Read Chapt 5 for information.
* Optional: Post clarification questions here, or any questions you want to discuss in class.
* Mandatory: 1-2 paragraph evaluation of Chapt 5 “Public Opinion” discussion, either a particular matter or the general topic.
Go!
– Bromley
“Public Opinion”
The meaning of public opinion has changed dramatically over time. Elections were viewed as central components of the democratic process in city- states i believe. One example is Greece, but it was until late nineteenths century. Individual’s attitudes about political issues, leaders, institutions, and events has changed, questioning the legitimacy of governmental actions. Their opinions were based on fundamental values and democratic background. And for the government to act upon making decisions depends on the ability of individuals- or more likely the public’s opinion- and on specific conditions and events. It is hard for the government to make decisions because of alternating reasoning. People want what they what, for example: Pleading for the government system to change, issues such as gun controls through health care, etc.. But this would never happened because policy makers reply that the people often speak with many voices that are hard to reconcile and interpret and would cause alternately mess in the government giving what each wants. The system is already a mess so there is no way or no one that would fix it, but continue living with the consequences and try overcoming their own problems.(Madison)
As the Chapter explained, Public Opinion is a immensely important aspect of government legitimacy. There are countless ways for the government to extract a public opinion, but all have there shortcomings. The biggest obstacle for the US government to foster an opinion, is the same problem that faces Presidential elects, voter turn out. Although the chapter said that there are over one hundred polling firms across the country, they all face a similar problem, getting people to respond to the questions. I see this as especially difficult for firms who use the technique of “Random Digit Dialing” not only do a large quantity of those they call not answer, its a complexly random and aimless survey. Calling personal phones at random certainly has its draw backs, but I found an interesting example of persuasive politics stemming from “Push Polling” I never thought that the callers actually had an agenda, but I can see this now as a very subtle, yet effective way of conveying an idea and swaying a potential voter. And, at the same time, diluting the quality of feedback to the Fed.
There is yet another short-coming within the polling system that became evident to me. Some of the best minds in the world for this data could not accurately predict the outcome of the upcoming election, thus implying unpredictability, and non useful forecasting data. The sad fact is, that most Americans still lack interest or enthusiasm for the politics that dictate there every day lives. The study by Michael Carpini and Scott Keeter found the average American to be largely apolitical. The matter of polling is a genuine attempt by Governments to become more politically efficient, but the system does have the shortcomings that I have pointed out and is not an entirely reliable source for the government to represent our opinions. I look forward to discussing this topic tomorrow!!
Thanks for giving us the readings early!!!
“Evaluation”- Public Opinion(My opinion)
Public Opinion, a citizens attitude towards policy. The government’s programs and policies sometimes don’t seem consistent with popular references and the people start questioning, and sometimes probably a mad group of people would form a mob and start action(Putting up signs, etc..). Some people don’t know how the government fully work and how the government reply to public opinions, yet they start an wreckage. I say these Ameican people are dumb, Literally!!
From pgs 141-154, Basically all that is talking about is the people’s opinions. Public opinions on Healthcare policy, rights of abortion, 2/3s vote, the Gender gap, Social security, criminal justice, etc.
I see that each individual’s opinion is valuable, and if i were in their shoes i’d be doing the same thing: Fighting for my rights.
But i really don’t know much about the government and there’s no pain in trying, but It would fail. Because nothing will change the system or change individual senate’s minds. And these were the ones i focused on.:
Health care policy, defines as the decisions that are undertaken to achieve specific health care goals within a society. According to the World Health Organization, there is a chance and an explicit health policy can achieve several things: it defines a vision for the future; it outlines priorities and the expected roles of different groups; and it builds consensus and informs people. There are also many topics in the politics and evidence that can influence the decision of a government, private sector business or other group to adopt a specific policy. There are many policies that rely on the use of science and rigorous studies that identify programs and practices capable of improving policy relevant outcomes.
Abortion which is killing of the under developing fetus. In my own words, It is a wrong thing because that under-developing fetus has already been a baby. And some people say that a baby is a fully form of life when it is born, but they are wrong! Once the fetus started sprouting, that is when the baby is fully human yet is still developing.(Mrs. Buck, my homeroom teacher.) But this is Ameica and women have their rights, but it would be really nice if abortion was legal and would stop the killing away of babies.
