DEMOCRATIC POLITICS AND THE LONG MARCH ON GLOBAL WARMING: Comments on McCright and Dunlap

The political impasse over global warming legislation stems from obstacles in the mass media arena, public awareness, electoral politics as well as governmental policy. Advocates of global warming policy have to be simultaneously successful in all four major public arenas to prevail. This article provides an overview of the obstacles in each public arena in the United States highlighting the broader context in which McCright and Dunlap's analysis of polarized public opinion operates. Global warming advocates have had their greatest success in the media arena but are checked by the rise of a conservative counter‐campaign as well as media reporting norms, which have contributed to polarized public opinion and limited salience of the issue. Global warming never ranks in the top issue list to which electoral candidates attend, giving it little priority in national electoral contests. Although the House of Representatives passed the Waxman‐Markey Bill in 2009, the bill died in the Senate and will not resurface until the Democratic margin is again large enough to overcome opposition vetoes. At the same time, major legislation has often incubated on the margins of these public arenas for significant time until a political crisis removes the normal obstacles to such major “watershed” legislation. For global warming, the long march through American public arenas appears to have begun.     

Invoking Public Opinion: Policy Elites and Social Security

Do policy elites invoke public opinion? When they do, are theirclaims based on evidence from public opinion surveys? To learnabout the claims that policy elites make, we examined statementsthe president and members of Congress, experts, and interestgroup leaders in congressional hearings made about Social Security.To learn about opinion data on Social Security, we conducteda Lexis-Nexis search of the archives of the Roper Center forPublic Opinion Research. Our analyses show that policy elitesdiscussing Social Security did invoke public opinion. Contraryto our expectations, however, few of the elite invocations ofpublic opinion cited specific surveys or concrete facts aboutthe distribution of opinion. Although claims directly contradictingsurvey evidence were relatively rare, only with the rather fewspecific claims by congressional elites did we find much clear-cutsupport in the available polling data. Relatively seldom couldwe find clear-cut support for the elites' general claims. Moreover,some of the most frequent claims about public opinion—couldhave been contested but seldom were. The highly visible andwell-polled case of Social Security suggests that specific,data-based elite invocations of public opinion may be even lesscommon on other, lower-visibility and less-polled issues. Italso suggests that survey research professionals might do wellto intensify their scrutiny of public discourse about publicopinion and to increase their efforts to bring scientific expertiseto bear upon such discourse.     

American Public Opinion on Immigration: Nativist,Polarized, or Ambivalent?

For Dauvergne (2016), one consequence of the “end of settler societies” is nativism, or what she calls “mean-spirited politics”: anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-Multiculturalism. This accords with the prevailing tone of public opinion literature on the subject, which links anti-immigrant hostility in settler societies to influxes of diversity and associated racial threat. In this essay, we determine just how closely this stylized vision of anxiety-fuelled nativism resembles the true state of mass opinion about immigration. Using a variety of surveys fielded in recent years, we show that Americans: 1) hold generally positive views about immigration, though with a substantial dose of ambivalence about its consequences; 2) are not especially consistent in their policy attitudes over time; 3) express policy attitudes that readily depart from their underlying predispositions, and; 4) have only become more pro-immigrant in recent years, and whatever partisan polarization exists on the issue stems from the fact that Republicans are becoming more positive at a slightly slower pace than Democrats. All of this suggests that, while there is a hard core of ethnocentrism and "mean-spiritedness" in the U.S., the prevailing tone is much less negative than the standard portrayal assumes.     

Privacy in the Information Age

In recent years, surveillance has become an increasingly salientpolitical issue in the United States. In this article we presentdata on public opinion about privacy invasions and surveillancetechniques since 1990. Generally speaking, the polls show thatconcern about threats to personal privacy has been growing inrecent years. Although the public was temporarily willing toexpand the government’s investigative powers in the aftermathof the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, support for mostforms of surveillance has declined.     

Beyond Public Opinion Polls: Punitive Public Sentiment & Criminal Justice Policy

The punitive turn in criminal justice policy, epitomized by policies like three-strikes, truth in sentencing, and mandatory minimums, is often attributed in part to demand for harsher criminal justice responses from an increasingly punitive public. It has been argued that public opinion, known to be both largely uninformed and often misunderstood, might both indirectly and directly affect policy. This survey article on punitiveness in public opinion opens with a discussion of competing depictions of the nature of the relationship between a punitive public and increasingly punitive criminal justice policies. The article then focuses on some of the most influential explanations for variations in punitiveness within individuals and across groups. A review of what we know about public attitudes toward punishment and a brief explanation of how we know what we know (e.g. the methodologies by which we gauge public opinion) follow. The article concludes with the observation that as methodologies continue to improve and the literature in this area continues to grow, so too does our understanding of punitive public opinion in all of its complexity.     

