[Peace-discuss] What Americans think

[C. G. Estabrook]

I think our rulers (a fraction of 1% of the population) and their ideological 
institutions (the press and the academy) work hard to convince the political 
class (about 20% of the population, roughly those who attended good colleges) 
that the other 80% consists of racist rednecks and yahoos, and therefore the 
only safety for the 20% is to be found in supporting the 1%, even though their 
interests are in fact opposed.

As a result, both of the official political parties are substantially to the 
right of the views of the majority, and they need polished performers (like 
Obama) to obscure the fact.

The media tell us constantly what Americans think -- e.g., that they support the 
war in AfPak, when in fact they don't.  A very different picture emerges if one 
attends to what Americans actually say when asked serious questions, beyond "Do 
you approve of Bush/Obama?"

Chomsky summarized the situation at the time of the 2004 election, based on 
in-depth surveys by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR) and the 
Program on International Policy Attitudes at the U. of Maryland (PIPA):

"A large majority of the public believe that the US should accept the 
jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the World Court, sign the 
Kyoto protocols, allow the UN to take the lead in international crises, and rely 
on diplomatic and economic measures more than military ones in the 'war on terror.'

"Similar majorities believe the US should resort to force only if there is 
'strong evidence that the country is in imminent danger of being attacked,' thus 
rejecting the bipartisan consensus on 'pre-emptive war' and adopting a rather 
conventional interpretation of the UN Charter. A majority even favor giving up 
the Security Council veto, hence following the UN lead even if it is not the 
preference of US state managers...

"It is instructive to look more closely into popular attitudes on the war in 
Iraq, in the light of the general opposition to the 'pre-emptive war' doctrines 
of the bipartisan consensus.  On the eve of the 2004 elections, 'three quarters 
of Americans say that the US should not have gone to war if Iraq did not have 
WMD or was not providing support to al Qaeda, while nearly half still say the 
war was the right decision' (Stephen Kull, reporting the PIPA study he directs). 
  But this is not a contradiction, Kull points out.  Despite the quasi-official 
Kay and Duelfer reports undermining the claims, the decision to go to war 'is 
sustained by persisting beliefs among half of Americans that Iraq provided 
substantial support to al Qaeda, and had WMD, or at least a major WMD program,' 
and thus see the invasion as defense against an imminent severe threat.

"Much earlier PIPA studies had shown that a large majority believe that the UN, 
not the US, should take the lead in matters of security, reconstruction, and 
political transition in Iraq. Last March, Spanish voters were bitterly condemned 
for appeasing terror when they voted out of office the government that had gone 
to war over the objections of about 90% of the population, taking its orders 
from Crawford Texas, and winning plaudits for its leadership in the 'New Europe' 
that is the hope of democracy.  Few if any commentators noted that Spanish 
voters last March were taking about the same position as the large majority of 
Americans: voting for removing Spanish troops unless they were under UN 
direction.  The major differences between the two countries are that in Spain, 
public opinion was known, while here it takes an individual research project to 
discover it; and in Spain the issue came to a vote, almost unimaginable in the 
deteriorating formal democracy here.

"These results indicate that activists have not done their job effectively.

"Turning to other areas, overwhelming majorities of the public favor expansion 
of domestic programs: primarily health care (80%), but also aid to education and 
Social Security...

"Other mainstream polls report that 80% favor guaranteed health care even if it 
would raise taxes – in reality, a national health care system would probably 
reduce expenses considerably, avoiding the heavy costs of bureaucracy, 
supervision, paperwork, and so on, some of the factors that render the US 
privatized system the most inefficient in the industrial world.

"Public opinion has been similar for a long time, with numbers varying depending 
on how questions are asked.  The facts are sometimes discussed in the press, 
with public preferences noted but dismissed as 'politically impossible.' That 
happened again on the eve of the 2004 elections.  A few days before (Oct. 31), 
the NY Times reported that 'there is so little political support for government 
intervention in the health care market in the United States that Senator John 
Kerry took pains in a recent presidential debate to say that his plan for 
expanding access to health insurance would not create a new government program' 
– what the majority want, so it appears.  But it is 'politically impossible' and 
has '[too] little political support,' meaning that the insurance companies, 
HMOs, pharmaceutical industries, Wall Street, etc., are opposed.

"It is notable that such views are held by people in virtual isolation.  They 
rarely hear them, and it is not unlikely that respondents regard their own views 
as idiosyncratic.  Their preferences do not enter into the political campaigns, 
and only marginally receive some reinforcement in articulate opinion in media 
and journals.  The same extends to other domains..."

	###