View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by Thomas E. Brewton |
December 28th, 2006
The only thing that most Americans know about our involvement in Iraq is that around 3,000 Americans have been killed there since the invasion.
With mounting stridency, news media demand to know why President Bush fails to bow to public opinion expressed in the recent Congressional elections and pull our troops out of Iraq.
The underlying assumption is that public opinion, expressed in elections or opinion polls, in all cases represents truth and wisdom. As I wrote in "The Limitations of Public Opinion," such is seldom the case when complex policy matters are the subject of those opinions.
The stock market, for example, gives us a daily, broad spectrum opinion poll reflecting the outlook for business. Obviously, however, very few people have the knowledge and resources to become rich and to keep their wealth over time simply through knowing what composite market opinion is at any given time.
Similarly, as Plato noted in downgrading uninformed opinion as a guide for policy, when someone is seriously ill, he seeks expert medical advice. Most people would agree with him that it is nonsense to got into the streets to poll random strangers for their opinions about what medical treatment should be prescribed.
Why then should we insist that voters' opinions set our foreign policy, in Iraq, or anywhere else?
David Broder, the éminence grise of Washington Post columnists, wrote in a column dated December 14, 2006,
This is hardly the first time I have been reminded that people of high standing in the political community can be unfamiliar to most voters. When Richard Lugar of Indiana, for two decades the leading Republican Senate voice on foreign policy and a widely admired statesman, entered the 1996 Republican presidential race, no one in New Hampshire seemed to have heard of him.
The reason in both cases is that the national political press corps does not see its responsibility to spotlight all the people vying for the presidential nominations. Rather, our tendency is to narrow the field as quickly as possible and define who we think the "serious" candidates may be.
These early judgments are based on polls, financial reports and what I would call the "buzz" factor of novelty or excitement.
Here is the key quotation from his column:
But polls are unreliable when those surveyed know almost nothing about the candidates.
The only thing that most Americans know about our involvement in Iraq is that around 3,000 Americans have been killed there since the invasion.
Most voters know nothing about the geopolitical stakes or the intricate interrelations among the contending powers in the Middle East. Most have not the foggiest idea of what consequences almost surely would follow, were we to withdraw our troops as House Speaker-designate Pelosi and Congressman Murtha demanded.
New Deal liberalism in the 1930s transformed the media into the the creator and shaper of public morality. Whatever “wrong” the media chooses to publicize and whatever “remedy” it chooses to support tends to become public opinion. As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (and Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels) said, there being no independent standards of truth or morality, truth is whatever wins out in the marketplace.
Liberal-socialist-progressive doctrine became so-called mainstream opinion only as recently as the New Deal in the 1930s. The simple fact of the matter is that the “mainstream” worshipped by left-wing media is socialism, running as fast as it can, away for the Jeffersonian individualism of our original Constitution.
And when public opinion in that sense is the mode of government, with no value placed on respect for morality, religion, and tradition, we are under the sway of Tocqueville’s tyranny of the majority. This, of course, is the process we saw when throngs blocked public streets to demand “constitutional rights” for illegal immigrants.
A basic tenet of liberal-socialist-progressive, mainstream opinion is that wars are caused by capitalist greed. Thus the invasion of Iraq was, in liberal opinion, concocted (Bush "lied") to enrich large corporations that contribute money to Republican politicians.
Liberals point out that socialist policies of the New Deal, even though ineffective in ending the Depression, were widely popular. Changing public opinion, in liberal orthodoxy, is a legitimate way to "amend" the Constitution and far simpler than the procedure prescribed in Article V.
Never mind that Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution confers the executive powers of the Federal government upon the President and grants him authority as commander of our armed forces in time of war. Newly minted “mainstream” opinion is to be accepted by the executive branch and the Federal judiciary as having superceded the words of the Constitution.
Unfortunately, popular opinion as the basis for political legitimacy cuts both ways.
In a society supposedly based on the rule of law, it is not sufficient that large numbers, even a majority, of Americans support policies that damage the Constitution. The same criterion would have legitimized the National Socialist subjugation of Europe by Adolf Hitler, who was enthusiastically supported by the opinion of forty million Germans.
