Be careful before drawing conclusions from this

Submitted by Simon on Tue, 10/07/2008 - 11:47am

Only 9% of Americans think that we're going in the right direction. As troubling as that may be, the number is desperately misleading. Although it could (and will) be taken to imply consensus, it does no such thing. It has nothing to say about why people are dissatisfied, still less what they regard as the right way forward.

Consider that Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama both passionately believe that we are going in the wrong direction and that we need "real change" (in Gingrich's argot) in America. Do you think they agree on what that direction is and what the changes ought to be? Of course not. Similarly, suppose that myself and Justin, one of our more liberal friends in the comments, were polled today and were asked that question ("are you satisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time"). I would say that I was dissatisfied - horrified, even - with the way that things are going in the United States, and I fancy that Justin would give a similar answer. The poll would count us on the same side. But I would answer that way in part because I look at recent poll numbers, and I look at Obama's grimly depressing sunset logo, and I feel very much that we are in the last dim moments of twilight before a very long, very dark, very cold night. I doubt that Justin et al would subscribe to that, so it is a flawed poll indeed that would suggest that we actually agree.

For these reasons, such polls should be taken with skepticism and the suspicion that they are hiding a deeper and more fundamental complexity behind a very thin veneer of facile consensus.

HT: Althouse.

Post facto:
Support John McCain (11/3/08)

Simon's blog

Add new comment

1098 reads

Entirely valid point, Simon.

Submitted by Rafique on Tue, 10/07/2008 - 11:58am.

I think it's clear that the consensus in the country is that the country is currently on the wrong track, but the debate is who is best able to right the ship, so to speak.

As for me, I remain unsettled on a candidate, although I'm leaning a certain direction now. It's never taken me this long to decide before.

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33

I must admit that for me,

Submitted by Simon on Tue, 10/07/2008 - 1:02pm.

I must admit that for me, it's a pretty easy choice, even though McCain wouldn't have been my first choice if I were a king appointing a prime minister. I really find the prospect of an Obama administration a bleak and dystopian vision.

I think something most

Submitted by brian.shapiro on Tue, 10/07/2008 - 1:32pm.

I think something most Americans think is the wrong track, is all the divisiveness in Washington, which is a criticism of both parties. But then, everyone ends up having to choose sides.

While I agree with you that

Submitted by Simon on Tue, 10/07/2008 - 3:01pm.

While I agree with you that many Americans feel that way, I think it's incoherent. As I alluded to here, Washington politics aren't divisive so much as divided: "they've gotten bitter and partisan because there are real and serious divisions in the country, and these bitter divisions are reflected by sending partisan representatives to Congress." It's the issues that are divisive, and because the parties are strongly aligned with those divisions, of course they resemble mutually hostile camps.

Simon, I think the issue here is not that there aren't

Submitted by Rafique on Tue, 10/07/2008 - 9:36pm.

fundamental disagreements on policy, it's just that they way things are done has become so bitter, combative, and us-versus them. Surely we can't agree on everything, but there has to be common ground found at some point, in order to get things done. The attitude that seems to prevail now is one that presupposes bad motives to the opposition, sees everything through the prism of Party, and puts partisan victory above the best for the country. This is done by both parties.

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33

grim aintcha

Submitted by Marcuss (not verified) on Tue, 10/07/2008 - 1:40pm.

Simon

We heard the same doom and gloom before Clinton became president and we ended up with most of our troops still alive and a fairly balanced budget as well as nearly 20 million jobs and a good feeling altogether despite the partisan conflict.
In 2000 I was naive enough to believe that being a republican president with a republican majority that we would have fiscal sanity and as few foreign misadventures as possible. We didn't realize that there would be fiscal insanity and a continuous assault on the Constitution by an administration that does NOT believe in accountability to the people.

I think your doom and gloom is misplaced. I just hope the voter suppression crap that's starting up with caging and other tactics doesn't skew the election...That's my doom and gloom scenario.

http://progressillinois.com/2008/10/04/lake-county-voter-supression
http://progressillinois.com/2008/10/06/judge-rules-satellite-voting-commence
maybe there is hope after all...

Not from me, you didn't...

Submitted by Pat on Tue, 10/07/2008 - 1:56pm.

We heard the same doom and gloom before Clinton became president

You sure didn't hear it from me. I voted for the man (Clinton) the first time around, mostly because George H. W. Bush lied to me about not raising taxes. He ran on a promise of being a "New Democrat," a more centrist, less "progressive" wing of the Democratic party. That wing lost the recent Democratic primary. Obama's wing, the far left wing, won. It's not at ALL the same.