The 2/3s vote another name “SUPER MAJORITY” . 2/3s vote requires that the number of votes in favor must be at least twice the number of votes against. Abstainers or neutral votes are not considered in a simple 2/3s vote thus if it doesn’t reach a 2/3s vote then whatsoever the vote was on would be obliterated.
Gender gap or the gender wage gap. In the United States, the gender pay gap is measured as the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers. It didn’t really function well because man were mostly paid with a higher rate. However, when controllable variables were accounted for, such as number of children, and the frequency at which unpaid leave is taken, in addition to other factors.
Social security- A federal insurance program that provides benefits to retired persons, the unemployed, and the disabled. Retired people are expanded with an amount of money saved or was part of taxation, i think.
Criminal Justice- the best way: DEATH PENALTY!
Although it is cruel, but they do deserve it. Giving justice to the innocent’s family and one quick way to get rid of criminals.!
Please do correct me if i am be wrong about something, or if you want to challenge me, do so!
Btw, thanks for this post!
Public opinion is an important part of any democratic society. However, in the US, I do not know how well public opinion is represented. With all of the polling and outside influences that impact the views of the public, how accurately are the people’s beliefs portrayed? Perhaps if we had a multiple-party system…but I digress. The polls are the first issue with public opinion – politicians base a lot of their activity and plans on poll results. These results can be biased, either intentionally or accidentally, and can thus create problems with the election campaign and process. There are too many factors to consider when trying to create an objective poll, and too much reliance on their results. The other issue with the public opinion is how easily people are swayed in either direction. Often times, media or even family members can change the beliefs of an individual. Also, party loyalties come into play as well. If individuals would take it upon themselves to complete in depth research of candidates and their policies, then perhaps the public opinion would change and reflect a more realistic consensus. Instead, the people who do not wish to investigate or who take the easy way out often misunderstand stances and issues and make decisions they would not have made if they were better informed. While the public opinion is important in a democratic society, the fact of the matter is – we do not live in democratic society. The public opinion can only be truly important if it has a meaningful impact on elections and if it is represented properly, which I feel is not the case in America.
Public Opinion is important for any functioning government. A problem though would have to be public opinion polling. The influences and beliefs of people sometimes clouds people’s true judgement on political matters. I believe that polling is sometimes bias which led to measurement errors. Sometimes the Representatives want the polls to be in there favor so they look like they are in the lead, hoping to get more votes. Of course they can do that in another way from push polling. Also they could do a selection bias survey on, for example, the upper class and ask them if they think taxing the top 1% should be allowed. This of course would get a bias answer. Now they do random sampling and the most common techniques are probability sampling and random digit dialing. Both are fair but again possible bias. In my opinion if i was randomly digit dialed to do i poll and i decided to answer, my judgement would be clouded because i would be annoyed that i was called to do a poll. Polls are sometimes relied on and most of the time they just are not accurate. Public opinion won’t matter is the questions asked on polls are bias.
Public opinion is critical to the democratic system of the United States. But is public opinion always the best way to go? The presence of large groups of ignorant individuals can lead to the political process being manipulated in order to shape public opinion. What if the majority opinion is morally wrong, or what if it’s not what’s best for the people? Should the government go against public opinion?
I believe that people should be better educated in general, so that this problem does not occur. Also, I believe that sometimes the public policy should differ very much from the public opinion, for the good of the people. Although some people might believe that the majority should rule no matter what, years ago the majority believed that slavery should be legal, even though that public opinion was wrong. In this case, what if the public policy of leaders such as Lincoln was not executed because it differed from the public opinion?
Also, a question I have:
What about public opinion in totalitarian countries that use propaganda, such as North Korea? If somehow in the future the North Korean government was overturned and replaced with a democratic government, would it even function? After all, the people of North Korea are essentially brainwashed to hail their “supreme leader”. Is it possible for public opinion in a democracy to be skewed this way (though not quite as extreme)?