Beyond Denialism: Think Tank Approaches to Climate Change

Sociologists have done important research documenting the key role that think tanks play in the climate change denialism movement in the United States, which has sought to mislead the American public about the realities of global warming. Sociologists have not, however, assessed the full range of ways that think tanks are responding to – or planning for – global environmental change. This article proposes a typology of elite responses to global warming, which goes beyond denialism to include (i) limited climate mitigation, (ii) climate adaptation/privileged accommodation, and (iii) climate opportunism. Ultimately, this article provides insights on ways to build upon previous research in both environmental and political sociology to study the interface between elite‐driven policy, climate change, and capitalism.     

THE OPINION-POLICY NEXUS IN GERMANY

This article analyzes the previously unresearched relationshipbetween mass public opinion and public policy in contemporaryWest Germany. By studying approximately 150 cases over the lastdecade, the nature of German democracy is revealed in relationto the overall consistency between majority preferences andgovernment action. The opinion-policy nexus is explored in regardto the impact of issue saliency, landslide majorities, differentcategories of issues (e.g., redistributive, foreign policy),and the partisan composition of the government (i.e., SocialD emocratic vs. Christian Democratic). In addition, there isa cross-national comparison of results for West Germany withthe author's previous research on opinion and policy in theUnited States, Britain, and France. The findings indicate that(like other nations studied) public opinion and public policyin Germany are inconsistent in a majority of instances and that(unlike Britain or France) the partisan composition of the governmentdoes not matter vis-à-vis the degree of policy-opinioncongruence.     

Research,policy and funding – academic treadmills and the squeeze on intellectual spaces1

In recent years, there has been a great deal of collective rumination about social scientists' role in society. In the post‐1997 UK context, public policy commitments to ‘evidence‐based policy’ and ‘knowledge transfer’ have further stimulated such reflections. More recently, Michael Burawoy's 2004 address to the American Sociological Association, which called for greater engagement with ‘public sociology’ has reverberated throughout the discipline, motivating a series of debates about the purpose of sociological research. To date, most such contributions have been based on personal experience and anecdotal evidence. In contrast, this paper responds directly to Burawoy's suggestion that we should ‘apply sociology to ourselves,’ in order that we ‘become more conscious of the global forces’ driving our research ( Burawoy 2005 : 285). Drawing on an empirical research project designed to explore of the relationship between health inequalities research and policy in Scotland and England, in the period from 1997 until 2007, this paper discusses data from interviews with academic researchers. The findings suggest that the growing pressure to produce ‘policy relevant’ research is diminishing the capacity of academia to provide a space in which innovative and transformative ideas can be developed, and is instead promoting the construction of institutionalized and vehicular (chameleon‐like) ideas. Such a claim supports Edward Said's (1994 ) insistence that creative, intellectual spaces within the social sciences are increasingly being squeezed. More specifically, the paper argues we ought to pay far greater attention to how the process of seeking research funding shapes academic research and mediates the interplay between research and policy.     

Global Studies—The Handmaiden of Neoliberalism?

Abstract

The field of global studies has gained momentum over the past 20 years and today occupies a significant presence within many universities. As a result, there is now a burgeoning array of institutional support for global studies scholarship. Perhaps not surprisingly, concurrent to such institution-building there has been a spate of essays engaged with the question ‘what is global studies?’ that have promoted lively debate and commentary. In this essay, I ask a rather different question which is ‘who gets to define global studies, and what is at stake in these kinds of delineating efforts?’ I argue that debate about global studies demands the inclusion of multiple voices and perspectives from around the world. I conclude by urging global studies scholars to be deliberately conscious of their taken-for-granted assumptions with respect to power and the related capacity to speak for others from the global south and east who are largely still absent in defining this new field of inquiry.     

