Comments on: US political debate as seen from outside http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/03/us-political-debate-as-seen-from-outside/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:56:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jim Miller http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/03/us-political-debate-as-seen-from-outside/comment-page-1/#comment-23712 Jim Miller Tue, 06 Apr 2004 23:45:46 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1347#comment-23712 I am not sure whether Chris realizes it, but he has just made a fairly devastating criticism of American academics -- at least those he encountered. Take a look at the reasoning he ascribes to them if you are puzzled by this. Since I quite agree with his criticism, I will leave that point for more discussion at my site in a day or two. As for income levels and voting, here's what the NYT exit polls showed in 2000, with Bush's share of the vote in parentheses: Under $15,000 (37), $15,000-$29,999 (41), $30,000-$49,999 (48), Over $50,000 (52), Over $75,000 (53), and Over $100,000 (54). The last three categories overlap, as you may have noticed. A full 53 percent of the voters were in the Over $50,000 category. Religion was a much stronger predictor of the vote, although the NYT did not ask an appropriate question about it in 2000. So too was marital status. If the vote had been limited to the married, Bush would have swept into office by a margin of 53-44, with Nader getting 2 percent. Single people gave Gore a much bigger share of the vote, obviously, with most of the difference coming from single women. Past elections have usually had stronger relationships of income to the vote. I am not sure whether Chris realizes it, but he has just made a fairly devastating criticism of American academics—at least those he encountered. Take a look at the reasoning he ascribes to them if you are puzzled by this. Since I quite agree with his criticism, I will leave that point for more discussion at my site in a day or two. As for income levels and voting, here’s what the NYT exit polls showed in 2000, with Bush’s share of the vote in parentheses: Under $15,000 (37), $15,000-$29,999 (41), $30,000-$49,999 (48), Over $50,000 (52), Over $75,000 (53), and Over $100,000 (54). The last three categories overlap, as you may have noticed. A full 53 percent of the voters were in the Over $50,000 category. Religion was a much stronger predictor of the vote, although the NYT did not ask an appropriate question about it in 2000. So too was marital status. If the vote had been limited to the married, Bush would have swept into office by a margin of 53-44, with Nader getting 2 percent. Single people gave Gore a much bigger share of the vote, obviously, with most of the difference coming from single women. Past elections have usually had stronger relationships of income to the vote.

]]> By: Thomas http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/03/us-political-debate-as-seen-from-outside/comment-page-1/#comment-23711 Thomas Mon, 05 Apr 2004 16:40:23 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1347#comment-23711 John Q-- The ICC does not and would not have jurisdiction over Saddam's (shall we call them alleged?) crimes. No quibbles or doubts on that--it's simply a fact. Amending the ICC's constitution is not a matter of wanting. It is a difficult matter at best, as was the original Rome Statute. Whether Iraq wishes to be a party to the ICC is properly a choice for Iraq, following the turnover of sovereignty. The fate of Saddam is similarly a matter for Iraq. That out of the way, why did you oppose the war? John Q— The ICC does not and would not have jurisdiction over Saddam’s (shall we call them alleged?) crimes. No quibbles or doubts on that—it’s simply a fact. Amending the ICC’s constitution is not a matter of wanting. It is a difficult matter at best, as was the original Rome Statute. Whether Iraq wishes to be a party to the ICC is properly a choice for Iraq, following the turnover of sovereignty. The fate of Saddam is similarly a matter for Iraq. That out of the way, why did you oppose the war?

]]> By: Matt Weiner http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/03/us-political-debate-as-seen-from-outside/comment-page-1/#comment-23710 Matt Weiner Mon, 05 Apr 2004 16:18:33 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1347#comment-23710 H.E.--I read recently (I forget where) that Bush carried the top three income divisions voted for Bush in 2000 and Gore carried the bottom three. So I don't accept one of your premises. Also, my contention is that people vote on the economic policies they'd like to see happen, not necessarily on their self-interest. As for unions, it doesn't matter how widespread they are. If economics were irrelevant to the left-right divide, there'd be no reason for the unions to be Democratic; it's not as though they're particularly socially liberal or pacifist. So the fact that they are Democratic is evidence that economic policy preferences influence political support. H.E.—I read recently (I forget where) that Bush carried the top three income divisions voted for Bush in 2000 and Gore carried the bottom three. So I don’t accept one of your premises. Also, my contention is that people vote on the economic policies they’d like to see happen, not necessarily on their self-interest. As for unions, it doesn’t matter how widespread they are. If economics were irrelevant to the left-right divide, there’d be no reason for the unions to be Democratic; it’s not as though they’re particularly socially liberal or pacifist. So the fact that they are Democratic is evidence that economic policy preferences influence political support.

