[lbo-talk] SI theory on polls about "Iraq" and "Terrorism"

loupaulsen at attbi.com loupaulsen at attbi.com
Thu Apr 17 10:45:07 PDT 2003


Well, here's my take on this. I think that the theory which best accounts for people's responses to pollsters' questions on matters like this is "Situated Identity Theory". This basically means that people will give the answer that they think that good people give, and will not give the answer that they think bad people give.

In line with this, I suggest that you have 50% of the people who will think as follows:

Good people: honest, hardworking, unselfish, courageous, realistic, patriotic, moral, Christian, clean, remember 9/11, hate Osama, hate Saddam, trust the president, he's doing a good job, support the troops. Those people will say that Saddam probably had something to do with 9/11, and they will say they support the war. These are the responses I will select, because I am like those people.

Bad people: selfish, rich, cowardly, don't have to work for a living, immoral, anti-religious, dirty, pro-abortion, pro-drug, pro-crime, love Bill Clinton, put the civil rights of terrorists above safety and common sense, don't give a damn about the firefighters who died in the WTC, hate America, burn the flag, spit on the troops, hate the president. Those people will say that Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11, and they will say they oppose the war. Those are the responses I will avoid, because I am not like those people.

The point of the theory is that it's not what people think happened in the real world ("who knows what really happened, I'm no expert"). It's not about facts, it's about morals and character and identity. It's what your responses say about who you are; who you are being like, and who you are being unlike. If you say that you believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, and you support the war, you are being like some upstanding young churchgoing Marine sergeant. If you say that you believe that Saddam was not behind 9/11, and you oppose the war, you are being like Rosie O'Donnell.

Oh, and what do we do about this? Somehow we have to get across the message that if you are for the war you are like a clueless dupe, and if you are against the war you are like an intelligent worker who has seen through the bosses' bullshit. But this is only a part of the problem. The real problem is that you have such a large number of workers who are so devoid of class consciousness that they think that Bush is their spokesperson. LP
> Carl Remick wrote:
>
> >Figuring out most Americans' reasoning is like analyzing a Monty
> >Python sketch. I believe the thinking goes like this: Saddam
> >wasn't responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but the attacks were just
> >the type of thing he would have done if he'd had the opportunity.
>
> Slavoj argues, in the interview I'll be broadcasting later today,
> that the "reasoning" is this: AQ hates America, SH hates America, so
> they're all the same and must be destroyed.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list