Are we paying attention yet?
Gallup headline: “Americans’ Attention to IRS, Benghazi Stories Below Average.”
Ho-hum, says America. Or does it?
When I looked at the actual figures, they weren’t quite as bad as I had originally thought from reading the headline. In fact, slight majorities described themselves as “following very or somewhat closely” the Benghazi hearings and the IRS story (the poll was taken on May 14-15). As one might expect, Republicans are paying more attention (in the 60s). But Independents are over the halfway mark, and even Democrats are in the 40s (although my guess is that a lot of those are probably paying attention merely to learn the liberal spin about how awful the Republicans are to be pursuing this).
Why does Gallup say “less than average” interest? Because “the level of attention being paid to each is below the average 60% of Americans who have closely followed more than 200 news stories Gallup has measured over the past several decades.” So the pollsters are comparing these stories to attention over decades; I wonder what would happen if they compared them to attention over the last five years or so. My sense is that attention in general has dropped—those famous “low-information voters” we talk so much about are probably more numerous.
Somewhat encouraging is the following, though: “Most Americans agree that both of these situations are serious enough to warrant continuing investigation, with little difference in views of the two — 74% for the IRS matter and 69% for Benghazi.” That includes “strongly agree” and “agree” responses.
More:
The amount of attention Americans are paying to the IRS and the Benghazi situations is well below the average for news stories Gallup has tracked over the years. This overall lack of attention is due in part to Democrats’ and, to a lesser degree, independents’ lack of interest, which stands in sharp contrast to the significantly above-average attention among Republicans.
Republicans are also much more likely than Democrats to strongly agree that both situations are serious enough to require investigation. But, this partisan gap is much larger on the Benghazi news than on the IRS issue. This may reflect that rank-and-file Democrats are following the administration’s lead in putting greater emphasis on the importance of the IRS crisis, while downplaying the importance of continuing investigations into its handling of Benghazi.
Ya think? It is almost certainly due to the way the IRS crisis strikes home as opposed to Benghazi. Benghazi is far away, complicated, happened back in September, and has been spun every which way by Obama and other Democrats and the MSM since the time it occurred. The IRS scandal, on the other hand, has left them with very few ways to spin it—at least, they haven’t found their footing yet. And of course the IRS hits people where it already hurts; you don’t have to understand a lot to understand that you don’t want the IRS messing with you any more than it already does, which is too much already.
[ADDENDUM: I hope the American people are paying attention to this ridiculous testimony, because Miller would have us think he’s certainly not been paying a bit of attention:
Life imitates art, and the art is comedy. Except in life, it’s really nowhere near as funny.]
Why I emphasize context, frame, and narrative first. Like an opening argument at trial, ‘Why does this matter?’ preview must be established first to the people or else the details only amount to noise that the other side can spin away.
Context. Many thousands of Americans have been killed and maimed by terrorists overseas. In comparison, only 4 were killed in Libya.
Context. Obama’s Libya policy was marketed as the deliberate contrast to Bush’s Iraq policy. So that’s how it’s weighed. 4 dead is tragic, even accounting for the Ambassador, but if the majority perspective is Bush’s Iraq policy was wrong, and thousands died in the alternative to Obama’s Libya policy, then 4 dead for the better alternative to the Iraq mission is regrettable, but ultimately acceptable. Sure, the mistakes should be fixed, but that happens in the normal course of implementing good policy.
That means the Benghazi controversy can only make a difference if Obama’s Libya policy is indicted as bad policy – similarly to how the Abu Ghraib scandal was used to indict Bush’s whole Iraq policy.
So far, the GOP has focused on the details of Benghazi without making clear to the American people why this issue matters in the big picture. Because Libya is understood as the diametric alternative to Iraq, the only meaningful way to indict Obama on Libya is to rehabilitate the popular view of the Iraq mission.