Public opinion plays a huge role in American politics today. The general view points of the public can hold great power over candidates due to the fact that they need a majority to get re-elected. The values of the public differ depending on the education of the group, family upbringing and values, social groups, and current political influence at the time. The largest factor in shaping public opinion seems to be the education of the voters. The more educated people are, the more likely they are to study every angle and interpret each policy decision on their own. Public opinion is also split into private groups of advocates for certain issues. Groups like environmentalists, feminists, and socialists can have specific impact on government issues in their domain. The main two groups that influence public opinion are the liberals (democrats mostly) and the conservatives (republicans mostly).
This is why I think this whole thing is pretty much crap: First of all, America is based on principles of equality, liberty, education, human rights, American virtues, etc. These political opinion groups take advantage of undereducated and elderly people who don’t have the ability to make thoughtful decisions based on real facts by filling the people’s head with propaganda. The book clearly states that political parties will target less educated people with simple advertisements of complicated issues that only show one side of the story. It was even admitted that Clinton ‘launched a media attack against the GOP” to convince the elderly that republicans were trying to screw them over and gain the vote. (I’m not saying its just Clinton, I literally sort through my grandparents mail for flat out lies solicited from the republican party.) And Fox News? These public opinion groups twist the truth so much that the same story from a republican and democratic news channel sounds completely different. I’m tired of seeing my grandmother cry because the media has convinced her Obama will take all my money and social security and she won’t be there to support me. Our country was based on freedom and equality of opportunity, but how is it fair for politicians to use propaganda to sway the less educated? Secondly, the book states that “conservative politicians who saw the issue of abortion as a means of uniting Catholic and Protestant conservations and linking both groups to the Republican Party”. That goes against all of the truth and justice America is supposed to stand for. Especially with the issue of abortion, it is an issue of the inalienable rights of a woman to some and strong religious beliefs to others. This is not a topic that a party should just add to the ballet to gain the votes and approval of a certain faction. Not only is it immoral to take a stance on such an issue for voters, instead of for strong personal beliefs, educated research, and a simple feeling of responsibility to do the right thing, but the use of propaganda in such matters is a manipulation of the people. I know that it’s politics, but don’t people make decisions because they personally believe it’s the right thing to do anymore? What’s the point in telling the public half the truth to win a vote if the politician is not at all committed to the issue even though they’ve convinced the voters that they are? What happened to politicians like Lincoln, who set policy based on what’s right, even if it conflicted with popular opinion? Come on ‘Merca.
Wow. That escalated quickly…I’m feeling very opinionated right now. Sorry.
Also, what’s school busing?
Public opinion has been a factor in the shaping of America. It is what gave our founding fathers the ideas on how the nation would function as a government, and to this day, various opinions of many topics still stand. From the hard work of our founding fathers, we enjoy the freedom and liberty this great country has to offer for us. But as different people with different mindsets enter American soil, the balance between the benefits and conflicts tended to shift from then on. Has this helped the American people more than it has hurt them?
While most of us see could see why having many different opinions to stressed matters could be beneficial (As Madison has stated for having a successful democracy), there are certain factors to them that could make us think otherwise. I think that the problem is not on the clash of different opinions itself, but the emanating actions and results through those opinions. Falsely influencing citizens to believing fake information and promises have become somewhat of a habit with several governors throughout the years. Giving public opinion has become more of a task of influencing than factual evaluation.
If policy makers believe that public opinion should not always be followed because the public has little knowledge. Why don’t they invest money into giving people government classes so that they can gain more political knowledge? If they do that then the American opinion on these issues would be well informed. Also I think George W. Bush was very resourceful by stating thee President Lincoln was against popular vote and that if he had listened America ma not have been here. That was a good example to use of when policy makers should go against popular vote. Would it not be considered manipulative to use political advertising to make uninformed Americans bias to other view of different political parties? Why do Americans not consider that using family connections or special privileges to gain personal and material things success? Using your resources should be something commendable but in this case it seems like something that is not because the person technically didn’t have equal opportunity, they had an advantage. In some ways, won’t people of different social classes always have different opportunities like a rich man doesn’t get welfare and a poor man doesn’t have a maid (unlike Bromley who has 1). The Democratic system should be failing considering that little of its citizens have political knowledge but yet it still thrives. I think that its indicating that Americans don’t really make the political decisions just because its popular doesn’t mean is good. That implies to me that the government sometimes has to take action to vote for what they believe is right since many Americans today lack political knowledge.