Race,Gender, and Attitudes Toward War in Chicago: An Intersectional Analysis1

Although prior research has documented persistent racial and gender differences in public opinion on war across U.S. military conflicts, there is little understanding as to how race and gender simultaneously shape war opinion. Using data from the 2008 Chicago Area Study, this analysis locates gender within an intersectional examination of black‐white differences in support for the U.S. war in Iraq. “Structural” and “racialized” explanations for blacks’ lower level of support relative to whites are tested, first using all respondents, and then for men and women. Exploratory analyses show the race gap in war support to exist solely among Chicago women. Racial differences in partisanship and education are most strongly associated with black‐white differences in Iraq War support among Chicago women. In addition, while affiliation with the Republican Party increases the odds of support among both men and women, education and political alienation decrease the odds of support only among women and the odds of support increase with age only among men. Results highlight the utility of an intersectional lens to the study of public opinion on foreign policy.     

Parental Protest,Public Opinion,and War Termination: Israel's ‘Four Mothers’ Movement

Peace movements that challenge national security policies typically remain politically marginal. However, the unusual cases that evince causal linkages among grass-roots activism, public opinion shifts, and a government's decision to change policy suggest hypotheses about the sorts of organizational characteristics and political conditions that can increase movements' prospects for influence. This article considers the case of Israel's Four Mothers – Leaving Lebanon in Peace that in the late 1990s successfully sought to end Israel's war in southern Lebanon. The article adopts a political-mediation model of peace movement outcomes that draws on Giugni's (2004) model of movements' policy impact. It finds support for the idea that when grass-roots activists and their elite supporters among politicians and the media act jointly, they can exert influence on policy outcomes. Anti-war movements led by soldiers' family members may have particularly abilities to shift public opinion against the war so as to create political incentives for office-seekers to end it.     

THE POLITICIZATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND POLARIZATION IN THE AMERICAN PUBLIC'S VIEWS OF GLOBAL WARMING, 2001–2010

We examine political polarization over climate change within the American public by analyzing data from 10 nationally representative Gallup Polls between 2001 and 2010. We find that liberals and Democrats are more likely to report beliefs consistent with the scientific consensus and express personal concern about global warming than are conservatives and Republicans. Further, the effects of educational attainment and self‐reported understanding on global warming beliefs and concern are positive for liberals and Democrats, but are weaker or negative for conservatives and Republicans. Last, significant ideological and partisan polarization has occurred on the issue of climate change over the past decade.     

The original bailout of US corporations: The public relations bailout

More than a trillion of taxpayer dollars are currently being used to bail out the US banking, mortgage and car industries. This invokes an interesting connection to public relations the last time drastic US government involvement with corporations was contemplated. This pre-First World War crisis of the free enterprise system involved a deficit not of money but of favourable public opinion. The requirement was for vast amounts of public opinion and public policy work by a reported at least 1200 – what were at that time called – press agents. This was the period when public relations emerged as a fundamental plank of US and ultimately of global culture. The thesis of this article is that many aspects of the world we live in cannot be properly understood without a better analysis of the first bailout of US corporations—the public relations bailout.     

Payroll taxes for social security in the United States: The future of fiscal and social policy illusions

This paper examines the validity of common assumptions about the basis of public support for the U.S. social security program. Various rationales for the social insurance approach are summarized and critically assessed. A review of public opinion surveys from 1935–1981 shows: (1) the distinction between social insurance and public assistance was not regarded as important by the public in the program's early years; (2) most Americans are now aware that the system operates on a pay-as-you-go basis; (3) there is widespread feeling that social security payroll taxes are too high, but at the same time a majority of the population thinks program benefits should be maintained or increased; and (4) serious doubt about the program's future is widespread, with many workers believing that there will not be sufficient money left for their own pensions when they retire. The paper concludes that the explanation of social security's enduring popular appeal and the phenomenon of mass toleration of rising payroll taxes is more closely tied to the perception that the program serves a deserving clientele, rather than a result of the social insurance approach.     

The evolution of public relations measurement and evaluation

The measurement and evaluation of public relations effectiveness has long been a major professional and research issue. In the first half of the 20th century, there were two research methods applied, opinion polls and basic media analysis. These were used to plan campaigns and monitor progress of media relations activities. In the second half of the century, as the practices of public relations expanded, greater emphasis was given to media analysis but the evidence of many practitioner studies was that measurement and evaluation was more discussed than undertaken. In the final 25 years of the century, the academic voice began to become more prominent in the discussion and development of methodologies and in nationally-based education programmes aimed at practitioners. The Internet and social media also began to change practices. There were mixed results from this clamour: more practitioners began to evaluate public relations activity (but many still applied discredited measures) whilst new techniques began to be introduced. Document analysis has prepared a timeline of the development of public relations measurement and evaluation. This paper explores the academic and professional themes that have characterised the development of this important public relations practice over the past 110 years.     

