The U.S. remains by far the biggest supplier of military aid to Ukraine, having donated more than all other Western countries combined. And based on how much the war dominates discussion on the news and social media, you’d assume that it was foremost among Americans’ concerns.
But this doesn’t appear to be the case. In a Quinnipiac University poll taken on August 31st, Americans were asked:
In your opinion, what is the most urgent issue facing the country today: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, COVID-19, inflation, climate change, health care, racial inequality, immigration, election laws, abortion, gun violence, or crime?
The top answer was “inflation”, chosen by 27% of respondents. Next were “abortion”, “gun violence” and “climate change”, chosen by 9% of respondents each. Then came “immigration”, chosen by 8% of respondents. “Russia/Ukraine” was second to last, chosen by only 2% of respondents.
In fact, more respondents said “election laws” is the most important issue facing the country.
Back in May, Pew Research asked Americans whether the U.S. is providing too much or too little support to Ukraine. 42% said “too little”, and only 7% said “too much”. When they asked the same question in September, the percentages were 18% and 20%. (Though, of course, the U.S. did provide a lot of support in the interim.)
And what about ending the war?
Back in August, Gallup asked Americans whether the U.S. should “end conflict quickly, even if allow Russia to keep territory” or “support Ukraine in reclaiming territory, even if prolonged conflict”. 31% opted for the former, while 66% opted for the latter – a large majority against ending the conflict quickly.
Yet in a recent poll for the Quincy Institute, Americans were asked a very similar question and the pattern of responses was reversed. 57% said the U.S. should pursue diplomatic negotiations as soon as possible “even if it means Ukraine making some compromises with Russia” – whereas only 32% said the opposite.
The usual caveats about polling apply, of course: answers can vary a lot depending on how you ask the question; and recent events may shift opinion one way or another.
In the end, however, public opinion may not matter much for U.S. policy. As early as 2010, a majority of Americans favoured pulling troops out of Afghanistan. But the U.S. didn’t fully withdraw for another eleven years. So unless there’s a dramatic shift in opinion, I wouldn’t expect U.S. policy to change any time soon.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
What about Americans of Spanish heritage who believe they’re either male or female and don’t want their language mutilated by woketards¹? Are these also welcome?
¹ Latinx is a neologism invented by Democusans to avoid admitting that nouns are gendered in Spanish and that there are two kinds of these latinimals, a male (latino) and a female (latina) variant.
Talking of the US, I do chuckle when they go on about “Hispanics” as a discriminated against minority when what they mean is people from “Latin America” of mixed or full Central/South American Indigenous origin who happen to speak Spanish because the conquistadors imposed it, and they certainly don’t mean people of the conquistador race who are doing very nicely thank you- but they count as “Hispanic”
I think what they mean is People from Mexico or terrae incognitae even beyond that! and while the Spaniards reportedly mixed more with the Indian population than the Europeans who settled in Northern America, their descendents are still of European descent and have a culture mostly originating from here. They should really count as white but they speak neither English nor one of the European languages Americans usually ignore and hence, they’re global majority, too.
Unfortunately, I’ve long since stopped to find the incredible ignorance of these people amusing as they usually want to lecture all the world in an extremely patronizing way based on nothing but that.
Will, I appreciate that your job on the Sceptic brings you face to face day in, day out, with this sort of idiocy. But, that last sentence. “What haven’t the Conservatives banned this kind of nonsense yet.” No, just no.
Back in the days of Livejournal a friend wrote a post along the lines of “When Mrs Thatcher was first elected Keith Joseph undertook to repeal a tax law every year. What laws would you repeal? Here are some of mine.” Followed by the hunting ban, serious crime prevention orders, hate speech &c, &c, about a dozen reeled off without effort.
What happened in the comments thread was very interesting. Almost invariably, “I wouldn’t repeal laws, but I’d ban people who do this, that and the other.” You see this in “King for the Day” interviews as well “What would you do if you were King For the Day?” Almost always, “I’d make it illegal to do this.” “I’d ban these people.”
