For all those poll-hunters out there...

If you're looking for the most recent polls of this election, not that it matters too much when actual election results are streaming in, see RealClearPolitics.

Electoral excitement!

In just a few days (can't wait until Tuesday!), Barack Obama should win the race for the American presidency. National polls show him comfortably ahead his rival, who grows increasingly desperate — and right-wing. That's not to say this election is won, of course. Anything can happen. But if one just tinkers with the electoral map one finds a McCain victory at this point is incredibly unlikely. McCain asserts he can win, however, even if he carries Ohio (there's a chance) and Pennsylvania (Obama's looking fairly strong there), as well as most all of the toss-ups, including Florida, Obama still wins by over 30 electoral votes! Even if we then give McCain North Carolina Obama carries the election. To win, McCain would not only have to pick up every toss-up state, but grab some of those big states leaning towards Obama. It's possible, but certainly not as likely as the McCain campaign would like people to think

One week until Obama hopefully wins...

Around a week from now, results from the election of America's next commander-in-chief will be coming in, election day being 4 November. At the moment, Obama has a decent lead over McCain (roughly a 7 percentage point spread) in the polls, but the election should be close. Take a look at a nationwide electoral projection map here.

Lack of confidence in world leaders (but is there hope?)

Who's the best world leader?
Well, if UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is counted, then he's the world leader with the highest confidence rating — 35% — according to a new study in conjunction with the University of Maryland. As Newsweek reports,

On average, only 23 percent of foreign respondents express "a lot of " or "some" confidence in Bush, and only Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does worse (at 22). ... Then comes [Russian President[ Putin at 32 percent, [UK Prime Minister] Brown at 30, [Chinese President] Hu Jintao at 28 and France's Nicolas Sarkozy at 26. The results aren't much different if you tally them country by country: in only two states (Nigeria and India) do a majority of people express at least some confidence in Bush. Putin and Hu each come out ahead in just five nations, and Brown in just six.

Meanwhile, respondents from most countries in a separate Pew study seem to adore US presidential candidate Barack Obama. Let's hope that, come November, most of America will think the same of him.

Public discontent with China, and what to do about it

According to a Zogby poll,

70% Believe IOC Was Wrong to Award Olympic Games to China

and

48% believe U.S. political officials should not attend the opening ceremony due to China's poor human rights record

Feelings are even stronger in Europe, with the EU Parliament voting in favor of restrictions on attending the opening ceremony of the Olympics in Beijing this summer due not only to China's overall human rights record but to its treatment of demonstrators in Tibet (FREE TIBET!). World leaders such as Britain's Gordon Brown and France's Sarkozy are refusing to attend the opening ceremony, and President Bush has been pressured to do so as well.

However not all are sure that a boycott would be a good thing.

71% believe any boycott of the Olympic Games in China by the U.S. would be hypocritical because the U.S. imports so many products from China and retains relatively close diplomatic ties with China that the U.S. has essentially endorsed China’s human rights record.

I'd say a total boycott of the Olympics would not be a good idea, but national leaders sitting out on the opening ceremony is a strong and righteous move, even if it is ineffective. Some say that we should not be mixing politics with sport, but China brought this upon itself with its atrocious conduct. Having visited China, I've witnessed firsthand the restrictions on fundamental liberties people face there, and the dire effects of the 'communist' government's policies. While nations should not isolate China outright, they should take a strong stand against tyranny and the mistreatment of citizens.

2008 US election poll leaders (pre-Iowa caucuses edition)

This will probably be the last poll-related post until the January party primaries...

Iowa will hold its caucuses* on January 3rd. That makes this coming Thursday the most important date so far for the bagful of candidates hoping to become president.

The Des Moines Register's Iowa poll, lauded as the most accurate, came out tonight. Here are the results:



Barack Obama has stormed ahead of previous frontrunner Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side, thanks, the Register says, new caucus-goers and independents. This might give Obama the national push he needs. John Edwards is a mere percentage point away from Clinton.


As you can see, Mike Huckabee has slightly widened his lead over second-place Mitt Romney in the Republican race. Giuliani is choosing to sit out the ever-important Iowa caucuses for a more national focus.

To find out more about how caucusing works, see the Des Moines Register's page on the Iowa caucus.

———
Nationally Clinton still maintains a relatively wide lead among the Democrats; Giuliani is still first among Republicans. Huckabee has done well in the polls, whereas Romney has invested most out of all the GOP candidates in both Iowa and another of the first primaries, New Hampshire, just to see his investment slip. As for Ron Paul, he's barely being mentioned in the mainstream.

