Polls

Poll: Nearly Half of Americans Say the "Political Establishment in DC" Wants War More Than the Public

|

When it comes to launching U.S. military action across the globe, 47 percent of Americans say the "political establishment in Washington D.C."  is more likely to favor military action than they themselves are.

A majority of Independents, 57 percent, and women, 52 percent, believe D.C. insiders are more likely to favor war than they are. Women are 10 points more likely than men to say the political establishment is more inclined toward war.

Just 17 percent of Americans say the Beltway establishment is less likely to favor military action than they are.

Thirty percent think the D.C. establishment favors war about the same amount as the public.

Americans with higher levels of education are also more likely to say the D.C. establishment favors war more than they do, with 58 percent of post-graduates compared to 42 percent of those with high school diplomas believing the establishment favors war more.

Majorities of Americans identified as leaning libertarian and conservative, or fiscal conservatives, are more likely than Americans who lean liberal or communitarian to perceive the D.C. establishment as more apt to go to war.

FULL REASON-RUPE POLL RESULTS HERE

Nationwide telephone poll conducted September 4-8 2013 interviewed 1013 adults on both mobile (509) and landline (504) phones, with a margin of error +/- 3.7%. Columns may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Full poll results found here. Full methodology can be found here.

NEXT: Abercrombie and Fitch Ban on Headscarves Ruled Illegal

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And the other half lives in a cave? The establishment loves this idea for reasons even they can’t explain.

  2. I TOLD you Ms. Ekins had even moar wisdom to drop. My strong perception is that she has a limitless supply.

    Reasonoids’ ability to digest? I will hazard no guess…

    1. Emily can drop her wisdom on me anytime.

      1. Emily is a serious cutie and people should not pick on her.

        1. I think she does great work, but being picked on by the commentariat is a sign of respect and affection (in most cases).

          1. Or frustrated geekdom.

            1. DON’T TALK ABOUT LUCY

        2. In the video below she is wearing too much makeup for my tastes.

          1. Also the coloring of fit is off…looks like she has hepatitis.

          2. DON’T TALK SHIT ABOUT Lucy EMILY!

  3. Has Emily been holding in her polls for a while? That’s unhealthy.

  4. This will be my third attempt to inveigh against this onslaught of meaningless poll data. Who gives a shit what the unwashed yokels of this backward land do, say, or want?

    1. Or the fact that polls are, scientifically speaking, total garbage?

      1. I think we can all agree on missile strikes against Miley Cyrus.

        Though some of her songs are pretty good if she sings them but didn’t write them, or if she wrote them but didn’t sing them.

        1. You know, I think that people need to lighten up on Miley. She’s acting all insane and slutty and attention-whoring, which is exactly how I like my young starlets to be *cough* Lindsay Lohan *cough* and there’s nothing wrong with that. At least she livens things up a bit.

          1. I agree. Nobody said boo when John Kerry twerked Angela Merkel at the G-20 summit. Total double standard.

            1. Well, you have to admit Kerry is a master twerker. He could totally crush Miley in a twerkoff.

              1. I guess when you’re Theresa’s sugar baby, you’ve got plenty of time to work on that ass in the gym.

                1. Kerry faced away from Theresa, naked except for his blindfold and chaps. He bent over, trying to be ready for what came next. Theresa separated his ass cheeks, then put the ice cold bottle of Heinz ketchup between them. He hissed at the cold, then gasped as she flicked him with the riding crop. He could feel her removing the cap of the bottle. “Now, John, put the ketchup on my french fries, just the way I like it.” And so he began to jiggle his ass, or twerk, as the kids called it. She sighed delightedly as ketchup slowly began to drip onto her plate of fries. It was a weird fetish, to be sure, but Kerry loved her and wanted her to be happy.

                  1. movie rights here you come!

        2. What’s up with changing “dancing with molly” to “dancing with Miley,” but leaving in “trying to get a line in the bathroom”? The second is the more obvious drug reference to most people I would think.

          This is how bored I am with all the polls.

      2. Are you Syria-is? are you Syria-is?!

    2. Who gives a shit

      Quite a lot of people apparently. I can’t say that I really give a shit, but I am not completely uninterested.

  5. Dear Reason. It is pretty much impossible to have a conversation on complex poll (like this one) when you post 6 different fucking threads about the same basic poll.

