PACS 2500
Introduction to
Peace and Conflict Studies
Guy Burgess
Co-Director
Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado
UCB 580, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0580, (303) 492-1635
burgess@colorado.edu
Copyright © 2014 Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess
Test #1
Study Questions
Temporary Page Access Extended
Through Test #1
Online Textbook Voucher
$40.00
You can e-mail voucher numbers with urgent contact form.
I will work with you if you are encountering financial
difficulties.
Test 50%
• 2 Mid-Terms / Final
• Notes page allowed
• Study questions
– List
– Define
– Apply
• “Wildcard” questions
• Slightly cumulative
final
• 50 minute tests
• “Curved” grading
More Information about the Test
 Five representative questions selected from
study questions.
 Three-part answer rule applies to all questions
 List the major points
 Demonstrate that you understand the major points
 Apply and explain why those ideas are important
 50 min. / 1:05 min. format
 Notes page rules
 2 pages – small type okay – you really need this!
 Do your own notes page
 Hand in your notes
Sample Answers
Bring Blue Book
Come if you forget
Don’t Forget
Your Notes
Page
Review Session on Tuesday
Liberals Vs. Conservatives
Red/Blue – A Useful
Oversimplification
http://www.peoplepress.org/2014/06/26/thepolitical-typology-beyondred-vs-blue/
Liberal Conservative Differences
http://www.journalism.org/20
14/10/21/politicalpolarization-media-habits/
Boulder, Another One Party Town
Conservative Scholar
Demise of Local Political Reporting
Hidden Persuaders II
http://www.economist.com/node/21530076
Wag the Dog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNo0BicRM8k
Koch Brothers
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend900-million-on-2016-campaign.html
Campaign Finance
http://www.propublica.or
g/article/campaignfinance-free-for-all-howwe-got-to-this-point
Political Selection
 Political selection
 “Survival of the fittest”
 Survival of the most
powerful
 If one side does it the
other has to do it
 Since they all do it, it’s a
non issue
 Folks who don’t do it, you
never hear from
Charles Darwin
California Non-Partisan Primaries
New York Matching Funds Program
The Big Conflict:
Is government the solution or
the problem?
Anti-Government
Ayn
Rand
Free Markets
Alan Greenspan
Anti-Government
The Invisible Hand
Creative Destruction
Adam
Smith
Anti-Government
Anti-Government
Scapegoating Government
 Ronald Reagan
 Grover Norquist
“Government Is the Problem Not the Solution”
Excuses vs. Reasons
Corporate Welfare
Government Bailout & “Moral Hazard”
• Privatizing Profits
• Upside profits go to highly leveraged
investors
• Socializing Risks
• Downside loses go to taxpayers with
bailouts
Trust in Government
http://www.gallup.com/poll/175790/americans-trust-executive-legislative-branchesdown.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term
=Politics
Pro-Government
Policies of social
organization based
purely on
self-interest (and greed)
have failed! They must
be balanced with civicminded policy making.
Adam
Smith
Kenneth Boulding
Help the “Invisible Hand”
Coontrol the “Invisible Fist”
Pro-Government
Level the Playing Field
Pro-Government
Limit Matthew’s Law
“To whomsoever hath,
to him shall be given”
Kenneth Boulding
Pro-Government
Manage the
Commons
Pro-Government
Avoid the
Posterity Trap
“What has
posterity ever
done for me?”
