Are liberals less interested in the history of foreign countries than conservatives?

[december]

Liberal Michael Totten says liberals are more interested than conservatives in foreign culture, but less interested in foreign history. (http://michaeltotten.blogspot.com/2003_05_04_michaeltotten_archive.html#200247952) Here are some excerpts from his essay, which includes links to other POVs:Monday, May 05, 2003
11:18 PM

Builders and Defenders

...For some reason, perhaps for several reasons, liberals and leftists are bored by the outside world. Compared with conservative magazines, publications like The Nation and The American Prospect rarely feature articles about what happens in other countries....

Liberals think of themselves as more worldly than conservatives. This is true in some ways, but not so in others. It seems (to me) that liberals are more likely to travel, and are more likely to visit Third World countries in particular. (If you meet an American traveler in, say, Guatemala, odds are strongly against that person being a Republican.) Liberals are more likely to listen to “world music,” and are more likely to watch foreign films. Liberals are more likely than conservatives to study the negative consequences of American foreign policy. But that’s about it. If you want to find a person who knows the history of pre-war Nazi Germany, the Middle East during the Cold War, or the partition of India and Pakistan, you’re better off looking to the right than to the left...

This is a broad generalization and there are, of course, lots of exceptions. The New Republic and Dissent both publish excellent analyses of international relations and foreign policy... But look at other left magazines like The Nation. Foreign policy is unmentioned except as an excuse to whack the Bush Administration. Read The Weekly Standard and National Review and you can easily find articles about, say, China or Iran. Many of these articles could easily have appeared in The Nation or other left magazines, and yet they didn’t. Presumably the editors are bored with the subject, or their writers don’t know enough to write about it. I found this observation interesting, though I'm not sure I agree: The far-left says Republicans are Nazis. And the far-right says Democrats are socialists or even Communists. It’s an annoying habit for people on the margins, but the reason it happens is very different for each side.

Radical leftists think the Bush Administration is like the Nazi Party for one specific reason. They haven’t studied the rise of the Nazis. They truly believe the comparison is apt not because they misunderstand Republicans, but because they misunderstand Hitler.

Far-right conservatives have the opposite problem. They understand Lenin perfectly well. It’s the Democrats they don’t understand.

[Collounsbury]

That is possibly the stupidest and silliest assertion I have ever seen. On the basis of this alone I name this idjit a nitwit.

[Tamerlane]

Harumph.

- Tamerlane

[woolly]

Note to self:
Whenever you see an OP from the ghost of Christmas past on issues that don't have a US zip code, think of the hamsters and don't waste time and bandwidth.

[mooka]

This is slightly ridiculous.

The only way to settle this would be to do a large scale study, testing people on their interest and or knowledge of the world outside their own country, together with some sort of political questionnaire testing their political leanings. It could be done, but hasn't been i suspect, because it would be a waste of time and money!

Why does correlations between interest in overseas matters and politcal leaning matter? Surely its the political position itself we should be debating here, not some characteristic of the person holding the view. If someone believes that authoritarian governments are better than liberal ones then we can debate that, but discussing whether that person likes peanut butter sandwiches, or is interested in foreign affairs is silly.

What you think of people holding "liberal" views is irrelevant. What is relevant is what you think of the "liberal" viewpoint on various topics, and what you can say to back yourself up.

[Guinastasia]

Most of my history professors were liberals.

I'm a bleeding heart liberal, and I'm a history buff. And I haved a Bachelor's in history.


If anything, I would think liberals would be MORE interested in history, because it and culture are tied together. You have to study history first.

History has told us time and again when you treat people like shit and oppress them, you breed resentment, and a situation that is ripe for communist sympathies, december. People usually turned to communism out of misery from right wing oppressors.

Think about it.

[RickJay]

It's not much of a debate response, but I would have to say this is the most ridiculous, partisan nonsense I've read in GD since the moon hoax threads. It is absolutely the worst GD thread since then.

december, I don't for an instant think you actually believe something this absurd and unsupported by any objective evidence.

[China Guy]

I don't see where the debate is, should move this to IMHO as a poll. Just another leading BS post. I've lived in Asia for nearly 20 years. While there are a lot of republicans or conservatives out here, most of them could give a toss about the people, language or culture. This is a gross generalization, but my ancedotal experience puts those short timers out on an expat package doing their 2 year career ladder climb are like that.

You know when SARS hit China, the expats have fled like rats from a sinking ship. Dang near every one of them can't speak even basic Chinese.

By and large, those who care enough to learn the language or culture and actually like being in China are liberals. That has also been my experience in Asia.

[Collounsbury]

Please people, there shouldn't be any partisanship. This is quite simply a bi or multi partisan issue: the underlying article is idiotic, inane and worthless posturing by an attention seeking twit.

