Julian Sanchez header image 2

photos by Lara Shipley

Public Opinion and Presumption

September 12th, 2011 · 6 Comments

Gallup reports a record high number of respondents telling pollsters they “approve” of marriages between blacks and whites. In one sense, this is obviously great news, but something about the question itself bothered me.

In part, it was that the framing still embeds the assumption that “marriages between blacks and whites,” a term that encompasses about half a million distinct relationships in the United States, constitutes some kind of useful conceptual class, toward which people might coherently be expected to have a gestalt “pro” or “con” attitude. Imagine someone asked you whether you approved or disapproved of marriages between people with surnames whose initial letters fell in different halves of the alphabet. Would you say “approve,” or just give them a funny look? Or, for that matter, suppose you’re asked whether you approve of “relationships,” period. Most of us could only answer: “What do you mean? Which ones?”

Perhaps the more fundamental problem, though, isn’t with the category so much as with the choice between “approval” and “disapproval” itself. My own instinctive reaction was: “What possible business of mine could it be to approve or disapprove of the relationships of thousands of strangers?” Now, I’m not being deliberately obtuse here: Obviously Gallup is only asking because large numbers of people have taken it to be their business to disapprove of interracial relationships as a class for most of our history. But it seems to me that progress does not consist in shifting people’s attitudes from “disapprove” to “approve.” (And I suspect most of the people responding “approve” really mean something more like: “Don’t think there’s anything wrong with…”) To approve, after all, is still to implicitly reserve the right to disapprove, to assert the right to judge. The closest parallel is probably with “toleration,” which, however clearly preferable to its opposite, has always carried the uneasy suggestion of an indulgence the majority charitably extends at its discretion. Nobody likes to be on the wrong end of “intolerance,” but it should also be a little unnerving to hear that your neighbors “tolerate” you.

The oddness of expressing “approval” or “disapproval” is a bit clearer if you think of it in personal terms. If a few casual acquaintances tell you, not just that they “like” the person you have just started dating, but that they “approve” of your burgeoning relationship, you might take that in the spirit of friendly (if somewhat nosy) advice. If they say the same about your spouse, or your partner of many years, you’re more likely to feel indignant: “And who are you to ‘approve’ or not? Who asked you?”

Pollsters, of course, do ask everyone—or enough of us to take a stab at generalizing about everyone, at any rate. And judging by the relatively low numbers that tend to follow “don’t know/no opinion,” most of us feel obliged to come up with an answer when asked, whatever the topic. While relatively few of those questions invite impertinent judgements about the private lives of our fellow citizens, they do expect us to have views on a seemingly unlimited range of topics, regardless of whether the average person can reasonably be expected to have an informed view on the question: How would you rate the Obama administration’s handling of the economy? Has the Patriot Act made us safer? In contrast to questions about other people’s romantic relationships, it’s obviously not presumptuous or inappropriate for citizens in a democracy to have views on these matters, but the honest answer for most of us, most of the time, is: “You know, I really couldn’t say.” The pollsters, needless to say, don’t care about our answers to these questions because the popular answer is likely to be correct, but because the majority perception is politically significant. That’s one reason they often exclude “I don’t know” or “no opinion” as an explicit option, though they’ll record that answer when respondents volunteer it: It’s not like they think the people who do readily express an opinion have any real idea either; they’re just looking for attitudes.

Fair enough for the pollsters, but you do have to wonder how the ubiquitous reporting of public opinion polls influences our thinking about politics. If just about everyone has an opinion on these questions, it tends to imply that the questions are easy (wouldn’t more people be saying that they just don’t know otherwise?) and that everyone ought to be expected to have an opinion on all these topics. If you don’t have a lot of spare time to do intensive research into complicated policy questions, of course, you’re probably going to have to outsource your opinion to someone who seems ideologically congenial, whether it’s a wonkier friend or a professional pundit. Once we do adopt those views, though, they’re ours—and we’re more likely to take umbrage if someone suggests that they aren’t supported by the best evidence.

