MyDD :: The Real Security Gap

The Real Security Gap

by Chris Bowers, Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 08:29:40 PM EST

While I have grown extremely weary of what I feel is an extreme over-emphasis upon the "right decision / wrong decision" question when it comes to Iraq on the part of national polling firms, I have also grown weary at what I feel is the lack of transparency when it comes to the internals of surveys that ask this question. Even before the war began, I have wanted to know what different groups, especially Democrats, have thought about the war. Rarely, however, have such demographic breakdowns been offered by polling firms. Considering the importance of discussions about the war not only within the nation at large, but also within different communities, such as the community of Democrats, I for one have always wanted to know what Democrats think about the war.

After some digging, I did finally come across one report that offered a detailed breakdown of opinion on the war within several different demographics. It is from Pew, and was conducted from July 13-17 (PDF). It is a bit old, but August has been a pretty quiet polling month, so it will have to do. The findings are revealing:

Iraq war was...
	     Right Decision    Wrong Decision
Con. Rep		   88		      8
Mod / Lib Rep	   74		     18
Con / Mod Dem	   32		     63
Lib Dem 		   22		     73

I think is is instructive to see that at the level of the rank and file, self-proclaimed conservative and moderate Democrats are far, far closer to their liberal siblings on the war than they are to self-proclaimed moderate and liberal Republicans. Conservative and moderate Demcorats think the war was a mistake by at least a two to one margin (probably more by now), while liberal and moderate Republicans think the war was a good idea by a four to one margin. From and Reed have often attacked "acivist elites" for not representing the rank and file of the party. When it comes to Iraq, however, Democratic hawks are unrepresentative of every wing of the Democratic Party.

At the level of the rank and file, the proper use of military force is at least as much of a dividing line between Democrats and Republicans as reproductive rights, and quite possibly more so. For example, a more recent poll by Pew identified only around a twenty-point gap between Democrats and Republicans when it came to overturning Roe, while the Pew poll quoted above find a fifty-point gap on the Iraq war. The interesting thing is that when it comes to elected officials of the two parties, differences on choice are far more stark than differences on the proper use of military force. For example, in 2003 there was a sense of the Senate resolution on whether or not Roe was the right decision. Democrats went 44-5 in favor, while Republicans went 43-8 opposed, an enormous gap. However, when it came time to vote for the war a few months earlier, only 22 of 51 Democratic Senators opposed it.

While views on the proper use of military force divide rank and file Democrats from rank and file Republicans more than do views on Roe, among our federal officials Roe is a much starker dividing line. This tells me that progressive foreign policy activists have done a lousy job of influencing the Democratic Party, whose leaders remain out of touch with the rank and file when it comes to the use of military force. Further, because progressive foreign policy activists have such little influence over the Democratic Party, there are no consequences for Democratic leaders who fail to support the hopes and dreams of the rank and file within the realm of foreign policy. Witness, for example, Kerry receiving 94% of the vote from the one-third of the electorate that said they "strongly disapproved" of the decision to go to war: a war which Kerry himself had voted for.

This has to end. If, as a party, we are unable to project nationally a contrast with Republicans on the issue that most fundamentally divides Democrats from Republicans, we have no hope of ever becoming a viable governing alternative to Republicans. As Pew noted in their vast typology survey, bar none, no issue currently divides members of the two parties more than our differences over the proper use of military force. Oh yeah--the war in Iraq is also the number one issue in the country right now, bar none. It is the biggest issue and the biggest division, yet we can't provide an alternative. No wonder we lose elections.

The real national security gap in the this country is not between the Democratic Party and the electorate as a whole, but between the Democratic leadership and the Democratic rank and file. The only solution I can see to this situation is for the Democratic rank and file to be far more assertive in choosing its leaders based upon their views of foreign policy. Until the country or the Democratic Party leadership changes, rank and file Democrats must become far more single-issue oriented during primaries and other intra-party disputes. If we don't change our party when it comes to Iraq, I fear we cannot change our country we it comes to pretty much anything, no matter how reformed we may become.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 11 Comments :: Post a Comment

Not that divisive (none / 0)

The war is less divisive on the Democratic side than most people think. Most people assume that no Democratic president would have gone into Iraq, no matter who that President was. Though many Democrats did vote to authorize the use of force. This is evidenced by the 94% Kerry number from 2004.