The GOP hasn’t done so because the GOP has run away from Bush’s legacy and the GOP is unprepared to propose an alternative foreign policy to Obama’s foreign policy. Why? Because if we maintain our liberal internationalist – ie, leader of the free world – posture, then Bush’s foreign policy is the only realistic alternative to Obama’s foreign policy.
The Bush v Obama frame is the way to make a deep impact with Benghazi, but that ony works if the GOP can muster enough courage, conviction, and activist skill to rehabilitate Bush’s legacy and tout an alternative to Obama’s foreign policy.
To clarify:
If Bush’s Iraq is bad policy, then Obama’s Libya is good (or at least better) policy, which makes Benghazi tragic and correctable, but an ultimately acceptable cost.
If Bush’s Iraq is good policy, then Obama’s Libya is bad policy. Then – and only then – Benghazi becomes unacceptable and a big deal.
To clarify II:
You can make Obama and the Dems look bad on Benghazi, but that doesn’t give you any advantage in the zero-sum political contest (which is what makes a difference) if by popular comparison, the perception of Bush and the GOP stays as bad or worse.
The GOP and/or the right must advance a better alternative. Or else in the event of a draw, the champion retains the title, and that’s what counts.
Many people only pay attention when the media conveys the sense that it’s Seriously Important. Are they doing that?
G Joubert,
The GOP, at least on Benghazi, has not articulated in a talking point why it’s Seriously Important. If the GOP can’t do it, the media won’t do it for them.
I acknowledge Eric’s point: yes, thousands killed versus four killed places a legitimate perspective on the situation.
But there are issues beyond the issue of those killed, having to do with lying to the electorate and so on (you no doubt know the drill). That is important in its own sense.
The killed total is a debate over Libya policy. It’s a very legitimate debate. The knowing, deliberate lies are a debate about the character of the incumbent and the presumed incumbent-to-be. That’s also important. The lack of embassy security, and the ho-hum attitude of the incumbent-in-chief is another important debate to be had. Is it not?
*** LOOK, A SQUIRREL!! ***
*** LOOK, A SQUIRREL!! ***
*** LOOK, A SQUIRREL!! ***
Ain’t gonna work, friend. There are a few legitmate debates to be had. Can we stick to the sub-debate (if you will) that’s on the table right now? You don’t get to change the subject; our commenters here are much too on to your game for that to work.
(And then there’s a maker of the video — what video?. Still rotting in a jail cell. Is this the country in which we want to live? (Yet) another legitimate debate to be had.)
Yes, the IRS is the govt department we love to hate. It’s ok to hate the IRS even if one is a big govt proponent. This is why IMO the IRS scandal may turn out to be Obama’s undoing. Whether they admit it or not even Obama’s most ardent proponents will suffer some measure of philosophical pain for his administration allowing this to happen regardless of its level of complicity.
I think Obama’s ability to inspire trust and empathy has just come to an end except for his most starry-eyed supporters. He’s already lost Bob Scheiffer and Jon Stewart. Nobody likes to be played for a fool, and the more ardent the supporter, the more devastating the realization and the more vitriolic the response.
We can only hope it becomes an anti-big govt preference cascade, for IMO this will be the only substantial way to undermine Hillary Clinton’s 2016 aspirations.
Eric,
To what ought to be a sufficient extent Benghazi is pretty much self-defining as important, isn’t it? Even aside from my personal point of view that we still don’t know the res of what was at the bottom of Benghazi, what we do know is seriously important on its face. Dead ambassador and others, no rescue, weird bogus video gets the blame, etc. This is superficially important all by itself and the media oughtn’t need to be led to it.
G Joubert,
Sure, it’s bad, but many bad things flit across our attention then go under the radar and are left behind.
Controversies aren’t just are. They are creations. The same raw material can be turned into a world-famous masterpiece or flea market junk.
What they did to Bush was a world-famous masterpiece. What the GOP is doing to Obama with Benghazi, so far, is flea market junk.