Everything in life seems to be based on beliefs and/or personalities (personal point of view). You decide what side of an issue you will be on because of your political beliefs and values. I believe that everyone has political socialization, whether its intentional or not. I believe that the four main factors of socialization are what determines a persons position on certain political issues. So people’s public opinion are determined by their family, membership in social groups, education, and prevailing public proclamations. But the fact that the government is trying to abuse the lack of political knowledge in people’s public opinion so that they can make people biased against their opposing party is sick, but politically wise.
You know that moment when you figure out no you really don’t have any influence on what your government does? Yea that’s how well public opinion is represented in our government today in my opinion. I think we live in this illusionary place where think that if we feel strongly about an issue that we can influence the government to feel strongly about the issue and the same way as we do. However this isn’t the case, in fact the very structures of the government have been put in place to keep this from happening. The term limits, the staggering of elections, the fact that 1/3 of the senate is replaced every year, and that supreme justices have not term limit, were all put in place by the founding fathers to “protect” from public opinion. In our Founding Father’s eyes, the whim and opinion of the people would eventually lead to chaos if allowed to be the most important influence in the government, so there were barriers erected to make sure that this never happened. These barriers are still effective today.
It’s been argued that lack of voter participation is due to people being content with the decisions currently being made, but I have to disagree. I think its due to the fact that people are apathetic to the voting process. They do not feel like they really have a voice considering the government will continue to make unpopular decisions if they feel it will benefit the general welfare. However I don’t think its fair that they be allowed this power. We elect them because we want them to represent us. That’s the basic principle behind a democracy. If we don’t have that than what do we have? Furthermore just because american have mixed political ideologies does not make them wrong. It simply means that there are a lot of opinions that americans are passionate about. And was this not the goal of James Madison, having a society of factions so as to have a pluralistic society? I think that the fact that the government can choose to disregard the will of the people proves that Madison’s ideal is no longer being fully recognized. Yes public opinion is important to the politics of the nation and yes it is currently being neglected by the very people who are supposed to represent it.
PLEASE disregard my previous post. thanks
You know that moment when you figure out you really don’t have any influence on what your government does? Yea that’s how well public opinion is represented in our government today in my opinion. I think we live in this illusionary place where we think that if we feel strongly about an issue, we can influence the government to feel strongly about that issue and the also feel the same way we do. However this isn’t the case, in fact the very structures of the government have been put in place to keep this from happening. The term limits, the staggering of elections, the fact that 1/3 of the senate is replaced every year, and that supreme justices have not term limit, were all put in place by the founding fathers to “protect” from public opinion. In our Founding Father’s eyes, the whim and opinion of the people would eventually lead to chaos if allowed to be the most important influence in the government, so there were barriers erected to make sure that this never happened. These barriers are still effective today.
It’s been argued that lack of voter participation is due to people being content with the decisions currently being made, but I have to disagree. I think its due to the fact that people are apathetic to the voting process. They do not feel like they really have a voice considering the government will continue to make unpopular decisions if they feel it will benefit the general welfare. However I don’t think its fair that they be allowed this power. We elect them because we want them to represent us. That’s the basic principle behind a democracy. If we don’t have that than what do we have? Furthermore just because american have mixed political ideologies does not make them wrong. It simply means that there are a lot of opinions that americans are passionate about. And was this not the goal of James Madison, having a society of factions so as to have a pluralistic society? I think that the fact that the government can choose to disregard the will of the people proves that Madison’s ideal is no longer being fully recognized. Yes public opinion is important to the politics of the nation and yes it is currently being neglected by the very people who are supposed to represent it.
Often times the public opinion splits people into groups. Today, we have the liberals and conservatives. People often times confine themselves to these groups, and follow what the leaders of these groups think, either because they think that the leaders know better than what they may think, or because their minds are easily manipulated. Restricting thought to a certain set of standards slows down growth by a significant margin. Instead of thinking about a political issue at hand, people turn to their political groups to listen to the opinions they are told they should have. Public opinion is too easily manipulated, because the public doesn’t really care about politics they aren’t told they should care about. If people were not categorized by a group of issues, but instead by the individual issues, then people wouldn’t have to be confined to their political group views.