    1. We get it. The public isn’t for this. I think one post is sufficient to communicate that.

      It is like Emily is really angry she hasn’t gotten her share of H&R posts and is taken every one she can now.

      1. Hasn’t everyone heard yet? Vladmir Putin has averted the planet from WW3? What difference, at this point, does it make?

  6. Dear Reason. It is pretty much impossible to have a conversation on complex poll (like this one) when you post 6 different fucking threads about the same basic poll.

    1. Dear kinnath. It is pretty much impossible to have a meaningful discussion of your comment if you post it multiple times.

      1. So long as there are threaded comments there will be no meaningful discussions at reason!!!

      2. The squirrels are beyond anyone’s control. The editors can actually control how they organize their articles.

        1. Say what you will, the squirrels get irony.

          1. Da Comrade.

  7. Not her fault the other editors are passing around the crack pipe instead of posting new articles. Otherwise, these previous, five, six or ever how many post of hers would be properly spaced out, and no one would have noticed.

    1. actually if you go down the daily scroll you will see others have posted as well….and they all posted about this same poll.

      Well i guess Bailey did post about global warming.

      1. Suderman did a post about Obamacare and Ed posted something about privacy laws in New Jersey which got zero comments.

    2. Actually, I was referring only to the time between 1:15 and 2:15 EST when no one was posting by Emily because they were too strung out at that point.

  8. Hello, I have a poll I would like directed. Any poll directors available for the job?

    /Bob Filner

  9. This bores me. Here, have some Marcotte

    This is hardly an exhaustive list and there’s a lot of overlap, but you get the general gist of it. What’s funny is that the exclusion of most Americans from the “real America”?and the “just leave” sentiments that go with it?is something that’s actually kind of happening to an extent. No, we’re not leaving the country, but the implicit distrust of not just kindness and tolerance but of creativity and culture that’s inherent in the “just leave” sentiment is driving a whole lot of non-“real” Americans to choose to live in communities that respect diversity. That’s one reason you see more geographic polarization on issues like abortion rights.

    But this “just leave” attitude is really not working out very well for red states. For instance, blue states are benefiting more than red states by the decline in teen birth rates. Teen birth rates are going up in Texas, but plummeting in California. That’s just one example of the various ways that the lack of a welcome mat for forward-thinking people benefits blue states while hurting red.

    Right, it’s not like Texas and other red states are growing in population and economy.

    1. Holy fucking monkey shit is she dead from the neck up. The last two people I personally knew who moved to Houston were originally from Mumbai! They are attracting talent from all over the globe.

      1. Amanda also neglects to mention that the primary people who have left California are the poor because they couldn’t find jobs. In other words, rampant poverty and unemployment resulted in the class of people most likely to have teen pregnancies fleeing the state.

        I also like that she apparently thinks forward thinking people aren’t moving to Texas. I’m sure that would shock all the people who go to Houston to work in the aerospace industry or the fucking Texas Medical Center.

        The Texas Medical Center is the largest medical center ON THE PLANET. I’m sure no forward thinking people would want to go there.

        1. Is Houston and other Texas cities suffering from ‘Californication’ where blue state refugees bring their progtard policies with them?

          1. Houston is too big and diffuse. I’m sure you can find it in some sectors, but the lack of zoning laws or interest in having any has pretty effectively inhibited the effect. Austin is trending that way moreso, but they’ve always wanted to be the People’s Republic of Austin. Its really only accelerating the trend of do-gooderism backed by stupid money.

            1. lack of zoning laws

              SOMALIA!!!1

        2. That depends on how you define “forward thinking.” For a progressive, atavism is “forward” and learning to repeat talking points in “thinking.” The aerospace industry requires non-Luddites to actually think up new things, so they’re clearly not forward thinkers from Amanda’s point of view.

      2. I live in a Dem state and everyone I know that has relo’d in the last 15 years has relo’d to a GOP state without exception.

        I’m not saying people don’t relo into this state from other countries or other Dem states, but this state seems to kill any reason to want to move to another Dem state.

        This is probably BAD news for the GOP states as the number of Dems in those states is increasing. Did I mention we’re doomed?

        1. This is probably BAD news for the GOP states as the number of Dems in those states is increasing. Did I mention we’re doomed?

