Harvard has released a study in its own unique way of celebrating the Fourth of July with America. Harvard Kennedy School Assistant Professor David Yanagizawa-Drott and Bocconi University Assistant Professor Andreas Madestam argue that Fourth of July celebrations tend to turn people into Republicans and help advance the GOP in elections. I would differ. I think Harvard studies tend to push people toward conservative candidates.
The study suggests that Republicans benefit most from patriotic celebrations: “Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation’s political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party.” They go on to say that these celebrations dovetail with conservative causes and themes. They warn “there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican party. Fourth of July celebrations in Republican dominated counties may thus be more politically biased events that socialize children into Republicans.”
In fairness to these professors, they are simply giving the results of a survey that shows the influence on individuals in terms of their political views. Moreover, they suggest that Republicans do in fact celebrate the Fourth of July more rigorously than do Democrats.
I came from one of the most liberal families on Earth and we always celebrated the Fourth of July. We were taught it was a celebration of our rights and our success as a free and pluralistic nation. As a father, I go crazy on the Fourth of July and, over Leslie’s annual protestations, buy enough fireworks to take over a small nation.
I actually would have been more interested in the difference not in how we celebrate the Fourth of July but why we celebrate the Fourth of July. I often talk to the kids about the struggle for liberty from free speech to free exercise. Others seem to celebrate America’s might and dominance. I would have been more intrigued by a survey on how people view the holiday.
There is a danger that some may take the study as a reason not to participate in patriotic celebrations after reading lines like “There is no evidence of an increased likelihood of identifying as a Democrat, indicating that Fourth of July shifts preferences to the right rather than increasing political polarization.”
That is only true if citizens allow the Fourth of July to be associated with Republican values. There can be a self-fulfilling prophesy in such studies if liberals view these celebrations with greater suspicion. I am appalled by the decision this year in Chicago to cancel the Fourth of July fireworks in Chicago to save money. This is the one holiday that unites us all — a celebration of not just our history but our pluralism and values. I grew up going to the fireworks every year on the beach with my family. We joined thousands of Chicagoans of different races and religions and backgrounds. It summed up for me what is it to be a citizen. I am ashamed of my home city in its decision to cancel the fireworks. Any Chicagoans are welcomed to join the Turley clan in McLean for a true patriotic pyrotechnic extravaganza.
John Adams, no conservative, once stated “I believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival,” he wrote his wife, Abigail. “It ought to be celebrated by pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other…”
From one end of this continent to the other . . . even on Harvard yard.
Source: USNews
“John Adams, no conservative, once stated “I believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival,” he wrote his wife, Abigail. “It ought to be celebrated by pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other…”
I believe John Adams also said we should celebrate on July 2nd, the day of the actual vote for independence.
Then again, the document wasn’t actually signed until August 2nd, 1776, so who’s to say.
Regardless, we New Yorkers aren’t allowed to play with fireworks.
I as well agree with Adams….Lets shoot the works….
This study has been debunked on the Fogbow:
http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=6127
This study is flawed and as one commenter pointed out it is probably nothing more than a complicated way of saying that there are more rainy days on the 4th of July in the northeast than there are in the south and southwest.
I’ve long felt that a main problem of what could be broadly termed as “The Left” is summed up in “too hip for the crowd.” I’ve been guilty of it myself in my life. Even supposing this study is credible, I think it misses the point. Some on “The Left” are ashamed to show patriotic feelings in line with the mass of the citizenry and so leave the field open for Right Wingers to impose their own brand of zealotry on the celebration and claim it as their own.
This is correlation being touted as causation, based on cross-sectional survey data. Conservatives probably do consider themselves more patriotic. They also spend a lot of time yammering about morality and responsibility even there are visible holes in those fabrics for them. Given that this was done by junior faculty at a notoriously weak part of Harvard and sourced in a dying news magazine that survives on misleading college ratings, this deserves mockery more than a defensive posture.
I have known many liberal Democrats over the course of my life and ALL of them were rabidly patriotic. In fact, with RARE exception, they were more educated on the Constitution, the history of this country, and the founding fathers than any conservative I’ve ever known. Not making a judgment here, just sharing my personal experience.
“Conservatives probably do consider themselves more patriotic. They also spend a lot of time yammering about morality and responsibility even there are visible holes in those fabrics for them. Given that this was done by junior faculty at a notoriously weak part of Harvard and sourced in a dying news magazine that survives on misleading college ratings, this deserves mockery more than a defensive posture.” -Rich
I agree. Coincidentally, I stumbled on the following article while shopping in our local food co-op the other day… In light of the topic, it might be worth skimming…
Pledging Allegiance to Peace
A Quaker argues that patriotism is deadly, no matter where or why it is practiced
by Tony White, from Friends Journal
July-August 2011
http://www.utne.com/Politics/Pledging-Allegiance-To-Peace.aspx
To break from patriotism may seem shocking and painful. But I daresay that many people in the United States reading this do not really love the United States, though we think we do. What we really love is an idealized version of the United States. We love the values of equality and liberty in the Declaration of Independence. But these values did not originate in 1776; they existed long before, and will continue long after the United States is gone. And the actual United States has never really lived up to these ideals.
