This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis

yeah I am anti Busg but also anti MoveON

Aren't you reading a bit too much into that statement? It doesn't seem to me that they have a problem with his faith, per se, but with the sloppy methodology. Shouldn't George's faith require of him the kind of excellence and honesty that would drive him to update his methods?

And aren't they right when they say that the purpose of polling is "to faithfully and factually report public opinion"? Seems to me that it is, and if George's faith doesn't keep him honest to that mission, then what good is it (his faith, I mean)? That, it seems to me, is what MoveOn's point is. And if we get defensive about an apparent attack on our faith rather than saying, 'Hey, good point about the methodology. We'll address that right away" then we deserve their contempt, don't you think? I think you're being way oversensitive here.

Defensive? Oversensitive? Perhaps. I certainly have a lot of faults, and these are among them.

But look again at the ad. For the first three-quarters of the ad MoveOn.org rightly raises questions of methodology. Gallup's recent polls have shown some consistent disparities with other similar polls.

But then we transition to the point of the ad: an attack on Gallup for his faith. This is not just an add on to the message. It occupies the final place, leaving the final impression in the readers' minds: Gallup cannot be trusted. Why? Because of his methodology? No. He cannot be trusted precisely because of his faith.

Where's the connection between his faith and his methodology? MoveOn.org does not make any. Logically, this attack on his faith is a non sequitor. It does not necessarily follow that because Gallup has methodology problems, as MoveOn.org suggests, that the cause of those problems is his faith. The methodological problems in fact very likely have absolutely nothing to do with his religious faith. A recent poll from the L. A. Times a month or so ago, actually oversampled Democrats. No one raised questions as to the Times' pollster's religious commitments. A later poll from another organization oversampled from Republicans. No religious questions there. But now, some thirty-plus days from the election, MoveOn.org suddenly gets concerned about Gallup's methodology (which presumably hasn't changed in recent weeks). Where was MoveOn.org earlier? Hmmmm.

In point of fact, there's a real difference among polling groups as to whether political affiliations should be treated as a demographic (and thus should reflect certain percentages of the population's makeup), or as a non-demographical opinion and therefore left uncorrected.

But MoveOn.org doesn't mention any sort of specific legitimate methodological differences such as these. In fact, they don't even specifically say that Gallup's faith is the problem. They simply question his methodology, point out he's an evangelical, give his sense of vocation as it relates to his work as a pollster, and then allow us, the readers to make the connection: Gallup's poll cannot be trusted because he's (gasp!) an evangelical Christian! (Insert sting: Dum dum DUM!)

In other words, there's a whole host of hidden assumptions: that Gallup's evangelical faith causes him to want George Bush to win the election, that Gallup thinks by publishing polls favorable to George Bush it will shape public opinion (instead of record a snapshot of it) so that people are more favorable to Bush and go vote for him, AND that Gallup's faith causes him to consciously skew the results so that he accomplishes these ends. MoveOn.org doesn't even attempt to either specify these hidden assumptions let alone provide evidence of them.

I don't think I'm overreacting. I think I've got the point of the ad down cold.

I think the conclusion I come to--that MoveOn.org is hostile to Christian faith--is a legitimate inference from the methodology of their ad. To wit: make vague and unspecific references to methodological problems and then point out Gallup is an evangelical Christian. Because, after all, if one is an evangelical Christian one cannot be completely objective. Right?

If MoveOn.org were accepting of Christian faith, or even neutral toward it, then why make the point that they do about Gallup's faith?

The ad's point is that the problem with Gallup is that outdated models are being used, and Gallup's polls should not be trusted due to this. The last portion is hinting that his religious beliefs may be one of the factors for the model not being updated.

If the ad is meant to be an attack on faith, it’s Gallup's faith and not the Christian faith as a whole. Many claim themselves Christians and have beliefs that make other Christians cringe. I think both you and I would agree that lying/misleading people is not very Godly and shouldn't be done.

Rex:

No one has established that Gallup has lied or misled people. MoveOn.org certainly doesn't in the ad. Nor has anyone established that the problem with Gallup's methodology has anything to do with his faith. But MoveOn.org would definitely like you to think so. Or rather, would definitely like you to think that the problem is precisely because Gallup is an evangelical. In other words, the point is that if you're evangelical (or religious) you can't do an objective poll. If this isn't an attack on faith, I don't know what is.

Do you have any knowledge that Gallup has (deliberately or not) misled/lied to people and that he has done so on the basis of his religious convictions?

Clifton,

I think you’re reading too much into this and making some big accusations over something that isn’t there. Maybe you’d like MoveOn to seem like they hate religious folks because you don’t agree with MoveOn’s political leanings.

I don’t have any evidence that Gallup polls are not correct. However, if Gallup polls are vastly different than several other polls, one would believe that Gallup is incorrect since it is the outlier.

If Gallup polls are incorrect, then they are misleading people. If it is known that the model being used is incorrect, then they are deliberately misleading/lying to people. I don’t know which is the case, unfortunately. Perhaps you have knowledge supporting Gallup’s model and can show that the numerous other polls are correct. If so, please share.

Rex:

I have no agenda with regard to MoveOn.org. I have friends who are greatly enamoured of them and what they're trying to do. I myself am not a supporter, but I'm hardly a convinced critic.

