Public Opinion in the Islamic World on Terrorism

[marct]

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.

Absolutely, JMM. I think this is really the crux of our differences here and - barring the availability of several hours in a convivial atmosphere, I am quite content to leave it as an agree to disagree.

For example, I tried to define what I consider US ideology here (based on two documents - which is at least somewhat finite):

but you said:

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.

Again, probably a topic for a much longer discussion.

What I was trying to get at and, obviously, failing to do so , was that 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.

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.

Again, I think we actually agree and are quite close (ask Stan ).

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.

And that's exactly where I have the problem with the word "superior" - it isn't specific enough. Are they superior to you? Yes, at pool. You are superior to me in knowledge of the law (no questions there ) and I am superior to you in Anthropology. Does this make either of us "superior" without the qualifier?

As to your ending question:

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.

I think the key point, for me at least, is that there is a time element to this. It was imposed at one time but became accepted over a period of time. And I agree, finding out how the Magna Carta and, especially the right to call the Crown to account on pain of revolt, would be fascinating. Too bad we can't time travel.