Inequality and lack of freedom were written into the U.S. Constitution with the institution of slavery, and have since continued through various forms of oppression. To this, we might retort that what we love is the tremendous courage and perseverance of the people of the United States in overcoming these injustices. But why give credit to the United States for what resides in the human heart? Have not people from all corners of the earth exhibited this same spirit? Most great reforms are initially opposed by governments, and thus much of the people’s perseverance has actually been subject to persecution.
Some assert that patriotism keeps countries together. But why presuppose that this is good, that the status quo ought to be maintained? That this is even offered as a response reveals the depth of our indoctrination and directly reflects the view that the powerful have always endeavored to inculcate in the masses through patriotism—that whatever upholds the current establishment is good and necessary. If patriotism alone were keeping a country together, it would be an artificial basis propping up an outlived tradition. Political establishments should be maintained only as long as they are just and beneficial. A sound social organization should be able to self-persist organically, rendering patriotism superfluous at best.
If we want to achieve world peace and a form of society not based on violence, the time for change is now. But if we eradicate patriotism, what unifying principle can replace it? One answer is humanism. It unites not a particular group, but all people. (end excerpt)
Some people seem to think that wearing a pin of the American flag on their lapels/shirts or hanging an American flag on the front of their houses or calling people who protest our country’s getting involved in unnecessary wars unpatriotic is a proof of their patriotism.
*****
“Moreover, they suggest that Republicans do in fact celebrate the Fourth of July more rigorously than do Democrats.”
What does “more rigorously” mean in that context?
What does “more rigorously” mean in that context?
It probably means Jesus shows up at their barbeque in person, Elaine.
That and they call everything “extreme”.
As in, “Would you like some extreme barbequed ribs, Jesus? We only used ribs from the right side of the cow. It goes well with the extreme potato salad.”
I cannot understand how a study can determine that watching fireworks makes someone more likely to be a Republican. I am with Professor Turley and others above when I state that most in my family are Liberal and we have always celebrated the 4th of July with fervor and respect.
Raff,
The study didn’t find out anything of significance – they used rain on the 4th of July as a proxy for participation. What they found is probably that areas that are predominately liberal (like the northeast) are more likely to have rain in July than areas that are predominately Republican (like the south). My opinion is that conservatives are more inclined to profess their patriotism (often in very unpatriotic ways such as painting their political opposition as unAmerican) while liberals are more inclined to demonstrate their patriotism (by fighting for civil liberties and protesting against wars, for example…).
Elaine,
The term “rigorous” (at least in my world) is an absolute – something is either rigorous or it is not. You can’t be a little bit rigorous any more than you can be a little bit pregnant… Furthermore, (as you were pointing out), the term has no meaning in the context in which it was used. My advisor would have never let me put a meaningless word like that into any professional writing – in my opinion, it is an indication of a lack of rigor in the study…
Buddha,
Jesus was a long-haired liberal freak – I doubt that he’d be going to Republican barbecues (it seems like he said something about eyes and needles and camels that was kind of anti-capitalist, if I recall correctly…).
Loving America the Al Franken Way
Slartibartfast, Thanks for that… The perfect post…
…so, on that note… here’s a little “honesty”…
Is Torture In America’s Future As Well As In Our Country’s Past?
by Dan Froomkin
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/04/is-torture-in-americas-future_n_889359.html?page=1
Excerpt:
Glenn L. Carle, whose book “The Interrogator” went on sale last week, says he’s opposed to the prosecution of any CIA agents.
“I believe the most guilty are the small number of policymaking officials — actually, it was 10 people running the country, from the Department of Justice, the Office of the Vice President and the White House — who ordered that the Department of Justice write these exculpatory ‘you can do whatever you want’ memoranda and willingly subverted the Constitution,” he said.
“We don’t need more laws. The laws are clear,” he aid. “That was all fucked up by John Yoo, and Addington and Cheney.”
Carle believes a wide-ranging public investigation would be an education for the American people.
Once the nation understands what took place, “what we need to do is repudiate what happened and strengthen the values that underlie our laws.” he said.
“If you get the truth out it makes it harder for people to do this again,” he concluded. “There is no guarantee. But I think the best defense we have is the truth, and hiding nothing.”
Greenberg said an official inquiry would also lead to “a national discussion about the Constitution.” Specifically, she said, “we need to really think about what we’ve learned in this last 10 years.” The key question would be whether we need more effective checks on executive power.
“Torture was the giant threshold that we stepped through that in a way made all these other things okay,” she said, ticking off a number of Bush-era activities that Obama has not only continued, but in some cases expanded, such as surveillance, illegal detention, the use of isolation on prisoners and the treatment of American citizens as “enemies of the state.”
