Consideration Of Adoption Of The General National Pollutant: Fill & Download for Free

Why do scientists tend to have liberal (progressive) views?As I will explain, Scientists tend to have liberal (progressive) views because:Liberalism does not interfere with science by forcing it to submit to propaganda or traditional religious views, andScience involves relying on what the evidence shows, and the evidence shows that liberalism tends to have better results than the alternatives.Before I proceed with defending those statements, we should ask whether the assumption suggested by the question is true.Is it true that scientists tend to have liberal (progressive) views?Yes, it is true that scientists tend to have more liberal (progressive) views than the general public.A 2009 Pew Research Center Poll found that while 37% of the general public are conservative and 20% are liberal, the preference was reversed for scientists: 52% of scientists are liberal and only 9% are conservative. Thus, it would appear that scientists do tend to have more liberal (progressive) views than the general public. The same poll found that 81% of scientists are democrats or lean democrat. Only 12% are republicans or lean republican. Section 4: Scientists, Politics and ReligionWhy do scientists tend to have more liberal (progressive) views than the general public?Let us start by trying to figure out what liberalism is and how it differs from other political philosophies.What is liberalism?The political orientations grid below is useful for classifying and understanding the variety of political orientations that people adopt. The grid has an empirical foundation. I based it on the the 2010–2014 Inglehart–Welzel Cultural Map. That cultural map was based on extensive research by a network of social scientists around the world on behalf of the World Values Survey which focused on determining the prevalence of various values in a large number of countries around the world. (We will be looking at the World Cultures Map later in this answer).The political orientations grid makes use of four concepts which I define as follows:Traditionalists follow tradition, and often look to ancient sacred religious texts as the ultimate guide for what they should do, say, and believe. Their political orientation favors adherence to tradition, especially their religion, when determining how society should be organized, what our laws should be, what rights should be protected, etc.Progressives deviate from tradition when they believe that some other alternative would work better than tradition. They tend to rely on reason and observation to determine what would work better. Thus, progressives place a higher value on reason and observation than on tradition when determining how we should proceed.Tribalists are those who tend to prefer a society in which (1) people should place more value on persons inside some group (which I will refer to as the “tribe”) than those outside the group, so that those inside the group are recognized as valuable persons, and those outside are regarded as irrelevant, having little or no value., and (2) there is a hierarchy within the group in which those with power are regarded as having more value and a greater right to control the group than those with no power.Humanists are those who prefer a society in which all people (and even other sentient beings) matter equally, so that our proper moral concern should be maximizing the well being of everyone. Humanism recognizes that the reciprocity reflected by the Golden Rule is binding on all of us.Whereas the value opposition between traditionalists and progressives has to do with the way we decide which strategies we should use to achieve our goals, the value opposition between tribalists and humanists is concerned with what those goals are. For the tribalists, the goal is the well being of tribal members, especially the powerful members. For humanists, the goal is the well being of all people, treating each person’s well being as being as important as every other person’s.Further clarification of the Nature of Humanism: A Meditation on Humanism, Equality, and the Golden RuleI can imagine being born into poverty, or without the abilities needed to ever earn a reasonable income, or with biologically based emotional disabilities, or with abusive, neglectful, or low ability parents, or as the member of a disfavored race, ethnic group, gender, or sexual orientation. I can imagine needing health care but being unable to afford it. I can imagine being born into some future where past generations have so raped the earth that the earth no longer provides a hospitable home for humanity. I can imagine being born into a future where all natural resources have already been squandered. I can imagine living in an area where industrial or agricultural corporations have polluted the land, water, and/or air so that it negatively affects the health of my family, my friends, and myself. I can imagine using medicines that were not fully and honestly researched before marketing them. I can imagine being subject to an authoritarian government that ignores my fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and stacks the deck against me in order to benefit the powerful few.We can ask, what kind of society (or past) would we want if that were our lot in life, and then we can vote for the politicians who will work toward bringing that good society into existence. A humanist would apply the Golden Rule in this way, or use some other more or less effectively equivalent procedures of moral evaluation that recognizes the considerable and equal importance of the well being of all persons.The Grid for illuminating the variety of Political PhilosophiesA person’s political orientation will be located on the grid below as follows:A political philosophy or orientation will be placed higher on the grid to the extent it is more progressive, and lower to the extent it is more traditionalist, farther right to the extent it is more humanist, and farther to left to the extent it is more tribalistic.As an example, a political orientation that is strongly progressive and strongly tribal would be located near the upper left corner of the grid, but one that is only moderately progressive and moderately tribal would be located near the center of the grid in the progressive tribalist quadrant.In the modified version below, we can see how this grid relates to the linear spectrums that are typically used to compare political orientations such as liberals vs. conservatives, or right vs. left.When people think of the political spectrum as going from “most conservative” to “most liberal”, they are thinking of the political spectrum as being a line. On the above grid, that line would run from the lower left conservative corner