Roger Simon had a post yesterday which reminded me of one I had written just about two years ago. Commenting on the Rinky Dink Antiwar Demonstrations this past weekend, Roger finds their turnout “pretty pathetic.”
Two years ago, I had asked, If Iraq is like Vietnam, how come the rallies keep getting smaller? And the rallies are still shrinking, smaller this year than they were in 2005. Back then, they were only a fraction on what they had been at the outset of the war. By contrast, in the Vietnam era, the rallies kept getting bigger as the war progressed.
Roger ponders the meaning of the increasingly sparsely-attended demonstrations:
What’s interesting is why this low turnout when, according to many polls, the public is supposedly massively against the war. If they are so antiwar, they certainly are pretty apathetic about it. This is another example of why Iraq is not Vietnam when filling the streets with demonstrators was a simple matter.
This also may mean that the public opinion polls themselves are not a decent measure of how people really feel. Although pollsters try, polls in general are particularly poor at measuring the depth of people’s convictions or natural human ambivalence. Ambivalent people don’t tend to get on a bus to go to a demonstration.
Something for Republicans to think about before looking to the latest polls to determine which way they intend vote on a certain issue. For that matter, it’s something the Democrats should also consider.
UPDATE (09.19) Hugh alerts us to this Politico piece which echoes my point:
But unlike during the Vietnam era, when the size and strength of street protests gradually grew over time, the Iraq war initially produced massive demonstrations that have since petered out. On Saturday, only about 20,000 gathered for what was billed a major peace march.
I don’t know how to expound on what you said here. It’s absurd and appalling.
The democrats are good at telling a lie over and over until it becomes currency in many parts of the realm. They insist their slim majority is because the American people put them there to end this “awful, George W. Bush vanity war.” The MSM has been more than delighted to help them pull this taffy.
Certainly the war on terror is not a catalyst for homeland fervor. But there is no honest debate taking place concerning an alternative set of choices and actions.
Anti-war rallies will attract the same nucleus of saggy, baggy over-the-hill hippies and young Turks who always like to shout and curse. But the general population is not much motivated by the hate-fest the left has created.
2008 is going to be an interesting election. We Republicans still have a lot of good ole boy pols to get rid of before our party will have the Moxie to stand up to vermonous ways of the typical democrat demagogue. So far, it looks like the Stumblebums vs. the Bowery Boys.
This site is a wonderful place to read the inane thinking and posturing of some of the kook left. Their hate shines through like a zit on the end of the nose. Hate is an exteme “feeling” and that is all the left has to offer……not a logical construction….. just “feelings.”
I have to wonder if the difference in protestor numbers now vs. during Vietnam is that most protestors then and now are those of draft age. During Vietnam, more people were motivated by ending the war and not being drafted, but now people feel safe and don’t feel as motivated to demonstrate. Assuming the poll numbers are correct about opposition to the war (assuming only for my argument here, issues with polls in general aside), I would hazard to guess that it’s much easier to be apathetic when you have a mentality that the war is something going on “over there” that we send a professional military off to deal with. It strikes me as a reflection of how disconnected our general populace is from it’s military.
On the contrary, I think it’s the fringe that’s disconnected with the general populace and military. Recruiting is on-track, drawing from a wide spectrum of social and educational backgrounds except from the most-liberal elitist institutions. A few thousand aging hippies, disaffected anarchist graduate students and agenda-driven MSM-types does not make a “ground-swell of public opinion”.
Mike, I should say – and, your follow-up comments affirm – that it is not the number of people of draft age, but the existence (or non-existence) of a draft as such, that makes a difference.
Poll numbers don’t measure the depth or shallowness off people’s opposition. Mainstream people who oppose the war, in my experience, ‘oppose’ it ambivalently. They think, “What a shame”, or “Why is it taking so long?”, or “What a pity it’s happening”. In fact, **I** oppose the war. I think all those exact same things. But I also support the people fighting it. I want their sacrifices to not be in vain, and I want the war to end with a victory for democracy in Iraq – not for al Qaeda in Iraq. I suspect I’m not alone. Depending how the poll questions are designed, they miss all that.
One small addition: Viet Nam protests arose in the age of protests. It was the populatr cultural outlet. Sit-ins led to police riots led to race riots led to the Chicago Seven, SDS, SDA, SLA, QRS and XYZ. Burn a ghetto or a physics lab or take over a president’s office at a college…..it was not a draft protest…..it was acting out in the extreme. The draft protest characters burned their cards and flags and went to Toronto until Jimmah invited them to come home to momma. Darn few resisted the draft and settled for jail time. Clinton, Kerry, Gore and probably Bush fiddled the system and stayed out of the jungle. Many, many well connected kids did. Of those, Kerry miscalculated and actually got somewhere near danger, but he got out of it as fast as he stumbled into it.
I must agree, ILC. I personally rarely take polls at face value – too easy to get caught up in something that isn’t thorough.
Disregard #2. That’s supposed to be in the thread above this one.
#7
Of course you can’t remove the narcissism of spoiled brat liberals from the equation either.
Besides, liberals have “people” to protest for them.
Dan, please keep posts like this coming for the next year or so. That way you guys will continue to own this war and all the great things that are bound to be just around the corner with regard to it.
On a related subject, I’m sure you’re pleased that Reid is not going to provide wavering Repubs with toothless resolutions enabling them to pretend to be against the war. You guys want to own this mess lock, stock and barrel and we liberals are going to let you!
I think the war is going fabulously and George W. Bush is doing a bang up job with it and that is why there aren’t any protests anymore. Who could protest such a successful war campaign?!?! The Bush White House and the GOP should be so, so proud!! And, even more, George W. Bush’s refusal to even take into account what the American people (you know, all the America-hating ones against the war, who are just a minority of deranged individuals) think about the war is just fabulous, too. It sure makes sure that people won’t even go out and protest!! BECAUSE NO ONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE CARES what they think!!!! Absolutely brilliant on George W. Bush’s and the GOP’s part when it comes to this smashing success of war in Iraq.
That way you guys will continue to own this war
So you concede here and now that the liberals, invested in the defeat of the United States, will lose in 2008. I agree.
#13
HUH???? Could you please translate for those of us who are Down’s Syndrome impaired?
#12 and #13 are spitting nails because their crusade to defeat the US military in Iraq has every sign of failing. Now they are saying:”And, even more, George W. Bush’s refusal to even take into account what the American people (you know, all the America-hating ones against SUCCESS IN the war, who are just a minority of deranged individuals) think about SUCCESS IN the war is just fabulous, too.”
Yessiree, SUCCESS in Iraq is a pesky, nasty, depressing thought for the defeatocrats.
#14:
Well, that explains a lot.
#16. If I were predisposed to put words in the mouth of Ian S, I might imagine that Downs Syndrome is an abortionable offense.
Well, that explains a lot.
Yes it does. Evidently, you’re just as retarded as Sean. Thanks for proving it.