« Consequences of Failure | Main | Running from Success »
July 17, 2007
The Polls! The Polls!
So Senator Webb thinks that we need to pull out of Iraq because a NYT poll says that 55% of enlisted soldiers say we should withdraw from Iraq. He said this in a debate with Sen Graham last weekend on Meet the Press. Webb also used this argument when he made the Democrat rebuttal to President Bush's State of the Union address last January.
It isn't just Sen. Webb, the anti-war folks in general use polling results incessantly to justify their demand that we withdraw now from Iraq.
Logically speaking this type of argument is called an enthymeme, which is a syllogism without one it it's parts; major premise, minor premise, or conclusion. Webb and those like him who use this argument don't spell out their reasoning, but based on what
We should base our policy on the latest poll
The latest poll on Iraq says that most people favor immediate withdrawal
Therefore we should withdraw immediately
If those who use polls as part of their argument deny that this is their argument, which part are they denying? Most likely they'd deny the major premise (line 1). Perhaps what they mean is
We should base Iraq policy on the latest poll
The latest poll on Iraq says that most people favor immediate withdrawal
Therefore we should withdraw immediately
or
We should base military policy on the latest poll The latest poll on Iraq says that most people favor immediate withdrawal Therefore we should withdraw immediatelyBut syllogisms 2 & 3 seem rather selective. If you're going to base Iraq policy, or military policy on the polls, why not policy in all areas? Why not decide other issues on the polls too, such as abortion, school choice, or illegal immigration? It is not clear why we should choose policy based on polls in one area and not another.
Perhaps, however, those who use polls as part of their argument are saying yet something else.
We should base our policy on poll readings if said poll holds firm over a period of time Polls on Iraq have said for some time that most people favor immediate withdrawal Therefore we should withdraw immediately
This is the only argument that really makes any sense. Unfortunately, those who make their argument based on polls rarely get into this level of detail, so I'm forced to guess.
Truth be told, I realize I am seriously overthinking this. My general observation is that people who make their arguments based on polls, whether they be conservatives or liberals, rarely think through what they are saying to this level. Most of they time they are simply pulling numbers to support a predetermined conclusion and we all know it.
And lets be clear, conservatives can be just as guilty of this as liberals. In the recent debate over the immigration (really amnesty) bill in Congress, some conservatives based their opposition to the bill on poll numbers which showed that the majority of Americans opposed the legislation.
But I think you need to be consistent. If you're going to use poll numbers to justify your position in one area, you've got to do it in others. You can't say, for example, that we should pull out of Iraq because the polls say we should, then take a position against school choice even though polls show the majority of Americans favor it.
We can get into a deep philosophical discussion on this whole matter of public opinion and public policy, and I'm sure it gets rather complicated, but since that isn't really the subject of this post I'll just touch on a few areas.
Of course in any republic public opinion matters. But this opinion gets to be expressed at regularly scheduled intervals called voting. The founding fathers were just as afraid of mob rule as they were of tyranny. They wanted a government somewhat insulated from the passions of the moment. This is one reason why our Congress is divided into two houses, in which the House most closely represents the immediate will of the people with the Senate a bit more insulated.
Once elected, should represenatives take notice of changes in the public mood? My answer is that yes they should take notice but they should be wary of making radical policy changes based on polls and focus groups.
A few months ago I wrote a post on the Democrat Party's "New Rules for Going to War" Two of my mock rules were
• It at any time a poll of the American people show that their support for military operations goes below 50% the troops are to be immediately withdrawn• It at any time a poll of active-duty military personnel show that their support for military operations goes below 50% the troops are to be immediately withdrawn
I guess I could call my latter rule the "Senator Jim Webb honorary rule for going to war".
It'd all be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. They didn't poll the troops in the Revolution, Civil War, WWII, or Korea, or any other war to see what they thought. Yes public opinion matters, yes it matters what the troops think. It's rather the modern obsession with polls, especially when they're used selectively and really to bolster predetermined conclusions that bothers me. And you just can't make public policy by turning to the latest poll, whether it's of the general public or the military.
Reasonable people can disagree about what exactly the public thinks we ought to do about Iraq, and how long they've felt that way. On the one hand I don't think it's nearly as clear cut as the anti-war left would have us believe, but at the same time there's no denying that there's a deep frustation and disillusionment.
