly as bad as those perpetrated by others."
ReaganRepublican says... The concept of what opinion other nations have regarding the international actions of America is irrelevant. The goal is to sucessfully complete the mission. Winning (what a novel concept in post WWII America).
Outrage that feeds Al-Jezzera is inappropriate, as it turns public opinion against the mission (and the troops at risk) and contributes to the efforts of the enemy to curtail America's will to win.
Dale said... "Conservatives typically oppose most forms of gun control, and one of the chief arguments they give for this view is that an armed citizenry is a necessary safeguard against an oppressive state. Ignore the fact that this doesn't seem to have panned out in Iraq, where gun ownership was apparently widespread. (I guess a "Reagan Republican" will be pro-Saddam anyway, as Ronnie himself was.) What strikes me is that this argument assiumes that American troops might allow themselves to be used as agents of oppression, so that it might be necessary for us to try to kill our own soldiers. If everyone in an American uniform is some kind of moral paragon who could never be guilty of a human rights violation, then surely we don't all need guns in our homes to guard against them."
ReaganRepublican says... Back to topic. Dale, you are ranting nonsencical liberal mental disorder drivel. Proving my point. Please, get some help. Please.
Honestly, "Reagan Republican," you must be a liberal in disguise who is trying to make conservatives look bad.
First, even you should be able to notice the short-sightedness of arguing that the only thing that matters is completing the mission, or "winning." Are you a subtle enough thinker to wonder what it means to "win"? And what, exactly, is the mission in Iraq right now? Even the Bush administration disagrees with you're naive notion of ignoring international opinion. Hence the use of Karen Hughes to try to cultivate said opinion.
Second, try addressing Dale's argument about gun control instead of name-calling.
skm said..."Honestly, "Reagan Republican," you must be a liberal in disguise who is trying to make conservatives look bad."
ReaganRepublican says... I may be considered a liberal in specific subject areas, but national interests and defense is not one of them. In political conversation, being told I make others in a group "look bad" is almost name-calling, but not quite (I guess).
skm said..."Are you a subtle enough thinker to wonder what it means to "win"? And what, exactly, is the mission in Iraq right now? Even the Bush administration disagrees with you're naive notion of ignoring international opinion."
ReaganRepublican says... I am "subtle" enough to realize that a stable, oil producing middle east is in the best interests of America and the western civilized world. Appeasement leads to horror, as history has so repeatedly reminded us. Winning in Iraq means accomplishing the mission goals. The goals are long term, and in the best national interests of the United States. Whether you and the rest of world agree with them or not.
Karen Hughes is a public relations person, used for the benefit of the Republican Party. Bush could care less about world opinion, and rightfully so.
Regarding Dale's gun control example of irrational thought (just an observation, not an insult);
Dale said..."Conservatives typically oppose most forms of gun control, and one of the chief arguments they give for this view is that an armed citizenry is a necessary safeguard against an oppressive state. Ignore the fact that this doesn't seem to have panned out in Iraq, where gun ownership was apparently widespread."
ReaganRepublican says... The U.S Constitution provides for the right to bear arms, conservatives simply wish to see the supreme law followed. Citizens owning firearms in Iraq and not organizing an effort to overthrow their own tyranical government has NO relevance to the U.S. Constitution, nor the circumstances where armed Americans would have the option of replacing their own tyranical government.
Dale said..."(I guess a "Reagan Republican" will be pro-Saddam anyway, as Ronnie himself was.)
ReaganRepublican says... How quickly I am labeled "pro-Saddam". During the Iraq vs. Iran war, America backed the lessor of two evils. At the time, this was clearly in our national, long-term, best interest. (national interest - what a novel concept in liberal America)
Dale said..."What strikes me is that this argument assiumes that American troops might allow themselves to be used as agents of oppression, so that it might be necessary for us to try to kill our own soldiers. If everyone in an American uniform is some kind of moral paragon who could never be guilty of a human rights violation, then surely we don't all need guns in our homes to guard against them."
ReaganRepublican says... wow, this quote is really "out there". History proves that soldiers follow orders, whether "legal" or not. This is the business of killing. The ultimate government power.
The concept of determining human rights during times of armed confrontations is very "fuzzy", and much depends upon which end of the weapon you happen to be located. It is quite a leap to proclaim that since our troops are so pure, Americans no longer need their Constitutional right to bear arms. And quite irrelevant.
So just out of curiosity, why DIDN'T armed Iraqis overthrow their tyrannical government? Some cultural difference between them and us? Could this have any implications for the prospects of democracy there? Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." What is the significance of an unwillingness on the Iraqis' part to feed the tree themselves?
As to the irrelvance of world opinon, this is just absurd. We may be the only remaining superpower, but the war on terror can't be a purely military effort, and it can't be won without the help of other nations.
IMO the Iraqi people (and most of the world's populace) are culturally accustomed to receiving their rights at the pleasure of the strongest and most violent members of their society. Unlike Americans, whose people remain free in accordance with God's law, and our national government created primarily to protect the rights of its' citizens FROM the power of government.
Yes, our form of government is foreign to Iraqis and the rest of the world. Individual freedoms and the laws that guarantee them will be a difficult cultural phenomena to learn. Especially in a part of the world that is terrorized by the sickist and most violent. But that does not mean we do not need to start this process. It will take a few generations, but we have no choice. It is cultural suicide to ignore today's islamic murderious cult. The world is facing a clash of cultures that will only be solved with removal of their most violent, and teaching their young that indiscriminate killing of innocents is evil. Killing is not to be funded, promoted, encouraged, and celebrated (both here and in Heaven). This is not something that government can fix. Reasonable people in islamic parts of the world must learn to peacefully co-exist. Short-term U.S. Military power must be used to provide safety to our citizens, as that is a Constitutional function. The rest of the world can whine all they want, but only brute force will provide for our safety until a cultural long-term solution can be implemented.
Regarding world opinion, America gets very little help. In many cases, our so-called international friends (and liberal Americans) are actively working against the mission and the well-being of our troops. You are sadly mistaken if you think "world opinion" and the resultant media/political pressure to "comply" with their wishes is in the best long-term interests of our nation and society. World opinion = appeasement.
How, exactly, would letting Saddam sit in Iraq - under sanctions, trapped within his borders - be appeasement? And if that's appeasement, why isn't it appeasement to not invade Iran or North Korea?
How you ask? Simple. A madman, in control of an oil rich nation, with a self-proclaimed burning desire to destroy America, Israel, and any other nation perceived as anti-Saddam, who openly aided, abeited and supported terrorists ... can hardly be considered "trapped within his borders". One small nuclear device paid for by Saddam and carried into Times Square by his friends would cause peaceniks all across America to proclaim "why didn't Bush stop this madman?!"
Sanctions? With the willing aid of the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese and of course lead by the United Nations ... the notion of sanctions would be comical if it were not for the terrible brutality and suffering of the Iraqi people supported by all of the above international "friends" who were very well paid to keep Saddam in power.
Iran and North Korea are bona-fide nuclear threats to much of the civilized world. Any bets which nation gets stuck cleaning up this upcoming mess?
Iran and North Korea ARE bona fide nuclear threats... which makes our choice to focus on Iraq all the more puzzling. (Not to mention the other national security priorities that the war has caused us to neglect... like, I don't know, capturing Osama Bin Laden? The guy responsible for killing thousands of innocent Americans?)
If it will be generations before Iraqis are ready for free government, does that mean that we will need US troosp in the country for decades?
I can understand and appreciate your puzzlement. Unless the entire context of radical islam versus the infidels is looked at long-term, nothing makes sense.
The here and now is an instant effort to protect U.S. citizens and interests, as authorized and commanded by the Constitution.
The long-term solution requires a bold vision and a willing desire of the believers to educate their young not to kill infidels. This is the hope of planting freedom in the middle east. The desire for personal freedom with replace the need to be ruled by an ancient and violent religion.
The human quest for freedom has broken the back of communism. The mullahs know that their warped islamic cult message can not win in a long term battle with democracy. Islam is enforced at the end of a knife, as democracy emerges from the heart.
Pure good versus evil. Do you have a better solution? And please don't whine about current efforts to prevent another smoking hole in the American landscape. Most of your message is pure DNC politics (where's Osama?) spread at the expense of our troops' safety, and popularity of leaders who actually look beyond the next election to what's best in the long term interests of America, and therefore the rest of the civilized world.