[december]

Originally posted by mooka
Why does correlations between interest in overseas matters and politcal leaning matter?...
What you think of people holding "liberal" views is irrelevant. What is relevant is what you think of the "liberal" viewpoint on various topics, and what you can say to back yourself up. The cite comes from a liberal who knows a lot of history and wishes his liberal colleagues knew more of it. I agree that one cannot determine percentages, but I think we can identify a certain strain of thought. But look at other left magazines like The Nation. Foreign policy is unmentioned except as an excuse to whack the Bush Administration. Another liberal blogger (http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/#93756990) says that some some leftists he knows have engaged in a years-long course of education in international history that was "doctrinaire propaganda from a...didactic point of view." (I think that's what he meant. His wording is convoluted.)

In other words, some on the left have a view that the history of the world can be adequately understood as a reflection of bad deeds by the United States. They think the US caused Pinochet to take power in Chile, rather than just being one of his supporters. They don't know about the internal Chilean causes for Pinochet's rise to power. They think the US is responsible for Saddam ruling Iraq, just because the US supported him in the war against Iran. They don't know the steps he went through to gain power, nor do they know about the government he replaced. They think the US caused bin Laden to take power, merely because we supported him against the USSR. They think the US caused the economic problems in Latin America, ignoring the local economic situations within each of those countries.

This POV can be misleading. Those who blamed the US for Saddam's power had trouble believing that Iraqi people would welcome the US soldiers. It didn't occur to them that the Iraqi people blamed Saddam for Saddam's power.

I don't mean to say that most liberals think this way. I do think that the Nation often takes this POV and some posters on this board do, too.

[Guinastasia]

Oh for god's sake, december, the CIA was involved in Pinochet's coup. That's pretty much a fact. Not to mention, the embargos against Allende, and then the Chicago Boys.

Not to mention even supporting that bastard was evil. Quit appologizing for him. He's an evil bastard.

Yeah, SOME people take this view. And some people are spinmeisters for the right. :rolleyes:

[Guinastasia]

As for the US causing problems in Latin America-three words for you:

United Fruit Company.

Two more:

William Walker.

Another three:

School of the Americas.

And finally:

Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine

[december]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
Oh for god's sake, december, the CIA was involved in Pinochet's coup. That's pretty much a fact. Not to mention, the embargos against Allende, and then the Chicago Boys.

Not to mention even supporting that bastard was evil. Quit appologizing for him. He's an evil bastard. Let's agree FTSOA that Pinochet was an evil bastard. It is confirmed that the CIA was involved in his coup. Let's say that the US was dead wrong.

Still, internal Chilean history is most important to understanding this coup. What were the internal political, military and economic situations in Chile? How many troops were loyal to Pinochet? Why were they willing to revolt against the elected government? How did the general populace feel about Allende and his policies? How did Allende's governance of Chile compare with the governance before him? Would Allende have been overthrown even if the CIA hadn't helped Pinochet? Simply stating that the US was on the wrong side doesn't answer all these questions.

[TearsOfGlass]

I feel that you, December, and the author of this essay are very ignorant about things. First, the essay. I disagree that liberals are not interested in foreign history. I can personally say that I enjoy learning about other cultures and their histories. Also, to learn about a foreign culture, wouldn't you have to learn at least a small bit about it's history as well? In any case, I feel that this author is trying to make liberals look like they are unintelligent or uncaring about the world, while at the same time making the statement that conservatives care about it. From what I've seen of conservatives in our country, I can say that they couldn't give a damn about the world, as long as they make money. Now on to December. I don't understand how you can have such a blind view of things. Just because someone doesn't agree with America and it's war, does not make them anti-American or the like. In fact, the people who are anti-war actually care more about the world they live in because, they don't want to anyone die for this stupid war.

[Collounsbury]

And so we get down to what december really wanted to do, which is find an excuse to attack the ideological other (and with rather pitiful inattention to facticity).

Good lord, let us just let this tripe sink into obscurity.

[Chance the Gardener]

Collounsbury is right. This post reminds me of the time when I was a teenager and I spent one afternoon with a friend firing his BB gun into a hornet nest in his back yard, then running back into the house to watch the hornets buzz angrily, looking for the attackers, who were watching the fun from the large, sliding glass doors in the back of his house. This was all very pointless, but it was fun watching the hornets get mad as a result of our pointless attack.

That's what december's post amounts to. Considering the anecdotal evidence I have this doesn't even follow, but to be fair, I've never done much of a study of it. I've noticed that anyone who's interested in foreign cultures is probably going to be interested in foreign history, as well. The window-dressing of liking "world music" and foreign films is a red herring. I mean, five getcha ten there's a lot of reggae fans couldn't locate Jamaica on a map, no matter what their politics.