Though Hillary voted for the authorization, no one seriously believes we would be in Iraq right now if she, or any other Democrat, had been the president.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

by jgarcia on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 09:35:27 PM EST

Re: Not that divisive (none / 0)

I no longer care about Dems voted for war. I care about NeoDems who still support the Iraq disasteras much or more than NeoCons.

I'm still waiting for ONE Senate Dem to back up Sen. Feingold's reasonable call for a withdrawl timetable. But they are as AWOL on that as they were for Black Democrats after the 2000 ripoff.

Put up all the polls you want, but Democrats who don't oppose Bush are going to be beaten just as Cleland and Daschle were and the Repos will hold on to Congress.

by Guy on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 11:16:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is why... (none / 0)

...I believe, more than ever, that Feingold has the inside track on the Democratic nomination for president-yet none of the so-called insiders know this. When it happens, they will be knocked silly, never being able to see the obvious coming.

I just hope it doesn't tear the party to bits like Vietnam did.

by Geotpf on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 02:24:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another point (none / 0)

Democrats risk between 22 and 32 percent of their base when they stake a claim that the war was a bad idea.

Republicans risk between 8 and 18 percent of their base when they stake a claim that the war was a good idea.

The 14% differential is what makes a wedge issue.

This whole issue is pro GOP.

Why? because if this issue is elevated to the point that people start voting based on this issue alone the GOP picks up 14%

No matter how much some of us believe this war was a bad idea (which I do not) this is NOT our issue.

by donkeykong on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 09:38:47 PM EST

Re: Another point (none / 0)

If Democrats want liberals to turn out and vote for them they'd better make it their issue.

by Guy on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 11:19:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mising part of the equation (none / 0)

A majority of indepdents, anywhere from 10-20 points, thinks the war was a bad idea.

A wedge issue that turns the swing afainst you is not a wedge issue.

by Chris Bowers on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 11:47:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mising part of the equation (none / 0)

There is a major difference between Iraq was poorly executed and is a total mess and Invading Iraq was a bad idea in the first place.

Outside of the liberal left Americans understand that difference.

Most American's understand that if Bush Sr. or Bill Clinton invaded Iraq it would have gone very differently and quite possibly been a good idea.

Saying Iraq is a mess and its Bush's fault is a winner. Saying invading Iraq was a bad idea and nations should not invade other countries whenever possible is a loser and a major reason Bush won dispite American knowning that he is a retard.

The longer we stay on the peace now, peace forever, lets never fight theme the more we doom veterans like Kerry to being beaten by pansy cowards like Bush.

If you want to deal with the issue deal with it from the aspect of it not being a professional war.

Professional warriors...

Trust their intelligence agencies to get the story straight and don't feed them what story they are suppost to get.
Trust their generals to prepare for the war AND the peace.
Follow the Powel doctrine. Overwhelming force, clear exit strategy, and respect for enemy etc.
Understand that we would have been far safer with 200 billion dollars worth of solar panels permantly offsetting foreign oil imports than we are now.
Follow the geneva accords not because they are nice but because they protect American soldiers.

If we claim war as OUR domain while Bush who is both a coward and an idiot is president we can reduce the whipping McCain will give who ever we put up on this issue. We need to own the national defense card.

Bill Clinton reversed the tax and spend image now lets reverse the weak on defense image.

If you meant that independants are against all proactive war in general then you have bad polling data.

by donkeykong on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 02:36:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bush's rotten poll numbers... (none / 0)

...mean little so long as NeoDems in Congress support his Iraq policy. If Republicans had been this afraid of disagreeing with Clinton, Democrats would still control every branch of government.

by Guy on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 11:09:20 PM EST

This Is Indicative of A Much Deeper Problem (none / 0)

As if Iraq itself were not deep enough. But the Project on International Policy Alternatives (PIPA) has been hammering on this for a long time--that there is a fundamental disconnect between policy-makers and the public.

