PUBLIC POLITICAL SOPHISTICATION

(Week 8)

(Note: these are actual class notes, valuable to those having an excused class absence, or those wishing to review their class notes for the test. Double spaced notes reflect subjects that are so important that they are likely to be asked about on a test.)

The sophistication of the public’s belief system was measured by the University of Michigan authors of the classic The American Voter, who examined the open-ended likes and dislikes that voters gave to what they liked and disliked about the two major parties and their presidential candidates. They grouped voters into four categories: 1) The most sophisticated were the Ideologues, which includes near-ideologues. Such persons were able to understand and apply such ideological terms as Conservatism and Liberalism. What do these terms mean to you students, without looking at my notes? Conservatives believe in individual self-reliance, rely on family and religion, believe in limited government, are punitive on crime, and put America’s national security interests first. Give examples. Liberals believe in a bigger federal government, which is needed to provide the basic necessities of life and to ensure equal opportunity, since they realize that people can be hurt by no fault of their own by large businesses and by majority groups that control non-federal governments. Liberals historically believed in individual civil liberties, and protected the rights of women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ groups, they favor preventive programs and rehabilitation to reduce crime, and favor cooperation with other nations and foreign economic aid. 2) Group Benefits are people who think in terms of demographic groups or organized groups, such as what party or candidates helps minorities, women, labor unions, business interests, and so on. 3) Nature of the Times are comments like dissatisfaction leading to a desire for change, or there is a good economy so why make any change in leadership. 4) No Issue Content are people often just having no reason for why they are voting as they are, or just repeating a party that they have always been a member of but they don’t know why, or just saying that they like a candidate without giving a reason.

Ideologues have generally made up about 20% of voters, which was lowest in the 1950s (Michigan polling started in 1952) with less ideological presidential candidates like Eisenhower and Stevenson, and highest in the 1964-1972 era when there were such divisive issues and ideological candidates as Vietnam, the Civil Rights movement, conservative Goldwater (1964), liberal McGovern (1972), and 3^rd party segregationist George Wallace (1968). Group Benefits hovers around 30%, and was highest in the 1950s when America was coming out of the New Deal era when labor unions were strong. Nature of the Times fluctuates between 25-30%, and tends to be highest when the presidential party’s candidate loses. No issue content ranges from 20-25%. (see textbook, page 73)

The study of issue voting is similar, and is measured by combining people’s responses to several key specific issues, and seeing how strongly those views are related in an ideological direction to the presidential vote. The 1950s was an era of little issue voting, since there were no burning issues and both candidates were non-ideological. Indeed, Eisenhower’s re-election slogan in 1956 was “I Like Ike” and there was peace and prosperity. Rather than issues, people voted their party identification or voted for the popular Eisenhower (even if they were not Republicans). The 1964-1972 era saw much greater issue voting, as issues of civil rights, crime and rioting, and Vietnam became salient to voters, and very ideological candidates like Goldwater and McGovern (and Wallace) taught people about these ideological terms and permitted them to select the candidate closest to themselves. Most Americans were centrist (moderate) until the turn of the century, so in each case these ideological candidates lost. Much of the research stopped at this point, so I argue that the 1980s and 1990s saw voters more affected by general satisfaction or dissatisfaction rather than pure ideology. The challenger Reagan won in 1980 due to economic and foreign policy dissatisfaction, and due to a booming economy in 1984 and an upbeat campaign of Morning in America he won re-election. The challenger Clinton won in 1992 due to an economic recession, and a booming economy re-elected him in 1996. The 21^st Century is a time of a more ideologically polarized population. Democrats are clearly the more liberal party on a range of issues, and Republicans are the more conservative party on many issues (textbook, pages 82-83). The public is able to accurately perceive these party differences on most issues (text, page 81). Negatives of this political polarization era is that party identifiers increasingly dislike the other party (text, page 87), they increasingly view a President of the other party in a more unfavorable light than a dictator of an authoritarian nation (Republicans liked Putin more than Obama; Democrats hated Trump with a passion.), and a change in party control of the White House can see a flurry of policy reversals (as Biden’s early executive orders showed- anything that Trump had done must be bad). How this affects the level of issue voting is discussed later in the course.

Historically, scholars believed that the American public were not very political knowledgeable. Most Americans were unaware of such important aspects of our government as the names of the three branches of the federal government, that it takes a two-thirds vote to override a Presidential veto, and the names of the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the current Secretary of State (see textbook, page 57). So, who is the current Secretary of State? Anyone know?? We also found that only about one-third of Americans could recall the name of their U.S. House Representative (Though when given a list of names, the great majority could identify the correct name, so again question wording is important.). Some scholars point out that average Americans are too busy with their everyday life of survival to spend too much time thinking about government and politics in great detail. I was not surprised that an “outsider” and successful businessman such as Trump seemed to lack a basic understanding of our government. (He didn’t seem to know that NATO has helped the U.S. in fighting terrorism after 9-11, and he didn’t know that the U.S. Senate must vote on any new country that joins NATO.) I’d argue that American voters know enough about politics to cast an intelligent vote that reflects their own values and interests, as will be evident when we talk about each presidential election in the modern era.