Resurgent Republic

TO: Stan Greenberg
 
FROM: Whit Ayres
 
DATE: May 22, 2009
 
RE: Your Wording on “Torture” Question

After Resurgent Republic released our first survey, you criticized us for including this wording as the perspective of the left: “Government policies should promote fairness by narrowing the gap between rich and poor, spreading the wealth, and making sure that economic outcomes are more equal.” You argued that including the phrase “spreading the wealth,” despite the fact that it came directly from the President’s mouth, was pathetically out-of-touch,” and failed to “respect the other side’s argument.” So it was with great interest that I read the question on harsh interrogation techniques in your latest poll:

Now I'm going to read you some pairs of statements.  After I read each pair, please tell me whether the FIRST statement or the SECOND statement comes closer to your own view, even if neither is exactly right:
 
It is sometimes justified for U.S. officials to torture detainees, such as to prevent terrorist attacks.
OR
It is never justified for American officials to use torture to get information from detainees.  
 
With this phrasing, you found a margin in favor of the first statement, 50 to 44 percent.
 
By using the word “torture,” you adopted the language of the left to supposedly argue the position of the right. But defenders of harsh interrogation techniques would never use the word “torture” to argue for their position.
 
In contrast, we asked:
 
Now I would like to read you several pairs of statements that might be made by policymakers about harsh interrogation of detainees, and have you tell me, for each pair, which one you agree with more:
 
Congressman A says America should never use harsh interrogation techniques on detainees, because they are torture. Those techniques undermine our values, hurt our standing in the world, endanger American troops who might be taken prisoner, and yield little or no useful information that could not be obtained by other means.
 
Congressman B says that, while harsh interrogation techniques of detainees should be used only rarely, they may be necessary in exceptional situations to protect the country. Those techniques are justified when they are the only
way to stop the murder of another 3000 innocent Americans in another 9/11.
 
In this case, voters are presented with a complete argument that is true to both sides.  And they agree with Congressman B by a 61 to 34 percent margin.
 
In your letter, you wrote, "Nothing is more self-defeating than attributing to the Democratic argument the language and themes Republicans use to attack Democrats rather than the language Democrats use themselves."  
 
That is good advice for both of us.