Although public opinion is important in politics, I don’t think it should be as important as it is. The government should primarily try to make the nation a better place, and the thoughts of the public should be an afterthought. This gets tricky though, as the Government is made up by human beings, who are going to try to use the system for personal gain. The government will never be able to be successful all the time, because people are too corrupt to make everything be the way it should. They will always try to cater to themselves, their friends, or certain groups that they endorse. The public will never be able to present a clear and educated opinion if they remain uneducated in politics, because many of their opinions will be highly biased or nonexistant. There will never be a clear way to make sure the government does good, because you can not rely on public opinion, and you can not reply on the good intentions of the politicians.
I guess the conclusion I came to today was that this whole class was to get me to question the government. My family and I aren’t real big on government, I took this class because I thought it would be interesting and I thought I may perhaps have interest in politics, and I wanted to see the campus. But reading this chapter helped me question the big picture, is the Big Bad All American Government fair? Is it as democratic as we make it out to be? It seems to me as though, everything just may be decided and set for us before we are born. We really do live in an aMEica, the government, policies, the citizens, the politicians seems good all for oneself.
We are all born into different factions that had influenced our perception on politics and the government. And although big lifetime events and shifting social norms can change a person’s choice of party drastically, to switch from the apolitical to the political strata is near impossible I believe. This is why I question the fairness/equality of the American government. When you are born into a family a part of the apolitcal strata, for the most part you will not be swayed in some direction by your family. Then next thing you will look to will be friends. Listening to a friend of government, the friend will only be fulfilling his or her will to teach and make others more “knowledgeable.” Then comes media, media that includes political propaganda will be fulfilling the politician’s will to get his or her message in a way a politician wants out to the citizens. I feel my ideas aren’t fully formed yet because I just came to another conclusion now. Maybe I’m suppose to question, who is the government for? Since we live in aMEica, is it for us as a group to integrate the diversity and be equals, or is it for those who can make it out alive? Is aMEica really democratic, because the public seems to have a big role just except the fact that they, the government, sway the public(at least the majority of the non informed) to, once again, something they want the public to believe, something to their advantage.
My definition of public opinion is (and share this with text) the citizens’ attitudes about political issues, leaders, institutions and events. After reading the chapter, I have say public opinion in the United States is very complex. For example although as Lane previously stated that public opinion adds or gives legitimacy to a government (this notion is proven in the case of the Iraq War where public opinion by 2008-2009 was correct in believing that had no business being there and needed to pull our troops out and the government eventually did realizing it was the correct course of action); I also find that public opinion also detracts legitimacy from a government [in that a simple-majority of the country is extremely uneducated in American government and policy and this therefore makes the people more susceptible to being persuaded and thereby formulating a public opinion based on erroneous and fallacious information (George W. Bush formulated the public opinion that the USA needed to invade Iraq by providing the people false information that the Saddam Hussein was involved with the planning of 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction.). I say public opinion is complex because although I find Lane’s initial statement correct, I also find that in theory public opinion is necessary for a government (democracy or democratic institution) to maintain its internal efficacy, however in practice more times than not public opinion is either completely incorrect or completely ill-informed and therefore can be used by government to trick the public into being behind a specific agenda that may but is most likely not beneficial to them (I feel that in this sense legitimacy is detracted through public opinion). I would therefore, describe the effect that public opinion has on the government as a constant tension between the legitimacy illegitimacy that consequently facilitates the polarization of our parties.
The opinions of the general public are intertwined tightly with the system of politics in the United States. Politicians must account for public opinion when governing and when enacting legislation. Public opinion stems from a multitude of socioeconomic conditions such as education and political affiliation of parents. Public opinion is also based on political knowledge. Generally, the citizens of this country are politically attentive, however, the sources of this information are not always credible. Americans want to learn about political issues, but many lack the resources and time to really investigate current issues, therefore, they usually turn to friends, journalists, and commentators. The consequences of such behavior are the people’s inability to completely understand their political interests.
The problem with this general misunderstanding and frustration towards politics by the American people is that it opens the floodgates for personal and factional interests to affect the legislature. Something very clearly identifiable in today’s realm of politics. These interests, which usually are not supported by the public, are almost certainly backed up by boatloads of money. That is the danger of lobbyists and special interests, not only do they work against the public opinion, but they show how vulnerable and frankly weak our politicians are.
