Outside the Beltway

Public Domain Image from Wikimedia

Dumbest Timeline: GOP Opinion on Canada Edition

Steven L. Taylor
28

Comments

YouGov reports: A record 38% of Republicans say Canada is unfriendly or an enemy of the U.S.

Even recognizing that 38% of one party is a clear minority of the population, this is insane. It is also an example of how a president, as the clear leader of their party, can influence public opinion.

I would also note the bottom of this chart, the comparison of MAGA v. non-MAGA Republicans, which other charts also delineate. This is evidence that the suggestion we have the basis to form more than two parties has validity. It is hardly slam-dunk proof, but it is pretty striking, especially on this question where the difference between MAGA and non-MAGA is pretty stark.

Categories

, , ,

Tags

,

28 responses to “Dumbest Timeline: GOP Opinion on Canada Edition”

  1. Scott Avatar
    Scott

    I would like to see a deeper sociological analysis of MAGA than we typically get. I suspect they are the same vile bigots (neo-confederates, Christian fundamentalists, Know-Nothings, etc.) that have been around since the beginning of the nation.

    4
    1. Eugene Avatar
      Eugene

      Also what percentages answered “yes,” “not sure,” and “no” to the MAGA supporter question. The fact of 54% of non-MAGA Republicans not supporting tariffs may not be important depending on how many there are. Sorta like what happens in Congress with Senator Concerned.

  2. drj Avatar
    drj

    It is also an example of how a president, as the clear leader of their party, can influence public opinion.

    I am struggling to think of another example where a Democratic president (or even a pre-Bush II Republican president) made his supporters drink the Kool-Aid this hard.

    I guess there’s Reagan with his “nine scariest words” but even that is not as crazy as “Canada is the enemy now.”

    I don’t think that the Canada thing is necessarily an illustration of what presidents in general can do.

    It appears increasingly obvious (to me, at least) that 90% of the crazies sorted themselves into one party. Which kind of sucks if you only have two.

    2
    1. Steven L. Taylor Avatar
      Steven L. Taylor

      @drj

      I don’t think that the Canada thing is necessarily an illustration of what presidents in general can do.

      It appears increasingly obvious (to me, at least) that 90% of the crazies sorted themselves into one party. Which kind of sucks if you only have two.

      In some ways, the two notions are linked, are they not?

      And we have seen a number of public opinion items shift on clearly partisan lines, so I think it i does provide evidence to the notion that elite communication can influence mass behavior.

      Where else are these people getting the idea that Canada is a threat? It is not exactly an organic notion.

      1
      1. drj Avatar
        drj

        the notion that elite communication can influence mass behavior.

        No contest there.

        Even so, Democratic presidents (or other left-leaning politicians) do not have the same ability to get their voters on board with whatever.

        That doesn’t mean that they have zero ability to do so, but it’s much more limited.

        Again, I am fairly certain that this is because of how willfully stupid a large part of the right-leaning electorate is.

        Quite a few people, even if they have the ability to think critically, do not have the inclination to do so. They prefer comfort and intellectual laziness over intellectual integrity. (I’ve met plenty – not least among those who are professionally successful and wealthy.)

        And most of these people have increasingly sorted themselves to become part of the GOP-leaning electorate.

        If parties can realign themselves, voters can, too.

        For instance, in response to the implicit message (increasingly provided by GOP party elites) that thinking is overrated compared to old-timey bible thumping, bigotry and misogyny – or perhaps just the comfortable belief that climate change is a hoax.

        So yes, we agree that elite behavior can influence mass behavior, but it’s not something that is distributed evenly across the entire political spectrum.

        So, it’s not necessarily: “Hey, look at what presidents can do.” Perhaps it’s often quite a bit more accurate to say: “Hey, look at what Republican presidents can do.”

  3. Jen Avatar
    Jen

    These are not smart or worldly people and perhaps it is time we stop providing air to their nonsense.

    3
    1. Steven L. Taylor Avatar
      Steven L. Taylor

      @Jen In an ostensibly democratic society, these kinds of things matter whether we like it or not, yes?

