by Frank James
Sometimes you see a poll result that doesn't make sense and gets you questioning the entire poll.
Such is the case with the poll released yesterday by Foreign Policy Magazine and the Center for American Progress of foreign-poliy experts on U.S. progress or lack thereof in the war on terror.
The main result of the poll was that the finding that the vast majority of the surveyed experts, 91 percent, thought that the world had become more dangerous.
That seemed high but it wasn't the result that made me do a doubletake. The result that really called for a high degree of skepticism was this--that more conservative experts desired an immediate U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq than the moderate or liberal experts polled.
That's a stunner. That would only make sense if they were all Ron Paul libertarians.
Anyway, there was this paragraph in the press release announcing the result:
A bipartisan majority (68 percent) now say that the United States should redeploy troops from Iraq in the next 18 months, though most oppose an immediate withdrawal. Surprisingly, more conservatives (25 percent) called for an immediate pullout than liberals or moderates.
Indeed, that would be a surprise if conservatives wanted the U.S. to head for the exit in Iraq more than liberals and moderates. It just doesn't compute given what we know about the partisan divide over the Iraq War.
A recent Gallup Poll done earlier this month illustrates the point. Gallup breaks down the respondents by party whereas Foreign Policy Magazine uses ideology but party is a fairly good proxy for ideology.
According to the Gallup poll, 76 percent of Republicans said it wasn't a mistake to invade Iraq compared with 81 percent of Democrats who said it was.
Meanwhile, Gallup reported that 60 percent of Republicans said the surge was working compared with seven percent of Democrats.
As Gallup reported:
Views of the Iraq war are sharply divided along partisan lines -- perhaps not surprising given the degree of identification the war has with the Republican Bush-Cheney admininstration. Republicans overwhelmingly support the war; Democrats overwhelmingly oppose it. Independents are more likely to oppose than favor the war.
About three-quarters of Republicans say that sending troops to Iraq was not a mistake. By contrast, Democrats, by a 60-point margin, say it was a mistake.
Given this, it doesn't add up that any group of conservatives would want a pullout from Iraq more than moderates or liberals.
The difference between the two polls is that Gallup's is scientific while Foreign Policy acknowledges its wasn't.
In fact, the Foreign Policy poll was an on-line survey. And Its sample wasn't randomly selected like a scientific poll but drawn from the much smaller universe of foreign-policy experts.
Here's how Foreign Policy described its methodology in its press release.
The nonscientific survey was administered online from May 23-June 26, 2007. Respondents were asked to self-identify their ideological bias from choices across a spectrum: very conservative, conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, somewhat liberal, liberal, and very liberal. Twenty-five people identified themselves as some level of conservative, 39 identified as moderate, and 44 identified as some level of liberal. To ensure balance, the survey was weighted according to ideology to make the number of weighted liberal respondents equal to the number of conservative respondents. Moderate and conservative respondents remained unweighted.
The result of all this was interesting but certainly a head scratcher.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Frank,
You KNOW that this is just not completely true - you're just reporting what your liberal bias allows you to. So before juanbrucetreeypaulo begin carefully parsing facts and reporting why you are wrong and they are always right, I just thought I'd get this one in.
Posted by: snitramc | August 21, 2007 5:01 PM
Al-Maliki told W. and Cheney that Iraq wanted us to leave about three months ago?
David Letterman Late Show Top Ten List:
Top Ten Good Things About Marrying Into The Bush Family
10) Great deals on Fallujah honeymoon
9) You'll inherit President Bush's extensive collection of Chuck Norris memorabilia
8) It's a good bet the wedding reception will have an open bar
7) Might see Cheney shoot an old guy-- still a reference, folks
6) Learning from grandma Barbara how to spit chaw
5) Every Wednesday is Taco Night
4) What could be more fascinating than learning what makes Jeb tick?
3) If half the family hates you, you still have better approval rating that George Bush
2) W. can lend you the "Mission Accomplished" banner to put up in the bedroom
1) Little chance you'll be the dumbest guy in the family
Posted by: John E | August 21, 2007 5:24 PM
While the survey was certainly not scientific, it does not necessarily follow that conservative experts in foreign policy would necessarily track with the general population of conservatives. Conservatives who are students of international relations may very well have opposed the war from the beginning (as in fact, one of the most prominent realist scholars, John Mearsheimer, did) as it was pretty easy to predict that a dimunition of US power could easily result from the war. Likewise, staying in Iraq does not seem to be improving the US position relative to its enemies, leading to the conclusion that withdrawal may be a better option.
