Posted on 01/19/2015 4:53:19 PM PST by SeekAndFind
WaPo’s offering this as evidence that the public’s trending back towards security and away from privacy after Snowden’s heyday in 2013. It’s true, there is more support now for the former than there was 14 months ago; if Rand Paul was thinking of making opposition to the NSA a key piece of his campaign, this might give him pause. I think it’s more interesting, though, to see how strongly pro-security the public remained even after the surveillance bombshells first started bursting. Today, 63 percent say investigating terror is more important versus 32 percent who say it’s more important to prevent the government from intruding on privacy. In 2013, after the Snowden revelations, that split was … 57/39. Even at the height of public concern about the NSA, prioritizing privacy couldn’t crack 40 percent. Hmmm.
If that result displeases you, take heart in two facts. One: While you’ve lost ground, you haven’t lost as much as you might have expected to. After 18 months of worries about ISIS, and just two weeks after a horrible massacre in Paris, the split on security and privacy is pretty much where it was in 2013. Opinion on this subject may have hardened to the point where it’s largely impervious to new terror threats. Two: The partisan split is bound to change if/when the White House is back in Republican hands.
Democrats are even more gung ho about prioritizing counterterror over privacy than Republicans are, but partly that’s because they trust Obama to be conscientious about maintaining the balance. Put Ted Cruz in charge and see what happens to the numbers then. Democrats will immediately become more skeptical; Republicans who’ve come to sympathize with civil libertarian concerns partly due to distrust of O will surge back towards security. The topline numbers might not move much but I’ll bet they’ll move a bit towards privacy as liberals suddenly decide that questioning authority is cool again.
Dig down in the crosstabs and you’ll find two fascinating demographic divides. First, gender:
And age:
A 23-point spread between young adults and seniors. Wow. That’s good news for Team Rand insofar as they’re hoping to attract younger voters to his campaign, not so good news insofar as seniors are the GOP’s base. The gender divide is more interesting, though: Why would women be so much more likely than men to prioritize counterterror over privacy? Reminds me of the huge gender gap in last week’s YouGov poll on Charlie Hebdo and whether publications should engage in religious blasphemy. Men were consistently much more likely to side with those who publish provocative images than women were. I wonder if there’s a connection there: If you worry about security, it stands to reason that you might want to do everything you can to reduce the threat of terror — whether that means subordinating privacy interests or discouraging magazines like Charlie Hebdo from provoking the aggrieved. Or, since we’re playing armchair psychologist, maybe it’s a function of women being comparatively more communitarian than men are. Men side more with the individual who wants to publish offensive cartoons and with the individual who wants to be free of government surveillance. Women, more concerned about the threat to the public at large, are willing to prioritize those individual concerns a bit less. Or so you might think. Any other explanations? None of these are very satisfying.
And there it is.
WaPo false dichotomy alert.
Investigating threats and having your privacy invaded everyday unconstitutionally are two vastly different things. Poorly worded question, premise invalid.
If we’re going to take these kinds of drastic unconstitutional steps because Islam is at war with us, why not just get serious about fighting the bastards? Step one would be to not let any more of the bastards into our country. And the ones already here are the ones needing the extra scrutiny—not the rest of us.
“WaPo false dichotomy alert.”
EXACTLY!!!!!! My goodness, these people are despicable.
WHO decided this is an “Either/Or” question?????
Investigate ISLAMIC TERRORISM and quit worrying about “profiling”!!!!
Re: “False Dichotomy Alert”
The full question asked on the poll seems fair to me:
“What do you think is more important right now - (for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats) or (for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy)?”
Here’s the link:
I don’t see how it is a fair question, in that it implies that one must suffer if the other is made the priority. I would refuse to answer, because the only reasonable answer is “yes.”
Good grief! I don’t believe it.
If so, we’d be done as a nation.
Having your phone calls or email or web site visits logged and cross referenced against suspected terrorists?
Sorry, I just don't get it.
When I read angry or impassioned comments about “privacy” at Free Republic, I always have the same instinctive response:
If I'm not breaking the law, why would I worry if the government warehouses my communications?
Well its the WaPo/ABC so take it with a grain of salt.
Show me the person and I’ll find the crime (to paraphrase Lavrenty Beria).
Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping!
To get onto The Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping List you must threaten to report me to the Mods if I don't add you to the list...
To paraphrase Eisenhower, prison is the safest place; there you get shelter, meals, medical care in a secure environment.
“If we’re going to take these kinds of drastic unconstitutional steps because Islam is at war with us, why not just get serious about fighting the bastards?”
You’re a racist.
L
The sheeple have bleated.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither. Ben Franklin
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.