If the only sanction necessary for public policy is volatile public opinion, then there is no need for a Constitution. Constitutions by definition embody the unchanging, underlying principles of political society. The checks and balances of our Constitution were intended precisely to forestall mob action, to prevent short-run public opinion from becoming the determinant of public policy.
viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com
Visit their website at: http://www.thomasbrewton.com/
Responses to "Iraq Policy and Public Opinion"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Short response:
- "The only thing that most Americans know about our involvement in Iraq is that around 3,000 Americans have been killed there since the invasion."
This betrays a profound moral fatuousness. As if the fact that around 3,000 Americans have been killed is, apparently, trivial. "The ONLY thing…"
As I recall, the invasion was touted as a "cakewalk", yes?
- "In a society supposedly based on the rule of law, it is not sufficient that large numbers, even a majority, of Americans support policies that damage the Constitution. The same criterion would have legitimized the National Socialist subjugation of Europe by Adolf Hitler, who was enthusiastically supported by the opinion of forty million Germans."
This is utter sophistry. Public opinion re/ the war in Iraq has nothing to do with changing the Constitution or putting Adolf Hitler into the White House.
It does raise the question as to whether the American people have any say in how their money and the lives of their children are spent, or whether they are supposed to go along with whatever G.W. and his GOP "experts" advocate.
– Probably nobody cares, but original support for invading Iraq was based on claims that Hussein had links to Al Q'aida and that he had an arsenal of mass destruction.
That is, support for the war was drummed up by fearmongering premises that turned out to be NOT TRUE.
– If we do not believe people should have a say in matters of life-and-death, then it is unclear what all of this "spreading democracy throughout the world" is all about.
A democracy in which the elite class ignores the people's opinion is an odd definition of the word "democracy".
Long response, in satirical form:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/salyer2.html
Comment by J.D. | December 28, 2006
"Why then should we insist that voters' opinions set our foreign policy, in Iraq, or anywhere else?"
In order to avoid being a hypocrite.
Because whenever the voters agree with you, Mr. Brewton, you cry that you have received a "mandate".
Comment by J.D. | December 28, 2006
Mr. Brewton, you have most certainly hit on something here. For the J.D.'s of the world, method is truth. But you will know in short order that you have hit on a nerve.
Now, the question becomes what is really at work here? How did we go from a very limited notion of "democracy" — a democracy of a very privileged few (essentially white male property owning Christians), who only voted directly for the House of Representatives — the Senate and President were left to an even more select few, to the multi-cultural open society democracy? How did we go from a constitutional republic where the political decisions close to a man's family were local and the national government was held at bay, except for that truly national responsibilities set out in the Constitution like war? How did the Supreme Court gain the right by fiat to turn our federal system on its head with the Selective Incorporation Doctrine and the Commerce Clause?
For these and many more question your provocative essay raises, a suggestion. Science = Certainty / Democracy = Uncertainty reciprocal.
All the best and stay at it. It is a nation at issue here. It happens to be our nation.
David Yerushalmi
Comment by David Yerushalmi | December 28, 2006
Let's remember: the President is the Chief Executive of the U.S. and is elected to
that postion by the people. The people's opinion might change during his tenure,
and they may vote in, or out legislators. But the President does not have to change
his policy.
When you think of it, the Democrat majority is very thin, and could disappear as
easily as it occurs.
Lastly: Holmes and Goebbels are unfortunately accurate.
What is needed is forcefully compelling communicator in the G.W. Bush, and he just
does not have that skill.
Comment by spitfire9447 | December 28, 2006
Responses to responses:
First…JD:
- “The only thing that most Americans know about our involvement in Iraq is that around 3,000 Americans have been killed there since the invasion.”
This betrays a profound moral fatuousness. As if the fact that around 3,000 Americans have been killed is, apparently, trivial. “The ONLY thing…”
People die in war. If the only thing people know about the war is the death count…then yes, the death count becomes irrelevant. And in fact, if we want to tout death counts, the fact that it took more than three years to mount the number of dead as in a single day of peace, your argument falls flat on it's face.
As I recall, the invasion was touted as a “cakewalk”, yes?
The invasion WAS a cake walk. Saddam's regime fell in two weeks.
This is utter sophistry. Public opinion re/ the war in Iraq has nothing to do with changing the Constitution or putting Adolf Hitler into the White House.
