 |
| Home | Subscribe | Back Issues | The Organization Volunteer | Do Something Directory | Activist Calendar Back to this issue's directory |
Christopher Hitchens wrote, in his book Letters to a Young Contrarian,that the underlying purpose of polls is to influence rather thanreflect public opinion. The reason? Large corporations conduct pollsas an effective--albeit expensive--form of market research, aimed atpushing their products instead of measuring opinions. As Hitchensexplains, "the point is not to interpret the world but to change it. Atendency to favor one product over another is not something to bepassively discovered and observed but to be nurtured, encouraged, andexploited."
I've thought of Hitchens' assertion frequently in the last few months,every time I've encountered a poll about the Bush administration'simminent war against Iraq. The polling questions, as most peoplewho've read or participated in a poll know, are formulated to give theappearance of objective, scientific validity to what are actuallyslanted questions designed to elicit particular responses--in thepresent case, to serve the Bush administration's crude sales pitchpushing the "product" of war in Iraq over the "product" of peace.Bush, of course, has been assisted in his efforts by the Office ofGlobal Communications, an organization utilizing $200 million oftaxpayer money to mobilize American and international support for awar in Iraq. Opinion polls are one of their marketing strategies.
For example, a netscape.com poll asked its readers to complete thissentence on July 29:
President Bush would have Saddam Hussein assassinated because
1) it looks good politically (26 percent),
2) he'd finish the job his dad started (27 percent),
3) it's the right thing militarily (47 percent).
After cringing at the crudeness of the responses, notice that allthree are justifications for military action, excluding a peacefulperspective and forcing those who disagree to ignore the poll orfinish the sentence with a sarcastic response of their own, such as:"America has the world's most powerful army and therefore Bushbelieves he can use it to serve his own ends and violate internationallaw whenever it suits him." But never mind the peaceful option here;even if you believe the Bush rhetoric that Hussein has weapons of massdestruction and is hell-bent on using them, do any of the aboveresponses come close to reflecting your opinion?
Instead of a thoughtful response like, "Hussein poses an immediatethreat to peace in the Middle East and therefore must be stopped by aUN-sponsored coalition force," the wording at the beginning of thesentence assumes that there is nothing pre-emptive or illegal aboutexecuting the leader of another country and, moreover, that Bush hasthe authority as president to do so. Neither presumption is, ofcourse, true. But the rhetorical move has already been made, themilitary solution to the crisis in Iraq is assumed; the polling publicis led to believe that the Bush staff is only quibbling about the bestway to execute it.
A StarTribune poll, just after Bush's UN speech threatening Americanunilateral action to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, is aperfect example. Startribune.com asked this question on September 12:
If our allies and the UN don't back action in Iraq, the US should
1) act unilaterally on the assumption that the US can't afford to wait(42 percent),
2) wait. The US should never launch the first strike (9 percent),
3) heed the wisdom of our allies and try to build an airtight caseagainst Iraq (49 percent).
Again, I thought of another unmentioned option: "The US should donothing. According to international law, the US government has nolegal right to determine the leadership of other nations, no legalright to attack another nation unless attacked first, and no legalright to determine which nations can or cannot possess weapons of massdestruction." In the absence of this fourth response, I choose thesecond response because it's the only one that hints at a peacefulsolution, even if it implies that a military strike in Iraq will benecessary in the future. I was not surprised to learn that only ninepercent of the people polled agreed with me.
I've talked to my friends and almost of all of them vehemently opposethe idea of an American military confrontation in Iraq, but I've notfound one poll in which the pacifists were in the majority. Not one.My activist friends are, of course, undeterred by this pollingnonsense, but these pro-war polls have a powerful affect on people whomight be tentatively against military action in Iraq. Many believethey're outnumbered and eventually side with the imaginary "majority"in favor of war.
But the battle is not lost, even if most congressional representativesvoted in early October to grant Bush unlimited means to remove SaddamHussein from power. War can be stopped if we ignore the polls andcontinue our letter-writing, calls, street demonstrations, andpressure on congressional representatives.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio called a potential war in Iraq"unjustified, unwarranted and illegal," while Rep. Barbara Lee ofCalifornia worked on another resolution calling for the Americangovernment to cooperate with UN inspectors. Washington State's JimMcDermott joined three other Democrats in Baghdad one week before thecongressional vote and claimed that the Bush administration "is tryingto mislead the American people." Only a sustained and coordinatedeffort on our part will inspire other representatives to join theirranks.
|
| Home | Subscribe | Back Issues | The Organization Volunteer | Do Something Directory | Activist Calendar Back to this issue's directory |