      1
      1. Jen Avatar
        Jen

        Is it notable that a not-insignificant percentage of the US population believes that Canada is some kind of threat? Yeah, I guess so.

        But I do think that treating this with a scholarly distance, presenting it as a data point of merit, lends it a gravitas that it does not deserve. We are in effect treating the town dunces as though they are contributing to the general discourse, when they clearly are not.

        We’re coming up on the 25th anniversary of 9/11. A day on which Canadians threw open their arms to help stranded American travelers.

        There is just so much about this “GOP opinion” that is disturbing, disgraceful, and embarrassing.

        1
        1. Charley in Cleveland Avatar
          Charley in Cleveland

          There is just so much about this “GOP opinion” that is disturbing, disgraceful, and embarrassing.

          It may have been inadvertent, but Trump has worked hard to make his delusional belief that “the world is laughing at us” come true.

          1
        2. Steven L. Taylor Avatar
          Steven L. Taylor

          @Jen

          But I do think that treating this with a scholarly distance, presenting it as a data point of merit, lends it a gravitas that it does not deserve.

          Honest question (I am not trying to sound snarky): Do you feel the same way about an oncologist trying to understand how certain cancers grow and function?

          I keep thinking about some of the responses to my fascism post yesterday, arguing that basically exact understanding doesn’t matter. I don’t think this is correct.

          On the one hand, sure, an authoritarian asshole is an authoritarian asshole.

          But on the other hand, it really does matter if that authoritarian asshole is Pol Pot or some tin-pot military dictator.

          Nobody wants cancer, but ultimately it does matter what kind of cancer it is.

          1
      2. Jen Avatar
        Jen

        Replying out of alignment because we’ve reached our reply limit…

        Honest question (I am not trying to sound snarky): Do you feel the same way about an oncologist trying to understand how certain cancers grow and function?

        While I understand the impulse to compare these folks to cancer (note: this is indeed snark! 🙂 ), no, I don’t feel the same way about an oncologist’s work.

        I was not a part of yesterday’s discussion on fascism, so I cannot comment on the links between the topics. I also think that perhaps my irritation with this subset of a subset may be being interpreted as “don’t study this” when really I meant “we need to stop encouraging these dingdongs.”

        Part of where I am coming from is a point of frustration. Yes, these folks exist. Yes, it’s notable that they feel this way. But unlike the spread of cancer, their opinions seem to be highly malleable, and frankly wrong.

        I’ve lamented in the past that what the internet (and Fox News) has provided for some is external validation for biases that are not based in facts or reality. These are people who, a generation or two ago, would likely have expressed these thoughts to family members and no one else.

        I am deeply concerned about the country’s apparent march towards illiteracy and innumeracy, I think the President is at least partly to blame.

        Nobody wants cancer, but ultimately it does matter what kind of cancer it is.

        For treatment, yes–it matters what type of cancer it is. But from the perspective of a health insurance company, if you are applying for a new policy, it might not. Cancer of any type can result in being turned down for coverage. That’s the problem with treating everything as equally valid. Sometimes it elevates things that shouldn’t be elevated.

        1. Steven L. Taylor Avatar
          Steven L. Taylor

          I guess I honestly do not understand how making observations about social phenomena is encouraging it.

          Moreover, yes, public opinion is malleable, which (to me, anyway) is all the more reason to understand how we get problematic opinions in the first place and how to reshape them.

          Cancer of any type can result in being turned down for coverage. That’s the problem with treating everything as equally valid. Sometimes it elevates things that shouldn’t be elevated.

          BTW, I think you are inadvertently agreeing with my point (or maybe I didn’t make my point clear). The only way to know the varying significances of different cancer cells is, in fact, to study and understand them.

        2. Jen Avatar
          Jen

          I genuinely don’t think we disagree. I think it’s a difference in perspective. You are looking at this from the perspective of a political scientist. I’m looking at this from the perspective of a communications professional. (And I’m going to note here that I am NOT arguing…I’m just trying to better organize and communicate my thoughts.)

