« Filibuster: Religion Or Judicial Philosophy? | Main | It's The Quiet Ones You Have To Watch »
May 02, 2005
This Is Why...
...you don't govern according to polls...
Reading Michael Kinsley's annoyingly snide op-ed yesterday, my fingers were itching. But in the end there simply wasn't enough there to fisk. It was just another gratuitous compendium of snarky ankle-biting thinly disguised as insincere praise; what the loyal opposition generally serve up when they have nothing substantive to say, yet wish to appear clever in their own eyes. But the opening salvo was so obviously wrongheaded I can't help thwacking Mr. Kinsley upside the head with it:
The comic high point of the president's prime-time news conference was this muddled disquisition on how the American people don't want the president to do what polls say the American people want the president to do.This could be simple nonsense -- an unfortunate conflation of two rhetorical devices treasured by politicians of both parties but best kept a few paragraphs apart. One is the insistence that they don't follow the polls. The other is substituting the phrase "the American people" for the word "I" in sentences like, "The American people demand immediate passage of H.R. 5712, the Grotesque Subsidies to Widget Producers Act."
Or the president could be struggling toward some kind of Burkean notion that he has been elected to lead people, not to follow their whims, and leadership matters only when it takes people where they don't want to go. Bush hinted at this after his reelection, saying that he had "chips" (of popularity) that he was prepared to cash in.
One of the more entertaining aspects of Bush's second term has been watching his critics reinvent their criticism of his leadership style. Four years ago, he was so stupid and malleable it was widely assumed Dick Cheney had him on a short leash. To hear his critics talk, he had never read a single book, had no thoughts of his own and would listen to anyone. But somewhere along the line Dumbya transmogrified into a Machiavellian mastermind who single-handedly hoodwinked most of America and was rolling over Old Europe like Hitler on a caffeine jag. The Spousal Unit read a lengthy critique of Bush that described him as an egg-head who reads too much. Apparently, his head is pulsing with academic theories and he shuts out all input from the real world; in short, he doesn't listen to anyone.
For as long as I can remember, the President has been criticized by the punditry for ignoring polls and focus groups, this despite polls showing the American people consider this an admirable trait in a leader. One wonders whether Michael Kinsley is keeping up with the latest poll results.
But should a leader govern by the polls? The pollsters were wrong all during the last election season. They predicted, over and over again, that John F. Kerry would be President come November 2nd. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your political persuasion) George Bush and the majority of Americans did not believe them.
James Taranto points out a major flaw with polling: questions are often so biased that the results are virtually meaningless. The WaPo recently tried to measure popular support for the use of judicial filibusters. But the relevant questions were worded thusly:
The Senate has confirmed 35 federal appeals court judges nominated by Bush, while Senate Democrats have blocked 10 others. Do you think the Senate Democrats are right to block these nominations? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
Result: Right 48% (22% strongly, 26% somewhat),
wrong 36% (17% strongly, 19% somewhat).
36. Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush's judicial nominees?
Results: Support 26%, oppose 66%.
Now several things are wrong with the first question, but the one that fairly leaps out is that nowhere in the question is the word "filibuster" used. The reader is only told that Democrats "blocked" the nominations. But how? By an up-or-down vote? Taranto notes:
The introduction to the question should have been worded: ". . . Senate Democrats have used a procedure called the filibuster to block a vote on 10 others."
What's wrong with the second question? First of all, the change in rules would affect both parties (the question is clearly worded to imply that there would be a benefit to only one party, and moreover that there are only partisan reasons for making the change). It's about as loaded a question as it is possible to design.
When questioned about the wording, the WaPo replied:
"The debate over judicial selection currently raging is political and it is deeply partisan. It is a fact that Republicans are trying to change the filibuster rule to make it easier to get a vote on the contested Bush nominees--that is the context of the current standoff. To omit that information about the partisan cast of the debate would bias the result by completely removing the issue from its context. Also, I believe the question does not plant biases that would unfairly favor Democrats or disadvantage Bush or the Republicans. Yes, the question does state the obvious by reminding Democrats about the partisan nature of the debate and what the immediately [sic] effect of making a change would be. But the language also would be expected, appropriately so, to cue Bush supporters, Republicans and religious conservatives in a positive way. The fact that the question attempts to sort out Democrats and Republicans, Bush supporters and Bush opponents, in a way consistent with their interests is an advantage, not a disadvantage."
To reframe the answer, the Post apparently feels it's an advantage to remind everyone (before they state whether they approve or disapprove) that the Republicans have highly partisan motives for proposing this change, without reminding anyone of the merits of the proposal, or that the Democrats will eventually enjoy the same benefits when they are in power. Interesting logic: present only one side of the argument and then call it an "advantage". Of course, from the Post's point of view, it is an advantage: Democrats will disapprove because the Republicans are acting from purely partisan motives. Republicans will (of course) ignore the merits of the proposal and approve because their party will benefit for three years (the future being so far off as to be incomprehensible). No one on either side would wish to consider the actual philosophical merits of the question: only who benefits in the short term.
And of course we wouldn't want to actually mention the terms "filibuster" or "up-or-down vote". People might just understand what they were approving or disapproving of, and that would unfairly skew the poll results, wouldn't it?
Taranto link via Betsy's Page
Posted by Cassandra at May 2, 2005 05:53 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/598
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference This Is Why...:
» Looking around the world today... from Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..
Feeling a little better, thought I would venture out. First - some Cannoneer Zen, from West Point. Moving on - Ry sent me a great picture, but rather than post it - I'm going to link to Neptunus Lex, where... [Read More]
Tracked on May 2, 2005 08:27 AM