Pro-Government
Limit the Bubbles
Pro-Government
Pecora Hearings
Assure a
Common
History
Watergate
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04242009/watch.html
Conflict Actors / Interveners
Third Siders
Altruistic Interveners
Profiteers
3rd Party
Self-Interested Interveners
Conflict Arenas
Competing
Interest Groups &
Leaders
Altruistic & Selfish Motives
Mid-Level Activists
Grassroots Citizens
Negotiation
Legal action
Political action
Moral competition
Economic competition
Military confrontation
Competing
Interest Groups &
Leaders
Altruistic & Selfish Motives
Mid-Level Activists
Grassroots Citizens
2nd Party
Beyond the Invisible Fist
A Very Large-Scale Strategy for Promoting More Constructive Forms of
Competition and Conflict
The Red, Blue, Gold Divide
Guy Burgess & Heidi Burgess
Co-Directors
Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado
UCB 580, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0580, (303) 492-1635, burgess@colorado.edu
Copyright © 2014 Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess
Red/Blue Cultural and Moral Divide
Red, Conservative Cultural Beliefs
•
•
•
•
•
Dominant, mainstream culture
Culturally homogeneous
Respect for tradition
Respect for authority
Subordination of oneself within the
larger community
• Moral clarity (clear sense of right
and wrong)
• Pride and patriotism
• Willingness to defend the group
Blue, Liberal / Progressive
• “Misfit” coalition originally composed of
people alienated from mainstream society
• Culturally diverse
• Moral relativism and tolerance of multiple
cultures
• More individualistically focused
• More critical of society
• Distrustful of authority
• Focused on mutual assistance
A 2nd Dimension: Distributional Divide
Gold / Purple Divide
The “1%” of the “1%”
The “1%”
The “99 %”
Plutocracy
http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-plutocracy-rising/
The 1% vs. the 1% of the 1%
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/nyregion/never-rich-enough.html?_r=1
Gold / Purple Divide
Machiavellian Politicians
Predatory Capitalists
Successful Competitors
Successful Competitors
The Less Competitive, The Unlucky, The Lazy
The Less Materialistic
Gold / Purple 1%Divide
Darwin
Adam Smith
Mother Teresa
Gold / Purple 1% of 1% Divide
Ayn Rand
Herbert Spencer
Machiavelli
Gold / Purple 1% of 1% Divide
Three Conflicts
Invisible Hand: Culture/Moral
Three Conflicts
Invisible Hand: Distributional
Three Conflicts
Invisible Fist
Divide and Conquer
$
$
Divide and Conquer on the Left
$
$
Divide and Conquer on the Right
$
$
Coexistence Imperative
Beyond the Invisible Fist
A Very Large-Scale Strategy for Promoting More Constructive Forms of
Competition and Conflict
Compromisers vs. Fighters
Guy Burgess & Heidi Burgess
Co-Directors
Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado
UCB 580, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0580, (303) 492-1635, burgess@colorado.edu
Copyright © 2014 Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess
Compromisers vs. Fighters:
A Different Way of Thinking About Conflict
Side A Fighters
Side B Fighters
Swing People
Side A
Swing People
Compromisers
Side B
Population of Communities in Conflict
Arrange Population in Order of Their Preferred Outcome
to a Conflict
Traditional Two-Party View
Side A
Side B
Compromisers
Side A
Compromisers
Side B
Fighters
Side A Fighters
Side A
Side A Fighters
Compromisers
Side B
Types of Fighters
Side A
Side B
Side A Fighters
Side A Fighters
Swing People
Swing People
Compromisers
Altruistic Fighters
Frustrated Compromisers
Tyrant Wannabes
Altruistic Fighters
Frustrated Compromisers
Tyrant Wannabes
Swing People
Side A Fighters
Side A Fighters
Swing People
Side A
Swing People
Compromisers
Side B
Compromiser vs. Fighter Conflict
Side A
Side B
Side A Fighters
Side A Fighters
Swing People
?
Swing People
Compromisers
?
The central conflict is a battle between
Compromisers & Fighters
competing for the support of the
Swing People
Invisible Hand
Side A
Side B
Side A Fighters
Side A Fighters
Invisible Hand
Swing People
Swing People
Compromisers
Altruistic Fighters
Frustrated Compromisers
Tyrant Wannabes
Altruistic Fighters
Frustrated Compromisers
Tyrant Wannabes
Invisible Fist
Powers Available to Invisible Fist
Fighters
Side A
Side B
Side A Fighters
Side A Fighters
Swing People
Negotiation
Legal Action
Political Action
Propaganda
Economic Action
Military Action
Etc.
Swing People
Compromisers
Negotiation
Legal Action
Political Action
Propaganda
Economic Action
Military Action
Etc.
