Reading through comments on Gather.com is often an exercise in the worst of politics. It is not that people at Gather are merely are polarized – it is that the polarization is an active process. One can easily view on the pale glow of one's computer screen the mental processes that are tearing our culture apart. The question that people need to consider is why they are here and what do they hope to gain from being here.
Let us examine these mental processes of polarization:
The Law of Group Polarization
In like minded groups, people tend to be more extreme in their decisions. Here is a rather concise explanation of phenomena:
In a striking empirical regularity, deliberation tends to move groups, and the individuals who compose them, toward a more extreme point in the direction indicated by their own predeliberation judgments. For example, people who are opposed to the minimum wage are likely, after talking to each other, to be still more opposed; people who tend to support gun control are likely, after discussion, to support gun control with considerable enthusiasm; people who believe that global warming is a serious problemare likely, after discussion, to insist on severe measures to prevent global warming; jurors who support a high punitive damage award are likely, after talking, to support an award higher than the median of their predeliberation judgments. This general phenomenon -- group polarization -- has many implications for economic, political, and legal institutions. It helps to explain extremism, "radicalization," cultural shifts, and the behavior of political parties and religious organizations; it is closely connected to current concerns about the consequences of the Internet, talk radio, and highly specialized television stations; it also helps account for feuds, ethnic antagonism, and tribalism. Group polarization bears on the conduct of government institutions, including juries, legislatures, courts, and regulatory commissions. There are interesting relationships between group polarization and social cascades, both informational and reputational. see http://www.la.utexas.edu/conf2000/papers/LawofGroupPolarization.pdf
Bi-Polar Logic
One frequently sees bi-polar logic in highly charged debates. It is as if one side is begging to dispense with rational discussion and rush immediately to a polarized shouting match. Bi-Polar logic simply does not acknowledge that a middle ground exists; it is a mechanism of mind that seeks to quickly resolve the color of the world into the sharp delineations of black and white. For instance, a discussion on the topic of poverty will quickly elicit a comment on the ultra-rich, as if there exists only the extremes of rich and poor, or if one person advocates hand-gun control the other might demand to know why they "want to take all guns away".
Pavlovian Politics
All animals respond to treats. Animals repeat behavior that is rewarded and are less inclined to repeat behavior that is not rewarded. One of the mechanisms behind Group Polarization is the reward or punishment of the group to an opinion. This also explains extreme tendencies; more radical positions the greater the reward.
One of the more interesting phenomena of Pavlovian Politics and Group Polarization is the tendency toward conspiracy theories. The more extreme the theory the higher value one can expect if the theory is accepted. Cases in point are the wild theories surrounding the events of 9/11. One theory suggests that it was bombs not planes that destroyed the Pentagon and the World Trade Towers. When these theories are deconstructed we come away with the pure psychology of people attempting to get emotional rewards from the discussion of current events rather than to exchange knowledge. What people are searching for is the same thing a preacher is requesting when shouting "Can I get an AMEN".
Narcissism
All too frequently in forums and debates issues are not the motive for participation. Like in Pavlovian Politics, there people who engage in intense contact with others for the sole motive of receiving an emotional charge as personal reward. Unlike their Pavlovian counterparts these people do not need others to reward them. They are the trolls of the internet and the screamers of political discourse. Their motivation is simply their own pleasure and they see the world not as a place of issues and events but as source of emotional gratification.
Summary
These are some of the things that destroy political and social discourse. For thinking people it is discouraging to find that the forces of destruction are so strong when one ventures into the public space to discuss issues that they care about. The only thing that seems to combat this is to find forums with filters to dampen the destructive feedback. Many forums do this with moderated debate and viewing filters that allow participants to ignore the most egregious among them.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 72
Allan
lol
Nice observations, Greg. Not only do I see our country becoming more polarized, it seems to me that the pressure is cooking. Have we always been this hostile to each other, or am I just paying more attention lately? Is it just the war that makes it seem that the polarization has been turned up to 11?
The right was able to rebound from its cultural and political losses of the 1960's and 1970's because it took the time to gather its thoughts and it philosophies. I tend to find conservative writers are far more researched and thoughtful than those on the left. A great deal of the rudeness and brutishness of behavior on the part of the very young, the very left and the immature is grounded in an inability to address issues on a substantive level.
