Half think Harper too pro-Israel: poll

[tuvor]

OTTAWA - Canadians are evenly split on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's stance on the conflict in Lebanon, according to an Ipsos-Reid poll released Sunday.

The survey of 1,023 adults found an even division of opinion about Harper's firm support of Israel and his statement near the start of the conflict that the Israeli military was engaged in a "measured response" to a cross-border raid and capture of soldiers by Hezbollah fighters based in southern Lebanon.

It said 45 per cent agree Harper's position is "fair and balanced and completely appropriate," while 44 per cent say it is "decidedly too pro-Israel and is not appropriate." Eleven per cent say he has not supported Israel strongly enough.

Opposition to the government's position is strongest in Quebec.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=3cdb2c9d-ab91-4828-8acb-50d75b90e17f

[Bragi]

1. Good numbers for Harper

I'm sure Harper et al are thrilled that they can can totally reverse traditional Canadian foreign policy, and take a stance on Israel that is even more extreme than that of Bush, and still get the support of 45 per cent of Canadians.

Contrast this with Canadian opinion on the Iraq war. When Chretien opposed Bush, as I recall, some 65-70 per cent of Canadians supported him. Obviously, Harper has now won over a large chunk of that support.

Also noteworthy from last week was how fast the Harperites were able to make nine innocent Canadians massacred in Lebanon disappear from the news. Outside of a handful of follow-up reports, reporting on this national tragedy barely survived a 24-hour news cycle.

A year ago, who'd have guessed this could happen?

Remember during the elction when many people (particularly NDP stalwarts) said it was "safe" to defeat the Libs and elect Conservatives because Harper couldn't do much in a minority to push his right wing agenda?

We haven't heard much lately from this group. I wonder what they have to say now?

- B

[Spazito]

2. I would disagree, these are not good numbers, putting aside for

the moment that there is no info on who commissioned the poll, etc, the poll was taken at the beginning of the destruction of Lebanon and he was only able to garner support from half of those polled. It will be interesting, though, to see how the numbers are now, almost a week later.


Note that a key province, Ontario, is not mentioned at all, interesting, I wonder why?

[Bragi]

3. 11 plus 44 = 55 per cent

This poll shows 44 per cent think Harper's support for Israel is balanced and fine, and another 11 per cent think he should be doing even more to support Israel (like what exactly?).

That means 55 per cent of respondents tilt in Harper's direction. I'm sure Harper is quite pleased with that level of support.

As for Onario, I question that it is a "key province" for Harper. All he needs to do in Ontario is to hold the seats there they already have. They can get their majority with minor gains in Quebec and elsewhere, all of which seem to be holding up nicely for the Conservatives.

- B

[Spazito]

4. Ummm, I find it surprising you don't think Ontario is key to harper

and then go on to say "all he needs to do is hold the seats", that is precisely the point. Ontario is key BECAUSE he needs to hold the seats he has even to win a minority government again. Add to that Quebec, which he also NEEDS to hold the seats he has to hold his MINORITY position. He has to ADD seats in those two provinces to win a majority and he KNOWS it even though you do not.

Again, the polls is suspect on it's own merits, imo, given we do not know who commissioned the poll and the EXACT wording of the questions, only partial wording, not good enough. Once I see a link to the actual poll data, I do not find this poll particularly credible.

Again, why would the exclude Ontario's numbers?

[Jazz2006]

5. At the Ipsos Reid site,

it indicates that the poll was conducted on behalf of CanWest Global; the data is available if you have a subscription. I do not have a subscription or I'd post the data but just thought I'd pass this on, anyway.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3147

[Spazito]

6. Thanks, that all I need to know, CanWest shills for harper

so I now understand why they did not show the exact questions and why they left out Ontario. The poll is less than trustworthy, imo.

[daleo]

7. I wouldn't trust Ipsos Reid numbers anyway

They have probably spun it Harper's way as much as they could, and it still didn't look good for him.

[Bragi]

8. Heads here look to be firmly in sand...

Sorry folks, there is nothing wrong with Ipsos Ried polling, or their questions.

The fact is that they have been in the polling business long before Harper, they will be in it long after Harper, that political and media polling is a tiny part of their business, and there is no business benefit whatsoever for them to put out junk polls that an informed person would spot as biased. If they did so, they would go out of business.

I would suggest that progressives take off their tin foil hats, stop whistling past the graveyard, and start dealing with the current reality, which is that all available evidence points to Harper winning the PR war among Canadians on Israel's brutal and unjustified destruction of Lebanon.