Without a contextual frame to inform and anchor Benghazi’s big-picture and long-term importance, is it bad *enough* to make a difference in the GOP/Dems political balance?
Lacking a sufficient contextual frame, is it bad *enough* to withstand being spun into the noise by the Dems and media spin doctors, and marginalized and forgotten in the public’s attention?
The Dems can’t and won’t pretend nothing bad happened in Benghazi – ‘mistakes were made because of the fog of war and we’ll investigate and account for them in due time within the bureaucracies’. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. We all know promises of reform are political move-alongs and government bureaucracies are poor at reform.
The main thing is that absent a sufficient contextual frame informing the value of the Benghazi controversy for public perception, they can spin, contain, and assign the fall-out, at least enough so the GOP won’t gain a political advantage on the Dems from the controversy.
Call me a pessimist, but I don’t think this will all blow up on Obama unless some big Democratic names get involved in the investigations.
I also think that’s far less likely to happen with Benghazi than with the IRS mess.
M J R,
Sure, there are legitimate debates to be had. Many issues are debated in DC that proponents claim are important. Most of the issues are indeed important, but most people don’t care to pay enough attention to most of the debates to the degree it changes their political views.
The debates over Benghazi will be had. But lacking a sufficient contextual frame, will they make a difference? It’s not only about bad. There are degrees of bad. To make a difference, the issue has be more than bad enough in fact, it has to be popularly perceived as bad enough. And not just by partisans.
Ann,
I agree. Except for us-v-them zombie partisans and people who don’t pay taxes, most can appreciate an IRS abuse with minimal elaboration needed. The GOP will still need to work for it, but not as much.
For the Benghazi controversy to make a difference, the GOP has to work for it.
Start here – I posted this before on Neo’s blog:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/opinion/the-deeper-blame-for-benghazi.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0
Set context: President Obama’s misguided Libya policy set the stage for the Benghazi consulate attack and other deleterious effects. Then fill in the details.
For a liberal leadership posture, Bush’s Middle East policy was correct. By retaining the same liberal posture yet switching course based on the faulty premise that Bush’s Middle East policy was incorrect, Obama’s Middle East policy has gone wrong.
Bush was right. By opposing Bush, Obama has been wrong.
Add: If the public discussion over Benghazi turns in the direction of Bush v Obama, and Bush was right and/or better than Obama, that’s the Dems’ nightmare scenario because the Dems current political advantage over the GOP is based not on their merit, but rather the vilification of Bush and the GOP by association and extension.
The Dems depend on a Bush ‘worst president ever’ legacy. Flip that foundational piece, and the Dems become very vulnerable, assuming the GOP can follow through.
If Bush was right, that means all the Dems who rode the BDS bandwagon were wrong. That changes everything.
Broken record though I am I offer this about the House Leader J. Boner, who has been even less than articulate and less visible than usual, as hard to do as that would seem . If this were happening under Newt, he would be seizing the moment and Obama would be a l9t more nervous than he is.
It seems to me that it’s a distasteful chore or distraction from Boner’s daily routine of bumbling around the office, for him to lumber up to a podium and say a few abrupt comments about the current scandals, then disappear back to his office for nap He’s also careful to say the economy comes first too, almost like he needs to remind us we know he’s hard on the case.
Word is he is resisting most of the house Republicans to call for special investigations.
I hope they unload this stiff before 2014.
Getting back to “less than average interest” and by implication, low information voters (LIV’s), I’ve always wondered how the quantity of LIV’s in today’s world would match up to their numbers at various times in the nation’s past. I suspect LIV’s have always vastly outnumbered more informed voters historically.
Regarding “Eric Says” (May 17th, 2013 at many times throughout the day):
Eric,
After reading through your many responses, I believe I now have a somewhat clearer idea of where you’re coming from. Thanks for being patient with me.