Then you have polls like the 2010 study that showed Americans not only vastly underestimate the existing level of inequality in this country, but overwhelmingly prefer a much more egalitarian income distribution—something closer to Sweden’s than our own current status quo. This was taken as signalling that Americans’ underlying attitudes about social justice are really quite progressive, even those who (presumably out of confusion or ignorance) describe themselves as “conservative.”

This interpretation again neglects the implicit question invariably embedded in opinion polls: the assumption that the respondents ought to decide the answer. If you insist that anyone, however conservative or libertarian they might be, imagine themselves in the position of a parent doling out cake at a birthday party, then naturally they’re going to be inclined to favor a pretty equal distribution. But conservatives and libertarians don’t accept high levels of inequality because they think hugely disproportionate concentrations of wealth are intrinsically wonderful, or even just because they think unequal rewards are necessary to spur effort and productivity. Rather, they think holdings ought to be emergent, and that they are justified insofar as they arise from uncoerced market choices subject to certain constraints. (Between two societies, they might find more attractive the one in which the market produced a more equal result, but it’s not clear what would follow from that preference as a political matter.) On this view, asking what the “ideal” income distribution ought to look like is a bit like asking how many interracial marriages there ought to be—and the answer in each case will be “Who am I to say? Whatever people choose.”

Maybe these results reveal less about Americans’ political views than they do about the implicit political tendencies of polling itself. The background message of most polling is that every question, on every topic, is a fit subject for a majority vote, and that every opinion is equally valid. It’d be nice to see more polls adding an explicit “don’t know/don’t care” option—and while they’re at it, maybe a “why are you asking me?” and “that’s none of my damn business, is it?” for good measure.

Tags: Horse Race Politics · Journalism & the Media


       

 

6 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Adrian Ratnapala // Sep 12, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    The real problem is that the question can be understood as both (a) “Given an interracial relationship, are you likely to approve of it?” and (b) “Do you think interracial relationships should be allowed”.

    You seem to be commenting on interpretation (a). But the question (b) is completely legitemate and the answer is “HELL YEAH!”. Respondents were answering answering some unconcious mix of (a) and (b).

    I don’t blame Gallup. Political discourse in parilaments, the media and dinner tables consistently confuses “is X good” with “should X be allowed”. More people were concious of the distinction, there would be a hell of a lot more libertarians in this world.

  • 2 Other Pete // Sep 13, 2011 at 7:43 am

    If you insist that anyone, however conservative or libertarian they might be, imagine themselves in the position of a parent doling out cake at a birthday party, then naturally they’re going to be inclined to favor a pretty equal distribution. But conservatives and libertarians don’t accept high levels of inequality because they think hugely disproportionate concentrations of wealth are intrinsically wonderful, or even just because they think unequal rewards are necessary to spur effort and productivity. Rather, they think holdings ought to be emergent, and that they are justified insofar as they arise from uncoerced market choices subject to certain constraints.

    Is that actually true of conservatives? They look remarkably unworried about coercion in most other spheres. Isn’t there an “equality is the enemy of quality” strand of conservative thought that holds, at a minimum, that unequal rewards are necessary to spur effort and innovation?

    Maybe this is just my leftie sensibilities, but my sense of the whole libertarian/conservative alliance was that it consisted of trying to convince the conservative base that the market would produce the sort of natural hierarchy that they were trying to conserve.

  • 3 Julian Sanchez // Sep 13, 2011 at 10:19 am

    Adrian-
    I don’t think it’s just a “libertarian thing,” because I’d go well beyond the minimal libertarian (and at this point, minimal EVERYONE, really) position that interracial marriages should not be legally prohibited. Most people would also say that a good society is one in which people are also generally privately accepting of such relationships, interracial couples are not subject to scorn or disapproval, and so on.

