The good people at C-SPAN Radio re-air the five Sunday morning news programs in the afternoon, and then the roundtable discussions again on Monday morning. I missed the programs yesterday, but caught the roundtables this morning. The results were illuminating, if not actually surprising. At a time when Americans oppose military action in Syria by wide margins, the views of the political class appearing on the Sunday shows tilted decisively in the other direction: Washington wants air strikes; many here want more than that. If Congress ultimately votes to grant President Obama approval to attack Syria, it will be obvious who the members are listening to: their cocktail party and green room friends, not their constituents back home.
By my quick calculation, 81 percent (9 of 11) of the morning show panelists or hosts clearly favored military action, while only 2 of 11 were clearly opposed. Washington's pro-intervention bias is even more apparent when one counts those participants who appeared to lean yes (9); while only one leaned no (1). Few came out and said, "I support," or "I don't support," so I've tried to infer from what they did say. And 6 of the 27 people appearing on the shows didn't hint sufficiently one way or the other. I did not consider what these individuals might have said or written elsewhere. I'm going solely on the basis of what they said on yesterday's programs. One can check my admittedly subjective coding below.* If you disagree, send me an email.
Newt Gingrich, one of the new hosts of CNN's relaunched "Crossfire," made the best succinct case in opposition to strikes from the perspective of the American people: "A) I don't understand why it's our problem, B) I doubt very much that we can fix it, and C) the guys who are against Assad strike me as about as sick as Assad is."
The case for intervention boiled down to chemical weapons are bad, and, in the words of Juan Williams on Fox News Sunday, "We are not the world's policeman," but "now we have to act as a fireman because the world is on fire."
I expect better from the Obama administration officials who will try to convince the American people--or, failing that, members of Congress--to go along. The White House's full-court press started yesterday, and will build to a crescendo this week, highlighted perhaps by the president's prime-time speech tomorrow evening. (I'll be live blogging, check back here). In the meantime, various lobbies are pushing for intervention, but a few, including FreedomWorks and Heritage Action on the right, are lobbying against. FreedomWorks' foray into foreign policy is particularly noteworthy, because the organization has typically avoided such fights. FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe explained that the organization had been "overwhelmed" with requests for help in rallying opposition to strikes. Linking this position to the group's traditional focus on fiscal matters, Kibbe said that even limited military action could have serious consequences for the U.S. economy.
This is one of the most contentious fights that I've seen in recent years, and it is all the more interesting because it does not break down neatly along partisan lines. Among the 18 morning show advocates for intervention (yes or lean yes), nearly half (8) traditionally support Republican candidates and causes.
In short, if Obama gets his way, he'll have Republicans in Washington to thank. And nearly everyone here will have ignored the public's wishes.
* In favor of military action, 9 (David Axelrod, Donna Brazile, Jane Harman, Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), Bill Kristol, Danielle Pletka, Karl Rove, Dan Senor, Juan Williams); lean yes, 9 (Candy Crowley, Stephanie Cutter, David Frum, Ana Navarro, Bob Schieffer, George Stephanopoulos, Greta Van Susteren, Chuck Todd); opposed, 2 (Newt Gingrich, Katrina vanden Heuval); lean no, 1 (Van Jones). No clear opinion, 6 (David Gregory, Brit Hume, Howard Kurtz, David Sanger, Chris Wallace, Bob Woodward).