ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
ZCommentaries
Blog PostsThe Tea Party vs. The Left
By David Peterson at Apr 08, 2011 |
|
A friend of mine just sent me a Fox News Poll that was conducted immediately before the March 19 start of the
One caveat, of course, is that Fox News is a Rupert Murdoch - NewsCorp operation. So they are not only not beyond falsifying data -- but Fox regularly engages in falsification. Hence, the overall lack of support for this then-imminent
There is thus no telling how much this kind of endemic Fox News - political consideration vitiates the poll's reported results.
All this aside, however: Question #21 (p. 3) asked: "Do you favor or oppose the
"[B]ased on live telephone interviews with a national sample of 913 registered voters" over the three-day period of March 14 - 16 (hence one day prior to the adoption of UN Res. 1973, and three days prior to the U.S. launching of its war on Libya),[1] the breakdown in responses was:
|
|
Democrats |
Republicans |
Independents |
Tea Party |
Total |
|
Favor |
21% |
33% |
19% |
39% |
25% |
|
Oppose |
70% |
59% |
70% |
54% |
65% |
|
Don't know |
9% |
9% |
11% |
7% |
9% |
[1] Fox News Poll, Andrew Robbins Research (Dem.) / Shaw & Company Research (Rep.), Interviews Conducted March 14-16, 2011.
Any additional interpretations? For example, that as of the days just prior to this latest U.S. war, even the Tea Party was less enthused about the current display of American Power than were the New Humanitarian, "responsibility to protect" cliques that comprise the self-abnegated version of the Western "Left"?
David Peterson
Chicago, USA
By Roblin, Stephen at Apr 11, 2011 18:07 PM
It would be interesting to look at more recent poll results. Following the intervention, right-wing pundits, like Sean Hannity, critiqued the intervention on two grounds: one, Obama was too slow (a result of going through international channels); and two, adhering to the doctrine of "humanitarian" interventionism (R2P) sets a bad precedent for U.S. foreign policy.
Hannity regularly cites research from the Heritage Foundation. After the commencement of the intervention, Steve Groves posted a piece on the Heritage site articulating a right-wing critique of R2P and the Libyan intervention. Here's an excerpt:
"the Administration should renounce its flirtation with R2P and reject it as its philosophical basis for military intervention. Adhering to the R2P doctrine sets a dangerous precedent. The more nations that appear to follow the doctrine out of a sense of obligation, the more that the doctrine may be considered to have attained normative status—a step towards recognition of R2P as binding customary international law. If R2P is considered to have attained that status, its principles may be considered obligatory, rather than voluntary.
"Such an occurrence is likely to constrain U.S. action in the future. Inevitably a time will come when the U.S. will want to intervene in a situation, perhaps to stop an atrocity, only to be criticized for not first receiving authorization from the U.N. Security Council. U.S. strikes against a nation’s leadership in some future intervention may be condemned as “disproportionate” to the humanitarian mission of protecting a civilian population. In short, by adopting the principles of R2P in the Libyan intervention, the President is legitimizing the doctrine and raising the bar for justification for future U.S. military actions."
I can't say for sure that this perspective -- broadcasted by right-wing pundits -- is influencing those who identify themselves as Republican or Tea Party. But it's possible, though it wouldn't explain the polling results you cited because of timing.
In my view, what is most revealing is that the justification for the intervention and the criques coming from the right are based on the same mythology, just interpreted differently to suit political aims. This dynamic will likely play out during the upcoming elections. Based on the evidenc eyou cite, Obama appears to be losing the propaganda battle, as you mentioned.
Reply this comment