The Terrorism Effect

Are voters sensitive to terrorism? The Monkey Cage refers to the latest issue of the American Political Science Review in which a RAND Working Paper deals with the Israeli example.

The results consistently document, across different empirical specifications, that terrorism causes an increase on the relative support for the right bloc of parties.

It’s a detailed 40-page-long study, and the problem with it is, well, that it states the almost-obvious. Nevertheless, at this stage of the American political race, and with people starting to believe that only a major atmosphere-shifting event can propel John McCain into the White House, I think this article might attract some interest:

The particularities of the Israeli case notwithstanding, the revealed empirical evidence on the consequences of terror fatalities may describe similar patterns elsewhere. This case study may teach us general lessons based on over fifty years of dealing with terrorism. These lessons show that terror attacks affect the electorate, substantiating the hypothesis that democracies are especially susceptible to be targeted by terror organizations.

And what do we learn from the Israeli example?

the occurrence of a terror attack before an election (or the lack thereof) can clearly determine the electoral outcome… terrorism not only affected the composition of every Israeli parliament during the time period at issue, but it may had very well determined which party obtained a plurality in two of the elections analyzed. This appears to be the case for the elections of 1988 (where the Likud defeated Labor by one mandate) and the elections of 1996 (where Netanyahu defeated Peres by less than 30,000 votes). Moreover, note that an additional terror attack within 3 months of the 1992 elections could have shifted the majority of the parliament from the left to the right bloc of parties (the actual difference between the two blocs was 61 to 59 parliament members in favor of the left bloc).

This means that an additional terror attack in 1992 could have killed the Oslo process–which makes one think about the strange ways of terror, and the deranged ways in which it serves to destroy both victim and aggressor alike.

0
Shares
Google+ Print

The Terrorism Effect

Must-Reads from Magazine

A Secularist vs. the Progressive Faith

A double standard is, in fact, a standard. Just an immoral one.

Really it should come as no surprise that the scientist and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins is the latest public figure to have fallen victim to a disinviting mania. After all, if a darling of the left feminist like Germaine Greer can face a campaign to silence her over her views on transgenderism or a woman of color like Ayaan Hirsi Ali can face similar attempts to have her free speech on campus canceled, why should Dawkins be spared?

27
Shares
Google+ Print

Unmasking Is Not a Distraction

Democrats will regret treating this as a partisan issue.

Whenever a former Obama administration official’s name comes up in the process of investigating the Trump campaign’s alleged links to Russian sources, Democrats take the position that the right’s penchant for “whataboutism” neutralizes the implication of wrongdoing. The Democratic objective is to shame those who are committed to crafting a full and unbiased portrait of the events of 2016 into ignoring inconvenient facts, but the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee remains unintimidated.

12
Shares
Google+ Print

Will Mattis Betray the Gulf Allies?

Has Mattis gone rogue?

At the core of the Qatar dispute is the question of Qatar’s support for extremism. While many Gulf states have histories of donating to or promoting radical Islamism, many have made real reforms. Saudi Arabia, for example, became much more serious about the need to curtail support for radical groups after the Kingdom started suffering blowback with terrorists targeting foreigners living in Saudi Arabia and senior Saudi officials. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, meanwhile, has cracked down not only on the Muslim Brotherhood but has also moved to sever the life-line Egypt often provided Hamas leaders in Gaza. Qatar, however, continues to set itself above the rest in its support for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

12
Shares
Google+ Print

Partisanship Masquerading as Wisdom

Anger over health care clouds the left's judgment.

Nate Silver spoke for most of the liberal blogosphere when he objected to the mainstream media’s coverage of Senator John McCain’s speech on the Senate floor on Tuesday.

35
Shares
Google+ Print

A Familiar Paranoia

Donald Trump sees disloyalty even in his closest supporters.

In a performance that would have shocked sensibilities if they weren’t already flogged to the point of numbness, President Trump delivered a nostalgic, campaign-style stem-winder on Monday to a troop of boy scouts. The commander-in-chief meandered between crippling self-pity and gauche triumphalism; he moaned about his treatment by the “fake media,” praised himself for the scale of his Electoral College victory, and pondered aloud whether to dub the nation’s capital a “cesspool” or a “sewer.” Most illuminating in this manic display was an exposition on the virtues of fealty. “We could use some more loyalty; I will tell you that,” the president mused. These days, Trump seems fixated on treachery—among Republicans in Congress, among his Cabinet officials, and among his subordinates in the administration. His obsession may yet prove his undoing.

10
Shares
Google+ Print