Other points of focus:

The rise of Huckabee the Arkansas governor/Baptist minister in Iowa;

the vulnerability of Dem still-leader Clinton;

the hope for Edwards, strong against Republicans in Iowa;

GOP hopeful Thompson doesn't live up to dying hype;

Bhutto's death has used by Giuliani, Clinton, and McCain. Clinton argued for experience, Obama for judgement.

See more primary stats on Slate's election scorecard and national averages on RealClearPolitics. Some people consider political trading more accurate than polls, since it just measures preference. One popular trading site is Intrade.
———
Need help reading or understanding all these polls? The Washington Post published five tips from the directors of polling at WaPo and ABC. The tips include:

1. Throttle back on the horse race.
...
2. Consider the source.
...
3. Watch for consistent change and a meaningful narrative.
...
4. Don't be seduced by averages.
...
5. Be skeptical of post-election scorecards.

In these coming weeks, we will no doubt see several candidates fall as the top three or four from each party vie for the position of leader. Remember: things are far-from predictable in races this close and mixed. Let the '08 election games (truly) begin!

* Correction: Word changed in title and blog post for accuracy. Iowa holds caucuses, not primaries.

Global opinion on global warming

A BBC World Service poll about the attitudes of the world's people on global warming was released recently. The poll gives some interesting — and surprising — insight on public opinion of such a politicized and scientific issue. India has the most doubt about the effects and apathy on action when it comes to climate change. The Chinese surprise me with their lack of doubt and willingness to take action, as do the Americans, to a lesser extent. The French view the issue as most urgent and the Russians are almost as bad as the Indians.

Here's a graph of the results:


The overall results are:

Major action needed: 65%
Modest action later: 25%
No action needed: 6%

In addition, 79% of the 22,000-some survey participants believe that "human activity, including industry and transportation, is a significant cause of climate change". This is a good sign; if only their governments took more initiative — especially the Bush administration in the US.

Final results of the security v. freedom poll

Over a period of about one month, 11 votes were cast (see background). Nine voted that freedom was overall more important than security; two voted that security took priority over freedom.



One reason I suppose the vote count was so low was because of some technical errors. The poll usually didn't work when I tested it on several computers. I think Blogger (i.e. Google) still has some work to do on their Polls add-on. Technical problems and low voter turnout aside, this poll outcome illustrates that the majority of In Perspective readers — at least those who were able to get the poll to work and vote — favor freedom over security, a classic liberal mark. I will find a more functional, non-buggy polling service that works for everyone to use for future polls.

Now who's leading in the 2008 US presidential polls?

See new December 2007 polls, days before the Iowa primaries!

One of the most popular posts on this blog the past couple months has been my analysis of the latest poll data for the 2008 United States presidential election. I thought it a wise idea to follow up that post with the latest August polling.

Republicans
Romney's poll numbers paint him out as the underdog. Not so. The under-polled former Massachusetts governor is looking stronger than ever, and is probably going to win one, if not two, of the big upcoming party primaries: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Giuliani — the frontrunner so far — is also looking at at least one primary win. Over-hyped, little-substance star Fred Thompson better get in the game or he will soon find himself unable to win his party's nomination.



My bet right now is that Romney will win Iowa and New Hampshire, and Giuliani will take home South Carolina. That will pit them against each other for the Republican Party's presidential nomination, a nomination that may break precedent from the look of things. Romney has a near-perfect track record, whereas Giuliani has spotty social views and a poor political history of bullying, cronyism, thinking of himself as above the law, and political mongering and showboating.

At this time we know almost nothing about Thompson or his political views, which is probably the reason he is doing so well. Once he does truly enter the race, expect his numbers to fall. The Republicans have not done as well in their campaign fundraising as their Democratic counterparts; John McCain seems to be almost out of the race because of his lack of funds. McCain's campaign has fallen apart these past few months and it is very unlikely that he will bounce back in full.

Democrats
Not much has changed on the Democratic front. Obama and Clinton are still duking it out for the rights to the presidential nomination, with Sen. Hillary Clinton coming out on top still. Sen. Barack Obama has made plenty-a-gaff while Clinton still acts like a political robot with more shallow policies than her Illinois senatorial counterpart (i.e. Obama).

John Edwards, who actually has a plan for healthcare in America as opposed to his Democratic opponents, is still stuck in third place and foreign policy guru Bill Richardson, blaming jet lag for him saying that he thinks homosexuality is a choice (I'll have to dock him a few points in my book), is staying pretty far down there when it comes to popular support.



Graph data source: RealClearPolitics poll averages, as of 17 August (note: since all the poll numbers did not add up to 100%, I entered the remainder in as "[Other/Undecided]".). For more election 2008 polls, see Polling Report. To see the candidates' stance on various issues, check out this helpful table — it's a good political resource for a hot election season (even though the election is over a year away).

The candidates take on Iowa...

...and show off their millions.