Following the "Mail Hawks": Alternative Measures of Public Opinion on Vietnam in the Johnson White House

Scholars argue that public opinion grew in importance duringthe Vietnam conflict, yet most find President Johnson was notresponsive to public opinion during the War. We amplify thesetheories by demonstrating the practical value of public opinionmail sent to the White House on Vietnam, reshaping theoriesabout the constraining role of public opinion in foreign policy.We find that the White House mail, but not opinion polling,favoring escalation of the War had a significant and positiveimpact on President Johnson's policy rhetoric. From these andsimilar findings, we conclude that the Johnson Administrationfollowed core "hawkish" political allies (those individualsdesiring a rapid escalation and quick end to the war) ratherthan those approving of a withdrawal, suggesting mail-gaugedopinion from electoral partners (and core political allies morebroadly) has value in foreign policy making.     

“A Statistically Representative Climate Change Debate”: Satirical Television News,Scientific Consensus,and Public Perceptions of Global Warming

Satirical television news programs provide the public with potential sources of information about climate change. This study uses a segment from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver as a test case for exploring how coverage from such programs that features consensus messaging may influence viewers’ perceptions of global warming. The segment presents a “statistically representative climate change debate” to affirm the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change and satirize television news coverage “balancing” this consensus with skeptics’ arguments. Results from a randomized experiment demonstrate that watching the segment increased viewers’ own belief in global warming, as well as viewers’ perceptions that most scientists believe in global warming. The latter effect was stronger among participants with low interest in the environment and global warming than among those with high interest. The segment’s impact on perceptions of scientists’ views may have mediated its effects on viewers’ own beliefs about global warming.     

Agenda building effects by 2008 presidential candidates on global media coverage and public opinion

Grounded in first and second level agenda building and agenda setting, the relationships among public relations, global media, and public opinion were explored in the context of the 2008 United States presidential election. Two candidates’ speeches, press releases, and foreign media coverage were analyzed and compared with global public opinion. The results showed that object salience (issue and candidate) relationships were found between public relations messages and global media coverage while affective attribute (tone) salience relationships were partially found among public relations messages, global media, and public opinion.     

Public Opinion on Foreign Policy: The Multilateral Public that Perceives Itself as Unilateral

Americans have a strong preference for multilateral foreignpolicies over unilateral foreign policies. But do Americansknow their own preferences? Data from a national survey showwide misperceptions of public opinion on foreign policy. WhileAmericans strongly prefer multilateral policies, they overestimatepublic support for unilateral policies. For example, while only23 percent of respondents agreed that the more important lessonof September 11 is that the United States should work aloneto fight terrorism rather than work with other countries, respondentsestimated that almost 50 percent of Americans endorsed thisview. Moreover, misperceptions of public opinion were relatedto subsequent judgments of specific policies. For example, respondentswho incorrectly perceived the unilateral view as the majorityview were 1.84 times more likely to support a presidential decisionto invade Iraq without the approval of the United Nations (UN)Security Council than respondents who correctly perceived theunilateral view as the minority view. Misperceptions of publicopinion were also associated with the belief that the currentforeign policy reflects the opinions of the American people.This belief in the legitimacy of the foreign policy was as stronga predictor of support for specific unilateral policies as respondents’attitudes.     

Public opinion towards gambling and gambling regulation in Australia

In recent years, public opinion towards gambling has become a more important factor in shaping public policy. Using a national public opinion survey conducted in Australia in 2011, this paper examines public opinion towards gambling in general and towards the government regulation of gambling in particular. Australia is an important case study because of the internationally high prevalence of gambling among the public, combined with a strong regulatory framework. Public opinion is measured by a reduced form of a scale first developed in Britain. The results confirm the generally negative views that the public holds towards gambling, which have been found internationally. In addition, the Australian public is open to the introduction of further restrictions on gambling. Overall, the public views the liberalization of gambling as having moved as far as most citizens find acceptable; to meet public expectations, future policies need to address more adequately the negative social consequences associated with problem gambling.