Public opinion data and public policy

From the latest Democracy Corps poll:

A majority (51 percent) say that even though the deficit is a big problem, we should not raise taxes to bring it down…And by an even wider 2:1 margin, voters reject cuts in Social Security, Medicare or defense spending to bring the deficit down (61 to 30 percent). With nearly three-quarters of the federal budget devoted to these items, exempting them from cuts leaves little room to make realistic progress on deficit reduction…Nearly half of voters think the deficit can be reduced without real cost to entitlements, with 48 percent believing there is enough waste and inefficiency in government spending for the deficit to be reduced through spending cuts while keeping health care, Social Security, unemployment benefits and other services from being hurt.

This blog is not about US domestic politics so I am not going to take a stand on policy. My question has to do with the utility of public opinion data for making policy. I heard a lot of people say Obama should have dropped health care because the public was against it. Yet these data show that it is impossible to govern the economy the way the public wants – we want a lower budget deficit, but not higher taxes or lower spending. So why is public opinion important for what policies the government enacts? If Obama wants to gamble on his future by enacting an unpopular policy, why should its unpopularity be an issue if public opinion is schizophrenic? Saying that the government must follow the will of the people if what the people want is impossible to achieve doesn’t make any sense. That government should follow the will of the people but only when the will of the people is coherent isn’t a particularly good argument, either.

Sudan’s election is going off the rails

The SPLM and all other opposition parties are threatening to boycott Sudan’s upcoming presidential election. It appears the SPLM – the largest opposition party and the party that has wide-spread support in the south – has decided not to contest the presidential election in return for guarantees that President Bashir will hold the referendum on independence for southern Sudan on time next January. The best intelligence I have been able to gather from people working on Sudan for the US government is that the smaller opposition parties are boycotting the election to undermine the deal. The smaller opposition parties are annoyed because the SPLM was the leader of the opposition and feel that the SPLM stabbed them in the back by agreeing to drop out of the presidential race. By forcing Bashir to stand unopposed, these parties can make it very tough for the international community to say the election was anything close to credible, thus making Bashir look bad and threatening the referendum which is to occur after the election.

The US Envoy to Sudan, Scott Gratian, is in Sudan attempting to “salvage the country’s troubled election process.” However, it’s not clear what he can do as these parties at the moment have little to gain by legitimizing an election that falls far, far short of anything approaching free and fair.

Hope for the best and prepare for the worst is a good rule of thumb. It seems the USG spent a lot of time focusing on the former and far less on the latter.

Somali pirates attack US navy

Somali pirates strike again…

A group of suspected pirates was captured Thursday after attacking a U.S. Navy frigate in the Indian Ocean…

The USS Nicholas reported taking fire from a suspected pirate skiff shortly after midnight local time west of the Seychelles, the statement said. The Nicholas quickly returned fire and began pursuing the skiff, which was eventually disabled. A boarding team from the Nicholas subsequently captured and detained three people, the statement said.

I know it’s not fashionable to be impressed by pirates, but I think it’s pretty gutsy to attack the US navy. Maybe Somalia has a good pirate training program.