Support for Drone Attacks on U.S. Citizens Way Down

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Dave Weigel points out this morning an interesting change in public opinion. A year ago, 65 percent of the public approved of drone strikes against American citizens overseas. Today, it’s 41 percent.

Some of this might be due to a difference in question wording, but that can’t account for all of it. It’s too big a shift. The obvious conclusion is that public support has dwindled thanks to Rand Paul’s filibuster and related questions over John Brennan’s nomination to head the CIA.

If that’s the case, then you’d expect support to have dropped much more dramatically among Republicans than Democrats. Unfortunately, no internals are available for last year’s poll, so we can’t tell. Maybe I should ask the Washington Post’s polling director if they can make those numbers available. I’d be curious to see how this has really played out.

UPDATE: I misread the Post poll from a year ago. The net result is that 65 percent of the public approved of drone strikes on American citizens, not 79 percent. I’ve corrected the text. I’ll post another update if I get hold of poll internals showing how opinion has shifted among Democrats and Republicans.

UPDATE 2: Peyton Craighill of the Post has kindly sent along the internals of last year’s poll. Here’s how the net approval for drone strikes against American citizens has changed:

                2012    Today    Net Change
Democrats       58%      41%        -17
Republicans     76%      50%        -26
Independents    65%      35%        -30

There’s less of a difference here than I would have guessed. Republican support did indeed drop more than Democratic support, but not by a huge amount. And Independent support dropped by more than either.

At a guess, I’d say this suggests that maybe half the drop is based on a genuine reduction in support over the past year for drone strikes on U.S. citizens, while the other half is a semi-partisan reaction to Rand Paul. But that’s just a wild guess.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend