View Full Version : Is there any power in public opinion?
Ret10Echo
04-25-2010, 05:23
Not that this is overly surprising to anyone...but does it not seem that in recent history the more the government "does" the lower the opinion falls? The reaction in Washington to that seems to be to do "more" in an attempt to raise public opinion, with the opposite effect. This makes you realize how out-of-touch the vast majority of officials are in America today.
The article from Pew is available here (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1569/trust-in-government-distrust-discontent-anger-partisan-rancor)
With the full report available here (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1698)
Public opinion about government at all-time low
April 23, 2010
By Dorothy Ramienski
Internet Editor
Federal News Radio
Americans have a less positive opinion of government than they were about a decade ago, according to a recent survey from the Pew Research Center.
Carroll Doherty is an associate director at the organization, and explained that the same question has been asked the same way since 1958, and the number of people who trust their government all of the time or some of the time is at an historical low.
"There are a lot of factors that go into this. It's not just one thing. There are a lot of elements that go into distrust of government, and all of them seem to be present at the moment. Sour economy -- we've seen low levels of trust in the early 1990s, certainly, when the economy was bad. The economy is very bad today with almost 10 percent unemployment. [There is] a bitter partisan environment in Washington, as we saw over the last year with the health care debate. . . . The favorability of Congress is at 25 percent. It's the lowest we've tracked ever."
The general public doesn't tend to look at branches differently, either. Many lump federal, state and local levels of government together when asked at whom they were upset. A lot of people, however, lashed out specifically at Congress.
"I think they do reserve a special place for Congress, at this point -- there just seems to be such a negative feeling about Congress and the political parties. . . . President Obama's ratings are not terribly positive, but compared to other figures in Washington, he stands fairly tall. [He has] an under 50 percent rating, but that is almost double the favorability rating of Congress."
Many federal agencies saw declining ratings in terms of public opinion.
The Department of Education, FDA and Social Security Administration are just some of the agencies that are viewed less positively now than they were back in 1998.
Interestingly, both the CIA and the IRS saw an increase in their ratings.
"The IRS number has moved around, but we do see that people don't feel terribly burned by federal taxes. They certainly don't like paying them, but the burden is not terribly high in historical terms. I think the agency ratings are following the pattern of overall views of government. Most Americans don't have contact with government agencies frequently, but I think the notable one is Department of Education. I think that may reflect a greater disatisfaction with the quality of public education in this country."
The study also showed that many people now think that the government is inefficient and has the wrong priorities, with the percentage of the latter increasingly sharply since the 1997 survey.
"People have a sour view of national conditions and, again, the economy is a major factor there. They see the government as not having a positive impact. It's a little bit of 'blame the government' {which is} kind of an American tradition, to a certain extent."
Doherty said, in addition, the mistrust of government didn't simply start with the most recent health care reform debate. He said much of the discontent began during the Bush administration during the last decade.
"The composition of those opinions has changed. Republicans have become far less trusting under President Obama. Democrats have become more so, but not a great deal -- right now, 33 percent say they trust the government. That's lower than the percentage of Republicans who trusted the government during the Bush administration. So, Democrats are a bit more skeptical even though they're in power."
Doherty added that this mistrust could have dramatic affects on either party during the mid-term elections later this year.v
"The favorability of Congress is at 25 percent. It's the lowest we've tracked ever."
They must not have been tracking Congress for very long then - the polls were much lower than that just a few years ago - when GWB's polls were at their lowest, I remember the polls for Congress were even lower than his and much lower than 25%.
And so it goes...
Richard
This makes you realize how out-of-touch the vast majority of officials are in America today.
I agree - but how could it be otherwise? They are insulated from the public in a variety of ways. It is, I think, unlikely that the average citizen will ever meet an elected official at any level - even at the city level. By "meet", I do not mean going to some large meeting, or a rally, or some other group arrangement. In this case, I refer to a one-on-one, face-to-face meeting where a discussion and an exchange of ideas occurs.
The people who have access must purchase it - either through some sort of donation, or through the ability to deliver votes or favorable publicity to the elected official. Merely writing letters (or making calls, or sending e-mails) has minimal effect - a staffer will note the item and include it in some sort of summary. While I recognize there must be some exceptions to this, I suspect it is quite small.
Our elected officials compel us to comply with some large number of rules, at least some of which are inane, and many of which are non-intuitive. In any event, many of these intrusions are notably objectionable. The present initiative on salt consumption provides a case in point.