to the upper right liberal corner. “Moderates” are located at the middle of that line which is at the center of the grid.When people think of the political spectrum as running from far right (fascism) to far left (communism) with liberalism located somewhere near the center, then the line that represents that spectrum is the long curve I have added to the grid. Note that in this case, “centrists” are located on the humanist side of the grid rather than in the center of the grid.What the grid clarifies is that the far right and far left are actually closer to each other than either is to liberalism or any other variety of centrism, since both the far right and far left are strongly tribalistic. (While Marx hoped that the communist revolution would eventually result in a humanist communist stateless future, the actual history of the communist revolutions is one in which the authoritarian tribalism of the communist party never “withered away” to create a communist humanist utopia). Liberalism and centrists in general are significantly different than both the far right and the far left because liberals and centrists are humanists.Why do scientists tend to have liberal (progressive) views?Now that we have looked at the grid with its four quadrants, we can explain why scientist tend to be liberal by reflecting on the epistemological perspectives that would be preferred by people in each of those quadrants. We can consider how traditionalism, progressivism, tribalism, and humanism affect how people in each of those quadrants would decide what we should say, what we should believe, and how we should decide what to say and believe.I shall consider each quadrant in turn, proceeding in order from the quadrant that would interfere with science the most to the quadrant that would interfere with science the least. I shall consider how traditionalism, progressivism, tribalism, and humanism would lead to a preferred “ethics” of speech, belief, and intellectual methodology for each quadrant.The Traditionalist Tribalist QuadrantTribalism entails that the goal is to benefit the tribe, especially the most powerful members of the tribe. Thus, what a person should say and what they should believe, will be based on what benefits the tribe, especially the most powerful members.Traditionalism provides the method by which it will be determined what benefits the tribe, especially the most powerful members of the tribe. Traditional tribalism gives the power to make decisions, including decisions about what conforms to tradition, to the most powerful members of society (including political/military leaders who are generally the most wealthy, like the king and the nobility, and religious leaders like the clergy).What we say and believe should be determined by our tribal traditions, especially our traditional tribal religion, which is the repository of traditional belief.Consequently, traditional tribal religion provides the favored mode of speech and belief in this quadrant.Tribal propaganda that benefits the tribe, especially its most powerful members, is appropriate and permitted to the extent it is allowed by tradition and consistent with our tribal religion.Science and reason are to be believed only to the extent they are strictly consistent with tribal religion and tribal propaganda.Progressive Tribalist QuadrantTribalism entails that the goal is to benefit the tribe, especially the most powerful members of the tribe. Thus, what a person should say and what they should believe, will be based on what benefits the tribe, especially its most powerful members.Progressivism allows deviation from tradition in order to determine what would best benefit the tribe, especially its most powerful members. (Remaining in this quadrant presumes a person has not decided that humanism is what most benefits the tribe, especially the most powerful members, since reaching that conclusion would cause one to abandon this quadrant and move to the progressive humanist quadrant).Tribal propaganda provides the favored mode of speech and belief in this quadrant. By tribal propaganda, I mean statements that are made and believed because they benefit the tribe, especially the most powerful members.Science and reason are allowed and even required except when they contradict tribal propaganda.Traditional tribal religion should be modified or eliminated to the extent that it contradicts tribal propaganda, science, and/or reason.Traditionalist Humanist QuadrantHumanism requires that the goal, when deciding what to say or believe, is to benefit all persons.Traditionalism, in this case, requires that what we say, and what we believe, should be determined by our humanist traditions, especially our traditional humanist religion.Our traditional humanist religion provides the preferred mode of speech and belief in this quadrant.Science and reason are generally allowed since they tend to benefit everyone, but science and reason cannot be correct if they cannot be found consistent with our humanist religion.God is a humanist since God loves us, requires us to love each other, and requires us to accept humanism as the first principle of social life. As a consequence, pursuant to our humanist religious tradition, we can be confident that it is generally appropriate and possible to find a way of interpreting science, reason, and scripture to make them all consistent.Progressive Humanist QuadrantHumanism requires that the goal when deciding what to say or believe, is to benefit all persons.Progressivism entails that tradition, including traditional religion, should not be allowed to prevent us from saying or believing what best benefits all persons.Thus, what we say and what we believe, should be determined by identifying the statements and beliefs that best benefit everyone.Reason and science are the appropriate methods to use for determining what we should say and believe, because “reason’ and “scientific method” just are that collection of methods that have been identified as having the best consequences for everyone.Thus, science and reason provide the favored mode of speech and belief in this quadrant.If our traditional religion is not consistent with science and reason, our religion is inaccurate and should be modified or eliminated, whichever has the best consequences for everyone.Of the four quadrants, only the progressive humanist (liberal) quadrant treats science and reason as the preferred methods for determining what we should say and believe. In the progressive tribalist quadrant, tribal propaganda is the favored method for determining what we should say and believe, for the traditionalist tribalist quadrant it is traditional tribal religion, and for the traditionalist humanist quadrant it is traditional humanist religion. In each of those three quadrants, science