Does America Have an Anti-War Majority?

A new Zogby America poll claims: "A majority of likely voters -- 52% -- would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election" ("Zogby Poll: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran," 29 October 2007).

It should be noted that this Zogby poll showing a pro-war majority is an exception to other recent polls: e.g., the 12-14 October 2007 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll reports that only 29% favor "military action in Iran" and 68% oppose it; and the 4-8 September 2007 CBS News/New York Times poll says that a mere 9% want "military action now," 59% go for "diplomacy now," and 24% even think that Iran is "not a threat" requiring any action ("Iran," PollingReport.com, 31 October 2007).

Why does the Zogby poll show such a dramatically different result than others?

The Zogby poll came out the way it did because it gave another option to support a military strike against Iran beyond a simple three-way choice of "favor, oppose, or unsure," the option appealing to "cruise missile liberals" who don't trust the Bush White House but are waiting for a liberal feminist empire presided over by the next POTUS Hillary Rodham Clinton:

There is considerable division about when a strike on Iran should take place -- if at all. Twenty-eight percent believe the U.S. should wait to strike until after the next president is in office while 23% would favor a strike before the end of President Bush's term. Another 29% said the U.S. should not attack Iran, and 20% were unsure. The view that Iran should not be attacked by the U.S. is strongest among Democrats (37%) and independents, but fewer than half as many Republicans (15%) feel the same. But Republicans are also more likely to be uncertain on the issue (28%). (emphasis added, "Zogby Poll: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran," 29 October 2007)

Among the four camps of Americans, the No War camp is still the largest, and we'll continue to have an anti-war majority till the end of George W. Bush's term, but we have to think about how to sway, directly or indirectly, the 23% who say "the U.S. should wait to strike until after the next president is in office."

Reading Arendt in Caracas

The Nation magazine shows its true class colors again.

Elisabeth Young-Bruehl article in The Nation online (17 August 2007), "Reading Arendt in Caracas,"¹ is very much in line with The Nation's previous anti-Chavez article: Joaquín Villalobos, "Revolution in Venezuela?" The Nation, 9 July 2007 (see, also, letters to The Nation regarding this article). It is surely the case that Hugo Chavez and Chavistas are not liberal in the way that Hannah Arendt² and her fellow New York intellectuals would have desired and many petit-bourgeois university students in Venezuela and The Nation do today. Good for Venezuela. No authentic social revolution in the interest of the poor majority can be a politically liberal one, least of all in the global South.

1 The title of the article is a variation of Azar Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran which has been incisively criticized by Hamid Dabashi: "Native Informers and the Making of the American Empire," Al-Ahram Weekly (No. 797), 1-7 June 2006. Recall, also, that Dabashi, too, was attacked in The Nation recently for his failure to toe the liberal party line: Janet Afary and Kevin B. Anderson, "The Iranian Impasse," 16 July 2007.
2 Reuven Kaminer, an Israeli leftist, says that Arendt's worst writings -- about the faulty concept of "totalitarianism" -- have been lauded while her best ones -- especially about her skepticism about Zionism -- have been ignored: "On the Concept 'Totalitarianism' and Its Role in Current Political Discourse," MRZine, 15 August 2007.