          I don’t necessarily agree. I think it depends on the size of the influx and where they move to. The reason Virginia has gone purple is because Northern Virginia is filled with government worker Democrats. What you have to take into consideration is the impact that your surroundings have on your belief system though, particularly the people you live around. People who are very invested in their political beliefs will usually not change, but most people aren’t actually that invested. If you put a low information voter or a person who isn’t invested in politics around a bunch of Democrats, they will often vote Democrat. Put them around a bunch of Republicans, and it’s often the case that they vote Republican. That’s not even getting into the impact the region will have on the beliefs of their children.

          The beliefs of most people are fluid. I think the idea that a Democrat is a Democrat forever is a mistaken one.

    2. Teen birth rates are going up in Texas, but plummeting in California.

      Amanda, that may have something to do with the fact that Mexicans and Central Americans are no longer immigrating to California in anywhere near the numbers they are to Texas.

      She is right about one thing, totally destroying your economy and eliminating any reason for a young person to come to your state, will cut down on that pesky teen birth rate.

      Amanda is a good example of a totalitarian. For her nothing exists outside of the state. So when she sees that something has happened, the state must be the explanation for it. The idea that there is something called the economy that exists out side of the state doesn’t occur to her.

      1. She is so painfully fucking stupid…

        Ima just stop there. That’s perfect.

        1. There is an internal logic to what these people think and write even if they don’t even appreciate it themselves. If you just remember that they consider the state to be all encompassing, everything they say makes sense in its own way as following from that. It is scary as hell to consider. But it is the only way to explain why they think how they do.

          1. In Amanda’s case, she just assumes that Blue is better than Red and proceeds to ignore all contradictory evidence. There could be mass plague in every blue state while the red states enter a heretofore unseen golden age and this would not change her arguments.

            1. She assumes everything that happens is the result of some state action. So if the teen birth rate declines in one area and goes up in another, it is because the state in each place decided that is how it should be. The idea that it is the result of something other than what the state is doing never occurs to her.

              1. Well…in this case she’s right. The teen birth rate is dropping in California because the young and lower class are fleeing the state due to a lack of opportunity. That lowers their birth rates. It’s definitely because of state action, just not for a good reason.

                1. Except that she doesn’t see it that way. She can’t understand that the state can act and produce unintended effects in society. For her there is only the state. There is no distinction. So these numbers are the result of the state in each place directly causing them to occur. The rate went down because CA is a caring state and decided that its rates should go down. The rate went up in Texas because the state in Texas is evil and uncaring and decided it should go up by not acting to stop it.

                  You see the difference? For her, everything that happens is the direct result of the state doing or not doing something. There is only the state and everything about society can be explained by what the state is or is not doing. That is how totalitarians view the world.

                  1. I agree with you John. The only way she makes sense is if she’s operating under the assumption that every good thing and every bad thing are due to state policies. Therefore, teen pregnancy rates are “just one example” of how California is superior to Texas because evil Texas made teen pregnancy rates skyrocket but good Cali made the rates go down.

                    1. lap83,

                      It took me a long time to figure that out. But this is why progs and Libertarians talk past each other so much. Progs are totalitarians. So when Libertarians start talking about things like second order effects or the need for the private sector to do something, progs have no idea what they are talking about. To a prog, if you don’t want the state to do it, you don’t want it done. Libertarians don’t get that. It is why Progs always seem like they are making such dishonest arguments. In a way they are. But in a way they are not. They are not being dishonest so much as looking at the entire world as being encompassed by the state.

    3. It is politically incorrect to point out that the social ills in the so-called red states are concentrated in a certain segment of the population that votes heavily for Team Blue.

    4. That’s just one example of the various ways that the lack of a welcome mat for forward-thinking people benefits blue states while hurting red.

      There is a neutron bomb’s worth of projection in that sentence. Blue state policies that reflect her disposition, have been pushing away their native middle class for thirty some years now while our state has been a welcome mat for them.

    5. But this “just leave” attitude is really not working out very well for red states. For instance, blue states are benefiting more than red states by the decline in teen birth rates.

      How the fuck does the second sentence follow from the first? WTF does people having a love it or leave it attitude have to do with teen birth rates? IDK, maybe she explains it in the article I’m not going to read.