and reason are subject to being rejected when they generate results that conflict with the results of the favored methods in those three quadrants.We should not be surprised if many or most Scientists, who are generally people who devote their life’s work to scientific investigation, do not appreciate interference with science by tribal propaganda or traditional religion. Scientific method is clearly incompatible with the rejection of scientific results for propaganda or religious purposes.Scientists who embrace the progressive humanist (liberal) approach to life will not face this anti-science dilemma. Scientists who adopt the approaches to life of the other three quadrants will have to somehow compartmentalize their life so that they can limit their adherence to reason and scientific method to those areas where science and reason do not conflict with their traditional religion and/or their nation’s tribal propaganda.Thus, it would appear that the progressive humanist (liberal) approach to life presents scientists with the least interference with their commitment to science and their life’s work. Consequently, it is not surprising that scientists tend to prefer the progressive humanist (liberal) approach to life which is then likely to lead them to progressive humanist (liberal) conclusions when they apply that approach to political questions.Conclusion #1: One reason that scientists would tend to have liberal (progressive) views would be because liberalism does not interfere with science by forcing it to submit to tribal propaganda or traditional religious viewsIs there a second reason why scientists tend to have liberal (progressive) views?Yes. Science involves relying on what the evidence shows, and the evidence shows that liberalism tends to have better results than the alternatives.For a scientist, an idea about how things work is just a hypothesis until it has been verified, repeatedly, by the evidence. Consequently, in comparing liberalism, conservatism, communism, libertarianism, fascism, etc., a scientist that does not compartmentalize her life, but attempts to pay attention to the evidence in all facets of her life, will be looking to see which political orientation yields the best results for society.Scientists are likely to trust science and believe that science and reason provide the most reliable method for determining which policies have the best result, and should thus be adopted and maintained. Since people from the progressive humanist (liberal) quadrant prefer the application of reason and science to make policy choices without interference from propaganda or religion, scientists can be expected to believe that progressive humanism (liberalism) is likely to yield the best policy results.Consequently, we can expect that scientists would tend toward favoring the hypothesis that countries in which progressive humanism (liberalism) predominates will tend to do the best job at establishing the conditions for their citizens’ wellbeing.Beginning with that hypothesis, scientists will next want to make sure the evidence repeatedly verifies that hypothesis.The evidence does support the hypothesis, and does so repeatedly.First Item of Evidence Confirming the Hypothesis that Liberalism Works Best to Maximize Human Well beingThe American Psychological Association (APA) reports on a study that shows that liberal counties have happier citizens.“Overall, people living in countries with more liberal policies reported higher life satisfaction than those in countries with less liberal policies, irrespective of their own political views, according to the study.”***“…researchers compared how people rated their own life satisfaction with each country’s welfare policies. For example, when researchers looked at what a country does for its citizens, greater liberalism corresponded with higher well-being…The researchers analyzed surveys collected from 1,134,384 people between 1970 and 2002 in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Finland, Sweden, Austria and Norway. The surveys were representative samples of each country’s population. This data set is part of a series of public opinion surveys conducted on behalf of the European Commission.”“To determine if a country was politically liberal or conservative, the researchers looked at ease of access to services such as pensions, sickness benefits and unemployment compensation. They also examined each country’s level of spending on welfare, which is found in a report produced by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.”Liberal CountriesSecond Set of Evidence Confirming the Hypothesis that Liberalism Works Best to Maximize Human Well beingWe can confirm these results by making use of the 2010–2014 Inglehart–Welzel Cultural Map below in order to show how different kinds of value schemes are distributed around the world. That culture map was developed by the World Values Survey (WVS). What is the World Values Survey?“The World Values Survey is a global network of social scientists studying changing values and their impact on social and political life, led by an international team of scholars… The survey, which started in 1981, seeks to use the most rigorous, high-quality research designs in each country… The WVS is the largest non-commercial, cross-national, time series investigation of human beliefs and values ever executed, currently including interviews with almost 400,000 respondents.”WVS Database.The World Culture Map shows how various culture families are arranged based on two sets of opposing values. The vertical axis places various national cultures based upon the degree to which they prefer either “traditional values” or “secular-rational values”. This value opposition is described as follows:“Traditional values emphasize the importance of religion, parent-child ties, deference to authority and traditional family values. People who embrace these values also reject divorce, abortion, euthanasia and suicide. These societies have high levels of national pride and a nationalistic outlook.”“Secular-rational values have the opposite preferences to the traditional values. These societies place less emphasis on religion, traditional family values and authority. Divorce, abortion, euthanasia and suicide are seen as relatively acceptable. (Suicide is not necessarily more common.)”These contrasting sets of values correlate with the distinction I discussed earlier between traditionalists and progressives. Traditionalists embrace “traditional values.” Progressives embrace “secular-rational values.”The horizontal axis of the World Cultures Map places various national cultures based on the degree to which they prefer either “survival values” or “self-expression values”. That value opposition is defined as follows by the World Values Survey:“Survival values place emphasis on economic and physical security. It is linked with a relatively ethnocentric outlook and low levels of trust and tolerance.”