[Industrialblog,
April 6, 2004]
On the Purported Spanish Appeasement
For some reason, the link isn't working to Jonah Goldberg's entry in The Corner today, so I'm cutting and pasting:
AL QAEDA V. SPAIN [Jonah Goldberg ]
Al Qaeda is allegedly turning up the heat on Spain. This is an amazing and amazingly undercovered development. If it's true, the conventional wisdom about al Qaeda winning a victory by knocking Spain out of the coalition shouldn't be overturned so much as revised. If that had truly been al Qaeda's goal they would have been very, very smart to pocket the victory and attack Britain or Poland. Instead, by increasing the attacks on Spain they underscore the stupidity of Spain's appeasement since that appeasement bought Spain nothing.
***
My objection here is to the common assumption among my friends on the right that the Spanish voters voted in the Socialists shortly after the bloody March 11 attacks in order to appease the terrorists. (I equally object to the notion from my opponents on the Left that the Spanish voted to reject the Conservatives in power because of the War on Iraq, or because of purported manipulation of the events by conservatives for political gain.)
My best guess -- is that this is about mathematics, not intention. The results of the March 14 election were about voter turnout. In that sense, Al Qaeda acted brilliantly. The bombings on March 11 dramatically increased voter turnout -- and since most people in Spain are socialists, not conservatives, the election tipped naturally to the socialists. The conservatives may have won among voters who planned to vote on March 14 -- but the March 11 attacks increased the number of voters completing their civic duty, and the percentage differential between the socialists and the conservatives took care of the rest.
Let me put it this way: There are a lot more registered Democrats or people who self-identify as Democrats in this country. That's why Democrats talk about "getting out the vote." Democrats worry a lot about rain or rough weather on election day: The fear is Republicans are more motivated voters, and thus show up in greater percentages than Democrats, regardless of weather and circumstances.
A terrorist attack that resulted in increased voter turnout would most likely hand the election to the Democrats. Would everyone consider that appeasement?
AL QAEDA V. SPAIN [Jonah Goldberg ]
Al Qaeda is allegedly turning up the heat on Spain. This is an amazing and amazingly undercovered development. If it's true, the conventional wisdom about al Qaeda winning a victory by knocking Spain out of the coalition shouldn't be overturned so much as revised. If that had truly been al Qaeda's goal they would have been very, very smart to pocket the victory and attack Britain or Poland. Instead, by increasing the attacks on Spain they underscore the stupidity of Spain's appeasement since that appeasement bought Spain nothing.
***
My objection here is to the common assumption among my friends on the right that the Spanish voters voted in the Socialists shortly after the bloody March 11 attacks in order to appease the terrorists. (I equally object to the notion from my opponents on the Left that the Spanish voted to reject the Conservatives in power because of the War on Iraq, or because of purported manipulation of the events by conservatives for political gain.)
My best guess -- is that this is about mathematics, not intention. The results of the March 14 election were about voter turnout. In that sense, Al Qaeda acted brilliantly. The bombings on March 11 dramatically increased voter turnout -- and since most people in Spain are socialists, not conservatives, the election tipped naturally to the socialists. The conservatives may have won among voters who planned to vote on March 14 -- but the March 11 attacks increased the number of voters completing their civic duty, and the percentage differential between the socialists and the conservatives took care of the rest.
Let me put it this way: There are a lot more registered Democrats or people who self-identify as Democrats in this country. That's why Democrats talk about "getting out the vote." Democrats worry a lot about rain or rough weather on election day: The fear is Republicans are more motivated voters, and thus show up in greater percentages than Democrats, regardless of weather and circumstances.
A terrorist attack that resulted in increased voter turnout would most likely hand the election to the Democrats. Would everyone consider that appeasement?
Not saying they didn't go through the madrassas, or have the whole Islam v The West thing going, but damn, I wish they would at least read the CIA world factbook or something before coming to their strongly held, erroneous beliefs.
In what way, exactly, do the terrorists in question being moroccan terrorists make this any more or less a matter of spain pulling out because they perceived the terrorism to be a response to their involvement with the US led force in Iraq?
(note: the new guy (it's late and I forget the title; president or PM, it doesn't matter) did say that he intended to pull the troops out long before the terrorist strike, yet it doesn't occur to him that the voters putting him in office might be connected to this position and only something that affected them after 3/11)
The fact we're missing is a survey of voters who changed their minds after 3-11.
CTL: Yeah, I was wondering if the Socialists will reverse themselves. You never know. We won't know until the new prime minister gets his first REAL intelligence briefing, and realizes the responsibility for dealing with threats is his.
ctl: "president or PM, it doesn't matter"
Bill: "The fact we're missing is a survey of voters who changed their minds after 3-11."
You made my point for me, guys.