Notes for Political Socialization/Interest Group lecture

Here are the notes for the two chapters we're covering this week:

American Politics

PUBLIC OPINION

Textbook definition: The aggregate of individual attitudes or beliefs shared by some portion of the adult population

Now – nobody is ever going to be in 100% agreement. So public opinion can take several forms

CONSENSUS – general agreement among citizens on an issue

What do we have consensus on?

DIVISIVE OPINION – Public opinion that is POLARIZED on two different positions

Discuss polarization – intensity, degree, divisiveness, political implications

The book makes a distinction between PRIVATE and PUBLIC opinion – does such a difference really exist? Can you provide an example?

We’ll see the blurring of private and public domains throughout American politics – what’s to blame for this?

TV, internet, dirty campaigns

How is Public Opinion formed?

Through a process known as political socialization

The process through which people acquire political beliefs and attitudes

Now – political socialization is not synonymous with DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIZATION – in authoritarian regimes, people are conditioned to believe in authoritarian systems. But it’s still socialization.

In the US, who is responsible for this socialization?

Family

Family is the surest determinant of a person’s political stances (Republican, Dem)

Family shapes values, which in turn influences political views

Children always want to please their parents, and so will adopt those views

School/Education

Teachers also have a heavy influence on political socialization, which is why evolution vs. creationism is such a huge issue

But the state also makes sure that good citizenship is taught as well – pledge of allegiance, symbols, flags, etc. Reinforces idea of state unity, and it’s why countries are willing to finance public education

Also, the more educated people are, the more likely they are to vote, and be politically involved. Democracies cannot thrive without participation.

Peer Influence

Peer Group – a group of members sharing common characteristics

The idea is that “blood is thicker than water” – so they will vote together, and work together to attain political ideals

However – it’s easy to overstate as well. Not all African-Americans will vote the same way, and not all union members will vote for the same candidate

IMPACT OF THE MEDIA

Highly contentious nowadays, because of media’s pervasiveness

Definitely plays a role in agenda-setting: determining which public policy questions will be debated or considered

Ex: Rise in anti-welfare legislation, directly linked to “Welfare Queen” sensationalism in news stories

Political Events

May also shape political opinion

For instance – the assassinations of 1968 (MLK, RFK) solidified anti-violence

Left a generational effect

Political Preferences/Voting Behavior

Political scientists are always trying to tie a link to SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS and voting behavior

SES – the value assigned to a person due to occupation or income

It is thought that upper-class will always vote Republican, middle class will vote depending on how the economy is functioning, and poor will always go Democrat

Education – also plays a role

Generally thought that those without a higher degree are more likely to vote Republican

While those with advanced degrees are more likely to vote Democratic

However, MBAs, and PhDs in hard sciences also vote Republican

Even among poli sci PhDs, there’s a divergence in opinion

RELIGION

Interesting fact: According to the CNN exit polls of the 2004 elections, 78% of Evangelical Christians (born-again) voted for Bush

However – can we really decipher voting patterns through religion?

Used to be that Protestants voted Republican, Catholics and Jews voted Democratic

But that doesn’t hold anymore – many Protestants voted for Kerry, and as abortion has become more politicized, Catholics are embracing Republicans

Also – you can be a Christmas-and-Easter Catholic, or very devout. Calling yourself a Catholic doesn’t clarify your position any

Ethnic/Religious Determinants – do these labels encourage political consensus?

Gender Gap

Before the election of Ronald Reagan, it was thought that women and men had the same concerns. But as abortion, and other women’s issues, became more politicized, there grew a divide.

Now, it appears that women lean slightly towards the Democrats, though not overwhelmingly.

Their concerns may be different too – more focus on environmental effects, social welfare, extension of civil liberties as well

Why is there a difference? Some say it’s in marriage tendencies – in that the rising divorce rate makes men richer and women poorer.