Constitutional scholars, she noted, are becoming increasingly concerned.
end excerpt
Anon Nurse,
You’re welcome. I think that, structurally (due to human nature), we will never be able to solve the problem of executive overreach by electing a President. It might be possible if the issue were the focus of the presidential campaign, but it’s hard to see that coming about anytime soon (and I doubt it would work anyway – the next guy would just grab all of the power back).
Yet again, a study that attempts to overlay party affiliation with ideology. If you look at individuals and talk to them about their beliefs, I think you’ll find only a marginal correlation between their beliefs and the party for which they choose to cheer (and vote). The 4th of July, for good or ill, is rather empty of content. For those who view the government as a paternal or material figure which has yet to learn what happens when you spoil your children (many liberals), the 4th stands as a moment to celebrate that view. For those who prefer unbridled capitalism unconcerned by the effects of unchecked greed (many conservatives), the 4th stands for a celebration of individual ambition and self-determination. But, what the Harvard study may point to is something else altogether. There is a growing thread among liberals that I know in which the United States is viewed, mainly, as a force for oppression here and abroad, and as the standard-bearer for “evil” capitalism and empire-building. Despite many living champagne lifestyles, they rail against the evils of the “monetization” of labor, oppression of the working class, and vast swaths of poor who cannot help but be poor.
One musn’t forget that the Democrats prosecuted every major war in the 20th century.
David,
Recognition that the US is running a global empire is not some trendy meme. It’s real.
And it’s bankrupting millions of Americans that haven’t even been born yet.
During WWI, in which our participation was purely optional, the Congress was indeed controlled by Democrats. WWII was a different story. One must not forget that Japan and Germany left us little alternative but to get involved and the fact that Democrats controlled Congress at that time is irrelevant. Every other war we’ve been in during the modern era was either a proxy war like Korea or a war started by business interests like the Gulf War. There is also the unprecedented war induced by fraud by the President and his allies in business, namely the Iraq Invasion. Party affiliation in control of Congress during wars is largely like all partisanship – irrelevant. Both parties are corrupt and above all, as Gen. Smedley Butler and President Eisenhower both knew all too well, above all war is a racket. Most wars in the modern era are about money with WWII being an ideological and tactical exception, not a rule. Before the modern era, the main difference was that many wars were also about religion and money and a few were just about religion. The spoils of war are the problem. In an ideal world, no one would be able to profit from warfare. And it would be ideal because there would be almost no warfare absent the profit motive. War is an increasingly outmoded method of dispute resolution and should always be reserved as the last option. When that option becomes the only viable option, then wars should be prosecuted in the most efficient and least expensive in terms of loss of life as possible. No country ever benefited from a protracted war or from practicing genocide or total destruction of the enemies infrastructure. Sun Tzu knew this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/04/national-education-association-teachers-union-obama-_n_889939.html Speaking of republicans. the teachers don’t trust them on public education and gave Obama an early endorsement.
“One musn’t forget that the Democrats prosecuted every major war in the 20th century.”
***************
I had no idea that George HW Bush was a Democrat when he gave us the Gulf War in 1990.
Did he change just for the War?
Mespo,
No major Scottsman eats his oats with cream.
You know, I think KF might think because some Democrats actually believe in a Democracy…. believes that you are not a real ‘merican unless you are a republican….
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.
You see its right there…in the flag code…..Never mind that some of the Republicans didn’t think that you could force someone to say it…..
The official name of The Pledge of Allegiance was adopted in 1945.
During the Roosevelt/Truman years….
I think he might really like this one:
Pledge allegiance to the swag cause this shit is top notch
http://www.metrolyrics.com/pledge-to-the-swag-lyrics-ti.html
Gyges:
“No major Scottsman eats his oats with cream.”
***********************
That’s right. The “real” Republican gave us Grenada and Iran Contra and on and on ….
Slarts,
Great Al Franken quote. So true!
“One musn’t forget that the Democrats prosecuted every major war in the 20th century.”
***************
Mespo: You obviously overlooked the operative words “major war” in my post. The 1st Gulf War, like the Panama Invasion, weren’t even really wars since only one side was shooting.
Karl:
” You obviously overlooked the operative words “major war” in my post. The 1st Gulf War, like the Panama Invasion, weren’t even really wars since only one side was shooting.”
***************
Wonder if the all the dead soldiers and those who’ve died since from service connected injuries think it was minor. Also, those disabled by the conflict might disagree with your assessment made from the comfort of your armchair. Here’s the numbers through 2002:
” As of May 2002, the Gulf War casualties include 8306 veterans dead and 159705 veterans injured or ill as a consequence of wartime service to our nation. The official May 2002 Department of Veteran Affairs report classifies 168011 individuals as “disabled veterans”. That reflects a staggering casualty rate of 29.3% for combat related duties between 1990 and 1991.”
No big deal, right. Unless, that is, you’re one of the casualties or their families.
