If at First You Don't Succeed (Dems still think Republican "extremism" is a can't-lose proposition)

THERE THEY GO AGAIN, our friends the Democrats, eager to use the social issues as low roads to power, isolating the right as religious fanatics, outside of the mainstream of American life. "We're going to use Terri Schiavo," vowed Howard Dean at a breakfast in Hollywood, pledging to exploit the right-to-die case in Florida in the 2006 elections, the 2008 elections, and perhaps to the end of the century. And there goes the press again, eager to help them, as so many times in the past. The media analysis of the Schiavo case followed a tried and true pattern: The issue was a gold mine for the Democrats, who had on their side all of the normal and rational people. For the Republicans, it was a catastrophe: The chasm between the fanatics and the "civilized" wing of the party would at last collapse the Big Tent.

Most of these assessments were based on a series of polls that showed overwhelming support for the idea that the comatose Terri Schiavo should be taken off the food and water that sustained her; support for her faithful husband in his role as her guardian; and disapproval of Bush and the Congress for stepping in to try to determine the outcome. The problem is, none of these things was quite accurate: Terri Schiavo was not comatose; she was not on life support, as most people understand the term, but a feeding tube; her husband's calculations as guardian were complicated by the new family he had started; Bush and the Congress were not trying to settle her fate, merely opening the way for a federal court hearing. Other than this, the polls were completely reliable, and just the thing for Democrats to be leaning on as they plot their next series of moves.

Here, in four nutshells, are how the polls blew it, and how the Democrats may be blowing it, too:

1. All the polls--by Time and the ABC and CBS networks--posed their questions as if Terri Schiavo were in a coma and being sustained by machines. For example, the CBS poll correctly described Terri as being only in a "vegetative state," but first led respondents with a series of questions that misleadingly stressed the idea of a comatose, brain-dead patient:

No wonder huge majorities agreed with removing her "life support."Had Terri Schiavo been in a coma with no brain activity, there would have been no court case, no controversy, and no problem. A coma is a state of deep unconsciousness from which the patient cannot be roused by external stimuli, and in which he knows and feels nothing. A vegetative state on the other hand is one in which the patient is awake, and can move and make noises, though what he may feel or know is uncertain. It is a subjective judgment, on which competent doctors may differ, as many did in this instance, a problem never addressed by these polls. By skirting this difference, the polls extracted the bone of contention that made the case difficult. Does it matter, if you're planning to starve and dehydrate a woman, if she can sense or feel anything? In a word, yes.

2. As Terri Schiavo was not in a coma exactly, neither was she on life support. Her heart was beating, and she breathed on her own. She was not ill, she was not dying, and no "dying process" was being artificially postponed. You could still argue that her quality of life was so low she would not have wanted to live on in this manner; or that the time and money spent to sustain her might be better spent elsewhere. But the questions asked in the polls were not phrased in these terms. There is a difference between "pulling the plug" on a comatose patient, who then quickly dies a natural death, and withholding food and water over days or weeks from a person in whom some awareness of pain may be present. It is a difference suppressed by these polls, and in the media's framing of the Schiavo case, although Howard Dean, M.D., should be aware of it.

3. A third little blip was the question of Schiavo's husband and guardian, the man who insisted, against the furious protests of her parents and siblings, that she be put to death. From the polls, one might assume he was a model of spousal devotion. In reality, Michael Schiavo was in a bitter-end feud with Terri's birth family; there were violent rows over large sums of money; he had a common-law wife and two children by her. Few people could fairly dispute the right of a young man to want more in his life than a bedside vigil that might go on forever, but why did he not surrender his guardianship to her parents, who were eager to take it? The more one knew about Michael's conflicts of interest, the less intrusive the actions of Congress and the Bush brothers looked. Given the choice of a guardian between a (fairly) objective government representative and a creepy and greedy bigamous husband, most people wouldn't have to think twice.

4. And speaking of the government, a fourth kind of misrepresentation took place in the media's framing of public opinion. One might assume that Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, and the Bush brothers intended to stand vigil at Terri Schiavo's bedside and give orders to her caretakers. This wasn't quite accurate. They intervened so the case would be reconsidered in the federal courts, something routinely done, for example, often in capital cases before an execution (the only cases in which liberals can fairly be described as being "pro-life"). Pollster Pat Caddell, reacting to the skewing of the Schiavo surveys, said, "It could be just pure incompetence; however, I suspect that there's more here than that."

