[Prairiegreens-org] Re: [Peace-discuss] Inclusive Presidential Debates

[C. G. Estabrook]

The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) conducts in-depth polls of 
this sort on the public opinion of international politics. They contrast quite 
sharply with the push-polls of which john has apparently been the unwitting 
victim.  PIPA is jointly run by the Center on Policy Attitudes and the Center 
for International and Security Studies at Maryland at the School of Public 
Affairs, University of Maryland, College Park <http://www.pipa.org/>.

They have investigated topics such as the public perceptions of United States 
international politics and of international organizations (NATO, the United 
Nations, and the International Monetary Fund). They maintain the Americans and 
the World website, described as a "source of comprehensive information on US 
public opinion on international issues". In January 2006, PIPA launched 
WorldPublicOpinion.org a comprehensive website devoted to public opinion on 
international policy and affairs, stating that while "Others report what the 
world does, we report what the world thinks."

And people are not in fact "frightfully easy to infantilize."  Just the opposite 
-- so much so that the US must spend a third of its vast GDP to accomplish the 
task as inadequately as it's done.  The one thing our rulers fear -- the danger 
they spend so much to deter -- is an informed public.  --CGE


John W. wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:33 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu 
> <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>> wrote:
> 
>     The typical discussion in the midst of the 2004 election apparently
>     went as follows:
> 
>      POLLSTER: Have you heard anything about George Bush's position on
>     the Kyoto Protocol?
>      BUSH VOTER: No.
>      POLLSTER: Do you think President Bush would support the Kyoto Protocol?
>      BUSH VOTER: What's the Kyoto Protocol?
>      POLLSTER: It's an international agreement to reduce greenhouse
>     gasses that seem to cause climate change.
>      BUSH VOTER: Well, that sounds like a good idea, so I'm sure George
>     Bush would support it.
>      POLLSTER: Why are you sure?
>      BUSH VOTER: Because Bush is a good man with good values, so he'd
>     certainly do the right thing on a matter like that.
>      POLLSTER: So you're sure he'd support the Kyoto Protocol?
>      BUSH VOTER: Yes.
> 
>     A *majority* of people who voted for Bush in 2004 answered like
>     that.  (Some of them of course had heard of the Kyoto Protocol.)  --CGE
> 
> 
> This gets more hilarious by the minute.  I've been the pollee in a fair 
> number of polls, both on the phone and in person, and there is NEVER a 
> conversation like this.  The pollster reads the question from an 
> approved questionnaire, and you answer yes or no.  Not only does the 
> pollster not ASK clarifying questions, but you can't even DRAW said 
> pollster into any sort of discussion of the real issues by saying such 
> things as, "Hmmm....the way this is phrased, I don't agree with ANY of 
> the choices."  So Carl, where exactly did this "apparent" conversation 
> take place?  In your febrile mind?
> 
> In an earlier post on this thread you refused as usual to admit that 
> Americans are stupid, but a sentence or two later you stated that they 
> had been "infantilized".  I'm afraid I don't understand the difference, 
> or rather feel that it's a distinction without much of a difference.  I 
> prefer Jenifer's term, "ignorant".  And the reason I (and apparently 
> Jenifer) think that most Americans are ignorant is because they're not 
> INTERESTED in politics or public affairs or history or even geography, 
> failing most of the time to understand what it has to do with their 
> daily lives.  Why are Americans so frightfully easy to infantilize, 
> Carl?  Why is it so frightfully easy for our government and media to 
> "manufacture their consent", essentially the SAME consent over and over 
> and over again using the SAME lies and propaganda?
> 
> I see it in the Xanga blogosphere.  I see it on my high school reunion 
> forum.   I see it everywhere I go with the exception of small groups of 
> "progressives" in C-U who already agree with one another:  The "average" 
> American wants to believe vapid cliches about the goodness and 
> specialness of the U.S. of A.   And the more cliched the sentiment the 
> more inclined s/he is to embrace it.
> 
> 
> 
> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> 
>     Right, no reason for those comfy/uncomfy, settled in or not,
>     televiewing Americans to pay attention to world or national (or
>     local) politics until something immediately affects THEM, and then
>     they might take notice. Yes, Iraqis definitely have more to talk
>     about in coffee houses (for those w/ money enuff living in areas
>     safe enuff to frequent them). Then again, FOOTBALL doesn't actually
>     affect Americans...
> 
>      
>     Again, I'd use the word ignorant, rather than stupid. Re the point
>     y're trying to make, polls are a joke. Trust me, most non-voters --
>     and many voters as well -- haven't the faintest idea where Kyoto is
>     located, let alone what the Kyoto agreement(s) involved.
> 
>      --Jenifer
> 
> 
>     --- On *Tue, 7/8/08, C. G. Estabrook /<galliher at uiuc.edu
>     <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>>/* wrote:
> 
>        From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>>
>        Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Inclusive Presidential Debates
>        To: jencart13 at yahoo.com <mailto:jencart13 at yahoo.com>
>        Cc: "Walter Pituc" <wpituc2 at gmail.com
>     <mailto:wpituc2 at gmail.com>>, "Peace-discuss List"
>        <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>     <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>>, "Prairie Greens of East
>     Central
>        Illinois" <prairiegreens-org at lists.chambana.net
>     <mailto:prairiegreens-org at lists.chambana.net>>
>        Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 10:39 PM
> 
>        Why?  Because they're particularly stupid? Or because they're the
>     object
>        of the    most expensive propaganda campaign in history?
> 
>        There's little doubt that the sophistication of the political
>     discussion in
>        any    coffee shop in Baghdad is conducted at a much more
>     sophisticated level than    similar conversations in US coffee
>     shops, bars, or faculty lounges.
> 
>        Again, why?  Because Americans are dumber? Or because it's
>     literally a
>        matter of    life and death elsewhere, altho' it's not for
>     infantilized Americans?
> 
>        In fact, however, in spire of all these ministrations, the US
>     populace holds    political opinions substantially to the left of
>     the official political parties.
> 
>          If you doubt that, look at the answers that Americans give to
>     pollsters on    issues -- e.g., healthcare, Iraq, the influence of
>     big business, the    responsibility of the government to provide
>     jobs, etc.
> 
>        That's why national candidates have to run on personality, not
>     issues --
>        because    American don't agree with either the Republicans or
>     the Democrats on
>        issues.    (Example: a majority of those who voted for George
>     Bush in 2004 thought that he
> 
>        supported the Kyoto agreement -- because the Kyoto agreement was
>     reasonable,
>        and    Bush was apparently a reasonable man...)  --CGE
>   ...