Posted on 09/23/2014 7:39:12 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
The libertarian think tank Cato Institute held a debate on American public opinion and going to war, featuring professors Adam Berinksy of MIT, Ohio State’s John Mueller, the University of Exeter’s Jason Reifler and Trevor Thrall of George Mason University. code pink at senate hearing
Mueller began the discussion and focused on how American public opinion was polled during the “four, long ground wars” since World War II. He observed that support for wars has gone progressively down through the years. The Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq and Afghanistan military campaigns had a brief spike of approval in the beginning of said wars. Yet in each case, the decline is rapid after the start of war. Mueller said, “As casualties accrue, the support for war dwindles. Sometimes that’s been put, ‘as soon as they see the body bags, they’ll stop supporting the war.’” At one point, Mueller said, the military would not unload body bags at the Dover, Delaware Air Force base for publicity reasons.
In his analysis, Mueller said, “People are not willing to pay as much [in Iraq] as they were for the Cold Wars.” Approval ratings hit 50% and below for the Afghanistan war when there were 2,000 American dead, but in Vietnam, that approval rating came after 20,000 Americans had died. A consistent result in his findings was that “People agree that we don’t know how many casualties there are.” And, the wording of the poll questions, such as “going to war,” has some effect on approval ratings of wars. Predictably, the approval ratings drop as more American soldiers die. He said, “It’s hard to move public opinions” and gave the example of Ford’s failed Edsel car, where “90% of all products, no matter how brilliantly marketed, fail.”
Mueller noted the partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans over the Iraq war, but somehow leading Democrat politicians supported the war while the Democratic base was adamantly against it. He compared recent events in Iraq, where the country is torn apart by Islamist terrorism, to the collapse of Vietnam to communism in three simple reaction mechanisms:
Americans accepted the debacle and “they shrugged it off” “They wanted to continue the Cold War, to support the basic idea against communism…the big change was they no longer wanted to use one tactic, ground war” “They were willing to say, essentially, I do care about communism advancing” but without conducting a “ground war”
However, when Americans are asked about supporting the War on Terror, approval ratings are consistent and positive, as Americans during Vietnam saw the Cold War. But, similar to delete the aftermath of the collapse of South Vietnam, Americans today do not want a ground war to fight the War on Terror.
Reifler averred that Americans can tolerate casualties for successful missions, but not for unsuccessful ones It is consistent with the view that Americans do a cost-benefit analysis of war and then base their opinion on that analysis. But, “our emphasis on the importance of perceptions of success…is misguided because it relies on people to have …knowledge of battlefield success.” Reifler felt that method of cost-benefit analysis was “a strawman argument.” Success cannot be measured by casualties, because there is “little evidence that this is the primary measure people link to for success” and it is “not the primary metric people use” in determining success.
Berinsky said, “Partisanship is a driving force” of opinion, but when making decisions on stances, “information matters” because “people need to know where their leaders stand.” He believed “polarization within parties” can take place, without a vocal opposition, if cue-givers like a sitting president or leading lawmaker, and take strong or distinct positions on issues. He gave the example of George W. Bush: “You don’t need to have Democrats say, this is a bad war.” But, “anything that George Bush was for, they were against.” Because of this, “that partisan gap remains strong.” An interesting historical example he gave was that during the 1940’s, when the U.S. was neutral in World War II. American public opinion wanted neutrality, but FDR Democrats also wanted to support the United Kingdom in World War II. This is an example of “divergent rhetoric…divergent opinion” within public opinion polling.
Thrall said, “People rely on one good reason to support wars” that serves as a motivator to support a war or not. “That single good reason,” he said, “is doing heavy lifting.” Thrall continued, “The most fundamental reason…humans are cognitive misers, looking to cut corners when it comes to thinking hard.” Also, “the search for and maintenance of a single good reason is an awful lot easier for your brain.”
“Our psychology” powerfully resonates with the mindset that one single, good reason can motivate us. For example, “people respond far more to individual children than statistics” and “it’s our nature” to treat an example of suffering as important when an individual, not a group, is involved. He concluded, “The bottom line is that people can support something for a wide range of reasons.” With the Iraq war and war in Afghanistan, as time went on, “60% of Americans never changed their mind once” about their stance on the war.
Out of all four listed Korea was the best bet.
South Korea was really invaded had a climate more suited to conventional war than Vietnam did and had a population much more suited to modernization and a working democratic government than those poor Islamic crapholes did.
Also the UN supported it.
But in the end after years of stalemate Americans will always be asking why those we are helping are not fighting their own wars.
Fact is, public opinion about going to war is almost entirely controlled by the media.
In the case of FDR they rallied the nation 110% behind him, and no one dared breathe a word of dissent.
In the case of LBJ they held off reporting the worst of the anti-war sentiment until after Nixon had taken office.
In the case of GWB they staged five years of a relentless drumbeat to drive public opinion on the war through the toilet.
If Obama chooses to fight the war the media will once again become dutiful lapdogs, working to support homefront morale. Na’er will be heard a discouraging word.
Problem there is Obama really does not want to fight ANY war.
Calling Captain Obvious ...
This is the crux of the matter: the elite in this country-- when they have been willing to fight for America's interests at all-- have thought they can fight aristocratic wars, i.e. limited campaigns of unlimited duration for limited goals, like 18th century monarchs.