Just how skewed were the polls? Days later, John Zogby completed a poll for the Christian Defense Coalition that, by framing the case differently, produced radically different results. As he wrote later, "eight-in-ten likely voters say that a disabled person who is not terminally ill or in a coma, and not being kept alive by life support should not, in the absence of a written directive . . . be denied food and water." Aside from the fact that Terri Schiavo was described as disabled, but not in a coma, the main difference in the Zogby poll seems to have been that the feeding tube was referred to as "food and water," not "life support." ("If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water?") The issue of approval of federal intervention in this special case rose to an even split from a 13-82 deficit: When asked if "it is proper for the federal government to intervene when disabled people are denied food and water by a state court judge's order," respondents were deadlocked, with 44 percent favoring such intervention, and 43 percent opposed.

It is true that the Zogby poll did not stress the extreme disability suffered by Schiavo, but neither did it have the distortions and errors one finds in the others, and the difference in outcomes contingent on the wording of the questions shows the ambivalence and conflict under the surface that the well-publicized mainstream media polls obscured. Republicans should learn from this to tread lightly, to explain themselves better, and to be aware of public suspicion of government meddling. But Democrats should be alert to cracks under the surface, realize that what looks too good to be true sometimes is, and recall that they've been fooled before.

BEFORE DEAN AND HIS FRIENDS try too hard to press their advantage, they might remember what happened the last time they had a hot social issue they thought would be golden, and a media only too eager to help. The time was 20 years ago, the cause was abortion, and both parties were in the same place: Each had a party platform that was off on the edges of public opinion, and an energized base with a fanatical element that often put swing voters off. The problem for the Democrats was that only one party knew it: While Republicans were hammered relentlessly by the press for their lunatic fringes, told how extreme they were, how eccentric they were, and how insane they appeared to rational people, Democrats were told and told often that their lunatic fringe was one of their most attractive features. Nothing was wrong with them or with their message, which was wholly in tune with enlightened opinion. To the media, the issue was referred to as "choice," abortion lobbies were referred to as "speaking for women," and the issue itself was portrayed as one giant wedge, driving off sensible GOP soccer moms, unable to stomach their party's takeover by right-to-life right-wing fanatics.

Left unsaid by the press, until many years later, was the fact that the "choice" talk was unnerving millions, that the abortion advocates could themselves be fanatics, and that for every well-publicized Republican turned off or away by seeing her party intrude into "personal" matters, there was a rather less publicized Democrat or two, unnerved at seeing his party, which claimed to speak for the weak and the helpless, refer to the destruction of the human fetus as a matter of privacy rights. In fact, the issue was a problem for both major parties, causing both to lose (and gain) voters, but you would never have known this from media coverage, which focused exclusively on the Republican party, the harm done to it by its fanatical elements, and the troubles endured by brave and embattled pro-choice Republicans, who fought vainly to hold back the tide.

Through the 1980s and '90s, the American people were assured repeatedly that the country was solidly pro-choice and just as put off by conservative moralists as was . . . well, as was the press itself. The press played up elections where the pro-choice side won, as in Virginia's 1989 gubernatorial race, when the moderately pro-choice Douglas Wilder beat the extremely pro-life Marshall Coleman, and downplayed the issue when the opposite happened, as in 1997, when Virginia's moderately pro-life James Gilmore beat the very pro-choice Don Beyer. Egged on by the reporting of the Washington Post, Beyer jumped on Gilmore's support for a parental notification law for teen abortions, accusing him of waging a war against women in a series of attacks and ads. (Turned out most pro-choice voters supported such notification.) There would be many elections in which Democrats would be left wondering why their prize issue didn't pay off, and then came the shock of the 2004 election and the forced recognition that their progressive message had driven a wedge between themselves and many American voters. "The Democratic defense of abortion makes me cringe," Sarah Blustain wrote in the American Prospect. "It rubs me the wrong way--and I'm one of those classic 30-something, northeastern, educated, pro-choice women who believes the message. . . . Even as I support Democratic candidates . . . I'm turned off by their abortion rhetoric." Actually, many people had been turned off for some time before this, but the party was slow to catch on. Why didn't the Democrats know they were headed for trouble? The press didn't tell them. And it may not be telling them now.

