To you, Steve and to Marc
Yes -- and my point way back when. There has always been domestic objection (there was even a very slight bit to Japan) and it's always been sort of a tepid effort on attempts to export 'governance'. That's one reason it has been very unsuccessful, the other being that the locals knew it might not work for them and chose some aspects to use. I would agree we occasionally got pushy with our system but knowing both domestic and local opposition correctly killed such ideas, I'm not at all sure I'd even buy exporting much less imposing. Not a very imposing record of imposing... :wry:
As an aside, re: the financial system FUBAR, I only note with some glee that the same precise thing happened in all those well governed Parliamentary Social Democracies 3,000 miles or so to the east of us. ;)
Marc can properly take pride in the fact that Canada almost alone in the world did not loosen its rules on banking as did the US, most all of Europe and much of the rest of the globe.
I will forego commenting that the principal precipitators of said FUBAR here were certain northeastern Congroids who insisted on loosening the rules the system had provided and did so by pulling an end run on said system. That would be off thread and I never go there. :D :cool:
No, Marc, it is not an assumption ...
Quote:
from Marc
First, you are assuming that the US ideology and system of governance is not FUBAR. That may be a valid assumption, but it is still an assumption.
it is an empirical observation of the facts that I have seen and lived with over my lifetime. Although my experience with Canada is not as close, I also can say as an empirical observation that its ideology and system of governance are not FUBAR. Neither governance system is perfect; but both are legitimate (accepted as such by their respective Peoples) and both generally work.
Thus, both are superior to those in country X, where both ideology and system of governance are FUBAR (not working in their country of origin). It is entirely possible (for any of many possible reasons) that neither the US nor Canadian constructs will work in country X. That does not mean that country X's construct is equal to those of the US and Canada.
If you elect to read "superior" as being used in an absolute sense as "implied by my original usage", there is nothing I can do about that because you elect not to consider my other statements that provide the context.
All of this is just a micro example of why polls and their questions must be taken with a grain of salt - the answers reflect what the pollee interpreted, construed, assumed, etc. the question to mean. That is particularly so where somewhat abstract questions are being asked - as in ideology.
For example, I tried to define what I consider US ideology here (based on two documents - which is at least somewhat finite):
Quote:
... we are in love with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. OK, agreed that we (US) have an excellent ideology.
but you said:
Quote:
The "US ideology" (there are actually competing ones including at least one that is technically Fascist, i.e. the older Fordist model) ....
I know not the older Fordist model nor the newer Fordist model - but I am sure you will tell me about that and the other competing models. I short, I am but a simple man; and if the pollster asked if I agreed with US ideology as defined by the older Fordist model, I'd say "I dunno".
You also said:
Quote:
... at least in the romanticized form Bob's World talks about (and that is the one that has galvanized world notice from the French Revolution on), bears little resemblance to the forms of governance either practiced currently in the US or exported via "reconstruction" efforts.
and there is validity to this on two fronts. One is that Bob and I are probably idealists and perhaps romaticists. The other is that there is a difference between the principle and its reduction to practice - a theme which I have often hammered on. If the reduction to practice (e.g., governance) does not truly (a loaded word) reflect the principle, then there may something wrong with the practice.
Or what seems to be a bad reflection of the principle may simply be confusion as to what the principle means. E.g., "all men are created equal". True in a theological sense; but if that principle is morphed into "all persons are equal", it is an obvious fallacy. There are many people who are better pool players than I - and yes, they are superior to me - which gives me something to aspire to. :)
Again, a problem for the pollster and the results of the poll.
As to your ending question:
Quote:
Let me ask you a question: if an ideology and system of governance is imposed, is this bottom up or top down?
top down, based on my understanding that the word "imposed" means without the consent of the governed. That I have to add because both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were authored by elites, but accepted in the end by those who remained in the colonies. Those who held to the British theories (which, as I have also remarked more than once in posts, corresponded to the mainstream of English constitutional history) departed for such places as Toronto.
A real kick would be to go back in time and poll the pre-1776 colonists on what they thought the Magna Carta meant, amongst other abstractions derived from finite documents.
PS: Since Marc elected to discuss financial FUBARs, here are exchange rates from the beginning of the market collapse (Oct 2007, when I thought about switching some assets to the Bank of Montreal; but decided not to) to the present:
10 Oct 2007 1.02 USD
24 Feb 2009 0.80 USD
Better than the US stock market, for sure; but a hit on the CAD.
But you still can't have my Bud Lite!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
One is that Bob and I are probably idealists and perhaps romaticists.
:)
Three step - operating definition ....
