Seizing Greenland Might Be the Least Popular Idea in American Political History
This foolish, unnecessary, bellicose idea is running up against the "Lizardman's Constant."
President Donald Trump's push to seize Greenland might be the least popular idea in American political history.
Is that hyperbole? If so, that's only because reliable and fast public polling is a relatively recent development within our 250-year experiment in self-governance.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll released Wednesday found a staggering 4 percent of Americans favor the idea of seizing Greenland with military force. Among Republicans, the idea is actually twice as popular: 8 percent say taking the island is a "good idea."
Even if the Trump administration is using the threat of military force as a bluff, the idea of acquiring Greenland at all remains deeply unpopular. The same poll found that just 17 percent of Americans (and just 40 percent of Republicans) support the effort.
That poll does not appear to be an outlier. A Quinnipiac University survey released Wednesday found similarly striking results, with 86 percent of respondents opposing a military takeover of Greenland and just 9 percent favoring it.
But it's the 4 percent figure in the Reuters/Ipsos poll that really stands out to me, for two reasons.
First, do you know how hard it is to get such a minuscule percentage on a public opinion survey? Congress' approval rating typically hovers in the high single-digits, and I don't think I've ever met a single person who is happy about how Congress is conducting itself—which is, of course, very different from how people feel about their own representatives.
Secondly, there's the Lizardman's Constant. That's a term coined by Scott Alexander in 2013 to describe the surprisingly consistent finding that 4 percent of people will say they believe utterly outlandish things when polled—things like "human-sized lizards wearing skin suits control the world."
Note that I didn't write 4 percent of people believe that. They just say that they do. Some of them might truly believe such a thing, but mostly the Lizardman's Constant is a reminder that any poll will contain some responses from people who are trolling or giving answers at random (or who are deeply disconnected from reality).
All of which means we can't be certain that Trump's threat to seize Greenland by force is actually supported by 4 percent of Americans. It's just as likely, given Lizardman's Constant, that there may not be hardly any Americans who genuinely support this idea—excepting, of course, the current occupant of the White House and some of his most sycophantic allies.
It is nearly impossible to believe that Trump would blow up the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and start a war with longtime American allies over a bit of land that poses no threat to the United States—on account of it being controlled by a fellow NATO ally who has happily allowed U.S. troops to be deployed there for decades.
Yet we seem to be inching towards that insane possibility. By all accounts, Wednesday's meeting with Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen at the White House did not go well. Denmark and Greenland "still have a fundamental disagreement" with Trump's ambition to control the territory, Rasmussen said after the meeting. Now, France, Germany, and Sweden have announced plans to send troops to Greenland to defend against possible American aggression.
The American people clearly do not want any of this to happen. If Trump ignores that fact, then Congress must block him from doing something disastrous.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
A Reuters/Ipsos poll released Wednesday found a staggering 4 percent of Americans favor the idea of seizing Greenland with military force. Among Republicans, the idea is actually twice as popular: 8 percent say taking the island is a "good idea."
So basically the same popularity as John Wayne Gacy at a children's party. Not that it matters - R's will never hold Trump accountable for anything ever. D's will never find a nutsack to oppose a crappy idea.
Plus I will bet that that sort of crappy idea has much higher appeal among those donors who believe in a new American century for colonial expansion.
If Trump ignores that fact, then Congress must block him from doing something disastrous.
And Congress will do that shortly I'm sure. Just as soon as voters hold them accountable for anything.
In truth, it doesn't matter what the support is for something before it happens.
If it's "successful" it will become popular. If it's a failure, it will become unpopular.
What happens if Trump simply claims the "uninhabited" portions of Greenland? We don't want or need responsibility for the people. Just beef up the existing base, and build mining camps. Let the Danes continue to sterilize and reeducate the locals.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll released Wednesday found a staggering 4 percent of Americans favor the idea of seizing Greenland with military force. Among Republicans, the idea is actually twice as popular: 8 percent say taking the island is a "good idea."
So, at some point, you can't compress information any further without specifically incurring loss.
As such, it's entirely possible that there is a considerable loss between "Not taking options off the table" and "Is it a good idea to do it". It's even possible that the people performing such compression know this. It's even further possible that the people being polled know this *and* know that the people doing the polling know this.
Yes, a forcible occupation of Greenland given our current socio-political climate would be bad. Pressuring Denmark, Europe, and/or NATO to take a more defensive posture against Russia and China or let us do it, openly, is considerably less bad. Even for people who think we should be supporting Ukraine in opposition to Russia as part of NATO.
But, by all means, continue your low-information polling of voters, it only serves to demonstrate to them objectively who you are. Libertarianism is a commitment to (individual or maximal) liberty, not popular, low-information stupidity.
Boehm and his colleagues intentionally avoid the conversation. Almost nobody wants to take Greenland through a military invasion (though Petti is wrong in suggesting we couldn't easily do so.)
