Poll: Americans Have Almost No Confidence in CongressI swear, the people of this country WANT to hate Democrats. Hating Dems serves a profound psychic need that I cannot comprehend.
A new Gallup poll shows that Americans have a record low level of confidence in Congress as an institution — only 14% said they had a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence. By contrast, 18% trust big business, 19% trust organized labor, 33% trust the public schools, 46% trust organized religion, and 54% trust the police.
On DU just now, I saw a prolific poster insist that it is better to have a Republican in office than to have a Democrat who does not fit that particular poster's notion of ideological purity. Well, that outcome is exactly what will occur.
You will either support the current Democratic crew and you will try to elect more of the same, or you will get the kind of Congress you had between 2000 and 2006. You have no third choice.
"But...there SHOULD be alternatives! Why can't we have a House and Senate filled with Kucinich clones? That's they way it SHOULD be..."
Should, should, should. Fuck "should." I deal with the word IS. That's the most difficult word in the English language.
It IS the fact that the American people are conservative by nature. I don't like it, but that's what IS.
It IS the fact that your fellow citizens still listen to Limbaugh and watch Fox. It IS the fact that the American people will believe any swiftboating lie the Rovian hordes choose to radiate. It IS the fact that a lot of the Dems in Congress won razor-thin victories in red-tinged states and cannot afford to piss off their conservative constituents. It IS the fact that we don't really have a majority in the Senate, except in a technical sense.
It IS the fact that the President has a veto, insuring that any attempt to withdraw funding for Iraq will fail. It IS a fact that the deal which raised the minimum wage -- and thereby improved life for millions -- was the best we could get under strained circumstances. I don't like that situation, I hate that situation, but that is what IS.
It IS the fact that we don't have enough votes to impeach. It IS the fact that any attempt to impeach will be spun against the Democrats.
I do not expect much action on the war from this Congress because we don't have the numbers. We don't have the presidency. We don't have the media. Most of all, we do not have the zeitgeist.
What do I mean by that? This: I don't think Dick Nixon got into politics to oversee the creation of something like the EPA, and I don't think Bill Clinton got into politics to end welfare. The zeitgeist -- the spirit of the age -- forced an inherently conservative man to do some very liberal things, and it forced a liberal to veer as far to the right as he could.
The present zeitgeist was shaped more by Limbaugh and LaHaye than by Krugman and Kos. Don't think that the reactionary nature of the American citizenry has changed simply because the public turned against the war. Within ten or fifteen years, the same people who now decry the Iraq debacle will convince themselves that the cause was noble and that we were stabbed in the back by the liberal media. Watch it happen. It has already begun.
I don't understand the psychic stranglehold the Republican party has on the American imagination, but that stranglehold exists. How else to explain the "Log Cabin Republican" phenomenon? How else to explain why Progressives seem so intent on handing power back to the people who did so much to ruin the country? You can't venture anywhere within the left side of Blogland without encountering the (objectively) pro-Republican sentiments of the Progressive Purists:
"Dems take AIPAC money. Better to let the Republicans run everything!"
"Obama offers too many empty platitudes. Better to let the Republicans run everything!"
"The Dems cannot get a veto-proof majority to cut off Iraq funding. Better to let the Republicans run everything!"
"Edwards and Clinton supported the war in 2003, and they must never be forgiven, no matter what they say now. Better to let the Republicans run everything!"
"We must never tolerate Dems who ran scared after 9/11. Better to let the Republicans run everything!"
"No Dem politician is 100% pure! 90% isn't good enough -- I insist on 100%! And if I cannot have my personal idea of 100% purity, then I say: Better to let the Republicans run everything!"
Here is a very partial look at what Henry Waxman's oversight committee is looking into. I like what he's doing. You know the way things were before. You know that no committee was allowed to look into such things.
Is that the situation you want to have again?
Apparently so.
You progressive purists want the Republican party in power -- forever. I don't know the why or the how of it, but on some primal "Monster of the Id" level, the Republicans get you people hard. They get you wet. They make you come.
The Republican party is the "bad boy" you once knew (presuming you are female), the poisonous lover who nearly destroyed your life -- yet despite that history, because of that history, you're dying to hop back in bed with him.
14%.
That number had better rise, or the Republican rotters will return in 2008. Your evil lover awaits, tempting you with absinthe and other dark liquors, whispering those naughty words that secretly thrill you.
"Did I act selfishly, baby? Did I forget your needs? Did I give you crabs? Did I empty your bank account? Did I hit you? Did I threaten to kill you? Did I make you feel ashamed and filthy? Yeah, but that other guy is a wimp. You don't want him. Come to Daddy..."
