Why the polls are wrong on Iraq

I do believe in our republic system of government. There’s a reason we don’t have a straight democracy. For a quick review, considering many people won’t understand the difference, a democracy is where the citizens (or the people who have a right to vote) actually vote directly on issues. There are cases where this is evident in our own government, such as propositions on a ballot, but for the most part our government is a republic. Instead of going to the people to vote on every issue, the government consists of elected officials (some appointees). We elect people to go to the centers of government in order to run the country for us (locally, regionally, and nationally).

Democracies are evident all through our country. Any club, association, church, or other group of people to which you belong and in which everything (or nearly everything) must be put to a general vote of the members is an actual democracy. However, our government is almost entirely republican (not the political party, but the system) in nature.

We are hearing a lot about congress’ deliberations about a resolution on the war in Iraq.

I hardly know where to begin. Yes, Iraq is a huge issue of our times - in my mind part of the biggest issue we face - however congress seems more than a little ridiculous at the moment. The reason seems obvious to me: they are not debating the issue, they’re debating how to debate the issue. Senators in particular (I believe because there are fewer of them) seem unwilling to take an actual stand against the war. They take a wishy-washy almost stand that says “I would be against this if it were possible to be against this, but I can’t because it isn’t.”

What is said into a microphone almost always requires reading between the lines. By their own admission the very senators who are not taking a stand now have informed us that in their jobs they must speak with nuance. They say it is because there are no right-and-wrong issues (and you can make a linguistic argument for that, though practical reality says otherwise) but the fact is they need to craft their message in such a way that they can (if this sounds familiar) be for an issue with a certain group of people and against an issue with another group of people.

Why? Because they (in particular senators) represent a large body of constituents, and as they are fond of prating through their megaphone (most media outlets) this is a “nation evenly divided”. While they want you to think momentum is swinging their way, the fact is if they are admitting it is a divided nation, they know a vast portion of the voting public is going to be unhappy with any solid stand they take.

So now we come down to it. Why the polls are wrong on Iraq. I have wanted to state this in two ways for a long time, so here they are (and see how this applies to so many issues of our times).

First: if public opinion were actually so clear cut, the politicians would have no problems taking a stand. Who cares what 30% of their constituents think if the other 70% are going to cheer them madly? If such a huge majority of, say, Hillary Clinton’s constituents (present, and the ones she hopes to represent after 2008) were actually against the war, she would take a firm, loud stand and win any election she cared to contest. The fact must be that there is no clear-cut majority against the war in Iraq.

Here we segue neatly into part two. The bridge is simple. Because the party in opposition feels it necessary to, well, ‘oppose’ (and pretty much oppose anything right down the line) they have to find a way to show that the party in power (and by that, they mean the party that was in power to make certain policies, and the party currently holding the presidency) is wrong. Unfortunately the message coming form the people isn’t that clear cut. So they attempt to create a position with enough ‘nuance’ to appeal to the greatest majority of voters. Therefore...

Second: the polls that were taken were not clear cut. The question was never “do you support the war in Iraq” or “do you approve of President Bush overall?” The questions were multiple choice, generally in graded format (strong support, slight support, neutral, against, strongly against) and with an “I don’t know” column people who are really screwed up can check. I only pay attention to polls that publish their questions and the statistics on not only whom was polled, but who responded. Therefore, the questions I saw were “do you feel we should ‘stay the course’ in Iraq?” or “do you feel our policy on Iraq should be changed?”

Well, I can tell you right now I support the war in Iraq. I feel it is crucial to our foreign policy, our standing in the world, and even our security at home. I believe success in Iraq will bring us closer to a world-wide solution for the overall war we face, and I believe that failure or even semi-success in Iraq will slow that progress down. However, I would have answered neutrally on ‘stay the course’ because I do not understand the connotation of the question. I believe we should stay there, but I believe the commanders on the ground should have plenty of room to maneuver, to respond and change as our enemy responds and changes. I would have also agreed that our policy in Iraq should change dramatically. I think we should start by taking an IED to the Rules of Engagement that our soldiers must currently face, unchain them, and let them go kick ass. That doesn’t mean they should be exempt from all restraint - I do believe innocents must be protected and soldiers to not have license to run amok, however I believe this is war, and their job is to kill the enemy. Not to rape and pillage, but to kill the enemy. Thoroughly.

So my answers, as a solid conservative and member of the Republican Party who supports President Bush (on this issue), takes amazing pride in our military and the greatness of our country, who - in short - would be considered a warmonger by my opponents, would have answered these polls in a way that the opposition party could construe meant I did not support the war in Iraq. However, if I had been asked direct questions: “do you support the war in Iraq” or “do you approve of the job President Bush is doing” I would have landed solidly on the “yes” side.

I believe our politicians are smart enough to know that’s exactly where the country is. They need to rally their own supporters, the people who select which Democrat is going to be elected in the primary, but that they recognize fully that a greater majority of this country supports President Bush and the war in Iraq than is against him or it.

Use your own gut (or nose, if you prefer). You can tell when a series of questions or events in the news does not feel or smell right. The fact is, you are probably more correct than you give yourself credit. I’m not talking about conspiracy theories (which are almost always wrong) but rather in politics and news reporting. It’s too bad the institutions that were designed to give us the greatest weapon against tyranny - information - now require us to become experts in interpretation and how to filter out bias.