Public Opinion

Our government, Abraham Lincoln reminded us in his Gettysburg Address, is “of the people, by the people, and for the people”—in short, a product and a reflection of the American public. So when you think about public opinion, the concept may at first seem quite straightforward—it is the opinion of the general public. In a society as large and diverse as ours, however, it is no easy job to determine the opinion of “the public.” It is therefore helpful to think of public opinion as a mechanism that quantifies the various opinions held by the population or by subgroups of the population at a particular point in time. A complete picture of the opinions of more than 318 million Americans is difficult to estimate but nevertheless insightful.

Public opinion is grounded in political values, but it can be influenced by a number of sources and life experiences. Despite the fact that we are a highly educated society, this advanced level of education has not directly translated into a more politically informed citizenry. Nearly two-thirds of Americans cannot name a single Supreme Court Justice and over one quarter has no idea which party controls the House or Senate. Those who are politically knowledgeable, however, tend to have more stable political opinions. Many experts and political commentators believe that since most people don’t base their opinions on specific knowledge, their opinions are neither rational nor reasonable.1

Other scholars have argued that a general sense of political understanding is enough to cast an informed ballot and to form reasonable political opinions.2 Therefore, even though most citizens cannot name the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, they can nevertheless form rational and coherent opinions on issues of public policy and political preferences. It is important to note that research on public opinion most often focuses on the voting population rather than on the general population. This is an important distinction, because the voting population is generally more educated and more politically knowledgeable than the general population.

The Relationship Between Public Opinion and Public Policy

To what extent should public opinion drive public policy? There are many answers to this question, and they reflect assorted takes on the nature of democracy itself. Of central importance is the role of the public in the governing process. How influential should public opinion be? How much attention should our political leaders pay to the public’s positions and attitudes? Some authorities believe (though they may not say this openly) that public opinion should have little influence on the behavior and decision making of our leaders. They argue that democracies need to limit the influence of the people, allowing the better-informed and more educated leaders to chart our path. Others argue that political officeholders should give great weight to the views of the people.

Those who believe that democracies need to limit the ability of the public to influence events argue that information must be controlled and narrowly shared. Leaders should do the thinking and the planning, and the masses should step up occasionally to select their leaders in periodic elections and spend the rest of their time as spectators.3 Many analysts are concerned that public opinion changes too easily and that people are too busy to pay much attention to politics. People are lacking in interest, not in intelligence. Some researchers have found evidence to support the notion that it might be best for leaders to minimize the impact of public opinion and to allow citizens to influence policymakers primarily through elections.4 This elitism was forthrightly expressed in the early days of our republic, but it is not widely acknowledged among political leaders and commentators today.

Historical Views

The Founders, on the whole, thought that too much influence was given to the preferences of the people under the Articles of Confederation. As you’ve seen, the Articles created a system that was responsive to the broad public but not receptive to the elite. In the new constitutional system they created, the Founders reacted by diminishing the relationship between the government and public opinion. The new system was designed to impose a sort of waiting period on the masses, reflecting the thought that officials should shape public opinion, not respond to it.

For example, Federalist No. 63 asserts that a “select and stable” Senate would serve as “an anchor against popular fluctuations,” which would protect the people from their “temporary errors.” In Federalist No. 49, Madison warns of the “danger of disturbing the public tranquility by interesting too strongly the public passions.” Hamilton argues in Federalist No. 68 for the indirect election of the president by a council of wise men (the Electoral College) who must not react too quickly to the passion of the people, and in Federalist No. 71 he further warns against following the “sudden breeze of passion” or listening to every “transient impulse” of the public.

The Founders saw the government as our guardian, protecting us from ourselves. They did believe that long-held views—those that lasted over the presidential term and the staggered Senate elections—should affect the course of government. They were more concerned with curbing transient (“here today, gone tomorrow”) opinions, which they viewed as “common.” Today, as we have become more educated and have adopted a political system with universal adult suffrage, people have come to expect their government to be open and responsive.

Contemporary Considerations

In direct opposition to this elitist theory—and by far the more commonly held view of contemporary political leaders and political scientists—has been a position based on pluralism. Whereas elitists have argued that complex decisions need to be made free from public pressure, pluralists believe that citizens should be informed and should participate in democratic decision making to ensure the health and vitality of the system. They argue that participation by the public gives legitimacy to the political process and governing officials. Pluralists urge officials to pay close attention to the desires of the people in charting their actions, because active participation is an essential part of a healthy democracy. This line of reasoning goes back to the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who believed that collective judgments were more likely to be wise and sound than the judgments of a few.

Political scientist Sidney Verba makes a strong case that public opinion, as measured by polls, should be heeded because polls are a more egalitarian form of political expression than other forms of participation, which tend to benefit the more educated and affluent. Since each individual has an equal (but small) chance of being selected to participate in a poll, there is a greater chance that the opinion of the broad public will be accurately determined. Some theorists insist that other forms of political expression are better gauges of public opinion, because they require more effort from people. Verba, however, presents a strong argument that economic differences between the affluent and the less affluent make it difficult for the views of the general population to be heard, because the wealthy are better able to articulate and present their points of view. Hence, to think that the concerns of all demographic groups could be fairly and accurately portrayed without public opinion polls is a bit utopian.5

The reality of the situation probably lies somewhere between these two theories. There are times when officials respond to the views of the people—especially when the opinion is fairly popular and when an issue is presented that offers a chance to gain a political advantage. If the voting population is interested in an issue and a dominant viewpoint emerges, elected officials will be under great pressure to pay attention to the opinions and act accordingly. Even unelected officials, including judges, are often influenced by public opinion.