20 comments:
Progressives tend to be less racist, less conservative, less religious, and more educated. In other words they tend to think outside the box more often than not. They also tend to be more logical and analytical in their thought process. This allows them to not be victims of "Our Lord and Saviour" or "Literal Word of God" or "Bush is a Born Again Christian" or there is a"Free Market System in Play" or a number of other "absolutist" believes.
This also allows them to not believe that "every Democrat is better than every Republican". On the whole Democrats appeal to them much more than Republicans, but do not ask them to be absolutists. It goes against the whole thought process. having said all that, there is something to be said for winning elections and for that I refer you to a very good article by Drew Westen, "Winning Hearts and Minds...". I saw it at HuffPo, posted June 19th.
Joe, in many ways this article addresses your frustrations with the voters.
Great post. Should it bring you any joy, I linked you here.
You're right, Joe, to understand the body politic as sexually hung-up voters -- if that's what you mean. This society believes itself to be too 'permissive', and it points its shaming finger at the Democrats. (Wanna bet that most people under 40 think Bob Dole's a Dem from his Viagra ads, even though that E.D. stuff is marketed to Republicans)?
Don't give up so easily as long as Hillary is perceived as being asexual. And don't forget the seminal Spiro Agnew Des Moines shot fired across the media's bows: the media were all chilled from the implied threats (via the FCC). But after the Watergate shipwrecks, the floodgates opened, and 'permissiveness' flooded all media. Hence, the disingenuous notion of a 'liberal media' -- disingenuous on both sides. Most people think 'media' means TV and Hollywood fare; only a few think 'the media' is what used to be called 'the press'.
The only people who vote are rich people and people with kids because they are both very protective sorts. Parents have been scandalized by what they see and hear for a long time now. It's only a phase, but it's 3 generations old now, and the reactionary damage has been done. The ideas of politics and reason or being well informed can't play out in a society now grown to some 300 millions. But I think we have the best pizza in the world, so an asexual, pizza-loving candidate can win.
-- AitchD as 'Anonymous'
Well I feel your pain. However, as the Democrats have as narrow a margin of 'majorities' in the two houses of Congress as has been seen in recent decades, 'the Congress' is about 50% Republican. It isn't clear to me that a generalized discontent with 'Congress' won't redound to the detriment of Republicans as much as to Democrats, especially when the zeitgeist du jour is dominated by the Iraq war debacle, and as the GOP remains the pro-war party, even if the Democrats aren't sufficiently anti-war enough in results to mollify the public opinion of Congress.
Frankly, the fact that this Congress under the Democrats' leadership in quite short order after being put in office PASSED (in both houses, and reconciled, and presented to the pRedsident) the timeline to withdraw troops as part of their funding bill for Iraq was an amazing accomplishment, and one that I had doubted they could get done.
So I'm more sanguine about Democratic Party electoral chances in '08. As Clinton's liet motif was 'it's the economy, stupid!,' so now, 'it's the war, stupid!' Can the GOP get to the left of the Democrats on the war? Hardly. IF the relatively or constructively pro-war Democrats are to be defeated, it would have to be by more anti-war candidates, and I'd guess those would be themselves DEMOCRATS who oppose them in the primaries.
sofla
My, you're grumpy today, Joseph...
Now, on one level, I can't disagree with you. You're not saying anything I haven't known since I was 15. (And that was 1962, so I've had a lot of time to practice being fed up and disgusted.) But on another, cutting down your own expectations because most people are idiots doesn't get you anywhere either.
So suppose we try putting this idea of progressive purism in another light. Suppose it's really about, say, wanting the Democratic Party to actually *stand* for something again. That is, something more than seeing that grannie's kept well supplied in tea-cozies and that the "please be nice" reminders get mailed out on time.
Now, if you're aiming to figure out what you stand for, you can have long, intellectual discussions about principles and goals and the purpose of human existence. Which is all well and good as long as it's just us chickens talking together here. Or you can try pointing instead to human exemplars of good people, good politicians, and good Democrats, and hope that the jumped-up chimpanzees all around you -- who may not be much for intellectual discussion but are generally pretty good judges of character and motivation -- will get the idea.
In short, the only way I can see of getting a better Democratic Party is to start by getting better Democrats. The GOP doesn't work that way, because it's all surface appearance and appeals to phony pieties, and as long as you can talk the talk they don't much give a damn. But the Democrats, unfortunately, seem to have no options but to try to be genuine.
That may not be enough at this point. Americans may be too corrupted by the lures of empire, and the American empire may have to fall like every other before things can get sorted out. But "shut up and keep on rooting for the home team even if they suck" isn't an answer either.
