Saturday, December 17, 2022

How Democrats became America's "War Party"

I think that Julian is closer to the mark...
James Billot, "New Evidence Confirm's the Blob's Hawkishness: Proximity to Washington leads to more support for military intervention"
Ideology based on employment status. Credit: Richard Hanania and Max Abrahms

Washington’s foreign policy circle is a famously tight network. Comprising government officials, academics, and think tanks, this group (known as the ‘Blob‘) has developed a reputation for hawkishness and support for high levels of military spending.

There are hundreds of think tanks based in Washington, making it difficult to tell where the policy comes from: the White House or unelected officials. During the Reagan era, for example, there were almost 200 employees at conservative think tanks who served as government officials or consultants for his administration. But what do they actually believe?

New research by Richard Hanania and Max Abrahms has found that think tanks are much more hawkish than International Relations scholars, even controlling for ideology.

Taking a comprehensive survey of the most influential scholars and top 20 think tanks, the two researchers discovered that the closer a think tank employee was to power (both geographically and professionally), the more likely they were to be militarily interventionist. According to Hanania and Abrahms, for all the think tanks located within three miles of Capitol Hill, every mile further away is associated with a -0.48 deviation in militant internationalism:
Militant internationalism based on geo-coded responses of think tank employees responding within 20 miles of Capitol Hill.

The researchers posit that the reason for this is the increased likelihood of socialisation with government officials:
These kinds of contacts can take the form of, among other things, panel discussions, interviews with the media, and access to social, business, and networking opportunities with influential figures…Those closer to the center of power are more likely to be part of the foreign policy community (Walt 2018). We do not expect to see a relationship between distance and political preferences within the category of professors, whose job description does not necessarily involve influencing public opinion, being close to media centers, and meeting with powerful figures. 
- RICHARD HANANIA AND MAX ABRAHMS

So why is the foreign policy community more hawkish generally? Hanania and Abrahms give three answers: self-selection, institution-selection and knowledge-based:
First of all, people who favor more hawkish positions might be more likely to seek out positions of influence and power. Second, institutions and governments might seek out those with more hawkish views, or perhaps pressure them into supporting a more aggressive posture for the United States abroad…Finally, the nature of the work and the focus of their research might encourage TTEs, who put more effort into studying contemporary and policy-relevant issues to adopt more hawkish views.
- RICHARD HANANIA AND MAX ABRAHMS

The Ukraine war has been something of a renaissance for the Blob. But this research should serve as an important reminder to Washington foreign policy officials that not everyone thinks alike — even if all think tank employees do.

23 comments:

  1. Wrong. republicans are the pro war party. gwb started 2 wars as well as the endless war on terror. Barack Obama ended the war in Iraq. Joe Biden ended the war in Afghanistan. republicans support Putin's war on Ukraine while Democrats oppose it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Are you in denial or just lying? republiturds are not only pro-war, they are pro-Putin. And shame on the pro-Putin Left (Hedges and Kucinich in the video you posted).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Republicans aren't the one's funding the Ukraine/Putin war... that would be Deocrats and rogue Never-Trumpers. Bidens all in though. More billions for dead Russians/Ukrainians!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Pro-war feh. Think of the billions of dollars wasted on feeding people in Iraq and Afghanistan that we could have exterminated for a fraction of the costs.I wish there was a pro-war party in DC.

    ReplyDelete
  5. To the post itself:

    Well, yeah... butchers are most predisposed to like butchering. :-)))

    Another word. More direct, as I am not sure my snark will be seen.

    Opposition to libtards "science" do not make Reps "science" any better.

    There is no such logic where opposition to a false is automatically true... in this case. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  6. Send money to me / my community or I will vote for a politician that will order airstrikes on your country 🤣

    ReplyDelete
  7. "what is your nation worth? How much will you pay to not be exterminated?"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Putin is funding the Ukraine war. republiturds are fine with pulling funding for Ukraine's self defense so that Putin wins. If republiturds favor ending war by surrendering why didn't they praise donald tRump's surrender to the Taliban? Why (instead) did they blame Joe Biden?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why? Because Sleepy Joe stupidly/hurriedly left the Taliban a couple of billion worth of abandoned military equipment that should have been destroyed before exiting.

    ReplyDelete
  10. dotard donald stupidly left the Taliban a couple of billion worth of abandoned military equipment. As per the surrender agreement negotiated by dotard donald, the incoming Biden administration had a very limited amount of time to get out. If we had spent the time necessary to destroy equipment the Taliban would have attacked and we (anticipating this) would have had to send in more troops (to bolster the low number left under dotard). Then you'd have criticized Biden for escalating. dotard donald left the incoming Joe Biden administration in a no win situation. ON PURPOSE.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You have a direct line to the Taliban's attack strategies? Maybe you should have advised the Pentagon.

    ReplyDelete
  12. That the Taliban would back off in exchange for the total surrender of the US was the deal dotard donald negotiated. He drew down troops to levels that we could not defend ourselves adequately to destroy the military equipment. Much of which we gave to the government we stood up, btw. I think they'd have objected to us destroying their equipment. Confirmation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The only way to "sustain" a conflict like Afghanistan is to colonize. America is not a colonial power. As such (non-colonial), we should avoid foreign entanglements. Ukraine is but one more...

    ReplyDelete
  14. \\As per the surrender agreement negotiated by dotard donald, the incoming Biden administration had a very limited amount of time to get out.

    Like well... half a year???
    VERYYYY limited. I see.


    \\dotard donald left the incoming Joe Biden administration in a no win situation.

    Means? dotard outsmarted you? :-)))



    \\The only way to "sustain" a conflict like Afghanistan is to colonize. America is not a colonial power. As such (non-colonial), we should avoid foreign entanglements. Ukraine is but one more...

    And became like old China? Or Japan before Perry? ;-P

    G-o-o-o-o-D Idea. All enemies in the world would only LIKE it.
    To build up their strength and to caom to you ground to colonize "spare" lands.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Qtard: Means? dotard outsmarted you?

    That you think surrender is "outsmarting" is proof you are bigly qtarded.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Nothing but gaslighting. I see.

    Well. Ok. For a people with special needs I'll repeat it.

    I. Am. Foreigner. And do not give a damn shit about your inner divisions. ;-P

    So, your *very* *smart* tryes to paint me in colors of your political opponents... very *smart*, very. :-))))))))))))

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is good stuff. Derpy calling someone a tard and actually being correctional guess it was bound to happen sometime.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Imagine the carnage if the Taliban hated America even1% as much as Trump does

    ReplyDelete
  19. \\Derpy calling someone a tard and actually being correctional guess it was
    bound to happen sometime.

    Ehm???

    Who's this brave new anon? With fingers faster then its thought. :-)))

    ReplyDelete
  20. Stupidity is one of the few things that travel faster than light.

    ReplyDelete
  21. \\Stupidity is one of the few things that travel faster than light.

    Naah... in accordance with newest theories it is just omnipesent. ;-P



    \\That must make you so happy. Given the benefit to your side.

    That is old (fake)news. Derpy do not know 'bout Claud Shennon. ;-P

    ReplyDelete