Anyway, even if this article is accurate, it's pretty damning of conservatives, as far as their foreign policy savvy goes. I mean, if you're going to have an opinion of foreign policy you do need to know history, but you really ought to have a handle on foreign countries' cultures, too. It seems to assert that American liberals and conservatives are both half-baked when it comes to foreign policy. While it's true that Americans tend to have less of an interest in the world around them than you might expect from the citizens of the world's preëminent economic and military power, the liberal/conservative breakdown that december and this quarter-baked blogger assert are just groundless, partisan sniping.

[december]

Originally posted by TearsOfGlass
In any case, I feel that this author is trying to make liberals look like they are unintelligent or uncaring about the world, while at the same time making the statement that conservatives care about it. Seems unlikely, since both my cites came from liberals.

[Guinastasia]

Yeah, and several conservatives have said that you're wrong.

What's your point?

Isn't that a logical fallacy?

[Collounsbury]

Both your.... cites I suppose, articles, came from gibbering twits, whatever their self-identified political posturing.

Garbage is Garbage regardless the political hat.

[squeegee]

Jeezus Herbert Christ -- are Marx and Engels, the authors of the Communist Manifesto, a work which seeks to cast all of history into a class struggle -- are these guys liberal enough history buffs for you?

The OP is whinging joke.

[mooka]

Originally posted by december
In other words, some on the left have a view that the history of the world can be adequately understood as a reflection of bad deeds by the United States. They think the US caused Pinochet to take power in Chile, rather than just being one of his supporters. They don't know about the internal Chilean causes for Pinochet's rise to power. They think the US is responsible for Saddam ruling Iraq, just because the US supported him in the war against Iran. They don't know the steps he went through to gain power, nor do they know about the government he replaced. They think the US caused bin Laden to take power, merely because we supported him against the USSR. They think the US caused the economic problems in Latin America, ignoring the local economic situations within each of those countries.

This POV can be misleading. Those who blamed the US for Saddam's power had trouble believing that Iraqi people would welcome the US soldiers. It didn't occur to them that the Iraqi people blamed Saddam for Saddam's power.

I don't mean to say that most liberals think this way. I do think that the Nation often takes this POV and some posters on this board do, too.

Well then why don't you debate those issues directly? It seems to me what you're trying to do is say:

Liberals have a poor understanding of international affairs, therefore the liberal POV on international affairs is incorrect.

You're basically trying to imply that the liberal viewpoint on certain issues is incorrect without having to provide any supporting evidence or argument whatsoever.

So you think the US didn't cause Pinochet to be in power? Fair enough, start another thread with that as the title, and then provide a supporting argument. Don't imply that you're right because you think those who disagree with you are less interested in international affairs.

[Beagle]

People usually turned to communism out of misery from right wing oppressors. Right. Usually about a week before their forced relocation and reeducation. "Turned to communism" -- that's the silliest thing I've ever heard. More like, "bent over a barrel by communism."

The biggest load of historical shit I've ever heard is the revisionism that ignores the body count from communism, for the marching songs and cameraderie.

[pravnik]

"Who would have predicted...that Dubcek, who brought the tanks in Czechoslovakia in 1968 is now being proclaimed a hero in Czechoslovakia. Unbelievable." -- Vice President Dan Quayle

I guess Dubcek did bring the Soviet tanks...in the same sense that Thomas Jefferson brought the British ships with the Declaration of Independence. Not to say that because one conservative had a ridiculously laughable misunderstanding of world history that I would broadly impart a poor understanding of history to all conservatives. That would be silly.

[december]

Originally posted by mooka
You're basically trying to imply that the liberal viewpoint on certain issues is incorrect without having to provide any supporting evidence or argument whatsoever.No, I'm trying to do what I said -- to discuss whether liberals ought to be more interested in the history of foreign countries.So you think the US didn't cause Pinochet to be in power? Fair enough, start another thread with that as the title, and then provide a supporting argument. Don't imply that you're right because you think those who disagree with you are less interested in international affairs. My point is what I said it was -- attention paid to the history of foreign countries. Perhaps conservative magazines tend to look more at internal causes of foreign problems, as a way to excuse the US. Whatever the reason, I think that Conservative magazines do pay more attention to the internal situation in foreign countries. Of course, history of foreign countries should be interesting and important just for its own sake.

The best seller, "Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot" by Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza explains Latin American economic problems in terms of Latin American economic policy. It's a conservative book.

Economist Hernando DeSoto has an important economic theory regarding under-developed countries. He isn't a conserative, but his work is highly touted by conservatives. I don't think he's as esteemed by liberals, but would be happy to be corrected on this point.

[Collounsbury]

I have a single phrase for december's "observations":

Confirmation Bias.

[astorian]

Well, I've known a host of ignorant folks on both sides of the aisle, so while I'd LOVE to assert that liberals simply don't know history, I can't buy the suggestion that they know less than conservatives.

It might be more accurate to suggest that, even if two people are highly knowledgeable about history, the inferences and conclusions they draw are likely to be very different.