Many of the candidates for the American presidency are campaigning as heavily as ever, with the election less than a year and a half away. More than a handful — including Democrat Barack Obama (see this post) — went to Iowa for and around Independence Day.

Recently the Q2 fundraising numbers came in, making US$10 million look like pocket change. Obama came up ahead in the first quarter of the year with over $25 million, proving to be a master of the all-important art of raising money for the election. Even though Hillary Clinton was able to raise millions by shoving her ex-president husband onto the lecture circuit, it was still not enough to catch her chief Democratic rival.

This quarter Obama raised over $30 million. Clinton collected over $20 million for the primary, an additional $7 million or so for the general election. Edwards could barely manage $9 mil. On the Republican side the figures are more telling. Poll leader Giuliani came up with $17 or so million in total ($15 million raised for primary) this past quarter; lagging McCain got barely over $10 million ($11.2 million) and the perhaps under-polled Romney reached roughly $20 million after he gave $6.5 million to himself ($14 million raised for primary). That means the three Democratic frontrunners dwarfed the Republican presidential candidates with $68 million compared to the GOP's $42 mil.

The Economist has a feature on the fundraising and the presidential nomination poll numbers. Clinton is polling around 37% for the Dems and her "future odds" for getting the Democratic nomination are 42%; Obama is polling 23% with odds of 38%; Edwards is polling 12% with odds of 6%. For the GOP Giuliani is polling less than he was before: 26% with future odds of 36%; McCain is polling a lackluster 17% and has the unthinkably low odds of 5% for the nomination; Romney is polling 10% with a surprising 17% odds. See here (Wikipedia) for more polls.

Who's leading 2008 election polls?

See new December 2007 polls, days before the Iowa primaries!

Source for party primary polling and (averaged) chart data: Polling Report (various polls) for Democratic '08 candidates.
In most primary polls for Democrats, Clinton seems to have a definite lead over her closer rivals (often scoring in the 30s in terms of percentage), Obama and Edwards. Obama bested Edwards.

Sorce for primary polling and (averaged) chart data: Polling Report (various polls) for Republican '08 candidates.
For Republican primaries, Giuliani’s numbers are quite good. His averages in the 20s or 30s (percentage), with McCain lagging behind in the 10s or 20s. Gingrich and Romney often lag behind runner-up McCain and the leader, Giuliani, with high single-digit percentages. However, in some polls Fred Thompson, who has seen a resurgence in popularity, is at third place with percentages as high as 10 (he is not listed on most polls).

Gingrich was also not included in some polls, so I averaged up those both Thompson and Gingrich were in. Overall, the numbers lean towards a clear first-place — for the time being — Giuliani, with McCain in second place and Romney in a more distant third. Like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Fred Dalton Thompson has not announced his candidacy yet, but his recent admission that he has cancer leads one to suspect he is getting things off his chest that could hurt him later in his campaign.



Edwards has definitely seen a boost in his popularity as of late, but Obama still looks like a runner-up to clear-leader Clinton. Some polls' inclusion of Al Gore as a choice bumped down Edwards and Obama to an extent. I did not use the polls where Al Gore had a standing, although he usually polled third far below Obama and in front of Edwards by a small amount. In GOP polls without Fred Thompson, Giuliani had a solid win over McCain, who had a solid win over Gingrich, who had a minor lead over Romney.

Remember people participating in such primary polls either are registered with the party or support the party. In these polls, a pollster would not ask a Democrat about a Republican candidate, though in head-to-head and general (national) polls that can be the case.

From national polling during various times of March and late February, some results are surprising.
Source: RealClearPolitics averages of various major head-to-head 2008 presidential candidate polls (e.g. Time, Newsweek, Zogby, Rasmussen).
Giuliani beats anyone — Clinton, Obama, or Edwards — in the head-to-head polls. McCain beats Clinton and narrowly beats Obama. Giuliani’s win over Obama is slimmer than that of his wins over Edwards or Clinton. In the RCP average, Edwards beats McCain; Clinton smashes Romney but Edwards and Obama demolish him with a lead of 20 or so percentage points. Romney may be weak but Edwards does have more head-to-head strength than his overall.

Other party nomination data:
For the GOP nomination from highest percentage to lowest: Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, Romney (Gingrich not included). For the Dems: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gore. Gore’s run is extremely, extremely unlikely, especially since everyone is already electioneering more than usual. He has not stated his candidacy and pretty much will not.