Slarti,
Rainfall as a proxy. Good grief! I wonder who funded this research study???
The Abstract from the study:
Do childhood events shape adult political views and behavior? This paper investigates the impact of Fourth of July celebrations in the US during childhood on partisanship and participation later in life. Using daily precipitation data to proxy for exogenous variation in participation on
Fourth of July as a child, we examine the role of the celebrations for people born in 1920-1990. We find that days without rain on Fourth of July in childhood have lifelong effects. In particular, they shift adult views and behavior in favor of the Republicans and increase later-life political participation. Our estimates are significant: one Fourth of July without rain before age 18 raises the likelihood of identifying as a Republican by 2 percent and voting for the Republican candidate by 4 percent. It also increases voter turnout by 0.9 percent and boosts political campaign contributions by 3 percent. Taken together, the evidence suggests that im-
portant childhood events can have persistent effects on political beliefs and participation and that Fourth of July celebrations in the US affect the nation’s political landscape.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/dyanagi/Research/FourthOfJuly.pdf
Mespo,
Did I call it or did I call it?
But Elaine, the study is from Harvard. It must be correct and accepted on faith according to your theory of evidence.
KDE,
Off Topic:
So, I’m trying to figure out your motivation for staying here. I mean it’s obvious you find the vast majority of regulars either annoying, idiotic, or both. So you’re not here for the conversation. You refuse to consider evidence that contradicts your world view, so you’re not here to expand your mind or consider new ideas. You make no attempt to actually convince anyone else that your views are right (I wasted a whole day trying to get you to provide ANY sort support other than your say so) , so you’re not here to win converts. You’re not funny, so I hope you’re not here just as a joke.
The nearest I can guess is that you’ve spent a couple hours every day for the past week or two trying to annoy people here. Which is just as sad as if you’d spent that time trying to make us all love you with sniveling obliqueness and flattery. If you’re going to use that much effort to influence complete strangers, at least do it somewhere where you can SEE their reactions.
Here’s my suggestion: Planking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lying_down_game
If you choose your locations wisely, you’ll get way more annoyance per man hour then you can in our little corner of the web.
Fox News asks a comedian to express his view of the Harvard Study:
Now we know why Barbra Streisand became a liberal. It rained on her Fourth of July parade when she was a kid!
@Gyges, I am here to express my opinion, presumably just like you.
That you and the regulars disagree with my opinion is ok. You and the other regulars are entitled to your opinions even when you are wrong, as you frequently are.
That you and the other regulars are annoying and idiotic is more your problem than mine. Not everyone here is annoying and idiotic.
I understand your desire to have a conflict-free echo-chamber so as not to upset your delicate sensibilities. But this is a free speech zone, not an echo chamber. There are lots of lefty echo chambers on the web for you to burden yourself with.
I do not agree that accepting your opinions (often evidence free) is a way to “expand expand [my] mind or consider new ideas.” Your opinions are hardly new, I’ve heard them all before. They are largely lefty cant as your discussion with me illustrated.
I don’t expect to win converts (good phrasing, your leftyism has many characterisms similar to religion) among the commentariate, you are mostly closed minded fools. But I’m sure others read these comments. They are the intended audience.
Lastly, as the record shows, I didn’t start the name-calling and “annoying” behavior, the regulars did. If that’s the fever swamp mentality they wish to operate in, I can accomodate them and get my points across at the same time.
Do you have a larger point, or are you just trying to foreclose/censor debate in typical lefty fashion?
“Lastly, as the record shows, I didn’t start the name-calling and ‘annoying’ behavior, the regulars did.”
Unless you don’t count historical revisionism and lying for political gain annoying.
Or a consistent inability to understand burdens and qualities of proof as annoying.
Or constant evasion as annoying.
We’ve certainly wandered far afield. This thread, however, has made me reevaluate my position. The Republicans and conservatives (not necessarily the same) I know are far more likely to view the United States, overall, in a more favorable light than Democrats and liberals (again, not necessarily the same people). It’s not a gigantic leap to conclude that a celebration like the 4th could convince the latter group to focus more on the positive aspects of our country and its history than the negative. This may nudge them further to the Republican or conservative camp, particularly since the anti-American rhetoric on the left has become increasingly shrill over the last 10 years. I don’t think any of this is particularly rational. The positions of the leftists are generally as contradictory and irrational as the positions of the rightists. It’s more about a general emotional reaction to the entire experience.
Oh, and whatever Barbra Streisand does has much more to do with her idiocy than anything else.
KDE,
To avoid hijacking the conversation, this’ll be my last word on this matter. However, you do deserve a response so:
I’m here partially to learn, and partially to contribute to the conversations.
“They started it” is at most as convincing an excuse when you’re an adult as it is when you’re a kid, and even less convincing when you’re discussing behavior online. You don’t even have to put forth the energy to walk away, just that required to click a little somewhere on your screen.