For instance, when we're debating whether the United States should take military action in any given situation, both liberals AND conservatives are going to use history as a guide. However, they may be guided by VERY different historical periods. A right-winger may think of Neville Chamberlain and Munich, and conclude that military toughness is essential, because our enemies are emboldened when they perceive us as reluctant to fight. A leftist, however, may think of World War I (when the world's great powers seemed to stumble into a disastrous and needless conflict) or Viet Nam, and conclude that military action is likely to end in catastrophe.

So, the hawk and the dove are both "interested" in history. They're both up on the historical facts. It doesn't follow that they'll come to the same conclusions.

[Dangerosa]

Perhaps conservative magazines do carry more international history stories than liberal magazines. Perhaps liberals get their history from history books and college classes rather than six page magazine stories.

I'm seeing too many variables to jump to the conclusion.

Like Guin, I have an academic background in History. The majority of History profs were so liberal you could have covered them in red paint - obviously there are conservative History profs (someone named Newt springs to mind) - but they were rare where I went to school. The majority of History students were liberals. Conservative history majors usually concentrated in US or Military History, liberals in International, Economic and Social History. (I knew a lot of conservative Business majors, though, and the Econ majors tended to make a lot of noise about how liberal the Econ professors were). In my experience, which is, granted, ancedotal, if there is a political bias in the interest of international history, it is to the liberal end.

[Collounsbury]

My apologies all: I believe that this can be more fruitfully directed here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=182629
under the title [i]December: Blog Spotter Extraordinaire & Tireless Informer on Sins of Liberals, etc.[i]

I am personally particularly proud of the etc.

[december]

Originally posted by Collounsbury
I have a single phrase for december's "observations":

Confirmation Bias. For those who don't speak Collounsburian, a translation of above post is that our friend is not familiar with the works of Mendoza and DeSoto.

Dangerosa, I would agree with you that most History profs are liberals. That makes is all the more striking that National Review does a more thorough job covering the international history than The Nation.

[Collounsbury]

(I knew a lot of conservative Business majors, though, and the Econ majors tended to make a lot of noise about how liberal the Econ professors were).

IT would seem to me if one reads economists' publications one gets the impression that they tend, as a corporate group, to moderate libertarianism, which some less informed mistake for big L US Liberalism.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by december
For those who don't speak Collounsburian, a translation of above post is that our friend is not familiar with the works of Mendoza and DeSoto.


Amusing, but I am in fact familiar with them. Confirmation bias is a well known effect by way which humans tend to notice and recall those things which confirm their existing beliefs, etc.

My obs in re december is that he suffers from a rather extreme case of the same, although of course we all have the same perceptual tics in the end.

[mooka]

Originally posted by december
No, I'm trying to do what I said -- to discuss whether liberals ought to be more interested in the history of foreign countries.
Then yes i think they should. So should conservatives, green party members, fascists, bus drivers, and accountants. The majority of people know extremely little about the history of foreign countries. This of course is going to include a lot of people with liberal political views, as these views are common.

My point is what I said it was -- attention paid to the history of foreign countries.
Your OP didn't make a point at all. You just posted excepts from an article implying that people with left wing political beliefs know less about international affairs than people with right wing political beliefs.

It would be equally silly if i posted an article saying right wingers tend to be more selfish than left wingers.

[VarlosZ]

"Liberals tend to have subtly-negative character trait x. Converesly, conservatives tend to have subtly-positive character trait y. Here's a link (www.fake-link.com) to an opinion piece I recently read about this.

What do you think?"


I think that man is richest whose pleasures are cheapest. Good for you, december.

[mrblue92]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
As for the US causing problems in Latin America-three words for you:

United Fruit Company.

Two more:

William Walker.

Another three:

[1]School [2]of [3]the [4]Americas.december's next thread?

Why can't liberals count as well as conservatives? :D

[Sofa King]

Here's a little bit of history for the lot of you:

Is the Internet too Free? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=70868&highlight=liberals)

"Head Start is Crap!" (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=74880&highlight=liberals)

Is it bad to expose Democratic corruption? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=95759&highlight=liberals)

Why does the left tilt toward the Arabs? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=106888&highlight=liberals)

Liberals are trying (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=133802&highlight=liberals)

Should college faculties seek political diversity? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=133235&highlight=liberals)

Senator Leahy, have you no sense of decency? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=134151&highlight=liberals)

Tom Daschle attacks Rush Limbaugh (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=145310&highlight=liberals)

The Rush to Create a Liberal Rush (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=164597&highlight=liberals)

Those who oppose war in Iraq are supporting Saddam Hussein. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=167331&highlight=liberals)

Are liberals upset, because the Homeland Security Dept. doing a good job? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=178647&highlight=liberals)

American anti-Americanism: What's the cause? Will it persist? If not, then what? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=177228&highlight=liberals)

Welcome to part XIII of the continuing series.

[Sofa King]

...If I counted right, that is.