I am not at all sure that our elected representatives do a good job of representing me personally, or our national interests generally. Voting is all well and good, but I find it necessary to make low jests about choosing the lesser of two weevils. :D
Is there a solution? I really don't see one.
Ret10Echo
04-25-2010, 16:52
[i]I am not at all sure that our elected representatives do a good job of representing me personally, or our national interests generally. Voting is all well and good, but I find it necessary to make low jests about choosing the lesser of two weevils. :D
Is there a solution? I really don't see one.
nmap, it has been my experience during my brief time here inside the beltway that there is nothing done by the politicos. Most of them are worthless and would be the first one voted off the Island because they eat food and drink water better spent on those who contribute to the greater good.
A majority of the legislation is put together by grad-students and other weanie staffers. The pols parrot the opinions but couldn't tell you for an instant what is in the legislation they sponsor. That should have become painfully apparent during the healthcare debate.
A solution:
Fire the staffers,
ban the leeches...I mean the lobbyists.
When the weight of the work they were ELECTED to do hits their shoulders, most of them will run away crying.
If you take away the candy coating, people may see what is inside and find that what IS in there is suitable only for a scarab.
Just my thoughts.
There is a simple solution to the issue under discussion... ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Green Light
04-25-2010, 17:50
There is a simple solution to the issue under discussion... ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Both parties! Front to rear, disappear! :lifter
FWIW, the president's chief of staff gave an inside view of the White House's take on popular opinion in an interview on The Charlie Rose Show. That interview is available here (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10971).
The short version is that the White House thinks that its policies are pretty much in step with most Americans' true preferences. The chief of staff suggested that the loudest voices on the right (and to a lesser degree, the left) represent a minority opinion that has been inflamed by politicians, pundits, and members of the fourth estate.
IMO, this viewpoint is chilling. Then again, the chills may have been coming from seeing the chief of staff; I thought certain types of undead beings could not be filmed because they don't cast reflections. (Oh, apologies to all the bloodsuckers out there who may be offended by the comparison. Sorry.)
On lobbyists, these can be stopped also through limited government. Whenever government seeks to regulate the private sector, the private sector will seek to "regulate" the government. If the government leaves industry alone, then industry will leave government alone.
Interesting concept - yet History says otherwise.
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Ret10Echo
04-26-2010, 04:35
There is a simple solution to the issue under discussion... ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
"The Anti-Incumbent Party....sign me up :cool:
Read this story this morning...
SALT LAKE CITY -- Republican Sen. Bob Bennett - darling of the National Rifle Association and grandson of a Mormon Church president - suddenly may not be conservative enough for ultraconservative Utah.
Bennett could become the first 2010 election casualty among incumbent U.S. senators if he fails to win at least 40 percent of the 3,500 delegates at the state GOP's convention May 8.
His struggle to win a fourth six-year term underscores two forces driving the GOP's fortunes in 2010 as the party out of power seeks more seats in Congress: Incumbency isn't a problem just for Democrats, and ideological purity is an issue of increasing importance for many Republican voters.
"It's hitting just about every incumbent," Bennett said in a recent interview. "The Republicans in this election, they're feeling that's really good because most of the incumbents are Democrats. But in this state, there is no Democrat to get really mad at in this fashion, so they get mad at me."
Full content here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042600192.html)
(WARNING: It is the Washington Post....Please wash your hands before returning to work)
Dozer523
04-26-2010, 06:29
So?
ZonieDiver
04-26-2010, 10:32
Front to rear, disappear!
I haven't heard that in years... it made me smile.
Hey, Congress sucks - but MY Congressman is cool! <g> There's the rub.
"......Bennett's list of perceived political transgressions is long. He voted for the massive federal bank bailout two years ago and co-authored a bipartisan alternative to the Democrats' health care overhaul, both deeply unpopular here and seen as government grabs for more power. Voters also remember his campaign promise 18 years ago to serve only 12 years in the Senate....."
Bennett's problem ain't just he's been in Washington. Meeting halfway on a bad bill is still halfway too far.
The problem with Washington is far too many politicians want to meet halfway on a bad bill and then go off for drinks at the Country Club.
In my view, here's some of the things I'd do to cut the size of government:
1) Reduce all Salaries to five percent less than the median salary of private workers doing similar jobs for all federal employees. (With the exception of Military, Intel, and Law Enforcement positions).