      And population is plummeting in California, like most of the derpier blue states where they have ruined the economy.

      1. Population isn’t plummeting in California because it’s still such a large economy. Its population is still expected to grow at least for the next decade.

        They have seen greater emigration than immigration and their economy is one of the slowest growing in the country with one of the highest unemployment rates, though.

        1. Right, I was only thinking of emigration/immigration and didn’t account for birthrates, I guess.

        2. And even if the population isn’t declining in absolute numbers, it is aging very rapidly as the young leave for better prospects elsewhere. That explains the declining teen birth rate Amanda is so proud of. If there are not any teenagers in your state, you don’t have a teen birth problem. That is one way to solve the problem I guess.

      2. DC is tops in unintended pregnancies. apparently, 70 percent of all pregnancies are unintended.

        1. I bet those single mamas are happy to get a bigger welfare check, so unintended doesn’t equate to unwanted. Well, until they are too old to get single mama a welfare check. Then they become unwanted.

        2. Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

          1. I dunno. Some people really are that stupid.

        3. That’s what cocktail parties will get you.

  10. OT: Return of the zeppelin!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..world.html

    They say it’s cheaper than flying but faster than a ship, but is it economically viable? The fact that it needed a government seed grant makes me wonder.

    1. “Four days?! Uh, hello, airplanes? This is zepplins calling. You win.”

      1. Did you look at the comments?

        1. I don’t want these ugly things blighting the skies even further than they have been already (with current aircraft and chemtrails). The best, fastest and most efficient way to convey freight is by capsule pipelines.
          – Seer , Peterborough, United Kingdom

          Fuck you, I’m bored with my capsuled pipeline, I want more chemtrails and blighted skies!

      2. You want to blow us all to shit, Sherlock?!

    2. The aesthetics in that one are no where near as cool as the originals. We need a vanity dirigible yacht industry to bring back some style to the design.

    3. The Aeroscraft can take off and land without an airstrip meaning it can operate even in war zones and disaster areas

      Why don’t they just say California?

    4. I guess I’m failing to understand why advances in rigid body construction prevent them from pulling a significant vaccuum to create the lighter-than-air effect.

      1. What makes this “special” is that someone figured out how to liquify the helium “on the fly” so to speak. So it controls its weight that way. Open the valve to go up, turn on the compressor to come down. Totally self contained.

        1. Ah. That is a good way to solve that problem.

        2. Not its weight, but its density.

          1. No, weight. Weight is a measure of how much force it would put on a scale.

          2. I think it replaces air with helium, then compresses the helium and replaces with air to change its displacement.

            1. If it puts the compressed helium into a tank on board the airship, the airship’s weight won’t change.

              If you’re saying that the helium displaces air out of the envelope, then of course the weight changes. But that’s no different than a normal airship.

              What I think the innovation here is, is that the helium recovery equipment has been made light enough to carry on board, so that recompression of helium is now possible on board with less weight penalty.

              Otherwise all you end up with.is an air/helium mixture.

              I guess i should read more aboht.it. are they separating the air from helium witg liquefaction equipment on board? That would be new if they could make it light enough to lift witg the buoyancy of the envelope.

              I think what they’re doingnis changing the buoyancy of the envelope by recompressing the helium rather than disposing of it overboard as they gain altitude. In the past the equipment to do that has been prohibitively weight-expensive.

            2. Unless it has a separate “swim bladder” of sorts enclosed by an air-filled envelope that displaces air from the main envelope by transfering helium into and out of liquefied storage. That makes more sense.

    5. Um helium isn’t getting any cheaper.

  11. Bro, idgaf
    People are stupid and Democracy is a failure. We’ll have none of these fallacies here.

  12. When was the last time anyone remembers a popular movement demanding that we go to war? In any case aside from being the target of a direct attack, war is a state-initiated action. The words, “war is the health of the state” is not an idle suggestion. So-called peace-loving democracies are among the most prolific war-mongering nations on earth.

    Polls like this that show any popular support for war are always skewed because, by the time they are taken, the government is already well into an aggressive propaganda campaign to whip up emotions among the public.

    Thankfully we’re seeing some public skepticism this time. Too bad we didn’t see that same push-back before the last half dozen or so wars the U.S. has engaged in.