[hawthorne]

Originally posted by Beagle
Right. Usually about a week before their forced relocation and reeducation. "Turned to communism" -- that's the silliest thing I've ever heard. More like, "bent over a barrel by communism."I hate to hijack this inane thread to do this, but it's not silly: it's true and very, very sad. A tragedy of the Cold War is that many worthy causes were spurned.

The choice made to support dictators in Sth America and elsewhere was a choice that forced people who gave a damn about the human rights and welfare of non-Westerners to align themselves against the West. It threw people who wanted things like independence or freedom from an oppressive and corrupt elite into the arms of the Communists. And yes, they were bent over the barrel by them.

We supported puppets, thugs, thieves and murderers to get the job done. And we made many of those who cared about their victims Communist dupes.

I dunno whether it could have been different. I accept that difficult strategic choices were - and had to be - made. And sitting here in a country without torture or a threat of a coup and with a full plate, I feel that the price was worth it.

But I am not about to condemn someone who opposed the Chilean or Sth African governments due to the local conditions for failing to see the big picture and fuck under. I know people who sweat and resist the urge to run when they see a policeman. The lives and the rights of these people were a matter of policy indifference during the Cold War. If we want to argue that it had to be so - or at least it seemed that way at the time - we should not deny that they were victims.

[Polycarp]

I've known a fair number of intelligent and thoughtful conservatives, and a fair number of intelligent and thoughtful liberals.

One of the few things they have in common is an ability to reason from the evidence. Another thing is the capability to avoid the misuse of broad-brush generalizations.

And yes, that was a direct answer to the OP.

[Jackmannii]

One thing I've noticed through careful and irrefutable observation is that while liberals gravitate to World Music more than conservatives, conservatives have a greater affinity for Bach. It has something to do with the Master's inspirational precision, as well as the fact that genius attracts right-wingers.

Proof? William Buckley is a Bach aficionado. What more do you need? The details appear in my unpublished blog, which follows the same standards of fairness and accuracy as december's impeccable sources.


I'm still working on pinning the blame for KarlHeinz Stockhausen on some ideological group I dislike. Stay tuned.

[Rysler]

Originally posted by Jackmannii
One thing I've noticed through careful and irrefutable observation is that while liberals gravitate to World Music more than conservatives, conservatives have a greater affinity for Bach. It has something to do with the Master's inspirational precision, as well as the fact that genius attracts right-wingers.
William Buckley is a Bach aficionado. What more do you need? The details appear in my unpublished blog, which follows the same standards of fairness and accuracy as december's impeccable sources.

I'm sorry, but I must debunk your unfounded anti-liberal bile with unsubstantiated and annecdotal evidence of my own.

Namely, I am a bleeding-heart liberal, and I own the Gouldberg Variations CD set as well as albums by X-Japan and Shakira.

Surely it is the value of an open (liberal) mind that allows me to enjoy both pretentious anal music and the most exploitive pop crap the world scene has to offer.

I have noticed that conservatives tend to drive sports cars and Cadillacs, while liberals drive hybrids or SUVs. But I can't decide which group is compensating for phallic inhibition.

(I apologize for the hijack, but I felt Jackmannii deserved lauding...)

[Marley23]

No, I'm trying to do what I said -- to discuss whether liberals ought to be more interested in the history of foreign countries.
Physician, heal thyself. At the very least, you (and the article you're unquestioningly accepting) are casting a gigantic net and accepting a big ol' generalization as the literal truth. Everybody could know more about foreign countries with no harm done, but turning that into a "liberals are ignorant" thread is loopy. Not out of character or unusual, just logically deficient.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. ... We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war" -Ann Coulter

[Dangerosa]

Dangerosa, I would agree with you that most History profs are liberals. That makes is all the more striking that National Review does a more thorough job covering the international history than The Nation. [/B][/QUOTE]

Not really, History Professors, Historians and people like me, History Hobbiests, don't get their information about History from The Nation. We read books. We read articles in publications dedicated to History - or related fields like Sociology or Econ or even (gasp!) Women's Studies. My general interest subscriptions are things like National Geographic and Smithsonian - which do a good job of covering History.

[Guinastasia]

Originally posted by Beagle
Right. Usually about a week before their forced relocation and reeducation. "Turned to communism" -- that's the silliest thing I've ever heard. More like, "bent over a barrel by communism."

The biggest load of historical shit I've ever heard is the revisionism that ignores the body count from communism, for the marching songs and cameraderie.

Well, then, what DOES get people interested in communism?

Really? Why would someone study it and want to overthrow the government and implement it? And why would people join the movement?

I don't think they do it out of shits and giggles. :rolleyes:

And then, of course, later they realize, they were no better off.

BUT...you have to remember something-these peasants did not have democracy or the freedom we enjoy. They didn't know what they were missing.

[Guinastasia]

Originally posted by december


The best seller, "Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot" by Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza explains Latin American economic problems in terms of Latin American economic policy. It's a conservative book.