Now I will agree that the left does not have a strangle-hold on rudeness and brutish behavior, anyone turning on talk-radio would know that but in the world of ideas, which talk radio is not, the left has a great deal more work to do.
Here is a rather concise explanation of phenomena."
What baloney.
Name such a writer.
I'd remind Greg that if you take a look at the best-selling conservative writers--thay have names like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin. And, frankly, none of these author's work stands up to even the most cursory scrutiny.
Essentially, the rightwing's philosophy is one of selling fear. Such a philosophy targets a very, very narrow demographic and is doomed to failure on that basis alone.
Thank you for illustrating my point so succinctly Jade.
I would hardly classify these three as "writers", they are entertainers who happen to produce essays. If you are looking for writers who have influenced modern conservative thought you should be naming names in the class of Friedrick Hayek, , Francis Fukuyama, Milton Friedman, Kenneth Minogue, James Q. Wilson and Roger Scruton, Charles Murray, John McWhorter and Thomas Sowell. For essayists and fiction writers, I would suggest Florence King, Richard Brookhiser, James Buchanan, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Shelby Steele and Thomas Wolfe.
Each of these writers has fundamentally moved their respective fields in new directions and in doing so has changed the political and cultural landscape. The left has failed to generate or at least recognize and promote an equivalent intellectual power because of a number of handicaps:
1) There is a fundamentalist conservativism among liberals that will not allow deviation from accepted social and political views. Liberal and progressive views on society, poverty, economic and foreign policy are stuck in the 1960's and 1970's and reform is difficult.
2) Related to the first problem, the second problem is academic. The refusal to accept new ideas serves as a damper on the generation of concepts that fundamentally change the outlook of liberal and progressive thought.
3) The lack of environments of incubation. The greatest thing that happened to the right was being expelled by the tenure system and peer pressure from academia. Conservative scholars began flocking to newly created conservative think-tanks and institutes. While there are liberal and progressive institutes and think-tanks, few are devoted to the pure research and open-ended academic pursuit that generates fundamental change.
However, I'd assert that these entertainers, as evidenced by their best-seller status, are what self-professed conservatives are reading and presumably taking their cues.
The other writers you cite don't come close to selling as well as an Ann Coulter.
Frankly, Sowell is just about unreadable; not only does he not make much sense--his nonsensical ramblings are poorly written. And Charles Murray is a racist who has built a career on the premise that certain minorities are genetically inferior so any attempt to address socio-economic problems are wasted.
Hayek is rather the L. Ron Hubbard of economics and Friedman's contributions were about a half century ago. Sadly, the Friedman that today's conservatives embrace is a Friedman that has long been in decline and not taken seriously by the the academe.
And let's be honest--right wing 'think tanks' are not research incubators--they are echo chambers and tax-free vehicles for pushing the GOP agenda.
May I remind you that any tabloid with a story on Brad and Angelina outsells both the popular rants of the left and right? Sales are not a measure of the quality of thought.
Say what you will about the writers I mentioned, the facts still remain, the left has done a dismal job of incubating fundamental ideas and therein lays the frustration and anger that you so well illustrate as the only response to meaningful political and social discourse.
Rather than engage in the Group Polarization of which I speak, identify liberal and progressive writers who have explored fundamental ideas of the economy society and culture. Lay out their ideas and argue their points in a meaningful way.
Let's see you do something other than engage in "us v. them" banter.
The extreme polarization of politics is something I find extremely troubling. Part (but not all) of the reason I fled the Democratic party after the 2000 election is the extremely unhinged tone that so many of their suporters struck--I found that the general tone on the right of the American political spectrum to be more reasonable. With a more reasonable tone presented to me, I found that I was more open to the ideas underlying the message. I've found that the right was also better at marginalizing its own more extreme voices. This is my personal experience of things, I understand that others' milage may vary.
you're a piece of work, greg.
you named NINE writers that you say have influenced conservative thought.
have all nine combined sold as many books as coulter or limbaugh?
seth - "I've found that the right was also better at marginalizing its own more extreme voices."
oh, please - do elaborate.
As I said, it's my personal opinion. Your milage may vary.
your Iraq War is a Just War post was a great example of polarization.
"we know we made a mistake, and we stand by it. further, it was still the right thing to do."
phhhht.
even if - stop trying to justify it, and clean up the mess you've made.
His comments in other peoples' articles are among the most strident and inflammatory that I have seen on Gather. His "in your face" style is the opposite of what we need to establish a reasoned dialogue.
Oh well, I guess it is common to recognize one's own faults in others.
Different audience. The folks interested in Angelina and Brad aren't seeking thought-provoking pieces on politics. And folks who buy Sports Illustrated aren't either.
A dumb attempt, Greg.
identify liberal and progressive writers who have explored fundamental ideas of the economy society and culture.
Greg, it has been liberal and progressive writers and thinkers that have created this society. Liberalism and progressivism have brought us concepts such as individual human and civil rights, freedom of expression, Govt. transparency and accountability, the right to privacy, equality, free trade and commerce, the rule of law, etc.---such concepts are anathema to conservatism. Folks like John Stuart Mill, Montesqieu, James Madison, John Maynard Keynes, John Dewey, FDR, John Rawls--the list is long and distinguished.
As for contemporary liberal writers and thinkers, I'd include people such as John Kenneth Galbraith, Jonathan Kozol, Mario Cuomo, Michael Walzer, Paul Krugman, Amartya Sen, William Greider.
I enjoy Kevin Phillips--unfortunately, his message is that conservatism has abandoned its principles ( a fact I'd agree with). But he's not particularly liberal or progressive. In fact, the last I hear an interview with him, Phillips was admitting that he'd recently changed his party affiliation from GOP to Independent.
Of the exceptions people like John Kenneth Galbraith, although a great mind is an example of a person who got it fundamentally wrong. Galbraith was the last great institutionalist who believed that the primary tool to control inflation was to control prices, a theory that when put into practice in the 1970's led to the economic disaster of the Carter years.
Again your list was a good list but again the writers are primarily commentators who expend a great deal of energy defending liberalism and progressive ideas rather than advancing new ideas that can move the left forward.
I am not the only one who believes this. A moment with Google will bring up a litany of op-ed pieces and laments about the failure of the left to match the right with funding for think tanks.
Examples of conservative think tanks are:
The Manhattan Institute
The Hoover Institute
The Free Enterprise Institute
The Cato Institute.
The Heritage Foundation
While I am not suggesting that the left is devoid of think tanks, they have not kept up with the trend, and when they do the output is most often a rear-guard defending of the faith rather than an advancement of progressive thought.
I hope you can appreciate the irony of your attacking the author rather than addressing the ideas of this article.
My comments on Gather have been very much in the spirit of entering a new voice into the echo-chamber of a liberal dominated forum. I must say that I am all too often extremely disappointed in your comments. Being a mature person I would hope that you would help people along with their political and social maturity by prodding them into thinking deeper about issues rather than engaging in the sad practice of seeking the fleeting rewards of group approval.
I will readily admit that just as you, I get sucked into the "us v. them" banter, but for me it is a reaction to being a minority on Gather. I come here to discuss issues and find myself immersed in what is all too often the mindlessness of liberal and progressive opinions that are not being challenged or taken to task.
My opinions hopefully remind liberals and especially progressives that though they may be a majority on this site that they are a minority in the country. Reminding the left of their minority status is healthy; it dampens their group polarization and reminds them to temper their opinions in the well of the greater culture.
Bert, I hope that you would be supportive of that process rather than serve as a force to further isolate already socially isolated individuals.
In fact, one of your conservative thinkers--Roger Scruton--was sacked because he was railing against anti-smoking programs at a time when he didn't disclose he was on the tobacco industry's payroll.
And you criticize my list of liberal writers and thinkers as 'commentators' as opposed to basic research--I can only laugh. Paul Krugman is on the short list whenever the Nobel Prize for Economics is discussed. Only a buffoon would think Nobel Prizes for Economics are handed out for op/ed pieces. Sen is a Nobel laureate.
As for your remarks on Galbraith, you obviously haven't done your homework. Price controls were what Galbraith was about when he was in FDR's administration in WWII; Galbraith never worked for Carter. Galbraith did work in the JFK and LBJ admins--but you wouldn't want to mention that as it was a period of wonderful economic growth.
As for Galbraith I never suggested that he did work for Carter. Galbraith's views on controlling inflation were used by Nixon, Ford and Carter and the result was disastrous, but that is neither here nor there.
What is relevant to the article is what you are doing. You are engaging in rhectoric instead of the world of ideas. Instead of acknowledging the work that conservative think-tanks have done to move conservative though forward, you feel compelled to spin their role in the worst possible light as if to do so really contributed anything to the debate.
Say what you will, and you will, the right has gained an advantage in basic research and philosophy and the left needs to get back to basics for a decade or so.
It is not just I who is saying this, the complaint about the lack of basic research in liberal think tanks is a liberal and progressive complaint as well.
Basic research? For shame, Greg.
Bottomline is that the rightwing does no basic research--they are marketeers...salesmen.
And let's face it, conservative values have been about smaller Government, fiscal responsibility, getting the Government out of our private lives and the like. Yet, Government has grown under GOP control, fiscal responsibility...well, what fiscal reponsibility, and the GOP seems terribly interested in what people do in their bedrooms or what they say on the phone in private conversations.
Thus if we have rightwing thinktanks advancing traditional conservative values--as you assert--why aren't they put into practice?
But they are being put into practice and quite succesfully. I can think of no better example than Guliani's use of James Q Wilson's "Broken Windows" theory of combating crime to bring about a very visible reduction in crime in the city of New York.
But rather than listening to you on the subject of the "think-tank" gap lets look at what journals like The Naiton: Liberal Policy's Weak Foundations have to say.
So if The Nation is saying that
Why should we listen to Jade Gold try to spin something different? Take it up with your friends on the left Jade, do not take it up with me.
taking it to a new level, i see.
"The point is not that the side with the most policy wonks wins but that any ideological movement is in deep trouble if it fails to cultivate an energetic corps of professional thinkers."
in other words, the point is NOT to have good policy, but to have enough mouths - i'm sorry, an energetic corp of professional thinkers - to push the policy through.
i'm sure you don't intend it, but you've just taken us back to coulter and limbaugh. and hannity, cavuto, et al.
the mouths that push the policy created by "professional thinkers."
ones that brought us that lovely pnac statement back in '97.
that policy got pushed through - and look where we are now.
That's a lame excuse. Poor Greg! He's so abused. As I said in my second post, if you really intend to stop all the diatribe and discuss issues, then I retract everything I said, and I mean that.
Sometimes, it is even necessary to "turn the other cheek." And you can feel very superior doing it. Not allowing yourself to be dragged into name calling, selective out-of-context quotes and flinging in red herrings whenever things get sticky.
You make plenty of very good points. My advice: stick to them and keep the discussion civil, and this will be fun again.
ditto this - my first reaction was pot? are you calling the kettle black again? And then I remember, it is typical of right wing extremists to cry that the other side is doing what they are doing, because they believe it takes the sting out of the truth when it finally comes out. Great strategy, but ugly.
The greatest tragedy is that the left has not only attacked the right but attacked the middle and turned upon itself. It is as if any message that strays from dogma is subject to attack......leaving only attack and "call and response" repetitions of doctrine as the sole voice of the left.
This too will pass.
like she said, "pot, meet kettle."
the left attacks the message and the messenger whenever the messenger is laying out a bunch of bull. no small wonder that you're on the receiving end of a lot of attacks. even less of a wonder that you've stopped trying to defend yourself from them.
you haven't read many our conversations, then. reason ended a long time ago for greg.
Of course he is! It's just that the title of the article should have been:
"I Am Going to stop doing this!"
Then, we would all have applauded, and maybe dialogue in political threads would improve, and this article would have served a good purpose. As it is, it is ironical, and even has a whiff of hypocrisy.
oh, that breaks my heart.
greg's message is that the left causes polarization on gather, or that the left has no ideology of its own.
read his posts. they are heaping piles of rhetoric. pavlovian politics - this from a member of The Conservative Club.
a group of cheerleaders if there ever was one. this, from the party that puts dissenting voices in a "free speech zone" 1.5 miles away from where the president appears - which is usually in front of a group of military somewhere.
anyway, john. feel free to post a quote where someone is not making sense. i'll respond. that's better than greg is willing to do. i suppose you're not aware that the little man is ignoring me like a third-grader right now.
refuses to acknowledge my comments. very mature.
"Consider the source."
the post was directed squarely at me, bud.
"Like in Pavlovian Politics, there people who engage in intense contact with others for the sole motive of receiving an emotional charge as personal reward. Unlike their Pavlovian counterparts these people do not need others to reward them. They are the trolls of the internet and the screamers of political discourse. Their motivation is simply their own pleasure and they see the world not as a place of issues and events but as source of emotional gratification."
greg thinks this is me.
"At least in my humble opinion, the present polarization began with the breakdown of the Liberal Consensus of the 1960's. Once the consensus fell apart and conservativsim regained a foothold under Reagan, the left simply could not adjust to being an equal partner in the culture and politics. It is this politics of frustration that breeds incivility and the only cure for it is to go back to the basics of reworking the left's fundamental ideas and philosophies."
which, as greg failed to remind us, are civil rights, peace, non-violence.
all that mamby-pamby feelings stuff that drives conservatives crazy.
The worst of the revelations was that through proxies Saddam had planned an attack on the US using biological or chemical methods.
If any of this is true, would you consider changing your opinion of the war?
The things you cite are doctrines of your failth, not mine. I should be no more expected to accept your dogma than you should be compelled to accept mine.
The reason for this is quite extra-ordinary. It seems that Saddam hid his WMD in plain sight by interspersing binary weapons with conventional stockpiles, then using an inventory system to be able to retrieve WMD on demand. There are no apparent markings that would allow someone to identify a WMD shell from a convention shell, resulting in the appearance of a roadside bomb containing several liters of Sarin last year. Explosive experts have also found shells containing mustard gas.
In the end, the debate over WMD in Iraq is not about whether Saddam had them, he did, or whether he would use them, he did, or whether he would give them to Al Qaeda, he might have......the real question is why Saddam acted like he had more WMD than he apparently did?
There are two answers to that question:
1) He had more than is believed now.
2) He wanted internal and external opposition to believe that he had WMD but also wanted the ability to deny he had WMD, in other words he was playing a deadly game of wanting it both ways.
What we know now is that almost everyone from the Administration, to other governments to Hans Blix believed that Saddam was not in compliance and was hiding WMD. The only debate was how much.
While the opposition to the war loudly claims that the Bush and Blair Administrations "knew" that there were no WMD, we know that that is a lie, that from sources like The Downing Street Memo we know that the administration firmly believed that Saddam had and was willing to use WMD.
In order to move ahead in legitimate discussion, to achieve that lofty, (and in my opinion, disingenuous and self-serving goal) of civilized debate, abandonment of strict loyalty to George Bush, his policies and goals are necessary. They are clearly a sad trail of failure. Not to admit that is to not move forward. Facts are not doctrine or dogma. Dogma is blind obedience to ideology already proved faulty. Attacking the left for a dearth of imagination is just more smoke to disguise the failures of those who have made choices that have proven wrong. The drive to "civility" is a shallow attempt to duck accountability.
I heard a tape from Saddam saying prior to 9/11 America will be attacked but it won't be from Iraq. Were these tapes staged?
The "facts" are that it is the left that is critiquing the left over the failure to invest in liberal and progressive think-tanks; see the links above.
This morning on ABC's Good Monring America Thomas Friedman spoke of the reason why Al Qaeda has not attacked the US since 9/11. He attributes this to the War in Iraq where he says Al Qaeda is focusing its energy.
He concluded with this statement:
I have disagreed with policies of the current administration and I have never been shy about admitting it. I can say without any hesitation that Greg is extremely intelligent and well spoken. He makes me think. Am I suppose to shun him? I am very willing to hear your view but you are going to loose audience if your retorts always impune the intent of the people who question you.
My view of the war cannot be separated from what actually exists on the ground and what has in fact occurred. It appears that a majority of Americans agree.
If Bush and Blair were liars, so is their opposition.
In the end I would rather Bush and Blair be wrong than their opposition.
But isn't that what they are supposed to do? I see liberals and progressives lamenting the lack of "women and minorities" in the corridors of power and it is their intent to exploit the desire of the "unrepresented" to guarentee more power for themselves.
This is the very definition of democracy.
The Bush Administration is dead-on accurate in the Middle-East. Last week The Economist ran an article titled The thing Bush got right. The gist of the piece was that the repression of Saddam and ilk has depressed the economic, cultural and technological advancement of the region and that the only way that terrorists and Islamic Fundamentalists can be defeated is to relieve the pent up frustrations of the area by offering the ability of common people to have a vote in their future. The process will not be pretty but in the long run, it is the only avenue to anything resembling peace in the region.
this type of attack could be delivered without the inevitable retaliation. In fact the possiblity of delivering a nuclear warhead down on China or Russia by accident could inhibit such a response even if the supplying nation could be discerned. If we can't prevent the attack, I doubt very much we could find evidence after the fact for obvious reasons. I doubt that any administration would start lobbing missiles at all the regular suspects. I don't feel that someone willing to launch this type attack is completely rationale so you can preempt the attack or you can eliminate the threat by surplanting the governments willing to engage in this insanity.
It is very difficult to play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules when other supposedly civilized natures from whom we sought support have been known to supply the technology and to have profited from the more polite
sanctions. It is also easier to let the United States be the primary target by remaining essentially neutral and cleaning up on programs like Food for Oil.
President Bush may never have been presented with any more evidence than the then President Clinton. It may be that the events of 9/11 have upped the anti in this game. That many of the old checks and balances no longer apply. It may be that, having failed to bring down our economy with the last attack, that another more lethal one is seen as inevitable by those who seek to destroy us.
It would only take one correctly placed device to create havoc in the financial community or the Nations' capital. As terrible as 9/11 was, it involved the loss of "only" about 3000 people and the area is habitable
for the next hundred thousand years. When some of the same people found dancing in the streets after 9/11 are not suppose to be offended,
while cutting the heads off people building schools and infrastructure is ok,
well I guess he figures there is a threat.
Terrorism is a political tool, done to achieve political ends. There is no military defense at either home or abroad that prevent that action. In the months after 911 during the height of securtiy and public awareness we could not find two snipers traveling at will through Virginia and Maryland until surrendered by family members. There are bombers driving a SUV around Alabama torching Baptist churchs and we don't find them. Eric Rudolph was free for over a year, moving more or less at will. Homeland security is a myth. The only security we will have is a foriegn policy that diffuses the will and means of radicals and eliminates their public support base. The invasion of Iraq galvanized our mortal enemies and increased their recruitment base. We now are far more vulnerable and helpless against attack than we were. The Bush Admins oil policy has pumped trillions of dollars into nations who leak funds into our enemies hands.
There is ample evidence that Bush was presented with much doubtful evidence but he chose to use only that which served his original plans, plans to invade Iraq, long before 9/11. We have not been attacked because of any action of our armed forces are law enforcement. We are not attacked because it does not yet serve the purposes of our attackers. When it does, we will be hit. We can trump them by removing the threat of invasion and trying to undo the damagaes wrought by Bush policies.
You present one (rather high) standard for security while presenting another (rather low) standard for foreign policy. May I venture a suggestion that it is much easier to succeed in preventing terrorism than it is to make terrorists "like us" by changing our policy, our culture or our nasty habit of allowing our women to display their hair.
Islamic Terrorists are at war with the west....not with western capitalism or western foreign policy.
Leftist love to disparage US foreign policy as the demon that created terrorism in the Middle-East for rather self-serving reasons; changing foreign policy is THEIR agenda, not the agenda of Islamic fundamentalists. Al Qaeda only concerns itself over our policy in-as-much as it can make hay on our policy.
If they did not have our foreign policy to rant about, they would be focusing on our movies, our hair-styles and our tabloids.........which believe it or not....they do.
We continually make Western assumptions to impose upon Middle Eastern minds. We have an inherent individualism so much part of our consciousness that we can't see that any group could believe otherwise. Yet Iraqis are Muslims first, tribe next and nation third and individuals last. If the Middle East is ever to accept western thinking and democracy it will not be at the end of a bayonet. We, the west, through hundreds of years of imperialism have created a monster. IMO the only way to kill the beast is to starve it. That means making oil strategically and economically irrelevant. This is beyond the capacity and imagination of the Bush Admin and seen by the neo-con's as capitulation.
1) The Kurds are very much in favor of US policy in Iraq.
2) The Shiites are hostile to the US but are favorable to a political solution that would give them majority power or at least regional autonomy over the south with a strong voice in Baghdad.
3) The Sunni's only make up 18% of the population.
Thus when anyone begins to suggest what "the iraqi's want" or "what the insurgency wants", the burden is on them to make sure that they are not just talking about a violent minority of a minority.
4) Iraqi's very much want democracy.
5) Iraqi's very much want western style technology and modes of modern governance.....though the minority of a minority wants the 8th century back again.
Uh, the Middle-East was not subjected to hundreds of years of western imperialism. The area that is now Iraq belonged to the Turkish empire for several centuries, then was ruled by the British for some 30 years. The majority of the recent history of the Middle-East was the influence of the area as client states of the former Soviet Empire.
The Iraqi national oil company sold Iraqi oil on the world market at world price before the invasion and now sells Iraqi oil on the world market at world price.
The United States imports under 6% of it oil from Iraq and nobody predicts this to change.
The concept of "controlling oil" is laughable from a historical perspective. All oil producing countries in the Middle-East and Africa have been nationalized and in the process repeatedly ripped up contracts. To suggest that this would not happen in the future is silly.
We can agree that it is wise to ween ourselves of Middle-Eastern oil, and I believe that the Bush Administration believes this too as witnessed by their initiatives in recent weeks.
differs. I just don't agree at all with your analysis. I watch professional
money manages both with excellent track records offer opinions that are completely opposite. The best of them are only right slightly more than they are wrong. What is fascinating to me is that in politics nothing is ever really learned. There it is more like weather forecasting. Everything is easy in hindsight. I used to know this one guy who could impress the socks off of me explaining why he was wrong about the weather the day before.
Since I used to depend heavily on my instincts for survival, I am not about to abandon them. Yet I can honestly say that I hope you are right and that I am completely and totally wrong because I think we are in a battle to the death. I think that there is real evil in the world and that saying we brought it on ourselves is somewhere South of reckless.
I felt the same rage, insecurity and need for vengeance post 911 that nearly all of America did. But I also recognize our past and current foreign, domestic and energy policies contribute to the circumstances that resulted in the situations we face today. Our government has, and continues to engage in actions that exacerbate the conflict and not heal it. I want the same thing you do and perhaps Greg does: peace and security.
As for the oil, I now teach Physics. I consider it almost a crusade, if that doesn't offend anyone, to teach the kids about the science and politics of energy. Here I find in almost no agreement with you. The price of oil is not something that can be controlled so easily as you suggest. Play the futures market sometime ,if you know so much about the subject, believe me it can be humbling. Our oil dependency was years and many administrations/congresses in the making. To suggest otherwise is not logical. The first Oil Embargo should have set us on a new course. It didn't substantially change our habits and more than anything set us on our current course. Many governments would topple or become irrelevent
from the standpoint of world security if not for the flow of oil money. I am not Billy Mitchell but I could have told you that years ago. The engineer in me wanted to see change but the average Joe on the street forgot about the crunch just as soon as the oil prices fell. I believe in long term planning but congress seems to favor the church of whatever works today.
2) The Shiites are hostile to the US but are favorable to a political solution that would give them majority power or at least regional autonomy over the south with a strong voice in Baghdad.
4) Iraqi's very much want democracy.
5) Iraqi's very much want western style technology and modes of modern governance.....though the minority of a minority wants the 8th century back again.
OK, but that puts you at odds with George. He wants Iraq with a strong central government, not de-facto split into independent autonomous nation-states.
