A while back, dating to our time at MyDD, Matt and I asked everyone for input on a poll on Habeas Corpus. At long last, I am happy to show you the memo that came from the poll:
A solid 63% majority of American voters say they favor passage of legislation that would "give Guantánamo detainees the legal right to have their detention reviewed in federal court, and require the government to demonstrate that it has a lawful reason to imprison them." Only one-third (32%) of voters express opposition. This level of support for habeas is more impressive still when one considers that survey participants had been informed that the detainees are "accused terrorists."
Support for the habeas legislation is broad, extending across many demographic lines (see table). For example, we find majority support among both men and women; among whites, African Americans, and Hispanics; and in all regions of the country. Crucial swing political constituencies also voice solid approval, including 66% of independents, 69% of presidential swing voters, and 71% of moderates. Although Republicans are opposed by 58% to 39%, strong opposition is limited to a narrow political base of conservative Republicans (66% opposed) and GOP men (69% opposed). By contrast, a majority of GOP women (53%) and a plurality of moderate-to-liberal Republicans (50%) favor the habeas legislation.
No real surprise there: Republicans are generally opposed to where the rest of the country stands on an issue. Of course, for a long time we have known that the public is on our side when it comes to most issues, but that isn't always enough. As such, of particular interest is how the poll tested the effectiveness of various messaging on Habeas Corpus, providing progressives with insights on how to proceed:
Americans respond strongly to the message that current policy is un-American and contradicts basic American values, especially freedom. Two of the three most convincing pro-habeas messages tested make the case that the Bush policy violates core American values. By appealing to voters' pride in America as a beacon of freedom, these messages resonate even with many who would not instinctively oppose the administration.
The current policy is un-American and contradicts basic American values. We are people who believe in freedom and human rights. We need to defend ourselves against terrorism, but to do that we don't have to give up the values that make America great. (60% very convincing)
Countries such as Cuba, China, and North Korea deny the right of judicial review to those imprisoned by the government. That is not the kind of company the United States of America wants to keep. (60% very convincing)
Voters are more concerned about America-our values and our security- than about those being detained. Independents, moderates, and presidential swing voters believe that upholding American values and keeping America safe are more important than protecting the rights of accused terrorists. Habeas opponents will try to make this a debate about the detainees and what level of legal rights they are (or are not) entitled to; habeas supporters should want a debate over whether the Bush policy violates our national principles and puts Americans at risk.
Expressing this idea in legal or constitutional terms is less effective. Voters respond more favorably when the case for habeas is stated in terms of core values and fundamental principles, rather than legal or constitutional rights. Even many Americans who oppose the current detainee policy are not easily persuaded that their own civil liberties are in jeopardy. Furthermore, arguments about constitutional rights are easily undercut by a conservative response informing voters that only non-citizens, not U.S. citizens, are denied habeas.
Expressing their positions in terms of values is something that Democrats and progressives have often failed to do. It is much easier to organize a broad coalition for any goal when it is based in values and visions of how the government should operate, or what the country should look like, than it is around specific, wonkier tasks. In other words, you are not going to be as successful building a broad coalition around reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 as you are around making sure that a healthy environment is a positive value unto itself and as such preserved for future generations instead of exploited by wealthy interests. This is also, I think, one of the reasons why impeachment campaigns have struggled, since they are not connected to a broader movement based on how government should operate, but are instead a specific campaign centered around Bush and Cheney. A more successful impeachment campaign would have grown out of a coalition that supports a broad vision of government, of which Bush and Cheney are simply two negative examples rather than the whole problem.
Anyway, check out the whole memo. You input helped form it, and as such will hopefully help put Democrats down a more successful road in terms of strategy on civil liberties.
Cristina Page had a great op-ed in the Baltimore Sun this week, making a plea that when journalists question presidential hopefuls (of both parties) about their reproductive rights beliefs, that they specifically bring up contraception access.
Why? Because when the Republican presidential hopefuls speak to a roomful of forced-pregnancy advocates, they are doing everything but declaring their desire for a birth-control ban. These are things they're not saying in interviews with national media, or during the debates.
Deep down, there's nothing really new about this. The hard-core anti-choice doesn't want to overturn Roe. That's never been their aim. They want to overturn Griswold But, of course, that message is not ready for primetime. And so it never gets discussed.
It's time to change that. And one way to help do that is via a national battleground district poll, which I've talked about specifically here, and have discussed as part of an organizing strategy here. First I want to explore the issue, then I want to talk about its place in the battleground district poll, and finally, I want to talk about its place in an organizing strategy. All on the flip.
In my previous diary, "Beyond Bush Dogs? Proposal For A Pro-Active Battleground District Organizing Strategy", I proposed using a national poll of battleground congressional district as the vehicle for an organizing project to lobby swing-district Democrats, while more broadly influencing the political climate in battleground districts generally-including improving the prospects for Democratic challenges in GOP-held seats.
Regardless of how much organizing is done, a battleground district poll has enormous potential utility in and of itself, and I'd like to initiate a discussion of what it could look like, and what good it could do. Hopefully others will have a lot to add in comments.
A battleground district poll should:
Address multiple issues.
Include sufficient benchmark questions-presidential and congressional approval, right track/wrong direction-so that these can usefully be compared to other polls.
Address levels of satisfaction and discontent, and shed some light on their sources.
Help distinguish between unreachable and persuadable voters, and provide a better sense of how attitudes may be changing in a more durable manner (possible realignment).
Help test some progressive value and issue frames.
All that, and be short enough to be practicable! For a more in-depth discussion, jump....
Let me say flat out that I'm thrilled with the unfolding Bush Dog campaign, even though the precise outlines are a bit undefined. The central thrust is clear, and the timeframe is short. Fact is, I'm so thrilled that I want to suggest doing something even more ambitious to start working on in background mode, even as we move quickly on the Bush Dog front.
What I'm proposing is a project focused on the battleground districts-with the Bush Dogs in safe districts as a sort of penumbral offshoot. (As noted in my previous diary, more than half the Bush Dogs-22 out of 38-come from safe districts.) The logic here is that whatever is true about battleground districts in a progressive sense will be even more true for the safe district Bush Dogs. What I envision is combining national and local strategizing, letting activists at each level take on the roles they are best suited to.
What trigged this was a post by Julia Rosen at Calitics expressinig her extreme frustration with Jerry McNerney who's quoted in a Washington Post article talking incoherent GOP-appeasement gibberish. In the discussion, Kid Oakland points to McNerney's voting record. It's clear that he's no Bush Dog. But it's also clear that he's being influenced by hanging out with a bad crowd in DC. We need a way to organize a coherent counterforce. My proposal abuot how to go about it is on the flip.
STATE BLOGS