Economist Hernando DeSoto has an important economic theory regarding under-developed countries. He isn't a conserative, but his work is highly touted by conservatives. I don't think he's as esteemed by liberals, but would be happy to be corrected on this point.

Try Inevitable Revolutions: the United States in Central America by Walter LeFeber, first.

Then read:
Murdered in Central America, the Stories of Eleven U.S. Missionaries by Donna Whitson Brett and Dr. Edward T. Brett
(and yes, btw, the latter was my academic advisor)

Also:
Central America: A Nation Divided by Ralph Lee Woodward

[Marley23]

Oh, and another thought: I just wish I'd kept track of how many hours I spent studying the history of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 as I helped the campus anti-war group. The right-wing paper on campus criticized some of our stuff, but admitted they couldn't say a bad thing about me. The laptop I use at school has half of the frickin' BBC site saved as favorites.

That old saw "all generalizations are false" comes to mind."

[rjung]

Can someone tell me again why december hasn't been banned already? I mean, he pulls this kind of stunt several times a week, every week, and seldom do one of his "insightful" OPs provide anything beyond another mass shout-down from saner minds.

[Jackmannii]

Originally posted by Rysler
I'm sorry, but I must debunk your unfounded anti-liberal bile with unsubstantiated and annecdotal evidence of my own.

Namely, I am a bleeding-heart liberal, and I own the Gouldberg Variations CD set as well as albums by X-Japan and Shakira..
Well, all I can say to that is Hah!

It is well-documented that Hannibal Lecter (http://www.mnemosyne.org/mn_bits_hannibal.html) was a fan of the Goldberg Variations, and he undoubtedly was a man of conservative tastes (though there is evidence he was not averse to eating the occasional liberal).

See, I got cites* and everything.




*from someone who obviously has far, far too much time on her hands.

[Doctor Goo Fee]

I am going to be not nice and say things like: "Liberals, like women, mainly think outward--that is about people, places and things other than themselves. Conservatives, like men, think inward--that is mostly about themselves, their gods and their money. I really believe liberals are more interested than conservatives in just about anything except Rush, God, Guns and Money."

[Rysler]

Originally posted by Jackmannii
It is well-documented that Hannibal Lecter (http://www.mnemosyne.org/mn_bits_hannibal.html) was a fan of the Goldberg Variations
Gack. Not having the CD in front of me, I faithfully Googled "Gouldberg Variations" to check the spelling. I obviously learned nothing from the hamster (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=182538) thread and should be thusly flogged.

Doctor Goo Fee, you owe me a new keyboard!

Per the discussion at hand, I learned all I know about communism from The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck. Made me stop saying "I told you so" to peasants who have to choose in lose-lose situations.

[Jackmannii]

And by the way:

Since it appears one major point to the OP (aside from the usual temptation to see how high liberals will jump when thwacked with a stick) was to flaunt conservatives' superior sense of history in these troubled times, let's look again at this quote:

"Radical leftists think the Bush Administration is like the Nazi Party for one specific reason. They haven’t studied the rise of the Nazis. They truly believe the comparison is apt not because they misunderstand Republicans, but because they misunderstand Hitler."

How very true. Right-wingers have always had a superb grasp of the history of the Nazis. Why, one of Ronald Reagan's finest moments (http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id278.htm) had to do with that era.

[Marley23]

And hey, good old Dubya Bush knows a LOT about foreign nations, doesn't he? He's demonstrated that over and over again.

[Daoloth]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
People usually turned to communism out of misery from right wing oppressors.

Think about it.

Let me think about this...Huh? Your keen interest is in Russia, yet the czars could hardly be called "right wing oppressors." Oppressors, yes, but right-wing? Hardly. More like monarchists ruling in a dictatorship, no?

[Guinastasia]

Of course. But I just used right wing in this case, because I was referring to Latin America, as december brought it up. In Latin America, that was definitely the case-in a few nations, they were out right fascists.

[december]

Originally posted by Polycarp
I've known a fair number of intelligent and thoughtful conservatives, and a fair number of intelligent and thoughtful liberals.

One of the few things they have in common is an ability to reason from the evidence. Another thing is the capability to avoid the misuse of broad-brush generalizations.

And yes, that was a direct answer to the OP. Of course the above post is itself a generalization. :p

[Mandelstam]

december :
Dangerosa, I would agree with you that most History profs are liberals. That makes is all the more striking that National Review does a more thorough job covering the international history than The Nation.

According to whom? The so-called "liberal" who wrote the nonsenical and partisan BS to which you linked?

First, december, a not irrelevant fact: The Nation is a weekly publication devoted to current events. As such it neither is nor professes to be devoted to historical topics: though it does publish columns by eminent historians and reviews of important works of history. When Nation readers want to learn history they read about it in books (as Dangerosa has already suggested)--often the same books that the Nation covers in its superb book reviews which it publishes both weekly and in two special issues each year.