Does public opinion matter when most Americans don’t know anything about politics? Such as the fact that most people cannot even name one of their Senators, much less tell you how many US Senators there are in their state? Throughout the rest of the chapter, the book states that many people get their political ideas and affiliations from several different places, including the media, family, social groups, education, and political conditions. Other than the last two, if people are getting their political association based on what they watch, what their family says, or what their friends say; is that not an issue in and of itself? If someone cannot even make a decision for themselves on what they believe, how are they even going to come close to knowing anything about what to think on issues facing the nation? Sure, they’ll be able to cookie-cut an answer out from what they’re taught to believe, but if they cannot think critically or for themselves, do we want them having a say in the political sphere to just regurgitate what they’ve heard on Fox News or MSNBC? If the American people do not choose or want to become involved politically, how can they hope to even gain any amount of influence when trying to shape public policy or caring about certain issues? While it wouldn’t be fair to assume everybody will go home and read three different articles on the same topic to weed out bias, it also isn’t fair for people to assume that by watching one particular news channel or getting their information from a parent or friend is actual comprehension of the topic.
The citizens of the United States of America for the most part do not indivudally form their own political opinions. Today the citizens of America do not form their own political opinions. Almost all Americans base their political opinions off of whatever their party tells them to believe, a very biased media, and/or what the popular opinion at the time is. This can be seen when Americans are polled and show how little they know about politics. The large majority of American citizens do not elect the best people to lead their country, but rather vote for the person they have told to vote for. This situation has caused Americans, to actually lose their freedom of democracy in a democratic system.
The American people are the ones to be blamed for the lack of democracy in America. They accept the opinions that are dictated to them by the politicians and the media. The citizens of our country have also let lobbyists influence the decisions that the government makes. Lobbyists do not represent the majority of Americans, and they influenced laws that are that affect the American people. All of these negative things are shown through polls. Where most Americans feel removed from the American government, and do not even know the people they have voted into office, blindly because they were told to vote for that leader. Although America is still a democratic republic, which means Americans if they for some reason decide to open their and see what is going on in politics in their country can still make a change by voting for those who do not conform to the states quo in politics.
Americans would like to think they stand for equality, but really they only stand for equality in theory. Everyone wants equal opportunity in theory, but somehow they are okay with the outcomes of unequal circumstance. American society is not just accepting of results of unequal circumstance, but they expect it and even praise the success of an individual as wholly capitalistic. These inequalities of circumstance do not just result in economic success, but they contribute to the qualities which perpetuate the rigidity of political/apolitical strata.
As a society of self-rule, all parts of society should be knowledgable in order to avoid corruption in the political process and create the best national resolutions. It is the governments job to make sure a society is educated, but should the area of political knowledge be kept to the private sector? The government educating on politics would display a major conflict of interest, even though the government does have a valid responsibility for needing to educate the public. If political education is left up to the private sector, the interests of factions would compete for the ignorant’s attention, and so a seemingly informational system would actually be only distorting the facts to people who may not know better, which may be worse that ignorance itself. So maybe self-rule works better with quality rather than quantity. As much as the society would benefit by more knowledgable voters, the only option is for political knowledge to be left to the imperative of the individual. So maybe instead of the government doing nothing, it should simply encourage that the voters do their research and stay informed, no matter who they vote for.
“Public Opinion”
Imagine being part of a group in which many of you come from different backgrounds and probably different ethnicity. At some point you all want to gather up and eat somewhere. The only issue there might be is, where do you go eat? Everyone will have different sort of opinions and and various options. The best way to approach the issue is to set restrictions and vote based on what is being offer. At the end some will be disappointed and some happy. The similar situation works with our government. There are too many people in the U.S. and everyone is different and the amount of differences is numerous. This is why we give power to our government and let them decide, at most times what is best for the country. Even If we were to incorporate public opinion in our government, a substantial amount of individuals would not have an idea of what they are doing or most of the time, people lack knowledge. As stated in the book most individuals did not know how to respond to the questions in a survey about who was their state representative.
