Interestingly, a broad consensus exists among voters: 57% favor a military response, 28% are not sure, while only 15% oppose it. 15% is a remarkably low percentage. Support for military action is, as you’d expect, higher among Republicans (66%) than under Democrats (52%), but the difference is relatively neglible.
Here's what I consider key information in this poll. Military action is supported by more than a narrow majority, but its not an universal opinion. The flip side would be that 43% of Americans don't favor military action. Stand among 10 average Americans, 5 would be in favor, 4 opposed, and one wavering in the middle.
But, the key point to me is that a majority in BOTH parties favor war. The majority is much slimmer in the Democratic Party, but its there (52-48%).
The antiwar forces are split between the two parties. Neither is marginal. Put three average Republicans in a room, and one of them doesn't favor military action. That's not a small fringe group. That's a sizeable portion of the Republican party.
The anti-war votes are split between the two parties, holding a minority in each. The margin is smaller in the Democrats, but the pro-death forces in the Democratic party hold the tactical edges of controlling the money, the power and the rules within the party, thus marginalizing the half the party that opposes such military action.
The thing to do would be for the anti-war forces on both the right and the left to come together in one joint anti-war party. This would command a powerful 40% position in a three-way election. By taking that one simple step, of leaving the existing parties, both Republican and Democrat, and forming one unified anti-war party, we would become the strongest political faction in the nation.
Of course, right now the right and left anti-war forces are split, and they barely talk to each other. We need to unify to have strength, but any attempt is met by vocal cries of hatred. For example, think back to last year and the flood of negative comments from the left towards Ron Paul's campaign.
Today, the rebels on the right and the rebels on the left agree on most of the key issues facing this country. For example ...
- Clean up election systems, have free and fair elections which are open to all parties to partcipate on an even level.
- End the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, don't start any new wars, bring the troops and the money home.
- Stop the trillions of dollars of public money from going into the banks.
- Stop spying on Americans. Restore lost civil liberties and rights.
That's plenty for people to do during any two-year span between elections. Why not agree to do this, then run a unified anti-war party in the next elections? Combine all the anti-war forces in a three-way race, and we are the leading party. If the Democrats and Republicans show their true colors and unify to try to defeat the anti-war party, then at least we are in a two-way race and starting with 40% of the vote. Our voices would be heard in such an election.
Unity. Its the only way to succeed.
2 comments:
I dunno..I had some pretty constructive "chats" with Ron Paul supporters...I have a huge problem with their stance on social issues and programs. But, as i told one, the other day, if we would unite, we could get somewhere.
Most refuse to answer what they would do with the weakest...except maybe "christian charity" or something. But, hey, as it is, the weakest are left behind by the neo-liberals. And we have a NOT AT ALL level playing field (the neo-cons and neo-libs would fall off the edge if we did) We should still be able to cooperate on anti-war issues...
As it is, we have the worst of both worlds---privitized gain and publicly supported loss. As a Socialist, I cant think of anything much worse.
But, when I say I am a Socialist...Libertarians just cut me off...
Yeah, that's the problem. The right won't even listen to us when we say we should get together. And pretty much the same on a lot of the left as soon as you mention getting together with the Libertarians.
I agree with you on what we think of the Libertarians. They do have an ideology that just abandons the weakest. And even worse, they take as the starting point today's very unbalanced power arrangements. So, what they propose in a lot of ways just takes away what few protections the weak have today.
But, my point is that I'd be happy to debate all of this with the Libertarians once we have our country back. Once we have free and fair elections where its not who has the most money or who the corporate media supports, then I'd love to debate them on this.
But, until then, the left and the right both seem to agree that being ruled by a corrupt government that worships corporate money and that leads us into all these awful wars is wrong.
So, while I know I'm in my usual spot of being the one person trying to talk into a hurricane, it still seems like that it makes much more sense for all of these opposition parties to unite since we are all powerless separately.
Of course, one also has to realize that there are powerful interests that are very happy to see us separated. And, given the history of the FBI and Cointelpro and the like, it also seems rather possible that there are forces at work that are trying to keep us separate. There's a lot that I see in politics out on the fringe that makes me wonder about that.
Post a Comment