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.
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.
“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.
No, I’m trying to do what I said – to discuss whether liberals ought to be more interested in the history of foreign countries.
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.
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.
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.
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 [iThe Nation*.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Liberals tend to have subtly-negative character trait x. Converesly, conservatives tend to have subtly-positive character trait y. Here’s a link 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.
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.
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.
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.
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…)
