Most of the United States' wars have been started by Democrats. It may seem counterintuitive but it's true. WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam. This is a big question in IR, because obviously Democrats are the more dovish party.
There's a concept called diversionary war theory. The idea is that when the economy is bad or his poll numbers are down a president will engage in a foreign conflict to provoke what's called a "rally around the flag effect". (ie: before 9/11 Bush had low poll numbers, after 9/11 he had some of the highest ever) In a time of crisis the country comes together.
Some authors say this applies not so much to poll numbers as to the economy. But this still doesn't explain why Democrats have started more wars than Republicans.
I'm bullshitting with a bullshit little project right now that involved coming up with a bullshit hypothesis that was a bullshit part of the overall grade. In the process thereof I managed to come up with something though:
H1: Republicans' elite constituencies would prefer economic problems be solved by monetary policy whereas Democrats are more apt to rely on fiscal policy. It is easier to change monetary policy than to engage in diversionary conflict, but it is easier to engage in diversionary conflict than it is to change fiscal policy. Thus, Democrats will be more likely to divert than Republicans.
Republicans would rather fix the economy through the Fed. That's done by having Tim Geihtner talk to Ben Bernanke at lunch. Democrats would rather fix the economy by increasing federal expenditures, tweaking tax codes, etc. which requires a huge amount of effort. So basically, it's easier to talk to Ben Bernanke than it is to bomb some shithole on the other side of the earth, but it's easier to bomb some shithole on the other side of the earth than it is to change spending patterns and tax codes. So in the event of a high misery index, Republicans don't have as much reason to bomb some shithole on the other side of the earth because it's easier to do what they would want to do in the first place. Democrats on the other hand do.
Thus: why most wars are started by Democrats.
There's a concept called diversionary war theory. The idea is that when the economy is bad or his poll numbers are down a president will engage in a foreign conflict to provoke what's called a "rally around the flag effect". (ie: before 9/11 Bush had low poll numbers, after 9/11 he had some of the highest ever) In a time of crisis the country comes together.
Some authors say this applies not so much to poll numbers as to the economy. But this still doesn't explain why Democrats have started more wars than Republicans.
I'm bullshitting with a bullshit little project right now that involved coming up with a bullshit hypothesis that was a bullshit part of the overall grade. In the process thereof I managed to come up with something though:
H1: Republicans' elite constituencies would prefer economic problems be solved by monetary policy whereas Democrats are more apt to rely on fiscal policy. It is easier to change monetary policy than to engage in diversionary conflict, but it is easier to engage in diversionary conflict than it is to change fiscal policy. Thus, Democrats will be more likely to divert than Republicans.
Republicans would rather fix the economy through the Fed. That's done by having Tim Geihtner talk to Ben Bernanke at lunch. Democrats would rather fix the economy by increasing federal expenditures, tweaking tax codes, etc. which requires a huge amount of effort. So basically, it's easier to talk to Ben Bernanke than it is to bomb some shithole on the other side of the earth, but it's easier to bomb some shithole on the other side of the earth than it is to change spending patterns and tax codes. So in the event of a high misery index, Republicans don't have as much reason to bomb some shithole on the other side of the earth because it's easier to do what they would want to do in the first place. Democrats on the other hand do.
Thus: why most wars are started by Democrats.
RSS Feed