Kind of doubt this was an accident:
With the Pope Francis’ visit to the US, it is nearly impossible to turn on the news and not hear something about it (and Boehner retiring, but apparently that’s related, too). And, invariably, in those same news stories, you also hear about how the U.S.’s Catholic conservatives are criticizing or feel somehow alienated by this current Pope. While his position on social justice, global economics, abortion, and homosexuality has received considerable criticism, the Pope’s stance on climate change has triggered almost a toxic response from a number of conservative circles, including from many Republican presidential candidates.
Now, ignoring the fact that Pope Francis’ approval rating is 90% among US Catholics (implying that something must ring true about his message to most Americans), and ignoring a recent study by the Public Religion Research Institute that finds that most non-white U.S. Catholics actually agree with the Pope’s position, it makes a lot of sense why the head of one of the world’s largest religions would take the position he does regarding climate change.
Because everyone else is getting in on this news story, I decided to add my own quick reaction.
As a political scientist with a keen interest in how institutional design can impact political behaviors, I’ve always found FIFA’s governing structure an interesting example on how to design a (political) system in a way that almost guarantees corruption. Take a bunch of officials with no real (electoral) accountability, allow them to operate in a nontransparent manner, and give them control of easily lootable resources. Sound remarkably how the Democratic Republic of the Congo is run, actually. Continue Reading