Gyroscope

A newsletter for those unmoved by spin.
No. 33, March 15, 2004

Subscribe

Change Address

Unsubscribe

Comment

Is the victory of the Socialist party in Spain a "victory for terrorism" as has been widely trumpeted in the U.S. media? That's a very inflammatory claim: that Spanish voters surrendered to al Qaeda, bringing on derisive chest-thumping comparisons to the French. But does the claim hold up? Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler has been pointing out how weak the data is to support this. The Economist's most recent issue (3/20/04) both contains editorials and news articles that make the claim but also contains new data that actually refutes it.

The case for this claim is first of all based on the idea that voters changed their mind because of the bombing. First, did they even change their minds? The Economist reports that the opinion pole right before the bombing had the People's Party of Prime Minister Aznar ahead, but points out that the race was narrowing. In the end the PP lost by 42.6% to 37.6%. So at most, there may have been a shift of 4 to 5 percent in the electorate - a shift in the same direction as was already occurring. Thus if the shift without the bombing would have been perhaps 1 or 2 %, then the change due to the bombing might be 3 to 4 %. That is a shift, but a very small one. It hardly justifies blanket condemnations of the entire electorate.

But, if this shift of 3 or 4% occurred, why did it occur? The claim that this is a victory for terrorism also requires an attribution of motive: voters changed their minds as an act of appeasement, hoping to cringe sufficiently to encourage al Qaeda to go bomb someone else. The Economist, however, gives two other reasons for the shift.

First, in the days after the bombing Mr. Aznar's government attempted to pin the blame for the bombing on the Basque terrorist group, ETA. The Economist reports that this was seen by some voters as a cynical ploy to strengthen the government's position. When the claim of ETA involvement proved to have been made without evidence, anger was generated at the government. You can't blame Al Qaeda for that.

Secondly, the Economist reports that turnout for the election was higher than expected, an increase from 69% to 77% of the electorate. And who are those less likely to vote? As in America, so in Spain, apparently, they are less likely to be wealthy and more likely to be liberals. The bombing may have motivated more to get out to vote. These were votes going to the Socialist party anyway, not voters that changed their minds.

So this great 'surrender' turns out to be pretty tame. Remember, over 90% of Spanish voters objected to the war in Iraq. The current Prime Minister had been in power for eight years and people were getting tired of his style. The election didn't so much reflect a change in popular opinion as it revealed it.

It's understandable though why the claim that this is a surrender to terrorism gets made. It is dust thrown up to obscure that yet another fact has emerged that is contrary to the story that Bush wants to put out. People in Europe do not oppose the war in Iraq because they sympathize with al Qaeda, hate western television, are cowards or even because they want to sell things to the Mid East. Many opposed the war because they thought the case for intervention had not been made, the claim of WMD was weak, and because they thought it might stir up more terrorism.

So far, they haven't been proven wrong.

A follow-up on last weeks story about gas prices is provided by the current issue of Business Week that confirms that problems in the U.S. refinery industry are a significant factor in raising prices at the pump. In fact, despite the absence of slack in the system, oil companies have closed some smaller refineries recently.