I think the distrust is largely a matter of the biased corporate media. The media exists to weaken the left, and does a pretty good job. You can see its demoralizing effect on Joe and other commentators.
My prescription: avoid the media. It's like listening to enemy propaganda.
In truth, the Republicans are finished. After six years of incompetence beyond the mind of God, Americans understand the Democrats are our only hope. Right-wing rule has radicalized the nation.
There is no question that on any given day on any given issue, any Democrat is preferable to a Republican. However, the vast majority of Americans simply pay little attention to politics most of the time and so they are susceptible to Rovian tricks and Faux News spin.
The current record low confidence in Congress is, however, the fault of the Democratic Party leadership. Having been given a clear signal that the nation wanted this war over and a return to Constitutional government, they did nothing. Now those voters who were willing to again invest their confidence in Democrats have been ignored and disrespected. They are hardly likely to make that mistake again.
The majority of people in this country support progressive goals. An ABC News poll shows that 62% of Americans prefer universal government run health care. How many Democrats in Congress support that? A recent LA Times poll shows that 68% of Americans want us out of Iraq no later than one year from now. Only 25% of Americans believe the US has benefited from so-called "free trade" policies.
If the Democrats want to win, they need to lead America in a direction it wants to go. All they're doing now is offering America the opportunity to go in the wrong direction at a much slower pace.
Don't forget the truism of polling, that even when people decry 'Congress' or 'the school system,' they tend to think their own Congressman or school is doing a good job. So, considering 'the Congress' is not going to be on anybody's voting list, and their own Congressman/Senator IS, there will likely be the typical incumbents' re-elect percentage, despite the apparent low ratings that 'Congress' as a whole suffers from now.
Also, remember that of all the (sometimes narrowly) elected SENATORS this last cycle, NONE of them are up for re-election this time. Also, remember that of all the newly elected Democratic Party House members will enjoy the not inconsiderable advantage of incumbency next time around.
Finally, the summary point is that what people say they think about larger institutions doesn't necessarily track to what they'll do, or vote, in given instances. What we have are 487 or so, give or take, INDIVIDUAL elections, and rarely does a tide come in that swamps all other considerations. The aftermath of Watergate was one such tidal wave, the Great Depression was another. And guess what? The WAR was such another tide, last election, which saw the American people refuse to put in any new Republicans at any federal level. If anything, this tide hasn't yet crested, IMO, and it is still operating in favor of (most of) the Democratic Party's candidates.
sofla
Congress has lost a dozen points of popularity since January, but I think that's because expectations were so high. People voted for change, and so far haven't gotten it, and they are disenchanted.
So am I. To be honest, if the pollsters asked me I'd probably say I was unhappy with Congress, too. What I--and so many other voters--want to see is serious house cleaning. Subpoenas and indictments. Jail sentences. A restoration of the Constitution and honest elections and an end to the war.
The committee Democrats may as well take off their kid gloves and start kicking ass. Via one line of investigation or another, we're headed for a Constitutional crisis showdown in the Supreme Court, and everybody in Congress is beginning to realize it.
"I swear, the people of this country WANT to hate Democrats. Hating Dems serves a profound psychic need that I cannot comprehend."
Beating up on those perceived as "weak" (ie; liberal) helps soothe the feelings of victimization and persecution suffered by so many in our sad, broken society. It's easier to resent and punish your fellow victims than it is to confront and reject the abusive, manipulating social overlords who make you so miserable to begin with.
yet again, i agree with unirealist.
and as i've tried to point out previously, those poll numbers on congress are heavily diluted with complexities that make the question just stupid; there are SO many reasons one could be frustrated with congress, but that doesn't mean all of those polled will vote repug next time! what an idiotic notion!!
the better numbers - and better polls (gallop has become increasingly suspect over the past decade or so, at least to my eyes, and this particular poll is a case in point) - to consider are those that actually ask readable questions, meaning: they're not so heavily weighted with complexities that you can't make any sense of them (read: they can therefore be interpreted any way you want).
which leads me to suggest - again, joe - that you really have to stop over-reacting to these polls that really do not mean anything.
instead, consider today's newsweek poll that shows bush at 26%, and last week's poll that showed that those polled would vote for a dem for prez in 08 over a repug something like 54% to 32%.
again, my reasoning here is that you really have to analyze these polling questions very carefully before you give them any value; that gallup number is total trash. stow it.
and please store all these bizarre numbers in the place where i'm keeping that confused list of polling results that don't make any sense. so many of these things don't add up, but someone is paying for the polls. i remain quite suspicious about it; it behooves rove's evil plans to keep some notions alive that this could be close in 08, because HE CAN'T CHEAT IF THE REALITY OF A HUGE MARGIN PREVAILS IN THE MINDS OF THE PUBLIC.
all that being said, i'm sure you've all run across the latest numbers on conservative v. progressive talk radio in this country. about TEN TIMES more conservative than progressive. despite the polling numbers. somebody out there is manipulating this realm, and lately even trent lott is suspicious!