]]> By: Jack http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/03/us-political-debate-as-seen-from-outside/comment-page-1/#comment-23709 Jack Mon, 05 Apr 2004 14:23:06 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1347#comment-23709 Rajeev "I agree with Samantha Power when she says “it’s hard to imagine the Iraqis worse off in a few years because of this invasion.”" That is an awfully low hurdle to set. Rajeev “I agree with Samantha Power when she says “it’s hard to imagine the Iraqis worse off in a few years because of this invasion.”” That is an awfully low hurdle to set.

]]> By: Anthony http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/03/us-political-debate-as-seen-from-outside/comment-page-1/#comment-23708 Anthony Mon, 05 Apr 2004 02:59:07 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1347#comment-23708 Rajeev - if it's "parochial ideology" to not want the ICC to repeat its mishandling of the SLobodan Milosevic case, I'm happy to be a parochial ideologue. Rajeev – if it’s “parochial ideology” to not want the ICC to repeat its mishandling of the SLobodan Milosevic case, I’m happy to be a parochial ideologue.

]]> By: Rajeev Advani http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/03/us-political-debate-as-seen-from-outside/comment-page-1/#comment-23707 Rajeev Advani Mon, 05 Apr 2004 00:00:29 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1347#comment-23707 <i>Whatever the abstract arguments about the desirability of overthrowing dictators, anything run by Bush was bound to be a disaster.</i> John, I find it curious that you premise the one absolutely concrete argument for this war with the term "abstract". And what shocks me most of all is how quickly everyone has been willing to jump the gun and declare the occupation a disaster or fiasco. While I agree with most of you about disliking the Bush administration's approach to this war -- and in particular the parochial ideology that barred them from using the ICC -- I can't resign yet to empty cynicism regarding the war's outcome. I agree with Samantha Power when she says "it's hard to imagine the Iraqis worse off in a few years because of this invasion." Reports coming out of Iraq are mixed -- so we should treat them that way. Whatever the abstract arguments about the desirability of overthrowing dictators, anything run by Bush was bound to be a disaster. John, I find it curious that you premise the one absolutely concrete argument for this war with the term “abstract”. And what shocks me most of all is how quickly everyone has been willing to jump the gun and declare the occupation a disaster or fiasco. While I agree with most of you about disliking the Bush administration’s approach to this war—and in particular the parochial ideology that barred them from using the ICC —I can’t resign yet to empty cynicism regarding the war’s outcome. I agree with Samantha Power when she says “it’s hard to imagine the Iraqis worse off in a few years because of this invasion.” Reports coming out of Iraq are mixed—so we should treat them that way.

]]> By: Shaun Evans http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/03/us-political-debate-as-seen-from-outside/comment-page-1/#comment-23706 Shaun Evans Sun, 04 Apr 2004 20:32:35 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1347#comment-23706 I'm interested in the conflict between motive and outcome. Let's create a quick thought experiment. There are two police officers. Both big, physical guys. One is a well-adjusted sociopath who wants to beat people up, and became a cop because that's the only legal way to do it. He carefully stays within the bounds of the law, however. The second is a true paladin of the people, who went into law enforcement to make the world a better place. The two are on patrol and confront a pair of robbers armed with knives. Confident of their physical skills, the two officers leave their guns holstered, and break the right arms of each of the robbers and arrests them. The first officer broke the arm of the robber because he could. The second did so because it was the tactically efficent solution. How should we as citizens feel about these two officers? By this I mean, what concrete different in treatment should the officers receive because of their differing motivations. I’m interested in the conflict between motive and outcome. Let’s create a quick thought experiment. There are two police officers. Both big, physical guys. One is a well-adjusted sociopath who wants to beat people up, and became a cop because that’s the only legal way to do it. He carefully stays within the bounds of the law, however. The second is a true paladin of the people, who went into law enforcement to make the world a better place. The two are on patrol and confront a pair of robbers armed with knives. Confident of their physical skills, the two officers leave their guns holstered, and break the right arms of each of the robbers and arrests them. The first officer broke the arm of the robber because he could. The second did so because it was the tactically efficent solution. How should we as citizens feel about these two officers? By this I mean, what concrete different in treatment should the officers receive because of their differing motivations.