“Self-expression values give high priority to environmental protection, growing tolerance of foreigners, gays and lesbians and gender equality, and rising demands for participation in decision-making in economic and political life.”These contrasting sets of values correlate with the distinction I discussed earlier between tribalists and humanists. Tribalists embrace “survival values.” Humanists embrace “self-expression values.”Interestingly, patterns emerge when national cultures are placed along these two dimensions. The countries tend to gather into groups of countries that share a common cultural history.Since the value oppositions correlate with the categories I used to create the grid for political orientations, we can imagine superimposing that grid over the World Cultures Map.The most liberal cultural families tend to locate toward the upper right corner, since liberals tend to prefer secular-rational values and self-expression values over traditional values and survival values. That liberal corner of the map corresponds to the progressive humanist quadrant of the grid.The most conservative cultural families tend to gather in the lower left corner, since conservatives tend to prefer traditional values and survival values over secular-rational values and self-expression values. That corner of the world Cultures Map corresponds to the traditionalist tribalist quadrant of the grid.In the upper left corner of the World Cultures Map can be found communist or former communist countries like China, and the member and satellite countries of the former Soviet Union. The communist revolutions can be seen as a progressive experiment of the twentieth century that did seek progress over the traditionalism that preceded them. Specifically, they sought to limit religious traditionalism using the tribalistic power of an authoritarian government, and they did so with the tribalistic purpose of benefiting a particular class of people: the proletariat (working poor) and/or the peasant farmers. Thus, it makes sense that these countries would tend to gather in the corner that correlates to the progressive tribalistic quadrant of the grid.The fourth corner of the World Cultures Map, the traditionalist humanist corner, is the most sparsely populated corner. This makes sense given that as a country becomes more humanist, its citizens can be expected to demand that the government follow reason and compassion even if those conflict with tradition. Consequently, no countries end up being both strongly humanist and strongly traditionalist. The World Cultures Map includes a large empty space at the traditionalist humanist corner. Countries that fall within the traditionalist humanist quadrant of the World Cultures Map include the Latin American countries, and some English speaking countries including Ireland, the United States, and Canada (the latter 3 being more humanist than the Latin American countries, and more progressive than many of the Latin American countries).We can now test to see which of the four quadrants contain countries that do the best job at establishing the conditions for their citizen’s wellbeing.I have added additional information to the world cultures map below based on information from the 2017 World Happiness Report. World Happiness Report 2017. Data available at World Happiness Report - Wikipedia. I have also added the country rankings from the 2016 Democracy Index, published by the Economist Intelligence Unit of The Economist magazine. Democracy Index 2016. Data available at Democracy Index - Wikipedia.The first number associated with each country is that country’s rank on the Democracy index. The number is blue if the country’s government is classified as a full democracy (ranked 1-19) or flawed democracy (ranked 20-76). The number is red if the government is classified as a hybrid regime or authoritarian regime (ranks 77-158).The second number associated with each country is its rank on the World Happiness Report. That number is blue for countries ranked 1 through 77 and red for countries 78 through 151.A yellow asterisk indicates that the country’s government is one of the 19 full democracies. A blue asterisk indicates that the country is one of the countries with the 19 highest happiness ranks. In most cases, a country with a yellow asterisk also has a blue asterisk showing there is a strong correlation between full democracy, the form of government championed by liberals, and a high happiness rank. Furthermore, the happiest countries tend to fall within the progressive humanist (liberal) quadrant, or in that portion of the traditionalist humanist quadrant that is close to the progressive humanist quadrant.Every country on the liberal side of the light blue dashed line is classified as a full or flawed democracy. All but four of those forty-one countries (South Africa, India, Portugal, and Greece) have blue happiness ranks.If we look at the happiness and democracy ranks for each of the four quadrants, there is a strong pattern in which the countries in the progressive humanist (liberal) quadrant tend to have the highest happiness and Democracy Index ranks, followed by the traditionalist humanist quadrant, which is followed by the progressive tribalist quadrant. The worst happiness and democracy index ranks tend to be found in the traditionalist tribalist (conservative) quadrant.Thus, once again, we have confirmation that the hypothesis that liberalism does the best job at establishing the conditions for the well being of a country’s citizens.It is interesting that the happiness ranks in each of the quadrants tend to be more favorable to the degree that science and reason are free from interference from traditional religion and tribal propaganda in a given quadrant.Third Set of Evidence Confirming the Hypothesis that Liberalism Works Best to Maximize Human Well beingAnother method for confirming the hypothesis that liberalism works best is to look at history. The distant past, when our ancestors were hunter gatherers, and later began to form agricultural communities, were periods when society was dominated by a traditional tribalism (conservatism). In comparison, liberalism has never been as strong as it is now.To test whether conservative values or liberal values lead to more human well being, we only need compare human well being in early human history where conservative values were predominant, to modern history where liberal values are predominant.Steven Pinker’s book, The Better Angels of our Nature, provides extensive evidence that violence has been steadily decreasing over the course of human history. He makes his point in this