This was on another thread. It should be required reading.
THURSDAY
DECEMBER 24 1998
worldnetdaily
The politics of polls
The primary weapon in the media's pro-Clinton campaign has been the polls. We are reminded every ten minutes, it seems, that the president is hugely popular. That means the GOP is radically out of touch, and that the views of the American people are embodied in the opinions of Betty Friedan, Jesse Jackson and Barney Frank. Not that Congress should shun the unpopular.
The press celebrates politicians when they forge ahead to, say, raise taxes when public opinion opposes it. This is called "responsible statesmanship." On the other hand, cutting federal arts subsidies or foreign aid that 9 out of 10 Americans oppose is called pandering. Why isn't impeaching a perjurious executive an example of courage trumping expediency? Because, to the media elite, the will of the people is to be invoked when convenient and suppressed when necessary. If polls are trumpeted loudly and often, you can be sure the message is for all political dissidents to fall in line.
Grant that Clinton is more popular than he should be, especially given his war crimes. Grant, too, that much of this has to do with the growing economy. When people's lives are improving, they understandably care less about the minutia of politics because politicians play a smaller role in their lives. Even granting the conventional polling data, Clinton's supposed popularity reflects more indifference than cheerleading.
But let's ask a more fundamental question: how much can polls about political controversies be trusted? To answer that question requires thinking about the methods used to conduct them. The most closely guarded secret of polling these days is that fewer and fewer people are willing to participate. Fully two-thirds of the calls placed to people's homes result in hangups.
If you've received a call from a polling firm, you know why people are reluctant. There is nothing in it for you. It feels like an invasion of privacy. You have no way of verifying the veracity of the caller. If your political opinions are politically incorrect -- that is, if you disagree with the White House and CBS -- you are far less likely to talk. An official pollster might as well be from the Justice Department, for all the citizen knows.
Hence, participants tend to have conventional opinions they feel safe in spouting off to a perfect stranger on the phone. Most people are unwilling to express an un-PC opinion at a cocktail party, much less to a pushy character interrupting their dinner.
Pre-election polls provide a good test of all this. And they are less and less able to predict actual results. The more unconventional an opinion is -- for example that a pro wrestler nicknamed "The Body" ought to be governor -- the less polls are able to discover. Political outliers, even if they are in the majority, fly under the polling radar screen.
The question of whether a president ought to be removed from office falls into the potentially dangerous category. If the person agreeing to the poll senses that he will be regarded as a kook for saying the president ought to be tried and convicted, on the margin he will say what he is supposed to say and not say what he is not supposed to say.
This thesis is easily tested. Find a medium that represents something of a cross section of the population, where people can express their political opinions without fear of reprisal or consternation. Compare answers on that medium to the results of the typical phone poll. As it happens, in the last year, massive internet news sites like CNN and MSNBC have become such outlets.
Phone polls show 65 to 70 percent (of 500 compliant people) favoring a censure resolution in the Senate (the very thing the media are clamoring for). But web polls show exactly the opposite. Between 65 and 70 percent of participants (tens of thousands of willing clickers) want a full-blown trial, and half say Clinton should resign immediately. In addition, the results of these web polls fit with most people's experience and the knowledge they have of their neighbors' opinions.
Now I know that these polls are regarded as mere entertainment. Sites always have this caveat: they "are not scientifically valid surveys." But this is nonsense. In what sense is a phone poll of 500 self-selected people browbeaten into saying what they are supposed to say more "scientific" than an internet poll soliciting the opinions of tens or hundreds of thousands of separate and anonymous mouse clickers?
Moreover, if there is any bias among web news users, it would tilt leftwards: demographically they fit the characteristics of people with relatively liberal opinions (more graduate degrees, more upper class, more urban). Neither are internet users more libertarian in their politics, as the old stereotype would have it. For example, polls asking about government space gizmos routinely garner 75 to 85 percent support.
Even regular polls show a hardcore of one-third of the public that wants to see Clinton ousted immediately. Add to that those who don't answer, those who don't reveal the truth, and those for whom the entire political game is utterly sickening, and you've reached the two-thirds mark and then some. No, it is hard-core Clinton supporters -- the Friedan-Jackson-Frank nexus -- who are in the minority. The Republicans will be making a huge error if they follow the media line about polls, which is designed to mask the disgust most Americans have with Washington and everything associated with it.
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama.
worldnetdaily.com. |