One last determinant – Party Identification does not mean a surefire vote

Decline in party discipline and cohesiveness

Now, politics is PERSONALIZED – you vote for individual candidates, and party affiliation comes in second

The election of Ronald Reagan was also a benchmark in this development

Growing media and lack of party discipline contribute to this

POLITICAL POLLS

How do they take polls? Where do they find their samplings? A variety of ways

Representative Samplings

If they want to measure how a specific group feels regarding same-sex marriage, you would divide it among the following:

Gays and lesbians

African-Americans

White Protestants

White Catholics

White Jews

Hispanics

And come up with percentages from there. So if 15/20 GLBT said Yes, that would be 75% of the gay community supports it. If 2 out of 20 in the Hispanic community supported it, that would be 10% of the community.

Random polling

Just select 1000 people and ask…and hope that it’ll give you an accurate picture. However, if you choose everybody from one town, that’s not very diverse ethnically or religiously, you could skew your results.

So – PROBLEMS WITH POLLING

It’s always a problem when you assume that a small pool is representative of a larger population. Can you really multiply those results?

Sampling Errors – difference between sampler’s results and the actual reality of what would be recorded if the entire population was interviewed

This is why polls now have “Margin of errors” – (3 to 5%)

Also, the WAY they ask the question is pivotal

If they’re trying to gauge support for the Iraq war, one poll might ask, “Do you believe our nation has the right to defend itself?”

And of course, you’re going to get “Yes.”

If you skew it the other way: “Do you believe we should have to send our 19-year old sons to fight in a war that has no bearing on the so-called war on terrorism?”

Well of course you’re going to get “No.”

Also – some people might not be able to answer with a simple Y or N, and that makes it difficult to gauge the real political feeling

Exit polls – taken during election day

There’s been some argument that these actually prevent people from voting

How would you think that would happen?

If candidate is so far ahead, supporters might think, oh well he’s got it in the bag, and not vote

While the opponents’ supporters vote in droves

They’re worried about that in the Spitzer campaign

Different forms of Polling

Telephone polls – talk about Marist Institute for Public Opinion

Much quicker to do it over the phone instead of walking door-to-door

Also much safer

But – never easy to verify who you’re REALLY talking to (are they really registered to vote? Will they vote? Are they who they say they are?)

Also – are they telling the truth?

Internet Polling

Can reach more and more people, and have a much higher response rate

But again….can we depend on them?

Read the section on polling and its impact on policymaking – we’re going to jump to interest groups now

Interest Group: an organized group of individuals sharing common objectives who actively attempt to influence policymakers

Usually, they hire a LOBBYIST – attempts to influence legislation and the administrative decisions of government (got that term because they used to wait in the lobby for the delegates to leave the floor)

One way for organizations to influence govt decisions is by DIRECT LOBBYING.

Personal contact with political officials, try to convince them

Just an overview: According to the Center for Public Integrity, lobbyists have spent nearly $13 bn since 1998 to influence Congress and ed officials on legislation and regulations

Also – revolving door idea – 250 former members of Congress are now lobbyists, and 2000 lobbyists were former govt officials

Top 5 companies that spend most on lobbying: Verizon, GE

Top issues lobbied: Federal budget and appropriations, Health issues, defense, taxation & internal revenue code, transportation

How does lobbying work?

Can’t contact everybody – so lobbyists focus on the KEY DECISION MAKERS, those that can persuade others

Example: sugar distributors, when price of sugar raised, lobbied House and Senate Agricultural Committees

Not all lobbyists are successful. Depends on: 1. expertise of lobbyist, 2. the lobbyist’s connections

1. Expertise

Needs to have KNOWLEDGE of the topic

Ex: lobbyist who was more familiar with tax code actually made them change it to look better

Ex: “1995 bill to roll back protections for endangered species introduced by Wash. Senator Slade Gorton was written by lobbyists hired by Idaho Power Company, Chevron, and Kaiser Aluminum, all companies interested in reducing species protection and opening up lands for mining, logging, or commercial development.”

So…are lobbyists unelected politicians? Should they have this much influence on public policy?

Expertise is critical in having a successful lobby, so many companies and other interests often hire professional lobbying firms.

Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc.	$265 million
WPP Group plc	$170 million
Patton Boggs	$145 million
Piper Rudnick	$125 million
Akin Gump	$120 million

2. Access to high-ranking officials

Without CONNECTIONS, lobbyists will not succeed

One of the reasons that so many former members of Congress become lobbyists is because they have many friends in high places, and have an easier time accessing them then people who have not worked on Capitol Hill

Bob Dole - $800,000 to lobby for Verner Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand

GRASSROOTS LOBBYING –

Not just concerned with people in high places

Aims to convince the LARGER public to support its mission

How? Mail ads, television spots, internet, email, etc

National Restaurant Association – didn’t like tax reform that would give tax deductions for restaurant meals, so engineered a campaign spot with a sob story about a waitress, and ran it in four states – Arkansas, North Dakota, Maine, Louisiana – because Senators from these states were on the Senate Finance Committee

Grassroots lobbyists also hire professional firms – example of the call in campaign to change security law – people would call in, computer would search their local representatives/senators, then would write a letter on their behalf and send it to the official

Reality or illusion? Is there accountability here? What about with the issue of the “greedy lawyer” campaign in Mississippi?

Also – foreign countries do this as well. They don’t want to be perceived as publicly embracing lobbyists, so they hire other firms to do it for them

“Citizens for a Free Kuwait” – drove up advertising to get the US to kick Iraq out of Kuwait

Lobbying is not the only recourse for interest groups to have their say – they are also INVOLVED IN CAMPAIGNS

Can help register voters who will support candidates, advise candidates on policy positions, and make campaign contributions

NAACP – to try to influence 1996 elections, registered nearly 1 million people

Jimmy Carter received the nomination as presidential candidate partly due to the influence of the National Education Association

Different ways of garnering candidate support:

Outright endorsement – which could be tricky, because some voters who might otherwise have supported a candidate might not like the group (NRA is always a flashpoint)

Also can be done by “Grading” candidates – often done by Sierra Club and

NRDC

Can also promote favoring one candidate over another

Members of the interest group can also join the party, move up the ranks, and become a candidate for election

Christian Coalition and the Republican Party – very successful in this aim, have had several candidates stand for election

Another way to influence candidates: GIVE THEM MONEY

Has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years

Two forms of contributions:

Direct contributions: contributions given directly to candidates to use how they please

Independent expenditures: money spent on behalf of candidates, but not given directly to them

Ex: political ads “paid for by friends of Eliot Spitzer”

Difference between “hard money” (direct contributions) and “soft money” (indirect assistance)

POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES

PACs are a little different from PIGs – PIGs just want to influence outcomes, PACs are more about ELECTING or DEFEATING candidates to further legislation they support

1. EMILY's List $22,767,521 (female pro-choice candidates)
2. Service Employees International Union $12,899,352
3. American Federation of Teachers $12,789,296
4. American Medical Association $11,901,542
5. National Rifle Association $11,173,358
6. Teamsters Union $11,128,729
7. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $10,819,724
8. National Education Association $10,521,538
9. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees $9,882,022
10. Laborers' International Union of North America $9,523,837

Just a handful of more interesting PACs – MoveOn.org, Godless Americans PAC, Extraterrestrial Phenomena PAC – targets politics of UFO phenomena and govt embargo on confirming UFO evidence, Marijuana Policy Project

PACs, under current law, are the ONLY groups who can make LEGAL, DIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS to political candidates

Favor incumbents, because they win 90% of the time – however, not uncommon to give money to both candidates, to be on good terms

Ex: Trent Lott’s New Republican Majority Fund PAC – gave 1.3 mill to House and Senate candidates for 1996 elections

BUNDLING – combine numerous individual contributions together to make a single large contribution – sidestepped legislation saying, only so many contributions can be made

This way – politicians can claim they take no money from PACs – just because it’s not traceable

History of campaign finance laws – Congress regulated hard money contributions, but not soft money

Soft money: used for party-building programs, voter registration, ads

All of these factors – soft money contributions, bundling, PAC involvement, has allowed campaign spending to SKYROCKET throughout the years.