TED Talk:The surprising decline in violenceClearly the huge reduction in violence he documents indicates a significant improvement in well being, not only because it means people live longer with less tragedy, but also because reductions in violence indicate a reduction in the things that cause violence: fear, robbery, abuse, poverty, exploitation, feuds, and high levels of dissatisfaction.One can identify other factors that show progress from the ancient to the modern world: technology, longevity, less infant mortality, education, less slavery, etc. These developments were all facilitated by the historical increase in progressivism, humanism, and especially the combination of both, progressive humanism (liberalism).Consequently, so long as one prefers the life in the modern world for oneself and one’s family, including all of the benefits that human cooperation based on reason and compassion have provided us, then one should conclude that liberalism works better than conservatism to deliver human well being.Conclusion:Scientists tend to have liberal (progressive) views because:Liberalism does not interfere with science by forcing it to submit to tribal propaganda or traditional religious views, andThe superiority of liberalism for delivering human well being is a well established fact.My Blog: Bryer's Most Popular and other Best Quora Answers

The sociologist Karen Cerulo wrote a book, Identity Designs: The Sights and Sounds of a Nation, which has an extremely interesting theory to explain this. Cerulo borrowed the concept of restricted codes and elaborated codes from linguist Basil Bernstein to argue that any symbol system, not just languages, could be "restricted" or "elaborated." A "restricted" code is a very simple linguistic or symbolic code, but you have to be part of the "in crowd" to know what it all means. An "elaborated" code is a more complex linguistic or symbolic code, but it's more flexible in getting meanings across to different audiences.Cerulo argues that the more united or homogeneous a nation is, the more likely it will be to use restricted codes in its national anthems and its flags. Conversely, if a nation is disunified, it will be more likely to use elaborated codes, because it has to convey meanings to audiences who differ so much from each other.For example, take the nation of Japan. Japan is an extremely culturally and ethnically homogeneous nation. Now take a look at its flag.It's an example of a "restricted" use of symbols. Hi, we're the Land of the Rising Sun. And that's all you need to say. And so, Japan has one of the most beautiful national flags in the world.Now take the nation of Mozambique. Mozambique experienced 15 consecutive years of civil war only two years after becoming independent. That suggests disunity. Thus, Karen Cerulo's theory would predict that, based on how disunified Mozambique was when it was founded, Mozambique's flag would probably use "elaborated" codes.Guess what? Cerulo's theory is absolutely dead on when it comes to Mozambique's flags. The flag is so overcomplicated that it's a designer's nightmare compared to the aesthetically simple Japanese flag. It has the red/black/green color combo associated with pan-Africanism, but combines it with yellow and white stripes in a manner that is certainly not easy on the eyes. Then, you have an AK-47 crossed with a plow, placed on top of an open book, which is placed on top of a yellow star, all of which makes the flag even more visually cluttered. When I look at this flag, I feel envy for the color blind.The same pattern of "restricted" vs. "elaborated" codes is true when dealing with national anthems. An anthem is more likely to be unifying when it uses restricted codes rather than elaborated codes. In practice, this means that the anthem with restricted codes will be easier to sing, the intervals in the song will be relatively small, and the song won't require a broad vocal range.An excellent example of an anthem that Karen Cerulo would classify as a "restricted code" is the French national anthem, La Marseillaise. La Marseillaise is extremely simple to sing and pleasing to the ear. For these reasons, La Marseillaise has an emotionally stirring effect on every self-respecting Frenchman and Frenchwoman. You can't rally people around a song that not everybody can sing! To illustrate my point, take a look at this classic scene from the movie Casablanca in which La Marseillaise is used as a song of defiance against the Nazis:So why doesn't the Star-Spangled Banner have the same effect on citizens of the United States that La Marseillaise has on the French? One reason is that the Star-Spangled Banner is an anthem with an "elaborated" symbolic code that requires a singer to have a wide vocal range and leap over large musical intervals. You'd have thought that Americans would have put more thought into this, but that's where you would be wrong.In reality, the United States of America did not adopt an official national anthem until 1931! It's as if the U.S.A. had won independence from the British and simply neglected selecting an anthem for over 150 years. Oops! Then, when the United States finally did adopt an anthem through a Congressional resolution, it was only enacted after a compromise that named the Star-Spangled Banner as the official anthem, while naming "America" (a.k.a. My Country, 'Tis of Thee) as the unofficial anthem.Interestingly, as Karen Cerulo's theory of "restricted" and "elaborated" codes would predict, the United States adopted an anthem with an "elaborated" musical code at a time when the country was relatively disunified. In 1931, when Congress adopted the Star-Spangled Banner as the official national anthem, the county was experiencing the second year of the Great Depression in an atmosphere of heightening economic and political polarization.One impetus to the adoption of the Star-Spangled Banner as the American national anthem was a Ripley's Believe It or Not!! cartoon published in 1929, which publicized that America had no national anthem ("As recent as 1914, Congress refused to indorse the 'Star-Spangled Banner," claims Robert Ripley) and that the melody for the Star-Spangled Banner was actually based on To Anacreon in Heaven, a tribute to an 8th century Greek poet who wrote constantly about wine, women, and song. When you consider that the United States was in the middle of Prohibition when Ripley published this cartoon, it was a minor scandal akin to what would happen if an Islamic Middle Eastern country suddenly discovered that their national anthem was actually based on a hymn to a pagan Sumerian beer god.To put it mildly, the Star-Spangled Banner was not adopted as the United States national anthem under the most ideal conditions. The lyrics of the Star-Spangled Banner were taken