More important still, I challenge you to find [i]any[i] Nation feature article on a current event, foreign or domestic, that doesn't make a bona fide effort consider the relevant historical context from which the subject derives.

I mean this seriously: I am throwing down the gauntlet. Search the Nation's archives and read a few of the feature stories and come back to me when you have found an article that is deficient because it fails to take the historical context of a current event into account.

Note: I offer you this challenge in spite of the fact that I have never seen any post of yours that suggests to me that you yourself have even an average college graduate's historical knowledge on any topic. To the contrary, you are quite possibly one of the most ahistorical (and, not uncoincidentally, one of the most ideologically blinkered) posters in Great Debates. That may sound unkind, but then again, one must take responsibility for the OPs one generates, no?

In the meantime, here's a sample of what the Nation has been publishing for its readers while you've been reading ignorant drivel by risible faux- liberal bloggers:

Shedding Lincoln's Mantle by Columbia historian and frequent Nation contributor Eric Foner (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20000807&s=foner). (Foner is a distinguished historian of, I think, nineteenth and twentieth century US hsitory).

History by the letter, by City College historian Louis Masur (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=19990215&s=masur&c=1), an article that takes the occasion of the Starr report to discuss the relation between primary documents and the production of historical narratives.

A Bend in the Color, a review of a new history of racial anthropology, written by an NYU social historian (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=19990215&s=fergerson&c=1) which, among other things, offers an historical critique of books like The Bell Curve.

Those btw were just the first relevant hits to come up when I put the word "historian" in to the Nation's search archive.

Foreign countries. Lessee now....

Why not check out Islam through Western Eyes (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=19800426&s=19800426said&c=1), a short article by literature professor and cultural historian Edward Said?

The Terrorism Trap, by a foreign policy fellow (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=19961202&s=barnett_wtc_19961202&c=1), which discusses terrorist policy in light of cold war and post-cold war foreign policy history.

How We Ended the Cold War (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=19991101&s=tirman&c=1), a reflection on the cold war by a Fulbright scholar.

The Revolution Within (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030526&s=english), an extensive review of three books on recent Russian history.

The Ghosts of May (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=19930531&c=1&s=singer19930531), an account by a journalist of the demise of socialism in France with special emphasis on the post-1968 period.

Once again, all of this came up randomly in searches for "history" + various foreign countries (and this despite the fact that the Nation's search engine is actually not very good).

Let's say I give you three days december to look through the Nation's feature articles--with special emphasis, if you wish, on the ones on foreign policy--so you can come up with one that is, by your lights, deficient in historical context.

I'll check back from time to time to see what you come up with. :)

[december]

Thanks for your offer, Mandelstam. It seems like a fair way to test the OP.

I have a couple of immediate points. Your post calls Michael Totten a "so-called liberal" and a "risible faux- liberal." Those may be fair descriptions FAIK. OTOH he calls himself a liberal, so I took him at his word. Do you have a reason to disbelieve him, except that he criticized some other liberals?

Totten's claim was that the Nation did a limited job of covering the history of countries other than America, so I will focus on the foreign affairs Nation articles, and skip the articles on American history.

I will take a look at the foreign articles you cited and provide a response. BTW how many issues worth of The Nation did you review to collect this sample?

[Mandelstam]

Originally posted by december
Thanks for your offer, Mandelstam. It seems like a fair way to test the OP.

Your post calls Michael Totten a "so-called liberal" and a "risible faux- liberal." Those may be fair descriptions FAIK. OTOH he calls himself a liberal, so I took him at his word. Do you have a reason to disbelieve him, except that he criticized some other liberals?

Yeah--I have my own sense that he is simply too ignorant and incoherent to be ideologically classifiable as anything. His remarks on The Nation and the way he uses them to support this absurd thesis are completely unsubstantiable; so his calling himself a "life-long liberal" who's just figured this stuff out only serves to make him seem more absurd. (In other words, if he were a self-identified conservative he'd just be saying stupid partisan things; instead he's offering a stupid argument in the form of an alleged insider's critique).

The thing is that given that its purpose is coverage of current events, The Nation is probably more historically engaged that any other publication of it's kind; I'd be very surprised to find any historian or history major or history buff objecting to it on grounds of historical indifference.

Also ridiculous is the claim that the liberal worldview (by which I mean and Totten means the left-liberal worldview), in aiming to make the world better, avoids history. On the contrary, left-liberals almost reflexively turn to history by way of justifying their claims: not least because history affords the very best evidence that the world does in fact change. (Conservatives are much more likely to appeal to the allegedly unchanging qualities of human nature, or of a particular national character, and to gloss over or misread historical evidence on these grounds.)