I’ve said it before, if you’re not a troll then you’re sure acting like it. That’s not because you disagree with me. I’m willing to bet that every one of the people who regularly comment here have disagreed with every other regular at one point or another, and have expressed it, with varying levels of sturm und drang. The reasons I say you’re acting like a troll is because jumping into conversation with comments like, “But Elaine, the study is from Harvard. It must be correct and accepted on faith according to your theory of evidence,” only serve to disrupt the usual discourse of the online community. Which is the very definition of a trolling.
As to the censorship charge, I’ve always wondered, when you’re making a martyr of yourself, how do you nail the second hand to the cross? Censorship would be JT banning you for disagreeing with him. Censorship would be JT requiring every comment here to be approved before it shows up. Censorship is not someone telling you you’re acting like a jackass.
I must admit that except for the fireworks, I’ve always found mass celebrations of the Fourth jingoistic, insincere and hokey. Yet I do love America and wouldn’t want to live anywhere else, despite its’ many flaws. I find this true when I see events where veterans are celebrated because I think them hypocritical. Even in just wars, like WWII, many were sacrificed through the stupidity or callousness of their superiors, though in the end their deaths and maiming were justified. After WWII, unlike other American Wars, our troops were honored materially and with reverence for their sacrifice.
This has not been true in most other wars, for instance the Veteran’s riots after WWI. The false piety and respect we pretend to pay to our veterans is grounded in hypocrisy. Most other wars have been indeed “rackets” for a few to garner wealth. The tragic sacrifices of our troops, driven by propaganda, equated to unneeded loss.
The mass celebrations of our country’s founding have been commercialized and homogenized into commercial profit centers. The “Macy’s” 4th Fireworks display, the “Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, the generic “Fourth of July Sales Blowout!” have all contributed to turning a solemn ritual of remembrance into trite excuses for fun and profit. This dovetails with the current “Faux” Conservative movement and its’ control of the Republican Party. Everything that demands a ritual of solemnity and a celebration of human commonality, becomes an excuse to sell something.
Since hypocrisy is a mainstay of that movement, perhaps there is some truth to the study.
My preferences for celebrating the Fourth is backyard barbecues, bringing together friends and family to celebrate their bonds and perhaps shoot off some cool rockets. In the feeling of community that emotionally engenders, I can see what American life is all about.
When one talks of Democrats starting all wars, one ignores the reality of history. Most American wars have been started with bi-partisan approval.
This bi-partisanship representing a unity of belligerence on the part of a self-interested elite group of foreign policy insiders. Think “Cold War.” Our
entrenched Foreign Policy Establishment (Military/Industrial Complex?) has used bi-partisanship to stifle opposition and force support for many of these misadventures. One of my great disappointments with our current President, has been his reliance of bi-partisanship as a favored goal, rather than understanding that it is a process negative to our democracy. In using
bi-partisanship we preclude the validity of differing viewpoints, some of which may well have important information to add to a discussion of a particular policy.
That’s right Mespo, that’s nothing compared to the millions of Iraqis killed from Uncle Sam’s 2 predatory wars plus a decade of sanctions against them.
Like I said, Desert Storm and Panama definitely are NOT considered “major” wars of the 20th century so my original statement stands needing no correction: Democrats prosecuted every major war in the 20th century. And all the wars would be unthinkable without their support, enabling and complicity. Yet progressive minded people still cast votes for them. How insane. What a shame.
“since the anti-American rhetoric on the left has become increasingly shrill over the last 10 years.”
David,
Perhaps two unnecessary wars, gratuitous worldwide interventions and the legacy of the Viet Nam debacle have contributed to the “shrillness” of some
people. It is hard to be supportive of actions inimical to our Constitution and to our founding principles. That is true patriotism, not the jingoistic nonsense spewed in support of furthering corporate interests by creating America as the new Rome. Google PNAC 1998.
@Gyges
With respect to the “They started it” statement. Go back to the record and you’ll see that I maintained decorum for quite some time after the insults started flying. It was childish to stoop to their level, I agree. It was far more childish for the regulars to engage in that behavior in the first place. Though you appear to only be pointing fingers at me, presumably because you diasgree with my opinions, and have said nothing about the behavior of the regulars (who started the trolling by engaging in insults design to provoke a personal response which they were successful at), including your own behavior. You do realize you are being hypocritcal, don’t you?
As far as my comments to Elaine go, where is the insult? My statement is a true depiction of what Elaine professed to believe in another comment thread. I am merely pointing out to her how her opinion in that thread is divergent with her opinion in this thread, demonstrating her hypocrisy among other things. Elaine has engaged in plenty of name calling and insults and I have failed to see you call her out on any of them. And, yes, it is important that she started it and continued unabated.
If you were more even-handed in your recriminations and didn’t engage in the same sort of behavior (Censorship is not someone telling you you’re acting like a jackass.) you’d be taken more seriously.
And, of course you are trying to censor me, you just don’t have the power to do it formally so you using more indirect techniques.
You mistake trying to censor you with making you look like a fool and the demonstrated liar that you are.