We older dudes sometimes suffer a thickening of the skull, and it may take a more sustained effort to get the idea across. I’m glad you persisted.
A bit off topic, but may be of interest to those who haven’t seen it yet. We have been debating whether Obama is a fool or knave since 2008. This article by John Fund seems to explain a lot:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348591/strange-goings-white-house-john-fund
Fund says he is neither. He is a puppet. The mistakes are not his because he doesn’t really run things. It may be wrong, but this explanation resonates with me.
M J R,
Like I said in Neo’s Alinskyite post, I was an activist in college who set out to change the campus status quo and was opposed by Alinskyite leftists.
I’ve played this game.
I learned that it’s one thing to be right by my own judgement and among like-minded fellows, ie, an echo chamber. It’s something different to change the community status quo by convincing people who have a different perspective, especially when opposed by Alinskyites.
If you don’t know the game, you can work the problem in a way that makes sense to you, but then wonder afterwards why you didn’t make a difference. It’s not enough to know you’re right. You have to know your audiences.
Activists like Horowitz know the game. The GOP and the right need more like him and to use them.
depend on what you mean by paying attention…
On the night of March 29, 2013, two Russian Tupolev Tu-22M3 bombers (known by NATO as “Backfires”), escorted by four Russian Sukhoi Su-27 fighters (known by NATO as “Flankers”) passed extremely close to Swedish airspace and simulated an aerial “attack” on Stockholm and southern Sweden. The Tu-22M3 is a new supersonic long-range bomber capable of delivering nuclear weapons to overseas targets.
On May 6, Russia received its first shipment of Sukhoi Su-34 twin-seat fighter-bombers (known by NATO as “Fullback”). The Su-34 is the newest generation of fighter-bombers intended to replace the outdated Soviet-era Sukhoi Su-24s.
The Swedish Air Force was caught off guard and failed to respond.
on the night of April 28, two Russian Tupolev Tu-95 (known by NATO as “Bear-H”) long-range heavy nuclear bombers “were detected flying into the military’s Alaska Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) near the Aleutians, where a strategic missile defense radar is located”
“The dispatch of F-22s is an indication the bomber flights posed a potential threat to U.S. territory. It was the fifth incident of Russian strategic bombers flying against the United States since June, when Bear bombers were intercepted near Alaska during a large-scale Russian strategic nuclear exercise that Russian military officials said involved practice strikes against U.S. missile defense sites in Alaska.”
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
so which thing should we pay attention to? the gliechshaltung of the various bureaucracies acting out? the external issues of Benghazi? the nuclear tests of air space, and threats to stability in the china sea? Iran? Syria gas?
just curious?
The concept that the Left can be defeated by debating them is flawed.
In favor of the man who all he wanted to do was raise a family.
I am what I am;
just a man-
never hitting the highs
or following the lows.
In the middle of the span
that’s where I goes,
with my family,
my church and bro’s.
It’s been a good life.
It been enough.
Just take what you need
and don’t be rough.
Happy to have my wife.
Happy to have my kids.
Don’t know what’s coming
but I”ve left them safe.
I suppose my living
won’t get much tellin,
but in the end
we’re equal that way.
I’m just a dog’s man,
Feeling a dog’s muzzle,
Tossing my hand,
Whilst I think this puzzle.
Ymarsakar Says: “The concept that the Left can be defeated by debating them is flawed.”
Agreed. That’s why the GOP and the right need to muster activists like Horowitz and put them to work.
The thing is, the Left had several decades to infiltrate the IRS. They have had even more time to do it with the GOP. Case example: what they did to Sarah Palin.
The GOP is no longer entirely under the control of the people that vote for them.
They will not empower Horowitz for much the same reason why Democrats didn’t empower Soviet defectors. They didn’t trust them and they preferred to make their own deals with the Soviets.
Then the Tea Party needs to untether from the GOP and become a popular political force in its own right that can recalibrate the social political environment.