White House rhetoric notwithstanding, the Bush gang’s interest in polling is pretty well established. Especially when it comes to the war in Iraq, the president’s message has been shaped extensively by public opinion research conducted by Duke University political scientists Peter Feaver and Christopher Gelpi.
Feaver and Gelpi categorized people on the basis of two questions: “Was the decision to go to war in Iraq right or wrong?” and “Can the United States ultimately win?” In their analysis, the key issue now is how people feel about the prospect of winning. They concluded that many of the questions asked in public opinion polls — such as whether going to war was worth it and whether casualties are at an unacceptable level — are far less relevant now in gauging public tolerance or patience for the road ahead than the question of whether people believe the war is winnable.
“The most important single factor in determining public support for a war is the perception that the mission will succeed,” Gelpi said in an interview yesterday.
With this in mind, it makes sense that Bush’s speech on Iraq last week emphasized the notion of “victory” ad nauseum. As the NYT’s Scott Shane noted over the weekend, Bush used the word 15 times in the address; the president was surrounded by Plan for Victory” signs; and the word heavily peppered the accompanying 35-page National Security Council document titled, “Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.” These guys are nothing if not subtle.
It led many to assume that the White House was taking Prof. Feaver’s advice seriously. As it turns out, there was even more to it than just following Feaver’s suggestions.
The role of Dr. Feaver in preparing the strategy document came to light through a quirk of technology. In a portion of the document usually hidden from public view but accessible with a few keystrokes, the plan posted on the White House Web site showed the document’s originator, or “author” in the software’s designation, to be “feaver-p.”
According to Matt Rozen, a spokesman for Adobe Systems, which makes the Acrobat software used to prepare the document, that entry indicated that Dr. Feaver created the original document that, with additions and editing, was posted on the Web. There is no way to know from the text how much he wrote.
One, kudos to the Times for knowing the Acrobat trick. Two, according to Editor & Publisher, Prof. Feaver is now on leave from Duke, has joined Bush’s National Security Council staff, and has become a bit of a partisan hack. And three, the next time the Bush White House claims to have no interest in polls, remember this little incident.