Similarly, I have no stake in the Gallup organization. Every poll group has methodologies which reflect their agenda (political or no). I continue to go back to the LA Times poll (and others like them) who oversampled. Did anyone cry out, "Oh, that LA Times, they're typical liberal Christians, you can't trust their methodology"? Of course not.

I'm simply observing what MoveOn.org is doing in an ad they placed in one of the major newspapers in the country. You claim I'm reading too much into it, and then making implications about my own agenda. But you haven't dealt with my interpretation of the ad. Do you have an argument to counter my own?

Frankly, that MoveOn.org would pull a stunt like this is despicable.

Clifton,

I thought I had dealt with your interpretation of the ad. I apologize if I haven’t been clear.

I don’t see how you’re basing your interpretation on the statements in the ad. No where on the ad does it say you shouldn’t trust Gallup polls because the head of it he has a religion. The ad states you shouldn’t trust Gallup polls because the ratio they use in their models is incorrect. They give a reason as to why they believe the head of Gallup doesn’t change the ratio: the head, Gallup, has a belief that may affect the accuracy of the polls. However, their accusation says nothing about religion on a global basis, specifically Christianity. MoveOn believes Gallup should portray accurate statistics.

Thanks for the responses and take care. :)

I guess my question is, Why be so subtle? MoveOn is not known for making softball ads, but if this is an attack on Gallup's faith qua faith, it's definitely achieves a new level of offhandedness. That doesn't mean that MoveOn isn't contemptous of evangelicals; I imagine many of their members are. I just don't see this ad as attack on that.

I'm not a supporter of MoveOn by any means, but I just don't see what you're seeing. To you, it seems blatantly obvious, but you've got two guys here who are wondering where you're getting this. Shouldn't that cause you to at least moderate your remarks? When you say things like "Frankly, that MoveOn.org would pull a stunt like this is despicable" it's obvious that there is some really viceral feelings.

Rex:

You stated, "They give a reason as to why they believe the head of Gallup doesn’t change the ratio: the head, Gallup, has a belief that may affect the accuracy of the polls. However, their accusation says nothing about religion on a global basis, specifically Christianity. MoveOn believes Gallup should portray accurate statistics."

What is the belief that MoveOn.org clearly claims is the basis for the improper methodology? Is it just that Gallup has a belief? No. Specifically, that Gallup is an evangelical Christian.

Rhetorically, which I demonstrated above, but which I'll reiterate, MoveOn.org placed their main point, the point the reader is to leave with placed firmly in their mind at the very end, and it is the thesis of the add: Gallup cannot be trusted because he is an evangelical Christian.

If the reason Gallup cannot be trusted is based on a belief (evangelical Christianity) that is shared by literally millions here in the U.S., I find it very difficult to believe that evangelical Christianity itself is not also being attacked by MoveOn.org.

But since you apparently have a clearer view of this, you can then explain--in light of my specific points, please--how it is that my interpretation of the ad is incorrect.

J Michael:

You wrote: "To you, it seems blatantly obvious, but you've got two guys here who are wondering where you're getting this. Shouldn't that cause you to at least moderate your remarks? When you say things like "Frankly, that MoveOn.org would pull a stunt like this is despicable" it's obvious that there is some really viceral feelings."

If my response were based completely on my feelings, then it would be apparent that the argument I make is far from reasonable. If my interpretation is unreasonable, please demonstrate so (as I've requested Rex do). I've listed specific reasons in the form of an argument as to why the ad should be seen as an attack upon the evangelical Christian faith. So far the responses I've gotten have failed to deal specifically with the points of my argument, to show that they're fallacious, nor have offered a reasoned and different interpretation of the ad that shows a better account than does mine.

I don't mean to impugn either you or Rex, nor to claim that your interpretations/reactions to the ad are wrong. Perhaps I am indeed the one that is mistaken. But it will take a reasoned handling of my interpretation and a rational counter-interpretation for me to change my mind.

By the way, though I would have once been truthfully labelled as an evangelical Christian, it should be obvious from my blog that my faith is now as firmly Orthodox as it can be at this point of my conversion, so I am not reacting from the standpoint of one of the persons of the group I believe were attacked in the ad.

Is my response visceral? If by that you mean unreasoned, no. I've given my reasons. But if you mean that having rationally considered the ad and its interpretation, and that that understanding has led to a visceral reaction, then, yes, I suppose I am "guilty" of that. But then if I had clear evidence that my friend was being slandered, I could hardly be faulted for being angry in light of the evidence.

All:

If I may not-so-humbly offer that another group has reached the same inference I have about the ad:

The Angry Left's scornful attitude toward Christianity is another reason to think Republicans may be prospering more than MoveOn would like to believe.

From none other than yesterday's mid-afternoon Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web, "Impeach Gallup!"

Clifton,

The article you mention actually has a different interpretation than you do. While it mentions that it believe MoveOn has a scornful attitude towards Christianity, it also saw that the main point of the ad was to show that Gallup polls cannot be trusted due to their party estimate ratios. You claim the main point of the ad is to suggest that you can’t trust the poll because Gallup is an evangelical Christian.

You keep asking me to tell you why your interpretation is unreasonable and I keep telling you - No where on the ad does it say you shouldn’t trust Gallup polls because the head of it he has a religion. The ad states you shouldn’t trust Gallup polls because the ratio they use in their models is incorrect.

I realize you’re firm in your beliefs and regardless of what I say, you won’t agree, so I’m going to cease responding.

Rex:

If the point of the ad is what you say it is, then why bring up Gallup's faith at all?