Armstrong and politics

[Merckx index]

Many of you may be aware that science is beginning to study political beliefs, asking the question, how are the brains of liberals different from those of conservatives? I posted on the General Politics thread a link to an article summarizing some of the recent research. While there are all kinds of caveats involved in drawing any kinds of conclusions—really, far more than usual difficulties in interpreting any scientific studies—an emerging consensus seems to be that liberals tend to be more comfortable with “informational complexity, novelty, and change”, while conservatives are more comfortable with stability, and in particular, emotional stability. This idea, which now finds some support in imaging studies of the brains of the two groups, is really not all that surprising when one considers that conservatives, by definition, want to preserve older values or ideas, while liberals generally are more receptive to new ones.

Anyway, this research raises for me an interesting question relevant to CN: is there any correlation between people’s political beliefs and their view of Lance Armstrong? There was a time, and really, not all that long ago, when virtually everyone regarded Armstrong as a shining example of what someone with talent, ambition and dedication to training could do. Then stories and evidence about doping began to emerge. Some people became convinced very quickly that he doped. For others, the process took longer. Some people, I think, did not really come warm to the idea until the federal investigation began, and players like Tyler began to tell their stories. And some people, it seems, still have not changed their views, at least not on Armstrong’s place in cycling history.

So one might wonder if this is a liberal/conservative thing. Are liberals more likely than conservatives to accept that Armstrong—or any other sports hero—doped? I really don’t know, which is why I’m creating this poll. I realize the choices are an oversimplification. Political views can’t always be reduced to one philosophy or party or another, and one’s views of Armstrong will depend to some extent on how familiar one is with the cycling world. But if a correlation exists anywhere, it ought to be here, where most people have been exposed to the facts as well as stories for an extended period of time.

 

[redtreviso]

Many of you may be aware that science is beginning to study political beliefs, asking the question, how are the brains of liberals different from those of conservatives? I posted on the General Politics thread a link to an article summarizing some of the recent research. While there are all kinds of caveats involved in drawing any kinds of conclusions—really, far more than usual difficulties in interpreting any scientific studies—an emerging consensus seems to be that liberals tend to be more comfortable with “informational complexity, novelty, and change”, while conservatives are more comfortable with stability, and in particular, emotional stability. This idea, which now finds some support in imaging studies of the brains of the two groups, is really not all that surprising when one considers that conservatives, by definition, want to preserve older values or ideas, while liberals generally are more receptive to new ones.

Anyway, this research raises for me an interesting question relevant to CN: is there any correlation between people’s political beliefs and their view of Lance Armstrong? There was a time, and really, not all that long ago, when virtually everyone regarded Armstrong as a shining example of what someone with talent, ambition and dedication to training could do. Then stories and evidence about doping began to emerge. Some people became convinced very quickly that he doped. For others, the process took longer. Some people, I think, did not really come warm to the idea until the federal investigation began, and players like Tyler began to tell their stories. And some people, it seems, still have not changed their views, at least not on Armstrong’s place in cycling history.

So one might wonder if this is a liberal/conservative thing. Are liberals more likely than conservatives to accept that Armstrong—or any other sports hero—doped? I really don’t know, which is why I’m creating this poll. I realize the choices are an oversimplification. Political views can’t always be reduced to one philosophy or party or another, and one’s views of Armstrong will depend to some extent on how familiar one is with the cycling world. But if a correlation exists anywhere, it ought to be here, where most people have been exposed to the facts as well as stories for an extended period of time.

Conservatives are more likely to support Armstrong.. Anything to get ahead. Cheat ...Rules apply to others..but he did it too...etc..Conservatives would sell their daughters into prostitution if it could improve their station in life.

 

[Tank Engine]

Mmm.. Don't really fit in any of those categories. I remember reading an article during the Armstrong era arguing that he doped. The only thing that I remember was being annoyed at the author for making it look like Armstrong had gone from being a cart horse to a race horse due to the juice. I suspected that Armstrong doped and as more evidence came out accepted it without any soul searching, but the process from suspicion to conviction lasted a while. I guess that's to a large degree associated to my profession (mathematician/statistician), but the lack of soul searching might also be due to the fact that I was never really an Armstrong fan. I was definitely a Millar fan before his ban, but that was a clear cut case.

