Opinion Polls and Policy

First, an necessary disclaimer: any opinion poll is only as good as its questions and its statistical methodology, and even then, intrinsic sampling errors can give rise to legitimate concerns about accuracy. We don't have an easy way to reach a truly random group of people for polling (some people don't have addresses, others have multiple telephones, etc.), and even if we were to find that group, the people who respond would likely not represent the overall group. For example, a poll about politicians will probably have a lower response rate from people who hate politics. Other times, results may be falsified.

BUT, that doesn't mean they aren't useful, especially in finding trends in public opinion. We've seen that public attitudes towards homosexuality have changed radically since 1989, and the daily tracking polls from the 2009 presidential race provided great daily material for writers. Such polls can also be helpful when an elected official wants to gauge general public opinion as part of policy considerations. This means it's also fair for others to use public polling when opposing policies.

That argument should fall out of the window when considering issues of human rights. Racism was widely accepted and endorsed in the American South, but such numbers were and are irrelevant to policy. I don't care how many people endorse evil actions; that does not excuse me from committing them. A official is personally responsible for her or his own actions, period, and racism is wrong.

Just as torture is wrong. We know that waterboarding is torture. Christopher Hitchens tried it and said as such, and Sean Hannity said he'd do the same (and has not). I have no patience for torture, and the fact that people would embrace it is extremely concerning. We are better than that.

So when I read posts like this and this, I sigh:

Really, what must the average American think of an administration that facilitates non-collection of information? When the Obama administration lashes out at a former VP or insists that they are being true to our “values,” it is entirely at odds with the American people. The voters are coming to the realization that their government isn’t doing what is needed to keep us safe. And they seem to value their own safety above some distorted notion that enemy combatants are entitled to be treated like common criminals.

It's not about the information, though whatever we get will have accuracy issues because how its obtained. It's also not about being "tough," since WW2 and current interrogators have gotten more through being smart, such as "Matthew Alexander." It's that TORTURE DOES NOT MAKE US SAFER. It cannot make us safer. If the President feels someone has to be tortured because of an imminent attack, then the President should be willing to unergo a possible impeachment. If not, there is no immediate threat and no need. Besides, this logic throws the Geneva convention out the window.