In the wake of Ron Paul’s straw poll victory at CPAC, Glenn Greenwald has resurrected the theory that it is the Ron Paul faction of the GOP “that spawned and sustains the “tea party” movement.”

That theory is not unreasonable. The intensity, the radicalism and a strong interest in the Founding Fathers and Revolutionary era are certainly common ground for both Ron Paul supporters and the tea party movement.  Add to that a resentment of corporatism and international institutions and a search for the uncorrupted public servant and it seems only natural that tea partiers should turn to Dr. Paul.

However, tea partiers sit in stark contrast to Ron Paul supporters when it comes to one of the major themes in Ron Paul’s policy: the blowback theory of terrorism and foreign relations.

According to this theory, there is a clear causal connection between the terrorist attacks on the United States and America’s foreign policy (and more specifically Middle East policy).  Much of Paul’s other policy proposals depend on this theory: if military adventures cause terrorism, a lower military expenditures would not only help curb the growing national debt, but a reduced military presence would also make Americans safer.  Also, one would not risk much by trying suspected terrorists in civilian courts and disrupting secret intelligence collection: if foreign policy is fixed, the danger of terrorism will be greatly diminished and the need to obtain intelligence and deter terrorists would be much smaller.

The political problem for people like Paul and Greenwald is that tea parties emphatically do not believe in this theory.  According to our data, only 8% of tea party supporters – compared to 21% overall – believe that the main cause for terrorism is U.S. support for Israel or death and damage caused by the U.S. military.  Only 12% think that damaged caused by U.S. military is a factor at all – compared to 34% of likely voters. Conversely, over 80% of tea party supporters think that the main cause of terrorism is either making Islam the world’s dominant religion or the resentment of Western power and influence.

This huge difference was illustrated during Glenn Beck’s recent interview of Debra Medina, a candidate for Texas governor and ideological ally of Ron Paul.  Neither Medina nor Paul endorse or espouse 9/11 conspiracy views. However, neither do they show the same visceral revulsion that people like Glenn Beck – and, one would guess from our data – a great majority of tea party supporters, have in reaction to 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Devoted Ron Paul supporters know that they are different from tea partiers.  If one visits Ron Paul activist hubs such as Liberty Forest, ambivalence about the tea partiers is palpable.  One also finds very critical views of such tea party mainstays as Glenn Beck and Marco Rubio.

As a rule, Ron Paul had trouble breaking 10% in the Republican primaries. Tea partiers’ current popularity is comparable to that of the major parties.  This is either due to a real difference between them or to some sort of massive misunderstanding.  We think that the former is much more likely.

Zeljka ideology, politics

A recent and much discussed article by David Brooks exposed the view that popular opinion is turning against those of the “educated class” in ever growing number of areas – whether it is global warming, foreign policy or health care.

Recent data from our survey of 2000 American adults shows that this might be the case when it comes to terrorism as well. For one, an overwhelming majority of American adults (74%) believes that there is “too much political correctness in discussion of terrorism”. Almost 60% of adult Americans hold this view strongly, and it is a majority view among Democrats (58%), Republicans (97%) and independents (78%). In addition, 54% of adult Americans supports ethnic and religious profiling, compared to 23% who do not support it and don’t believe it could be effective. In addition, 15% who don’t support it still believe it can be effective.

A glance at what Americans think is the reason for terrorists’ attacks against the United States reveals a picture that is somewhat at odds with most of the news coverage. Thus, 33% of American adults think that the most important reason for terrorist attacks against the US is “making islam the world’s dominant religion” and 27% believe the most important reason is “resentment of western power and influence”. U.S. support for Israel comes third, at 11%, followed by death and damage caused by US military (9%), poverty (6%) and western freedoms (4%) and psychological disorders (3%).

All these are views not likely to be heard or advocated in the mainstream media, yet they appear to be held by significant number of Americans. Do you believe that there exist a popular backlash against the “educated class”? If so, which side do you fall on?

Zeljka politics, terrorism

In the light of the results of yesterday’s special selection in Massachusetts, the fate of the healthcare bill recently passed by the Senate appears to be uncertain. Pending the seating of the newest senator from Massachusetts, Democrats have lost their 60 vote supermajority in the Senate, which limits their ability to use cloture against Republican filibuster. Thus, it appears that any route to passing the healthcare bill that involves the Senate has a significantly lower chance of accomplishing its goal.

Many have argued that House leadership should pass the healthcare bill that already passed Senate unchanged and work out some of its weakness later using reconciliation. These analysts have usually taken the position that passing the healthcare bill will benefit the Democrats in the long run, regardless of how unpopular that might be at this particular moment. On the other hand, some have argued that the decline in Democrats’ unpopularity is a result of pushing an unpopular healthcare bill to begin with, so actually passing it would make things worse, not better, for the Democrats.

What do you think will happen to the healthcare bill? Do you think the House will vote for the Senate bill and do you think it will pass it? Do you think political consequences of passing the bill would be for the dynamic between Democratic and Republican party?

Zeljka future, health, politics

President Obama has recently proposed taxing the largest financial institutions with the goal of recovering some of the costs of the bank bailouts of the past years. As usual, this has elicited mixed reactions. Many, including some notable economists, have supported the idea. However, many of those more critically inclined dismissed it as transparent political ploy constructed to enhance the government’s popularity by attacking highly unpopular business.

What is your view of the President Obama’s proposal? Do you think the proposal will help lower the deficit? Do you believe that TARP program saved us from disaster or do you think we would have been better off without it?

Zeljka future, politics

Most people expected 2010 to be an exciting election year, but few expected so much excitement barely two weeks into it. In a special Senate election in Massachusetts, one time Republican underdog, Scott Brown, appears to be catching up with the Democratic Party candidate, Martha Coakley for what used to be Senator’s Teddy Kennedy’s seat. According to many political analysts, the election is of enormous importance, because Republican win would take the crucial 60^th vote from the Democrats while likely demoralizing Democratic candidates in line to run in 10 months.

Special elections present specific polling challenges, because they make it more difficult to predict who will vote. In this case as well, pre-election polls vary wildly, though it appears that support for the Democratic candidate will be around 50%.

Have you tuned in to the election news yet or do you think it’s too early? Are you following the Massachusetts race?

Zeljka elections, politics

According to our the Zogby Interactive survey of 2,789 likely voters nationwide, president Obama’s approval is at 47%. This marks a fourth consecutive month with the president’s Obama approval rating below 50%.

What factor do you think was the most significant factors in the loss of popularity he experienced since his inauguration. Do you think his approval rating will rebound or fall in 2010?

Zeljka future, politics

After almost two weeks of discussion, the Copenhagen conference on climate change is over. A discussion over what it accomplished is still ongoing.

Commentators can be roughly divided into those who think that the conference accomplished something significant and those who think it didn’t. Within each group, however, there is a considerable disagreement regarding whether that is a good or a bad thing. As a result, one can find those with radically different views of climate change agreeing that the Copenhagen conference accomplished very little.

What is your view of the Copenhagen run-down? Do you think it accomplished what it set to accomplish and did you approve of what it set to accomplish in the first place? Do you think that the next conference will accomplish more or less in its goal of limiting carbon emissions?

Zeljka environment, future, international

We at Zogby spend a lot of time trying to understand generational differences. Most recently, we looked at how different generations are perceived by the American public.

According to our recent interactive survey of almost 3000 likely voters, middle-aged people appear to be the most popular age-group, with 27% of likely voters choosing them as their favorite. They are followed by young adults (19%), young school-aged children (14%) and babies/toddlers (14%). The least popular age-groups are seniors (7%) and teenagers (4%).

However, we also found significant age and gender differences. For example, though not very popular overall, seniors are quite popular with people over 65, with 21% choosing them as their favorite age-group. Also, babies/toddlers and young school-aged children are much more popular among women: over 38% of women choose one of these groups as their favorite, compared to 19% of men.

What group of people, age-wise, would you most want to spend your time with? If you could (or have to) to be the same age all your life, what age would you choose?

Zeljka culture, first globals

Recently, to the dismay of some, Senator Coburn sponsored an amendment  for cessation of the federal funding of political science research through the National Science Foundation. The bill was defeated in the Senate by a 62:36 vote, largely, though not fully, by partisan lines.

In our December interactive survey of over 3000 likely voters, we asked our respondent to indicate whether they consider various fields, such as biology, physics, economics and political science, to be science. It turned out that a clear majority of our respondents (73%) do not consider political science to be science. Though we found significant ideological differences, a clear majority of adherents of all ideologies do not believe that political science is science: at the low end, 62% of progressives do not consider political science to be a science, and, on the high end, a whopping 84% of libertarian likely voters do not consider political science to be science.

What is your view of political science? Do you believe that it is a science or not? Do you think it should be funded by the National Science Foundation?

Zeljka Uncategorized

As the Copenhagen conference heats up, a new proposal has been brought to the table: a planet-wide limit on the number of children people can have. The rather straightforward rationale, as explained by both a Chinese official and a Canadian journalist, is that smaller human population could significantly reduce greenhouse emissions. Needless to say, this has sparked considerable controversy.

In our work on socio-economic intutions, we have discovered that liberals and conservatives have a very different understanding of the role that rising population plays in wealth creation. Specifically, progressives and liberals are much more likely to endorse a Malthusian view that growing number of humans decreases  mankind’s wealth, while conservative and very conservative voters are much more likely to follow a Hayekian conclusion that increasing number of humans leads to greater wealth for all. Here are the results, based on a Zogby Interactive poll of almost 5,000 likely voters.

Zeljka economics, environment, future, global issues, ideology, international