Gyges,
Not sure why kderosa has an “Elaine” fixation. Maybe you can figure it out for me.
kderosa said:
“As far as my comments to Elaine go, where is the insult? My statement is a true depiction of what Elaine professed to believe in another comment thread. I am merely pointing out to her how her opinion in that thread is divergent with her opinion in this thread, demonstrating her hypocrisy among other things.”
Not a lot of specifics pointed out in that comment.
Not absolving myself of equal responsibility in this I’m beginning to come around to FFLEO’s request for civility on the part of those who enjoy posting here. I really think it’s time to simply ignore the obvious trolls, rather
than responding to them. Although troll baiting is fun, it truly is like shooting fish in a barrel and unlike fish they never die just ungraciously fade away.
I thought the comment was clear, Elaine. Do you want specifics?
@Mike Spindell — good job calling for civility in a completely uncivil way as possible. That should get results.
Professor Turley,
Take heart! The fireworks at the Pier were pretty damn good! I think the 80,000 people there agreed. It was a beautiful night and my 7 year old grandson was enthralled. I gave him the “Republican” afterwards and he passed! He promises not to be a Wall Street Banker and he thinks revenues should be raised.
Gyges:
You sure did.
MIke S:
Of course you’re correct but our adversarial juices get going and it’s hard to stop. I am renewing my vow to stop feeding trolls in the interest of civility, but I may need a 12 step program.
mespo,
“Of course you’re correct but our adversarial juices get going and it’s hard to stop. I am renewing my vow to stop feeding trolls in the interest of civility, but I may need a 12 step program.”
LOL!
@mespo — how about directing your “juices” at your Palin blow-up doll, failing that direct them at forming coherent arguments. You seem to have some problems forming coherent arguments and also spewing insults simultaneously. Shoot for the former or your Palin doll (aim for the holes where the eyes used to be.)
@Mike Spindell said:
“Perhaps two unnecessary wars, gratuitous worldwide interventions and the legacy of the Viet Nam debacle have contributed to the “shrillness” of some
people. It is hard to be supportive of actions inimical to our Constitution and to our founding principles. That is true patriotism, not the jingoistic nonsense spewed in support of furthering corporate interests by creating America as the new Rome. Google PNAC 1998.”
It’s still shrill, and it’s mostly irrational. I say it’s irrational because most on the left engage in rather obvious hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance in these matters. The attack “lies” that led us into Iraq, but remain silent with regard to “lies” that led us into Libya. They rail against “water-boarding,” yet say nothing about what appears to be a targeted assassination of an unarmed man fulfilled execution-style in front of at least one of his children. When weighing the “legitimacy” of war, they discount entirely far worse and tyrannical activities of the countries we attack — unless those countries are attacked under the command of Democrats. The “jingoistic” nonsense has nothing to do with “corporate interests” (which is just an Orwellian catch-phrase empty of content and reason), but more to do with economic and geo-political interests that coalesce in military operations we undertake. Just examine the current administration’s bizarre attempt to evade congressional oversight in its war against Libya. Why? Are they captive to “corporate interests”? This entire demonization of the “corporate” as opposed to the “individual” is bizarre and ignorant, yet it is mouthed by ostensibly well-educated people who speak about it in much the same way religious zealots rail against homosexuals.
“The[y] attack ‘lies’ that led us into Iraq, but remain silent with regard to “lies” that led us into Libya. They rail against ‘water-boarding,’ yet say nothing about what appears to be a targeted assassination of an unarmed man fulfilled execution-style in front of at least one of his children.”
Have you ever actually read this blog?
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/06/15/members-of-congress-challenge-libyan-war-in-federal-court/
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/28/obama-aide-we-dont-make-decisions-based-on-consistency-or-precedent/
I’m not talking about Professor Turley. If you’d read my previous posts, they are directed to the vast, unwashed ocean of leftists who behave in this fashion. Professor Turley’s voice of reason is lost for many (if not most) of them.
David,
You’re right. No Criticism of our involvement in Libya here.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Libya+Jonathan+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fjonathanturley.org&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=588&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=
But, setting aside your caricature…
Why would criticizing foriegn policy decisions be “anti-American” but criticizing internal policies isn’t?
David,
“If you’d read my previous posts, they are directed to the vast, unwashed ocean of leftists who behave in this fashion. ”
You sound like you have an objective unbiased opinion on the matter.
Mr. Bertoni,
You must not read this blog very often, because most of the regulars here agreed that the military activities in Libya were wrong and were an abuse of presidential power. That being said, let’s compare notes. How many United States and/or NATO servicemen or women have died in the Libya conflict? Zero. How many sservice men and women gave the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq? 3-4000 depending on whose count you use. You may want to check your history on the Vietnam war. Start by reading the Pentagon Papers and you will see who started our involvement in that debacle. We were paying over half of the bill for the French when they fell at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. Eisenhower sent “advisors” there and Kennedy did as well and Johnson upped the numbers significantly. Of course, Nixon then ran on a Peace platform and won, but didn’t pull out of Vietnam. Then he ran a second time on a peace platform and won again. And who was the President to bombed and invaded Cambodia during the Vietnam War? That’s right, it was Tricky Dick.
