October 2, 2005
A senior staff person for one of the most progressive and
courageous members of Congress recently advised a room full of peace
activists that they won't be able to persuade Democrats to oppose the
war simply by showing them polls finding that a majority of Americans
oppose the war. Rather they must assuage the Democrats' fears of being
called "weak on national security."
But that's not possible. Opponents of a war will inevitably be
called weak on national security. And even if that ceases to be the
case, Democrats will continue to fear it for a generation or more. My
advice to you, Democratic Members of Congress, is to embrace it and
change the discourse. Don't run scared of someone else's language.
Learn to recognize when the greatest gift you could ask for is to be
attacked by your discredited, despised, and indicted opponents.
The majority of Americans not only oppose the war, but oppose the
President and disapprove of his handling of national security. More
Americans believe the war has increased the chances of terrorist
attacks than believe it has decreased them. And war is the top issue on
people's minds; so, pretending it's not an important issue will not
help you. You cannot retake either house without addressing the top
issue on people's minds and without taking the position that is 1.
moral, 2. fiscally sane, 3. most popular, and 4. distinct from the
position of the other party – the issue on which the other party is
running.
You say that looking at the polls won't convince you, but I don't
believe you're looking at the polls. I think you're watching the
television news and reading American newspapers. As I imagine you've
heard -- but it bears repeating -- the media do NOT report the news as
if they've read their own polls. (If they did that, single payer health
care couldn't be called radical and marginal.)
But did you read this lead to an article in the Observer (UK) last Sunday?
"An extraordinary appeal to Americans from the Bush administration
for money to help pay for the reconstruction of Iraq has raised only
$600, The Observer has learnt. Yet since the appeal was launched
earlier this month, donations to rebuild New Orleans have attracted
hundreds of millions of dollars."
What does that tell you? Six hundred lousy dollars! And not one single televised fundraising Concert to Kill More Arabs.
In contrast, I created a website
yesterday asking for money to pay pollsters to ask whether Bush should
be impeached. It's brought in $3,500 in one day, and we've just started
spreading the word.
A Democracy Corps survey released last week found that 60 percent of
Americans want the country to go in a "significantly different
direction than Bush," and, "When people are asked what they are
thinking about, they start with the war…."
Are you beginning to see why you need to be weak on national security?
No? OK, bear with me for two more minutes. A Newsweek poll on
September 8-9 found that 36 percent of American adults believed the war
on Iraq had increased "the risk that large numbers of Americans will be
killed or injured in a future terrorist attack," while 26 percent
thought it had decreased that risk. Imagine what that gap would be if
you were speaking out about it!
A CBS News poll on August 29-31 found 40 percent saying the war had
increased the threat of terrorism against the United States, and 16
percent saying the war had decreased that threat. The same poll found
31 percent believe that "as a country we are more safe than we were
before September 11th," and an identical 31 percent say "less safe."
Imagine which way that tie would break if you were leading the way!
A Newsweek poll on August 2-4 found that 64 percent of Americans
think the "Iraq war has not made Americans safer from terrorism," while
28 percent think it has. A pretty nice gap despite your silence!
On August 8, the USA Today reported on a survey finding that 57
percent say the war has made the United States more vulnerable to
terrorism, while 34 percent say the United States is safer. Those are
better numbers than most of you even hope to see in your next election.
I realize that the beliefs held by a majority of Americans are not
beliefs the media depicts as respectable. But, if you can't respect the
voice of the American people, here are some experts who agree with us:
The U.S. State Department, which says terrorist attacks ARE ACTUALLY up dramatically.
CIA Director Porter J. Goss, who has some thoughts on what's gone wrong.
The pro-war International Institute for Strategic Studies (UK).
The conservative Chatham House.
Are you beginning to get the picture? Are you ready yet to say this:
I am for weakness on national security. If strength on national
security means making our nation more vulnerable to terrorism, then I
am for weakness. If strength on national security means destabilizing
the Middle East, damaging alliances around the globe, and making our
nation hated by millions of people, I am for weakness. If strength on
national security means ignoring the threats that preceded 9-11, then I
am for weakness. If strength on national security means shipping the
national guard out of the nation, defunding the construction of levees,
and hiring incompetent cronies to protect the so-called homeland, then
I am fervently for the weakest weakness we can muster. If strength on
national security means dumping the majority of our public resources
into an unaccountable Pentagon and an illegal war, at the expense of
education, health care, housing, transportation, renewable energy, or
actual steps to protect the Gulf Coast, then I am for some creative
weakness pronto!
Now, there have been some news stories the past few days claiming
that Bush's approval rating is on the rise. But what they're claiming,
if you look closely, is that his approval rating recently hit a record
low and has now bounced back to where it's almost visible down in the
bottom of the drain. Here's a graph of numerous different pollsters' findings on Americans' approval of Bush over the past months and years. Look at the trend.
In light of that big picture, how seriously do you take Newsweek's
trumpeting Bush's "rise" to 40 percent approval, all the way up from 38
percent? Gallup has Bush up at 45 percent, but look where Gallup always
falls on that graph above.
Another story in the news has gotten a little less attention. On
September 29, the Associated Press reported on a study by the Program
on International Policy Attitudes (University of Maryland), which found
that
"The American public has doubts about whether the Bush
administration policy of promoting democracy internationally will make
the world a safer place. A poll done at the University of Maryland
found that just over a fourth, 28 percent, say they think the world is
safer when there are more democracies, while more than twice as many,
68 percent, say democracy may make life better within a country but
does not make the world safer."
Remember that Americans know this from first-hand experience. They
think of their country as a democracy, but they recognize that their
nation's actions in recent years have made the world less safe. An ABC
News poll in January 2003 (I haven't seen a more recent one) asked
Americans which nation was the greatest threat to world peace. First
and second places went to the two nations depicted in the news at that
time as evil enemies: Iraq and North Korea. Tied for third were China
and the United States.
You want to win an election? Make the United States a leader toward
world peace, not a leading threat to it. Call your program Weakness on
National Security.