Money and fundraising are major issues in this election. In the US one needs a massive amount of money to run a campaign, not that that's the only thing a candidate needs. This race has already broken plenty of records.

technorati tags: fred+thompson, john+mccain, hillary+clinton, barak+obama, presidential+primary, usa, united+states, politics, election+2008, john+edwards, rudy+giuliani, al+gore, mitt+romney, polls, polls+president, democrats, republicans

Warping facts and rewriting history: 9/11 conspiracy theories

Even as the American public seem to be getting smarter about politics — albeit slowly — public belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories seems to be on the rise. A partial explanation may be the public’s annoyance with their government, which they could help solve if people took more action in national politics and voted.

These conspiracy theorists think everyone is against them and employ pseudo-fact to support their flawed claims. These people cannot be swayed by verifiable video footage or eyewitness accounts — nothing can stop their irrational conspiracy speculation about what happened on 11 September 2001.

The only 9/11 theory that has any merit is, unsurprisingly, the official version of what happened. Pearl Harbor, no doubt, was also not a conspiracy, but the John F. Kennedy assassination is up for grabs, but no one on either side (official or conspiracy) can garner enough evidence to support their claims.

Yes, there are plenty of accounts to confirm US intelligence services knew of the impending 9/11 attack, but did not take action because of bureaucratic incompetence. Intelligence services did not get the correct data or relay it, and gave the tips of an attack the benefit of the doubt, like what happened with Pearl Harbor (the radar station knew Japanese planes were coming but did not know whether they were Japanese and were not notified to be on the lookout). It was a failure of imagination, as the 9/11 Commission put it, in the US intelligence services. However, they did not ignore data on purpose because they wanted 3,000 people to loose their lives in a massive terrorist strike.

The BBC investigated many conspiracy theories and, eventually, debunked them, including the 9/11 one.

These theories have gotten more media coverage and analysis, some of which has been good, as of late.

A Scripps Howard poll gave some disturbing data:

Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."
…
The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.

Conspiracy groups for at least two years have also questioned why the World Trade Center collapsed when fires that heavily damaged similar skyscrapers around the world did not cause such destruction. Sixteen percent said it's "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that "the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings."

Twelve percent suspect the Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists.
…
The level of suspicion of U.S. official involvement in a 9/11 conspiracy was only slightly behind the 40 percent who suspect "officials in the federal government were directly responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy" and the 38 percent who believe "the federal government is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from other planets."

A Zogby poll found:

People are completely divided on whether they believe President Bush exploited the 9/11 attacks (44%) or justified an attack on Iraq (44%). Approximately one in ten (11%) is not sure.
…
Close to half (48%) agrees the U.S. government and 9/11 Commission are not covering up anything, yet nearly as many (42%) believe the government and 9/11 Commission are covering up. One in ten (10%) is unsure.

Curiously enough, conservatives, according to this poll, gave the media a negative score in its 9/11 coverage. Why is this so interesting? The media was acting patriotic and very loyal in every way to the Bush administration for the weeks following. The media did not sufficiently do its job in the aftermath of 9/11: they did not question what the government was saying, analyze why the attacks happened, report a lot of important news, or challenge Bush in his exploitation of the attacks. This led to an overall media support of the Iraq war as war critics were drowned out and not put on air nearly as much as talking-point ridden war hawks.

I remember nearly every television channel had a flag design at the bottom of the screen, and there was nonstop talk of the war on terror. Most everyone was following along with the government’s policy, a dangerous thing to do when the people are confused and scared and need facts and rationality now more than ever.

Ignorance is ignoring all true evidence and thinking the evil government was the sole perpetrators of 9/11. You know what, deniers of the terrorist attack on US soil on 11 September 2001, it's all going too far. Some people, myself included, lost friends and relatives in 9/11 and don't need people like the 'Truthers' spreading warped and pseudo-factual conspiracy theory views of historical events when there is plenty of evidence to support the mainstream view! They use architectural evidence like they know anything about the topic; how could explosives blow up the towers then? How could they fall the way they did when it was clearly a structural breach when two of the largest commercial aircrafts in existence (at the time) crashed head on into buildings not designed for high-speed air crashes?!

Enough is enough. I see the loss of rationality is as evident in the 9/11-deniers as it is in the followers of the Bush administration's 'war on terrorism'. Both sides are messing with history and fact in order to advance political, ideological motives. Shame on both the 9/11 exploiters (e.g. Bush) and the 9/11 fact deniers (e.g. Truthers). There is a time for reaping political capital, and there is a time to question and attack the mainstream view of things, but with things like 9/11, either action is a dangerous one leading to a slippery slope of exploiting every terror case and holding a revisionist, paranoid attitude of every event.

Some conspiracy theorists think of their spreading of their false notions as their duty to society; their spreading of ignorance and fallacies only hurts society. On the other hand, the spreading of ignorance and possible fallacies by people who believes everything an authority (e.g. the government) says is also produces a negative impact on society.

