It’s morning in America, and Jane Doe awakes from her slumber to start the workday and go about her daily routine. While commencing in the obligatory 2 hour morning ritual of “getting ready,” she turns on the tube and flips through the channels to Fox News in hopes of acquiring a bit of intellectual stimulation for the day. Since Jane is obviously busy with her job, familial and residential responsibilities, she understandably lacks the opportunity on the average day to pay careful attention and critically judge the more salient issues bouncing around the contemporary political discourse. Proponents of Democratic Elitism, who broadly advocate that citizens do not directly involve themselves in governmental decision-making, have an answer for Jane. Although she may lack the political sophistication to navigate the plethora of complex issues raised within a true discourse on policy, she is more than able to choose political party allegiances. Democrat or Republican, each party in our beloved country is emphatic at the opportunity to direct her ideological posture towards any particular issue.
The theory of Issue Evolution asserts that as a new issue enters the political realm, party elites take sides and eventually define the issue along a partisan basis. It is from these party elites that average citizens get their cues; rather than being told what to think, they are essentially told how to think. According to the theory, length of time the issue has been salient within the political arena is also a factor. Issues that have been around longer are more clearly defined along partisan lines, implying that issue evolution is a gradual process. According to the issue evolution theory, we would expect the issues that are relatively new in the political realm of discussion to be thus less defined along partisan lines. Using this theory to analyze four key issues in contemporary political dialogue, we therefore expect the oldest issues to be clearly defined along partisan boundaries. Death penalty is ancient in scope, therefore that issue would be considered the oldest out of the four and thus must, according to the theory, show the most clear partisan divide. Next we have Social Security reform. While the proposal is a relatively new issue, the policy itself has been around for over 60 years and therefore can be considered to be an issue that certainly has been around for enough time for the theory’s machinations to occur. Both stem cell research and gay marriage are relatively new issues within the mainstream political arena, particularly compared to the other two. Thus, the theory would hold that the most clearly divided issues along partisan lines would be the death penalty and social security, while the two least partisan should be gay marriage and stem cell research.
(The data that follows was provided by a graduate student at University of California, Santa Barbara.)
The issue of Social Security Reform shows the largest partisan divide thus far. Approximately 70% of Republicans showing support for the reforms aimed at privatization of social security, while only 34% of Democrats support it. The aggregate support for the issue was cleanly divided 50/50, however the majority of those who supported it were Republicans while the majority of those who opposed it were Democrats. The Gamma value for this data set breaches the strong threshold at .638, indicating a significant relationship between a respondent's party identification and the likelihood that they would be pro or con for the issue. Therefore, social security is a good issue for the Issue Evolution theory because it supports the notion that highly salient political issues that are well established should have clear partisan divides. This is exactly the case with social security, as most Republicans support the issue (as the reform was proposed by a Republican Presidential Administration) while most Democrats do not support it.
The issue of gay marriage also seems to have a clear partisan divide. Although the data is stratified into three different possible answers, for our purposes we will initially treat the data as a “yes” or “no” answer. When done in this fashion, 56% of Republicans oppose the expansion of gay rights, while only 35% of Democrats oppose that same expansion. Therefore, initially the divide is clear in the fact that a majority of Republicans would give them no rights regardless of the options, while the Democrats have a majority opinion favoring legal recognition of gay rights. The divide becomes even clearer when taking the distinction between gay marriage and civil unions into account. When given the option to decide between allowing marriage or civil unions, those respondents who chose to expand rights also showed an interesting divide. For the issue of marriage, 37% of Democrats implied support, while only 13% of Republicans did similarly. When taking all three data stratum into account, this is actually the majority position among the Democrats, showing a much higher proclivity to gay marriage than their Republican counterparts, whom were the smallest minority within their own group. However, there was a surprising bit of agreement in the data on the notion of civil unions as opposed to out right marriage. In both groups, approximately 30% of respondents showed support for the policy. This helps in skewing the Gamma value to -.430, making the relationship seem weaker than it really may be. Therefore, since there is no explicitly clear partisan divide (although Democrats are obviously much more supportive) the Issue Evolution theory is sound.
Lastly, and without a doubt the newest issue of them all, is embryonic stem cell research. If the Issue Evolution theory were going to be correct on this front, we would expect a very fuzzy divide between Republicans and Democrats as neither party has had enough time to take their proper sides. As it turns out, this is generally the case. Although among Democrats there is a very strong level of support hovering around 75%, the Republicans also have a majority in favor of the policy, yet only by 58%. Thus, while both groups show support for the issue, the Democrats reveal a stronger level of support, possibly suggesting that the issue may come to lean more in their favor in years to come as the issue evolves in our political arena. The Gamma value for this data set is -.392, which is the weakest relationship between party identification and issue stance that we have seen in our analysis of these four issues. This last issue also shows support for our Issue Evolution Theory, as the newest issue is the least clearly defined along party lines.