The problem is that the US is not a monarchy or aristocracy, but a democratic republic, and its political culture (despite its shortcomings) is decidedly more democratic than, say European countries.
The end result is that the elite keep trying to fight wars that the American people will not support because there is no clear-cut victory, especially when (as time goes by) the Democratic party and the media (but I repeat myself) see a long war as a political opportunity to stab the country in the back and gain political power.
You have to go to war with the regime you've got, and regarding this, as just about everything else, the elite is full of fantasies.
I don’t want to trust the future of America to the opinions of morons that elected O’bastard!
War isn’t something you take lightly, but it is never subject to opinion polls.
now that you mention it, LBJ may have been the first and last Democrat driven out of office by the anti-war movement.
“...But, similar to delete the aftermath of the collapse of South Vietnam, Americans today do not want a ground war to fight the War on Terror....”
When the “other guy” is completely ready, willing, and increasingly able to bring “the war on terror” to your doorstep - or to your high rise buildings in NYC, schools and stadiums in Anytown USA, etc., - “what Americans do not want” quickly becomes irrelevant.
What we need is a leader who says the ROE is “Win it!” I’m tired of these PC wars and goody two shoes ROEs.
And there’s the problem: “Americans”. Who are the “Americans”? Real Americans or the leftist, illegal, self-loathing, drug addicted, drunken, decadent, gibmedat trash that makes up a majority of the electorate?
For the answer, Google “POTUS Election 2008/2012 Results”.
And put the RINO stuff aside, in the real America, there would never have been a POTUS Obama (or Clinton).
And there’s the problem: “Americans”. Who are the “Americans”? Real Americans or the leftist, illegal, self-loathing, drug addicted, drunken, decadent, gibmedat trash that makes up a majority of the electorate?
For the answer, Google “POTUS Election 2008/2012 Results”.
And put the RINO stuff aside, in the real America, there would never have been a POTUS Obama (or Clinton).
If Germany/Hitler hadn't declared war on the US when Japan did in 1941 Roosevelt would have had a problem on his hands. Similarly there was no desire to attack the USSR when they started the funny business right after WWII.
Dont forget how the bad taste of WWI made most Americans want to avoid conflicts, until that direct attack by Japan.
Fast forward to early 2000s, Afgan based al-Qaeda flies those planes into World trade center building and then GWB invades Iraq citing 9/11.
Even Bush, Cheney and Rummy knew Americans wouldn't go for a long painful expensive war in Iraq when they invaded.
That was the major flaw.
I was pretty sure Obama would beat McCain thru 2008, and by mid Sept 2008 (esp with TARP) I was sure he would, Sarah Palin or not.
I get all that, brother... I guess my point is, no matter WHAT Americans want or don’t want, if the war is brought home to Main Street by these lunatics - and they’re working on doing just that - there won’t BE a choice.
And don’t think for a moment this admin - hell, ANY admin - wouldn’t use the opportunity to grab more power and control.
They already view half of the country as domestic threats to their agenda.
In a way they brought it home kind of (virtually)with the execution vids, and now Obama is seen as weak and polls poorly on defense.
Now they want him to do SOMETHING but not too much.
And he will probably get the blame if just SOMETHING doesn't work.
The fact that some Americans side with ISIS is different problem, how did they get to be Americans to start with?
I just read in a paper that not one American soldier died in combat during the entire Eisenhower years.
I understand what you’re saying.
My point is how the **** did we end up with such a turd as POTUS? The aforementioned coalition of trash I listed now represents the majority.
Trash begets trash. Welcome to Amerika. I’ll stop there before I post something very, very nasty. But you all know my solution to this, or most problems.
My mother always used to say that when Eisenhower was President, the world's "bad guys" were more afraid of the USA than at any other time in her life. Some things that happened in France in 1944 may have influenced their thinking...
“...The fact that some Americans side with ISIS is different problem, how did they get to be Americans to start with?...”
How do you think they did? They were brought here, faded into the public, put on local welfare, and established here. If any American objects to it, why, you’re automatically a “racist” or “nativist” or any other BS name they can think of to shut you up...
Look at that Somali concentration in Minnesota.
http://weaselzippers.us/200344-slick-videos-social-media-lure-minnesotans-to-fight-in-middle-east/
They’re recruiting from those people... right here at home.
In 2008 Republicans polled so low that Dems were trusted on every single issue over them, even defense and taxes.
So that one should have been no surprise, even without McCain.
Now 2012 was a series of disasters for the GOP, some self imposed.
Yes Obama would be held responsible by some for the crappy economy(others still blamed GWB) , but the Romney had a brutal primary to get through and Obama had none.
So I understand those.
However Obama would have had a hell of a time with a third re-election after the past two years.
“...how did they get to be Americans to start with?”
The downfall can be directly traced to The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. That was and is more destructive to this country than any other event ever in the history of the USA, including the Civil War.
As I’ve posted here dozens of times, the Kennedys unleashed more damage on this country than any other entity. That includes the father, JFK, RFK and the midget of the clan, Senator Ted. I continue to believe there’s a special place in Hell just for them; a bit hotter then the rest of the Godforsaken place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.