We must question things presented to us, but not become paranoid and use the same pseudo-facts politicians may be using. 9/11 conspiracies are just as invalid as Iraq prewar evidence: one came from the conspiracy theorists, the other from the government. Those of us stuck in the middle should never cease from questioning what we see and what we are told, but there is a point where people question too much and form a false reality.

I think at least one thing myself and the radical right-wing can agree on is that these 9/11 conspiracy theorists hold false notions and use unbelievably invalid facts to support their almost non-existant argument that the government of the United States of America was the sole perpetrator of the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City, the Pentagon in northern Virginia, and the third, failed, attack (Flight 93) on 11 September 2001.

Just as the conspiracy theorists blame the government, the Bush administration holds the ambiguous general terrorist movement  — as if it were one concrete force — as its scapegoat and poster-child for evil.

technorati tags: 9/11, 9/11+conspiracy, conspiracy+theories, truthers, politics, media, terrorism, september+11th, opinion, arguement, government, bush, news+media, fact, in+the+news, history

Public opinion in America

The sociopolitical fabric of a nation, as charted through a Pew study...

The following is a summary of the findings of a Pew Research Center report on American public opinion and political trends, with my own insight of course. I skimmed the full 112-page report (the last 30 or so pages are just raw numbers), which you can find in PDF form.

American public is changing for the better. However, the changing demographic and much of the population, is politically apathetic. The still-widespread apathy explains why more polarized thinkers take action; there are more conservatives than there are liberals when one gets to either side. The middle is the section that is shifting towards a less traditional, more secular, more rational mindset. The middle is also unsure of itself and is losing confidence over what power they can exercise over their own government. The solution is simple: actually do something. Instead of complaining about your unrepresentative government, elect a different one or push your current one. At the moment, the special interests or polarized politicos dominate Washington. It doesn’t need to stay that way.

This latest Pew study is very informative and lays down some notions that most Americans — including the younger generations — are becoming more conservative, more intuitional, more religious, in a nutshell everything people like Rush Limbaugh, Sam Brownback, Dick Cheney, and James Dobson want them to be.

Americans still have a long way to go. They need to regain confidence in the power of the people instead of just lamenting their poor government, which, inevitably, always happens in a developed democracy.

Overall, this report projects good news and bad news about the course America and its people are taking and their views on such a course — for me at least. I've heard some say this poll is good news for Democrats; some say its good news for moderate Republicans.

The study also points out that Republicans are largely more conservative than Democrats are liberal; and that there are more conservatives interested in politics than liberals. Still, roughly half (Democrats and Republicans averaged) of those polled think `immigrants threaten American customs`, only emphasizing a need for proper education, especially in politics and history. People must have forgotten that their grandparents or their parents or their parents were immigrants. For example, a large number of Americans are of Irish or German heritage, and have ancestors who immigrated to the US only relatively recently (late 1800s, early 1900s). More on the immigration issue here, and more coming soon.

The government should help people in need and take responsibility of the needy, a good majority say. A lesser majority hold the above view, even to the point where debt is incurred from the government programs to help the needy (e.g. welfare, public health). In addition, many think a public health system is in order.

In foreign policy topics, Americans now finally view "getting even", i.e. employing 'an eye for an eye' strategy just isn’t a good idea. This complements the downward trend in the number of Americans who think peace is best achieved through military force — another slightly counter-intuitive notion.

There is also a decent dip in the overall percentage of people who think the US should remain active in world affairs, though the number is still in the 80s. The number who completely agree that America should keep active internationally has dropped from 50 percent in 2003 to 42 percent now. Bad news does come with that statistic: more and more Americans are developing isolationist sentiments.

The falloff in strong support for an active U.S. role
in global affairs is consistent with other Pew surveys over the past two years showing a decline in support for internationalism among the public. In “America’s Place in the World,” conducted in the fall of 2005, 42% said they believed the U.S. should “mind its own business” internationally – the highest percentage expressing that sentiment since the mid-1990s, after the Cold War, and the mid-1970s, following the Vietnam War.

That survey found that the growth in isolationist sentiment was largely concentrated
among Democrats. However, the values survey shows that both Democrats and Republicans are less likely to completely agree that the U.S. should take an active role on the world stage than they did four years ago. Similarly, the percentage of conservatives – regardless of party – who strongly favor an active U.S. stance in world affairs has fallen from 53% to 39% since 2003; this is comparable to the decline in strong support among self-described liberals (11 points).

