CHENEY: [...] I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.There is a reason that Americans elect officials, who do the voting and deciding for them. It is *ostensibly* because Americans are not smart enough, or well-informed enough, to vote knowledgeably on the issues. This isn't to say that Harry Reid is a Rhodes Scholar, but that's a whole different issue (as the qualities inherent to being a good candidate for political office are very different from those inherent to actually being a good political officeholder).
The public is also fickle. So, how are political officials supposed to respond to a poll showing 2/3rds of Americans are against the war? What if a poll during the previous month showed a 50/50 split? The point here is that the public at large is not well-informed enough to comment on wartime decisions, exit strategies, troop numbers, etc., so, while a good administration would be wise to factor polls into its decisions, this doesn't mean that Bush/Cheney should be like "oh, 2/3rds against, time to pack it in!" This lack of information is partly because the Bush administration has lacked transparency, but it's also because the American public is dumb. There's a reason the Iraq war resolution was voted on by Congress, and not by American citizens (although the result would have been the same).
Yet I also agree with Greenwald's point here:
Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where (a) citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet (b) the leaders of both parties adopt identical lockstep positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice?But I become torn. I agree that it is disgraceful how utterly beholden the establishment is to Israel. Yet, how important is public opinion in this matter vs. doing what is right? Let's assume that those who oppose our alliance with Israel, or at least think it should be amended to give the U.S. a greater voice in moments such as this, are completely right (that, for the interests of Israel and for the U.S., changing things from the status quo is essential). Yet what if, as a result of ignorance combined with 40 years of pro-Israel drum-beating on the part of establishment forces, polls showed Americans were 80/20 in favor of blindly supporting Israel? Should that matter? Would Greenwald be making the same argument in that case? I doubt it.
This came to mind this morning reading the Letters section of today's NYT:
Re “The Gas Tax” (editorial, Dec. 27):
Although I agree that higher gas prices are crucial to achieving important policy goals, your editorial does not address two critical questions: Will the public support paying more for gas, and can politicians push for a floor on gas prices without public support?
It’s unrealistic to expect our elected officials to risk getting voted out of office by imposing tough choices that we are unwilling to make ourselves. But our political leaders can ask us: Are we serious about energy independence?
The gas tax provides a fascinating lens to view this argument through. Let's say that, according to every top economist and energy expert, enacting a gas tax is a must. For reducing climate change, for ushering in more energy-efficient vehicles, for not exposing ourselves to dangers abroad, etc. And let's say Obama went on national TV and made a thoroughly lucid and persuasive argument in favor of instituting a gas floor of $4/gallon. Even given that, I'd be shocked if more than 15-20% of the American people supported a gas tax. To them, it sounds like $4-5/gallon gas, in the worst of economic times. And that sounds awful. Yet, should public opinion matter here? They're ostensibly basing their thoughts on self-interest, not national interest. Which is fine, and reasonable, but our government is supposed to focus on the latter.
So where is the cutoff? What's the dividing line between issues like Israel and the gas tax? When should we follow public opinion, and when should be plow right through it?