By the way, Democrats and Liberals are just as patriotic as Teapublicans and most of us do take showers.
I wasn’t talking about this blog. Perhaps you might read my posts more carefully?
I could, of course, spend just as much time explaining all the atrocities committed by Democratic Party leaders — internally and externally — but that would just fall into the partisan trap into which so many here have already fallen.
Many of the anti-war Ron Paul supporters that post here are also anti-union and pro-corporation.
Should I also have mentioned the vast, unwashed oceans of rightwingers?
David,
I’ll accept that stipulation without reservation with the exception of the demonization of the corporate. Being critical of corporate influence over government is anything but irrational. It is corporate funded graft in the current form of campaign finance laws that drives most if not all of the malfunctions we see in government. The only way to have power over a demon is the know its name and be willing to speak it. Jingoism and anti-corporatism are two separate, yet related, issues. Jingoism is a tool used to drum up support that is not necessarily in the best national security interests of the country but may be in the profit interests of corporations. By waving a flag over something, the uninformed or the uncritical thinkers among us are easy prey to jingoism. It is a marketing tool that unfortunately works all to well.
Mr. Bertoni,
I read your post and I am one of those you refer to as Liberals or on the Left.
David,
I’d just settle for an explanation of why the rhetoric on the left is anti-American. As near as I can tell, you mentioned instances where there was criticism of the American Government’s foreign policy. Why would that be anti-America, but criticism of internal policy is not?
I’m curious.
@rafflaw, why stop at Vietnam? How about Korea? WWII? WWI? All nice little wars started by Democrat administrations. Do you want some death counts as well?
Here comes the herd again.
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/06/koch_brothers_vail_meeting_protest_tea_party_photos.php Progressives on the left protest corporate tea party funders gathering.
Harvard study says Republicans most patriotic – really?
Leo Kapakos
NY Political Buzz Examiner
July 3, 2011
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-new-york/harvard-study-finds-republicans-to-be-more-patriotic-really-now
Excerpt:
So according to the study, if you attend one rain-free July 4 celebration before the age of 18 increases, you are more likely, albeit by 4 percent, that you will vote for a Republican candidate by the time you turn 40. It also increases the likelihood that young attendees will vote in elections by 0.9 percent and boosts the chances that they’ll make political campaign contributions by three percent.
This writer is not convinced that a ten-year-old child attending an Independence Day parade and enjoying the fireworks will become a conservative for life. Moreover, if the study is right that young age participation in 4th of July celebration produces more Republicans, why is it then in cities like New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston, etc. that are overwhelmingly Democrat, have 4th of July festivities are well attended with thousands of people showing up with their children.Has anyone from Harvard gone to a Macy’s 4th of July parade?
I take offense to any study, notion, or claim that Republicans are somehow more patriotic than their Democrat or even independent counterparts. What type of patriotism are we in fact speaking of. If we are talking about “superficial” patriotism, fine maybe. However, if we are talking about true patriotism, an argument can be made that Democrats are more patriotic than Republicans, particularly your garden variety tea party types. Just consider the following:
Democrats love America, freedom, justice, and equality for all – the values of our founding fathers. They care about their families, friends and all people – the poor, the elderly, and our soldiers. They believe everyone should have healthcare. Democrats believe that Independence Day celebrations should honor not just America’s independence, but individual freedoms as well. They believe that the last lines in America the Beautiful “and crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea” includes all people – poor, rich, handicapped, w omen, differing sexual orientation, minorities , people of all faiths, cultures, color, and ethnic backgrounds.
I think what separates Democrats and liberals from Republicans and conservatives is the nature of their hypocrisy.
“I say it’s irrational because most on the left engage in rather obvious hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance in these matters.”
David,
Your method of discussion seems to be to make allegations broadly. This would lead to a “Nyanh, Nyanh, Nyanh” elementary school type of argument and I’m not into engaging in it. As far as in re: Libya, it would be helpful to view the wide range of comments here by those that have been extremely negative regarding the Libyan fiasco, including my own. I cited PNAC, because it sums up the current theory of US foreign policy practiced by so-called “serious” people of both parties. PNAC is a pro corporate document, which is why I cited the corporate purposefulness in our FP’s execution. While I strongly argued for the election of President Obama on this blog, I have been extremely critical of his policies since election, in writing, right here. If I substituted “right” for “left” in your quote above, I could make an excellent argument for its truthfulness. As I stated at the outset though, it would just be a silly game of tit for tat. Why bother?
@Mike Spindell
Really?
A few comment threads ago, you acused me of engaging in analingus among other niceties.
David,
For someone who doesn’t want to “fall into the partisan trap into which so many here have already fallen,” you sure seem to fixate on one particular party.
Also, the hypocrisy you’ve mentioned would make them shrilly partisan. Partisan doesn’t mean anti-American, it means pro-your party.
Care to try again?
Explain how I’ve taken sides?
I happen to think that the hypocrisy on the right is clear and well-understood. They hypocrisy on the left, however, has not been, and it is every bit as deep and dysfunctional. The reason I’ve focused on it here is because it arises in relationship to the Harvard study.
David,
Here’s a fun pictorial representation of word usage based on the text of your comments in this discussion.
http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/3826377/DonJT
Here’s the context.
First the liberal and Democrat.
“For those who view the government as a paternal or material figure which has yet to learn what happens when you spoil your children (many liberals), the 4th stands as a moment to celebrate that view. ”
“There is a growing thread among liberals that I know in which the United States is viewed, mainly, as a force for oppression here and abroad, and as the standard-bearer for “evil” capitalism and empire-building. Despite many living champagne lifestyles, they rail against the evils of the “monetization” of labor, oppression of the working class, and vast swaths of poor who cannot help but be poor.”
“left has become increasingly shrill over the last 10 years. I don’t think any of this is particularly rational.”
“they are directed to the vast, unwashed ocean of leftists who behave in this fashion. ”
“I could, of course, spend just as much time explaining all the atrocities committed by Democratic Party leaders ”
Now the Right:
“For those who prefer unbridled capitalism unconcerned by the effects of unchecked greed (many conservatives), the 4th stands for a celebration of individual ambition and self-determination.”
“The Republicans and conservatives (not necessarily the same) I know are far more likely to view the United States, overall, in a more favorable light ”
“Should I also have mentioned the vast, unwashed oceans of rightwingers?”
O.k. so, five explicate mentions of the left (plus several implicate), all of them negative, compared to three of the right, one of which is at worst neutral. Seems pretty obvious, but for fun, let’s take a closer look at those two. One is a direct comparison between the right and the left. The left is pretty bad, it accuses the left of taking an overly simplistic view of the government, while at the same time being ignorant of basic human behavior. On the right? Well, they just like freedom, and while they’re aware of greed, they don’t think it’s a big deal. Instead of being ignorant they’re just (maybe) wrong. The second, only came because you were criticized for your obviously biased language. It’s direct counterpart on the left was unprompted.
I accuse you of taking side because you criticize one side more than the other and what criticisms you do have are mild in comparison.
But enough about you. Why is complaining about foriegn policy Anti-American while doing the same about internal policy isn’t?
http://www.salon.com/books/history/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/07/05/lind_three_fundamentalisms The American right is embracing triple fundamentalism, “a synthesis of biblical fundamentalism, constitutional fundamentalism and market fundamentalism”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1&hp Even David Brooks realizes that republicans have gone off the rails and no longer are concerned about what is in the American people’s best interest.
All there was to celebrate this July 4th was a a one party plutocracy with 2 factions squabbling over the best way to screw over the masses both at home and abroad.
I get it. The study concluded that Republicans are sunshine patriots.
Romney is a plutocrat par excellence. Bain Capital is a job destroying vulture.
Jackie,
Did you see the following segment on The Colbert Report?
The Word – The Business End
Mitt Romney knows how to treat America’s sick economy with his business experience
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/389132/june-09-2011/the-word—the-business-end
I agree that it would have been more interesting to see how people truly view and celebrate the Fourth of July. I think most of us know what the outcome of that study would be unfortunately.
As usual, Great links Elaine and Swarthmore! I wonder what took Mr. Brooks so long to realize that the party of the Corporation and the Wealthy did not care about Main Street?
Fourth of July Celebrators More Likely to Become Republicans
ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/US/fourth-july-makes-republicans-study/story?id=13979855
Excerpt:
Attending a Fourth of July fireworks display or flag waving parade as a child slightly increases the likelihood that that kid will grow up to vote Republican, according to a study a team of Harvard University researchers.
Even a single July 4 celebration boosts the chance of turning a kid into a Republican, the study claims.
“One Fourth of July without rain before age 18 increases the likelihood of identifying as a Republican at age 40 by 2 percent, the share of people voting for the Republican candidate at age 40 by 4 percent, and the share of people turning out to vote at age 40 by 0.9 percent,” the study concludes.
The findings leave some questions unanswered, a contention that David Yanagizawa-Drott, the assistant professor of public policy of Harvard University’s Kennedy School who co-wrote the study with Andreas Madestam of Bocconi University, seems to acknowledge.
One thing not addressed in the report is that nearly every kid in America attends Fourth of July celebrations, but the Republican Party is a minority party.
You know what no matter what they say I strongly believe that it is still a celebration rights and freedom. I am afraid that an article like this would spoil the celebrations of the 4th of July for the generations to come. It should be like this http://www.freebostonmarketcoupons.com. Thank so much for sharing this with. I’m going to use it for my social studies essay.