from Francis Scott Key's "Defence of Fort McHenry," which were then arbitrarily matched to the melody from a song that used to be sung at the 18th century British version of a fraternity keg party.Few Americans today have ever bothered to look beyond the first verse of their national anthem. Even though the anthem wasn't officially adopted until 1931, Francis Scott Key wrote the lyrics of the anthem at the height of anti-British feeling in the United States during the War of 1812. Scott Key's reaction to the bombardment of Fort McHenry by British forces was perfectly understandable, but that doesn't make it any less unsettling to see a line in the rarely sung third verse ("Their blood has wash’d out their foul footsteps pollution.") that tries to paint a picture of British blood running through the streets. Aside from the references to "bombs bursting in air" in the first verse, the violent content in some of the later verses of the song led some American pacifists in 1931 to oppose the adoption of the Star-Spangled Banner as the national anthem.Some countries adopt a beloved folk song as their national anthem at the moment of their independence. Other countries adopt a simple easily singable song that can rally their citizens and stir their hearts in a time of crisis. Other countries, such as the United States, have adopted their anthems through a gradual, haphazard process, almost as an afterthought, without considering whether the anthem is melodic or singable enough to attract a mass citizen following.Karen Cerulo refers to these official songs with overly elaborate musical structures as "deviant anthems." Cerulo writes,Although citizens are generally attached to these symbols, the nature of such bonds is far less electrifying than that which ties citizens to normal symbols. In reviewing the deviant anthems in my sample, for instance, I noted that the publics that they serve historically have devoted their emotion toward other songs. For example, Norwegians prefer the folk song "Sonner of Norge det aeldgamie rige" to the nation's deviant anthem. [Note: Cerulo may have confused Sonner of Norge with the unofficial Norwegian anthem Ja, vi elsker dette landet.] Similarly Sweden's deviant anthem competes with several songs, "Ur Svenska hjertans djup en gang" and "Sverige, Sverige fosterland" among them. Venezuelans report greater affection for the song "Alma Llanera" than they do for their deviant anthem. And citizens of Paraguay prefer a folk song entitled "Lovely Country" to the nation's deviant anthem (see Griffith 1952, Mead 1980, Nettl 1967, and Reed and Bristow 1985 for details). In this regard, U.S. readers will no doubt note the frequency with which "America the Beautiful" or "God Bless America" are performed in place of the "Star-Spangled Banner." Indeed, several grass roots movements have attempted to replace the United States' deviant national anthem with one of these alternatives.We can even see this in the ambivalence some Americans feel toward the national anthem today. Some Americans favor America the Beautiful for its stirring words about the natural beauty of the United States, while other Americans favor God Bless America, because they view America the Beautiful and the Star-Spangled Banner as too secular. This was even true after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. When members of Congress convened in the Capitol rotunda after the 9/11 attacks to sing patriotic songs, their spontaneous choice was not the official national anthem, but God Bless America.

He responded in a speech four days after the incident.Here is CCP’s official record, in Chinese. 人民领袖邓小平Here is some recorded video, dubbed in Chinese.Here is its English version, which got translated really well. I read both. It sounds elegant in English, while its Chinese original speech sounds decisive. Deng Xiaoping June 9 SpeechComrades, you have been working very hard. First, I express my profound condolences to the commanders and fighters of the People's Liberation Army [PLA], commanders and fighters of the armed police force, and public security officers and men who died a heroic death; my cordial sympathy to the several thousand commanders and fighters of the PLA, commanders and fighters of the armed police force, and public security officers and men who were injured in this struggle; and cordial regards to all commanders and fighters of the PLA, commanders and fighters of the armed police force, and public security officers and men who took part in this struggle. I propose that we all rise and stand in silent tribute to the martyrs.I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words.This storm was bound to come sooner or later. This is determined by the major international climate and China's own minor climate. It was bound to happen and is independent of man's will. It was just a matter of time and scale. It is more to our advantage that this happened today. What is most advantageous to us is that we have a large group of veteran comrades who are still alive. They have experienced many storms and they know what is at stake. They support the use of resolute action to counter the rebellion. Although some comrades may not understand this for a while, they will eventually understand this and support the decision of the Central Committee.The April 26 Renmin ribao editorial ascertained the nature of the problem as that of turmoil. The word turmoil is appropriate. This is the very word to which some people object and which they want to change. What has happened shows that this judgment was correct. It was also inevitable that the situation would further develop into a counterrevolutionary rebellion.We still have a group of veteran comrades who are alive. We also have core cadres who took part in the revolution at various times, and in the army as well. Therefore, the fact that the incident broke out today has made it easier to handle.The main difficulty in handling this incident has been that we have never experienced such a situation before, where a handful of bad people mixed with so many young students and onlookers. For a while we could not distinguish them, and as a result, it was difficult for us to be certain of the correct action that we should take. If we had not had the support of so many veteran party comrades, it would have been difficult even to ascertain the nature of the incident.Some comrades do not understand the nature of the problem. They think it is simply a question of how to treat the masses. Actually, what we face is not simply ordinary people who are unable to distinguish between right and wrong. We also face a rebellious clique and a large number of the dregs of society, who want to topple our country and overthrow our party. This is the essence of the problem. Failing to understand