So it's almost as though you'd found someone saying, "Well I'm a life-long conservative and I've just learned that conservatives are not very interested in neoliberal economic doctrines, the evidence for which is that I find that the Wall Street Journal, a conservative newspaper, doesn't really discuss these doctrines--except by way of bashing left-liberal opponents of these doctrines. And the funny thing is you can find more legitimate coverage of neoliberal economic doctrines in The New York Times."

I'm serious here--that's what the guy sounds like to anyone who actually reads the stuff that he presumes to know well.

"Totten's claim was that the Nation did a limited job of covering the history of countries other than America, so I will focus on the foreign affairs Nation articles, and skip the articles on American history."

And that claim is just ridiculous as you'll see if you just look at what's been published in the last 3 or 5 or 10 or 20 or 275 issues of The Nation. Don't even bother with the links I posted--just take a look at any issue. Although feature stories, editorials and stories about current events, columns and book reviews tend to structure each issue, there's almost always quite a lot of information about foreign countries--none of which is handled ahistorically. And the reviews of books on history, which are generally written by accomplished historians or comparable experts, are extremely informative--among the best one finds outside of specialist academic journals IMO.

I will take a look at the foreign articles you cited and provide a response. BTW how many issues worth of The Nation did you review to collect this sample?

Like I said, I just put the words "historian" or "history" + a country into the search engine (and it's a lousy search engine) and this is what came up. But the individual issues speak for themselves.

[The Calculus of Logic]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
As for the US causing problems in Latin America-three words for you:

United Fruit Company.

Two more:

William Walker.

Another three:

School of the Americas.

And finally:

Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine

Read that as a counterbalance

http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr990616.html

especially this part

The Bureau was very active in Latin America, particularly in Chile. It was in no small part Reagan administration pressure that forced or led General Pinochet into holding the plebiscite that led to his departure. Historically it is a fact that when President Reagan entered office, virtually all of Latin America was under military rule. When he left office, almost none of it was. This is partly because the Reagan administration, given its own ideological stance, had the ability to delegitimize regimes..............
.........
The Reagan administration's support for human rights surprised a lot of people; in part, because of the bad beginning. It surprised General Pinochet. It surprised General Stroessner. It surprised a lot of generals. It surprised a lot of Americans on the Left. It surprised them so much that to this day, they will not admit it, or acknowledge it, or honestly see it.

[The Calculus of Logic]

December -

Why do you come to this board? This is NOT an attack mind you, i am just wondering. It is obvious 80% of this board is leftist, and all you will get is verbal abuse for offering your positions so why bother? there are less biased boards where you can discuss politics w/o abuse or harassment from assholes.

[Spavined Gelding]

Originally posted by The Calculus of Logic
December -

Why do you come to this board? This is NOT an attack mind you, i am just wondering. It is obvious 80% of this board is leftist, and all you will get is verbal abuse for offering your positions so why bother? there are less biased boards where you can discuss politics w/o abuse or harassment from assholes.

Translation: There are boards where your partisan (partisan, not ideological) views will not be challenged.

[Mandelstam]

Truthfully, Spavined, I actually wonder about that. december's antics do not seem to endear him to many serious conservative posters on these boards. I suppose there are message boards devoted purely to boosterism--but how interesting is that? If there is any element of debate involved, even within conservative circles, I suspect december would have to clean up his act or face some criticism. And the thing is, how much attention would he get on a board where everyone had already gotten the warm, fuzzy glow of a daily dose of Sullivan? In such a context the typical december OP might incite yawns. Deep down I think december wants to be loved by lefties; conservative approbation may not count much for him.

Calculus, if december is being harassed or abused on these boards, he certainly seems to enjoy it ;).

As to your good self, haven't you been here long enough to know that you shouldn't be calling people assholes in this forum?

[december]

Originally posted by The Calculus of Logic
December -

Why do you come to this board? This is NOT an attack mind you, i am just wondering. It is obvious 80% of this board is leftist, and all you will get is verbal abuse for offering your positions so why bother? there are less biased boards where you can discuss politics w/o abuse or harassment from assholes. I like this board because of the intelligence and knowledge of many of the posters.

However, from what you say, maybe I'm missing some other, better boards. I would appreciate your recommendations of some alternative boards that might have better political discussions.

[Desmostylus]

GOPUSA Forum (http://www.gopusa.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.pl). Knock yourself out, december.

[december]

Originally posted by Desmostylus
GOPUSA Forum (http://www.gopusa.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.pl). Knock yourself out, december. Thanks, Desmostylus

BTW the article that started this thread was picked up by the Wall St. Journal's on-line Opinion Journal http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003467 today

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by december
Thanks, Desmostylus

BTW the article that started this thread was picked up by the Wall St. Journal's on-line Opinion Journal http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003467 today

As if we needed more evidence that the WSJ opinion pages have literaly no standards at all?

[Guinastasia]

Yes, but the peace in Central America came IN SPITE OF Reagan. I'd give Oscar Arias of Costa Rica credit for that.