attitudes: domestic issuesusers.clas.ufl.edu/sccraig/3204_week10_domestic_issues.pdf ·...

Attitudes: Domestic Issues

“I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don’t always agree with them.” (George H. W. Bush)

Class Conflict in American Politics

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/01/11/rising-share-of-americans-see-conflict-between- rich-and-poor/?src=prc-headline

The Eye of the Beholder (Pew 2011)

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/01/11/rising-share-of-americans-see-conflict-between- rich-and-poor/?src=prc-headline

http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/section-3-values- about-economic-inequality-and-individual-opportunity/

http://www.the-crises.com/income-inequality-in-the-us-1/

Long-Term Trend in Gini Coefficient for United States: Measures equality of income or wealth, taking into account the effects of taxes and transfer payments (0 = all incomes are the same, 1 = one person has all the money)

http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/04/the-most-important-chart-in-american-politics/?hpt=po_c2

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/ 2012/09/us-income-inequality-its-worse-today- than-it-was-in-1774/262537/

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/09/27/map-how-the-worlds- countries-compare-on-income-inequality-the-u-s-ranks-below-nigeria/ Bluer countries have better income equality. Redder countries are more unequal. Data: CGDev, DIIS. (Max Fisher/The Washington Post)

Some facts: The U.S. index is significantly higher than in Europe (or most other places

for that matter). It has risen sharply (indicating growing levels of inequality) since the

1980s. Most Americans recognize that income inequality has been growing – and

are not particularly happy about it (see next slide). Most Americans believe that part – but only part – of the reason for

income inequality has to do with individual shortcomings (see following slide).

Most Americans “expect individuals to take care of themselves, but they accept that government help may be needed to address concrete barriers to pursuing opportunity,” e.g., “programs that equip individuals to pursue employment opportunities through education and training, and programs that protect them from threats to economic security such as illness, old age, or disability” (Page-Jacobs, p. 3).

Larry M. Bartels, “Homer Gets a Tax Cut: Inequality and Public Policy in the American Mind, Perspectives On Politics (March 2005).

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/what_americans_think_about_inc.html

Anonymous blogger: “I was a Sociologist by degree, but 40 years ago figured out that even then we were being led astray by liberal philosophy. You don't have to be very smart to understand that those with less always want more. Big hairy deal. They should work for it like the rest of us.” http://ecologicalsociology.blogspot.com/2012/06/us-income-inequality-real-perceived.html On the other hand . . .

http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/section-3-values- about-economic-inequality-and-individual-opportunity/

However, to repeat: Many people don’t realize how wide the income gap is.

Page and Jacobs, Class War? What Americans Really Think about Economic Inequality (2009), p. 38.

Here it is again: Americans tend to be philosophically (or symbolically) conservative and operationally liberal – a mix of views to which Page-Jacobs attach the label conservative egalitarianism. “Political operatives and pundits go wrong when they insist on squeezing Americans into preconceived red/ blue or liberal/conservative categories that do not fit” (p. 4). Apart from ideological self-ID, P-J provide several other illustrations of the “philosophical conservatism” of the American public. Some examples:

Page and Jacobs, Class War? What Americans Really Think about Economic Inequality (2009).

http://www.people-press.org/2012/03/02/ for-the-public-its-not-about-class-warfare- but-fairness/

The federal government should run only those things that cannot be run at the local level. ←

The federal government controls too much of our daily lives. →

http://www.people-press.org/values-questions/q30k/government-is-usually-inefficient- and-wasteful/#party (Pew Values Survey 2012)

Still: We’ve seen how the operational liberalism of Americans is reflected in widespread support for maintaining or even increasing present levels of government spending in a broad range of policy areas. From P-J, let’s take a look at people’s attitudes about income inequality and taxes:



Larry M. Bartels, “Homer Gets a Tax Cut: Inequality and Public Policy in the American Mind,” Perspectives on Politics (March 2005).

http://www.people-press.org/2012/03/02/for-the-public-its-not-about-class-warfare-but-fairness/

It is the responsibility of the government to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves. ←

The government should guarantee every citizen enough to eat and a place to sleep. →


A Case Study of Opinion and Policy


In 2001 and 2003, Congress passed and President Bush signed two of the largest tax cuts in history – the end result of which was a “massive . . . government-engineered transfer of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the rich” (on top of an earlier transfer in the same direction that occurred during the 1980s). Among the specific provisions that dispro-portionately favored wealthy citizens: cuts in the top rate, reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains, and a gradual elimination of the estate tax.