It is not a matter of being a purist, but of having high standards of what is acceptable for a candidate or party. When voters continue to compromise those standards just to get the party of their choice in power, you eventually find yourself with dregs.
For years now, Dem voters have held their noses and voted for more conservative Dem candidates in primaries because they think they have a better chance in the general.
Look at Sherrod Brown of Ohio.(just one example of many) who voted for the MCA. He should have been thrown out on his ass, but voters preferred a Dem who voted for the suspension of habeus corpus to a Rep. Instead of teaching the party a hard lesson, it taught them they could get away with the most egregious disrespect for the wishes of the base. We put up with it and return them to office, they keep giving us the shaft. What does it cost them? Nothing. It's our own fault for not truly sticking up for our own values.
I feel your frustration, Joe. During the 2000 election, I was one of those who voted for Nader to send a message to the Democratic Party. A message they didn't really get. I did vote for Kucinich in the primaries for 2004 but, when push came to shove, I voted for Kerry. Whoever is the Democratic nominee this time around will be getting my vote. Yet, oddly enough, I've seen a number of so-called "progressives" championing Ron Paul. That will make things interesting if he does a 3rd Party run and pulls people from all sides of the spectrum. It's truly frustrating though. I am amazed that only one issue, the Iraq War, is getting a number of "progressives" saying that Ron Paul is the best choice. Truly bizarre.
Joe, you've been reading my diary again. Shame on you. I was a progressive lying low during the McCarthy era, so my whole life has been one of raising expectations only to have them dashed upon the cliffs of corporate right-wing granite. Union people should have been out in the streets screaming for the last 40 years, but they weren't. Now we've lost the unions and their corruption to the purity of the corporations. I wonder why things aren't looking any better for the people who have to work for a living?
Note to sofia: The zeitgeist du jour is controlled by the massively right-wing media. Just a couple of days ago figures came out that 91% of radio is very rightist. Almost all major daily newspapers are definitely to the right of center and all are to willing to parrot the republican talking points du jour. BTW, that includes NYT and WaPo. Witness Judith Miller and Bob Woodward at best toadying to the administration, at worst abetting it in its lies. Then compare that to what those same media did during the Clinton "impeachment." Remember that everything Reid and Pelosi say is being 'filtered' through the purple haze of the republican media. They really don't have a fair chance to make their views known except on c-span, and guess how many people watch that...........
During the Vietnam era, Nixon knew he had lost the war when he "lost Walter Cronkite" aka the media. Today, the republicans HAVE the media, the democrats don't. Period!
Joseph, one thing you did not touch on that does affect the way dems and repugs see things is that right-wingers focus on one thing forever and go with it. Like a bulldog with a bone, they don't give up. This administration is taking it to the nth degree by just doing whatever the hell they want to do and taking whatever they want and if anyone complains, they just growl and send in the dick. Rove isn't a genius, he's just smart AND RUTHLESS. He doesn't care where the bodies fall as long as it not his body.
Democrats, on the other hand, are interested in a wide variety of things like family, philosophy, art, music, drinking, writing, reading, drinking, hiking, mountain climbing, drinking, etc., etc. Politics is only one thing in their life, not the entirety of their existence.
To follow on to what dr. elsewhere said, some (many) people (like me) do not answer polls over the phone. I've probably been called 3-4 time the past year. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way. Well, I know this is all over the place, but I'm running out of time. Good discussion all. That's another thing democrats do well.
Final comment: There's a saying (don't know from where) that all wars end at home; this one's going to have a bitch of a blowback.
fallinglady
Fallinglady, the press is objectively or constructively conservative, along with the domination of talk radio by hard right conservatives, I agree.
However, which of those is responsible, then, for the 65% opposition to the Iraq war in the population? Isn't it clear that their limits to spin have been overmatched on this issue (by reality and independent judgment)? Where is the majority of the country to agree with the right wing's preferred position, that the Iraq war has tremendous successes that the average person never sees because the media is so anti-war and left wing? Answer, it's found exclusively in the 28% who continue to approve of Bush despite all the evidence to the contrary.
No, the anti-war mood of the people is palpable, and powerful, despite the media power of the right. Probably it might register as 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 against (instead of 2 to 1 against) except for right wing agit-prop, but their power is entirely a rear guard action at this point.