Yawn. You ignore the issue. Our entire system of gov't was put into place to ignore the will of the simple majority in favor of righteousness. War should not be governed by popular opinion, as less than 1/10th of our people have served in the armed forces of any kind. There is no intelligent reason we should listen to non-military personel, on how a war should be fought.
It does raise the question as to whether the American people have any say in how their money and the lives of their children are spent, or whether they are supposed to go along with whatever G.W. and his GOP “experts” advocate.
Please tell me. What does Michael Moore have invested in this war that I dont?
– Probably nobody cares, but original support for invading Iraq was based on claims that Hussein had links to Al Q’aida and that he had an arsenal of mass destruction.
That is, support for the war was drummed up by fearmongering premises that turned out to be NOT TRUE.
Except for the fact that Saddam did in fact have links to al Quida and we in fact found WMDs. Yawn. Being anti-war is hardunless one only listens to the facts one likes.
– If we do not believe people should have a say in matters of life-and-death, then it is unclear what all of this “spreading democracy throughout the world” is all about.
This is in and of itself stupid. Let's put it in real world context for you. The American vote on war determines not whether or not Iraqis get to vote, but whether or not they face genocide. Do I think you should get a vote on this? Of course not. If it was you in the seat of facing either getting to vote under dangerous circumstances for your own destiny (voting yes on staying in Iraq) or getting left to the devices of nearby countries that wanted you to be destroyed (a vote on leaving) I doubt you'd want any other than your own vote to count. In that vein, why should you be allowed to determine whether millions of Iraqis live or die.
You shouldn't.
A democracy in which the elite class ignores the people’s opinion is an odd definition of the word “democracy”.
Yawn. Democrats don't get to complain about an elite ignoring the majorty.
Comment by J.D. | December 28, 2006
“Why then should we insist that voters’ opinions set our foreign policy, in Iraq, or anywhere else?”
In order to avoid being a hypocrite.
That's not even a reason.
Because whenever the voters agree with you, Mr. Brewton, you cry that you have received a “mandate”.
I'm sorry, I must've misheard Nancy Pelosu when she said that the majority that she got was a mandate.
Both parties do it. Be real.
Comment by WolvenBear | December 29, 2006
Just so I understand, we belong in Iraq because
1. Weapons of Mass Destruction
2. Hussein is connected to Al-Quaida
3. To liberate the Iraqi people
4. Because if we do not win now, Iraq will become the battle cry for every Islamo-fascist in the world in how to defeat America.
Mr. Brewton, are you suggesting that now the American people are not to be burdened with such things as reasoning behind the deaths of 3,000 American lives and should just trust the leadership of this country that they are doing the right thing? I completely understand the basis of your article is saying policy should not follow public opinion, but you back that up by blaming the media, the weak spine of the majority, and throw Hitler in just for fun. Why not ask a more serious question, why has a war with 80 percent approval rating in its inception dropped to 33 percent today? My opinion is simple on this, we have not fought a real war. We have fought the struggle of public opinion hoping to remain civil and peace minded in the eyes of the world all the while attempting to solve the problems of a people and a country older than any shred of America. Mr. Bush once made a claim that America is not in the business of nation building, which I agreed with at the time. I understand that everything changed on September 11, but I completely disagree with how Mr. Bush has waged this war. He has allowed public opinion to sway against democracy and against winning. He has allowed the media to make the differences within America more valueable than the differences between America and Iraq. He has allowed the right of free speech and media to sabotage the spread of democracy. He has done this by waging war while trying to represent peace. He should have destroyed the enemy with NO regard of colleteral damage. He should have destroyed Iraq and all of its remnants, its culture, its very being. Viet-Nam proved that waging war and playing humanitarian at the same time simply does not work. In order to build the nation of Iraq, it first must be destroyed. If America is not prepared for that, then we do not belong there.
Mr. Brewton, this is the real battle of public opinion versus policy. Mr. Bush knew the destruction of Iraq complete with plenty of dead women and children would be a tough sell, and he chose not to destroy the enemy. In conclusion, I agree with the premise of Mr. Brewton, policy should not be determined by an opinion poll, policy should be determined by what is best for America. My argument is simply this, Bush is the one who caved.
Comment by Honker | December 29, 2006
"Except for the fact that Saddam did in fact have links to al Quida and we in fact found WMDs. "
George Bush: "Now, look, I — part of the reason we went into Iraq was — the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction."
