<snip>
In general, people who express no opinion on a matter, or who are not upset if the government takes an action contrary to their own views, hold what we at Gallup call a "permissive opinion." It means that while they may not express initial support for a policy, they essentially "permit" the government to adopt the policy by not getting upset.
<snip>
In the end, despite the initial divergence in results, the two polls provide a similar picture of public opinion on this issue. While people may initially express a different view from that of their political leaders about what the government should do in Iraq, many are willing to follow their leaders once the leaders make their preferences known.
================
I think most Americans divide problems -- as regards the government -- into two categories: a.) things that effect me and are, therefore, very important and b.) things I may or may not agree with but which I can't really do anything about and, besides, don't have any impact on my life.
If you're not in the military, connected to someone in the military or otherwise motivated to pay close attention the violent occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are mostly abstractions -- they fade into the background and form a sort of unpleasant noise like evening news reports of warehouse fires, "drug related" shootings and overturned 18 wheelers blocking busy interstate highways.
If the Bush administration were to (openly) announce something very draconian which changed the quality of life for millions of middle class folks -- let's say, banning car use for five out of every seven days of the week to slow the rate of oil consumption -- a poll taken to measure American's feelings would show little or no equivocation. People would know precisely where they stood and would probably be unmoved by any appeal from 'leaders'. The impact would be direct so the reaction would be strong.
But Iraq is far away and I think there's a feeling -- and I'll include the Left in this -- that regardless of what happens the US will, more or less, 'get away with it'. The US always seems to get away with it, licking its wounds through viewing Hollywood films about troubled vets, displaying yellow ribbons and earnest NPR 'special reports' about 'the aftermath" leaving destruction in its wake but paying what seems to be no large and lasting price.
So people make a quick calculation; they say to themselves: we'll stay... or not. We'll 'prevail'... or not. We'll bring democracy... or not. In the end it won't matter because Iraq is far away and we always recover from these things gaining new dramatic films, riveting books and special episodes of our favorite sitcoms in the process. This isn't to say people aren't concerned, of course they are. But it's a distant sort of concern.
I believe this is what informs the 'follow the leader' shrug we see when it comes to Iraq.
These people are wrong, I believe. I don't think we're going to get away with it this time. This is the beginning of something that will change the prevailing order -- and not necessarily towards what we would consider to be the good. But it's very hard to see this. It's all very murky.
Better to believe that, like Vietnam, this will prove to be one of those supposed 'lapses in judgement' Americans will congratulate themselves for having the "courage" to confront during some period of 'national healing' years in the future.
.d.