this fundamental issue means failing to understand the nature of the incident. I believe that after serious work, we can win the support of the overwhelming majority of comrades within the party concerning the nature of the incident and its handling.The incident became very clear as soon as it broke out. They have two main slogans: One is to topple the Communist Party, and the other is to overthrow the socialist system. Their goal is to establish a totally Western-dependent bourgeois republic. The people want to combat corruption. This, of course, we accept. We should also take the so-called anticorruption slogans raised by people with ulterior motives as good advice and accept them accordingly. Of course, these slogans are just a front: The heart of these slogans is to topple the Communist Party and overthrow the socialist system.In the course of quelling this rebellion, many of our comrades were injured or even sacrificed their lives. Their weapons were also taken from them. Why was this? It also was because bad people mingled with the good, which made it difficult to take the drastic measures we should take.Handling this matter amounted to a very severe political test for our army, and what happened shows that our PLA passed muster. If we had used tanks to roll across [bodies?], it would have created a confusion of fact and fiction across the country. That is why I have to thank the PLA commanders and fighters for using this attitude to deal with the rebellion. Even though the losses are regrettable, this has enabled us to win over the people and made it possible for those people who can't tell right from wrong to change their viewpoint. This has made it possible for everyone to see for themselves what kind of people the PLA are, whether there was bloodbath at Tiananmen, and who were the people who shed blood.Once this question is cleared up, we can seize the initiative. Although it is very saddening to have sacrificed so many comrades, if the course of the incident is analyzed objectively, people cannot but recognize that the PLA are the sons and brothers of the people. This will also help the people to understand the measures we used in the course of the struggle. In the future, the PLA will have the people's support for whatever measures it takes to deal with whatever problem it faces. I would like to add here that in the future we must never again let people take away our weapons.All in all, this was a test, and we passed. Even though there are not very many senior comrades in the army and the fighters are mostly children of 18 or 19 years of age -- or a little more than 20 years old -- they are still genuine soldiers of the people. In the face of danger to their lives, they did not forget the people, the teachings of the party, and the interests of the country. They were resolute in the face of death. It's not an exaggeration to say that they sacrificed themselves like heroes and died martyrs' deaths.When I talked about passing muster, I was referring to the fact that the army is still the People's Army and that it is qualified to be so characterized. This army still maintains the traditions of our old Red Army. What they crossed this time was in the true sense of the expression a political barrier, a threshold of life and death. This was not easy. This shows that the People's Army is truly a great wall of iron and steel of the party and state. This shows that no matter how heavy our losses, the army, under the leadership of the party, will always remain the defender of the country, the defender of socialism, and the defender of the public interest. They are a most lovable people. At the same time, we should never forget how cruel our enemies are. We should have not one bit of forgiveness for them.The fact that this incident broke out as it did is very worthy of our pondering. It prompts us cool-headedly to consider the past and the future. Perhaps this bad thing will enable us to go ahead with reform and the open policy at a steadier and better -- even a faster -- pace, more speedily correct our mistakes, and better develop our strong points. Today I cannot elaborate here. I only want to raise a point.The first question is: Are the line, principles and policies adopted by the third plenary session of the Eleventh CPC Central Committee, including our three-step development strategy, correct? Is it the case that because of this rebellion the correctness of the line, principles, and policies we have laid down will be called into question? Are our goals leftist ones? Should we continue to use them as the goals for our struggle in the future? We must have clear and definite answers to these important questions.We have already accomplished our first goal, doubling the GNP. We plan to take twelve years to attain our second goal of again doubling the GNP. In the next fifty years we hope to reach the level of a moderately developed nation. A 2 to 2.9 percent annual growth rate is sufficient. This is our strategic goal.Concerning this, I think that what we have arrived at is not a "leftist" judgment. Nor have we laid down an overly ambitious goal. That is why, in answering the first question, we cannot say that, at least up to now, we have failed in the strategic goals we laid down. After sixty-one years, a country with 1.5 billion people will have reached the level of a moderately developed nation. This would be an unbeatable achievement. We should be able to realize this goal. It cannot be said that our strategic goal is wrong because this happened.The second question is: Is the general conclusion of the Thirteenth Party Congress of one center, two basic points correct? Are the two basic points -- upholding the four cardinal principles and persisting in the open policy and reforms -- wrong?In recent days, I have pondered these two points. No, we have not been wrong. There is nothing wrong with the four cardinal principles. If there is anything amiss, it is that these principles have not been thoroughly implemented: They have not been used as the basic concept to educate the people, educate the students, and educate all the cadres and Communist Party members.The nature of the current incident is basically the confrontation between the four cardinal principles and bourgeois liberalization. It is not that we have not talked about such things as the four cardinal principles, work on political concepts, opposition to bourgeois liberalization, and opposition to spiritual pollution. What we have not had is continuity in these talks, and there has been no action -- or even that there has been hardly any talk.What is wrong does not lie in the four cardinal principles themselves, but in wavering in upholding these principles, and in very poor work in persisting with political work and education.In my CPPCC