October 29, 2004
Faith-Based Reality
There’s an interesting group, the Program on International Policy Attitudes run out of the University of Maryland, which studies public perception of political issues. Their latest poll shows the majority of Bush supporters are residents of President Bush’s fantasy world of spin.
For example, their latest poll shows that,
- A large majority of Bush supporters believe that shortly before the war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or a major program for building them.
- A substantial majority of Bush supporters assume that most experts believe Iraq had WMD and that this was the conclusion of the recently released report by Charles Duelfer.
- A large majority of Bush supporters believes that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda and that clear evidence of this support has been found.
- A large majority believes that most experts also have this view, and a substantial majority believe that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission.
If you believe any of those things, brace yourself: None of it is true. But why, after all the evidence to the contrary, would anyone still believe that? Perhaps because,
Large majorities of Bush and Kerry supporters agree that the Bush administration is saying that Iraq had WMD and was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. In regard to WMD, these majorities are growing.
Of course it’s not quite that simple or nefarious,
Another key reason why Bush supporters may hold to the beliefs that Iraq had WMD and supported al Qaeda is that it is necessary to their support for the decision to go to war with Iraq. Eighty-five percent of Bush supporters say that going to war was the right decision.However, asked what the US should have done “If, before the war, US intelligence services had concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and was not providing substantial support to al Qaeda,” 58% of Bush supporters said in that case the US should not have gone to war. Furthermore, 61% express confidence that in that case the President would not have gone to war.
To preserve the belief that that going to war was the right decision, it appears necessary for Bush supporters to believe that the assumptions that prompted going to war were correct.
And I had to chuckle over Bush supporter’s perception of foreigner’s opinions,
- Only three in ten Bush supporters believe that the majority of people in the world oppose the US going to war with Iraq.
- A majority of Bush supporters assume that the majority of people in the world would like to see Bush reelected.
- Bush supporters also lean toward overestimating support in Islamic countries for US-led efforts to fight terrorism.
Again, none of that is true.
There’s another related poll showing the same kind of isolation from reality for Bush supporters on other foreign policy issues as well,
Majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (84%), and the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the International Criminal Court (66%), the treaty banning land mines (72%), and the Kyoto Treaty on global warming (51%).Bush supporters also, themselves, favored some of the positions that they attributed to Bush. Majorities of Bush supporters favored including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (93%), and the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (68%), the International Criminal Court (75%), the treaty banning land mines (66%), and the Kyoto treaty on climate change (54%).
I was twigged to these surveys by an article in my local paper. The reporter, Janadas Devan – an excellent Singaporean editorialist on US politics, ended his article,
One reason why this year's presidential race has become so bitter is that Bush supporters and Kerry supporters have 'profoundly different perceptions of reality'. One commentator has called it a divide between a 'faith-based community' and a 'reality-based community'.Whatever it is, one thing is clear: When an electorate can't even agree on a common set of facts, it is unlikely to agree to disagree no matter who wins the election next week.
Posted by American Pundit at October 29, 2004 03:57 AM
I raised this in another thread. Here’s a real reality check. The Lancet reports a study done on the ground in Iraq by people from Johns Hopkins showing that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the invasion, more than half of them women and children, largely as a result of coalition air strikes. And remember Donald Rumsfeld in 2003: “And there is, I am certain, among the Iraqi people a respect for the care and precision that went into the bombing campaign.”
Posted by: Joan at October 29, 2004 07:03 AMThis came up a earlier, but the discussion died out. I think it’s an important issue The Red Team tends to pass it off as a biased survey, but if you look at it carefully, it’s really very compelling. This may be a rerun for those that saw the earlier thread but as an example, here is one question:
Q16. Please select what you think is the best description of the relationship between the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein and the terrorist group al-Qaeda: (a) There was no connection at all (b) A few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials but Iraq did not provide substantial support to al-Qaeda (c) Iraq gave substantial support to al-Qaeda, but was not involved in the September 11th attacks (d) Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the September 11th attacks.
Nearly half of Kerry supporters picked option (b), and about 20% picked options (a) or (c). Only 1 in 10 picked (d).