Trump is very interested in increasing our presence and control over Greenland. Their population is entertaining the idea since they aren't particularly pleased with Danish control. Americans haven't really been sold on why we would want the territory nor explained what the deal might look like.
Rather than trying to understand the situation, Reason keeps hitting the strawman that military invasion is the primary aim.
You morons say "he's just posturing" every time he says he wants to do something fucking retarded. Then he does it and suddenly you download your talking point update and say it was actually good. The reality is someone said something to him about Greenland at one point and now he's obsessed with it like an autistic kid with his toy airplane and the world has to deal with the fallout.
You maddow watchers claim he is Hitler, a dictator, has started a dozen wars...
Meanwhile in reality this conversation has been happening for a century. The same conversation happened with Alaska.
But you ignorant morons argue from pure ignorance sarc.
Man, you guys are really confused
Yet I see zero actual citations. I know maddow is your god queen, but reality does exist sarc. Maybe not in the drunken stupor you live in, but it does.
It’s probably because of the internet being shut down here in Michigan as part of the war he started in Canada, because we border it. How are you staying up to date in Maine, I wonder?
So WW4 is coming, sarc?
Almost nobody wants to take Greenland through a military invasion (though Petti is wrong in suggesting we couldn't easily do so.)
Yeah, the primary deterrent to forcible invasion is not Greenland or Denmark. The primary deterrent is that NATO explodes rather than dissolves and the US is left to figure out how to, e.g., exert power in the ME without clear access to places like Rammstein.
To be clear on several points of fact:
1. Russia, Iran, China and Venezuela have been operating a shadow fleet of oil tankers to subvert global sanctions. For Russia specifically, the total estimated profit derived from these subversions is estimated to be on par with the combined NATO contributions to Ukraine. I know enforcing rules and arbitrary social constructs is hard for Reason, but having them and not enforcing them *and* giving away money on top of that is considerably more costly.
2. It's widely recognized that as arctic ice recedes, for any reason, arctic passage will only facilitate these and other subversive or aggressive actions on behalf of totalitarian, authoritarian theocratic, and dictatorial communist regimes. This doesn't justify a seizure of Greenland, but it certainly justifies a more defensive or assertive forward view or position. Currently, the issue is largely between Iceland and Scandinavia, but it almost certainly will progress to being between Greenland and North America. We can't just simply sit back an let it do so under the premise of "BORDURZ IZ KONSTRUKTZ" global optimism.
3. At one point, the US position in Greenland, from an actual, physical "square feet of territory held or controlled" and "boots on the ground" was greater in the past than it is today.
4. This sort of progression or play between soft and hard power is nothing new. There has, however, been a recent practice on the part of at least one actor, of initiating infrastructure projects or loans at a subsidized cost and then inflating the cost beyond what the host nation can afford, effectively placing the host nation in an economic "lien" that, especially in the case of Greenland, they cannot afford. Effectively loansharking except there is no real national or global-level conception of or enforcing against loansharking. The US certainly isn't immune to cost overruns, but the US also tends to donate a lot more money internationally directly or indirectly through efforts like NATO.
Their continued focus on "OMG! We're going to invade Greenland!" continues to make them seem like the irrelevant, Asperger's-afflicted, short-term memory impaired standard barriers of the Libertarian party that they've been for almost a decade now.
Trump: "You guys need to step up your defenses to contribute more to the NATO alliance."
Euros: "Sure, we'll get right on that."
Trump: "Didn't you say you were worried about Putin?"
Euros: "Yea, yea, why are you pushing us?"
Trump: "Greenland is not properly defended."
Euros: "But you're there to help."
Trump: "OK, since America is going to do all the defense, we're taking Greenland."
Euros: "That's it! This is an outrage! An outrage! We're arming up!"
Greenlanders: "We're so distraught and confused."
Reason Magazine: "Let's publish a super brainy editorial explaining why Orange Man Bad."
Euros: “Oh yeah, and even though Putin is history’s greatest monster, we’re still going to buy our oil and gas from him”
You don't think that Trump threatening to invade Greenland and destroy NATA makes him bad?
When did he do that? Can you provide the exact quote china tony?
Trump isn't planning to invade Greenland any more than he's planning to annex Canada, something else even more absurd people were willing to believe.
He does have a point somewhere that if Greenland were ever fully independent and started coming under the influence of Russia and China we'd probably be forced to do something. Its not politically correct to say this, but Greenland is coming from somewhat of an absurd and maybe a bit arrogant position that 50,000 people can claim territory three times the size of Texas that they would never be able to defend themselves. Not that we shouldn't respect them and the law around this, but that's not even the point.
This is a bit of theater for Trump. He starts out with what he thinks is the most legitimate extreme position, but its not really what he wants, or expects. Its a tactic he learned from business negotiations. He doesn't want to invade Greenland. The ideal, which probably won't happen any time soon, would probably maybe be if a newly independent Greenland signed a mutually beneficial treaty with the US. The difference between that and territorial status would be being independent it would get a seat at the UN which seems silly to me but whatever. But the immediate problem is that Denmark and other European allies weren't providing proper defense to Greenland or the arctic corridors that are becoming more important to security. They were just expecting the US to provide all the defense as usual. They were also allowing Greenland to sell all sorts of rights to China which is why China is now upset by Trump's rhetoric. The point is the current situation is unacceptable and if all that happens is the Euros step up to protect Greenland from Russian and Chinese interests that'll be a sort of a win, too.
