The eighty-seven percent solution

When Cindy Sheen wraps up her vigil outside the Bush Crawford compound this week, she almost certainly won't have accomplished her stated goal: To meet with President Bush face-to-face and ask him to explain the "noble cause" for which her son Casey died in Iraq over a year ago.

She'd met with the guy once already, and at that time formed the sort of opinion--no doubt reinforced by a year's worth of observation--that would be unlikely to expect Bush to be forthcoming. So she can't be terribly surprised she's gotten no meet-up with him. And anyone who's familiar with Bush's stubbornness and self-righteousness--even without the benefit of having met him--wouldn't be very surprised either.

But as the Christian Science Monitor (among others) observes, she's gotten something more from her August in Crawford. The Monitor quotes Normon Solomon:

"Her reality was, so to speak, a crowbar to open the lid on what had been sealed, which is the human dimension," says Norman Solomon, executive director of the liberal Institute for Public Accuracy. "The media and politics don't engage with death very well. And Bush has been effective until this summer at keeping US victims of this war in a hazy middle distance, close enough to exploit as a photo-op prop but not up close and personal enough to begin to deal with the grief of war."

That's a common meme: Sheehan has "personalized" opposition to the war, given it a sympathetic and recognizable face. Intentionally or not, she's "branded" the anti-war effort, one might even say.

It's not surprising that this is all getting framed in terms of psychology and marketing: We're America. That's how we think. (Had she let it slip that she was a die-hard 49ers fan, I suppose we could have substituted a spate of sports metaphors.) But I think it's more important to see that Sheehan has accomplished something well beyond "personalizing" or "branding."

She's re-legitimated dissent. Rather than creating a marketing edge or a psychological hook, she's been instrumental in creating a public space where disagreement about the war can thrive (or at least survive).

We've got a funny way of looking at dissent in America sometimes: We tend to like it more when, paradoxically, it's expressing popular views. That's a problem, of course, because the general idea of dissent is . . . well, you can figure it out. Combine that oddish tendency with our understandable desire to stand behind our political leaders in times of crisis, and cover it all with a layer of news media alternately too cowed or too cynical to point out the ugly direction policy has taken, and you can see why otherwise well-meaning people can come up with dim-witted ideas like this.

(We also have a tough time distinguishing political smears and pseudo-science from genuine debate, but that's for another time.)

Certainly the congressional Democrats--with the admirable exception of Russ Feingold--are having a hard time finding their voice in opposition to Bush's war.

But this may be a case where the leaders are waiting to follow. Consider the results on these items in last week's AP-Ipsos survey:

All in all, thinking about how things have gone in Iraq since the United States went to war there in March 2003, do you think the United States ... (Results from June 2005 in parentheses)

—Made the right decision in going to war in Iraq, 43 percent (42)
—Made a mistake in going to war in Iraq, 53 percent (53)
—Not sure, 4 percent (5)


Has the military action in Iraq ... (Results from April 2004 in parentheses)

—Increased the threat of terrorism in the world, 50 percent (47)
—Decreased the threat of terrorism in the world, 20 percent (25 percent)
—Had no effect on the threat of terrorism, 28 percent (25 percent)
—Not sure, 3 percent (3 percent)


Do you think it is OK for people who oppose the war in Iraq to express their opposition publicly, or not?

—Yes, 87 percent
—No, 12 percent
—Not sure, 1 percent

What's striking about these results is that the approval for public opposition to the war is far wider than disapproval of the war itself, suggesting that a substantial chunk of war supporters are also willing to be tolerant toward the expression of dissent. (There's no tracking data on that last question, unfortunately; I'd love to know how the results compared with June. If it the June data existed and showed that the approval gap had widened over the summer, it would be hard not to consider Sheehan's August vigil at "Camp Casey"--and the many others around the country inspired by her--as a big contributing factor. As it is, we can only guess.)

That's an important question, though, because just as surely as "stay the course" has been one of the talking points for Bush & Co. and the right wing echo chamber, another has been "disagreement is treason."

(Regarding Sheehan, see, for example, here and here. And if you're a glutton for this sort of thing, you can also go here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and--oh, what the hell--here, too.)

[Digression: Lapin at DailyKOS makes a good point in passing: If the situation were reversed--if a Democratic president, who'd based his re-election on "keeping America safe," had 50% of survey respondents saying that "the military action in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism in the world" (as opposed to 20% saying it had "decreased the threat")--Karl Rove would already be beating him senseless on his greatest perceived strength. We'd be hearing it from every media outlet this side of Mother Jones:

"His war on terrorism is a failure!"
"Are you safer today than you were four years ago?"
"He's the terrorism recruiter's best friend!"

Makes you wonder why the Dems aren't doing that now, doesn't it?

(Yes, I know; but it's a rhetorical question--we're all supposed know the answer already.) Now back to the main point.]

It would be unwise to conclude from this poll that 87% of Americans (not counting Hawaii and Alaska, and plus or minus 3%) would go along with Theodore Roosevelt's famous wartime statement:

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

But still: Eighty-seven percent value the idea and practice of dissent. It's one of several indications that a growing number of people get it, even if it means that some of them have to stop reading of the GOP cue cards, and others have take time out to curb the overenthusiasm of their colleagues.

It's all the more important to keep this distinction clear in mind--to remember that principled disagreement, even strident dissent, is not evidence of basest treason but proof of ordinary patriotism--when the FBI is using the "terrorism" rubric as rationale for putting antiwar groups and civil rights groups under political surveillance by local Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF).

Oregon angles:

1. Portland is not participating in the JTTF program, on the grounds that it would provide the mayor insufficient oversight over how Portland police officers would be used.

2. Sen. Ron Wyden has begun making moves in Feingold's direction regarding the Iraq war.