2)Reduce the salaries of both houses and the President by 45%. Cut both houses staff in half. Since they're all serving for the good of the country, monetary rewards shouldn't be part of the equation.
3) Term limits on both houses (limit self serving interests and corruption)
4) Lose Department of Education and few other departments. Base the census on tax returns, don't file, don't have a voice.
5) Legalize all prescription drugs, focus the DEA and other agencies on seizing property and monies from the illegal drug markets (completely strip them clean of any property). The smart people will save on health care, the dumb ones won't make it. (hardcore it is)
6) Reduce the ATF, shift focus to criminals/cartels and away from civilian
oversight, with the exception of background checks and weapons registration. (No special class of weapons other than explosive devices)
7) Slowly privatize the FDA, would cut the cost of new drugs (most of the new ones will kill you faster than what mental disorder they are taken for). Drugs would get to the market faster and for half the cost. Competition reduces costs, not monopolies. Right now it costs up to 100M to get a drug or device through the FDA, and they still don't get it right a good part of the time.
8) Reduce the tax code to four pages.
9) Nobody is too big to fail...rewarding bad behavior never works
Many more on the list...
My creator grants me my basic rights, not some fat slob.
Bet you're all glad I'm not in politics...
IMO, larger or smaller won't make much of a difference as far as government efficiency and intrusiveness goes - the following aside reminds me of a few conversations I've had on occasion with several state and federal agencies. :eek:
Richard
A woman had died in January, but her bank had billed her for their annual service charges for February and March on her credit card, and then added late fees and interest on the monthly charge. The balance had been $0.00 but was now around $60.00. A family member placed a call to the bank.
Family Member: "I am calling to tell you that she died in January."
Bank: "The account was never closed and the late fees and charges still apply."
Family Member: "Maybe, you should turn it over to collections."
Bank: "Since it is two months past due, it already has been."
Family Member: So, what will they do when they find out she's dead?"
Bank: "Either report her account to the frauds division or report her to the credit bureau, maybe both!"
Family Member: "Do you think God will be mad at her?"
Bank: "Excuse me?"
Family Member: "Did you just get what I was telling you, the part about her being dead?"
Bank: "Sir, you'll have to speak to my supervisor."
Supervisor gets on the phone:
Family Member: "I'm calling to tell you, she died in January."
Bank: "The account was never closed and the late fees and charges still apply."
Family Member: "You mean you want to collect from her estate?"
Bank: (Stammer) "Are you her lawyer?"
Family Member: "No, I'm her great nephew." (Lawyer info given)
Bank: "Could you fax us a certificate of death?"
Family Member: "Sure." (fax number is given)
After they get the fax:
Bank: "Our system just isn't set-up for death. I don't know what more I can do to help."
Family Member: "Well, if you figure it out, great! If not, you could just keep billing her. I don't think she will care."
Bank: "Well, the late fees and charges do still apply."
Family Member: "Would you like her new billing address?"
Bank: "That might help."
Family Member: "Odessa Memorial Cemetery, Highway 129, Plot Number 69."
Bank: "Sir, that's a cemetery!"
Family Member: "And what do you do with dead people on your planet?"
Utah Bob
04-27-2010, 08:48
Bank: "Our system just isn't set-up for death.
And our government just isn't set up for efficiency.:rolleyes:
And our government just isn't set up for efficiency
Absolutely, evolution has taught us about inefficiency...
IMO, size is a big part of the problem...slick is good. The larger it is, the easier it is for them to disregard the public opinion and look down their noses at us, the unenlightened.
Reminds me of seeing guys hunting with a fat backpack or 24" barrel rifle in thick brush and hearing &#^%@ every time they get caught on something lol (I've actually seen this). Conversely, hunting in the back country with no gear and a snub nose ain't that smart either.
It must be carefully balanced, like the government was intended, as designed by the Founders.
The larger it is, the easier it is for them to disregard the public opinion and look down their noses at us, the unenlightened.
<<SNIP>>
It must be carefully balanced, like the government was intended, as designed by the Founders.What does bicameralism tell us about the founders' view of public opinion? When has "public opinion" ever been a driving force in shaping either public policy or what we today call national security?
What type of "balance" did the framers of the Constitution seek? For what purpose? For whose benefit?
Public Opinion only counts when it translates into the voting booth.
Talk is only wind, the vote gets noticed.