Quote:
from Marc
there is an "ideal" and then interpretations of the ideal (then we get into your implementations; I would just argue that the implementations are of the interpretations, not the ideal itself). As such, I find it hard to distinguish "a" US ideology (or any other group for that matter!). I view ideologies as deriving from interpretations of ideas rather than from the ideals themselves.
Principle (ideal) > interpretation of ideal > implementation of interpretation.
Concept 1 (expressed in words) > Concept 2 (expressed in words) > Actions to implement Concept 2. "Ye shall know them by their deeds"
You look at ideology toward a different proof point than I. Not a problem so long as we can agree on a common operating definition. That is often lacking in polls.
I won't say which is superior - although since I live on Lake Superior, I have to claim superiority (as do all Yoopers in their heart of hearts). :D
Use of the operating definition
Got to thinking about this:
Quote:
Principle (ideal) > interpretation of ideal > implementation of interpretation.
Concept 1 (expressed in words) > Concept 2 (expressed in words) > Actions to implement Concept 2. "Ye shall know them by their deeds"
in the context of post #28 - Moderate Islam and UBL Critique - in this thread; and in the context of Galula's comments on "Tactical Manipulation of the Cause" (his example is Mao's switches in messages to the masses).
Folks tell you what they think you want to hear (evading an argument); or tell you what they think you should hear (propaganda) - none of which may have anything directly to do with their "ideology", whether you measure that at step 1, 2, 3 or take all into account.
Just thinking out loud about ideology and polling.
Yup, Marc, ideology is indeed slippery ...
As an example (where we know most of the facts from hindsight), I was thinking about application of stage 2 Interpretation analysis to Mao, during the phase where he was stressing land reform. Based on that evidence, one could reasonably conclude that Mao was an agrarian reformer. And as I recall, ca. 1950, many had been calling him just that during and after WWII.
The reality was that the real goal was not land reform, but collective farming. The folks in the ChiCom inner circles were well aware that stage 2 Interpretation was itself made up of two stages:
1. Stage 2a - interpretation of ChiCom doctrine (end justifies means) to allow a message (land reform) apparently inconsistent with that doctrine (collective farming).
2. Stage 2b - verbalization of a land reform program that would appeal to the greatest number of peasants - which allowed the agrarian reformer label and something of a National Liberation Front.
In South Vietnam, Ho's government (technically, of a united Vietnam) went beyond Stages 2a and 2b to Stage 3 to implement a land reform program, which continued in VM-controlled areas from 1946-1955. When Diem's government employed ARVN to get back the lands (and back-rents) for the landlords, he was left with a horde of very disgruntled peasants. The latter were not unhappy when "their" VM cadres returned a few years later, and the SVN NLF was formed.
The point is that getting back to the actual ideology, in the absence of internal documents, can take a reasonable person down side paths to the wrong conclusions. Agreed that this is a tough area for the researcher or intel officer - lots of chances for errors.
This and that at the end of the day
Having completed and mailed in today our new Alabama National Veterans Cemetery Support Committee first federal tax return (I am the Treasurer), belatedly I return to shotgun back some points to several on this thread who spoke about Israel, the Middle East, etc. earlier today.
I think it was MarcT who commented in particular that my remarks about religion (Islam) in terms of mind set/psychology of the Middle Eastern troops/military was mistaken as there are no "Mulsim" armies there. Words to that effect.
With Jimmy Carter's (he still deserves great credit for this in my book, and I am a Republican) Peace Treaty between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, he/we quieted down two armys which are "essentially" made up of mostly troops of the Muslim faith (Syria,Jordan, and a thrid, now willing to talk "about" Isreal peacefully, Saudi Arabia are in mind), with Egypt having a more secular style of government (Sadat of course later on assassinated) and Jordan having then and now an Islamic Monarchy. ***I was a guest in the Rose Garden audience at the White House signing of the Israel, Egypt, Jordan Peace Accord (or Treaty), courteousy of my distant cousin, Jody Powell, who was Carter's Press Secretary.
Then I recall from earlier today another poster coming down on Israel and castigating President Truman who I personally found to be one of our greatest ever Presidents, exept for Ike, who I liked the most of all our Presidents.
Since 1947 many Arab and other Islamic nations, to include even back then the new nation of Pakistan, opposed the founding by UN Resolution of Israel, together with same Resolution, the founding of a new Palestinian State, which these obstreperous Arab and other Muslim nations flatly rejected and refused to support.
Israel is a brave little nation and a exempliary beacon of democracy, for those who sincerely want to see more democracy in the Middle East, your working example remains one of one, Israel.
I suspect these few remarks will stimulate counter remarks so will shut down for now.