Yes, I'm an America-hating Michael Moore fan, much like that Commie pinko Tom Clancy, who described the war as lacking a "casus belli", or suitable provocation:
“It troubles me greatly to say that, because I’ve met President Bush. He’s a good guy… But good men make mistakes.”
The war in Afghanistan was provoked, and did have a legitimate goal: To capture or kill Osama bin Laden in retaliation for Sept 11th.
Not to make sure Afghan women had the right to buy issues of Cosmopolitan.
The discussion that is being had over Iraq is actually the one we should be having over Afghanistan– why has a legitimate foreign policy goal not been accomplished? And why did we start a war with a country that had not attacked us, when we had not yet achieved the first goal? (And if you can't distinguish the difference between the socialist Ba'ath Party and Al Q'aida, I guess we got nothing more to talk about.)
Following the last 2 presidential elections, Democrats bleated about how stupid the electorate are for putting Bush into power. Now, following the last Congressional election, Democrats are suddenly bleating about "a change in the wind" and "power to the people."
I assume you all can recognize this, since I'm bashing Democrats. People can usually recognize flaws when they are pointed about people they hate. It's the flaws on their own side that they have trouble seeing.
But now, consider– how are Republicans any different in "methodology"? When Bush was elected– "Hoo-ray! The people have spoken!" quoth GOP faithful.
But Republicans got trounced in the last round of Congressional elections, and the American people are turning against the war, and now we're hearing about how the people are stupid hoi-poloi who don't know anything.
What's the difference between liberal elitism and Republican elitism? I'd really like to know.
What's the difference between you all sneering at the opinion of the public, and some Greenday-listening punk in Che Guevera T-shirt talking about how stupid everybody is? (Except for himself, of course.)
I'm not saying follow the mob– I'm saying be consistent. If the average Joe is a stupid cow whose opinion is worthless, then stop complaining when leftist elitist intellectuals at universities try to enlighten Joe's children on things like abortion, gay marriage, and feminism.
Comment by J.D. | December 29, 2006
It cracks me up when people say there was no justification for Iraq.
Let us assume (none of it is correct), but let us assume nonetheless that: 1. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. 2. He had no links to al Quida. 3. We did not fight the war brutal enough. So what?
If I tell you that I have a gun and I'm going to use it to shoot you, you don't ask questions…you take action. You either call the police, or, if you have a gun, you shoot me yourself. Same deal in Iraq.
EVERYONE (which does not just mean the U.S., but every single member nation of the U.N., including France) had information that Saddam had WMDs. Considering under the cease fire argreement he wasn't allowed to, this alone is cause for war. He broke the ceasefire by shooting at our patroling planes every day for over a decade. This alone is cause for war. He refused the U.N. access to the very sites where he held his weapons (one is very dense indeed if they think that he was denying them access to empty bunkers). Again this alone is cause for war.
3 seperate reasons why Bush didn't have to be right to go to war. Even if you believe he made a mistake, to say that the war is unjustified (quoting Clancy or not) is incorrect.
"Iraq did not have WMDs!"
Well, yeah, they kinda did.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
While they're not the greatest finds in the world, they do in fact confirm that Saddam had not disposed of his weapons.
Plus there's the number two general in Iraq, George Sada, who says all of Saddam's best stuff was shipped to Syria (an assertion that satelite photos confirm.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2006/03/02/bush_lied,_people_died
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2006/03/09/bush_lied,_people_died_part_ii
They had connections to al Quida, such as harboring the original WTC bomber, and hosting Zarquawi after we expelled al Quida from Iraq.
Bush has never once said that Saddam didn't have weapons. Even during his address to the nation in April, he still continues to say the same things "Saddam had WMDs. We may not have found them, but we know he had them." And in referring to Weapons, Bush is talking nukes…not mustard gas.
War is to be fought and planned by soldiers, not decided by every halfwit who's only knowledge of the war is the death count. Both Honker and J.D. whine about elitism, but that's not an issue here. Uninformed peoples should not be engaged in debate on something that doesn't affect them, but on which their uninformed opinions could very well mean life or death for someone else. As Sun Tsu said, the public should have the right to decide whether or not we go to war. Once it starts, the public has had it's say.