In fact, since the election, Harper has won just about very PR battle around his neocon policies. The serious question that needs to be asked is why is Harper winning over Canadians, and what can be done to reverse this. Knee-jerk denial of what's happening may comfort us for a brief moment, but it doesn't get us anywhere.

And that's how I see it...

- B

[MrPrax]

9. Why is Harper winning over Canadians?

Is he...I mean, there you go sounding like a Tory again?

Based on bogus media polls? That's the ONLY thing you base your rally cry on...one of the most concentrated media ownership structure in the western world, and if they say, he's popular, then you assume he is...you'd think that the build-up to the Iraq war would have given pause to thought about how reliable the corporate media really is. If I believed the CanWest media then I would think that Iran was making Jews wear badges ;-)

You make it clear you consider yourself not a "progressive' and from what I can see, it mostly 'soft' liberal' floaters like yourself that seem to think he is a 'winning' PR campaign largely because they are bread and butter swing voters and it's summer.

Best I can tell is that the Media is giving him better coverage -- this will probably be reflected by higher polls numbers that Canwest contracts Ipso-Reid to check.

It becomes self-fulfilling and handicapping media strategies by pundits isn't really a constructive political discussion.

[Bragi]

10. You write...

...one of the most concentrated media ownership structure in the western world, and if they say, he's popular, then you assume he is...you'd think that the build-up to the Iraq war would have given pause to thought about how reliable the corporate media really is.

I think the *successful* selling of the Iraq war by the corporate media should convince anyone that power elites in advanced democracies have no problem getting people to support even the most perverse policies. As I recall, support for the war even in Canada was in the 40 per cent range.

Also, feast on this story, where a Harris poll shows the number of people in the US who think that Iraq had WMDs IS INCREASING.

See http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002878773

I think these kind of perverse strains in public opinion are real, and demonstrate how damn easy it is for those who control the levers of power to successfully sell neocon foreign policy.

The important question is what if anything can be done to stop this from happening. I think the answer won't be found by those who continue to deny that Harper is making gains.

- B

[MrPrax]

11. That Harris poll is scary...

but Americans are stupid generally (less education, higher drop out rates, way more time spent in front of television, much stronger deferrence to authority, higher rates of efficacy that oddly translates into much lower election turnouts, etc ) and that is a result of their media.

I am not too sure they sold Iraq, inasmuch, as they stovepiped propaganda and went out of their way to ignore dissent. I am not sure what the public would actually think IF both sides were presented fairly and there was actual political debate. One thing I do know, is that over time, the information gets out, the situation starts to get bad and the public does come around eventually to being a little more pro-active in their demands at inclusion.

When this occurs, that's when elites clampdown and deploy 'fear'; the stick instead of carrot.

This is the problem I have in discussing some of these issues with most people -- all the information they cite comes either from what Kevin Newman told them or what they saw in one of Kevin Newman's employers newspapers.

And your right, they have been utterly convinced they are getting the 'news'.

But then again I met extremists who justify spending 4 dollars a pound for carrots labelled 'organic' -- they are convinced there are health benefits from paying the higher price, I suppose. The part I hate in BOTH cases, is being attacked for simply stating a 'fact' that Canwest and it's ilk consistently forget to mention, like there were no WMDs in Iraq and so the justification of invasion was illegal, or that there is NO health link regarding an organic carrot and those other dastardly carrots. (Eating MORE fruits and vegetables in general is the healthy thing, which I recommend to everyone)

This is the bias of omission, which journalists© (a generalist degreeholder who can read and write in one or more languages and has the same 'researching' skills as ANY university graduate) really hates to talk about as 'bias'. They generally want to think of 'bias' as getting a date wrong or someone complaining about punctuation in a 'drop' quote.

As you say, it's up to the elites, but that shouldn't stop the OTHER politicians from making the case to the Canadian people, which they don't seem to want to do, as the Opposition on most issues seems to agree with Harper anyway.

This of course goes a long long way to helping Harper, as the public, in not seeing any Opposition, is given the media representation that he must be doing a 'heck of job'.

Partisanship is sorta irrelevent if the supporters are all getting the same information. Same information will produce the same opinions which will produce the same political postions...that's how totalitarianism works.

even the most perverse policies

Precisely...that is why you need an advanced totalitarian apparatus...to convince the public that extremism is normal and things like a French company owning all the water in your country is a good thing, when basic human nature would normally object strenuously.

You need it to convince people that if you lose your job in a Rexdale call center and it shows up in India, you NEED a totalitarian apparatus, to explain the it's a good thing, when basic human nature would normally object strenuously.

When a company comes in to wreck your local community with outsiders' schemes of 'improvement', you NEED a totalitarian apparatus, to explain it's a good thing, when basic human nature would normally object strenuously.

