When simpleminded people are scared they like hawkish authoritarians. Rudy will do okay in the primaries as long as his speeches are like Bush's: "blah blah blah 9/11 blah blah terrorists blah blah blah terror 9/11 blah blah Iran North Korea weapons of mass destruction blah blah."

We'll have to see if he can scare enough moderates to win the general, though. Moderates will likely not fall for that again after Bush's debacle. Unless there's another major attack, of course.

See what I mean?

JewishAtheist (there's a handle that really inspires hope of our people's future),

1. Terrorists have been in open and declared war with western civilization since 1979. But, hey, there was nothing to be "scared" of right?
2. We decided to ignore their repeated attempts to serve notice for 22+ years after. Beirut, WTC '93, African embassies, Cole, etc, etc, etc. But, hey, there was nothing to be "scared" of right?
3. We finally got the message on 9/11. Shock of all shocks...we were "scared."
4. But also pissed and awoken. Rudy is betting that the American people still get the Long War, and can be prepared to methodically pursue victory, if they get what we are doing and why we are doing it. Rudy is betting he can communicate that message more effectively than Bush, can articulate to allies better than Bush, and wage the next years of the Long War more competently than Bush has waged the last four.

The "simpleminded" tend to get the big picture, unlike yourself: they want to kill us no matter what we do, so we need to kill them first. Simple enough for ya?

"Terrorists have been in open and declared war with western civilization since 1979. "

Long before that - hmmm, when did Islam reach Europe? 700 something AD ?

"When simpleminded people are scared they like hawkish authoritarians."

But... when simpleminded people are scared OF the hawkish authoritarians, is there any escape from a closed curve of self-referential irony or does their worldview collapse into paradox?

Ben

I apologize for throwing in "simpleminded." The fact is people in general have a hawkish bias, according to recent research. It's been well known for a long time that scared people like authoritarian leaders. As long as Americans are scared, they'll vote for authoritarian leaders, despite the fact that the current one has done a horrible job.

mjs:

Ok, Islam declared war on us. Therefore, the correct response is to... invade Iraq? Huh? Not only was it the wrong freaking country, but the most violent solution is not necessarily the correct one.

(It *could* be the correct one, but you hawks act like the rest of us (that'd be up to 70% of the country now) are insane or simpleminded wusses. It gets a little infuriating. It's like when you call someone anti-semitic or anti-Israel for holding a position that 50% of Israeli citizens hold.

The fact is people in general have a hawkish bias, according to recent research. It's been well known for a long time that scared people like authoritarian leaders. As long as Americans are scared, they'll vote for authoritarian leaders, despite the fact that the current one has done a horrible job

Bush isn't an authoritarian - he's a poor manager, a poor communicator and he lacks diplomatic skills, but he's not authoritarian. If he was an authoritarian, your access to this website would probably be blocked right now. (as it probably is for millions of Chinese)

When people have been living under incompetent leadership they tend to seek competent leadership. That was the situation in New York City more than a decade ago, and that's why Giuliani was elected mayor.

Crime/terrorism/incompetent leadership is a problem. We need to find a leader who is likely to solve that problem. People aren't generally "Hawkish" but we do like to solve problems. It's called intelligence, the ability to learn or understand. Most of us use this ability, which is why we're more successful, as a breed, than krill.

Giuliani has proven that he's capable of solving problems.

"The fact is people in general have a hawkish bias, according to recent research."

Blame millions of years of evolution. We evolved from a long line of ancestors who survived by being tougher than their competitors.

" It's been well known for a long time that scared people like authoritarian leaders."

Also true- but it is a negative? Or is it an instinct, again built in eons of evolutionary training? I think there is an advantage, in times of danger, in having a Cincinattus.

"As long as Americans are scared, they'll vote for authoritarian leaders, despite the fact that the current one has done a horrible job."

Assuming its true, this doesn't correlate "authoritarian" with "horrible job". We will also vote, most likely, for an adult human taller-than-average wealthy male, despite the fact that the current leader, like him or not, is adult-human-taller-than-average wealthy male. Does this correlate any of those factors with the performance of the current leader?

You know what scares me? Not that we instinctively vote "authoritarian" in times of stress but that we instinctively vote "taller". In the last hundred years, the taller candidate won 64% of the time and took the popular vote 68% of the time. This means, measured by chances of winning, "Taller" outperformed both Democrat and Republican.

I leave it to the statistically gifted to work out the exact odds of this, but the implications are disturbing.

Trivia, but also a bit disturbing: Who was the Only US president known to have won the presidency agaisnt twice against DIFFERENT opponents, despite being the shorter candidate both times?

Ben

If he was an authoritarian, your access to this website would probably be blocked right now.

Because he's not AS authoritarian as the Chinese leadership does not mean he's not authoritarian. He's limited because this is a constitutional democracy, after all, but he has consistently pushed the borders of presidential authority.

"Because he's not AS authoritarian as the Chinese leadership does not mean he's not authoritarian."

How authoritarian must one be to be authoritarian?

Does Bush push more or less than the average US president? Based on what metric?

If we accept that a descriptor falls short of an upper bound, but fail to establish a lower bound, what meaning is preserved?

Ben

Ben:

I think a clear majority of historians, political scientists, etc., would agree that Bush is more authoritarian than most presidents. Certainly he's more authoritarian than either Gore, Kerry, Bush Sr., Clinton, Ford, and Carter.

And Rudy is the most authoritarian major candidate currently running.