You both complain about Americans "being burdened by the deaths of 3000 people", but that's nonsense. The "burden" that most anti-war critics face is seeing the number on the TV go up. None of them are in the military. Almost none of them have family or friends in the military. Not a single one of them saw their taxes go up to fund this war, and instead have tax Breaks levied at them. So what is their "burden"? They don't have one. They don't even have to fear the draft.
This is why I'm against economic populism, war populism…pretty much populism in general. All of our founding fathers realized that the whims of the people can switch rapidly and with little reason, and built appropriate safeguards into the constitution.
You both do a lot of linguistic fencing but still don't address his concern. Many people know nothing about Iraq but the death toll. This is a problem, because we want an ifnormed populous and all our media outlets can say is "3 dead today." One conservative talk show host said it best. "During the Clinton administration, over 8000 soldiers died. Why did no one take Clinton to task for this? If 3000 in Iraq is terrible, 8000 during a time of peace is inexcusable. Of course, the media didn't report it, and rightfully so. Soldiers die in war and in peacetime accidents. It happens. And short of dismantiling the military and never responding to threats, there's no way to change that."
Comment by WolvenBear | December 29, 2006
J.D. is a paleoconservative. The hard-core type, but then again the words "hard-core paleoconservative" are redundant.
Paleos are the same folks who waited until Pearl Harbor to admit that maybe that pesky war going on in Europe was worth fighting about afterall.
They seem to have the same views about war today.
Comment by nevadamistermom | January 2, 2007
Does public opinion, fueled by ignorance and emotion, determine foreign policy and how America fights wars? Absolutely, without a doubt, it does. Forget the frequent references to Viet Nam and look at WWII for examples. General George C. Marshall lamented Roosevelt’s orders to employ piecemeal efforts against Japan and Germany in 1942, but understood that FDR had to deal with public emotions and provide the voters with some excitement.
Marshall’s problem was that in 1942 we had a tiny army of 3 trained combat divisions against Germany’s 400 combat hardened divisions. We had barely 300 military planes and domestic manufacturers weren’t yet in full military production. But, Roosevelt wanted action: He demanded some kind of military operation to hurt the enemy, he also was busily giving away military hardware to Britain and Russia that we desperately needed to train our own draftees and he wanted American troops sent hither and yon to protect potential targets from the Japanese and Germans. A rational build-up of American forces took a back seat to the public’s desire for immediate results.
In April 1942, we sent about 20 B-25 medium bombers against Tokyo, launched from the aircraft carrier Hornet. The bombers (being too large) couldn’t return to and land on the carrier so they continued forward and landed on air fields in China, our Asian ally. The bombing did very little damage, but the American public got its first taste of revenge for Pearl Harbor. However, the Japanese weren’t stupid and knew the bombers had to have landed in China. So, in retaliation for helping us and to prevent future forays, the Japanese army decimated the Chinese air bases and surrounding towns. 30,000 Chinese, including women and children, were massacred so Americans could feel good about themselves. Several of the bomber crew members crash landed, were captured and were later brutally executed by the Japanese; another useless sacrifice to public opinion.
Five years after 9/11, Americans have worked off their “mad” and are feeling safe once again. But shortly after 9/11, things were much different; we were scared, angry, humiliated and depressed. Afghanistan came and went too quickly to fully quench our thirst for revenge. Iraq was just the ticket to punish the enemy further. As one commenter noted, we rapidly won the war in military terms. The Iraqi army surrendered or faded into the woodwork. The government was deposed. Our legitimate military goals were achieved. We kept our army, an army designed to fight set piece battles against other armies, in Iraq to function as policemen, counter-insurgency forces and hostages to fortune.
The Constitution has nothing to do with it. And, even if we had found the ultimate WMD’s; nuclear tipped missiles, horrible biological weapons or Martian death rays, the American public would still be clamoring to bring the troops home. We’re bored with Iraq, feeling a little guilty over those poor soldiers who couldn’t get into a good college and had to fight in Iraq and ready to interfere in some other country’s destiny. We’ve wrapped ourselves in self-righteousness and conveniently forgotten we went into Iraq solely to avenge 9/11.
We tend to view WWII as America’s “good” war where the public was solidly united behind the president and the military, but that’s an historical myth. Public opinion in democracies will always be prone to irrational demands, unrealistic expectations and emotional judgments.
Comment by Pat Skurka | January 3, 2007