But enough of my philosophical ramblings. The bottom line is that too many politicians and people in general use polls to justify predetermined positions. They also only use polls when it bolsters their position on an issue, and ignore them when they go against their position. I'm sure I've been guilty of this too on occasion. It's an easy trap to fall into.
The bottom line is that too many politicians, mainly in the Democrat Party but also in the GOP, are completely poll-driven and seem utterly devoid of principle. This needs to change.
Posted by Tom at July 17, 2007 9:30 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/944
Comments
We all know that polls are an important part of the American political scene. As you mentioned in the comments on the last post, politics here in the United States are nothing like ‘politics’ in Iraq. Here, politicians use polls to play to public opinion. In Iraq, it’s very different. For example, in relation to Americans views on the war (and the resulting shift in the electoral winds from the voting public to Washington), polls have aided politicians who want to figure out in advance what their voters will be voting on, then they shamelessly pander to that (in addition to pursuing pork). It’s interesting, this is what we discuss and cocieve of as politics here.
In Iraq, ‘politics’ is very different. As you state you believe, “political progress will only happen after security is achieved.” Honestly, I knew little about what ‘political progress’ actually meant, other than Gen. Petraues said it needs to be part of the solution. But then I read a little further on what is ‘politics’ in a land of war and anarchy? Here is a summary of the goals (and the evaluation) of the ‘political process’ in Iraq, compared to polling in America, from Anthony Cordesman:
16. Insure that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.
AC: No progress. Feuding between Shi’ite parties had increased. The key Sunni party had left government, Tensions remained high, as did the risk to members.
13. Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.
AC: Violence had grown steadily worse at the national level, and the US and Iraqi government had become more and more dependent on local security forces like the tribes in Anbar, although some local forces did take an oath to the government and joined the police.
11. Ensuring that the Iraqi Security Forces are providing even handed enforcement of the law.
AC: A failure in Baghdad and nationally. Some police posts were active, but most areas are under police or local security forces with strong sectarian, ethnic, and tribal ties. Police corruption and inactivity were common, and the US and government increasingly had to rely on local tribal forces. The so-called “year of the police in 2006 had given way to the “year of local forces” in 2007 in much of
Iraq.
7. Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the Constitution of Iraq.
AC: No meaningful drafts seemed to exist, and no parliamentary action to date. The growing US reliance on local security forces in areas like Anbar, steady growth of the role of local Shi’ite security forces in the south and southeast, and ethnic character of security forces in the Kurdish areas also meant the growing sectarian and ethnic polarization of police and security activity throughout the country regardless of whether some of these forces took a formal oath or loyalty to the government or were formally enrolled in the police.
Sure, they’re some success (more security in the capital, more committees formed, etc.), but to me the ‘politics’ in Iraq are very rough, far beyond ‘bad numbers’. As noted, there has been no ‘political progress’ in reducing the use of local factional militias (and calling them the ‘police’) to fight not only ethnic groups in other regions, but also being used as proxies by the US. You effectively have regional militias working for the Americans. That is why there is no ‘even handed enforcement of the law.’ If you dared to answer a poll the wrong way, you might end up in the morgue. Very different than the effect of polls here.
Posted by: jason at July 17, 2007 11:48 PM
Polls mean nothing to me. Where do they get these results from and how do they compile them? Many times they are skewed and slanted.
I never pay attention to the polls. Remember 2004? The polls showed Kerry clearly beating out Bush for the presidential win. Kerry lost. Need I say more.
Posted by: Layla at July 18, 2007 12:45 PM
Layla's right. The poll we took in November 2004 is the only one which matters when determining who our Commander in Chief is.
We gave President Bush the authority and he has every right to use it.
Posted by: Mike 
at July 19, 2007 12:01 AM
Given that Iraq very nearly slipped into total civil war in 2006, I really think we ought to cut their government some slack. They're just now coming back from the brink.
And as I've often said, it is foolish of us to expect a political settlement until their is a military one. Perhaps our biggest mistake in the war was not doing this "surge" in 2004, instead of rushing to set up votes and a constitution.
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at July 20, 2007 8:36 AM
