Under the Sun
A seasoned journalist
offers some sage adviceTHE young man at the microphone, critical of the news media for what he perceived as its following in lock step with President Bush's march to war against Iraq, asked Helen Thomas what people who don't support the policy could do to make their voices heard.
The longtime White House correspondent had a short answer: "Hit the streets."
Although Thomas' advice seemed abrupt, she was simply reminding him and others who don't believe there is an overwhelming need to launch an offensive against Saddam Hussein that they have the right to say so. She wasn't encouraging them toward lawlessness, but to raise their objections in an attempt to influence the country's decision-makers, much as protests shifted policy during the Vietnam War years.
Thomas's speech brought a standing-room-only crowd to the University of Hawaii last week. I was surprised by her drawing power and I wonder if her publicized criticism of Bush and his administration had as much to do with her attraction as her stature in journalism. Her remarks finding fault with the president's actions were applauded heartily, but there was really no accurate way to gauge the audience's sentiments.
To measure opinion by applause-o-meter, however, may be as precise -- or imprecise -- as the polls that proliferate in newspapers and magazines and on television news shows, both standard network programs and the ones that channel all the news that titillates. There is some value in polls. They provide a glimmer of the opinions of the people who take part in them, but in presenting these snapshots, the results are often simplistically broadened with the claim that they represent "the majority of Americans." The fine print -- the number of people polled, who they are, the margin of error -- is frequently overlooked.
Pollsters see their work as scientific. They believe they can calculate and ascertain views through carefully worded questions and set responses. Well, I answered questions for a poll recently and was thoroughly frustrated by the choices of answers I was allowed. There was no room for explanations or qualifications. Opinions aren't as simple as "strongly opposed," "somewhat opposed," "somewhat favorable" or "strongly favorable." There are degrees and shades. There are "ifs" and "excepts."
I suspect that polls claiming "the majority of Americans" support an attack on Iraq would come up differently if the question was worded more personally. Instead of asking abstractly, "Do you favor military action against Iraq?" the question should be, "Would you want your son or daughter, your father or mother, your family members or friends, to take up weapons to kill others in a foreign country?" because that's what the president wants Americans to do. I'd bet that if you put the latter question to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, they'd have trouble answering yes -- or at least they'd think twice.
What's most disturbing is that Bush wants Americans to wage war on his word alone. Evidence supporting his belief that Saddam Hussein is poised to strike America may be difficult to present, but he's got to give us something more than his say-so.
The president has been emboldened to take his aggressive stance in part because he sees poll numbers support him, but he should be counseled to reassess. There is a silent majority that has in recent weeks become vocal despite Bush's attempt to paint its members as unpatriotic.
The late Patsy Mink, one of the earliest members of Congress to oppose the Vietnam War, said waging war should be a country's last option. Making that choice, she said, means we've surrendered our ability to solve a problem in a civilized manner. No one wants America to return to the divisive times of the Vietnam protests, when people "hit the streets" in frustration with their government's policies. But that may be what's required to get Bush's attention.
Cynthia Oi has been on the staff of the Star-Bulletin for 25 years.
She can be reached at: coi@starbulletin.com.