Public Opinion

Essential to the survival of American democracy is political participation of its citizens. The public opinion serves to influence and shape government actions and policies; however, there are many factors that create imbalances in political participation and therefore determine the public opinion, or the “distribution of the population's beliefs about politics and policy issues” (Government in America, pg 178). The American people are very diverse, and it is nearly impossible to speak for all 295 million of them. The least informed are least likely to participate in the political process, creating imbalances in who takes part in political action. For American government to work efficiently and effectively, the diversity of the American public and its opinions must be channeled through the political process.

We are a country of immigrants and waves of immigrants have brought along with them their own set of political beliefs. The rush of immigrants in recent decades, (Hispanics, Cubans, Vietnamese, Koreans, Filipinos, etc.) have brought groups that overall have a great appreciation for the individualism instilled in America, often because they are escaping a very controlling and manipulative government. The recent increase in immigration has led to talk of the minority majority, or the emergence of a non-Caucasian majority. In 2000 the Census Bureau estimated that by approximately the year 2060, minority groups will become the majority and outnumber white Anglo-Saxons. The emergence of this diverse conflicting minority majority is one of several demographic changes that have altered the face of American politics; however, despite the many ethnic backgrounds in America, we tend to share a set of values in society.

Americans form their political beliefs through political socialization, or the “process through which an individual acquires his/her particular political orientations” (Government in America, pg 184). The major contributors to political socialization are the family, the media, and the schools. Although people tend to become more socialized as they age because they grow firmer in their beliefs and attachment to their political party, they are often exposed early on to political socialization. The family’s role in socialization is central because of its “monopoly on two crucial resources in the early years: time and emotional commitment” (Government in America, pg 183). Typically, accurate predictions on how young people will vote can be ascertained based on the political position of the parents. The media, especially today, plays a huge role in the information that people, especially young people, receive about politics. Unfortunately though, the media is focused on entertainment value and often ceases to provide the people with substantial information. Arguably the most influential attributor to political socialization is schools. From a young age schools serve as a way for the government to promote national loyalty and support for the basic American values. However, the negative side is that by putting students in an environment were they are constantly exposed to one set of ideas, there is the possibility of the government utilizing this to manipulate or brainwash young minds, such as the Nazis did, but this is unlikely to occur in America. The government cares “that students learn the positive features of their political system because it helps ensure that youth will grow up to be supportive citizens” because “those children who begin to develop positive feelings toward the political authorities will grow into adults who will be less easily disenchanted with the system than those children who early acquire negative, hostile sentiments” (Government in America, pg 186). However, for people to be politically socialized does not necessarily mean that they are always in agreement with the government, and often well-socialized people will protest the government not to radically reform it or overthrow it, but to demand responsiveness. Better-educated citizens are more likely to vote in elections as well as protest against the government because they have more knowledge about politics. “Politics, like most other things, is thus a learned behavior. Americans learn to vote, to pick a political party, and to evaluate political events in the world around them. One of the products of all this learning is what is known as public opinion” (Government in America, pg 187).

Public opinion is measured through polls, which rely on a sample of people to represent the whole. To achieve accurate representation, everyone should have the equal chance of being chosen for the sample. With today’s technology most polling is done through random-digit dialing, or when calls are placed randomly to both listed and unlisted numbers, but there are downsides to this system. Firstly, the percentage of people that do not own phones are left out, and secondly, people may be less willing to talk on the phone or be honest for a survey. Polls can be used as an important tool for democracy because policymakers can keep in touch with changing opinions on the issues. This theoretically increases government responsiveness because politicians are dependent on a positive public opinion for re-election. Those who oppose to polls believe that it can undermine the leadership role of politicians, because politicians could become more focused on making the public happy rather than leading, but I believe that it is the job and responsibility of politicians to be aware and take into account public opinion, but ultimately to make decisions in the best interest of the country as a whole. Another criticism of polling is that pollsters can alter or manipulate the questions to get the results that they want; therefore, polls can be misleading.

Although Americans are generally not informed about politics, they do know what values they want upheld, and as a result many actively participate in government. There is conventional and unconventional participation in government. Conventional participation includes voting, going door to door to motivate others to vote, and creating and signing petitions, while unconventional participation includes protesting, civil disobedience, and violence. “Those who participate are easy to listen to; non-participants are easy to ignore;” (Government in America, pg 193) however, there are many limits on the role public opinion plays in the American political system, largely because it can be very contradictory, such as how people oppose the idea of big government, but favor it in practice, because they want aid to cities, health care, programs for education, etc. In recent decades especially, people have lost trust in the government and its ability to serve the people. As the essays by Shafer and Brooks show, times of crisis have the power to drastically transform public opinion and test democracy.