Numbers 2, 4 and 5 seem in contradiction. The Shiites want the democracy that verifies the supremacy of a religious state, run under the precepts of Islam. Since they compose 60% it's hard to imagine how Iraqi's want democracy.
Also the Crusades were a few years back. The Russians dealt with the Middle East as we did: support our favorite bastards as long as they were our bastards, i.e. those bastions of freedom, Turkey and Iran under the Shah.
Oil, oil, oil. The free market price before Bush was about $25 per and now it's $65 per. That's a lot of money flowing into unstable countries like Iran and Saudi. You know that some of what you pay at the pump ends up in the hands of those who wish to dominate the Middle East and end American influence. Bush chose political payoff over national security. His newfound greenness is laughable. He can easily afford lip service to the tree huggers now since his buddies oil industry coffers are spilling into the parking lot, and the RNC. It is not controlling oil. It is drying it up.
I certainly do not wish to dispute your experiance or education. I recognize that dependancy on Middle East oil goes back to Teddy Roosevelt and we as a nation have hid our heads in the sand. The 73 embargo should have taught us a terminal lesson but didn't.
America has exploited Middle East oil resources with little concern over the socio\political damage as long as the oil flowed. That is imperialism and that is how we are defined in the Middle East and not by just the radicals. It is true that the world has a substancial oil economy but the resource is dwindling and money will eventually need to find another way to move. That is not the same as pouring ever increasing dollars into a many flawed system as Bush has done. Record profits are record because they were never allowed before.
might have proved a better strategy depending on the outcome. No question war is an ugly business and whether you have to fight and kill or send others to do so.... It is an ugly business. I hope and pray that we did do the right thing and that the cause is not faltering. I mourn for the families who have lost loved ones. This morning on the news I saw some odd members of a misguided religious group who are protesting the war by going to the funerals of dead soldiers and telling the families that their sons, daughters and husbands are going to hell. I am a Christian and this is absolutely bizarre. It is tasteless and cruel. It serves no purpose. A zealous almost fascist group of anti war preacher zombies. I could not have come up with a plot that strange.
I may be rambling a bit here so forgive me. It is just that with all that is happening in the world, yes I am happy for a bit of sane disagreement. I think order is way better than chaos. Many of my students hold with the philosophy that much of the worlds problems are caused by the United States. Seldom can they explain in any depth why they should feel this way. I think the answer lies in what they hear most often either from teachers or the news media. I teach Physics not politics but I have encouraged them not to take anyones word for it but to take responsibility for educating themselves. I think we all have a responsibility to be sure of our facts when we attempt to convince others especially children.
Apparently there are schools specifically designed to teach hatred established by radical Fundamentalists. Children are indoctrinated more pervasively than the " religious" nuts I talked about earlier. I just don't see how we are going to win the PR battle abroad if citizens of our own country with the clear advantages we enjoy can still come up ranting and bullying. The dependency on oil which funds this insanity abroad has to end. I believe the US has done more than its share to educate foreign nationals in our Universities and colleges. I believe that for all our power and wealth, we do not have even nearly the resources to support all the poor economies that breed contempt. I believe that if we try, we are going to go bankrupt even faster than we are now.I suppose I could go on but when two educated men, both of good will in a peaceful setting, can't come to a consensus on something as straight forward as the role of the strategic petroleum rserve to world oil prices well I just begin to question whether there really is a Santa Claus.
I consider myself a fairly liberal, good natured soul and I too read of those morons harrassing soldier's families. Bullwhipping for them is too kind. But, free speech is free speech. That which protects the right from retribution while skewering Bill and Hillary protects the left while skewering George. It even protects idiots involved in morally reprehensible acts like verbally brutalizing grieving military families. They make my blood boil.
I don't envy your daily labors among the seething cauldron of American youth. The young are prone to excess, as we were. They are the ones called upon to tote the rifle into harms way and have every right to question and rage at us. We are the ones who send them. I fight for them, for the ones who will go or are already there. If we send them unjustly or for some half-baked crackpot ideology, then we deserve all the abuse they give us and much more.
John, someday if the fates allow and our paths cross, the drinks are on me. We might even invite Greg and martinchill if they can behave.