THIS ISN'T TO SAY EITHER SIDE in these cases has a firm grip on public opinion, but to say that on controversial life and death issues public opinion is elusive, conflicted, and quite hard to pin down. The prevalent view is a state of ambivalence. It is possible, as most Americans do, to view abortion as a form of killing they will reluctantly agree not to outlaw in certain conditions, or to feel one would not want to live on in Terri Schiavo's condition, yet cringe at the thought of court-ordered dehydration and starvation. Sometimes the abortion divide crosses over quite neatly into end-of-life issues; sometimes it does not. Someone who opposes abortion as taking the life of another innocent party might not have a problem if an uncoerced adult with a terminal illness decides to cut short his own suffering. On the other side, pro-choice stalwarts such as Barney Frank and Tom Harkin were cross-pressured by their work on behalf of disabled people, of whom Terri Schiavo was one.

Attitudes such as these make gauging opinion terribly dicey, and potentially lethal for those who misread it. "In June [2004], Gallup found that depending on the polls one looked at, Americans can be considered either 54 percent to 43 percent more positive than negative toward abortion, or 61 percent to 37 percent more negative," Blustain wrote after the election last fall. "The differences," she quoted Gallup, "appear to be related to question wording, suggesting that some people are so conflicted on the issue of abortion that even slight wording differences can move them from a positive to a negative view."

Exactly. Change the framing from "exercising a choice" to "killing a baby," and the results are quite different; as they are when "pulling the plug on a comatose patient" becomes "starving a disabled woman to death." It's a good rule of thumb in American politics that if an issue breaks 80-20 for your party, probably something has been misunderstood. If Howard Dean wasn't just mouthing off to a credulous roomful of supporters, Democrats may be mistaking the views of their fringes for mainstream public opinion, lured along by the press's indulgence of their illusions. A few years from now, they may wake up and find that their progressive and "popular" stances have built a wall between themselves and large numbers of voters. Again.

"A third little blip was the question of Schiavo's husband and guardian, the man who insisted, against the furious protests of her parents and siblings, that she be put to death."

"Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."

demcrats remind me of the native savages who think banging on the bongos will make a eclipse go away.

The democrats also thought people would not care about homosexual marriage, and that they could use 9/11 to push more gun control to make people feeeeeel "safe".

I urge the Democrats to make it a issue.

I prefer erring on the side of Liberty and Life, than that of tyranny and Death. I suspect properly informed the majority of the American people choose the first rather than the latter. Unfortunately the Culture we currently have does not instinctively err on side of life, but conscience is still active when the matter is explained. In that instance I've found most were appalled at a Court ordering starvation. At very least they couldn't understand why Michael wouldn't just let the parents care for her since he'd moved on.

This isn't an issue I wish to use for political gain, her life has more value than that, if political gain can even be found for any Party on this. However I welcome the Democrats opening an extensive debate to alert the American people to the truth they distorted with help of the MSM in a short time period.

Remember how pro-choicers screech about pro-lifers not "caring about women"? I thought this whole case would put that issue to rest, but no. I was stunned to see how many pro-choicers wanted Terri to be put to death (at the hands of her husband, no less!)

I wasn't stunned by them so much as I was by people that claim the mantle of "pro-Life" conveniently tossing it aside with mishmashed rhetoric about 'state rights' that were not even violated in this instance. That continues to bother me.

Everyone resents "teacher's pets".

In the short run dems must feel special, but in the long run praise rings hollow, and support feels embarrassing. I don't envy them.

Democrats may be mistaking the views of their fringes for mainstream public opinion, lured along by the press's indulgence of their illusions.

>p> It all depends on the question is "framed." And media liberals will always frame a question to make it look like pro-life people are out of the mainstream. I'd like to see the Democrats become as big on euthanasia as they were on abortion. We'll then see in '06 if all those media polls were telling the truth that Americans want to see people in a coma be executed by a judge without due process of law.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

"Democrats may be mistaking the views of their fringes for mainstream public opinion, lured along by the press's indulgence of their illusions. "

Maybe the press really are conservative and they publish this crap so Americans run further to the right. Think about it. Since Reagan, the press has gotten consistently more "liberal" and more people ran to the right. The elections show this trend.

Maybe there is a VRWC and the press, along with the Jews, Karl Rove (notice how he spells it with a K and not a C, closet Nazi perhaps?) Enron and some guy in Iowa named Bob are doing this on purpose.

I mean, just look at the Kerry campaign. No one can be that stupid. And on top of it all, Dean is the chairman of the DNC? No, the press has propped these guys up so that people can see the folly of the left.

I submit to you, if you read the NY Times and the Washington Post and instead of hammering it, applaud it for the great job they are doing with their parodies and comedic writing, you will see where I am coming from.

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.