]]> By: Gar Lipow http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/03/us-political-debate-as-seen-from-outside/comment-page-1/#comment-23705 Gar Lipow Sun, 04 Apr 2004 19:35:20 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1347#comment-23705 I honestly don't think the certainty was due to partisanship in the conventional sense. I think there were three reasons. One was opposition to the actual war - either that it should not be done at all, or not done at this time. Secondly was the feeling some who might have supported this war at this time (not me) objected to doing it without allies. Thirdly there were people who would have supported the war but felt that the administration had proven by its inability to "stay the course" in Afghanistan that it was a government that could burn water making tea. The knowledge that person conducting it is incompetent is in itself a good reason for opposing a war. I think this third point is not responsible for the much of the opposition, but is responsible for the certainty. Because even if you were not absolutely certain that you were right in opposing the war you could be certain that you were right in opposing it under this leader. I know that can look a lot like partisanship, but it isn't; as pointed out above it comes from many of the same people who supported Afghanistan. It comes from experience; people who initially were prepared to give the administration credit for minimal competence and good intentions, judged based not on partisanship, but upon actual experience that they couldn't. Actual email garlpublic and then at and then comcast and then dot and then net I honestly don’t think the certainty was due to partisanship in the conventional sense. I think there were three reasons. One was opposition to the actual war – either that it should not be done at all, or not done at this time. Secondly was the feeling some who might have supported this war at this time (not me) objected to doing it without allies. Thirdly there were people who would have supported the war but felt that the administration had proven by its inability to “stay the course” in Afghanistan that it was a government that could burn water making tea. The knowledge that person conducting it is incompetent is in itself a good reason for opposing a war. I think this third point is not responsible for the much of the opposition, but is responsible for the certainty. Because even if you were not absolutely certain that you were right in opposing the war you could be certain that you were right in opposing it under this leader. I know that can look a lot like partisanship, but it isn’t; as pointed out above it comes from many of the same people who supported Afghanistan. It comes from experience; people who initially were prepared to give the administration credit for minimal competence and good intentions, judged based not on partisanship, but upon actual experience that they couldn’t. Actual email garlpublic and then at and then comcast and then dot and then net

]]> By: kevin http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/03/us-political-debate-as-seen-from-outside/comment-page-1/#comment-23704 kevin Sun, 04 Apr 2004 05:20:31 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1347#comment-23704 <blockquote> In the UK, Blair was up front about how, in his opinion, removing a horrible dictator such as Saddam Hussein was in itself reason enough to go to war. Well, perhaps, but the argument he made to the Commons was all WMD, all of the time. Dodgy dossiers an’ all. </blockquote> Based on that comment, nick, I have to wonder how much of the differences werebased on news coverage, then. In the US, I don't rememebr hearing very much form Blair about WMDS, except when he would support a statement Bush made. His own words were largely reported as "This is a hummanitarian war"
In the UK, Blair was up front about how, in his opinion, removing a horrible dictator such as Saddam Hussein was in itself reason enough to go to war. Well, perhaps, but the argument he made to the Commons was all WMD, all of the time. Dodgy dossiers an’ all.
Based on that comment, nick, I have to wonder how much of the differences werebased on news coverage, then. In the US, I don’t rememebr hearing very much form Blair about WMDS, except when he would support a statement Bush made. His own words were largely reported as “This is a hummanitarian war”

]]> By: h. e. baber http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/03/us-political-debate-as-seen-from-outside/comment-page-1/#comment-23703 h. e. baber Sun, 04 Apr 2004 01:11:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1347#comment-23703 So, matt, what percentage of American workers are unionized? And explain please why working class Americans vote Republican. So, matt, what percentage of American workers are unionized? And explain please why working class Americans vote Republican.

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/03/us-political-debate-as-seen-from-outside/comment-page-1/#comment-23702 John Quiggin Sat, 03 Apr 2004 20:15:38 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1347#comment-23702 Actually, Chris, I think the Afghanistan case is the exception that proves the rule. There was a huge upsurge in support for Bush after S11, mirrored by international feelings of solidarity with America. Even tactical criticisms, most notably concerning the lack of sufficient troops on the ground, were muted. The assumption was that this crisis necessitated national and international unity and that Bush would act accordingly. On the international front, the first big crack in this, as I recall was the way offers of troops to keep the peace in Afghanistan were dismissed (except for a few in Kabul). Domestically, the process was slower, but the process was pretty much complete by the 2002 mid-term elections. Actually, Chris, I think the Afghanistan case is the exception that proves the rule. There was a huge upsurge in support for Bush after S11, mirrored by international feelings of solidarity with America. Even tactical criticisms, most notably concerning the lack of sufficient troops on the ground, were muted. The assumption was that this crisis necessitated national and international unity and that Bush would act accordingly. On the international front, the first big crack in this, as I recall was the way offers of troops to keep the peace in Afghanistan were dismissed (except for a few in Kabul). Domestically, the process was slower, but the process was pretty much complete by the 2002 mid-term elections.