This outlook for democratic realities is, at best, disheartening. Correlation does not show causation, meaning that it may not necessarily be true that we get our cues from these political elites before deciding our own stance. However, the correlation is clearly there. Some issues certainly show an ability to evolve much faster than others. For instance, the gay marriage issue is relatively new, yet it does show a clear partisan divide strictly when concerning the expansion of gay rights without the qualification question distinguishing those rights. Given the supercharged political atmosphere in which this particular issue was arguably abused (2004 re-election campaign of G.W.B.), in conjunction with the fact that politicians have made their positions on this issue based largely on religious convictions appealing to a deeply politically socialized aspect of our psychology, it is no surprise to see the issue so quickly contested vehemently by both sides.
John Zaller’s Receive-Accept-Sample model makes good use of this process of political communication between elites and average citizens. The term given to this process by Zaller is elite discourse, describing the process in which elites of varying types (politicians, candidates, news reporters, etc…) can provide political information to the citizenry via the mass media. This information, he argues, may come to influence the formation and change of public opinion. Therefore, in a sociopolitical atmosphere so highly inundated with corporate news media such as ours, it is safe to say that the current process of elite discourse may persist.
All is not lost. New media sources are steadily gaining those audiences eager for a break from all the petty bullshit and superficial broadcasts, like the kind that are meant for everyone yet apply to no one. A few of my personal favorites include nonprofit media corporations like NPR, shows like Democracy Now!. PBS always puts on a thoughtful discussion, with old Papa Moyers (one of the heros of the Progressive Movement) given a prominent bully-pulpit. Frontline is another excellent source. Furthermore, the Internet provides infinite possibilities for the citizenry to bypass corporate news sources and receive information from each other directly, rather than blindly looking to the same tired “authoritative” corporate sources. Check out Dan Carlin's FREE podcast Common Sense as the purest example of the new media doing its thing. The horizon thus looks less bleak when lit by the setting sun on the era of corporate monopoly over the flow of quality information within the circus that is our lives.
The theory of Issue Evolution asserts that as a new issue enters the political realm, party elites take sides and eventually define the issue along a partisan basis. It is from these party elites that average citizens get their cues; rather than being told what to think, they are essentially told how to think. According to the theory, length of time the issue has been salient within the political arena is also a factor. Issues that have been around longer are more clearly defined along partisan lines, implying that issue evolution is a gradual process. According to the issue evolution theory, we would expect the issues that are relatively new in the political realm of discussion to be thus less defined along partisan lines. Using this theory to analyze four key issues in contemporary political dialogue, we therefore expect the oldest issues to be clearly defined along partisan boundaries. Death penalty is ancient in scope, therefore that issue would be considered the oldest out of the four and thus must, according to the theory, show the most clear partisan divide. Next we have Social Security reform. While the proposal is a relatively new issue, the policy itself has been around for over 60 years and therefore can be considered to be an issue that certainly has been around for enough time for the theory’s machinations to occur. Both stem cell research and gay marriage are relatively new issues within the mainstream political arena, particularly compared to the other two. Thus, the theory would hold that the most clearly divided issues along partisan lines would be the death penalty and social security, while the two least partisan should be gay marriage and stem cell research.
(The data that follows was provided by a graduate student at University of California, Santa Barbara.)
Death Penalty:
Support: 81.4%(Rep) 57.1%(Dem) 68.2%(Total)
Not Support: 18.6%(Rep) 42.9%(Dem) 31.8%(Total)
Support: 81.4%(Rep) 57.1%(Dem) 68.2%(Total)
Not Support: 18.6%(Rep) 42.9%(Dem) 31.8%(Total)
The death penalty, according to our data, does not have a clear partisan divide. The aggregate support for the policy is high, with nearly 70% in favor of it. However, the extreme high levels of support are essentially skewed by the overwhelming amount of Republican support the issue receives. A whopping four out of five Republicans implied support for the policy of capital punishment in the case of murder. Although the Democratic response was also a majority, it was a much smaller majority with slightly more than 50% showing support. Given that that both groups showed majority support, we could not necessarily make the argument that there is a partisan divide. However, one can say that Republicans are much more likely to show high levels of support for it than Democrats. Also, the Gamma value for the data is .533, showing a relatively weak relationship between party identification and positions on the death penalty. This weak positive relationship between party identification and issue stance shows that this is a bi-partisan issue. Thus, the theory of Issue Evolution does not perfectly apply to this issue, as it is very old and there is not necessarily an overly clear partisan divide.
Social Security:
Support: 69.5%(Rep) 33.6%(Dem) 49.8%(Total)
Not Support: 30.5%(Rep) 66.4%(Dem) 50.2%(Total)
The issue of Social Security Reform shows the largest partisan divide thus far. Approximately 70% of Republicans showing support for the reforms aimed at privatization of social security, while only 34% of Democrats support it. The aggregate support for the issue was cleanly divided 50/50, however the majority of those who supported it were Republicans while the majority of those who opposed it were Democrats. The Gamma value for this data set breaches the strong threshold at .638, indicating a significant relationship between a respondent's party identification and the likelihood that they would be pro or con for the issue. Therefore, social security is a good issue for the Issue Evolution theory because it supports the notion that highly salient political issues that are well established should have clear partisan divides. This is exactly the case with social security, as most Republicans support the issue (as the reform was proposed by a Republican Presidential Administration) while most Democrats do not support it.