Why isn't "Where's Osama" a perfectly valid question? To dismiss it as a DNC message is simply an ad hominem. One could as easily dismiss every post you've ever made on this blog as the RNC party line. If Gore had been in office on 9/11, Republicans would have labelled his Presidency an absolute failure if he had failed to bring Osama to justice by the end of the month. But we're coming up on the 4th anniversary and he remains at large. In a domestic context, Republicans accuse Democrats of not caring enough about seeing the guilty punished. Well, I want to see Osama punished.
As far as your depiction of the Iraqi war as part of some long-term process cultural change in the Middle East that is unfolding exactly as planned, you will have to excuse my skepticism. Neither party has done a terrific job of long-term thinking in the foreign policy arena, but surely there is little reason for us to have confidence that the current Administration will suddenly master the art. Domestically, Republicans argue that the government lacks the wisdom to engage in social-engineering, and that attempts to use the state to make major cultural changes will sink in a morass of unintended consequences. So we are better equipped to undertake a massive program of cultural change in a cultural that is completely alien to us? And I still haven't heard an explanation for why it had to be Iraq where this cultural revolution started.
Even if you believe that war with Iraq was necessary, you can't be satisfied with the way it has been conducted. The Administration ignored the recommendations of both the State Department and the Army War College on how to avoid a massive insurgency in the post-war period, with obvious results. This was apparently the result of Rumsfeld's desire to prove that the job could be done with a minimal number of our troops. His desire to avoid using more of our troops in Afghanistan apparently also contributed to Bin Laden's escape. If he were a Democrat, Republicans would want him impeached for this level of incompetence. And if he were a Democrat, every episode of every program on Fox News would begin with the picture of him smiling and shaking hands with Saddam in Dec. of 1983, AFTER we already knew that they had used chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds.
This last item is important because it really speaks to the cynicism of this Administration. Of course Saddam was a tyrant, and of course there are genuine positives associated with his overthrow. Whether the benefits to the Iraqis were worth the price we've paid, and are paying, is debatable. It is amazing that this President has the nerve to talk about how someone as brutal as Saddam had to be removed, though. Saddam was brutal before 9/11, but Bush didn't run in 2000 on an "overthrow Saddam" platform. Saddam was brutal in the 1980s when members of the current Administration were helping to supply him with the means of oppressing Iraq's population. Saddam was brutal when Bush I passed up two oportunities to overthrow him (Gulf War, the Shiite rebellion we encouraged and then didn't support). But when the WMDs turned out not to be there, suddenly we're told that the real reason for the war all along was our abiding concern for the well-being of the Iraqi people. And we are all amazed that they don't greet us as liberators, and that even Iraqis who hated Saddam want us out of their yesterday.
Dale said... "Why isn't "Where's Osama" a perfectly valid question?"
It's a great question, but its' relevance minimizes our efforts to protect the homeland while planting the seeds of democracy into the center of the oil-rich epicenter of the anti-American region.
Those at the DNC, and elsewhere, who repeat this question expect the appropriate American government response to be a legal police "throw the bad guy in jail" exercise. I'm sure Al Gore would have worked hard determining if enough evidence was available to prosecute Osama, just as Bill Clinton had done before he turned down the Sudan's offer of delivering him to the U.S. authorities. Protecting American citizens deserves more than a "concentrated" effort of delivering Osama for a Michael Jackson circus type trial.
"Where's Osama?" is a prime example of typical liberal symbolism. The blunt reality is 3,000+ murdered fellow non-military Americans, with possibly many more to follow. We are at war, but let's just chace that pesky bad guy .. and darn, he's still on the loose.
Remember Jimmy Carter's failed Iranian Hostage rescue effort? Reagan got them back the third day in office ... because they knew the weak leader was out, and the strong leader was now in control of the U.S. Military.
Terrorists respect strength. And they thrive when the weak are in control. Just ask Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Osama's guilt is not much in question. Frankly, I won't have any complaints if his end is simply a bullet in the head in Pakistan. My fear is that he will die of old age. There is an argument for holding a trial, though, which is to demonstrate that we take our own legal and moral principles seriously. There is a real tension in your thinking, I believe, which is also a tension in Republican thought generally at the moment. On the one hand, you want to deal with the ME through massive American strength. At home, you want to stifle all dissent and opposition. But then you say that you want the ME to develop a respect for the rule of law and democracy. How are you convince them to value these things if your methods show that you don't care about them yourself.