As for my politics, in European terms I'm a liberal social democrat, which probably translates to the independent side of liberalism over the pond.
Maybe the first is the closest.

 

[Amsterhammer]

A very interesting and thought provoking topic!

I don't see myself fitting into any of the listed categories either. My views are left wing by European standards, which would make me a raging commie in US terms, especially since I see today's US 'liberals' as at best center-right in Euro terms.

I 'adopted' LA as a rider I liked and would follow after I watched him win the WC in Oslo. I continued to support him through his battle with cancer and most of his wins, though with ever increasing skepticism as my brain fought it out with my heart. You don't lightly 'drop' a sportsman (or team) that you've been following for ages. Eventually though, my head convinced my heart to give it up. I am now most of all saddened and disappointed by his continued lying, rather than by the fact that he was (by whatever means) the best doper in an age of dopers. I will, however, never have it in me to be the kind of rabid hater that many on this forum are.

 

[The Hitch]

Please could you specify that this is AMERICAN politics not general politics.

I do not accept these idiotic terms liberal and conservative, especially since classic liberals have nothing to do with what Americans for some reason now know as liberals, and conservatives can be of any political stripe whatsoever, so long as they believe the answers are in the past - eg Stalinists in Communist party where conservatives.

Also the idea of classifying people as left and right (far better terminology btw) is wrong in my opinion. Any person who takes themselves seriously should consider all political issues with an open mind, and therefor in 99% of cases end up with some opinions from the right, some from the left, some from the centre.

This glorification of being a conservative or liberal slips people into groups and teaches them to think like a "conservative"/ "liberal"

Which ties in directly into the Armstrong situation.

If you think for yourself, rather than for your side, you will assess the situation in a unbiased manner, and most likely come to the expected conclusion as to whether Sr armstrong doped or not.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Please could you specify that this is AMERICAN politics not general politics.

That's a fair point, though I also think that anyone who is likely to be interested in replying to this topic would be aware that the terms used are in the US context of 'conservative' and 'liberal'.

The rest of your post also made some fair and interesting points which, I venture to suggest, would be welcome in the Gen. Pol. topic.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Many of you may be aware that science is beginning to study political beliefs, asking the question, how are the brains of liberals different from those of conservatives?

The problem with such a study is that most people cannot define what either term means, or why it appeals or applies to them. Couple this with the fact that these terms have become rubber terms. Stretched to mean whatever you want them to mean, often as a pejorative.

As to Armstrong, if he somehow escapes the whole doping thing (not likely), I could see him becoming a born again Christian and entering office as a conservative Republican, absolutely. First as a mayor of one of the towns where he owns a house, then, if he wins there and doesn't do too poorly, running for governor of Texas.

 

[The Hitch]

Even if they are American terms they are still wrong.

They are so vague that 90 % of political positions dont fit on here.


Conservative, Liberal and Independent.

I dont think any of the thinkers or writers i have ever admired would fit on this poll. Neither would I . None of those terms begin to describe their or my political positions.

Nor would most political leaders in history.

Not only that, but if you want to just throw around vague terms for people to fit into, where for example is "socialist"?

Are they supposed to click liberal? Because most socialists ive read would turn in their graves.

 

[The Hitch]

First as a mayor of one of the towns where he owns a house, then, if he wins there and doesn't do too poorly, running for governor of Texas.

Being such a d*** to Sastre and Contador isnt going to help him with the Latino vote there in southern texas

 

[Amsterhammer]

Even if they are American terms they are still wrong.

Agree absolutely! But, sad as it is, those are the definitions by which one is labeled in US political discourse. One of the many, many things desperately in need of fundamental change...but again, this isn't the topic (imho) for this particular discussion.

 

[python]

eurorope has always thought in terms of left or right.

i can appreciate and understand american political definitions but, generally, agreeing with the hitch here, i find them funny - (edit) if not pointless and silly - as much as this thread as a whole.

can't place it, honestly, b/c i don't understand connections.

 

[ElChingon]

word to the wise, if you drag that politics thread conversation outside of that thread - even by accident - I WILL ban you permanently AND add your name to the international webforum adminstrator blacklist so you can never post again, anywhere

Oh the gauntlet has been put down! I expect a new name on the banned list! Or...

Ref: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=705211&postcount=35

 

[Merckx index]

Please could you specify that this is AMERICAN politics not general politics.

I don’t entirely agree. Though I’m American, I have many Euro friends, and I find the liberal/conservative division there, too. Granted, on economic issues, the typical Euro is well to the left of the typical American, but that doesn’t mean that there is no left-right thinking on those issues, just that the center is in a different position. And on other issues, like immigration, there are obviously a significant number of Europeans who are just as far to the right as Americans.

Of course the importance of the distinction can be over-stated, but one value of the scientific studies is to find out just how meaningful it is to see people in this way. I think the studies have the potential to get beyond the surface manifestations of the mindset, which may vary widely in different cultures, and get at more fundamental attitudes. So you might say that someone with a particular attitude towards change will find himself in one part of the political spectrum in America, and another in Europe. IOW, it helps us to appreciate the effects of both culture and genetics/early development on political views.

If you think for yourself, rather than for your side, you will assess the situation in a unbiased manner, and most likely come to the expected conclusion as to whether Sr armstrong doped or not.

The whole point of the study is to get at HOW people think “for themselves”. There are different ways to do it. In the specific case of Armstrong, some people become convinced on the basis of less evidence than others. That doesn’t mean that either type is wrong, only that some people put more value on their past beliefs than others do, and require more evidence before changing them.

For all the examples of people who have stubbornly held on to beliefs long after most of the world has moved on—anti-evolutionists, for example--there are plenty of counter-examples of people who embraced new ideas well before there is sufficient evidence to support them—some New Agers, for example. It would be nice if we could all find the perfect balance, when to discard old ideas and embrace new ones, but no one has yet found that perfect balance.

As to Armstrong, if he somehow escapes the whole doping thing (not likely), I could see him becoming a born again Christian and entering office as a conservative Republican, absolutely.

I can’t. He has significant ties to the Democratic party (not just Fabiani), and has frequently described himself as an atheist/agnostic. I note the irony of your associating born-again Christianity with conservative Republicanism right after implying that the liberal/conservative divide is meaningless.

I dont think any of the thinkers or writers i have ever admired would fit on this poll. Neither would I . None of those terms begin to describe their or my political positions.

I think you are conflating the fact that some people—your avatar is a good example—have a mixture of liberal and conservative views with the notion that we can’t distinguish these views. Just because someone is liberal on some issues and conservative on others doesn’t mean the terms are meaningless. They are meaningful because a) they do refer fundamentally to one’s attitude towards change, something that can be and often is expressed in many areas of life not necessarily considered political; and b) there is a strong tendency, certainly in the U.S. and I believe elsewhere, for people who express an attitude to one area of political affairs to express the same attitude towards other areas. If that were not the case, it would be impossible for political parties to survive. They have to coalesce around not simply one issue, but a mindset that views numerous issues in the same way.

 

[The Hitch]

Actually its not Europe that I am talking about. Another power which greatly overates its importance. European nations will frequently take polls of France German Great Britain and 10 or so other West European Nations, claim this represents world opinion then pat themselves on the back as to how great the world would be if they run it.

But Europe is not neccesarily more left than America. Americans make the mistake of thinking pro Americanism = right, anti Americanism = left, and Europe cares a lot less for America so they think this means Europe is left.

But in reality its patriotism = right, not pro Americanism. The right wingers are patriotic too, just about their own countries not America. Their not going to go around saying that America is great because they are too busy saying that their own country is great.

On pretty much every other issue Europe is just as right as America. In fact probably more so. There are more racists and racist organisations in Europe. Certainatly there is no National Front or BNP in the United States.