Gay Marriage
Pro Gay Marriage: 13.3%(Rep) 37.1%(Dem) 26.2%(Total)
Pro Civil Unions: 30.6%(Rep) 27.9%(Dem) 29.1%(Total)
No Support: 56.1%(Rep) 35%(Dem) 44.7%(Total)
The issue of gay marriage also seems to have a clear partisan divide. Although the data is stratified into three different possible answers, for our purposes we will initially treat the data as a “yes” or “no” answer. When done in this fashion, 56% of Republicans oppose the expansion of gay rights, while only 35% of Democrats oppose that same expansion. Therefore, initially the divide is clear in the fact that a majority of Republicans would give them no rights regardless of the options, while the Democrats have a majority opinion favoring legal recognition of gay rights. The divide becomes even clearer when taking the distinction between gay marriage and civil unions into account. When given the option to decide between allowing marriage or civil unions, those respondents who chose to expand rights also showed an interesting divide. For the issue of marriage, 37% of Democrats implied support, while only 13% of Republicans did similarly. When taking all three data stratum into account, this is actually the majority position among the Democrats, showing a much higher proclivity to gay marriage than their Republican counterparts, whom were the smallest minority within their own group. However, there was a surprising bit of agreement in the data on the notion of civil unions as opposed to out right marriage. In both groups, approximately 30% of respondents showed support for the policy. This helps in skewing the Gamma value to -.430, making the relationship seem weaker than it really may be. Therefore, since there is no explicitly clear partisan divide (although Democrats are obviously much more supportive) the Issue Evolution theory is sound.
Stem Cell:
Support: 58.3%(Rep) 76.2%(Dem) 68%(Total)
Not Support: 41.7%(Rep) 23.8%(Dem) 32%(Total)
Lastly, and without a doubt the newest issue of them all, is embryonic stem cell research. If the Issue Evolution theory were going to be correct on this front, we would expect a very fuzzy divide between Republicans and Democrats as neither party has had enough time to take their proper sides. As it turns out, this is generally the case. Although among Democrats there is a very strong level of support hovering around 75%, the Republicans also have a majority in favor of the policy, yet only by 58%. Thus, while both groups show support for the issue, the Democrats reveal a stronger level of support, possibly suggesting that the issue may come to lean more in their favor in years to come as the issue evolves in our political arena. The Gamma value for this data set is -.392, which is the weakest relationship between party identification and issue stance that we have seen in our analysis of these four issues. This last issue also shows support for our Issue Evolution Theory, as the newest issue is the least clearly defined along party lines.
This outlook for democratic realities is, at best, disheartening. Correlation does not show causation, meaning that it may not necessarily be true that we get our cues from these political elites before deciding our own stance. However, the correlation is clearly there. Some issues certainly show an ability to evolve much faster than others. For instance, the gay marriage issue is relatively new, yet it does show a clear partisan divide strictly when concerning the expansion of gay rights without the qualification question distinguishing those rights. Given the supercharged political atmosphere in which this particular issue was arguably abused (2004 re-election campaign of G.W.B.), in conjunction with the fact that politicians have made their positions on this issue based largely on religious convictions appealing to a deeply politically socialized aspect of our psychology, it is no surprise to see the issue so quickly contested vehemently by both sides.
John Zaller’s Receive-Accept-Sample model makes good use of this process of political communication between elites and average citizens. The term given to this process by Zaller is elite discourse, describing the process in which elites of varying types (politicians, candidates, news reporters, etc…) can provide political information to the citizenry via the mass media. This information, he argues, may come to influence the formation and change of public opinion. Therefore, in a sociopolitical atmosphere so highly inundated with corporate news media such as ours, it is safe to say that the current process of elite discourse may persist.
All is not lost. New media sources are steadily gaining those audiences eager for a break from all the petty bullshit and superficial broadcasts, like the kind that are meant for everyone yet apply to no one. A few of my personal favorites include nonprofit media corporations like NPR, shows like Democracy Now!. PBS always puts on a thoughtful discussion, with old Papa Moyers (one of the heros of the Progressive Movement) given a prominent bully-pulpit. Frontline is another excellent source. Furthermore, the Internet provides infinite possibilities for the citizenry to bypass corporate news sources and receive information from each other directly, rather than blindly looking to the same tired “authoritative” corporate sources. Check out Dan Carlin's FREE podcast Common Sense as the purest example of the new media doing its thing. The horizon thus looks less bleak when lit by the setting sun on the era of corporate monopoly over the flow of quality information within the circus that is our lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment