Are 50% of Americans ignorant?
Ignorance is bliss, the proberb goes. Well, if we are to believe this latest Harris poll, at least half of the American people must be in a state of pure ecstasy these days.
But still, to think that about half of the American people can buy into it just boggles my mind. I suppose it is too hard for some people to admit they may have been suckers and supported a war that was unfounded. Reality denial is a powerful thing.
It makes you wonder about how democray can exist with a majority of people so in denial yet my personal theory is that people are often stupid - and that work for any given country - and they are are so because they are lazy. A cynic would even say that 50% of morons is a pretty low number, but we won't go there....
One speck of wisdom though it seems:
- Not only do 50% US adults think that Iraq had such weapons when the U.S. invaded Iraq but this is more people than in February 2005 (when it was only 36 %).
- 72% also believe that the Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein (slightly down from February 2005 when 76 percent said this was true)
- Over half (55%) think history will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq (down substantially from 64% in February 2005).
- 64% say it is true that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (the same as 64% in February 2005).
But still, to think that about half of the American people can buy into it just boggles my mind. I suppose it is too hard for some people to admit they may have been suckers and supported a war that was unfounded. Reality denial is a powerful thing.
It makes you wonder about how democray can exist with a majority of people so in denial yet my personal theory is that people are often stupid - and that work for any given country - and they are are so because they are lazy. A cynic would even say that 50% of morons is a pretty low number, but we won't go there....
One speck of wisdom though it seems:
- A clear majority (58) does NOT think that invading Iraq has helped to reduce the threat of another terrorist attack against the United States.
posted by Joker & Thief @ 11:04 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Very astute points, I would add that any people that would elect a cretin like GeorgeII must have a large portion of morons, halfwits, and reactionaries in the general population. I enjoy your blog by the way.
Cheers
I quite agree - unfortunately, I think there must be just as many "morons halfwits, and reactionaries" in other countries, given the imbecility of our current leaders (think of former PM Berlusconi in Italy, or Chirac in France or even Blair in GB - and I'm not even talking about Poland.).
Stupidity seems to be a share value in this world.
Thanks for your encouragement by the way. It is much appreciated.
J2T
Well, you made some interesting points.
1) "I am not sure you're "one of the ignorant, simplistic Americans though" and I guess my comment may have beena bit over the top. But on the other hand, one of us tends to be more a provocateur (yes, that would be me) but at least we did get a reaction.
As far as your other points are concerned, I have a few htings to sayd though:
2) "I would have answered the question that way because I believe so long as Iraq was under Sadaam they had the potential to acquire WMD."
Saddam Hussein certainly played a dangerous game by not being straightforward during the inspections to say the least. On this blog, we have had some suggestions as to why Saddam Hussein's attitude could have certainly raised suspicion but also why he played that game even though he didn’t have WMD. After all, it is his attitude which made a lot of experts believe he had something to hide.
The question is how much it takes to wage a war. The idea of pre-emptive war is also a dangerous game, especially when you make the intelligence fit your political agenda. As much as I can see why one could have believed that Saddam was dangerous back in 2003, I fail to see how people can sustain that view given what we know today.
3) "I still believe they had them and they were either destroyed or moved to Syria. Not suggesting its a huge stockpile but I have no doubt they existed to some extent."
My question is what facts sustain what you think? How can you be so sure as to say you have “no doubt”. It sounds almost like an act of faith. I think it is hard to be sure but given the lack of evidence, and given how much the Bush administration really wanted proof of their existence, I tend to think that by now, we would know.
4)"Number 2 is kind of a pointless question. If you agree that Iraqis were better off with Saddam than stop shouting down Putin or whoever else is oppressing people in the name of law and order."
I think it depends what Iraqi you’re asking. The Sunni might thing they were better off. The question is really whether one has to choose between plague and cholera – in this case between dictatorship and civil war? I really don’t know what is worse.
5)"Perhaps democracy doesn't work if you're going to maintain this point."