In fact, while the Republican base will continue to support Bush on Iraq in relatively high numbers, they should not be seen as keen to extend that rationale. In general, there is broad, long-standing support for multi-lateralism that extends deep into the Republican base, which would make it very difficult to get support for doing another Iraq, even in a relatively small country, much less in Iran.

It's at this deeper fundamental level that Democrats should be grounding their foreign policy stand. By making it about Iraq--rather than about how we act in general--they have accepted Bush's frame, and accepted a reactive stance. And this is a sure loser. They have to frame it in broader, more fundamental terms.

In October, 2004, PIPA released a study including findings that "Majorities of Bush supporters misperceive his positions on a range of foreign policy issues. In particular they assume he supports multilateral approaches and addressing global warming when he has taken strong contrary positions on issues such as the International Criminal court and the Kyoto Agreement..... there is a recurring theme: majorities of Bush supporters favor these positions, and they infer that Bush favors them as well."

Specifically, PIPA found that 54% of Bush supporters favored participation in Kyoto, 66% favored participation in the land mines treaty, and 68% favored a treaty prohibiting testing nuclear weapons (CTBT)--all positions that Bush opposed. But majorities of Bush supporters mistakenly thought he also supported these positions--51%, 72% and 69%, respectively.

Thus, not only does Bush's conservative base take liberal foreign policy positions--it falsely assumes that he does, too. This is where we need to focus our attention--on stressing a broadly consistent approach to foreign affairs that the Republican base already shares with us. (We might also consider mentioning the [ahem!] late lamented Powell Doctrine in sorrowful tones from time to time.)

In all, PIPA found that a majority of Bush supporters mistook his position on six of eight issues, while a majority (in fact, 65% or more) of Kerry supporters correctly identified his position on seven out of eight issues (a 43% plurality correctly identified his position on the eighth).

In short, comparing this to the figures Chris posted on Iraq, it is clear that Bush has far less support on foreign policy as a whole than he does on Iraq.

Oppportunity: "Knock! Knock! Knock!"

DLC: "Go away! We don't want any!"

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 07:29:45 AM EST

A word of caution on the Senate votes (none / 0)

While I agree with your general assessment, I think you need to be careful of your analysis of the war vote in 2003. The Congress does not have its own covert investigative body. As such, it relies fairly heavily on intelligence from the administration in making its decisions. While I would have preferred a show of faith in international institutions, we need to remember what the administration was showing people.

Administration officials certainly showed photos and documents that pointed toward a WMD program to Senators with classified clearance. If the Senators who saw this information were convinced, it would be easy for them to convince others. It's also important to remember what they were NOT shown. Evidence that cast doubt on Iraq's weapons threat was left out of briefings. Considering they were shown evidence of a real threat with no opposed evidence, I don't blame them too much for favoring immediate, unilateral action.

Again, this would not have been my course; I would have been among the 22 dissenters, but I don't think the blame lies with Democratic votes. I think it lies with an administration that was more concerned with flexing some international muscle than with a thorough investigation of Iraq's interior or with a real pursuit of terrorists.

We cannot confuse a vote in 2003 with current attitudes about the war. If you held the vote again, my suspicion is that only a couple Democrats would vote the other way (Lieberman comes to mind). Democrats who don't support a defined timetable for pullout (of whom I am one) still believe that, starting from scratch, knowing what they know now, the war was a huge mistake, and that's what the poll question is really asking.

Viewed in this way, I'm not sure we can say that the Congressional view of appropriate use of force is radically different from that of Democrats at large.

by jhupp on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 10:22:47 AM EST

If only voting was based on an aggregate of (none / 0)

positions. Like some kind of shoping list.

This kind of thinking has allowed the NRA to destroy dozens of Democratic candidates who foolishly latched on to gun control, and quite a few others who were tarred by mere association.

Many people who have buyer's remorse over Iraq will still go and vote for the more hawkish candidate in the next election.

Cold-headed rationality has little to do with any of it.

by Cyt on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 05:32:42 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.