    But as I say in the post, I do think most of the people who answered “approve” understood the question to mean something like “am fine with / have no negative attitude toward”

    OtherPete-

    It may be that the the “wealth motivates production” argument is the most significant one for some conservatives, and while I doubt it’s part of many people’s EXPLICIT justification, some kind of sense that there ought to be a natural hierarchy may be lurking in the background. Still, I think the idea that inequality (though undesirable in itself) is the price of a free market is a big part of the worldview of most conservatives.

  • 4 Mike // Sep 13, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    OtherPete – if conservatives were so in favor of inequality, why would they donate and volunteer at so many church-run charities? Conservatives possibly believe that some level of inequality are *deserved*, as in they are a result of the previous virtue (in the form of innovation, hard work, or frugality), but most would prefer that everyone be virtuous and receive these rewards.

    It’s a core difference of assumption – of course there’s a balance, but conservatives are much more on the side of the idea that they control their own destiny, whereas liberals seem to view individuals as largely subject to forces outside their control. This significantly colors views of inequality, and the solutions to it.

  • 5 Jeremy // Sep 14, 2011 at 1:08 am

    Mike – One could also say, in place of your “seem to view,” that liberals *realize* how often people’s fortunes are subject to forces outside their control.

    Earthly forces.

    The core of human progress, in my opinion, is a deeper and deeper understanding of causality. Conservatism, these days, seems to be centered on repeating “Nah, yo, don’t wanna hear it! We’re good!” to this effort.

    Progress is confusing. People who try it often seem silly! This is part of why life is hard. Conservatives admire this dynamic when it involves making money (Entrepreneurs Rock!), but so many other fields of effort get the cold shoulder or bum’s rush.

    Of course, most bits of progress eventually becomes the norm, and conservatives get to defend them (“Of course women can be powerful! Go Michele!”), too.

    Or pretend to.

    In some hundreds of years, the current psychological view of the human condition will that much further impinge on the remaining old-tyme religious ones, and conservatives will expend energy defending Humanism against whatever the next great Sesame Street-inspiring school of thought is.

    Fantastic.

  • 6 Other Pete // Sep 21, 2011 at 10:58 am

    Mike, Jeremy

    Sorry for ridiculously late reply.

    but conservatives are much more on the side of the idea that they control their own destiny, whereas liberals seem to view individuals as largely subject to forces outside their control. This significantly colors views of inequality, and the solutions to it.

    But again, when you take it to that level of abstraction, you run up against the fact that conservatives plainly don’t think that individuals control their own destinies. Porn, immigration, homosexuality, drugs are all issues where we get a switch, and suddenly liberals decide that individuals are masters of their own destinies, and conservatives start worrying about “society” at large.

    Whatever explains the difference between liberals and conservatives, I don’t think it’s anything quite as simple as one believing in individual autonomy.

    OtherPete – if conservatives were so in favor of inequality, why would they donate and volunteer at so many church-run charities?

    The belief that there’s a natural hierarchy has historically gone pretty comfortably with a sense of noblesse oblige. I don’t think that conservatives are somehow sadistic – I just think that they have a very strong sense that there’s a natural order of human beings, that this needs to be respected, and that the market is the best way of respecting that. Nothing about that precludes helping out the poor unfortunates who are inventive, disciplined and hard-working than oneself.

    Julian,

    Still, I think the idea that inequality (though undesirable in itself) is the price of a free market is a big part of the worldview of most conservatives.

    I think if that might be true in the sense that Mike uses it here:

    Conservatives possibly believe that some level of inequality are *deserved*, as in they are a result of the previous virtue (in the form of innovation, hard work, or frugality), but most would prefer that everyone be virtuous and receive these rewards.

    But as far as I can see, that’s an explicit endorsement of natural hierarchy: “It’d be wonderful if all people were perfectly virtuous, but, since they aren’t, isn’t it wonderful the way that markets can achieve a distribution of income that so accurately reflects the distribution of virtue?”

Leave a Comment