On the other hand, liberals who study foreign policy are likely to be liberal internationalists who believe the US should play a role for democracy in the world and fear that a withdrawal from Iraq could signal a future where the US grows more isolationist. A rapid pullout could also lead to more instability in the region.
The main point? Liberal/conservative experts in foreign policy may be different than the population at large.
Of course the poll could just be messed up as well.
Posted by: EC | August 21, 2007 5:41 PM
The key word in the survey report: UNSCIENTIFIC. That negates the entire report and renders it a waste of time. Want another poll? Take it at the local
Democratic precinct meeting...or Republican precinct meeting if you could find one. Also UNSCIENTIFIC. Must be August to waste such space.
Posted by: Devon | August 21, 2007 5:47 PM
As a liberal who does not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, let me try to explain my reasoning (though it certainly doesn't function as a blanket explanation for other liberals who also oppose immediate pullout) I do believe, as many of my fellow liberals, that the decision to go to war in Iraq was a mistake. However, that decision has been made, and the debate closed (or should be closed). Now that we are already there, and have proceeded to make an unholy mess of things - it seems immoral to just up and leave because things aren't going as some people anticipated they would. Thanks to initial supporters of this war, we now have a responsibility to the Iraqi people that I feel would be shameful to skip out on regardless of my distaste for the war and the decision to go in the first place.
Posted by: Kelsey | August 21, 2007 6:01 PM
It's no surprise at all, if you happen to understand the meaning of Conservatism in the clsaaic sense.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2007 6:06 PM
snitramc...This the kind of reporting you get only from frank....positive, up beat, cheerful, and just the facts he copied from some email. Oh I almost forgot...never any hint of an opinion.
Posted by: jerri | August 21, 2007 6:06 PM
You can't compare a random poll of people who aren't really paying attention (the Gallup poll) to a non-random poll of foreign policy experts.
The foreign policy experts, and Ron Paul, obviously know what they are talking about.
Posted by: Craig | August 21, 2007 6:07 PM
Don't forget that among the Realists who opposed or cautioned on attacking Iraq were Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III. And neither would have done so without the approval of the senior President Bush. Baker's was a caution but Scowcroft has been persistently opposed, much like other fellow GOP Lawrence Korb, etc.
Posted by: Gary Dee | August 21, 2007 6:38 PM
Be carefull what say NEO, Filthy Rich and ULTRA CONSERVATIVES and PRAY for because beasts, antiCHRIST satin got his way with alot of your sons and daughters blood and sacrifice for oil by western help for the occupation and so-called Quagmire as sure shot Dick Cheney described and stated in 1994 if we took Bagdad, Iraq in 1991. Ya'all elected and suported this movement and dynasty so now it is like an ugly baby that you have to live with so don't whine cry babies.
Posted by: Frank Bolin | August 21, 2007 6:42 PM
Would that be the same foreign policy 'experts' who got us into this mess in the 1st place?
Posted by: weinerdog43 | August 21, 2007 7:28 PM
The Center for Progressives is not a think tank in the traditonal sense--it's John Podesta Clinton's chief of staff it's more window dressing for Hil and Bill--end of story.Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | August 21, 2007 7:49 PM
Could real conservatives, who believe in such things as unobtrusive foriegn policy and government not invading individual privacy, finally be pushing through all the divisiveness, fear-mongering and "Jesus shields" and making themselves heard? Maybe not, but I can hope.
Posted by: kb | August 21, 2007 9:38 PM
The Center for Progressives is not a think tank in the traditonal sense--it's John Podesta Clinton's chief of staff it's more window dressing for Hil and Bill--end of story.Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | August 21, 2007 7:49 PM
Don't worry little Neocons, Jerry White from Springfield, IL will jump off the cliff for you.
Posted by: John E | August 21, 2007 10:09 PM
Looks like "The Swamp" is turning into Pravda....such communistic nonsense!
But,your lame brain lock-steppers enjoy it.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | August 21, 2007 10:22 PM
Many conservatives do not regard the neoconservatives who ran the war in Iraq as real conservatives. Some, who call themselves "paleoconservatives," have been against the war in Iraq from the beginning. So have most libertarians (which the media often groups with conservatives). So a finding that 25 percent of "conservatives" think we should pull out of Iraq actually sounds, well, conservative to me.