talk on New Year's Day in 1980, I talked about four guarantees, one of which was the enterprising spirit in hard struggle and plain living. Hard struggle and plain living are our traditions. From now on we should firmly grasp education in plain living, and we should grasp it for the next sixty to seventy years. The more developed our country becomes, the more important it is to grasp the enterprising spirit in plain living. Promoting the enterprising spirit in plain living will also be helpful toward overcoming corruption.After the founding of the People's Republic, we promoted the enterprising spirit in plain living. Later on, when life became a little better, we promoted spending more, leading to waste everywhere. This, together with lapses in theoretical work and an incomplete legal system, resulted in breaches of the law and corruption.I once told foreigners that our worst omission of the past ten years was in education. What I meant was political education, and this does not apply to schools and young students alone, but to the masses as a whole. We have not said much about plain living and enterprising spirit, about the country China is now and how it is going to turn out. This has been our biggest omission.Is our basic concept of reform and openness wrong? No. Without reform and openness, how could we have what we have today? There has been a fairly good rise in the people's standard of living in the past ten years, and it may be said that we have moved one stage further. The positive results of ten years of reforms and opening to the outside world must be properly assessed, even though such issues as inflation emerged. Naturally, in carrying out our reform and opening our country to the outside world, bad influences from the West are bound to enter our country, but we have never underestimated such influences.In the early 1980s, when we established special economic zones, I told our Guangdong comrades that they should conduct a two-pronged policy: On the one hand, they should persevere in reforms and openness, and the other they should severely deal with economic crimes, including conducting ideological-political work. This is the doctrine that everything has two aspects.However, looking back today, it appears that there were obvious inadequacies. On the one hand, we have been fairly tough, but on the other we have been fairly soft. As a result, there hasn't been proper coordination. Being reminded of these inadequacies would help us formulate future policies. Furthermore, we must continue to persist in integrating a planned economy with a market economy. There cannot be any change in this policy. In practical work we can place more emphasis on planning in the adjustment period. At other times, there can be a little more market regulation, so as to allow more flexibility. The future policy should still be an integration of a planned economy and a market economy.What is important is that we should never change China into a closed country. There is not even a good flow of information. Nowadays, do we not talk about the importance of information? Certainly, it is important. If one who is involved in management doesn't have information, he is no better than a man whose nose is blocked and whose ears and eyes are shut. We should never again go back to the old days of trampling the economy to death. I put forward this proposal for the Standing Committee's consideration. This is also a fairly urgent problem, a problem we'll have to deal with sooner or later.This is the summation of our work in the past decade: Our basic proposals, ranging from our development strategy to principles and policies, including reform and opening to the outside world, are correct. If there is any inadequacy to talk about, then I should say our reforms and openness have not proceeded well enough.The problems we face in the course of reform are far greater than those we encounter in opening our country to the outside world. In reform of the political system, we can affirm one point: We will persist in implementing the system of people's congresses rather than the American system of the separation of three powers. In fact, not all Western countries have adopted the American system of the separation of three powers.America has criticized us for suppressing students. In handling its internal student strikes and unrest, didn't America mobilize police and troops, arrest people, and shed blood? They are suppressing students and the people, but we are quelling a counterrevolutionary rebellion. What qualifications do they have to criticize us? From now on, we should pay attention when handling such problems. As soon as a trend emerges, we should not allow it to spread.What do we do from now on? I would say that we should continue to implement the basic line, principles, and policies we have already formulated. We will continue to implement them unswervingly. Except where there is a need to alter a word or phrase here and there, there should be no change in the basic line and basic principles and policies. Now that I have raised this question, I would like you all to consider it thoroughly.As to how to implement these policies, such as in the areas of investment, the manipulation of capital, and so on, I am in favor of putting the emphasis on basic industry and agriculture. Basic industry includes the raw material industry, transportation, and energy. There should be more investment in this area, and we should persist in this for ten to twenty years, even if it involves debts. In a way, this is also openness. We need to be bold in this respect. There cannot be serious mistakes. We should work for more electricity, more railway lines, more public roads, and more shipping. There's a lot we can do. As for steel, foreigners think we'll need some 120 million metric tons in the future. We are now capable of producing about 60 million metric tons, about half that amount. If we were to improve our existing facilities and increase production by 20 million metric tons, we would reduce the amount of steel we need to import. Obtaining foreign loans to improve this area is also an aspect of reform and openness. The question now confronting us is not whether or not the reform and open policies are correct or whether we should continue with these policies. The question is how to carry out these policies: Where do we go and which area should we concentrate on?We must resolutely implement the series of line, principles, and policies formulated since the third plenary session of the Eleventh CPC Central Committee. We should conscientiously sum up our experiences, persevere with what is correct, correct what is wrong, and do a bit more where we have lagged behind. In short, we should sum up the experiences of the present and look forward to the future.