In all these cases, the elites are free to pursue their individual self-interests of profit, control, influence, power (all of which dramatically changes the concept of both capitalism and democracy), while an totalitarian apparatus demands that the public accept collectively accept 'altruism' and sacrifice as their 'self-interest' -- which is the opposite of capitalism and democracy.

[IntravenousDemilo]

12. BZZZZZZZZT! Egregious misuse of "carrot and stick" metaphor! Dive! Dive!

It's not carrot as reward vs stick as punishment. It's dangling a carrot on a stick in front of the recalcitrant mule you're sitting on, just out of reach, so the dumb animal will move forward.

[Bragi]

14. Not so fast...

There may be two separate but equal metaphors involving carrots and sticks.

See http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/6/messages/733.html

- B

[MrPrax]

17. After reading that...

I think IntravenousDemilo might be correct...

According to Dictionary.com:

carrot and stick

Reward and punishment used as persuasive measures, as in Management dangled the carrot of a possible raise before strikers, but at the same time waved the stick of losing their pension benefits. This term alludes to enticing a horse or donkey to move by dangling a carrot before it and, either alternately or at the same time, urging it forward by beating it with a stick.

However the Word Detective has something interesting:
****
Dear Word Detective: I am puzzled by the usual use of "carrot and stick." It is most often used in a context that suggests a strategy balanced between reward (the carrot) and threats (the stick). I always thought it referred to a phantom reward, however, as in the carrot dangling from the end of a stick hung in front of the donkey to keep it moving forward in its perpetual --and necessarily failed -- effort to reach the carrot. -- Robert Fleming, Tucson, Arizona.

Well, if it's any consolation, you are not alone in your puzzlement. Precisely the same pesky little question has been nibbling at the back of my mind for years, busily shredding useful information (my cell phone number, shoe size, etc.) to useless tatters in the process. I'd set traps, but I cannot abide the feel of cheese in my ears.

Furthermore, you and I seem to have quite a lot of company in our quandary. I have checked at least fifteen usually useful sources for the skinny on "carrot and stick" but few even mention the phrase. The Oxford English Dictionary seems to endorse the "reward and threat" interpretation, explaining the phrase as being "with allusion to the proverbial method of tempting a donkey to move by dangling a carrot before it … an enticement, a promised or expected reward; frequently contrasted with ‘stick’ (= punishment) as the alternative."

Yet the earliest (1916) citation for the phrase listed by the OED seems to refer to a carrot dangling from a stick attached to and moving forward with the donkey itself: "The spectacle of an otherwise intellectual individual engaged in trying to plumb the depths of duplicity to which dealers can descend in faking old furniture is like that of the donkey pressing eagerly forward after the dangling carrot. It would ... be very pleasant to possess the carrot of complete knowledge, but the conditions render it impossible."
Word Detective
****

I am inclined to think he is right. I am inclined to think that the OED, if the first citation, is this metaphor, then the 'current' idiom of using a 'carrot and stick' (the way I did) derives from this metaphor and not the other way around, as I was told once.

It makes sense, as contrasting 'pleasure' and 'pain' for this or any example could very well use other types of contrasts to make the same point. (honey and vinegar?) However, the practice of using these particular two words together probably did have it origins when combined to make a donkey, do something he would not otherwise do, for a reward that he will never get.

The media probably ruined the original metaphor through simplication (which it doesn't constantly..no arg there)...

I would imagine a tale of futility like the metaphor of the donkey, stick and carrot probably finds it's inspiration farther back still...

Tantulus

Tantalus was the son of Zeus and was the king of Sipylos. He was uniquely favored among mortals since he was invited to share the food of the gods. However, he abused the guest-host relationship and was punished by being "tantalized" with hunger and thirst in Tartarus: he was immersed up to his neck in water, but when he bent to drink, it all drained away; luscious fruit hung on trees above him, but when he reached for it the winds blew the branches beyond his reach.

Pantheon

I'll give him his point...

[MrPrax]

15. I don't get it...

Um...I thought that the carrot and the stick TOGETHER was a synthesis of the original metaphor that denotes the oppositional nature of pleasure and pain as a prime motive to human action?

:shrug:

It's sorta like something people will point out if you use the metaphor of 'sheep' -- a sheep farmer will tell you you can't really get sheep to do what you want them to do...you need a nasty dog.

[Bragi]

16. Well said... /eom

[daleo]

13. It may take a while, but people catch on to liars

If the media persists in its right-wing bias, it will eventually get the same treatment that Pravda got in the old U.S.S.R.