Politicians have been disregarding public opinion and public opinion polls since time immemorial.

Barack Obama's campaign (at this phase) is a prime example of how a campaign, but more specifically a party, seeks to move public opinion towards particular policies, rather than respond to public opinion.

Obama ran in the primaries as the leader of "change we can believe in" to reel in the gullible and the politically naive. Then he switched gears when he became the presumptive nominee, and moved away from many of the positions that enabled him to nail the nomination, and is now the water carrier for major contributors and interest group allies.

But, Obama isn't the only polished politician to ignore public opinion.

Recall Michael Powell's contempt for public opinion during the brouhaha about the proposed FCC rule changes. There were over 18,000 public statements filed electronicallly, with 97% opposing media concentration, nonetheless Powell raised his middle finger to those who expressed their contrarian views.

Recall Dick Cheney's comment to Marth Raddatz from ABC News: "On the security front, I think there's a general consensus that we've made major progress, that the surge has worked. That's been a major success," Cheney told Raddatz.

When asked about how that jibes with recent polls that show about two-thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it, Cheney replied, "So?"

"You don't care what the American people think?" Raddatz asked the vice president.

"You can't be blown off course by polls," Cheney responded.

Recall the lead up to Bush's War of Choice on Iraq -- public opinion, worldwide, was largely against the possibilty of the looming war, yet Bush started his war anyway. And how was he ultimately rewarded for going against public opinion? He was re-elected in 2004, the year after he his Iraq War commenced. He was able to win, in part, because the Republican Party and the mass media moved public opinion to their advantage, by focusing more attention on the conflict between political elites and parties, than on focusing their attenton on the substance in policy debates.

Obama is just the latest example of a typical politician who gets to a certain position of power, then ignores the people who initially invested their faith, time, and money in him.

Glenn, I agree with about 99% of what you write on your blog, the most glaring exception being your tacit support for voting Democrat even when the party betrays its core supporters and principles. Pledging fealty to the two party system, even if it is for pragmatic reasons, strikes me as silly in the current circumstances.

Exactly!

RICK WARREN @ the Pew Forum: Here's the second myth. The second myth is that mega-churches are politically active. In fact, you don't get to be a mega-church if you get involved in other issues. You would find that most of the churches that are politically active tend to be medium- or small-size churches. They are not the largest churches. And because they tend to get caught up in a political agenda, they don't grow to the size of others. The largest churches tend to focus on issues like the ones that we're focused on.

Not politically active? He has the "influence" to get the major party presidential nominees to come running when he snaps his fingers and he's not "politically active?" Oh, I love it when these proselytizers with 80,000 members on their church roster lie through their teeth.

http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=80

No. And one reason is that the Democrats are so willing to out-pander the Republicans, which really turns people off.

The why bother syndrome kicks in and people stay home from the voting booth.

I never read National Review, but now I just read this by Lisa Schiffren, which Alex refers to:

David Gergen, a man whose shallow thoughts have reached the ears of  too many presidents, made the point that Obama is a great story, and his campaign knows how to make things newsworthy, while McCain is boring, and his campaign is boring and therefore not newsworthy. That, not bias, according to Gergen, explains the majority of the additional coverage he gets. What constitutes newsworthy? Gergen cited the fact that McCain is going to give his convention acceptance speech in the normal convention venue, while Obama is going to do his at a stadium packed with 70,000 people. To me, this is evocative of something Leni Riefenstahl might have documented. But the word Gergen used, over and over was "sizzle."

I think it's a stretch to claim that Schiffren compared Obama to Hitler. She was referring to a propaganda technique, used by many filmmakers and videographers; hence, Riefenstahl's was an apt name to invoke because she was hired to help a "movement" gain acceptability and a wdier audience. Schiffren was suggesting that the Obama campaign was going to use "spectacle" to their advantage, to move, impress, and appeal to a larger audience -- i.e. to those people who are more influenced by the "sizzle" than they are by the substance of a political campaign.

The Obama campaign intends to use the large, 70,000+ seat venue for his acceptance speech to construct their "reality" (the one they are creating through well-calculated imagery) that will convince viewers at home that Obama is a Leader of a Movement, that Obama will Lead the Nation to Greater Things.

Obama sure doesn't have much traction.

I just don't think that THAT sort of compromise would sit well. They might begin to wonder about things.

Susan, if you're using the word "wonder" as meaning to doubt or question, there is no chance of THAT occurring.... Obama supporters, for the most part, don't "wonder" about any of his moves, they accept all of his moves with adulation and a total lack of curiosity or doubt about his purity.

Obama the Wunderkind is their man, flip-flops, selling out on the Constitution or not.

It'd be nice if he picked a Dem -- then there'd be at least ONE on the ticket.