Public Opinion And Iran
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
This is hardly the most important aspect of the debate over the Iranian protests and the administration’s response, but it seems telling that according to Rasmussen’s new poll (via Scoblete) there is not one demographic in which a majority believes that Obama has been insufficiently aggressive in his support for the protesters. This seems all the more striking given that an overall majority (54%) of likely voters believes that it makes a difference for U.S. national security who is the next Iranian President. The 54% who believe this are wrong, but what is interesting is that they think it matters for the United States whether or not Mousavi prevails and they are still not inclined to embrace the criticism that the administration has been “timid and passive,” as Lindsay Graham put it yesterday. Just 35% believe Obama has not been aggressive enough in his support; 43% believe the level of support has been “about right” and 9% (including 15% of Republicans) think he has been “too aggressive. This is good news. It means that there is no political gain with the public by being more “forceful,” which should make the administration less susceptible to pressure to take a “tougher” line that most of its members seem to understand would be a mistake.
The other noteworthy thing about these results is that 38% of Republicans think Obama’s support for the protesters has been the right amount or even too much (23/15), and 46% of independents think the same (41/5). Even among self-described conservatives, just 49% think he has not been aggressive enough, and as we have seen only one-third of all voters agrees with the Krauthammer/Wolfowitz/McCain/Graham line.
The poll also has a new crosstab feature, the “Political Class Index,” which is supposed to distinguish between popular and elite opinion. Rasmussen has defined the distinction this way:
The Political Class and Mainstream classifications are determined by the answers to three questions measuring general attitudes about government. Most Americans trust the judgment of the public more than political leaders, view the federal government as a special interest group, and believe that big business and big government work together against the interests of investors and consumers. Only seven percent (7%) share the opposite view and can be considered part of the Political Class. Another seven percent (7%) lean towards the Political Class.
As I read the crosstabs, elite pressure on the administration to take a “tougher” line will likely be minimal and will be limited to the usual suspects. 78% of the “political class” respondents (including leaners) approve of Obama’s response, compared to just 38% of the “mainstream” respondents. However, even among “mainstream” respondents only 41% agree with the view that Obama’s support has been insufficient. So there is a real constituency for the nonsense we have been hearing, but it does not represent anything like a majority of the public at this time.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
There is always a real constituency for nonsense.
Isn’t it interesting how the two main affiliations in Iran parallel American liberals and conservatives?
Nejad’s followers are largely rural, ostenstatiosly pious, socially conservative, less educated, older, and possibly….less numerous, given 3 out of 5 Iranians are under 30. At Khamenis prayer service there notably no women in his audience of bussed in followers.
Musavi’s followers are largely urban, socially liberal, more educated, younger and more …female? Given that 65% of Iranian college students are women.
I wonder where Kurds and Baluchis and ethnic minorities fall?
Could it be that Nejads followers are the Iranian equivalent of the GOP, the old white men party?
Joe Klein agrees, lol.
“It is not even clear that Ahmadinejad–who has significant backing from the sort of people who support Republicans here (the elderly, the religious extremists) plus a real following among working-class Iranians–would have lost this election, if the votes had been counted fairly. (I tend to believe that they weren’t counted at all, but that’s just my opinion.)”
Klein also says in describing the pre-election debates that Nejad sounded like he had been scripted by an Iranian Karl Rove.
The Iranian conflict is really largely a culture war…and should look very familiar.
Perhaps homosapiens sapiens only comes in two basic flavors, with different kinds of sprinkles of course.
conservatives and liberals.
Daniel, question,
What if the polls weren’t this way? What if, rather, the majority of Americans wanted a stronger declaration of support for the protestors’ cause? Would that change our view of the President’s responses so far? Given certain cultural and moral values prevalent in the US, not all of them inherently neo-conservative, I think the reverse of these polls could have been, and might still become, the case.
As head of state, the President is our representative, not merely a mouthpiece for popular opinion; so it’s appropriate that he makes his own decisions, guided by professional counsellors of his choosing and by his own strategic thinking. But it’s reasonable to believe that, should popular opinion reach a certain threshold, should the people’s desire for a particular response become strong enough, the president would find it necessary to act according to the people’s will, regardless of his inclinations.
As a Catholic Christian, I am mindful that the voice of the Church should not be silent in the presence of great social evils. The argument for why is inherent in the religion. It’s a Christian’s call to stand closely with Christ. How we do this is by choosing good and rebuking evil, and by serving those in need, giving not from our excess but from our substance. So, is the situation in Iran a social evil that Christians are called to address? Even if the protestors don’t need us to voice stronger support for their cause, even if it’s not our “job”, in a political sense, to support them? The answer could certainly be yes. Are there enough Christians in this country, or is there a strong enough moral-religious streak, for this to become the popular American position? I suppose that could be yes, too. So what would giving of our substance entail in this case? Would this mean leveraging our cultural and political power in favor of the demonstrators, at first locally, to pressure President Obama to more vocally support their cause, and to clearly address and denounce the repressive violence they have sufferred? And if enough pressure were applied to the President in this way, would it still behoove him to say as little as possible?
And if enough pressure were applied to the President in this way, would it still behoove him to say as little as possible?
Yes.
Let me rephrase that….
And if enough pressure were applied to the President in this way, would it still behoove him to shoot himself in the foot and tie the Greens to Operation Ajax and the CIA sponsored Mossadeqh coup d’etat and the loathed tyrant Shah?