Arsalan's Blog: Public Opinion

One of the most basic principles people observe in life is that everyone is “entitled to their opinion”. Contrary to what most people think, an opinion does matter; the culmination of various opinions forms the “public opinion”, defined as the “distribution of the population's beliefs about politics and policy issues” (Government In America, 178). Public opinion and polls taking account of them (generally known as the Gallup), can have quite an impact on politics, with concern to elections, presidential approval ratings, or even the national inclination towards an overseas conflict America is engaged in. All Americans take comfort in their First Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right of free speech, and America is a nation that professes to uphold and value these ideals, but is there a point where the nation becomes hypocritical? Past and present events have shown that the the right of free speech – the right to express your beliefs, your opinion – have been being slowly curbed by the government (and even certain citizens) of a nation that professes to uphold and firmly believe in these values.

Many people, whether it be old, young, teenager, parent, associate with a political ideology. Generally, it is considered to be either Republican or Democrat, but that is merely a generalization, as Independents and various other ideologies exist. Now with concern to how people choose their political affiliation is a completely different situation. There are various factors and scenarios that can make someone choose which side of the political spectrum they are on. The main examples are: family, the mass media, and school. Family is an obvious example, and can sometimes be the most prevalent, as family has a “monopoly on two crucial resources in the early years: time and emotional commitment” (GIA, 185). As a result, many children associate their beliefs with those of their parents, and a generational “inheritance” of beliefs occurs.

Sometimes, parents must compete with the new “parent” of the media, as studies have shown that kids spend more time watching TV then spend time at school. As a result of certain television shows (such as The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Chocolate News, or even Fox News), impressionable youngsters will associate themselves with the beliefs of the shows rather than their family's, or even formulate their own. School can have a profound effect on the beliefs of a child, both in and out of the classroom. Governments can use school to educate students in belief systems (the disturbing example of Nazi Germany's school system page 186 comes to mind), but in America that is not as prominent. What is prominent in America, however, is the social aspect of school; in the 2008 Presidential Election, it became “trendy” to support politicians like Ron Paul, and more importantly, Barack Obama, while supporting John McCain was seen as “uncool” and often frowned upon. This alone shows how impactful the social life can be on formulating political belief.

So we have seen how political opinions can be formed, and now we will analyze how they can affect politics. The sample is a small proportion of people who are chosen to participate in a survey as a representative of a greater number. Polls are often used to project opinions on issues, both domestic and national. Something that is generally taken into account during polling is the sampling error, which is the “level of confidence in the findings of a public opinion poll” (GIA, 189). The sampling error account for how inaccurate or accurate a poll's results can be. With concern to poll accuracy and how it can be important in politics is taken into account with the results of an exit poll, which is a survey “used by major media pollsters to predict electoral winners with speed and precision” (GIA, 193). The major criticism of the exit poll is the fact that it can be used by major news shows to project, sometimes inaccurately, the electoral vote of a state; this is usually to build up excitement for the viewers, instead of reporting accurate news, news sources try to build up anticipation by simply using the exit polls as a final result, rather than a “preview”. Another concern with public opinion polls is that politicians will attempt to use them to find out their “standing” within the nation, and instead of “leading” will “follow” the polls because people's approval means that they could be reelected.
It is clear that opinions and beliefs of citizens are formed through various externalities and that these opinions can also be very important in swinging the outcome of a political matter (an election being the predominant example). Public opinion can be expressed in other ways other than polls or voting. Protesting, a “form of political participation designed to achieve policy chance through dramatic and unconventional tactics” (GIA, 203), is a form of expressing opinion that has existed since the early days of America. The major example used in that time period was that of the Boston Tea Party, which was the colonist's method of protesting the heavy tax placed on tea products by the British Parliament. Protesting was quite common during the days of the Vietnam War, where many citizens worked to express how important the ending of hostilities and Vietnam to preserve lives was. A tragic incident was that of the Kent State Massacre, where state troops opened fire on college student protesters. This is regarded as a form of government oppression to the citizen's right to expressing their beliefs.

It did not end with Vietnam. For the past eight years, America has been involved in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; both fronts serve as the base on the “War on Terror”. Many citizens protest against the usage of American troops and advocate a swift withdrawal of troops, primarily from Iraq as of late, which is seen mostly as a disaster. People who do support the war tend to brand those who protest as “un-American” or “anti-military”. Another problem, brought up in Miroff's writing is that “advocates for peace [are given] the moniker of apostates, of radicals who don't love their country, of people who didn't appreciate the sacrifice of their soldiers.” (Miroff, 168). Another problem is seen in Stephen Downs, who was was wearing an anti-war shirt and was arrested for wearing it on the charge of being “disruptive”. He was expelled from the mall he was patronizing when the incident occurs. When incidents like this occur, America becomes a very hypocritical nation, and becomes “yet another oppressive regime when it penalizes the voices of the minority and tries to squelch those who expose its peccadillos. The United States becomes little better than the counties it seeks to “liberate” when it stifles dissent and stymies protest.” (Miroff, 168). Another example of “branding” people for their personal opinion was that of accusing CNN owner Ted Turner of being sympathetic to the enemy during the first Gulf War due to a new report of an Iraqi milk factory being destroyed by American forces. “Billionare Ted” was branded under the moniker of “Baghdad Ted” due to this simple report of the truth. Again, the US government displays a fear of the freedom that citizens are meant to enjoy.

America professes to value and uphold the right of free speech, the right to having an expressing an opinion, and attempts to “save” those nations that do not do the same (Iraq and Afghanistan...), and when these values are restricted and barred like they were in Kent State, Stephen Downs, and other incidents, America becomes no better than those oppressive regimes that they have sought to bring down for not having those values. The accurate term here is the “land of hypocrisy”, as Rage Against The Machine describes America in their song “Wake Up”.

Putting down protesters for utilizing the right granted to them by their own Constitution is just one manner in which the American government has restricted rights. Another manner in prohibiting certain facts and evidence from being open to the public. For example, people are usually unaware of the fact that America, during the Reagan and Bush administrations, illegally supplied Iraq with the same weapons of mass destruction Bush wanted to move into Iraq and remove (as they were a threat to international peace and security). Not only were the Iraqis supplied by the US government, but they also received training in how to use those weapons as well. This seemingly convenient “omission” of the facts alone is a threat to democracy; how can a democracy – a government run for and by the people – flourish and continue to thrive if the government itself is willing to hide certain (and this case, extremely important) truths from the people. The government seemingly fears to let the people know about the “darker, more shadowy side” of American foreign policy.
Personal opinions and expressions of those opinions are often shown to be truly “impotent” as Miroff says because they are tested during times of national crisis. In response to the September 11th attacks, the Bush Administration enacted the Patriot Act, which allows the government to further scrutinize citizens and potentially gives the government the authority to detain those without just cause Again, this is an easy way to “thwart free expression, to scuttle the voice of those who are unhappy with the government.” (Miroff). It is indeed quite worrisome when liberties are thrown “out the door” and ignored due to the government's paranoia, especially in what is meant to be the “land of the free”. We have seen what influences political association, how it is expressed, and the government's response to that expression during times of crises. Is it truly democratic? When the people are not allowed to express their beliefs in the society for the people, there is a serious problem. It is serious irony that should not exist. Indeed there is a problem, and if this keeps up, indeed America is no longer the “land of the free, home of the brave”, but really the “land of hypocrisy, home of the fearful”.