I think at this point we need a definition of "authoritarian"

Part of how I have been looking at the Nation is the marginalization of larger portions of the voting Citizenry since the early 1960's. This is not a 50/50 Nation. It is a 30/30/30/10 Nation, with that last 10% representing the historical 5-10% that have always been to disaffected to vote. That other portion is the one that has been driven from politics by the hard divisiveness in the way the two parties have approached the Nation. The sheer number of divisions now makes it very difficult to get a consensus about anything, as the disaffected look deeply askance at the polarized two parties and their even more vehement adherents.

There is a swath of voters that are 'go along, get along' folks that prefer *not* to be bothered by others, that give leeway to others so long as none are harmed and do not want much if any supervision from government upon them. And these individuals also support their Nation fully and completely, joining up with the Armed Forces out of proportion with their portion of the population. They are anti-imperialist and anti-nannystate, and see that the role of government is a backstop of rights within society and that the best government is the most accountable and local. The disenchantment of these Citizens with the move to centralize more to the Federal Government is great. And they dislike it from *both* sides of the political spectrum as any move to put more power into government IS authoritarian and totalitarian in conception. They adhere to the Constitution like nobody's business as it defines what the duties of Citizens to their Nation *are*.

This part of the population does not see warfighting on a 'dimmer switch' that the political parties and their Elites so love to use. There are exactly two positions to fighting: you don't fight or you fight completely and all-out and spare nothing in warfare. You do not start wars, but when in one you fight to *win* no matter the rightness or wrongness of why it started as that can be worked out *later*. And as these are the first in war, they are also the first in peace to extend a hand to an honorable foe to help them up after such warfare is done with. A respectable and honorable foe deserves a chance at a better life and you stay to help them *build one* and you protect them until they can protect themselves and then if they don't want you there you *leave* and not one instant before.

The Left of today cannot fathom 19th century liberalism that these individuals hold on to with a firm grip: government is a necessary evil, not a boon to mankind and needs be limited and small.

The Right of today cannot figure out why these individuals do not get riled up over social issues or economic ones: these individuals see liberty leading to prosperity and trade, not the other way around, and so long as no Citizen is harmed then do not tell us how to live our lives.

These individuals have a collective name, but it does not describe them as they are fully individuals adhering to the rights of man. They do not apply labels based on intent, but on deeds, as that is the measure of worthiness and law.

Their motto during wartime is simple and is as follows: "We did not start this fight. But we sure, as hell, will end it."

If you understand that in your heart and know that one is born to a family, but that friends are held as dear, then you hear their echo in your heart and mind.

They are Jacksonians.

And this war cannot be fought on a dimmer switch. You cannot call them warmongers as they prefer that wars do not *start*. You cannot call them callous as they offer the fallen foe a hand up after all battles are done so that they may build a better life, one that is free and with liberty. And to them there is no 'symmetrical response' in warfare: when attacked you counter-attack until the enemy surrenders, completely. Because we have had decades of poor leadership that will not stand by the Nation nor enforce the concept of Nation State nor see that securing freedom and liberty are good and necessary, we are now in a fight to *have a Nation*.

Nation States are containers for this thing called 'governments' that exist in an 'international order'. Nation States allow for a wide range of governments from despotic to free. Those wishing to remove that from the inside and the outside seek tyranny by lumping folks into groups and handing out rights as an Elite sees fit. That is called Empire.

I mourn for those lost in the battle and killed by a barbaric enemy.

I have no tears for that enemy.

You cannot give them any hope of success at anything, nor shy away from them, nor give them surcease, nor let any shield them. They have chosen to kill wantonly using warfare illegitimately. They are not criminals. They are barbarians who seek to end the order of Nations and the civilization it supports.

I happen to like that civilization and the order of Nations as it allows freedom to prosper if guarded, protected and fought for. That is good duty to have, as a Citizen. It is sad that so few in the polarized political atmosphere are willing to do that. They grasp on to the failed 20th century for things that offer no way forward in the struggle we have had placed upon us. It is time to let go of that boat anchor as it heads to the abyss... or we will be the last victims of that most bloody of centuries, that handed us a worse problem as they could not face it then.

"I think a clear majority of historians, political scientists..."

Are very unsympathetic to Bush in their political leanings. Most of Academia is, by their own admission. So we can hardly use their opinions as some kind of neutral arbiter.

So let's hold out for a metric of some kind. What have we got?

What is Authoritarian? Kerry wants to control the content of radio station broadcasts that he doesn't agree with. Clinton's Attorney General committed tanks into combat against US civilians in a law enforcement situation, and used a heavily armed assault team to seize one Cuban child. Bush has been uncompromising with his political opposition- but that political opposition has been just as uncompromising with him. Where do we measure the Authoritarianism?

I would agree that by any metric, Ford and Carter were most likely not very authoritarian- but that's still just a very vague hunch until we actually have a definition and a tool for measuring.

Ben

What is Authoritarian? Kerry wants to control the content of radio station broadcasts that he doesn't agree with. Clinton's Attorney General committed tanks into combat against US civilians in a law enforcement situation, and used a heavily armed assault team to seize one Cuban child. Bush has been uncompromising with his political opposition- but that political opposition has been just as uncompromising with him.

If what you write about Kerry is true, that's certainly authoritarian, although the authoritarianism that I was referring to re: giuliani is authoritarianism in terms of foreign policy and law enforcement. I'm not sure what being "uncompromising" with political opposition means, but I don't think it's a form of authoritarianism.