Patterns of Public Opinion

Since the American government serves the citizens, the government acts in the interest of the population and public opinion is often used as a judgment for the quality of the government. Many Americans are either poorly informed about politics or simply do not associate themselves much with the political world, though, so they lack the knowledge to form meaningful opinions on government action. Still, some citizens do care and pay attention to politics. These are the Americans who can provide meaningful answers to questions dealing with what they think about the government. As a whole, these are the people that make up the American public opinion. When looked at as an aggregate whole, the opinions of the uninformed are seen as scattered data that cancel each other out, but the opinions of those who care about politics align together to form what is seen as the American public’s opinion. Technically, the public opinion data that political scientists analyze could be random, meaningless numbers with the only pattern being the law of averages. However, the variation in the data corresponds to real-world events like elections and crises, illustrating that changes in public opinion are not random. They are directly related to what was happening in the government or elsewhere in the world. The close relationship between public opinion and real-world occurrences depicts that public opinion in America holds true meaning and directly affects the actions of the government. Public opinion is dynamic, not fixed (Stimson p. 9-10). It changes over time in response to what is going on around the world. To understand why public opinion plays an effective role in American politics, shifts in opinion can be observed in two categories: long-term changes and short-term changes. Long-term changes can happen over the course of a few years and they can be seen over the course of one or more presidency, while short-term changes happen day-to-day and are most often examined during campaign seasons. Both types of change hold valuable meaning and shape government action. Public opinion changes in the course of the long term because it is difficult, probably impossible, for the government to precisely meet the public’s wishes. Voting, as Stimson puts it, is a “censoring” process (Stimson p.61). Voters cannot vote for individual preferences and are forced to vote for whichever candidate shares most of their opinions. The preferences of election winners are often too liberal or conservative for the moderate preferences of most people, so the public receives a form of what they request that is too extreme. Stimson describes this concept as thermostatic opinion change and explains, evidence shows “movements in policy preference away from the chosen direction of the party in power” (Stimson, p. 81). From 1960 to 2000, the only three presidents to leave office with increased liberal or conservative preference from the time they entered office were Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Throughout history, the American public has tended to receive from the government too much of what they request, resulting in a public opinion that oscillates, always moving away from the preferences of the party in power. If public opinion behaves in this thermostatic manner by responding to government actions, then in a long-term sense, public opinion is meaningful. It provides politicians with the feedback that indicates how much government intervention is desired at the time. This theory of opinion change in the long-term suggests that the public’s preferred level of liberalism before an election will determine the outcome of the election. For example if people generally want less government action, they will elect the more conservative candidate. In this case, there would be no purpose for campaigns, however evidence shows this is not necessarily true. During campaign season, the short-term, day-to-day shifts in public opinion are closely examined. The election between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter in 1980 was during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. The news that citizens received each day about the crisis directly affected the presidential standings in the polls (Stimson p. 1). The Iranians knew if Carter was concerned about falling behind in the polls if he did not make progress with the hostage situation before election day (Stimson p. 1). Taking advantage of the pressure on Carter, the Iranians announced new conditions for the release of the hostages. Days later, Carter fell behind Reagan in the polls by five points, which increased to ten points before he dropped out of the race (Stimson, p. 1). If the Hostage Crisis and the election were separated by only a few days, Carter may have won the election. The small day-to-day changes in public opinion that seem trivial can have major effects on the government. Stimson identifies campaigns as a flow of information in which candidates are displaying the facts about the current state of the nation and delivering their campaign messages to the public. Not all citizens pay attention to politics all year round, but during campaigns, most people keep themselves updated. Stimson divides citizens into three categories: the passionate, the uninvolved, and the scorekeepers (Stimson, p.163). The passionate citizens are the people who always pay attention to politics and they are committed to their preferences. Because of their commitment, they provide the balance in an election. They are concerned about politics, so they contribute to the primary elections and when the general election begins, they cast their vote early on, as they are sure of their choice. The uninvolved never pay attention to politics and their opinions seem random. Following no pattern, these people’s choices lack meaning and show no common tendencies. The scorekeepers are between the previous two types. They do not normally pay attention to politics, except for campaigns. During campaign season, the scorekeepers tune into the news and begin thinking about their decision. Since they do not normally think about politics, they are not strongly committed to one side of any issue. They base their decision more on what they think will be best for the country. Stimson credits the scorekeepers for tipping elections one way or another. The campaigns determine whom they vote for, as they wait to gather information before they cast their vote. It can be difficult to imagine that a small part of the population can make much of a difference in an election, but they do (Stimson, p. 161). Stimson wrote, “political change that matters is at the margin” (Stimson, p. 161). He means that elections are won by the small percent of voters that do not care much and are not committed to one side. He’s talking about the scorekeepers. It is their votes that are undecided and can make a difference. Throughout their campaigns, candidates are fighting to win the opinion of the scorekeepers because those are the opinions that will determine the winner of the election. The power of the preferences of the few citizens at the margin in elections portrays the effect that public opinion can have on the government. So, public opinion shows meaning and effect in the long-term between campaigns and in the short-run during campaigns themselves, but there is another aspect of public opinion that deserves recognition. Stimson says government approval seems is generic and moves in tandem across all political positions (Stimson, p. 154). The president, senators, Congress as a whole, governors, and the level of trust in a government all have roughly the same changes in approval over time (Stimson, p. 148-153). Approval for all the positions seemed to be based on the overall state of the nation. The similar changes in approval could not have been coincidental. The close correlation between approvals of all the positions over time suggests that public opinion must be meaningful. Being only one person in a population of over three hundred million people, it is difficult to imagine the significance of a single person’s opinion, but it is the preferences of the population as a whole, on a broad scale, that has more apparent meaning. We have seen the public’s preference shift through different levels of liberalism over long periods of time and we have seen it change on a day-to-day basis during campaigns. The data even shows that public approval is generic for different government positions. Public opinion shows patterns that are far too coincidental to be meaningless and the government action is affected by the opinion because it strives to maintain public approval.