Strangely, this upward transfer of wealth was broadly supported by many

Americans (always a plurality and sometimes a majority, depending on when the survey was done and how the question was worded) even though it clearly went against their own personal self-interest – and even though many people seem to have recognized the class bias of the Bush tax cuts. According to a 2001 CBS News poll, 55% indicated that “rich people” would benefit the most from the proposed tax cut. And in Harris Poll, 54% said that the division of benefits between rich, middle class, and poor provided by the 2003 tax cut was “generally unfair”; 85% said their own family would benefit “only a little” or “not at all.”

Let’s sum up . . . Millions of Americans say that (a) the federal government should spend

more on a wide variety of programs, (b) the rich are asked to pay too little in taxes, and (c) growing economic inequality is a bad thing.

Yet many also support policies, the main effects of which are to (a) reduce

the tax burden of the rich, (b) constrain funding for government programs, and (c) exacerbate growing economic inequality. One wonders how these people resolve the contradictions implied by their simultaneous antipa-thies toward inequality and taxation – or even if they recognize that those contradictions exist.

According to Bartels, the problem here is not that Americans in 2001 and

2003 were indifferent to income inequality – it’s that “they largely failed to connect inequality and public policy.”

Bartels’ analysis of 2002 national survey data showed that, with regard to the first round of Bush tax cuts,

opinions were shaped largely by broad political values and ideology

(conservatives and Republicans favored them, liberals and Democrats were mixed);

objective material self-interest was negatively associated with attitudes about the tax cuts (those with higher family incomes were actually less supportive, all else being equal);

subjective assessments of one’s own tax burden had a substantial effect on attitudes about the tax cuts (believing that one paid too much, which many people did, was associated with greater support); and

better-informed citizens (this statement later qualified to say: better-informed Democrats and liberals) were much more likely than those with less information to oppose the 2001 tax cuts.

This last point suggests that overall levels of support for the tax cuts would have been much lower had the electorate (especially the Democratic-leaning part of it) been better informed – or better able to link their self-interests and political values to the policy issue at hand.

On the other hand . . . Bartels also found that support for repealing the inheritance tax was

virtually constant across levels of information, controlling for partisanship and family income. One exception: Information was associated with less support for repeal among the 40% or so who both (a) recognized that the rich-poor gap had grown over the past 20 years and (b) thought that was a bad thing.) The exception aside, these results seem to “highlight real and profound limits of political information as a transforming force when it comes to public opinion about complex policy issues.”

That is, even a more informed electorate might sometimes fail (for

whatever reasons, maybe including ambivalence) to make “correct” policy choices based on citizens’ personal self-interests.

Some Related Issues

The strength of this country today is mostly based on the success of American business. ←

Business corporations make too much profit. →


Government regulation of business usually does more harm than good. ←

Labor unions have too much power. →


Other Domestic Issues

There need to be stricter laws and regulations to protect the environment. ←

Environment

People should be willing to pay higher prices in order to protect the environment. →


We should restrict and control people coming to live in our country more than we do now. ←

Immigration

The growing number of newcomers from other countries threatens traditional American customs and values. →


Women should return to their traditional roles in society. ←

Social Values

School boards ought to have the right to fire teachers who are known homosexuals. →


We have gone too far in pushing equal rights in this country. ← (note change in color coding)

Race/Equality

We should make every possible effort to improve the position of blacks and other minorities, even if it means giving them preferential treatment. → (note change in color coding)


attitudes: domestic issuesusers.clas.ufl.edu/sccraig/3204_week10_domestic_issues.pdf ·...

Documents