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 – aka McCain-Feingold Bill

Major provisions:

• A wholesale prohibition on soft money contributions and expenditure to national political parties -- unlimited donations nominally made for non-campaign purposes, but potentially used to influence federal elections.
• A prohibition on soft money contributions and expenditure to state and local political parties, with a few limited exceptions.
• Federal candidates and officeholders prohibited from accepting or spending soft money.
• A ban on supposedly non-partisan "issue ads" funded by soft money from corporations and labor unions - those referring to candidates for federal election without expressly advocating their election or defeat -- in the 60 days prior to a general election, or 30 days prior to a primary election.
• Disclosure of sources of finance for "electioneering communications" in excess of $10,000 per year.
• A political party spending money in a general election campaign must choose between making coordinated expenditures on behalf of its candidate, or independent expenditures on behalf of its candidate, but not both. (Ruled unconstitutional in McConnell v. FEC, but later upheld by the Supreme Court)
• Minors are prohibited from making contributions to candidates and political parties. (Ruled unconstitutional in McConnell v. FEC, but later upheld by the Supreme Court)
• Hard money legal limits raised:
• Limit for individual contributions per candidate per election increased from $1,000 to $2,000.
• Limit for individual contributions to National Party Committees increased from $20,000 to $25,000 per year.
• Limit for individual contributions to state and local party committees increased from $5,000 to $10,000

Other provisions (incomplete):

• Fundraising on federal property is prohibited.

BEYOND CONGRESS, HOW CAN PACS SECURE THEIR INTERESTS?

Judicial Branch

Amicus Curae Briefs: Literally, “friends of the court”

Brief filed by a group that is not actually party to the case – ex. Not a litigant

However, when case may have broader social implications, the court will allow statement of opinion from concerned groups

Ex: American Civil Liberties Union

Case: Edwards vs. Aguillard

Creationism in Louisiana – Governor vs. Teacher who wanted to teach Evolution

72 Nobel Laureates were allowed to submit amicus curiae to give weight to Aguillard’s argument

PROTEST – pickets, demonstrations, etc

Global Exchange protested against Nike – for sweatshops in Vietnam and Indonesia

PETA – very high profile campaigns against animal cruelty

Interest Groups Compared: Democracies

Lobbying exists in the European Union

EU – overarching democratic government determining the public policy of 25 member states

Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium

Last count – 15,000 lobbyists representing 1400 companies and interest groups

Interest group pluralism – a variety of viewpoints and perspectives are presented on the national stage

Benefits: represent a variety of ideologies and policy preferences – and citizens can support whichever it is that they want

Negative Outcomes:

Too many demands on government, being pulled in too many directions

Public interest demands may be too narrow, and may not be in the best interest of the larger population

Not all groups have the same access to money and power, and therefore tend to get crowded out and ignored

So what’s the alternative?

DEMOCRATIC CORPORATISM – when the government works with interest group CORPORATIONS to enact policy

Prevalent in Scandinavia, Austria, and Germany

Interest groups become CORPORATIONS – meaning they merge and consolidate, and form one body to represent all their interests. It is this one body that will then negotiate with the government and create policy.

Swedish example: Business groups, under one umbrella organization, will negotiate with labor groups, under one umbrella organization, to enact wage reform and labor policies.

Usually, this ensures EQUALITY OF ACCESS to seats of government and a healthy negotiating climate.

Other states COMBINE interest group pluralism and democratic corporatism – Germany, Britain, Japan, France, Switzerland

Sometimes – doesn’t always work. For example – German doctors are now on strike because their wages have been falling for 10 years.

Occasionally, government will reserve the right to create policies independent of interest group pluralism or democratic corporatism.

STATE AUTONOMY – state decides on its own to initiate legislation

Currently – France: more riots, but why?

De Villepin’s government has decided to initiate the “First Employment Contract”

Essentially, he’s trying to create more jobs for youth by dropping employment safeguards.

But students and others are protesting vehemently, saying it endangers their rights.

Throughout countries, interest groups may differ in how they are formed, whether they are official or not, etc