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 , (303) Copyright © 2014 Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess

Test #1

Study Questions

Temporary Page Access Extended Through Test #1

Online Textbook Voucher You can voucher numbers with urgent contact form. I will work with you if you are encountering financial difficulties. $40.00

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 press.org/2014/06/26/the- political-typology-beyond- red-vs-blue/

Liberal Conservative Differences 14/10/21/political- polarization-media-habits/

Boulder, Another One Party Town

Conservative Scholar

Demise of Local Political Reporting

Hidden Persuaders II

Wag the Dog

Koch Brothers million-on-2016-campaign.html

Campaign Finance g/article/campaign- finance-free-for-all-how- we-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?

Free Markets Ayn Rand Alan Greenspan Anti-Government

Adam Smith The Invisible Hand Creative Destruction Anti-Government

 Ronald Reagan  Grover Norquist Scapegoating Government “Government Is the Problem Not the Solution”

Excuses vs. Reasons Privatizing Profits Upside profits go to highly leveraged investors Socializing Risks Downside loses go to taxpayers with bailouts Corporate Welfare Government Bailout & “Moral Hazard”

Trust in Government down.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium= &utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term =Politics

Help the “Invisible Hand” Coontrol the “Invisible Fist” Adam Smith Kenneth Boulding Policies of social organization based purely on self-interest (and greed) have failed! They must be balanced with civic- minded policy making. Pro-Government

Level the Playing Field

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

Assure a Common History Pro-Government Watergate Pecora Hearings

Conflict Arenas Negotiation Legal action Political action Moral competition Economic competition Military confrontation Conflict Actors / Interveners Grassroots Citizens Third SidersProfiteers Competing Interest Groups & Leaders Altruistic & Selfish Motives Altruistic Interveners Self-Interested Interveners Competing Interest Groups & Leaders Altruistic & Selfish Motives Grassroots Citizens Mid-Level Activists 3 rd Party 2 nd 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 , (303) , 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 2 nd Dimension: Distributional Divide

Gold / Purple Divide The “99 %” The “1%” The “1%” of the “1%”

Plutocracy

The 1% vs. the 1% of the 1%

Gold / Purple Divide Predatory Capitalists Machiavellian Politicians Successful Competitors The Less Competitive, The Unlucky, The Lazy The Less Materialistic

Gold / Purple 1%Divide Darwin Mother Teresa Adam Smith

Gold / Purple 1% of 1% Divide Machiavelli Ayn Rand Herbert Spencer

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 , (303) , Copyright © 2014 Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess

Compromisers vs. Fighters: A Different Way of Thinking About Conflict Side A Side B Compromisers Side A FightersSide B Fighters Swing People

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 Side B Compromisers

Side A Side B Compromisers Side A Fighters Fighters

Types of Fighters Side A Side B Compromisers Side A Fighters Swing People Tyrant Wannabes Frustrated Compromisers Altruistic Fighters Tyrant Wannabes Frustrated Compromisers Altruistic Fighters

Side A Side B Compromisers Side A Fighters Swing People

Side A Side B Compromisers Side A Fighters Swing People The central conflict is a battle between Compromisers & Fighters competing for the support of the Swing People Compromiser vs. Fighter Conflict ? ?

Invisible Hand Side A Side B Compromisers Side A Fighters Swing People Tyrant Wannabes Frustrated Compromisers Altruistic Fighters Tyrant Wannabes Frustrated Compromisers Altruistic Fighters Invisible Fist Invisible Hand

Powers Available to Invisible Fist Fighters Side A Side B Compromisers Side A Fighters Swing People Negotiation Legal Action Political Action Propaganda Economic Action Military Action Etc. 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 Compromisers Side A FightersSide B Fighters Swing People 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 Compromisers Side A Fighters Swing People 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 Compromisers Side A Fighters Swing People 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 Side B Compromisers Side A FightersSide B Fighters Swing People unexpectedly-competitive/2014/09/21/7aa3a7e e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html

The Civil War

Guiding Principle: Compassion Karen Armstrong “That which is hurtful to you, do not do to others.” 3 min.

Stop Fighting

Think About a Fight  Parents?  Roommates?  Siblings?  Teachers?  Community?

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)? When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!

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?

`