Democracy can only exist if you have both peace and economic stability. Most (if not all) Western democracies are the product of a large middle-class consensus. So yes, democracies work but I don’t think that the current political and economic environment make it possible in the Middle-East. In fact, many of those countries may have to go through a period of mild-autocratic regime before they can have western-like democracies. It worked in Singapore and on might even argue in Japan.
I don’t think most people in the Middle-East care about Western-like democracy. I think they want more personal freedom, that’s for sure. They also want more economic opportunities. But you can have that without a full-range democracy. Again, Singapore is an interesting case.
6) "Number 3 is still up for grabs. I think history will give the U.S. credit for at least trying to jumpstart democracy. But, at the end of the day, the Arab culture has fundamental problems that may not be easily remedied. Even a basic familiarity with the Old Testament highlights the brutality in the region for thousands of years. The only difference is that they now do it in the name of God thanks to chief warrior Mohammed."
Yes, it may be up for grabs... but I don't think the world is ready to give the US much credit for anything at this point. Maybe it'll change in a few decades but I still think this administration will be judged very harshly and the potential successes will not be attributed to its doing. I cant' say for sure of course... but it seems that the level of confidence the American people have in the judgement of history is very telling.
As far as you said about "the Arab culture", that’s a brutal statement. Of course, it depends if you mean "arab" or "muslim".
There are many schools in the Muslim world that do not ask for war against non-Muslims in a literal sense.
But I think this point is irrelevant anyway. I really don’t think that religion is actually the problem. I think that it is merely a tool used for political purpose or personal agenda. It is as if you said that Christianity is bad because of the Crusades or of people killing doctors in abortion clinics.
As you yourself pointed out, the brutality in the region back was great – even in the 7th century AD. So I think a bit of perspective is probably needed.
Oops, I forgot the link to our post on why Saddam may have been playing a game with the UN inspectors.
So here it is - for what it's worth:
http://jokertothethief.blogspot.com/2006/03/saddam-husseins-wmd.html
Well, I am quite familiar with Bernard Lewis's theories but I tend to be more in agreement with Edward Said's criticisms of Lewis. (I would suggest his excellent book “Orientalism” in which he precisely deconstructs the points made by Lewis, if you haven’t read it). I am afraid, however, that I do not know Foud Ajami.
[I appreciate your use of the word “deconstructs” since that goes well with French philosopher Derrida]. As you may know though, the two authors (Lewis and Said) were frequently engaged in polemical exchanges and I am afraid we are not going to solve anything here. Said’s views are not without fault for sure but one good point he makes is that the poor understanding of the Arab culture in the West.
As far as the points you made are concerned;
the pre-eminence of manhood, the lack of any appreciation of grace (the Christian notion that it made it possible to bring forth tolerance), and the integration of church and state (no such thing as separation of church and state anywhere)
They could all fit the pattern of many Catholic countries before their democratic revolutions. Think of France – a country I know quite well – and you’ll see that all those factors can be found - including the lack of any appreciation of grace (a very Protestant notion). That does not in the least mean that things cannot change and those elements should prevent a more liberal system of government.
You seem to view things strictly from a religious perspective when I think the cultural, social and economic factors are more important. I also continue to think that there is no one Arab culture, just like there is not one European culture.
As far as Muslims having a hard time giving credence to the Greek philosophical concept of "essences", I would suggest to read the writings of Averroes. Sure, he wrote in the Middle-Ages but my point is that there is precisely no fundamental opposition between Islam and most western concepts of philosophy – including democracy.
And for a more modern example can look at Turkey and see that there is at least until now a Muslim country that has made clear separation between church and state.
now as far as "the Europeans being the most uniform thinking people I've met", I think that may be because you lack distance with your own country. I think this is just as true about Americans. No more but no less. the difference though is that the Europeans are usually more informed about the world simply because they have strong ties with their former colonies and because there are exposed to other languages and cultures more frequently. That is particularly true of Arab cultures and Islam in general simply because they are more exposed to Arabs and Muslims in their daily lives than most Americans. This is not to say that the Europeans are better or smarter or even more cultured, this is simply because having a great number of immigrants from those regions of the world makes it easier to develop an interest in them.
Post a Comment
<< Home