It only takes a little motivation to tip most districts.
Ret10Echo
04-27-2010, 13:40
Public Opinion only counts when it translates into the voting booth.
Talk is only wind, the vote gets noticed.
It only takes a little motivation to tip most districts.
And that opinion will get to ride in the front seat of the limo until just after election day. At which point it will get kicked out into the muck along some back alley...
Like a cheap cigar.....
Public Opinion only counts when it translates into the voting booth.Sadly, with redistricting (gerrymandering) and the dynamics of political debate (soundbites) today, more is getting "lost in translation."
(I'd have gone into greater detail but I was at the limit for a Twitter post.)
Slantwire
04-29-2010, 06:47
IMO, larger or smaller won't make much of a difference as far as government efficiency and intrusiveness goes
Fair enough. But if government is going to be intrusive and inefficient at whatever it does, that strikes me as good reason to limit its scope - which is kind of like "smaller government." Have it (intrusively and inefficiently) active in as few areas as we realistically can. Keep the rest of life in the domain of people with common sense.
Founding Amateurs?
Prof. Gordon S. Wood, NYT, 2 May 2010
The American public is not pleased with Congress — one recent poll shows that less than a third of all voters are eager to support their representative in November. “I am not really happy right now with anybody,” a woman from Decatur, Ill., recently told a Washington Post reporter. As she considered the prospect of a government composed of fledgling lawmakers, she noted: “When the country was founded, those guys were all pretty new at it. How bad could it be?”
Actually, our founders were not all that new at it: the men who led the revolution against the British crown and created our political institutions were very used to governing themselves. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams and John Adams were all members of their respective Colonial legislatures several years before the Declaration of Independence. In fact, these Revolutionaries drew upon a tradition of self-government that went back a century or more. Virginians ran their county courts and elected representatives to their House of Burgesses. The people of Massachusetts gathered in town meetings and selected members of the General Court, their Colonial legislature.
Of course, women, slaves and men without property could not vote; nevertheless, by the mid-18th century roughly two out of three adult white male colonists could vote, the highest proportion of voters in the world. By contrast, only about one in six adult males in England could vote for members of Parliament.
If one wanted to explain why the French Revolution spiraled out of control into violence and dictatorship and the American Revolution did not, there is no better answer than the fact that the Americans were used to governing themselves and the French were not. In 18th-century France no one voted; their Estates-General had not even met since 1614. The American Revolution occurred when it did because the British government in the 1760s and 1770s suddenly tried to interfere with this long tradition of American self-government.
Of course, a deep distrust of political power, especially executive power, had always been a part of this tradition of self-government. Consequently, when the newly independent Americans drew up their Revolutionary state constitutions in 1776, most states generally limited the number of years their annually elected governors could successively hold office.
“A long continuance in the first executive departments of power or trust is dangerous to liberty,” declared the Maryland Constitution. “A rotation, therefore, in those departments is one of the best securities of permanent freedom.” In addition to specifying term limits for its plural executive, the radical Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 required that after four annual terms even the assemblymen would have to give way to a new set of legislators so they would “return to mix with the mass of the people and feel at their leisure the effects of the laws which they have made.”
At the same time, the Articles of Confederation also provided that no state delegate to the Congress could serve more than three years out of six.
In the decade after the Declaration of Independence, however, many American leaders had second thoughts about what they had done amid the popular enthusiasm of 1776. Since many of the state legislatures were turning over roughly 50 percent of their membership annually and passing a flood of ill-drafted and unjust legislation, stability and experience seemed to be what was most needed.
As a consequence, many leaders in the 1780s proposed major changes to their constitutional structures, including the abolition of term limits. In Pennsylvania, reformers eliminated rotation in office on the grounds that “the privilege of the people in elections is so far infringed as they are thereby deprived of the right of choosing those persons whom they would prefer.”
The new federal Constitution, itself a reaction to the excessive populism of 1776, also did away with any semblance of term limits, much to the chagrin of Thomas Jefferson and many others uneasy over the extraordinary power of the presidency. Jefferson thought that without rotation in office the president would always be re-elected and thus would serve for life. When he became president he stepped down after two terms and thus affirmed the precedent that Washington had established — a precedent finally made part of the Constitution by the 22nd Amendment in 1951.
