Brooks v. Shafer: the Iraq War and Public Opinion

The defining moment of the Bush presidency has been the Iraq War. Over the nearly six years of the conflict, public opinion has fluctuated widely both in support of it and against it. Greg Shafer and David Brooks, writing shortly after the initial invasion, examine the effects of the war on public opinion. Greg Shafer argues that most of the wide-spread sentiment against the war has been stifled while David Brooks counters that the public has actually become more supportive of the conflict. Recent events, however, tend to support Shafer’s thesis.

One of, if not the most, important factors determining public opinion is the media which is responsible for nearly all information a typical American has access to regarding politics.
However, while Brooks remains largely neutral on the subject, Shafer criticizes the media’s coverage of the war in Iraq. Shafer argues that the coverage in the lead up to the war was nowhere near as critical as it needed to be, serving as “cheerleaders” when the invasion began. Successes, according to Shafer, were overblown while accounts of civilian casualties were nearly non-existent. Shafer points to the case of Peter Arnett who was widely criticized for his efforts during the first Gulf War where he reported on the accidental American destruction of an Iraqi milk factory. This event epitomized the disdain felt towards those who reported the gruesome realities of conflict. Shafer’s concern with regard to the media can be summarized in this way: How can the American public be expected to make informed decisions on public policy if the media cannot be trusted to cover both sides of an issue equally?

David Brooks twice mentions the media directly. The first time, he mocks those with anti-war sentiments by declaring how ridiculous it would be for the U.S to fabricate images of celebrating Iraqis. Brooks later mentions the media with regard to his fictional character “Joey Tabula-Rasa”. Brooks creates Joey to show how young people will observe the political events unfolding in Iraq and formulate an opinion in favor of the conflict largely because of the well-disposed news reports of progress there. Curiously, both Brooks and Shafer agree on the fact that the media covers the Iraq War in a positive light. However, Brooks believes this is because the Iraq situation is, in fact, satisfactory while Shafer argues that the negative side to the war is not being reported.

According to Shafer, the media is part of a growing problem. That problem is that it has become less and less acceptable to criticize authority, especially in the context of the War on Terror. Shafer uses examples such as disk jockeys who called for un-wavering support for the war during the early part of the conflict and the man who was arrested at a mall for wearing an anti-war t-shirt. Shafer’s fear is that such events, combined with the powers granted to the government by the Patriot Act, have created an environment where dissent is not welcome and those who do not agree with the war are labeled as “un-patriotic“. Shafer then asks whether this un-questioning support for a war (a war that Shafer argues has suspect motives) actually fits with the original American ideology. After all, the freedom of speech is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Americans are supposed to question their government and not blindly follow despotic rulers like the ones left behind in the Old World. Democracy works best if people continuously scrutinize their government. Shafer asks, if the U.S. continues to quash internal dissent with the likes of the Patriot Act, and the media continues to feed the public biased information, what difference is there between the U.S. and the nations it seeks to “liberate”?

On the other end of the spectrum lies David Brooks whose argument is that the dwindling amounts of anti-war sentiment are the result of a realization by those opponents of the Iraq War that Bush was actually correct. Though a somewhat laughable notion with hindsight, it is important to note that Brooks wrote this piece after the large scale operations in Iraq had ended with Iraq’s government defeated and victory declared. Brooks categorizes the opponents of the Iraq War into three “dream palaces”. Each palace is supposed to represent an idealistic school of thought far-detached from reality. These three palaces are those of the Arabists, who (according to Brooks) fail to recognize all that is flawed in the Arab world, the European Elitists who have a negative stereotype of Americans, and Bush Haters who are so blinded by a dislike of Bush that they disapprove of his policies regardless of what they might be.

Brooks believes that the war will changes most people’s beliefs to some degree as a result of its “success”. Though the Europeans will refuse to change their stereotype, the Arabists will believe that some reform might be possible, and the Bush Haters’ numbers will shrink, the group effected the most will be the silent majority. Brooks illustrates this phenomenon through the creation of Joey Tabula-Rasa (mentioned earlier). Joey represents an average young person with limited world knowledge. Joey is just now beginning to form a world opinion based, in large part, on the events concerning the Iraq War. Joey will be put-off by the radicals who oppose the war and will instead be pleased with the war coverage that he sees on the television: images of celebrating Iraqi citizen and proud American soldiers. These observations will place Joey firmly in the camp supporting President Bush in his quest against worldwide tyranny. In this way, Brooks envisions millions of young people forming a new generation of Republicans, Republicans who view the world in a realistic sense.

Over five years after these articles were written, the Iraq War continues to drag on. Instead of inspiring a new generation of Republicans, the war, combined with Bush’s failed domestic policies, has done the exact opposite by creating the new Democratic movement which swept Barack Obama to the office of president in a landslide victory. Shafer’s argument that anti-war sentiment was stifled is largely supported by events like the large-scale denouncing of the Dixie Chicks after one of the members claimed to be embarrassed that Bush was from her home state. As the recent elections have shown, however, that un-wavering support has significantly tapered off, with the ruling Republicans suffering a significant defeat. The flaw in Brooks’ argument, ironically, is that he is the one who actually fails to have a grip on reality. Brooks mocks the Bush Haters as believing that Bush stole the election and rules with a group of corporate cronies. Actual evidence shows both allegations to be true. Investigations revealed voting fraud in Florida, and Cheney’s former company was rewarded substantial contract to rebuild oilfields in Iraq without having to bid on them. If Bush was truly interested in defeating tyranny, he would have taken more action with regard to the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. The Joey Tabula-Rasas of America have observed Iraq and other Bush policies and rejected them. Bush did not help to solidify the Republican Party as Brooks believed he would. Bush destroyed it.