I myself am an internationalist. However, that does not mean I think the United States and other powers should be able to meddle in other countries affairs, especially if the results are negative and there is no sufficient reason for the interference. Between the expansion of global free trade — like it or not — and the international exchange of ideas being fuelled by the Internet and the rise of developing countries, and the need for international awareness to take action in and prevent things like genocides and civil wars with mass implications (even to a country’s interests), isolationism is less of an option now than it was in the American know-nothing era between the two world wars. For economic, humanitarian, political, and security reasons, a global mindset is needed and, because of the aforementioned, the United States needs to stay active in international affairs. People need to realize the activity is not the problem, it is what that activity is that is the real problem: failed policies and bad politic. America doesn’t need to be less involved in world affairs to prevent another Iraq, it just needs to change its policy and policy-makers.

Americans are less confident, still patriotic but a bit less so, and still believe they should fight for their country, even if they don’t agree with what they are fighting for. Only a third overall believe torture is never justified, and the younger think it is more justified than the older. A majority still think preemptive force is justifiable. Americans are tough and fairly closed-minded on immigration, one of the few views kept constant since the Pew study of 1992. There has been a small boost in the number of people who view immigrants as a serious threat to traditional, all-American customs. Xenophobia is still popular, and, along with isolationism, are major sociopolitical threats to American progress in many ways.

Around one in ten is agnostic, atheist, or non-religious.

The survey also finds steady – if slow – declining support for traditional or conservative social values, in such areas as homosexuality and the role of women in society. This movement has been apparent on most of the six different measures of attitudes on social values, but is more evident when looking at the questions collectively (these values measures do not include opinions about abortion).

In 1987, about half of the survey’s respondents (49%) gave conservative answers to at least four of the six questions. In 2007, just 30% did so.

Keep in mind this is just a poll: one public study. It is a study put together by a reputable source, yes, but its results, like the results of many similar reports of public opinion and politics, should be taken with a grain of salt.

This report states the number of social conservatives is declining from the levels of the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, there have been studies that suggest otherwise, including those looking at an increasing number of evangelicals and members of the religious right. No doubt the religious lobby is as powerful now as ever and the evangelical vote is more likely to be captured than the moderate vote because of the rampant apathy and feelings of a lack of options in the mind of the general public.

A majority of people still oppose gay marriage in any form. The death penalty also still has public support by a good majority. For the first time ever recorded in one of these Pew studies, a majority of people (51 percent) completely agree with the idea of interracial relationships. The number who agree (but not "completely") is at 83 percent, compared to a meager 48 percent in the 1987/1988 report. The government does not benefit people, its programs are usually inefficient and don’t have good outcomes, elected officials do not care about me or what I think — these are three statements most people, according to the study, agree with.

Most think governmental regulation of business is bad; the statistic is up dramatically for Democrats and down a bit for Republicans, possibly because of scandals similar to Enron. Companies have too much say in government, make too large of profits, and do not usually act in the public interest, say a majority of people polled. There are corporate skeptics of `evil` companies like Halliburton and ExxonMobil. On the whole, more young people view the success of business as a direct correlation to the success of America as a country. We are seeing less ethical, more commercialized young people (i.e. Gen Y), who are, at the same time, less religious and socially conservative. On socioeconomic issues, like government helping the needy and prevention of warrantless activity, blacks are more progressive than whites.

People view the political intelligence of the people as down. Also, most believe in the obligation to vote and interest in local politics is at a high. Far more people are afraid of personal information collected by business than government. Nearly 40 percent think warrantless searches should be allowed of "people like me" who may have terrorist leanings. 40 percent believe some civil liberties must be put aside in order to fight terrorism.

A very large majority of people believe in "stricter laws and regulation" to protect the environment.

Image is everything? Perception and the 'war on terror'

Throughout this month, I will be posting excerpts of my lengthy paper "The War on Terror and the Fire Paradox", as mentioned in this post. Here is one such excerpt...

Image is everything? Perception and the 'war on terror', in their eyes
How do human rights and other abuses committed in the name of the war on terror tie into the terrorism? Perception: how the world sees the United States and, most importantly, how the moderates in the Muslim world view the US. Instead of just angering moderate Muslim communities — in the US and abroad — the United States should choose policy decisions that limit the perception that the US is after (all) Muslims, which is exactly what the radicals want the moderates to think. In addition, tying ventures like the one in Iraq to any counterterrorism operation only increases the confusion and gives all counterterrorism a bad name.

Sadly, because the United States failed in its plans to bring stability to Iraq following the 2003 invasion, which was under false pretenses, there is now more than ever a need for counterterrorism in Iraq and the wider Middle East. Radicals have been able to garner more popular support from the majority-moderate population. The United States' occupation and perceived targeting of Islam is their scapegoat and rallying cry; the US's scapegoat are the extremists and allegedly extremist-supporting states like Iran.

Not only has the failure in Iraq created more Mid-East instability, it has allowed countries like Iran, a Shia-majority semi-democratic, semi-theocratic country, to enjoy an unprecedented power and hand in their neighbors affairs. At the same time, America is seen as an occupier — a true statement — but also a source of great evil. Islamic extremists see the US as evil; the US sees the Islamic extremists as evil.

