There is an old puzzle about if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear the crash, does it make a sound? A similar, though more serious question, concerns public opinion: if people have opinions on a subject but the pollsters ignore these views, is there still a “public opinion” on that subject? The answer is that “yes,” in the narrow sense that people do have an opinion, but since they are not solicited on that topic, there is no public opinion.
This quandary highlights the role of pollsters who devise and ask survey questions and thus define public discussion. In principle it is no different from how mass media and social media shape public discourse by covering some topics, ignoring others and censoring what they deem objectionable.
On abortion, for example, is “abortion” a women’s choice about reproductive health, or infanticide? The pollster, not the respondent, chose the words and permissible alternatives so pollsters, unlike the telephone-like transmitters of information, are not neutral. Given that few rules govern poll construction, the ideologically minded pollsters can invisibly guide the data toward a pre-determined conclusion without anybody noticing the bias.
In the 2024 presidential election polls on issues resemble a fast-food menu usually limited to the economy, the border/immigration, inflation, abortion, crime, and occasionally, the direction of the country. Respondents can prefer Trump or Biden from this policy menu, but they cannot opine on anything beyond the survey’s limited bill of fare.
This pollster-defined menu is also self-reinforcing by guiding media discussions. If the media’s talking heads rely on poll data, they frame the discussion entirely in terms of what the polls provide, and this heightens public awareness of the issue which, in turn, confirms the pollster’s menu. Social scientists label this “agenda setting.” Note how Biden’s bribe-taking has now vanished from the polls and thus from public discussion.
Agenda setting awards pollsters immense power or, more accurately, those able to finance the polls. Naturally, pollsters insist that they only reflect, not decide, what deeply concerns Americans. This is, however. misleading since people may have strong opinions on a topic, but these views can be irrelevant to those controlling surveys.
This agenda power is most relevant for “controversial” topics that do not lend themselves to frank public discussion, especially issues involving race. Recall the old joke about how nudists dance — very carefully. Americans surely have lots to say on racial issues, some of it “offensive, but the pollsters decide what is off-limits. Thus, when media pundits touch on race, some topics are pushed aside and “public opinion” on them thus becomes sanitized or nonexistent.
Consider, for example, the current demonization of whiteness, i.e., whites, regardless of their individual behavior or views, are evil, a threat to people of color and thus should be punished. The head of the CDC claimed that white superiority was a public health crisis (p. xi) while President Biden called white supremacy the greatest White flight” has existed for decades but recent events, notably the “George Floyd riots” of 2020 and surging violent black crime has invigorated this exodus. The upsurge of in-migration of people from “Blue” to “Red” states suggests racial hostility given that many Blue States either have large minority populations or, like California, have enacted laws facilitating black crime. Similarly, despite all the effort, racial segregation in public schools is on the rise Red States are also facilitating racial separation by promoting private schools, even subsidizing them. Since voting with one’s feet or wallet is more burdensome than answering a 10-minute telephone inquiry, this behavior speaks loudly.
Racial animus is also displayed in entertainment that is captured by the expression, “Go Woke, Go Broke.” Walt Disney, in particular, has lost tons of money by “blackening” its films and otherwise catering to black audiences. Put bluntly, many (though hardly all) whites don’t want blacks in role traditionally played by whites. Similarly, merely adding blacks to TV commercials can help if viewers see a reason for this diversity, but it can backfire if the placement appears gratuitous.
Despite evidence of growing racial turmoil, election campaigns remain careful in exploiting racial strife for electoral advantage, but indirect appeals abound. Accusations that Donald Trump and other Republicans engage in “dog whistle” appeals are credible. Plausibly, the expression “Good, safe schools” means all-white schools. Or the phrase “tough on crime” prompts white fears of black violence. Recall how Ronald Reagan used “Welfare Queen” as an implicit attack on blacks living off the government without explicitly mentioning race. Ditto for the Willie Horton TV ad in the 1988 presidential campaign stoked fear of black crime by highlighting brutal black-on-white sexual violence.
In today’s America, two “public opinions” on race co-exist. One comes from pollsters who dance like the preverbal nudists at the nudist camp. When asking about crime, for example, questions might ask if respondents “fear crime” but who specially they fear is not mentioned. Women carjackers? The other is what millions of Americans, who in practice, express their opinions by relocating to all-white area or buy guns for self-defense against black criminals. That government must vigorously enforce anti-discrimination laws only confirms the reality of deeply rooted racial hostility. It remains to be seen if the two worlds will collide and what will then happen.
Image: Montecruz Foto
Comments are closed.