Conor Friedersdorf is puzzled:
… A November 2011 CNN poll found that 68 percent of Americans oppose the [Iraq] war. A CBS News poll from the same month found that 49 percent of Republicans believe the Iraq War was “not worth it” compared to 41 percent who said the war was worth it. And as President Obama oversees a substantial pullout from the country, 71 percent of Americans say bringing our troops home is the right decision.
Despite all that, the Republican Party is attacking President Obama over his withdrawal of troops. And the Republican primary race is full of candidates who supported the war: Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum all favored waging it….
Why is support for the Iraq War still an unofficial litmus test in the GOP?
Simple: because what decides the viability of a political stance isn’t the raw percentage of people who support it, but the percentage of people whose blood boils at the mere thought of anyone opposing it. The GOP has done a terrific job of ginning up right-wing outrage at filthy hippies who don’t support star-spangled patriotic wars — and while anti-war voters were stirred up in 2006 and 2008, that wasn’t the same as a sense of permanent outrage at what’s perceived as sandal-wearing hippie peacenik thinking. It doesn’t matter that this particular outrage is now felt by less than a third of the public: that minority sliver of the population insists on bellicosity far more than the vast majority of us now insist on the opposite. Please note that 71 percent of the public doesn’t oppose the Republican presidential candidates who object to withdrawal from Iraq — they’re indifferent to that. Only the hawks are passionate.
Which is why Friedersdorf (whose point is listen to Ron Paul, dammit!) is naive when he writes this:
There is a chance [the Iraq War] could play a much bigger role in the general election. When President Obama debates his Republican opponent on foreign policy, he’ll likely be able to cite that candidate’s support for a war that a healthy majority of general election voters regard as a mistake.
Obama can try citing it, but most of the public has moved on. But the angry hawks never move on.
****
The GOP is excellent, of course, at turning its voters into people who never, ever move on on a wide range of issues: guns, abortion, tax increases, and so on. On the subject of tax increases (and economic policies in general), I think Kevin Drum is basically correct when he takes a jaundiced view of that new Pew poll. It’s true that the poll says
large majorities think that corporations and the rich are too powerful, our economic system unfairly favors the wealthy, and Wall Street is bad for the economy. What’s more, there’s a big decline in the number of people who think hard work leads to success and a big increase in the number of people who think they’re part of the have-nots.
But this is also essentially true:
Americans say the current system is unfair and favors the rich, but if you ask about specific things we could do to change that, I’ll bet support drops off dramatically. You can see some of this in the question about threats to America’s well-being. Only 56% name the power of banks and Wall Street, while 76% think the national debt is a big threat. This is not a sign of a country that’s seriously bent out of shape about growing inequality.
Sure, lots of people support modestly higher taxes on the rich, but serious reform to cut Wall Street down to size or reduce the influence of corporations and the rich? The kind that people feel strongly enough to march in the streets about or elect a Congress that agrees with them? We’re not there yet.
I wouldn’t say the problem is that “support drops dramatically” for actual remedies — people support a lot of progressive remedies. But there just isn’t enough outrage to get them passed. There is, however, plenty of outrage (ginned up by the right-wing noise machine) in favor of not doing these things — and that simply trumps the opinion of progressive-leaning majority on these issues.
Minority rage wins every time.
(X-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog.)
While it’s true that the default R position is to support war, that’s not why the presidential candidates are all critical of the Iraq drawdown. They’re critical of it because Obama did it. Period. It’s purely political and opportunistic.
The same candidates were largely critical of the decision to intervene in Libya. In that case, the default should have been to support the war. And, indeed, before Obama got involved the R criticism was that he hadn’t acted. But once he did, that was wrong, too. Either he should have acted sooner and more forcefully (the McCain wing, for whom more war is always better) or not at all. And a lot of R’s opted for the latter.
Obama is wrong. Always. Most Republicans (and more than a few on the left) start with that premise, and then look for justifications. On Iraq, they just didn’t have to look far, what with the DFHs and all.
Obama can try citing it, but most of the public has moved on.
There is more than one way of citing an opponent’s position on an old issue.
The Iraq War is not going to be an important issue in the election, no. On the other hand, judgement and temperament are always more important factors for most voters than stances on issues, anyway. Citing an opponent’s support for the Iraq War can help to make a point about who this guy is and how he thinks. Similarly, Obama can cite his own success in ending the war not just to show that he’s on the right side of an issue, but as a demonstration of his own judgment and competence.
The Iraq war is going to be part of the next election cycle. The GOP is going to have to explain how Iran is not another war in pursuit of non existent WMD. Also, how do the plan to pay for another War?
I am watching the GOP chucklefest on FauxNews – my impressions:
Huntsman – wrong message for this crowd
Santorum – no impact; no sense of irony
Newt – “I Am Not A Crook” is not a hot look; the rest should sell well
Perry – master of the befuddled stare
Romney – pretty, good hair, looks and sounds presidential
Bachman – master of the sound bite
Ron Paul – only grownup in the room
As for fact-checking or debunking, the only truthful words were spoken by Ron Paul…
Yes, but these polls reflect the debate that people are hearing as much as their core personal views.
Why do 76% of Americans think that the national debt is a big threat? Because everyone with a voice on the subject keeps telling them how big a threat our national debt is. Every newspaper including the New York Times and the Washington Post publishes articles on the dangers of the debt. Every political news program will discuss which politicians are “serious” enough about the problem to roll back Social Security, Medicare and domestic spending. The entire Republican delegation and the entire leadership of the Democratic party put the issue front and center. Foreign leaders are pushing austerity on their own populations for the same reason.
Among people who have a national megaphone, who makes the counter argument that we need to increase our debt to solve our economic problems? Paul Krugman and … nobody.
What part of “long term” don’t you understand?
You know that the Democrats were pushing for short-term-deficit-increasing stimulus measures from the deficit supercommittee, right?
The long-term deficit is a big deal. Shifting the deficit conversation from short- to long-term is one of the most important messages the White House and the Democrats have been pushing.