For citizens of the Red Planet, more than half picked (c), with about 20% picking options (b) and (d). Only 2% picked (a).
As readers here certain know, the correct answer, according to the 9/11 commission, is (b). If you want to get technical, (b) is almost certain, (a) and (c) are both extremely unlikely, and (d) is right out.
There is clearly a systematic error on the part of Bush supporters, and this is reflected over and over again on different questions.
Of course, the survey doesn’t tell us which is cause and effect: are Bush supporters misperceieve the the issues because they support Bush? or vice versa? But either way, it’s hard to ignore the conclusion that at the very least, Bush’s public statements are reinforcing an inaccurate perception of the world.
Posted by: William Cohen at October 29, 2004 09:24 AMMajorities of Bush supporters favored including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (93%), and the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (68%), the International Criminal Court (75%), the treaty banning land mines (66%), and the Kyoto treaty on climate change (54%).
That’s the part I found really fascinating. Bush is way out of the mainstream, even in his own party - and Republican voters aren’t even aware of it.
Was there not a movie where one of the characters stated: “I see stupid people everywhere, and they don’t even know that they are stupid!”
Faith is for the lazy, or the ignorant. Under either condition, this is how people can come to support someone like GWB, when there are stacks of factual evidence to oppose his political positions/opinions. In the Navy, we had a saying. “In God we trust, all others we track.”
Posted by: Roy Winterburg at October 29, 2004 02:42 PM
A large majority of Bush supporters believe that shortly before the war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or a major program for building them.
A substantial majority of Bush supporters assume that most experts believe Iraq had WMD and that this was the conclusion of the recently released report by Charles Duelfer.
So does this mean that Kerry, Clinton, Kofi Annan, Chirac, Schroeder and the Security Council are Bush supporters? Since all stated that Sadam had WMD’s. To paraphrase Kerry - ‘Leaving Sadam Hussein in power unfettered with Weapons of Mass Destruction would be irresponsible.’
Interesting collection of stats, AP. Very telling. Hope you don’t mind if I post a few related links. I posted some of this in another thread but since they are relevant to faith-based reality…
Here is a piece on the armageddon aspect of Christianity and how it relates to their concept of environmental policy: The Godly Must Be Crazy. The basic premise: Why care about the environment when Yawey provides all and Jesus will save us? Which leads to Bush Hides Global Warming Evidence and Bush’s Crimes Against Nature.
A bit more about religious encroachment on government: The Congressional Pastors’ Briefings of WallBuilders. Along with an excellent analysis of WallBuilders. And as it pertains to the election: Vigorous efforts attempt to turn up voter turnout.
“If anyone is getting nervous that we’re stepping over the line and we’ll get into trouble with the IRS, you’re wrong.”Barton’s implicit political message was clear, even though he followed the letter of the tax code. He compared the two parties on a series of congressional votes on faith-related issues, pointedly noting that “only 6% of the Democrats and 85% of the Republicans voted for the Biblical definition of marriage.” To underscore his argument, Barton showed on the church’s video screens photographs of gay men embracing.
And a tangent but in the same “spirit,” there’s the pledge of allegiance to Bush:
“I care about freedom and liberty. I care about my family. I care about my country. Because I care, I promise to work hard to re-elect, re-elect George W. Bush as president of the United States.”
Of course, these days you can’t follow all our faith-based representatives, without a guide, so there’s Theocracy Watch.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at October 29, 2004 09:27 PMSo does this mean that Kerry, Clinton, Kofi Annan, Chirac, Schroeder and the Security Council are Bush supporters? Since all stated that Sadam had WMD’s.
Kirk, did time stand still? By March, 2003, after inspectors had been crawling around Iraq for a few months, it was pretty clear that Iraq had no WMD. Before the invasion, all those people changed their minds based on new facts. Bush, Cheney, and “a large majority of Bush supporters,” did not.
To paraphrase Kerry - ‘Leaving Sadam Hussein in power unfettered with Weapons of Mass Destruction would be irresponsible.’
Are we supposed to disagree with that? Had any evidence turned up before the invasion that Saddam had WMD, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