Banning seems to be a natural, human instinct. We should oppose it. Rather than banning adverts like the one above, we should repeal enough laws that it becomes natural to mock and ridicule them at every opportunity without fear of redress.
Excellent idea.
Totally agree as long as my tax £ is not being spent on it
Agree. They can say what they like as long as my tax is not spent on any of it. Mock it by all means.
What is required is a VACCINE. ——–What? Yes a vaccine for the Liberal Progressive Virus spreading all over the western world faster than a speeding bullet. If we take it and get the booster at Christmas we should see a reduction of symptoms whereby thoughts of social justice are eliminated, and equal justice returns.
I’m a black transgender lesbian in a wheel chair, although only when filling in forms, so should be guaranteed to get the job.
I feel like I face enough barriers and stigmatism as it is, do I also have to be an autistic drug dealer on top of everything else?
Clearly schizo too. That’s another plus
Have you ever robbed a bank? Or maybe even just mugged a little old lady?
Yes? you’re a shoo-in!
Gleefully they, and I, knew that I’d fucked with them at the interview being a very manly beardy Welsh lad…but they wouldn’t admit the flaw. It was a funny interview.
Needless to say, they didn’t offer me the position. It went to someone who Didn’t Earn It.
I am sorry to inform you that on this occasion your application has been unsuccessful.
May they find what they’re looking for.
Thats the best suggestion yet. They deserve to find someone that ticks all the boxes, except none of them will be working class.
This is insulting to group ‘working class’ with that collection. It’s doubly insulting as working-class is lumped with benefit-class as if there is some equivalence.
In addition the idea that someone identifies as deaf and/or disabled implies that they might not be but wish to say that they are.
(Why) haven’t the Conservatives banned this kind of nonsense yet?
Because they’re not actually conservative. That’s why..
If they’re successful in their search, the effects will be well-deserved.
(I did have a momentary thought that this might be a spoof?)
There’s a good pool of applicants who sit on the benches of Westminster or move in government circles. They probably meet most of the person specs for the job.
Was my idea as well: Criminal class could really be replaced with Civil servants and other Labour members welcome. We’d even take NHS managers if we must.
I think its a suitable job for the M.P.’s who are about to lose their seat at the next election, criminal class being at least one of the criteria they fulfill
I could simply self-identify with the above criteria
It’s Camden, what else would you expect?
It would have been easier simply to say straight white blokes and blokesses need not apply.
I can envision a Python-esque comedy sketch with a Theatre boss interviewing a prospective CE candidate:
“So, what do you think qualifies you for this position?”
“Well, I’ve never had any experience in the entertainment industry, but you see I’m just a poor immigrant crook who likes to cross-dress and call myself a woman. I have Attention Deficit Disorder if that helps. Oh yes, and I represent the Global Majority…can’t you tell?”.
“You start on Monday!”
Not really an issue for anyone wanting to apply (I wouldn’t) since it seems that anyone and his dog can identify as neurodiverse these days based on what I would consider to be normal variations in personality.
If whatever we’re supposed to call black/Asian people today is what they mean by global majority, then shouldn’t white people be considered a minority group that now needs protecting? Thought not.
Why does the state sponsor something which is obviously a communist ‘art project’? If there are really people interested in this people’s theatre, that is, people beyond the theatre people themselves, why don’t they pay for it?
This “Global Majority” phrase is an interesting piece of wokery. It seeks to widen the population of the UK to include the whole world, which is ofcourse how the open border leftists want everything to be. —A free for All. One planet, One Government, all of us happy and inclusive in our Progressive Utopia.
Yes, and where with a closed border UK the Ethnic Minority are prioritised, in an open border global ‘community’ we now become the ethnic minority, except the rules change so that our minority culture is subordinated within our own borders.
Perhaps related?
“These men are not incompetent or stupid. They are craft and brilliant. Consistency never has been a mark of stupidity if the diplomats who have mishandled our relations were merely stupid they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor. The fact that not one single mistake has fallen in our favor I would suggest that’s not incompetence that’s people working to a script.”
James Forrestal