Overall, the US has generally refrained from using terrorism — i.e. fear of violence in opposition to gain political power and control — in its efforts to 'win over' the support of the Iraqi people, or scare them into submission. However, things like secret CIA prisons and detention centers like the one at Guantanamo Bay, and the torture tied to many related operations, has hurt the American image abroad and diminished political capital at home.

There have been numerous polls analyzing the popularity of the US. One such poll was created by the BBC, GlobeScan, and PIPA. The global view of the United States is not very positive, and support is eroding. The overall average, from 25 countries polled, resulted in a negative outlook of US influence of about 50 percent; positive outlook was only a bit over 30 percent.


The survey raised some questions, as the BBC's Marcus Jonathan wrote the day the poll's results were released — following President Bush's annual State of the Union address.

This poll underscores conclusions drawn from several other surveys - that anti-Americanism is on the rise, and the more the US flexes its hard power - the more it deploys troops abroad or talks tough diplomatically - the more it seems to weaken its ability to influence the world.

Maybe Washington will bounce back. America's image improved markedly in the post-Vietnam era. But then there was still the Cold War to keep America's allies on-side.
…
Comparable surveys suggest that there is still strong support around the world for the values enshrined in US society. But it looks as though America itself is seen to be living up to those values less and less.

As a result, America's soft power - its ability to influence people in other countries by the force of example and by the perceived legitimacy of its policies - is weakening.

And in a turbulent, globalising world, where the US - rightly or wrongly - is associated by many with the disruptive effects of globalisation, soft power matters more than ever.
…
At root is the problem of legitimacy.
…
It is the Bush administration's handling of the issue that is reflected in this BBC poll; not the policy options themselves. These are complex.
...
The US undoubtedly has an "image-problem", and there are worrying signs that this is having an impact upon the administration's ability to get the policy outcomes that it wants.

One of the wisest writers on these issues is Joseph S Nye, now Dean of the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He is in many ways "Mr Soft Power", having written and theorised about the phenomenon for many years.

He has long-argued that Americans need to better understand how their policies appear to others.

"To communicate effectively," he has written, "Americans must first learn to listen."

This opinion poll, then, represents a powerful argument for those seeking to make the case that Washington should listen more and try to win over its friends as much by persuasion and force of example as by firm actions and tough rhetoric.

The US government turns a blind eye to regimes that contradict what Bush administration defines as American values (freedom, etc.), and, at the same time, disown democratic countries who disagree with the US's views in their self-gratifying crusade for 'freedom' and against 'terrorism'. This is similar to the politics of the Cold War: 'us against them', 'with us or against us'; having a general, evil enemy at home, which garnered political capital, and supporting regimes with contradictory policies abroad. These foreign policy contradictions, coupled with America striving for authority in any area it think relates to terrorism, make some very angry.

During the Cold War, America was battling 'communism'; nowadays it is fighting 'terrorism'. They could say it is sunny on a cloudy day (or vice versa) and, sadly, many people would believe them. Unconditional support for Israel has not helped others' perceptions of the United States either, not least in the Muslim world, where the terrorist insurgents we are talking about come from.

All of the aforementioned tie into how others view America. A negative PR has strong implications for how US policy affects others. Ultimately, a poor image allows terrorist insurgents to recruit more, or at least get more public support, at a time when too many in the Muslim world think the US is against them — there is, in their eyes at least, little evidence to the contrary.

See also "Why are we obsessed with terrorism?". And a post on the 'fire paradox'.

The Terrorism Index

Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for American Progress have released their second "Terrorism Index" (full PDF) six months after the first one (which was released around the five year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks). This is really interesting...

Six months ago, we launched a groundbreaking new index that asked more than 100 of America's top foreign-policy hands if the United States was winning the war on terror. Their answer? No. Now, surveyed again today, this bipartisan group sees a world that continues to grow more dangerous and a U.S. national security strategy that is failing on several fronts. In the second FOREIGN POLICY/Center for American Progress Terrorism Index, these experts warn that not only is another attack imminent, but that the United States may be distracted from the threats that matter most.

Bush administration policies (14%) are more dangerous to US national security than the Iraq war (10%), al-Qaeda/Jihadist movements (11%), WMD (12%), or terrorism (11%), say the experts. However, nuclear weapons and materials (25%) as well as "other" (17%) are higher. By far most of the people surveyed say that the world is becoming a more dangerous place for the United States and Americans in general (81% versus 12% who think it is becoming safer). When asked whether "the United States is winning the war on terror" the experts were categorized by declared political ideology. 43 conservatives, five moderates, and five liberals agree; 50 conservatives, 81 liberals, and 93 moderates disagree with the statement. Overall 16 agree and 75 disagree with the notion that the US is winning the 'war on terror'.