Compromiser Types / Powers
Side A
Side B
Compromisers
Powers
Negotiation
Moral Persuasion
Types
Principled
Pragmatic Compromisers
Fighter Attacks on Compromiser
Plus Sneak Attacks on Swing People
Side A
Side B
Side A Fighters
Side B Fighters
Swing People
Swing People
Compromisers
Physically Attack the Compromisers (Sadat / Rabin)
Morally Attack the Idea (It’s Wrong to Compromise One’s Values)
Attack the Character (Courage) of the Compromisers
Subtly Drive the Escalation Spiral (So You Can’t Be Blamed)
Cultivate the Illusion of Invincibility and Certain Victory
Hide / Discredit the Costs of War and the Benefits of Compromise
Inadequate Defenses for Compromise
Side A
Side B
Side A Fighters
Side A Fighters
Swing People
Swing People
Compromisers
Inadequate No Physical Defense
No Ability to Physically Challenge the Fighters
Reluctance to “Call Them Out” Since Compromisers Want Their Support
Hard to Expose Provocateurs Who Are Subtly Driving the Escalation Spiral
Difficulty in Defending the Morality of Compromising One’s Values
Taboos Against Questioning the Heroism of the Fighters
Hard to Address the Risks of Double Cross
The Result: Fighting Not Compromise
Side A
Side B
Side A Fighters
Side A Fighters
Swing People
Swing People
Compromisers
With
Destructive / Hurting Stalemate
With Leadership Role for Fighters
or
Conquest/Defeat and Oppression
Compromisers vs. Fighters:
A Different Way of Thinking About Conflict
Side A Fighters
Side B Fighters
Swing People
Side A
Swing People
Compromisers
Side B
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rachel-maddow-ballot-juggling-makes-midterm-racesunexpectedly-competitive/2014/09/21/7aa3a7e8-4021-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html
The Civil War
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnyeqyCiLdo
Guiding Principle: Compassion
Karen Armstrong
“That which is hurtful to you, do not do to others.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCG4qryy1Dg
3 min.
Stop Fighting
http://stop-fighting.crinfo.org/
Think About a Fight





Parents?
Roommates?
Siblings?
Teachers?
Community?
When you find yourself
in a hole, stop digging!
A. Hold your ground? Fight back
and protect your interests?
B. Overstate your case, so you
have something to back down
to later?
C. Give in so as not to "make
waves"?
D. Take a "time out" to allow
things to cool down?
E. End the relationship (because
if you fight like this over and
over, it isn't worth the misery)?
A. Stand up for yourself and make
sure the other person knows you
won't tolerate disrespect from
him or her?
B. Apologize for statements said in
anger that you didn't really
mean, and try again to
respectfully explain what you
DID mean?
C. Politely tell the other person how
their attacks made you feel?
D. Forgive and forget -- and move
on?
A. Say it again, because the other
person probably just wasn't
listening or didn't understand?
B. Listen to what the other person
has to say first, and then
respond?
C. Talk about yourself -- don't talk
about them?
D. Talk around the problem -- don't
focus on it directly? That’s too
inflammatory.
A. Base the plan on agreed-to
principles of fairness and justice?
B. Agree to talk whenever someone
is upset and come up with a
collaborative solution?
C. Agree that one person will be the
"authority figure", though that
person will listen to the other
person's arguments and
complaints?
D. Agree to negotiate everything?
A. Try to convince your partner to do
what you want? (You need to
stand up for yourself.)
B. Agree with your partner and do
what he/she wants? (It’s not
worth the fight.)
C. Try to find out what your partner's
underlying interests are (Why
does he/she take the position that
she does?)
D. Try to trade off with your partner?
(You do what he/she does
sometimes and he/she does what
you want other times.)
A.Avoid talking about the
issue?
B.Try to collect more facts so
that you can persuade the
other person that you are
right?
C.Try to get someone else to
help you resolve the
problem?
D.Agree to disagree, but work
to understand the other
side?
`