    1. When was the last time anyone remembers a popular movement demanding that we go to war?

      I wasn’t around at the time, but wasn’t there popular support for war after Pearl Harbor?

      1. I think the government was well down the road to war before “the unprovoked attack” Pearl Harbor. We were already supplying arms to our future allies and (arguably) committing acts of war against Japan. So, there is no doubt that the propaganda campaign was already in full swing.

    2. Not marching in the streets, but post-9/11 there was a pretty broad consensus that our boys better fuck somebody up but good.

      1. I wonder if Dave would ask that question tomorrow.

      2. Note my words: …aside from being the target of a direct attack…

        It seems no one even noticed this phrase in my post, because the examples given in rebuttal to my comment are cases where the U.S. was attacked.

        My response in both cases is that America’s engagement in war-like actions started long before either the Pearl Harbor or 9/11 attacks.

        Americans only recognize that war has begun when U.S. citizens finally come under attack. This is why people like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry (among many others) don’t define our bombing of Libya, Bosnia, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, or Syria as an actual war. It’s an amazingly ignorant perspective.

    3. So-called peace-loving democracies are among the most prolific war-mongering nations on earth.

      Either that or the world really doesn’t care if you are a Democracy and you better be able to wage war if you want to survive. But hey, don’t let reality get in the way of your fantasy life.

      1. you better be able to wage war if you want to survive.

        So you’re saying that there is no distinction between having the capability to repel an invasion and initiating hostilities on the others side of the globe?

        I think you’re missing the point (not that I’m surprised). Look through history and it seems that if a government has the ability to go around and kill people all over the world, no matter how peace-loving they profess to be, there will be lots of killing.

        1. Look through history and it seems that if a government has the ability to go around and kill people all over the world, no matter how peace-loving they profess to be, there will be lots of killing.

          So you are telling me that people and nations are war like? Wow let me write that down. I never would have guessed.

          The point is that there is nothing peaceful or war like about any particular form of government. People and the world in general are war like. That is just how it is and nothing is going to change that.

        2. Commercial nations are war like. Commercial nations are forever entangled with other nations because they are doing business with them. And that forever creates the temptation to project their power and thus they end up in wars.

          The only commercial nation that hasn’t gotten into a war in a long while is Switzerland and they are land locked and manage to rely on banking with both sides. But every other nation, even small countries like the Netherlands and Belgium managed to get into foreign wars once they started trading abroad.

          Think about it. Old Japan was a warrior based soceity and about as non democratic and war like as you could get. But Japan never got into any foreign wars until it opened up to the West and started trading.

          1. I disagree. I think countries are less likely to go to war with trading partners.

            1. and history shows you to be completely wrong. Trade didn’t stop either of the two world wars.

        3. Here is the other thing that makes you war like; running out of other people’s money. Broke socialist and communist governments have been the most war like in the 20th Century.

          1. My cursory research indicates a strong correlation between military size and going to war.

            The US went to war more times in the 20th century than any other nation. Did the US have a big military during that time? Yep.

            The British and the French went to war more times in the 18th and 19th centuries than all other nations. Did they have big militaries? Yep.

            During the age of exploration, the Spanish went to war the most times. Did they have a big army? Yep.

            Ditto for the Romans, the Ottomans, and anyone else that had a big army.

            Only Stone Age tribes are more war-like than nations with large militaries.

            1. The US went to war more times in the 20th century than any other nation. Did the US have a big military during that time? Yep

              The US had a virtually nonexistent military before both WWI and WWII. We didn’t have a big standing army until after WWII.

              Try again.

              And the US has a huge military but hasn’t been in anything approaching a major war in 70 years. By your logic small armies gave us WWI and WWII. Bit militaries gave us Vietnam and Iraq. I will take the latter thank you.

              1. The US army had about 100,000 regulars before entry into WWI. That’s not what I’d call non-existent.

                Korea and Vietnam were major enough to require a draft. The military was about 2% of the population vs. 0.1% of the population in the pre-war years.

  13. Polls like this that show any popular support for war are always skewed because, by the time they are taken, the government is already well into an aggressive propaganda campaign to whip up emotions among the public.

    I urge you, to take a long look at the photos of those poor children, with no blood, or signs of struggle lying in rows of horrific, white robe covered corpses before you consider this matter again.

    /Secretary of Emotion

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.