Posted by: Randal O'Toole | August 21, 2007 11:23 PM
I think the key here is that these are the foreign policy "experts". Thus, they are far more likely than the average ditto head to know the truth about Iraq - that it's the wrong stinkin' country:
www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com
Posted by: Bill in Chicago | August 22, 2007 12:43 AM
It makes sense to me. I've been on the streets talking to REAL Republican voters and the number that think Iraq was a mistake and want our troops to come home immediately greatly outnumbers the individuals pushing for the surge and staying in Iraq. It surprised me at first; but no longer. The sad part is that these Republicans did not feel they had a choice in the matter; to be anti-iraq war was to be anti-republican. It seems they are waking up to the fact, that anti-war IS pro-republican.
Posted by: Tim | August 22, 2007 8:02 AM
Remember, there were more then a few conservative who argued invading Iraq would be a bad idea, but just like all the other good advice Bush had, he only picked what he wanted to hear.
Posted by: RomanB | August 22, 2007 8:17 AM
Paulo,
My father fough against communism in Vietnam. I fought it in the cold war.
You need to either learn the definition of communism and who its supporters are or shut your pie hole.
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 22, 2007 9:24 AM
Ideology and party identification aren't linked as closely as one might think. The usual type of ideological self-identification (liberal, moderate, conservative, don't know) doesn't correlate closely (at least in reserach I've done) with ideology measured using responses to multiple questions (e.g. Do union have too much power? Do rich people and corporations pay their fair share of taxes?, etc.)
I would be unsurprised that party identification and ideological self-identification were not that closely correlated, because for many people ideological self-identification is a noisy indicator.
If one wanted to do this right, create a valid scientific design, and use multiple question measures for ideology.
Posted by: Austin | August 22, 2007 10:00 AM
The only thing that doesn't make sense is your analysis. You said it yourself - the Foreign Policy study examines the opinions of foreign policy experts, and categorizes them based on ideology and not party affiliation. Why on Earth would you be surprised that foreign policy experts, who at least theoretically know what they are talking about with regards to foreign policy, might have dramatically different views on policy than the voting public? Such experts may also reasonably disagree on what exactly "liberal" and "conservative" mean, and whether or not they align with American political parties in general.
I am surprised that you are surprised.
Posted by: Andrew | August 22, 2007 10:35 AM
Hillary's Foreign Policy think tank runs a phony poll. What a surprise.
Swamp reporter picks up the phony poll, doesn't mention the leftist orientation of the phony poll takers, then writes an article. What a surprise.
Posted by: Bruce | August 22, 2007 11:24 AM
How do you fight in a cold war?
Posted by: Tamsin | August 22, 2007 11:27 AM
Tamsin,
By standing nuclear alert.
The Cold War by its very definition meant there was no overt "hot" fire.
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 22, 2007 12:15 PM
"CONSERVATIVES, LIBERALS, WHITE, BLACK, BROWN, YELLOW, BLACKER THAN BLACK, WHITER THAN WHITE, MORE BROWN THAN BROWN, MORE YELLOW THAN YELLOW, NATIVE AMERICANS, MEXICAN AMERICANS, AFRICAN AMERICANS, WHITE AMERICANS.
WE ALL WANT THIS TO END.
BUT NOT BUSH MEIN KEMPF CAMP 2001-2007.
WAKE UP AMERICA, OR START PACKING LITTLE JR AND LITTLE SISSYS BACKPACK BECAUSE OUR ARMED FORCES HAVE NO EQUIPMENT TO GIVE TO THEM OR BULLETS.
MAYBE WE CAN SEND THE NINJA TURTLES INSTEAD OR UNDERDOG.
BUT WE DO SEE THE NEW WHITE HOUSE CHEERLEADER KARL ROVE, SKIRT AND ALL CONTROLLING HIS LITTLE MEDIA PUPPETS. RUPERT GOT WHAT HE WANTED REMEMBER. BOB NOVAK GOT THE SCOOP AND IMMUNITY. SO....
DUH DUH DUH DUH!
Posted by: Roger Morris | August 22, 2007 1:21 PM
Yep...I'm a conservative who is against "nation building" military campaigns...remember what W claimed to be? he lied like his dad about taxes
Im voting for Ron Paul
Posted by: gabe harris | August 22, 2007 2:53 PM