]]> By: Matt Weiner http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/03/us-political-debate-as-seen-from-outside/comment-page-1/#comment-23701 Matt Weiner Sat, 03 Apr 2004 19:32:27 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1347#comment-23701 H.E.--I disagree about the periphery of economic issues. My Democratic partisanship is based in large part on (what I see as) the Republicans' unwavering support of tax cuts for the rich as a be-all and end-all, and I don't think I'm alone here. Of course this debate is taking place well to the right of the debate in Europe, but that doesn't mean that it's peripheral. Note also that unions are very strongly Democratic. I also agree with Jay's analysis. Russell, are you saying that you were surprised by the certainty of fellow-hawks? H.E.—I disagree about the periphery of economic issues. My Democratic partisanship is based in large part on (what I see as) the Republicans’ unwavering support of tax cuts for the rich as a be-all and end-all, and I don’t think I’m alone here. Of course this debate is taking place well to the right of the debate in Europe, but that doesn’t mean that it’s peripheral. Note also that unions are very strongly Democratic. I also agree with Jay’s analysis. Russell, are you saying that you were surprised by the certainty of fellow-hawks?

]]> By: h. e. baber http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/03/us-political-debate-as-seen-from-outside/comment-page-1/#comment-23700 h. e. baber Sat, 03 Apr 2004 17:08:07 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1347#comment-23700 Americans understand the political right/left continuum differently from Brits: in the US the key issues are war and peace, abortion and the environment. Economic issues are peripheral and, in any case, on these matters the American moderate left is to the right of the right elsewhere. Since Vietnam, Peace has been the American left's signature issue so you can always rally the troops by getting together a Peace Demonstration. You can also get people out in support of abortion rights and environmental issues. But, in spite of unemployment and all our economic woes, no one is taking to the streets to demand more jobs much less the sort of social programs that are normal elsewhere in affluent countries. It isn't that Americans are more partisan: it is what they are partisan about. And when left and right candidates get serious about pushing their core constituencies' buttons the mantras they chant are invariably Peace vs. Tax Cuts. Americans understand the political right/left continuum differently from Brits: in the US the key issues are war and peace, abortion and the environment. Economic issues are peripheral and, in any case, on these matters the American moderate left is to the right of the right elsewhere. Since Vietnam, Peace has been the American left’s signature issue so you can always rally the troops by getting together a Peace Demonstration. You can also get people out in support of abortion rights and environmental issues. But, in spite of unemployment and all our economic woes, no one is taking to the streets to demand more jobs much less the sort of social programs that are normal elsewhere in affluent countries. It isn’t that Americans are more partisan: it is what they are partisan about. And when left and right candidates get serious about pushing their core constituencies’ buttons the mantras they chant are invariably Peace vs. Tax Cuts.

]]> By: Matt http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/03/us-political-debate-as-seen-from-outside/comment-page-1/#comment-23699 Matt Sat, 03 Apr 2004 16:44:00 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1347#comment-23699 I'll admit that I opposed the afghan invasion. Why? Because of the stupid way it was done, which will get us little more than some short-term gain. You can't fight a way w/ an ATM machine and high-altitude bombing, which is what we did. We "won" by paying large sums of money to many of the groups who supported the taliban to switch sides. They did so, but are just the same as before. We've destroyed most of the good-will we might have had there w/ ham-fisted tactics, using mercinaries, and killing of civilians w/ high-altitude bombings. I would have supported the invasion if it would have been done right, but that would have been _very_ hard, and would have prevented us from going to Iraq, which seems to explain why we didn't do it. I’ll admit that I opposed the afghan invasion. Why? Because of the stupid way it was done, which will get us little more than some short-term gain. You can’t fight a way w/ an ATM machine and high-altitude bombing, which is what we did. We “won” by paying large sums of money to many of the groups who supported the taliban to switch sides. They did so, but are just the same as before. We’ve destroyed most of the good-will we might have had there w/ ham-fisted tactics, using mercinaries, and killing of civilians w/ high-altitude bombings. I would have supported the invasion if it would have been done right, but that would have been very hard, and would have prevented us from going to Iraq, which seems to explain why we didn’t do it.

]]> By: james http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/03/us-political-debate-as-seen-from-outside/comment-page-1/#comment-23698 james Sat, 03 Apr 2004 16:31:04 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1347#comment-23698 Chris, This could be somewhat related to some other obsevations you've made in recent posts about American discourse and culture or attitudes, and also with what seems to me the weakness of internationalism on what is called the American left, no? Which last point is in turn related to the unique failure of socialism - one of whose defining tenets is internationalist solidarity - in the US, such that the political divide seems to be between left-liberals and right-liberals. Just some thoughts off the top of my head, but I do think there might be something there. Chris, This could be somewhat related to some other obsevations you’ve made in recent posts about American discourse and culture or attitudes, and also with what seems to me the weakness of internationalism on what is called the American left, no? Which last point is in turn related to the unique failure of socialism – one of whose defining tenets is internationalist solidarity – in the US, such that the political divide seems to be between left-liberals and right-liberals. Just some thoughts off the top of my head, but I do think there might be something there.

]]>