Obama

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 12:40am.

If you think Obama is far to the Left, you are uninformed.

I'm convinced now. Thanks,

Submitted by C Stanley on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 8:56am.

I'm convinced now. Thanks, anonymous commenter, for that fact filled comment to set the record straight about Obama. I'll consider myself informed now!

I've been trying for years...

Submitted by Pat on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 9:09am.

I've been trying for years to convince people that George W. Bush isn't all that conservative, but few people are willing to buy that except REALLY far right people. Perhaps our Anonymous friend is a true "Progressive" who is disappointed by Obama's rhetorical tacks toward the middle...

Looking at Obama's

Submitted by Simon on Tue, 10/07/2008 - 3:27pm.

Looking at Obama's manifesto, and the supine Congress he can expect, there is every reason to be grim. The charge of "assault[ing] on the Constitution" may hang off this administration like a cheap ill-fitting suit, but it is tailor-made for what Obama proposes. And (at least in the mind of him and his supporters), in the words of Will Smith, he makes it look goooooood.

not for a second

Submitted by bucyrus on Tue, 10/07/2008 - 9:42pm.

In 2000 I was naive enough to believe that being a republican president with a republican majority that we would have fiscal sanity and as few foreign misadventures as possible.

Marcus, I don't believe that you believed that for a second. Could you be more full of crap? Oh wait, you could, where you sort of suggest that balancing the budget was Bill Clinton's achievement. Anyone paying attention back then knows it was a GOP plank and that Clinton just ran to the front of the parade and took credit for it.

Did the GOP totally drop the ball while Bush was President? Sure did. Were you optimistic about GOP prospects in any shape circa 2000? Not a snowball's chance in hell.
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole

every sunset is also a sunrise

Submitted by bucyrus on Tue, 10/07/2008 - 1:58pm.

That's a good point, Simon. There's a strong "consensus" against current trends, but there isn't a consensus about what the correct direction is. Besides, based on the decline over the past month or so, at least 30 or 40 of the 91% of this is simply a "crap, the economy has me scared witless" vote.

I don't take the poll with skepticism, just for what it is. People are deeply dissatisifed today. Did we even need a poll to tell us that? This is just another manifestation of the giant gap between simply (childishly?) noticing "this sucks" and coming up with real-world solutions. This poll points at flaws, it doesn't speak to the direction of solutions.

How many of the people sure we're going the wrong way have any workable solutions out there? Bueller? Frye?

I look at Obama's grimly depressing sunset logo, and I feel very much that we are in the last dim moments of twilight before a very long, very dark, very cold night.

Of course. What's the over/under on the number of SCOTUS justices Obama will appoint if elected? 2? 3? 4? Do you feel as compelled today by the sanctity of presidential prerogative on such matters as you did 3 years ago?

Don't forget, every sunset is also a sunrise, just for someone else.
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole

While I grant that while the

Submitted by Simon on Tue, 10/07/2008 - 3:17pm.

While I grant that while the sun sets in America it is also rising in Iran and its neighborhood, don't you think that your point plays to those who say Obama has an undue interest in accomodating foreign interests at the expense of American ones? ;)

As to the court, I have a post coming on Rick Garnett's recent remarks on that subject, and I agree with him that you will see at least three retirements before 2012 if Obama wins. As to appointments to the court, I think that's a great question to ask of people who were for the nuclear option, or who took a strong position that the Senate should usually defer to a President's choice, neither of which describes my position three years ago or today.

a good thing for you

Submitted by bucyrus on Tue, 10/07/2008 - 9:48pm.

So then I guess every sunset in Iran's neighborhood is a sunrise here, huh? :-)

Well if I'm wrong about your old position, and you support ideology-based opposition from congress, then that's a good thing for you, because it's the only option for preventing the appointment of 3 liberals.

Somehow, I think the republic will endure. :-) Thrive? Mileage. Probably protects RvW for another generation at least.
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole

On the brighter side,

Submitted by Tully on Tue, 10/07/2008 - 11:18pm.

On the brighter side, replacing at least the two oldest justices with fluff-head liberals would make no difference at all compared to current court composition. Stevens, Ginsburg. Heh.

or even 3 fluffheads

Submitted by bucyrus on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 7:42am.

Or even 3 fluffheads!

It's pretty hard to change the composition of the courts without an uninterrupted run. It's a lot like a baseball game with the presidential terms as innings. Conservatives needed to push one more run across the plate during their ups.