This leads up to some few questions. Does democracy exist in our government or does the government give an illusion that democracy exist? If public opinion mattered and was taken into consideration, would we have democratic government? Sadly enough, our government has produce an illusion that sometimes the people are given power but realistically people who continue their education can make a difference in our government. If public opinion would be taken into consideration the results would be conflictual. According to the book, which I mostly agree with, public opinion is very different in all aspects. This is why we have certain people (our government) make decisions because it is easier to come up with solutions. In addition, public opinion is just the peoples’ opinions. According to the definition of Merriam Webster Dictionary, the definition of opinion is a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter. This clearly portrays that an opinion is an individual’s thought towards something, in this case political issues. The only way we can see changes in our government, is if people stop saying their opinions and start getting politically active.
Public opinion is a major contributing factor within American politics. Within the democracy, this highly impacts the election process and which candidates gets the position as president. Public opinion also shapes the government as a whole because the policies should satisfy the majority and its popular preferences. However, there are many clashing ideas (much like factions) throughout the country that it is difficult for public officials to identify which policy is best for the country holistically. The various ideas of the public derive from family values, social groups, education, and political conditions. I agree with the influence through family values and social groups, but I would also have to add on the influence through media. With families, it is simply a part of human nature that someone grows up around what ideas they were raised with. It is inevitable that these values and morals can shape one’s political ideas. Obviously not all children follow through their parents’ political beliefs, but it is very common. As the book mentioned, social groups are the groups that individuals identify themselves through such as gender and race, or voluntary categories such as labor unions and educational groups. Through these groups, individuals gain important experiences and various perspectives that shapes their political ideas and what policies or change they want to see exercised by government through external efficacy. Finally, there is no doubt that media plays a large role within American society and most of the time, it is portrayed in a biased manner. Since most of the average citizens’ lives are consumed by media, political beliefs are easily shaped through the media. These three concepts affect political interests of many citizens within the U.S..
Is America really a democracy? A democracy is supposed to involve all of the people, a rule by the people. But, how are the people supposed to rule if they don’t even know what they want? Many people don’t have any political affiliation with a certain party or group and they are greatly persuaded by family, social background, media, etc. An average American’s surroundings can easily persuade them to vote for either party, for any given election. Many voters don’t have a political opinion or are brainwashed by their surroundings. Media has a large impact on the opinions of average American voters. Part of the reason pollsters are able to predict accurate readings on which way elections will go (left or right) is because the media tends to have such a great influence on American people. Especially with wedge issues and promotion of candidates though social media, pollsters can accurately predict which way the American public will vote. In this way, pollsters also have a large impact on the way people vote. For example, if a poll shows a election swinging a certain way it can motivate people who do not agree to go out and vote for what they want (to “BELIEVE” they can make a change).
The reason America is questioned as a democracy is because a majority of voters are misinformed or brainwashed by their circumstances, which in turn affects their choices. If the voters don’t know what’s going on and don’t know what they want, how is America a nation ruled by the people. It’s not. American voting trends are greatly influences by social everything: social background, social media, family and friends social life, etc. Public opinion greatly matters in a democracy, but if the voter’s opinions aren’t their own, how is America a democracy?
Have Americans truly succeeded in being a part of what is called a democracy? Do they believe that they are a contributing factor within in it? I think so. The people know what they want and when they want. The “people” do. Now, why are they called the “People?” Because they represent what America as a nation should be. Thats why when they dont like something that the government proclaims or carries out, they outrage and their political values mainly come from family, social groups, and political conditions. But the thing is, theres a difference between what women want and what men want. Their opinions, the people’s opinions matter the most, but which opinions outweight the others? This sort of resembles how pluralism works. When two different people look at something, there are going to be two different opinions. There are so many other things that help form the publics’s opinion; there are education, political conditions, but most importantly, politcal knowledge. If the people dont know what they want, or if they are not aware of current political events, they truly cant be in the well oiled machine called democracy. A prime example of this is the voting system. Almost half of the American population dont exercise their right to vote when it comes to electing a new president. Mainly because they just dont care, satisfied, or they dont know who is better than whom. Its the situations like these that make the democracy not so much a democracy because of the fact that people arent involved in the political spectra.