          “I guess I honestly do not understand how making observations about social phenomena is encouraging it.”

          Our nephew amps up his behavior when my husband is around; he acts differently when there’s an audience. So yes, I do think that observation of behaviors can rationalize/encourage them. It’s yet another reason why the Cletus Safari articles in the NYT drive me nuts. It’s the observer effect.

          In this case, the problem is in the way the results of the survey are likely to be interpreted. Audiences will see “38% of Republicans” and not realize that only 28% of US adults self-identify as Republican (with another 15% saying they “lean R”). So we’re likely talking about a pretty small group. A subset of a subset.

          But 38% doesn’t sound small. And that–from a communicator’s perspective–is a problem.

          The only way to know the varying significances of different cancer cells is, in fact, to study and understand them.

          Of course. I read the original statement (“Nobody wants cancer, but ultimately it does matter what kind of cancer it is”) as saying that there are variances. Being diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer is different than being diagnosed with basal cell carcinoma–particularly on the issue of survival rates.

          My point was focused on the “it does matter what kind,” because yep, that’s the logical way to look at things. There’s a scale of intensity that should be taken into consideration. But that’s not how many (most?) insurers look at it. To them cancer=risk, and the type doesn’t matter. Apply for a policy and you’ll be denied. This over-generalization is what I was trying to get at when the general public reads study results, some of which are pretty nuanced.

          1
        3. gVOR10 Avatar
          gVOR10

          Steven – I completely agreed with your post yesterday. Trump, Miller, etc. can fairly be called fascist. Yet doing so seems insufficient. I’m not so much saying “that basically exact understanding doesn’t matter.”, but that the world of fascism is so large and varied that these historical analogs don’t provide a very exact understanding.

          1
  4. MarkedMan Avatar
    MarkedMan

    To me, the mark of a “my team above all” based mentality (sometimes also referred to as a cult), is the very public professing of obviously and often ridiculously false “beliefs”, often in a belligerent way. It’s not enough to perform your fealty by shouting that “Up is Up!!”, you have to obnoxiously scream that “Up is down, and yer a f*ing loser if you don’t believe it and shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office or teach kids!!!!” So, no, it doesn’t surprise me that when a delusional Trump tweets bad things about Canada and a significant portion of his base instantly change their “opinion”.

  5. Charley in Cleveland Avatar
    Charley in Cleveland

    Mail-in voting wasn’t on anyone’s “this is a problem” list until Trump started his endless and baseless nonsense about voter fraud. He said it until the cult believed it and Republicans at the state level started passing laws to solve a non-existent “problem.” So clearly Trump can (and does) influence public opinion. It would be nice if the media would push back on his BS instead of dismissing it as Trump being Trump.

    3
  6. Kingdaddy Avatar
    Kingdaddy

    Just to continue the discussion from yesterday, fascism isn’t about thinking. It runs on sentiment. Always targeting someone or something to hate. Always feeling solidarity with others who hate the same targets. Always finding comfort in the leader. Always getting the daily jolt of adrenaline from whatever sources are available, from the TV screen or phone screens or public rallies.

    It doesn’t matter whether the target du jour makes sense or not, as long as the limbic buttons get pushed.

    Which is why a lot of people are immune to logical appeals, preferring to ride the Trump train through one disaster after another.

    1
    1. MarkedMan Avatar
      MarkedMan

      Ultimately, I think the real fight isn’t between any of the twentieth centuries “isms” but between classical liberalism and a more ancient ism: feudalism. In my mind, feudalism is the control of society by and for an elite few, using various mechanisms, with the primary one being meting out privileges to certain “lessers” in return for them protecting their patrons above all else, and enforcing the social hierarchy below. These “lessers” may in turn partially elevate a small number of their societal inferiors with the same deal, and so on down the line. Another important technique is other-ing and scapegoating, constantly sowing dissension between groups and riling them up against each other.

      This was effectively the status of the slave South, and the Civil War can be seen as a war between feudalism and classic liberalism. Although the North won, they eventually gave up the fight, and feudalism returned in the Jim Crow South, which eventually co-opted the modern Republican Party. The Republican Party now serves as the principal governmental enforcer for their billionaire patrons.