I know that conservatives make the argument that stare decisis ought not to be an insurmountable obstacle to overturning RvW, and there's good reasoning behind that, especially within constitutional law as opposed to law in general. (Good editorial on that in the Boston Globe today, BTW, even though the Globe probably published it just to scare up more pro-choice voting in nearby NH.).

But as time passes, RvW does inevitably accrue weight, which is fundamentally a conservative idea. It's not an insurmountable obstacle, but it's still an obstacle that grows in the minds of folks with time. I think that's human nature.

__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole

Hitting the next tier of

Submitted by Tully on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 8:49am.

Hitting the next tier of oldest justices would take us into Kennedy and Scalia, and changing those votes to reflexively liberal WOULD make a difference. Swapping out Stevens and Ginburg wouldn't.

Not arguing about any individual decisions, just noting the utterly complete predictability of the two oldest justices.

right

Submitted by bucyrus on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 9:22am.

Replacing 3 would give liberals a 2-run lead prior to the GOP's next "ups." Maybe more like a 1-run lead becuase there's no tie.__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole

So then I guess every sunset

Submitted by Simon on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 9:53am.

So then I guess every sunset in Iran's neighborhood is a sunrise here, huh?

I guess the metaphor works both ways. /*smirk*/

Well if I'm wrong about your old position, and you support ideology-based opposition from congress, then that's a good thing for you, because it's the only option for preventing the appointment of 3 liberals.

I think that ideology is an awkward term - it's not inaccurate, per se, but it's misleading in the sense that people assume that what you're talking about is "left wing ideology" or "right wing ideology" or "economic ideology" and so forth, when what we're actually talking about is judicial philosophy. And I do think that "ideology" in the sense judicial philosophy is a legitimate inquiry. There's something deeply unrealistic about pretending that it says enough to say that a judge is competent and intelligent and so forth. Is Justice Souter interchangable with Chief Justice Roberts just because they are both extremely bright, erudite, and fluent writers? There is, as I see it, a profound disagreement in the legal world - dimly echoed by political debates in the real world - about what judges do, and really, about what law is. Is the law, as Justice Scalia would contend, what the law says? Or, is the law, as Justice Breyer would contend, a more amorphous concept consisting of the intents and purposes of the legislators who framed it, given shape only in the context of a particular case and resolved as the judge thinks is most just in that particular instance? Does the Constitution evolve, as Justice Ginsburg would have it - or does it endure, as Justice Thomas would have it? These are fundamental questions that go to the core of what a judge will do on the bench, and they are questions of judicial philosophy - of ideology, if we must use that term - not of technical competence.

Probably protects RvW for another generation at least.

I'm at a loss to see how that's a good thing. And I don't even see how that's a good thing for centrists and moderates: as long as Roe - more precisely Roe-Case - stands, we're going to see abortion remain a national conflagration. There cannot be an end to the culture wars until this issue comes back to the democratic arena and America makes peace with itself in legislative settlements. Why would you regard it as a positive to see this situation perpetuated? Wouldn't it be nice to have a Presidential election - or a Supreme Court nomination - where abortion isn't an issue?

probing philosophy

Submitted by bucyrus on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 1:23pm.

I'm not unsympathetic to the notion that the nation deserves to understand the nature of the judicial philosophy of a perspective member of scotus on the cusp of a lifetime appointment. Historical respect for presidential prerogative is not IMO an especially compelling argument. It is, however, one that recent conservatives have eagerly shopped, which is why I bring it up.

I'm also not utterly unpersuaded by the notion that some sort of post RvW world could be a less controversial place, or that an alternate universe where it never happened could have eventually led to an America with largely legal abortions provided. They're both conceivable, but I take no measure of such probabilities had history unfolded differently. We are where we are.

There cannot be an end to the culture wars until this issue comes back to the democratic arena and America makes peace with itself in legislative settlements.

I'm sure we've discussed this before. I'm not convinced that the endurance of RvW necessarily will preserve the current level of cultural divisiveness. Time MAY well diminish it. Can 100 years bring what 35ish has not? Only time will tell, but I can conceive it as possible. Also, medical advances may resolve the issue to the dissatisfaction of both sides if the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are either converted to wanted ones without fuss, or terminated with far less spectacle.

In the meantime, I'm at a loss to see how it's a bad thing that America does not allow laws in which the government mandates that all unwanted pregnancies become children, many of whom will turn out to be unwanted and/or poorly parented.

_________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole

Navigation

User login

Subscribe via RSS

Resources

The latest from our partner, the PoliGazette

Blog Roll

Search