The Flip Side

[No Elephants]

In a Pew Research poll released Tuesday, just 29 percent of Americans favored airstrikes “in response to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons,” with a near-majority 48 percent opposed.


Wide majorities predicted negative consequences of a U.S. military intervention. Sixty-one percent said airstrikes were likely to lead to a long-term U.S. military commitment in Syria, and 74 percent said airstrikes would likely create a backlash against the U.S. and its allies in the region. Just 33 percent thought airstrikes would be an effective deterrent against the use of chemical weapons.

<snip>

Only 32 percent said Obama had explained clearly why the U.S. should launch strikes. Back in March 2003, as the Iraq War started, 49 percent said that President George W. Bush had compellingly made his case for what was then at stake.

In a Washington Post/ABC poll, also released Tuesday, respondents were told more definitively that “the United States says it has determined that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons in the civil war there.” That survey found fewer Americans undecided: 36 percent supported airstrikes and 59 percent opposed them.

<snip>


While no political group favored airstrikes against Syria, the GOP was somewhat more supportive. Thirty-five percent of Republicans backed airstrikes, compared to just 29 percent of Democrats.

The numbers shifted, however, when Obama’s name was invoked. More than half of Democrats, but just 19 percent of Republicans, said the president has clearly explained why the U.S. should launch airstrikes against Syria. Democrats were also more likely to say there is clear evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians, and that airstrikes would be effective in discouraging the use of such weapons. They were somewhat less likely than Republicans to fear that strikes would create backlash against the U.S. in the region, or lead to a longterm military commitment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/syria-airstrike-polls_n_3861639.html

The above paragraph may as well be describing Pavlov's dogs hearing their dinner bell ring and illustrates why I have such contempt for bots of any stripe. The issues are bombing people, mission creep, human lives, ours and theirs, and the availablity of the US Treasury for domestic programs. Still, idolatry wins.

And notice what happened: The mere mention of Obama's name flipped Democrats from traditionally Democratic views to traditionally Republican views, giving the traditionally Republican view a majority.

I don't think anything I've posted in the last few years about Clinton, Obama, New Democrats, etc., illustrates what I think of New Democrats, including the Clintons and Obama, any better than that. They have not only taken the party to the right, they've assured that the nation goes right as well.

Of course, the above also illustrates how simply a pollster can control the outcome of a supposedly neutral poll, and in a way that no one would suspect, something else that I've been posting about for years. I should bookmark this post.

[Enthusiast]

1. Interesting.

The New Democrats appear to be firmly in the sway of the Third Way.

I think the American people have concluded that the MIC's mission is just too ambitious, even if it is well intended, which many have decided it is not. And the rest of the world has to be wondering if there are any limits to American military ambitions. Just what was accomplished in Afghanistan and Iraq? And all these drone strikes. This does not look good. How can we continue to claim the moral high road?

[No Elephants]

5. The DLC is the source of both New Democrats and Third Way.

The DLC originated the Third Way philosophy. New Democrats are Democrats who follow the DLC philosophy, instead of the ways of FDR and Truman. New Democrats now make up most of the Democratic Party.

The Third Way think tank is an offshoot of the DLC, as is the Progressive Policy Institute, Center for American Progress, etc. That is why you will never hear me refer to myself or my principles as "progressive." Many who do seem to think it means something like liberal. It doesn't. Obama and Hillary are examples of progressives. Supposedly, New Democrats are more "pragmatic" than traditional Democrats. As far as I've been able to determine, the evidence that they are more pragmatic is that they say so and they believe their own statements. Ergo, they are true.

By implication, of course, that makes the rest of us impractical Democrats. Nothing condescending or arrogant about that! Wouldn't FDR and Truman be surprised!

Bubba Clinton referred to "a third way," but he supposedly "triangulated," trying for the midpoint between the traditionally Democratic Way and the traditionally Republican Way. Hence, he runs on being pro gay, but ends up giving us DADT after consulting Republican Colin Powell and Republican wingnut Dick Morris, and DOMA. And, when Billary go after health care, Bubba starts with a plan generated by the conservative Heritage Foundation because Republican Nixon's plan was too far left for Heritage! If that is a third way, I'm in the Dancing With the Stars Hall of Fame.

As far as I am concerned, the so-called Third Way is Republicans who register as Democrats, aka the uniparty. Again, I have to quote the DU poster who said, "Third Way? I'd be happy if we had two." I wish I could remember his or her name so I could give credit. As Colbert would say, "It's funny because it's true."

"How can we continue to claim the moral high road?"

Well, we haven't stopped so far. It's the standard set by the international community that we are defending. not our own. We certainly have nothing to say about it. However, we are sending a message about killing babies with horrible chemical weapons because someone has to. And, if you question any of this, well, you must just not care if more babies die by chemicals. I think you would if they were American babies, but, since they'brown.....

And, if in the process, we please Israel, the MIC and Saudi Arabia, and maybe hurt Iran, well, we certainly can't help that. rpannier gave us this quote from Goldwater: "You've got to forget about this civilian. Whenever you drop bombs, you're going to hit civilians."

Well, whenever you drop bombs, you are also going to make some people rich and/or happy. The people waging war for moral high road reasons--and we always say we are--can't worry about either one.

I do believe though, this is the first time I've witness mission creep before we start the mission. Or, at least, before we admit starting the mission. So, there's that.

BTW, didn't Obama and McCain meet on August 31 or September 1? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-summons-mccain-bid-allies-syria-strike/story?id=20135431

Supposedly, that was Obama's attempt to get allies for the vote he wanted. If so, why McCain? You can always count on him to vote pro-war. ("Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran Assad.")

Why meet with him alone, if you're looking for allies for a vote? Why not have say, 5 or 10 strategically chosen people over for a working lunch and ask each of them to whip their clique?

But, I digress. Now, what was I talking about again? Oh yeah, mission creep. I hear they had a narrow resolution in the Senate until McCain refused to vote for it because it was too narrow. So, they broadened it to regime change. Oh, that McCain!

[NYC_SKP]

2. Both parties are pro-war. Have been as long as I can remember.

They reflect our culture; we are a warlike people.

Sad.

[No Elephants]

3. Are you distinguishing between politicians and rank and file voters?

[No Elephants]

4. PS I very much disagree they reflect our culture. It's the other way around.

We seem to be a lot more idolatrous than we are war like.

Leaders influence us, for good or ill, sometimes without our admitting it or even realizing it. The flip in the poll described in the OP is evidence of that.

So is the flip on DU2 on the issues between the Bush administration and the first Obama administration. Bush's D of J does X; DU universally condemns it, except maybe for some clearly Republican moles. Obama's D of J does the same thing or worse (from a traditional Democrat's point of view) and a lot of DUer defend it or falsely claim Obama has nothing to do with it, or make ad hominem attacks on posters who complained about the D of J's actions. Same thing if Obama's fingerprints were undeniably on something.

Even with Hitler, there was a very large pacifist movement in the US until Pearl Harbor, peopled with some very prominent names, like Lindbergh.

If the people wanted war, all the propaganda and flag waving and ginning up the population would not be necessarily. We would not have had draft card burners, etc.

Maybe there have been pro-war demonstrations, or other populace driven pushes for war, but I personally have never heard of one. Seems to me, it always comes from those who, one way or another, can get their kids out it, if they choose.

Of course, they've purposely sanitized war, taken it off our pesky TV screens and ended the draft, so public resistance has diminished accordingly, but the tide seems to be turning again.