Right wing economics is just as popular in Europe as in America. In fact at the moment, while the economy is the main issue, very few European democracies have a left wing party in power.

On the environment there are just as many sceptics as in America. Britain one of what America would call the more "liberal" (god that makes me cringe) countries has a very heated debate going on about whether global warming is real.

Immigration is very strongly opposed in many European democracies. Very very strongly.

Religion too. America does have more Religious nutjobs, at least of the Christian variety. But Europe too has a large religious base, the only difference is that in America they are more vocal because of the Abortion and Evolution issues which arent really issues here, so the morons dont get exposed. Nevertheless religion plays a big part. A European leader will no more dare to critiscise religion than an American one. In America there are no religous parties. In Europe the Christian Democrats rule half the nations and apart from them, you have fully blown religious parties started by priests.

Europe is no more right wing than America.


As to liberal conservative division, the problem isnt that there is no left right divide, but that these words mean something different. They do not mean left and right. They arent even mutually exclusive. Liberals can be conservatives for example.

You and many Americans seem to think that these terms cover the spectrum but I say they are but 2 very small sections of the political landscape.

Political ideologies are like American states, America isnt split into 2 states but 50 states, and in the same way Politics isnt 2 ideologies but many many different ones. .

Americans increasingly use these terms as if they meant left or right. They should not be abused so.

Much of what is now classified as liberal in America is contrary to liberalism and much of what is classified as conservatism is not conservative at all.

And even if you mean left vs right, well most of the lefts greatest battles have been between itself, same with the right. Many socialists despise liberals more than they do conservatives. What should a socialist choose on your poll? What about a fascist, or a communist or a Anarchist, or a natonalist?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Agree with you Hitch. Some well thought out posts here. However, if we're to continue along this path we need to do so in the Politics Thread.

Posts from here on out need to concentrate on Armstrong's particular (potential) involvement in politics. Any other comments will be moved to the politics thread.

 

[The Hitch]

Ok then, well my choice will be a write in candidate.

Non affiliated, easy acceptance.

 

[BroDeal]

I don't see that it has much to do with your political leanings. Do left wingers get bamboozled by conmen more often than right wingers? It comes down to whether you are a sucker or not. Both sides are filled with people who lack critical thinking skills, refuse to acknowledge reality in the face of overwhelming evidence, and rationalize their beliefs no matter how silly they are.

In my book cycling fans who years ago could not figure out that Armstrong was a doper are pretty dang stupid, regardless of their political beliefs.

 

[Maxiton]

<snip>
I dont think any of the thinkers or writers i have ever admired would fit on this poll. Neither would I . None of those terms begin to describe their or my political positions.

Nor would most political leaders in history.

Not only that, but if you want to just throw around vague terms for people to fit into, where for example is "socialist"?

Are they supposed to click liberal? Because most socialists ive read would turn in their graves.

Agreed. And I think it's a valid point to raise in this thread, and directly germane to it.

Being such a d*** to Sastre and Contador isnt going to help him with the Latino vote there in southern texas

I know what he's done to Contador (and I believe we have Armstrong to thank, or his direct influence, for Contador's possible ban). What did he do to Sastre?

As for me, I classsify myself among those who don't have a box to check (though I did check one), and I had no problem accepting that Armstrong doped. I really think you can't look into it at all without coming to that conclusion.

 

[hfer07]

I never thought I would post on this ridiculous thread, but I'm just going to express some ideas here:

First of all-Republicans & all Conservative people in this country "Detest Cycling and everything about it" why? by many of them- the bicycle riders reflect in their clothing a sort of "wrong" sexual orientation(they say)-the majority of that group wholeheartedly believe bicycles are a "retrograde way of transportation"-even an "obstacle for vehicles & development" and lastly-those "traditional value enforcers" are likely inclined to practice hunting, golf, sports cars/motorized vehicles, fishing, sealing and many other activities way apart form our sport..... based on the above, I don't think I have to explain whose political supporters are likely to favor LA, do I? (and if you thought Liberals/democrats are the ones, you might want to think again)