If so, you fall into the clear majority.
Do you know why you're against it?
If so, good for you.
Cause chances are you're in the clear minority.
Meanwhile, there's a very specific reason that no one has properly explained this thing to you.
Specifics.
(US News and World Report) Support for U.S. military strikes in Syria is lower than any other intervention in the last 20 years, according to a new poll.
Just 36 percent of Americans support President Barack Obama's call for air strikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad, who the U.S. claims used chemical weapons to kill about 1,400 Syrians, including more than 400 children, according to a Gallup survey released Friday. Obama said he would seek congressional approval before moving ahead with the intervention, but faces stiff opposition from members, the public and the international community.
"Failing to respond to this breach of this international norm would send a signal to rogue nations, authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations that they can develop and use weapons of mass destruction and not pay a consequence," Obama said Friday during a news conference at the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. "And that's not the world that we want to live in."
The negative public opinion underscores why the president said he would address the public Tuesday to lay out his case for the intervention.
Here's a prediction.
Within moments of the "thank you, God bless you and God bless America" finish of the President's address, those pesky little insta-polls will show that the needle of approval hasn't appreciably budged.
In fact, it may not have even moved within that wacky little "margin of error of plus or minus three points" that secretly makes us all wonder whether those polls are a cask of crap in the first place.
Here's why the address won't change minds.
Because Barack Obama, whatever his other virtues and/or failings might be, has shown his ability to articulate specifics to be an epic fail.
He got elected, twice, because he, obviously, has mastered the "campaign in poetry" portion of the old two pronged political bromide.
It's the "govern in prose" part that he's not jiggy wit'.
Lofty goals, idealistic ideas, visions of those infamous better days for our country that are always "still ahead" and revival tent like rallying cries are all well and good.
But without precisely drawn roadmaps showing the how we get from here to there, they are, in the end absolutely nothing more than lofty goals, idealistic ideas, visions of those infamous better days for our country that are always "still ahead" and revival tent like rallying cries.
Imagine the architect standing before you, waving his hands grandly and in a rich, captivating baritone voice, giving you his best "how cool is THIS gonna look?" spiel.
And then offering you nothing in the way of blueprint to show you what the specific how is to accomplish the aforementioned "how cool".
You're not inclined to turn this project over to that guy, are you?
Politicians, by their nature, not to mention a critical pre-requisite of their chosen vocation, are not big on showing you schematics.
Because their "job" might be to represent you and your interests but their goal is to piss off as few people as possible.
Elections, too often anymore, are not about bringing the most people to the fold.
They're about keeping the fewest number from abandoning it.
And the quickest, easiest, most devastatingly efficient way to piss people off is to be specific.
For example:
"We have worked hard to develop new avenues of acquiring the funding that will be vitally necessary to insure that you and your family will enjoy only the safest journey as you travel across the historic example of local engineering pride that is the Chesapeake Bay Bridge."
Hmm.
Worked hard.
New avenues.
Vitally necessary.
Family.
Safest journey.
Local pride.
Where do we sign up?
Meanwhile, the specific version.
"Effective July 1, the toll to cross the Chesapeake Bay Bridge will increase by anywhere from two to six dollars per axle, depending on the number of axles on your vehicle."
WTF?
Thus far, the case being publicly made for American involvement in Syria is long on avenues, necessities, families and safety.
Yet, 74% of people polled are already against the idea.
Here's why.
There ain't a single mention been made of axles.
And most of us have learned that, sooner or later, somebody is gonna start talking about axles.
Unfortunately, though, it's almost always after we've already committed to the six mile long line of cars trying to squeeze through the four out of twelve tollbooths that are open.
And, by then, there's no turning back.
No comments:
Post a Comment