Although federal term limits have been confined to the presidency, the fear of entrenched and far-removed political power, as the present anti-incumbency mood suggests, remains very much part of American popular culture. Yet precisely because we are such a rambunctious and democratic people, as the framers of 1787 appreciated, we have learned that a government made up of rotating amateurs cannot maintain the steadiness and continuity that our expansive Republic requires.
Gordon S. Wood, a professor emeritus of history at Brown, is the author, most recently, of “Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815.”
Public opinion has power at the Polls. We need to enact term limits and vote them out this November. (100% of Congress and 1/3 of the Senate).
Problem, the public forgets.
incarcerated
05-15-2010, 16:58
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703339304575240371622364714.html
How Badly Will the Democrats Do?
A few trends to watch ahead of November.
MAY 13, 2010
By KARL ROVE
The 2010 midterm elections will be bad for Democrats. But the question is, will their losses be worse than the post-World War II average of 24 House and four Senate seats lost by the party that holds the White House?
The answer isn't locked in yet—and will depend on the confluence of many elements. Here are several that matter.
The most important metric is presidential job approval. President Obama is now at 51% in Gallup and 47% in Rasmussen. When Democrats lost 54 seats in 1994, Bill Clinton's job approval was at 46%. Every president has been lower by the midterm than at the start of that year. Mr. Obama was at 50% in early January. Add a persistently high jobless rate and it points to a worse-than-normal year for Congressional Democrats.
A second factor is the generic ballot—which measures voters' preference for voting for a Republican or a Democrat. At the end of the 2008 election, Democrats led in the Gallup generic ballot by 12 points. Today, the parties are tied at 45%. At this point in 1994, the GOP was nearly five points behind. By Election Day, it was five points ahead.
The GOP also enjoys a lead in the polls that now sample likely voters. In Rasmussen, the GOP is ahead 44% to 37%.
Intensity matters as well. The latest Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll reports two-thirds of Republicans are "extremely" or "very" interested in the midterms, compared to only half of Democrats. Older voters are almost twice as likely as younger voters to be interested; and seniors now favor the GOP 50% to 41%.
Look for the Obama White House to try raising Democratic intensity in the months ahead, especially among blacks, Latinos and liberals. The president's harsh attacks on the Arizona immigration law are part of this strategy.
Another important metric for the fall is the turnout for primaries. Is it rising or falling compared to four years ago? The results so far are bad for Democrats. For example, in Ohio, Democratic participation was down 24% over the last midterm while GOP turnout was up 64%.
Registration in the states that enroll by party have shown major-party and independent registration down from 2008 while third-party registrations—admittedly a small part of the total electorate—are up modestly, according to George Mason University Prof. Michael McDonald. It's early; watch what happens if both parties push registration.
Congressional job approval is an anemic 28% in a recent Associated Press poll. Thirty-two percent of Americans told ABC/Washington Post pollsters in late April that they'd vote to re-elect their congressman, while 57% said they'd look for someone else—the highest number since 58% responded that way to an ABC/Washington Post poll in October 1994.
Democrats can take heart from their party's cash position. At the end of March, the Democratic National Committee reported $15 million on hand, while the RNC had $11 million, down substantially from the $23 million it had when Mr. Obama took office. The Democratic Congressional campaign had $26 million to House Republicans' $10 million, while the Senate GOP was keeping things close, with $15 million to Senate Democrats' $17 million.
Individual Republican candidates fare better in competitive Congressional races. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, GOP Senate candidates have collectively raised $176.3 million, outpacing Democrats' $133 million. GOP House candidates have raised $240 million to Democrats' $254 million.
But spending isn't everything. In 2006, the six GOP Senate incumbents who lost outspent their opponents by a 1.65-to-1 ratio and the 22 defeated GOP House incumbents outspent their opponents 1.53 to 1.
Democrats are also helped by fewer retirements. Seventeen House Democrats have retired so far, compared to 20 House Republicans. However, more Democratic retirements (11) are swing seats than are GOP departures (2).
The White House has many tools to change the narrative to its advantage. But it's unlikely swing voters will abandon their concerns about ObamaCare, spending and deficits. The public, especially independents, increasingly believes Mr. Obama's policies threaten America's economic future.
Though this midterm election will likely turn on national concerns, it will still come down to individual contests. While a lot will play out over the next six months, there's no question good Republican candidates running effective races will make this a memorable, perhaps even epic, election for the GOP. Obama Democrats should beware.
Mr. Rove, the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, is the author of "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions, 2010).