      1. Steven L. Taylor Avatar
        Steven L. Taylor

        @MarkedMan Given that feudalism is specifically linked to a certain kind of land ownership pattern and the economic and social power dynamics that those patterns create, I don’t think it is a very useful frame for our society.

        I agree that the fight is with classical liberalism, but that is also why I think that fascism is a better frame for understanding, especially since fascism is very much defined as being anti-liberal.

    2. Scott F. Avatar
      Scott F.

      In a nod to our geekier host, I’d note that Tony Gilroy, the brilliant writer of the Andor series, puts words in a manifesto of a rebel named Nemik which are quite astute and apt to what you describe @Kingdaddy:

      And remember this: the Imperial need for control is so desperate because it is so unnatural. Tyranny requires constant effort.

      When you are running things on angry sentiment, you simply can’t stop feeding red meat to the base or they’ll eventually turn to eat you. And over time, as earlier enemy targeting grows stale or is falsified, naming new enemies ends up being more and more unnatural and absurd.

      3
  7. gVOR10 Avatar
    gVOR10

    My first reaction is amazement that they can get past the cognitive dissonance. For a hundred years Canada is our best friend. Then out of the bleu* we’re at trade war with East Asia Canada. Don’t they remember that last week they liked Canada? Then I recall that MAGA are the rockiest of the box of rocks. They may never have had a single thought about Canada until Big Brother brought it up. Orwell was right.

    -* That was an innocent typo, but I decided I liked it. ETA – Also I no longer seem to be able to start a paragraph with “*”.

    1
    1. Steven L. Taylor Avatar
      Steven L. Taylor

      Your Orwell reference is apt.

      1
  8. Just Another Ex-Republican Avatar
    Just Another Ex-Republican

    I feel like most of these conversations were summed up years ago by Douglas Adams: “To sum up the summary of the summary, people are a problem.”

    There’s a reason the founders feared mobs and put in some very un-democratic features (such as Senators not being directly elected). What they (understandably) failed to anticipate was the modern communication methods that allow the greedy, dishonest subset of elites to seize control of enough of the information space to empower the very box of rocks mob behavior the founders feared (and that have always existed but couldn’t previously be organized as well).

  9. Jc Avatar
    Jc

    These questions are framed to get exaggerated numbers. 1st should read do you view Canada as an enemy of the United States. Not enemy OR unfriendly…. 2nd should just be do you support paying a higher price for goods from Canada? Asking loaded questions to dumb people gets exaggerated results, and the people who crafted it know this. You put tariffs in there, MAGA defaults yes. They do not know how tariffs work, but they know it’s a Trump thing.

    2
    1. Steven L. Taylor Avatar
      Steven L. Taylor

      @Jc But then what explains the variation over time?

      1. Jc Avatar
        Jc

        Trump has been speaking negative and trashing Canada as far back as 2017….when Election cycle started during Biden years…he amped it up. Not to mention it ramped up that chart during same time when his followers ears are all Trump and media was all Trump all the time. Question should just state Enemy. Would love to see a similar chart asking is Russia an enemy and unfriendly to US. It’s in decline since attacking Ukraine….bizarre. more GOP people consider them an ally now than back when they invaded Ukraine. Wtf? Like 40% enemy now vs 70% enemy at invasion…

  10. JohnSF Avatar
    JohnSF

    “When the maximum leader commands, we obey!”
    It’s so silly.
    One of the great strategic advantages of the US, since the British Empire decided better to get along, say post-1865, was a northern border that could be more or less ignored.
    And indeed, became a US defence-in-depth advantage with the DEW line etc.

    And now MAGA seem inlined to throw all that aside to pander to Trump’s pique.
    Utterly absurd.

    And the Republicans in Congress remain too cowed by MAGA to even squeak loudly about the idiocy of it all.

    1
    1. Steven L. Taylor Avatar
      Steven L. Taylor

      The stupidity of it all is off the charts.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest Posts