The partisan divide over Iraq
Aug 6th 2006 | 11:04 pm
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
The partisan divide over Iraq
Published August 07, 2006
The Partisan Divide Over Iraq
"If there is anything that makes the case American politics are now the
most polarized in history, it is the finding that the partisan divide
over the Iraq War is three times as sharp today as it was during the
Vietnam era.
That comparison might surprise some, given that the current conflict
has claimed far, far fewer American lives - less than 2,600 compared to
more than 50,000 in Vietnam -- and provided much less overt political
opposition than the war 40 years ago.
And, even those who oppose the war in Iraq would be hard-pressed to
argue that there are not greater American interests at stake in the
Persian Gulf today than there were in Southeast Asia in the 1960s.
To a degree the comparative data may reflect the transformation of the
American personality over time. There is an increasing impatience in
American society and other Western nations as well, today.
"Long-term" has become a matter of months, not years or decades. We
want what we want when we want it. The shorter time horizon is evident
in everything from the way businesses obsess over quarterly statements
rather than multi-year returns, and the pressure on coaches in
professional sports to win immediately or be fired, or that TV shows
can be canceled after only three episodes.
One can only imagine what Franklin Roosevelt's poll numbers would have
been in the early years of World War II when the Japanese and the
Germans were winning the war. But then, there weren't gruesome
television pictures bombarding Americans 24-hours a day, nor analysts
telling anyone who read a newspaper or watched television about the
potential catastrophe around the corner.
Or perhaps it is the fact that the Republicans, who are generally less
wary of foreign intervention and the use of force, were the opposition
party during much of the Vietnam era. They were not that opposed to
Democratic President Lyndon Johnson's war policy, and in fact, the
major opposition came from within LBJ's own party...
But with George Bush in the White House and Republicans in control of
Congress, the Democrats are the opposition party today. By their
political nature they are more reflexively wary of using military
force, and therefore this president enjoys little support for his
policy among his political opponents.
And, of course, there is the reality that the six years of Bush's
presidency have divided the country along partisan lines over a variety
of other issues and created the kind of combative political climate in
Washington, D.C. unknown 40 years ago.
The New York Times/ CBS News poll taken last month found a 50-point
partisan split over the war rightness of the U.S. involvement in Iraq.
Three quarters of self-identified Republicans say the United States was
correct in taking military action against Iraq, compared to 24 percent
of self-identified Democrats. Independents split just about down the
middle.
The Pew Research Center for the Press said that its analysis of public
opinion polls from 1966-1973 found that the partisan split over Vietnam
was never greater than 18 points, the Times reported.
During that era, anti-war marches frequently brought out hundreds of
thousands of protestors and led to the downfall of many politicians,
including Johnson, who decided not to seek re-election because of the
anti-war fervor.
Yet, Bush was re-elected two years into the Iraq War in an election
that saw his Democratic opponent, John Kerry decline to campaign for
withdrawal, although he has since changed his tune. And although there
have been anti-war demonstrations these days, they have not carried the
cachet as they did during Vietnam.
One might even suppose that the contemporary public sense of insecurity
because of the Sept. 11 attacks and threat of terrorism here at home
might reduce, rather than increase, the partisan divide over Iraq.
After all, 40 years ago, no one was worried that the Viet Cong might
blow up the Pentagon or the World Trade Center, had it been built at
the time.
It is hard to understand why the partisan divide over Iraq is so much
greater today when the objective cost of the war has been so much less
than it was in Vietnam. But whatever the reason, it is not good news
for American society."
The Partisan Divide Over Iraq
"If there is anything that makes the case American politics are now the
most polarized in history, it is the finding that the partisan divide
over the Iraq War is three times as sharp today as it was during the
Vietnam era.
That comparison might surprise some, given that the current conflict
has claimed far, far fewer American lives - less than 2,600 compared to
more than 50,000 in Vietnam -- and provided much less overt political
opposition than the war 40 years ago.
And, even those who oppose the war in Iraq would be hard-pressed to
argue that there are not greater American interests at stake in the
Persian Gulf today than there were in Southeast Asia in the 1960s.
To a degree the comparative data may reflect the transformation of the
American personality over time. There is an increasing impatience in
American society and other Western nations as well, today.
"Long-term" has become a matter of months, not years or decades. We
want what we want when we want it. The shorter time horizon is evident
in everything from the way businesses obsess over quarterly statements
rather than multi-year returns, and the pressure on coaches in
professional sports to win immediately or be fired, or that TV shows
can be canceled after only three episodes.
One can only imagine what Franklin Roosevelt's poll numbers would have
been in the early years of World War II when the Japanese and the
Germans were winning the war. But then, there weren't gruesome
television pictures bombarding Americans 24-hours a day, nor analysts
telling anyone who read a newspaper or watched television about the
potential catastrophe around the corner.
Or perhaps it is the fact that the Republicans, who are generally less
wary of foreign intervention and the use of force, were the opposition
party during much of the Vietnam era. They were not that opposed to
Democratic President Lyndon Johnson's war policy, and in fact, the
major opposition came from within LBJ's own party...
But with George Bush in the White House and Republicans in control of
Congress, the Democrats are the opposition party today. By their
political nature they are more reflexively wary of using military
force, and therefore this president enjoys little support for his
policy among his political opponents.