Saying things now that back when, got people almost read out of political life (as when Howard Dean suggested that getting Saddam or his boys hardly made America safer), occasions no kheated blow back, but nods of agreement, across the populace.
So, again, despite the stacked deck, this anti-war position is winning, and big. This undeniable fact is NOT consistent with any notion that the American people have no limits to the propaganda Kool-Aid they'll drink obliviously, nor a notion that given the preponderance of right wing media power, they'll always win. They won't, and are not, on this issue.
sofla
discussion on this topic may well have moved on to joe's other fascinating areas, but i have to weigh in again.
first of all, sofia said what i've been saying for almost a year now: the fact that the anti-war, anti-bush sentiment is SO strong, roughly 3 to 1 on both, is a powerful testament to the fact that the public is NOT buying what bush and the media are selling. that train done left the station.
in fact, i would posit that the public is so thoroughly soured to the entire bush/media propaganda machinery that they are more inclined to DISbelieve anything either one of them has to say.
second, i feel the need to reiterate my insistence that THAT POLL FIGURE JOE REFERENCES IS NOTHING BUT CRAP!!
we have no way of knowing what folks are basing their answer on; could be any of a myriad of things, but it's a good bet they're disappointed that things have not moved more quickly toward what they voted in november to achieve, namely getting the F*** out of irag.
if that is the case, there is still no logical reason to expect that this means the repugs will recover congress and/or the presidency in 08. in fact, the opposite is even more logical, since other polls show the public is far more inclined to have a dem as prez in 08, and to have a dem congress.
IMPORTANT: it is just as reasonable to interpret that poll as suggesting that the public is even LESS likely to vote for repugs than they were last year.
again, take care how these polls are being presented and what you extract from them. often the info just is NOT there.
finally, joe... dare i remind you that, based on similar flimsy polls and their even flimsier interpretations, back in 06, you predicted that the repugs would retain congress?
you did; they didn't.
just sayin'.....
And if predict you must, predict the worst:
You'll keep surprises pleasant.
And though you feast on crow until you burst,
It'll taste as fine as pheasant.
WOW!
I get it!.......
Joe is really a grumpy (not so old) man who thinks the whole world needs to slide into the ocean along with California......
NOT!!!!!!!!!!!
I feel better now, I got one just like him living with me!
A cynic with the soul of poet.
That's me and you know it.
sofia.....you are right about the majority being against the war. My frustration is in regard to the hard/soft quality of that response. For instance, even in the press it has become apparent that all is not well in Iraq and people pick up on that and say to themselves, okay, enough, let's get out. But do they say that to neighbors and relatives who might be for the war? Do they go out and campaign for the opposition? Do they take any action to support their belief? I think many of them really are iffy on the subject. Anecdotally, my cousin is anti-Bush (finally) and gets Palast's emails but just yesterday sent me an email about some artist in Iraq who is so grateful for the US invasion but the press doesn't cover it because it's pro-war. So is he the 65% or the 28%? A woman in one of my classes agrees we must get out of Iraq and indicated she was very disgusted with Bush, but who does she think should be the next president? Ron Paul, libertarian. Let's face it, most people have opinions but are not politically sophisticated and, therefore, their beliefs are soft and subject to manipulation.
In addition, Joe did a post recently on just who makes up those die-hard Bush-lovers and some of the comments were very interesting. Plus, dr. e. makes the point about HOW the questions are phrased. That can make a big difference in the answers obtained. "Do you believe we should pursue the terrorists responsible for 9/11 no matter where it leads?" is very different from "Are you opposed to the war?"
Back to Joe's point, the 2008 election. A year away. The republicans still have the press and I just don't see that changing. They also have 91% of radio and for every right-wing station switching to a progressive format, a progressive or other station is bought up and turned right. So I don't really see any significant change there, either. The big money (right & left) is behind Hillary now. I think it's because the right thinks she is going to be easy to beat, but even if she is elected, do you really think she will stop the war? She can't even say she made a mistake in voting for it.
Third point, one of the current problems in the House is the 'blue dog' democrats, who are the ultra conservative ones. Pelosi et al, can't afford to loose their support. Add to that the 'democrats' who were elected last year who were republicans until that election. They may not like Bush and the neocons or the war, but they don't really buy into the democratic agenda. They are all iffy and could do a lieberman at the drop of a hat in the ring. Finally, I really do think 2006 results surprised the republicans (hell, it surprised most democrats!) so they will be even more nasty in '08. All the sneaky changing of US attorneys is just about that! Ask yourself, what all those attorneys who DIDN'T get fired are doing to keep their jobs?
fallinglady
Post a Comment