Remember Jimmy Carter's failed Iranian Hostage rescue effort? Reagan got them back the third day in office ... because they knew the weak leader was out, and the strong leader was now in control of the U.S. Military.
Actually, it was his first day in office. Of course, there are persistent rumors that Reagan's campaign manager (and later CIA head) William Casey was meeting with the Iranians before the election in order to delay the hostages release and ensure that Carter would not win the election.
But Reagan was a strong President when our Marines barrack in Lebanon was bombed and he both punished those responsible and tripled our troop presence there, vowing that Lebanon would not be left to Syrian dominance.
Oh wait, but that didn't happen, did it? Reagan cut and run.
But at least Reagan was strong when the Iranians approached him via Israel and said that they would help us to free hostages held by Hezbollah if we would sell them arms. We do no deal with terrorists, Reagan told them!
Oh wait, that didn't happen either, did it. Reagan sold those weapons, and gave the money to "our" terrorists.
And look, before you start, I'm not going to say that Clinton had a perfect foreign policy record. I think that this is one characteristic difference between the parties. On the whole, Democrats are pretty willing to admit that even the leaders we admire on the whole screw some important stuff up. Bush, though, can't admit that he has made any mistakes at all in the Iraqi war or the "GWoT." And only now are some Republicans (besides McCain) starting to split from the party line.
Terrorists use terror to affect political change in their potential victims. Holding civil trials to teach them "legal and moral principles" is contrary to how America has dealt with combatants throughout our nations' history. We need to teach them that killing innocents has worse consequences than sitting in a courtroom and American jail. In this instance, symbolism is counter-productive (except maybe to the international media).
Organized and political opposition to the war effort here at home is quickly broadcast by Al Jazerra to the terrorists to confirm that their sick acts of terror are an effective method of destoying American resolve. During WWII, Americans speaking out publically in support of bringing home the troops before final victory were shunned and ridiculed. In our current climate, dissent is viewed as patriotism and a moral obligation to save the lives and limbs of our youth. This attitude is exactly the result the terrorists wish to achieve, and helps prolong our mission placing more American lives at risk.
I do not want to "stifle all dissent and opposition". Only the very public examples used daily that reward the last act of terror and guarantee the next one. Senator's Durban, Reed, Kennedy. Patriot Michael Moore. DNC Chariman Howard Dean. Discretion is needed when the lives of our troops and citizens are at risk. And ignoring the islamic problem is only an option if we wish to watch the destruction of the civilized world occur throughout the remainder of the twenty-first century.
Any suggestions for a long-term solution from the left? Or just more propaganda?
It isn't the terrorists that we need to teach moral and legal principles. It is the rest of the ME, the ones who we want to convince that we are morally superior to the terrorists. We are at war with Al Queda, and whether a legalistic approach to dealing with OBL is superior or not can be driven (as far as I am concerned) by what would best serve our foreign policy objectives. But there is something to be said for a trial from that standpoint, even if on balance that turns out not to be the best idea.
As far as dissent goes, even in war a country is still a democracy. We are entitled to criticize our leaders' actions, and indeed we have some kind of obligation to do so if we see problems with them. The difference between this and WWII is that the necessity for that war was so transparently obvious that few people did favor bringing the troops home, and those that did were simply thick. (Probably adherents of the isolationist foreign policy the Republicans espoused then.) That simply isn't true here. If you want to end dissent about the war, make a better case for it to the American public. Don't just tell us what you hope it will accomplish, but actually provide some kind of evidence that it will work. In any case, though, calls for the troops to come home immediately are at the margins of discussion. Kerry, for example, didn't want to pull out any more quickly than Bush did. He saw that while we shouldn't have gone in the first place, we do now have an obligation and a need to try to put the country back together again. He just wanted smarter people making the decisions.
By the way, want me to start pulling out quotes from top Republicans like Cheney about Clinton's use of our troops in the Balkans? If you are trying to insinuate that Republicans wouldn't criticize the use of the military while troops are in the field, you're wrong.
Great new Property Listing lancaster pa real estate for sale site/blog. It pretty much covers ##KEYWORD## related stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home