And, of course, there is the reality that the six years of Bush's
presidency have divided the country along partisan lines over a variety
of other issues and created the kind of combative political climate in
Washington, D.C. unknown 40 years ago.
The New York Times/ CBS News poll taken last month found a 50-point
partisan split over the war rightness of the U.S. involvement in Iraq.
Three quarters of self-identified Republicans say the United States was
correct in taking military action against Iraq, compared to 24 percent
of self-identified Democrats. Independents split just about down the
middle.
The Pew Research Center for the Press said that its analysis of public
opinion polls from 1966-1973 found that the partisan split over Vietnam
was never greater than 18 points, the Times reported.
During that era, anti-war marches frequently brought out hundreds of
thousands of protestors and led to the downfall of many politicians,
including Johnson, who decided not to seek re-election because of the
anti-war fervor.
Yet, Bush was re-elected two years into the Iraq War in an election
that saw his Democratic opponent, John Kerry decline to campaign for
withdrawal, although he has since changed his tune. And although there
have been anti-war demonstrations these days, they have not carried the
cachet as they did during Vietnam.
One might even suppose that the contemporary public sense of insecurity
because of the Sept. 11 attacks and threat of terrorism here at home
might reduce, rather than increase, the partisan divide over Iraq.
After all, 40 years ago, no one was worried that the Viet Cong might
blow up the Pentagon or the World Trade Center, had it been built at
the time.
It is hard to understand why the partisan divide over Iraq is so much
greater today when the objective cost of the war has been so much less
than it was in Vietnam. But whatever the reason, it is not good news
for American society."
Aug 6th 2006 | 11:24 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The partisan divide over Iraq
"PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Published August 07, 2006
>The Partisan Divide Over Iraq
**** off, Peej. This is OT for r.t.e. and for other groups to which
you are cross-posting.
Your posting record is a bit like Bush's foreign policy: butting in
where it is inappropriate, doing it in a ham-fisted manner
(particularly unwise in Muslim and Jewish communities), causing a
mess, abjuring responsibility, and blaming everybody else. So when you
**** off, take your loony neo-cons with you.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
>Published August 07, 2006
>The Partisan Divide Over Iraq
**** off, Peej. This is OT for r.t.e. and for other groups to which
you are cross-posting.
Your posting record is a bit like Bush's foreign policy: butting in
where it is inappropriate, doing it in a ham-fisted manner
(particularly unwise in Muslim and Jewish communities), causing a
mess, abjuring responsibility, and blaming everybody else. So when you
**** off, take your loony neo-cons with you.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
Aug 7th 2006 | 7:37 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The partisan divide over Iraq
Padraig Breathnach wrote:
> "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Published August 07, 2006
>>The Partisan Divide Over Iraq
>
> **** off, Peej. This is OT for r.t.e. and for other groups to which
> you are cross-posting.
>
> Your posting record is a bit like Bush's foreign policy: butting in
> where it is inappropriate, doing it in a ham-fisted manner
> (particularly unwise in Muslim and Jewish communities), causing a
> mess, abjuring responsibility, and blaming everybody else. So when you
> **** off, take your loony neo-cons with you.
Preferably off-planet! (I hear Mars is nearby, this summer.)
>
> "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Published August 07, 2006
>>The Partisan Divide Over Iraq
>
> **** off, Peej. This is OT for r.t.e. and for other groups to which
> you are cross-posting.
>
> Your posting record is a bit like Bush's foreign policy: butting in
> where it is inappropriate, doing it in a ham-fisted manner
> (particularly unwise in Muslim and Jewish communities), causing a
> mess, abjuring responsibility, and blaming everybody else. So when you
> **** off, take your loony neo-cons with you.
Preferably off-planet! (I hear Mars is nearby, this summer.)
>
Aug 7th 2006 | 9:14 am
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The partisan divide over Iraq
hahahaha vogtdivawhatever is just as funny as martin and just as OT
Why don't you ask them to go along with PJ
Duh
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le
message de news: [email protected]...
> Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>> "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Published August 07, 2006
>>>The Partisan Divide Over Iraq
>> **** off, Peej. This is OT for r.t.e. and for other groups to which
>> you are cross-posting.
>> Your posting record is a bit like Bush's foreign policy: butting in
>> where it is inappropriate, doing it in a ham-fisted manner
>> (particularly unwise in Muslim and Jewish communities), causing a
>> mess, abjuring responsibility, and blaming everybody else. So when you
>> **** off, take your loony neo-cons with you.
> Preferably off-planet! (I hear Mars is nearby, this summer.)
>
Why don't you ask them to go along with PJ
Duh
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le
message de news: [email protected]...
> Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>> "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Published August 07, 2006
>>>The Partisan Divide Over Iraq
>> **** off, Peej. This is OT for r.t.e. and for other groups to which
>> you are cross-posting.
>> Your posting record is a bit like Bush's foreign policy: butting in
>> where it is inappropriate, doing it in a ham-fisted manner
>> (particularly unwise in Muslim and Jewish communities), causing a
>> mess, abjuring responsibility, and blaming everybody else. So when you
>> **** off, take your loony neo-cons with you.
> Preferably off-planet! (I hear Mars is nearby, this summer.)
>