Shafer discusses that in the aftermath of September 11th, the Bush administration rallied for public support in the “war on terrorism” and in the face of a national crisis, many Americans united for the cause. However, as “new federal laws, including the Patriot Act, preventive detention of undocumented workers, and increased security measures in public places, shifted the nation’s focus from individual freedom to order” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq), public opinion began to shift. Americans were being pressured to suppress their skepticism about the war, ironic because the very democracy that we were claiming to establish in Iraq was being hindered on the home front. America began to censor its people and it was considered unpatriotic to question the war and the government. Instead citizens were supposed to be “good Americans” and unite beside their country. Brooks’ essay illustrates pro-war propaganda. He sees the issue as black and white, that Americans can either support the young men and women that serve the country, or have sympathy for the terrorists that “understand only force” that “must be crushed” (The Collapse of the Dream Palaces). Brooks stereotypes anti-war protestors as college students with no grasp on reality, which is in his opinion is that the people in Iraq “ignore the basic rules of warfare and civilization” and “conflict with them is inevitable” (The Collapse of the Dream Palaces). Despite this “false brand of patriotism” as the war continued a many Americans grew tired of their voices being silences, and growing skepticism about the administration’s motives for entering into war with Iraq began to emerge out of the darkness. “Was this really a war to end terrorism or was it about imperialism and transnational profits?.... there was a manipulative and even antidemocratic cynicism to these evocations of a new American patriotism…for those who care about civil liberties, measures like the Patriot Act, the detention of “enemy combatants” without rights to attorneys or trials, and the detention of immigrants initiated by the Bush administration and passed by Congress threatened the very basic civil liberties of freedom of speech and equality before the law, heralded as cornerstones of U.S. and western democracies” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq).

Essential to a true democracy is that accurate and truthful information is given to the public about the actions of their government. “Americans can’t participate in a system that only feeds them a steady diet of propaganda and mendacity, leading them to believe what isn’t true or is only part of a larger story” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq). American’s must be guaranteed honest information in order to ensure that healthy and productive debate can occur, that the public is able to “reject the policies of their president and practice civil disobedience when they see nefarious policies coming to fruition and hurting others” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq). In light of the war in Iraq, many people felt as though they had to either accept the war or be labeled un-American and unappreciative of their armed forces. “Where before there had been healthy and quintessentially democratic debate on the morality of bombing a nation because it might harbor terrorists an have weapons of mass destruction, suddenly there was an uneasy silence as many Americans were told to behave and support President George W. Bush” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq). The foundation of American democracy is the ability of people to protest against the government and more importantly have that disapproval translate into change, and if this is sacrificed then the United States becomes “yet another repressive regime when it penalizes the voices of the minority and tries to squelch those who expose its peccadilloes. The United States becomes little better than the countries it seeks to ‘liberate’ when it stifles dissent and stymies protest” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq). It shows how that the freedoms of Americans are not really that secure when in a time of national crisis. “Americans are often not as free as they think they are- or should be” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq). We see that legislation like the Patriot Act, which allows the government to invade the private lives of Americans through the justification of investigating possible terrorism, have become a way to “thwart free expression” and “scuttle the voices of those who are unhappy with the government” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq). The media also plays a dangerous role when it not only censors and manipulates information, but refuses to question the government, much like Brooks’ essay, which illustrates blind and arrogant patriotism. The most important task of the media is to provide information from all perspectives and act as a tool to fuel deliberation and debate that encourages civic participation, forcing the government to be responsive towards the people’s wants. I agree with Shafer argument that as a result of the war in Iraq, the media and the government both exercise a censorship that stifles debate, silences public opinion, and puts democracy to the test. When Americans act on their political opinions they are participating in government and that is crucial to the existence of democracy. It seems as though debate and protest regarding the government thrives in times of peace, but in times of national crisis the public opinion is manipulated and unrepresentative of all Americans because of censoring and intimidation tactics. So if our voice is so easily quieted and our opinions so suppressed in times of conflict, how secure really are our freedoms?