Already Denmark is sending more defenses there and has also convinced countries like France to do the same.
“This is a bit of theater for Trump. He starts out with what he thinks is the most legitimate extreme position, but its not really what he wants, or expects. Its a tactic he learned from business negotiations.”
Maybe he should write a book about it so they can understand what he’s doing?
Seward wanted to buy Greenland. Truman wanted to buy Greenland. I'm 100% on board.
might have been Eisenhower I get my 1950s wrong sometimes
Between Alberta Separatism and buying Greenland, I may've misunderstood The Green Movement. But I don't think "global warming is could open up borders between winter sports destinations" is a rational thought that anyone had.
...with buying Greenland, perhaps.
But are you on board with Trump invading Greenland if they don't want to be bought?
Are you on board with MSNOW delusion asks shrike.
REEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
REEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!
https://x.com/joshgerstein/status/2011799477087039591
Appeals rules District Court had no jurisdiction to order release of Mahmoud Khalil.
This article is an amazing journey through the depths of stupidity. Trump is not going to seize Greenland by force or otherwise. There's nothing to invade except thousands of square miles of vacant territory. Sure we could nuke the 55k people who actually live there but there's no point. Trump has been around for a long time now and anybody doesn't see the art of the deal here really shouldn't be published in a libertarian magazine or anywhere else for that matter. The Euro trash can posture all they want but it's all theater and everybody except Eric knows that. Trump wants the US to be the dominant world power in a critical part of the western hemisphere to the exclusion of China and Russia. And he wants to Make Greenland Great Again (okay Greenland was never great but they don't know that). Deals will be made. Investors will see lucrative possibilities. People will get paid. The America first agenda will inch forward. In a few decades president AOC will dine on the finest salt cod with the Prime Minister (full disclosure, my great grandfather came over from Denmark over a century ago and salt cod was his favorite dish). It's been a long time since we've seen one of your TARIFFS articles Eric. Maybe you should stick to subjects you can pretend you know something about.
Once again. Trump does this over and over. He says something pants on head retarded and you faggots sanewash it. Then he doubles down and you say it's "the art of the deal." Then he actually does what he said and all of a sudden you were for it all along.
How many times are you going to keep repeating Rachel maddow as truth but be proven wrong before you stop being retarded sarc?
Poor stupid sarcbot.
"human-sized lizards wearing skin suits control the world."
If only
the ones living under the Denver airport are my favorite.
So this is what the 5th or 6th article pm Greenland without mention this has been a thing, trying to acquire Greenland, for over a century?
Imagine how outraged reason would have been when we bought Alaska.
Any word on the Epstein files that the Trump admin was required to release last year?
Cue Jesse saying "waah, they're redacting victims' names" which they're allowed to do, within the deadline, but they aren't allowed to delay the release on that account. The delay is just straight up illegal.
How many distraction killings is it going to take to make you forget about that ?
/s
I mean you literally posted the law that states that sarc. You should have read it before posting dumbass. Lol.
Greenland, Venezuela, troop on the streets of Minneapolis, what is it going to take for people like you to stop talking about Epstein? Trump would like to know.
More European style socialists; I'll pass.
What percentage of the population actually knows what the F it is talking about?
Public polling about complex geopolitical questions is dumb.
Does the President even know what he is talking about? If a reporter asked what is the value of Greenland could Trump actually articulate a reasonable answer? I suspect he would just spitball iyt as usual. Drop in some non-facts and hyperbole but I doubt he could give an answer.
What is the value of Greenland?
Didn't some nations just say they were going to send troops to Greenland to "defend" it from the U.S.
1. this would be great since then we won't have to put as many troops there
2. why would they send them there instead of their cherrished Ukraine? we know why because they know the U.S. isn't going to invade Greenland so their troops will be safe there vs Ukraine.
3. Nato threatening to kick the U.S. out of Nato countries. Don't they know many U.S. citizens have been pushing for the U.S to get out of those countries. that would be a big win for teh U.S..
France did.
If the Louisiana Purchase never happened would the south be more like Quebec today? Seems like a good thing happened.
Purchase, not seizure.
Which is literally the discussion now dummy.
Haha, poor gov’na shrike.
Stay mad shrike!
Trump puts a bid in that's accepted by Denmark and Greenland - that's fine.
Trump threatens to seize Greenland if they don't accept his offer - that's extortion and is clearly wrong.
Trump actually orders troops to seize Greenland? Denmark should kill Trump. Far more righteous and moral than killing US troops in defence of Greenland.
A lot of retarded hypothetical form the basis of your complaint. Why?
They’re all broken like sarc now. It’s hilarious.