Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 3/8/09
I found an interesting joint press release from CBS News and The New York Times. Released February 1, it compares selected public opinion polls from 1979 and a poll they sponsored taken in January 2009. Scholars of public opinion know that trends are more revealing than a "snapshot" so being able to compare a recent snapshot with a very similar one from 30 years ago should make good fodder for a sociological essay.
As bad as our economy is, after a summer of $4+ gas prices, a steady year long decline in the stock market, rising unemployment, and deficit spending, Americans are more optimistic about the future than 30 years ago. 46 percent in January 1979 reported believing life would be better in the future. 61percent believed the future would be better in January 2009. The pollsters noted that the recent poll was taken just as President Obama was to be inaugurated. Indeed, while the 30 year mark is compelling as a news hook, it would be interesting to see what a comparison between January 1981 and January 2009 would be with the inauguration of the undeniably optimistic and stubbornly sunny Ronald Reagan. He, too, promised change to the American people. Could Americans just be in denial?
Times were much different then, however. Interest rates in January 1979 were very high, the prime rate was better than 11%. The prime interest rate last month was about 3 percent. Unemployment was higher, though not what it was to become in 1979. For much of the 70s, stagflation was the economic policy challenge, while stimulating economic activity is the challenge today.
Despite increased optimism about the future, we think America is less powerful today than in the past. 19 percent thought America had gained in the world since 1969 but only 12 percent think America is more powerful now than 10 years ago. Undoubtedly the reality check of 9/11 revealed our vulnerabilities. We don't face foes like the Soviet Union as we did in 1979. Americans are well known for having short historical memories, we don't face "mutually assured destruction" today as we did then, but we are vulnerable today in ways we weren't then, such as greater reliance on foreign oil, a reliance on China to fund our debt, and a loss of some respect in the world due to recent foreign policies.
30 years has brought significant change in Americans’ views on homosexuality. The late seventies saw the rise of family values organizations. The Moral Majority was formed in 1979. Opposition to legal abortion, opposition to homosexual rights, and opposition to “illicit” sex, were their most significant rallying points. While this type of organization has and continues to wield significant political sway, their sway on public opinion appears to be nil. 30 years ago nearly two-thirds of Americans viewed homosexuality as wrong. In January 2009, only 41 percent did. The only age group in which a majority viewed homosexuality as wrong is those over 65 years of age. On this issue, tolerance and a more liberal view appear to be winning out.
Views on abortion have not changed either. 30 years ago, 54 percent indicated abortion should be legal under certain circumstances. That is pretty much the view since 1973 after Roe v. Wade. If there is any movement at all, it is toward a more liberal viewpoint, 28 percent last month, compared to 22 percent 30 years ago, indicated abortion should be legal under any circumstance.
Despite 20 years of Republican administrations pushing abstinence, there is virtually no change in Americans’ views on pre-marital sex. About 60 percent view it as “not wrong.” Ronald Reagan began the “war on drugs” in the 1980s. 69 percent of Americans in 1979 indicated that marijuana should not be legalized. Only 52 percent expressed that view last month.
As with any snapshot, the framing of the shot by the photographer will emphasize some things and miss others. The same is with polling. How would American’s views on immigration compare from 30 years ago? How about on issues of tax fairness? On smoking? Views on crime and punishment would be a very interesting set of snapshots to examine. Views on pornography from 30 years ago, with the growth in that industry due to internet delivery probably would reveal a more tolerant and liberalizing view I suspect. The snapshots here suggest a general move to more liberal and tolerant views, perhaps in keeping with the election of our first African American to the Presidency.
Showing posts with label public opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public opinion. Show all posts
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Friday, March 14, 2008
Public Opinion on the Iraq war, what is it good for?
On the one hand: BLOGGED BY Jon Ponder ON 3/13/2008 7:20AM
Poll: Success for Bush - Iraq Is Out of Sight, Out of Mind
The Iraq Occupation Received Just 1% of News Coverage in the Third Week of February
Guest blogged by Jon Ponder, Pensito Review.
The stated objective of the Bush administration's "surge" of troops into Iraq was to suppress the violence. Its unstated purpose was to get the occupation off the radar of the news networks in order to tamp down the war as a campaign issue against Republicans in this cycle. If it bleeds, it leads. Conversely, no blood, no coverage.
In that sense, the surge can be counted as one of Bush's rare successes. According to a new poll from Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, coverage of the Iraq occupation by television news was reduced to barely a blip last month:
[ Pew] found that the number of news stories devoted to the war has sharply declined this year, along with professed public interest. "Coverage of the war has been virtually absent," said Pew survey research director Scott Keeter, totaling about 1 percent of the news hole between Feb. 17 and 23.
With no coverage, the public perception of the situation in Iraq has improved:
Twenty-eight percent of the public is aware that nearly 4,000 U.S. personnel have died in Iraq over the past five years, while nearly half thinks the death tally is 3,000 or fewer and 23 percent think it is higher, according to an opinion survey released yesterday.
The survey ... found that public awareness of developments in the Iraq war has dropped precipitously since last summer, as the news media have paid less attention to the conflict. In earlier surveys, about half of those asked about the death tally responded correctly.
What was the news people cared about? Figures from Pew are hardly surprising: "During the last week in January, 36 percent of those surveyed said they were most closely following campaign news, while 14 percent expressed the most interest in the stock market and 12 percent in the death of actor Heath Ledger. In contrast, 6 percent said they were most closely following coverage of Iraq."
