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
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.
Oh, and whatever Barbra Streisand does has much more to do with her idiocy than anything else.
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.
“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.
@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?
Now we know why Barbra Streisand became a liberal. It rained on her Fourth of July parade when she was a kid!
Fox News asks a comedian to express his view of the Harvard Study:
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.
But Elaine, the study is from Harvard. It must be correct and accepted on faith according to your theory of evidence.
Mespo,
Did I call it or did I call it?
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
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.
“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.
Slarts,
Great Al Franken quote. So true!
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 ….
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
Mespo,
No major Scottsman eats his oats with cream.
“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?
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.
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.