What if we voted on issues? - The Next Generation

September 29, 2004 10:21 PM

Remember "They booed the results of their vote. They were upset that they had voted for the 'wrong guy'"? Well, now our so-called third graders are all grown up. (via Kos)
posted by soyjoy (19 comments total)

I don't read the stats they give as showing that Kerry voters are more informed than Bush voters. I read them as showing that majority of Americans favor some policies that Bush doesn't. They wrongly think he does, because they don't seem controversial as they are stated. Kerry voters expect Kerry to feel the same way about these things, and he does.

Majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (84%), and the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the International Criminal Court (66%), the treaty banning land mines (72%), and the Kyoto Treaty on global warming (51%). They were divided between those who knew that Bush favors building a new missile defense system now (44%) and those who incorrectly believe he wishes to do more research until its capabilities are proven (41%). However, majorities were correct that Bush favors increased defense spending (57%) and wants the US, not the UN, to take the stronger role in developing Iraq’s new government (70%).

Kerry supporters were much more accurate in assessing their candidate’s positions on all these issues. Majorities knew that Kerry favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (90%); the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (77%); the International Criminal Court (59%); the land mines treaty (79%); and the Kyoto Treaty on climate change (74%). They also knew that he favors continuing research on missile defense without deploying a system now (68%), and wants the UN, not the US, to take the stronger role in developing Iraq’s new government (80%). A plurality of 43% was correct that Kerry favors keeping defense spending the same, with 35% assuming he wants to cut it and 18% to expand it.

I'm inclined to think that the phrasing of most of these are tendentious. I could phrase each of these issues in terms much more friendly to the conservative point of view, and I'd bet that the majority of Americans would assume their candidate of choice would support them.

I didn't begin reading this with a skeptical bent because I'm inclined to think that there's some truth to the essential claim. There's a few (at least) things that Bush seems to be deceiving his supporters about, and they seem to be either deluded or ignorant. But this survey doesn't prove it to me.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:34 PM on September 29, 2004

Lets see...

The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) carries out research on public opinion on foreign policy and international issues by conducting nationwide polls, focus groups and comprehensive reviews of polling conducted by other organizations.
PIPA is a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes (COPA) and the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM), School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland.

COPA:

The Center on Policy Attitudes (COPA) is a non-partisan, non-profit organization of social science researchers devoted to increasing understanding of public attitudes on public policy. Funded by Rockefeller Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Tides Foundation, Ford Foundation, German Marshall Fund of the United States, Compton Foundation, Carnegie Corporation, Benton Foundation, Ben and Jerry's Foundation, Americans Talk Issues Foundation, Circle Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Joyce Foundation

Sample question:

In the Middle East, should the United States take Israel's side, the Palestinian's side, or not take either side?

Should the US participate or not participate in the treaty that would prohibit nuclear weapon test explosions worldwide?

Liberal scum!!! But seriously, don't be so quick to make judgments. Read the whole report, which is as dry as toast, but isn't partisan. I personably think that most Bush supporters would find his domestic policies abhorrent, but they tend to really like the xenophobia and nationalism that goes along with his culture of fear...
posted by SweetJesus at 11:02 PM on September 29, 2004

Having read many of the questions -- although not all, for I am somewhat sleepy -- I lean toward agreement with the confectionary christ: I find the poll's wording, motivation, and even copyediting to be pristinely non-biased (though my own prejudices will be easily known to those who care to perform a quick Google search, and so I invite you to judge your own judgements regarding my partisan motivation in stating in my judgement this lack of prejudice). Still I must say that the best thing that can come from this thread would be for Ethereal Bligh to deliver on his claim and produce a rendition of the same questionaire but cast in a conservative point-of-view, for I suspect his lauded (and, yes, presently mocked -- however poorly) hypotaxis is exactly the sort of diction that conservatives like to slam Kerry for; the potential for comic juxtaposition is obvious.
posted by eatitlive at 11:33 PM on September 29, 2004

Majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (84%)

Oh man, I don't know if I should laugh or cry.
posted by falconred at 11:59 PM on September 29, 2004

I didn't read the questions, obviously. I was going by how they were described in the bit I quoted above.

Here would be an example, though. From the questionaire:

"Should the US participate or not participate in the International Criminal Court that tries individuals for war crimes, genocide, or crimes against humanity if their own country won’t try them?"

Different question, same policy position:

"Should the US participate or not participate in the International Criminal Court that tries individuals for war crimes, genocide, or crimes against humanity, even if this meant that US military personal, exonerated in a US trial, could be tried in the ICC?"

That's not a very good wording, but you see the point. Bush's and the conservative objection to the ICC is one of sovereignity and fear of misuse of the ICC for political grandstanding against the US.

