Poll: Public Heavily Favors Diplomacy Over Military Force
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, McCain, Military, PollsWhat are Americans thinking when it comes to our foreign policy strategy for the future?
Pubilc Agenda, a non-partisan research company, has the numbers [pdf] and they’re consistent with what we’ve been seeing for the past couple years as we’ve seen more terrorists pop up and no discernible political progress being made in Iraq.
Why so unpopular?
First, I think it has to do with the fact that people are struggling to make ends meet, and they just can’t square the cost with the returns. McCain is going to have a hard time convincing folks that the amount of money we’re spending there is worth it because if Bush’s $200 billion gets approved for Iraq, that’ll represent nearly $800 billion spent in Iraq so far, with $12 million being spent every month in 2008. In other words, what’s the security ROI?
Second, I think many voters are savvy enough to realize that our credibility to defend ourselves if we do need to strike preemptively again has been damaged by shooting first and asking questions later. That’s why we’re seeing robust diplomacy being heavily favored.
Obviously there are more reasons, but if I had to pinpoint the main ones, economy and credibility would be the top, with everything else a distance second.
So which candidate benefits the most from these trends? If McCain can effectively distance himself from Bush’s preemptive blunders, he may be able to convince a few swing voters that his militaristic approach to Iran is better suited, however…
…only 7% favor military intervention in Iran and nearly half favor diplomacy. Obama definitely has the leg up…especially when it comes to the question of Iran.
Again, I think Americans are beginning to run the cost/benefit analyses for military force vs. diplomacy, and talking to our enemies looks a whole hell of a lot better to them.
Perhaps we’re finally starting to emerge from the post-9/11 fear cloud?
This entry was posted on Thursday, June 5th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, McCain, Military, Polls. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 5th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Forty-seven percent now favor diplomacy, up from 35% last fall. That’s a jump of 12 percentage points from just about six months ago. If it were just the fading of the post-9/11 fear cloud, I think it would have been a slower transition. The jump suggest Obama has had a direct role in changing public opinion on this issue, in my opinion.
Democrats have for a long time been afraid of being portrayed as weak on national security and have essentially conceded the argument to Republicans. Obama has taken an arguably liberal position related to national security and defended it to the American people, making a case for why it is in the country’s best interest. No Democrat has done that in a long time, and that’s why public opinion on these issues has favored Republicans.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Sanctions, embargos, and blockades are forms of diplomacy. Frankly, I’m surprised that anyone would favor military action over diplomacy in any conflict. Unrelenting economic punishment with no relief until you do what you are supposed to do.
The question should be, what are you willing to give up? Would you allow Iran to complete its nuclear program in order to avoid military intervention? Are you willing to allow rouge regimes to continue to obfuscate international regulations set up to maintain global security? Is that diplomacy; simply to take no action if Iran keeps it up?
Otherwise, what ransom should we pay to the terrorist supporting apocalyptic religious fanatic regime that is manufacturing nuclear weapons and vows to wipe Israel off the map? What concessions are we willing to negotiate away in order for promises and gentlemens’ agreements that they will peacefully abandon everything they have stood for over the past 30 years?
June 5th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
ADDENDUM:
As I thought, this public opinion poll is not sufficient to tell the whole story. For the most part, Americans favor talks with Iran only if they halt their nuclear program first.
And now, Barack seems to be backtracking a bit on Iran himself:
I thought talks without preconditions itself advanced the interest of the United states. Recently, Ahmadinajad said he is ready to talk to the U.S., so whats the hangup again? Remember, Obama said that the lack of talking was the reason why they are misbehaving in the first place:
June 5th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
International policy by public opinion = good way to get elected, horrible horrible outcome.
June 5th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
In a similar survey, an overwhelming number, 94% of Americans believed that life was better than death. Jimmy is absolutely right, Obama’s statement does seem to contradict the quasi-metaphysical value he puts on talking. I would for Obama to describe the scenerio in which talking does not “advance the interest of the United States” and explain what he would do then. Maybe that will come up in the hour-long Lincoln-Douglas debates. (both Obama and McCain should be made to wear long beards with top hats to increase voter awareness.)
June 5th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
That’s a good stat Jimmy. We’ll see what Obama has to say the rest of the way in the campaign.
ExiledIndependent…I agree that public opinion can result is horrible, horrible outcomes. Take 2004 for example.
June 6th, 2008 at 7:04 am
“but well over half (59%) think that talks should only take place after Iran stops developing nuclear weapons”
If the poll question was worded the way the response was, it was loaded and misleading. Of course well over half think talks should take place only after Iran stops developing nuclear weapons. But Iran stopped developing weapons in 2003, as far as anyone knows.
The poll might as well have asked, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”