posted on August 13, 2003 11:26:30 AM new
Now i know why these right wing facists / stalinists are what they are, knew this before the study, again i am to be proven right, said so in my early posts
Study of Bush's psyche touches a nerve
Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday August 13, 2003
The Guardian
A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".
As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.
All of them "preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality".
Republicans are demanding to know why the psychologists behind the report, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, received $1.2m in public funds for their research from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance.
"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.
One of the psychologists behind the study, Jack Glaser, said the aversion to shades of grey and the need for "closure" could explain the fact that the Bush administration ignored intelligence that contradicted its beliefs about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
The authors, presumably aware of the outrage they were likely to trigger, added a disclaimer that their study "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false".
Another author, Arie Kruglanski, of the University of Maryland, said he had received hate mail since the article was published, but he insisted that the study "is not critical of conservatives at all". "The variables we talk about are general human dimensions," he said. "These are the same dimensions that contribute to loyalty and commitment to the group. Liberals might be less intolerant of ambiguity, but they may be less decisive, less committed, less loyal."
But what drives the psychologists? George Will, a Washington Post columnist who has long suffered from ingrained conservatism, noted, tartly: "The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses."
posted on August 14, 2003 07:57:04 AM new
And i wonder why the world hates the U.S. and i wonder why people never ask the question " Why are there terrorists "
We Had a Democracy Once, But You Crushed It
by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
In Thursday's Washington Post, Condoleeza Rice, the President's National Security Advisor, writes the following:
"Our task is to work with those in the Middle East who seek progress toward greater democracy, tolerance, prosperity and freedom. As President Bush said in February, ‘The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life.'"
Now, if we only had a nickel for every time Bush, or Rice, or Colin Powell, or Paul Wolfowitz or Dick Cheney or Richard Perle or Donald Rumsfeld talked about bringing democracy to the Middle East.
Talk, talk, talk.
Here's something you can bet on: Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz will not hold a press conference this month to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the U.S.-led coup of the democratically elected leader of Iran -- Mohammed Mossadegh.
Rice and Powell won't hold a press conference to celebrate Operation Ajax, the CIA plot that overthrew the Mossadegh.
That was 50 years ago this month, in August 1953.
That's when Mossadegh was fed up with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company -- now BP -- pumping Iran's oil and shipping the profits back home to the United Kingdom.
And Mossadegh said -- hey, this is our oil, I think we'll keep it.
And Winston Churchill said -- no you won't.
Mossadegh nationalized the company -- the way the British were nationalizing their own vital industries at the time.
But what's good for the UK ain't good for Iran.
If you fly out of Dulles Airport in Virginia, ever wonder what the word Dulles means?
It stands for the Dulles family -- Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother, the CIA director, Allen Dulles.
They were responsible for the overthrow of the democratically elected leader of Iran.
As was President Theodore Roosevelt's grandson, Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA agent who traveled to Iran to pull off the coup.
Now why should we be concerned about a coup that happened so far away almost 50 years ago this month?
New York Times reporter Stephen Kinzer puts it this way:
"It is not far-fetched to draw a line from Operation Ajax through the Shah's repressive regime and the Islamic revolution to the fireballs that engulfed the World Trade Center in New York."
Kinzer has written a remarkable new book, All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (Wiley, 2003).
In it, he documents step by step, how Roosevelt, the Dulles boys and Norman Schwarzkopf Sr., among a host of others, took down a democratically elected regime in Iran.
They had freedom of the press. We shut it down.
They had democracy. And we crushed it.
Mossadegh was the beacon of hope for the Middle East.
If democracy were allowed to take hold in Iran, it probably would have spread throughout the Middle East.
We asked Kinzer – what does the overthrow of Mossadegh say about the United States respect for democracy abroad?
"Imagine today what it must sound like to Iranians to hear American leaders tell them -- ‘We want you to have a democracy in Iran, we disapprove of your present government, we wish to help you bring democracy to your country.' Naturally, they roll their eyes and say -- "We had a democracy once, but you crushed it,'" he said. "This shows how differently other people perceive us from the way we perceive ourselves. We think of ourselves as paladins of democracy. But actually, in Iran, we destroyed the last democratic regime the country ever had and set them on a road to what has been half a century of dictatorship."
After ousting Mossadegh, the United States put in place a brutal Shah who destroyed dissent and tortured the dissenters.
And the Shah begat the Islamic revolution.
During that Islamic revolution in 1979, Iranians held up Mossadegh's picture, telling the world – we want a democratic regime that resists foreign influence and respects the will of the Iranian people as expressed through democratic institutions.
"They were never able to achieve that. And this has led many Iranians to react very poignantly to my book," Kaizer told us. "One woman sent me an e-mail that said – ‘I was in tears when I finished your book because it made me think of all we lost and all we could have had.'"
Of course, the overthrow of Mossadegh was only one of the first U.S. coups of democratically elected regime. (To see one in movie form, pick up a copy of Raoul Peck's Lumumba, now on DVD.)
Kinzer's previous books include Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala.
He's thinking of putting together a boxed set of his books on American coups.
Get copies of Bitter Fruit and All The Shah's Men.
Read them.
And the next time a politician talks about spreading democracy around the globe, ask them about Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, and Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala.