Putting political ideology aside, six in 10 of the experts think Bush is doing the worst job possible in Iraq. A majority think the US should not raise troop levels in Iraq, but definitely should in Afghanistan — which I agree with. There is little faith in the government on its progress since 9/11 on the 9/11 Commission's recommendations; which is in line with this administrations abysmal report cards from the Commission. Most agree that the US has "worked to curtail terrorist financing" and the lesser majority believes that identifying terrorist hot-spots and sanctuaries has seen some improvement. The Taliban is stronger; al Qaeda is about the same; Hezbollah is much stronger; Hamas is stronger say the polled experts.

North Korea's nuclear program (see here and here for latest developments) is ranked the overall most pressing and dangerous issue facing America and the world. In addition a majority say the United States' policy towards North Korea has only worsened the problem. Nearly one in 10 of the experts believe the US is the most dangerous government in the world today, only beaten by Iran (40%) and North Korea (35%).

But how does the American public's views differ from the experts'? The public is clearly too sure of the government, too optimistic, seems jut plain uneducated in general according to the date this index displays. Most think the US is winning, the Bush administration has a plan and is doing well, and that the US is more secure — all things the experts dissent to a higher majority than the public agrees (e.g. more experts think the US is loosing the "war on terror" than public think the US is winning). Nonetheless, while I agree with practically all of the experts' decisions in this index, the public is way off base. I am not too surprised, but it is still disturbing that a majority of people in America hold such off views.

technorati tags: foreign+policy, center+for+american+progress, terrorism, terrorism+index, war+on+terror, public, experts, poll, security, bush, national+security, global+issues, north+korea

Newspeak, public opinion, and the "surge"

See this post for more.

White House newspeak, public opinion on Iraq, and the "surge".
The ‘surge’ President Bush is expected to announce any time now is certainly not a new idea. Basically, the White House is pulling some PR [see below] and running over the usual talking points: we need to accomplish the mission in Iraq (just give us some more time); the media is making it sound worse than it is (who needs them anyway?); we will stand down when they stand up (in a matter of speaking). One reads about how the American public does not support this increase of 21,500 of US troops in Iraq — a nation in sectarian civil war invaded in 2003. Here are the statistics (HT to Mark Blumenthal of Pollster):
Gallup poll (withdrawal options/send more troops):

15% Withdraw immediately
39% Withdraw by January 2008
31% Take as long as needed
12% Send more troops
2% Unsure

CBS News (increase/decrease/same/remove all troops):

18% Increase
17% Keep the same
30% Decrease
29% Remove all
6% Unsure

Rasmussen Reports (on troop numbers):

31% Send More
56% Reduce
13% Not sure

Gallup (on “surge” and stablilzation):

36% Favor
61% Oppose
3% Unsure

CBS News (on taking back Baghdad with more troops):

45% Favor
48% Oppose
7% Unsure

There seem to be a fair amount of “unsure” out there. Most Americans seem to want a decrease in troops, but are divided between finishing the ‘mission’ and a withdrawal within the next year.

WP:

President Bush will announce this evening that he is sending 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq and will warn Americans that the next year of the war could be bloody as U.S. and Iraq forces confront sectarian militias and seek to quell the Sunni Muslim insurgency, White House officials said today.

"If we increase our support at this crucial moment and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home," Bush will say, according to excerpts of the speech released by the White House late this afternoon.

This “surge” has been hot news ever since the BBC reported it a bit over a week ago.

Iraq is obviously portrayed by the White House as part of the “war on terror”. Although the media made a slip-up by adopting the term — which is not only false but political propaganda — most people interested in this sort of stuff have figured that out already. CJR article:

The Bush administration has aggressively refined the art of distilling any new initiative presented to the public into a single word or phrase that at once defines the idea while obscuring its various downsides. Orwell coined the everlasting expression for this: newspeak.

The phrase "war on terror" is perhaps the administration's crowning achievement in this realm.

Newspeak was used by the Big Brother government in George Orwell’s brilliant masterpiece, 1984. The government was ultra-authoritarian and controlled the people, brainwashing them and using terms to garner their support to a point where popular support mattered no more. The government was that strong. Luckily, we have yet to see that strict of what could only be described as a political and societal nightmare. Yet we can still learn from Orwell — even and especially today.

technorati tags: newspeak, orwell, george+orwell, 1984, pr, bush, white+house, public+opinion, polls, iraq, iraq+war, surge, iraq+escalation, troop+surge, symantics, iraq+plan, news, politics, united+states, usa, current, in+the+news