Educated Canadians Support the Mission: It's a Fact!

Sometimes I give more than just a headshake when it comes to the Afghan mission and polls. The absolute dead seriousness that pollsters and the MSM give slight changes in polling numbers is numbing ... and more than a bit tiring. Big changes in polling trends are different, but tweaks up or down from month to month are hardly worth talking about. Furthermore, there is a danger that polling can supersede the democratic process. We have elections, and it is through elections that we decide who will lead us according to their record and promised policies … to then submit to pollsters and the whims of the populace and have governments govern by polls … is in my humble opinion akin to mob rule.

So it is that I discuss the latest Afghan opinion poll with more than a shred of skepticism. The National Post reports on the poll as follows:

The latest numbers show a continuing drop in support for the mission since it reached a peak in the fall of 2006 at 57 per cent. In April 2007, support had slipped to 52 per cent, and now to 50, according to the polling firm's data.

Not much of a change as far as I can tell; and common sense suggests that a 7% change is hardly a trend given the foibles of polls.

The National Post goes into a discussion as to why the polling numbers may be good news for the CPC … it’s all about demographics and education and such. In a nutshell, if you are educated and know a thing or two about the world, you are more likely to support the mission:

Bricker said it's important to note the demographics of the people who are supportive of the mission. The poll found that Canadians with a university degree were the most likely to support the mission and nearly six in 10 Canadians whose households earn at least $60,000 a year were among those who are supportive.

"What I think that we're seeing a little bit of here is that people who are a little bit more worldly, that are more plugged into the idea of Canada in the world, seem to have a bit more tolerance for this because they actually see the payoff as being more significant than simply just a sacrifice of troops,"

[…]

"The other good thing about this for the government is that these people are more likely to vote,"

The National Post doesn’t however, take the next logical step in this train of thought, which is that those who are less educated and don’t know diddly about the world are more likely to oppose the mission.

It’s a fact … honest … according to the polls!

And finally, the poll does strike one of my sore spots, that being that the one province in Canada which gets massive defense industry expenditures lavished on it, opposed the mission the most:

In Quebec, where the Conservatives are eager to gain ground, support for
the mission remains low. The poll found that just three in 10 residents
there support the mission while 65 per cent either strongly oppose or somewhat oppose the combat operations.

I guess the definition of a “leeching region” would be a geographic region where the people philosophically oppose something but are more than willing to benefit financially from it. In this case, Quebecers scream and whine like Negative Nancies whenever they miss a defense contract because they have no problem building the tools of war … but they hate war; apparantly.

Pacifists who love the arm's industry … only in Canada!

Which leads me to my final thought … what would the polling numbers be if Quebecers were removed from the formula? Canadians support the mission, that’s what, and by a fairly large margin. And, it is an educated and worldly bunch at that.

Note: If anyone can track down the source link to this piece, I'd appreciate it. Somehow the link got scrubbed (likely my error).