At other times, officials pay less attention to the views of the public, including the views of voters. This is likely to happen when the public has focused relatively little attention on an issue. Officials may also choose not to be responsive when their convictions come into conflict with the views of the people. Elected officials may take unpopular positions that they nevertheless believe in, risking their public support for their beliefs. Knowing when to follow public opinion and when to resist it is one of the marks of a truly great political leader.

One example of public opinion not swaying government policy is in the area of gun control. Imposing some form of gun control is popular among a large segment of the citizenry (especially in times following a publicized gun tragedy), but significant federal gun control legislation is rare. Passed in 1993, the Brady Bill, which mandated waiting periods when purchasing handguns, was the first major federal gun control law since 1968—and it was allowed to quietly die in 2004 despite its popularity among a large majority of Americans. More recently, public opinion was overwhelmingly in favor of gun control legislation following the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, but no federal gun control legislation was passed.

Consider, however, a different example: drug policy. Following the highly publicized deaths of a few famous athletes, and with increased media coverage of drug abuse and the widespread availability of illicit drugs in the mid-1980s, the public became very concerned with drug abuse, citing it as the nation’s most important problem. Congress and the White House struggled to catch up with public concern, each quickly presenting initiatives to address the country’s “drug crisis.” Significant legislation passed, increasing the role of the federal government in a problem that historically had been viewed as primarily the responsibility of state governments. A major public service campaign was launched to persuade Americans to “just say no” to drugs. A federal “drug czar” was appointed, and a “War on Drugs” was declared.6 Unlike gun control, this example demonstrates the power of the public in influencing government to respond to a problem.

Why did the government respond to public concerns over drugs but fail to respond to the support for additional gun control provisions? Organized and powerful interest groups vehemently have opposed gun control, whereas no organized interest groups have opposed the War on Drugs. While accurate, this is the simple answer. The complete answer is far more complex. One reason why officials responded to the concern over drugs but not over guns is that people were more worried about the drug crisis than they were about assault weapons. In social science jargon, the drug crisis was simply more “salient” to the population. Moreover, the media reinforced the concern many felt about drug problems, but they did not focus much attention on concerns over the availability of military-style assault weapons. When public officials discuss issues and keep them in the limelight (as they did with drugs), public opinion can often be influenced.

The Relationship Between Public Opinion and Fundamental Values

Shared support for fundamental values tends to temper disagreements and leads to stability in public opinion. Countries that lack agreement on essential values tend to be far more volatile and to have higher levels of unstable public opinion. Most Americans agree on a number of key political values and are proud to live in the United States. Americans believe in majority rule, coupled with the need to protect minority rights. We see fair, free, and competitive elections as essential to our democracy. We feel a strong sense of national loyalty and patriotism, which together provide solid and crucial support for our governmental system. Even though we see problems, we would rather live here than anywhere else. But while we share many common values, we often disagree over their meaning and differ on specific policies related to these values.

Personal Liberty 

One area of broad agreement is support for personal liberty. Our country was founded on the idea of protecting individual liberties and freedoms. As you saw in Chapters 4 and 5, our Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to protect individual freedoms “from” and “to.” We are protected from unreasonable searches, from cruel and unjust punishments, and (with the Fourteenth Amendment) from discrimination. We are protected against infringement on our freedom to practice our religion freely, to express our minds, and to join with others in forming organizations. Most of us cherish these liberties, but the specific meaning of these freedoms can cause disagreement. Should hate groups have no limits on speech? Can the speech of the wealthy drown out the speech of the poor? When we move from the abstract to specific policies, there is often disagreement.

Individualism

In addition to freedom, Americans highly value the idea of individualism, a belief that goes back to the earliest days of our republic. A reverence for individualism and individual rights is central to our democracy, because the government is expected to protect individuals and design policies that enhance the chances of reaching self-fulfillment. It is also central to our economic system: At the heart of capitalism lies a belief in individualism that in many cases permits individual interests to win out over community interests. (Socialism, by contrast, values community needs over individual wants.) The spirit of individualism also stresses the right of citizens to own property and to control their earnings (hence the conflict over tax policies). Comparing the general sense of individualism in the United States to that in Europe provides a vivid example of how varied opinions can be.

Europeans generally expect their governments to address individual concerns, such as providing health care and alleviating poverty. They believe that such programs are valuable and should be funded. While Americans would like for everyone to have health insurance, for the most part we do not believe it is the government’s role to fund universal health insurance programs. The high level of conflict surrounding health care reform in the country since 2009 is evidence of this conflict. The root of this markedly different set of attitudes is the difference of opinion between individual and community responsibility.

Equality

Americans also strongly support the idea of equality, a complex notion involving both political and social aspects. There is near-universal support for political equality: The notion of one person, one vote is deeply embedded in our culture. However when we speak of equality in our society—meaning economic equality, educational attainment, social status, and power, for example—the issue becomes more complex. Most of us believe in the idea of equality of opportunity (the belief that everyone should have a chance of success), but many Americans find the idea of equality of outcome (using the government to ensure equality) more controversial. Examples of policies that grant equal opportunities for success are public schools and public defenders for people accused of crimes who cannot afford their own lawyers. In contrast, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which required employers to pay men and women equal wages for equal work, was motivated by a belief in equality of outcome. Today, the idea of equal wages for both sexes is not controversial, but other policies to promote equality are.

Affirmative action is an example of a public policy that tries to achieve equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, depending on how the policy is designed. Affirmative action in college admissions and scholarships provides equality of opportunity, as many well-qualified students might not otherwise have a chance to attend college. Affirmative action in granting governmental contracts to minority-owned construction firms, for example, is motivated by the goal of equality of outcome, ensuring that these firms are treated equally and without bias in business. Current controversies over affirmative action, however, provide a good example of how even though many people agree on the basic notion of equality, disagreement occurs when we put these values into action.