Limited Choices Lead to Limited Opinions

A recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll shows in its own way that people surveyed seem to prefer Democrats as leaders on a majority of issues, as noted in on the CNN web site. These numbers likely show a larger than normal disapproval of the President because many conservatives have joined liberals in their dismay over the President's handling of Supreme Court nominees, border issues, and out-of-control government spending.

Another important note is that such polls as these usually only offer the listener two choices. He can either choose whether he'd prefer Democrats or Republicans on handling a given issue. This is yet another dagger thrust at the third-party alternative.

It's often said that Third Parties never have a chance at big offices because they don't have a significant grass-roots base like the Big Two. While some parties challenge this, like the Libertarians and Greens and do get candidates elected at the local level, all of them have failed at the national level, at least to date. They are referred to, even by other bloggers and political pundits as spoilers. These individuals push the notion, correct or not, that only two big parties can survive and you either fit your beliefs somewhere under their tent or you're just hurting your own and helping those you don't agree with.

Again, that has some basis in fact. Perot spoiled two presidential elections for the Republicans and Nader spoiled at least one. However, perhaps these things are true, perhaps these things are reality, because the major news sources will absolutely NOT allow for anything other than two divergent opinions. The media's mentality in general, and this includes print and television, is that one is either in agreement with the Republicans or the Democrats. What if you're not in agreement with either? Let's look at some of the poll questions.

On separate issues, a majority of those questioned felt the Democrats could do a better job than Republicans at handling health care (59 percent to 30 percent), Social Security (56 percent to 33 percent), gasoline prices (51 percent to 31 percent) and the economy (50 percent to 38 percent).

Forty-six percent also believed Democrats could do better at handling Iraq, while 40 percent said the GOP would do better.

In 2003, 53 percent said Republicans would better handle Iraq and only 29 percent believed the Democrats would do better.

The only issue on which Republicans came out on top was in fighting terrorism: 49 percent said the GOP is better at it, while 38 percent said the Democrats are.

And there was a dramatic shift downward in the latest poll, compared with September, in the percentage of people who said that it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq.

This time, 49 percent said it was a mistake, versus 59 percent who felt that way last month.

Let's look at those. The Democrats could do a better job of handling health care? As opposed to what? First, where in the world does the Constitution grant power to even issue band aids, let alone spend copious amounts of tax dollars on full coverage for a significant percentage of the population. And don't throw out the General Welfare Clause. That's such an overused and improperly applied phrase I'm sure James Madison is turning over in his grave wondering why he ever allowed it in. Even setting that aside, what exactly could the Dems do better? Spend more money than the Republicans? Instead of a half a trillion dollar drug benefit, would they have made it a trillion? Very manganimous when it's someone else's money.

Social Security. Same animal. Not Constitutionally valid, but what are the Dems going to do, spend more money on it? Or more accurately, are they going to tax us more for it? Wow, they'd really be better at taxing. That's something they seem to know very well. People really WANT this eh?

Gasoline prices? You might as well ask why Bush hasn't weighed in on the price of Slim Jims. It's just as relevant. Gasoline and petroleum products are a market commodity. They are controlled by the market, for better or worse. Name me one time in history where price controls actually WORKED. You won't find one. All you do is decrease supply and boom 70's gas lines all over again (for those of us alive who remember that Carter fiasco). We could try to do what they've been proposing. Since the IC engine isn't going away anytime soon, allow more exploration and exploitation of the petroleum resources we do have to keep the price stable or lower. Are Democrats proposing that? Better or worse?

The economy? It's also ludicrous to assume that any body like Congress or the Presdiency controls the economy. This is a market economy, not a Soviet-style planned economy. The Democrat's answer so far to the economic boom is that we should tax it to penalize those profiting from it. Remember Reagan's mantra on government "If it moves tax it..." If you believe no one should profit from their success in the economy, then you believe none of us should profit, and your opinion would therefore be a little out there anyway. Democrats do not have better ideas on the economy. Come to think of it, Republican ideas aren't that great either.
The Democrats could better handle Iraq? Oh my God. That's bad comedy. I really don't need to go over the reasons, do I? The pollsters really need a followup on all these questions. Exactly how, sir or madam, do you think they could do better?

But this is what you get from the pollsters. Simpleton questions, questions with no depth such as these mean nothing except to the partisan hacks in the press who want to show "their guys" are the best. Be realistic, that's what the numbers are for. And this is why all the Third Parties take it up the tail pipe from the media, because the media doesn't want to have them join in and play their little reindeer games. Until Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, and the like get recognition from the media king-makers, there will be no hope that the people of the US will be exposed in general to more than the most basic He said/She said political garbage that the MSM spews and none of this country's problems will actually get solved, except perhaps by accident.

More than anything, I believe such polls infuriate me because they aren't designed to determine what people think. They're designed to determine what the people that initiate them want to hear and rarely do they stray from this formula. You want a real idea of what people think will work? Give them more than Option A or B. Otherwise, you're comparing Pepsi and Coke.