And on the other hand: Citing the same poll
Pew: Majority of Americans see a successful conclusion in Iraq
posted at 9:31 pm on March 12, 2008 by Ed Morrissey Send to a Friend printer-friendly
Public confidence in the Iraq war has risen to its highest level in almost two years. Fifty-three percent now believe that the US will ultimately achieve its goals in Iraq, fifteen points higher than just six months ago, according to Pew Research:
American public support for the military effort in Iraq has reached a high point unseen since the summer of 2006, a development that promises to reshape the political landscape.
According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans — a slim majority — now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007.
The percentage of those who believe the war in Iraq is going “very well” or “fairly well” is also up, from 30 percent in February 2007 to 48 percent today.
The situation in Iraq remains fluid, of course. A surge in violence or in troop deaths could lead to rapid fluctuations in public opinion. But as the war nears its fifth year, the steady upturn in the public mood stands to alter the dynamics of races up and down the ballot.
Congressional Democrats seem to have already figured this out. They recently approved the entire appropriation request for operations in Iraq without making hardly a peep about it. It’s no coincidence that it’s the first time in two years they haven’t tried to hold it hostage for a retreat.
The big question will be how this affects the presidential race. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have campaigned on their commitment to withdrawal, especially Obama, who has tried to position himself to Hillary’s left. That made sense in the beginning of the primary campaign, when the surge had yet to begin and the violence appeared to overwhelm the American mission in Iraq. Now, however, it looks more like a senseless surrender with success in reach.
It’s not just Republicans, either. Half of all independents now believe that the US needs to remain in place until the gains in Iraq have been secured. The one presidential candidate arguing that policy also happens to be the Senator who spent the last three years arguing for a better counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. John McCain already had significant appeal for centrists and independents, and this makes his case even stronger.
I think Morrissey can only sustain his conclusion as long as Americans are ignorant or wrong on the facts of what is going on in Iraq. And so what else is new?
Poll: Success for Bush - Iraq Is Out of Sight, Out of Mind
The Iraq Occupation Received Just 1% of News Coverage in the Third Week of February
Guest blogged by Jon Ponder, Pensito Review.
The stated objective of the Bush administration's "surge" of troops into Iraq was to suppress the violence. Its unstated purpose was to get the occupation off the radar of the news networks in order to tamp down the war as a campaign issue against Republicans in this cycle. If it bleeds, it leads. Conversely, no blood, no coverage.
In that sense, the surge can be counted as one of Bush's rare successes. According to a new poll from Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, coverage of the Iraq occupation by television news was reduced to barely a blip last month:
[ Pew] found that the number of news stories devoted to the war has sharply declined this year, along with professed public interest. "Coverage of the war has been virtually absent," said Pew survey research director Scott Keeter, totaling about 1 percent of the news hole between Feb. 17 and 23.
With no coverage, the public perception of the situation in Iraq has improved:
Twenty-eight percent of the public is aware that nearly 4,000 U.S. personnel have died in Iraq over the past five years, while nearly half thinks the death tally is 3,000 or fewer and 23 percent think it is higher, according to an opinion survey released yesterday.
The survey ... found that public awareness of developments in the Iraq war has dropped precipitously since last summer, as the news media have paid less attention to the conflict. In earlier surveys, about half of those asked about the death tally responded correctly.
What was the news people cared about? Figures from Pew are hardly surprising: "During the last week in January, 36 percent of those surveyed said they were most closely following campaign news, while 14 percent expressed the most interest in the stock market and 12 percent in the death of actor Heath Ledger. In contrast, 6 percent said they were most closely following coverage of Iraq."
And on the other hand: Citing the same poll
Pew: Majority of Americans see a successful conclusion in Iraq
posted at 9:31 pm on March 12, 2008 by Ed Morrissey Send to a Friend printer-friendly
Public confidence in the Iraq war has risen to its highest level in almost two years. Fifty-three percent now believe that the US will ultimately achieve its goals in Iraq, fifteen points higher than just six months ago, according to Pew Research:
American public support for the military effort in Iraq has reached a high point unseen since the summer of 2006, a development that promises to reshape the political landscape.
According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans — a slim majority — now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007.
The percentage of those who believe the war in Iraq is going “very well” or “fairly well” is also up, from 30 percent in February 2007 to 48 percent today.
The situation in Iraq remains fluid, of course. A surge in violence or in troop deaths could lead to rapid fluctuations in public opinion. But as the war nears its fifth year, the steady upturn in the public mood stands to alter the dynamics of races up and down the ballot.
Congressional Democrats seem to have already figured this out. They recently approved the entire appropriation request for operations in Iraq without making hardly a peep about it. It’s no coincidence that it’s the first time in two years they haven’t tried to hold it hostage for a retreat.
The big question will be how this affects the presidential race. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have campaigned on their commitment to withdrawal, especially Obama, who has tried to position himself to Hillary’s left. That made sense in the beginning of the primary campaign, when the surge had yet to begin and the violence appeared to overwhelm the American mission in Iraq. Now, however, it looks more like a senseless surrender with success in reach.
It’s not just Republicans, either. Half of all independents now believe that the US needs to remain in place until the gains in Iraq have been secured. The one presidential candidate arguing that policy also happens to be the Senator who spent the last three years arguing for a better counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. John McCain already had significant appeal for centrists and independents, and this makes his case even stronger.
I think Morrissey can only sustain his conclusion as long as Americans are ignorant or wrong on the facts of what is going on in Iraq. And so what else is new?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