It's very, very hard to do what they're trying to do in a truly non-partisan manner.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:06 AM on September 30, 2004

I think, EB, that you're taking as dry a description of what the ICC's mandate is and adding to it to make it biased towards a republican point of view. I can do the same thing the other way:

"Should the US participate or not participate in the International Criminal Court that tries individuals for war crimes, genocide, or crimes against humanity if their own country won’t try them, given the need for international co-operation in the global war against terrorism?"

posted by Space Coyote at 1:40 AM on September 30, 2004

Yeah, but it's also sorta like a "are you for education" question. An "International Criminal Court" to try people for war crimes? Great idea! If that's all you know, who's gonna be against that?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:35 AM on September 30, 2004

So we have data that Defenders of All Things Dubya suffer from cognitive dissonance.

How surprising.
posted by nofundy at 4:42 AM on September 30, 2004

Sigh. The straw man is getting knocked around once more.

The issues polled are, for typical Bush supporters, simply beside the point, hardly more relevant to their vote than Kerry's stance on workplace ergonomics are to the typical Kerry voter.

The choice for Bush is an obvious one on the issues which Bush voters do prioritize. If you oppose abortion, vote Bush. If you want to preserve tax cuts, vote Bush. If you think the Second Amendment is as inviolate, and as deserving of expansive interpretation, as the ACLU views the First Amendment, vote Bush. If you fear the return of lenient criminal sentences and generous welfare benefits, vote Bush. If you want fewer regulations on business, vote Bush. If you want to destroy our foreign enemies without regard to the views of the perfumed Euros, vote Bush.

Of course, there probably isn't a single voter who lines up with Bush on all these issues, and John Kerry should fight hard to win those people over, but he won't win by pretending that a vote for Bush isn't the result, in the vast majority of cases, of an entirely intelligent and deliberate political calculation by the voter.
posted by MattD at 6:04 AM on September 30, 2004

I dunno, if my life really did hinge on whether or not some guy in Masachussets marries another guy, I'd be a little ticked that all the bush people seemed to do about it was propose a dead-on-arrival constitutional amendment and make a lot of noise. I think I'd feel used. Same if my liberty and happiness was really dependent on women having unwanted babies, I think I'd want to hear something specific from the Bush people about what their plan is to rollback that praticular social progress, not just a lot of empty noise.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:21 AM on September 30, 2004

Thanks for the fine examples Mattd. Proves the point so well for me.

We now have more data, like space coyote points out, clue train time. The Wurlitzer only works with willing participants.
posted by nofundy at 6:49 AM on September 30, 2004

I agree that Bush voters probably have a better grasp of his stance on domestic issues than international ones. But then, I think Bush himself probably has a better grasp of his stance on domestic issues than international ones. Because in a closed environment (all three branches of government controlled by GOP) it's easy to play domestic issues as a game, the way the house is now doing with gay marriage, gun control and probably flag-burning. But international policy deals with entirely different, other systems that can't be so easily gamed. I think it will be interesting to see if Bush articulates any of these positions tonight or willfully obscures them, to maintain the helpful disconnect between what his supporters believe about him and what's really going on.
posted by soyjoy at 7:19 AM on September 30, 2004

If you fear the return of lenient criminal sentences and generous welfare benefits, vote Bush.

Why? What basis would any intelligent, aware citizen have for thinking that a Kerry presidency would result in either of these things?
posted by lodurr at 7:30 AM on September 30, 2004

Lodurr, Kerry has a 30 year record of taking the softest-available positions on crime and degeneracy. For the moment, truly soft positions on those issues are not really available to anyone who wants to win top office, but there's every reason to believe Kerry will revert to his norm should the mainstream shift slightly to the left.
posted by MattD at 8:52 AM on September 30, 2004

MattD is insinuating that Kerry is hiding his positions on crime, funny then that he would have convinced the democratic party to change their platform so they no longer support the death penalty. Seems pretty up-front to me. At any rate, I assume this will have the same effect as all the assault weapons fans who were thinking about voting for Kerry but won't now. (i.e., a constituency coming from the same region of Karl Rove's butt as the 'security moms'.)
posted by Space Coyote at 9:47 AM on September 30, 2004

Bush: Hard on degenerates.
posted by biffa at 10:48 AM on September 30, 2004

...the views of the perfumed Euros...

...result of an entirely intelligent and deliberate political calculation...
posted by mr.marx at 11:07 AM on September 30, 2004

Majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (84%)

Oh man, I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

Exactly. WHO THE HELL would think Bush would give a flying one about labor standards or the environment? Who could be so misinformed or idealistic? He's one of the WORST prez's on the environment, attempting repeals of enviro legislation even when there's no $$ benefit for his corporate bedmates.

How many people have rose-colored glasses on?

This indicates a majority of people know fuck-all about what Bush is about. This explains much.

Evidently people vote on what they perceive to be a candidate's qualities based upon preconceived notions of Left/Right and upon the images of the candidate's face in newspapers and on TV.

Obvious, really. Sad.
posted by Shane at 1:15 PM on September 30, 2004

How many people have rose-colored glasses on?

That's Rove-colored glasses, Shane.

It's like the Emerald City (in the book), where you're required to wear them at all times, and then everything looks exactly as it should.
posted by soyjoy at 2:43 PM on September 30, 2004