(Left) Martin Kastler, a European Parliament member, and his family. He wants a law barring shops all across Europe from opening on Sundays.
Read the posts below about populism, public opinion and policy on the domestic front below. Not so different in what some call the United States of Europe, the European Union.
One of the major criticisms of the EU has been the democratic deficit. The administrators are powerful. The nations are well-represented. The European bank has real economic clout. The EU court has wide sway in human rights. But the EU parliament, representing the citizens, seems the least influential body.
Here's a suggestion for change. As reported by the NY Times:
The way Martin Kastler sees it, there ought to be a law prohibiting shops all across Europe from opening on Sundays, much as there has been for generations in his native Bavaria.
He has already begun collecting signatures of support. And soon, courtesy of a little debated clause in the new Lisbon Treaty, the European Union may be obliged to consider drawing up such legislation…
Long criticized as lacking democratic accountability, the European Union is about to give its 500 million citizens more say — if they can collect one million supporting signatures from a “significant” number of member countries…
[E]xperts say the European Union could soon see petitions on subjects as varied as banning bullfighting, burqas and genetically modified food; curbing offshore drilling; introducing new taxes; ending the exchange of financial data with the United States; and keeping Turkey out of the union.
Proponents hope the initiatives will be something of a team building exercise, too. Forced to collect signatures across borders, Europeans will finally, they hope, get to know one another, engage in Europewide debates and develop the elusive “European identity.”
But others see trouble brewing. What if the voice of the people turns out to be racist, politically unwieldy (think California referendums) or just plain frivolous? One online campaign in Portugal to force members of the national soccer team to grow mustaches claimed the support of 60,000 people recently…
Returning from vacation in Hawaii (a rare place where the President's popularity is still high) there was some breaking news that made for a good time consider the question: Should Rule of Law in a democracy be majority rules?
The majority in Arizona (and according to most pollsters) the country favor the Arizona immigration law. So should it be the law of the state, even if it hinders federal efforts to pursue immigration policy.
This issue covers so many topics we'll cover in class this fall -- federalism, presidential powers, special interests in Congress -- but here look at the interviews Chris Mathews did on Hardball last night and the interview Bloomberg News did with former Mexican President Vincente Fox. Fox and former President George W. Bush had come to an agreement on a comprehensive immigration reform plan ten years ago, but then 9/11 happened and did politics get in the way of good governing?
Former presidential candidate John McCain (R-AZ) and the late Ted Kennedy (D-MA) had co-sponsored the bi-partisan bill in Congress, a bill McCain says he would not support today. Why not? Well, he's running for re-election in Arizona.
To end the summer the 2 Teachers will be looking at the most significant numbers in our government. We will be reviewing the ways our government [literally] counts.
Today’s numbers focus on our PUBLIC OPINION.
The biggest number of all relates to public opinion. In a democracy like ours the government is supposed to represent the people. Here in the United States that number is 308,400,000. The population of the United States today is over 308 million. If all of those people are to be represented somehow they have to be measured.
Public opinion is measured by conducting scientific polls.
Polls have become a vital tool of modern democracy. The news media conduct polls to gauge the people’s approval ratings. Politicians conduct their own polls for the same reason, as well as to see how they might modify their positions to please a larger number of voters. Modern scientific polls can be amazingly accurate. Still, it is important to approach any poll results with caution.”
Below you will find the KEY cautionary steps to take when analyzing a public opinion poll.
1. Identify the Subject of the Poll. The title of the poll may be biased, or not accurately describe the actual poll. (a) Does the title of this poll seem biased? (b) Does it accurately describe the subject of the poll?
2. Identify the Source of the Poll. Polls can be biased. A poll conducted by a candidate's campaign, for example, might not be objective. Moreover, sometimes apparently objective poll source names disguise the bias of the actual poll sponsors. (a) What is the source of this poll? (b) Might this source be biased? Why or why not? (c) If you do not recognize the name of the polling source, how could you find out more about it?
3. Determine the Sampling Method. To achieve accuracy by representing the entire target population of a poll, samples must be random. Non-random sample selections will skew the results of a poll. For example, mail-in and dial-in, and, on the Internet, "click-in" polls are all notoriously unreliable, since only people who feel quite strongly about a topic are likely to respond. (a) How was the sample selected? (b) Can you see any problems with this sampling method?
4. Identify the Sample Size. Larger samples do not mean more accurate polls. In fact, remarkably accurate results can be achieved with very small samples. Yet, in general, national polls should have sample sizes of at least 500. Larger sample sizes can reduce the margin of error in a poll. (a) What is the sample size in the poll? (b) Do you judge it to be sufficient? Why or why not?
5. Consider the Margin of Error. The margin of error is the range of results the pollster could expect if an infinite sample size were used. The number is important. Suppose a poll indicates that the Republican presidential candidate has 52% of the votes, while the Democratic candidate has 48%. With a margin of error of ±4%, the results could in fact be opposite. (a) What is the margin of error of the poll? (b) How might this affect the ranking of answers to each question?
6. Examine the Wording of the Questions. Questions that are confusing or are not neutral will skew the results of a poll. (a) Are the questions clear? Explain. (b) Are the questions neutral?
7. Examine the Answer Categories. Polls rarely allow for respondents to supply their own answers; rather, they give respondents a set of answers from which to choose. Again, the wording must be clear and unbiased. (a) Are the answer choices to the questions comprehensive, and include all of the possible answers to the question? (b) Is the wording of the answer categories clear and neutral?
8. Evaluate the Results. Pollsters usually provide written generalizations about their poll results. Are the summary statements supported by the actual poll results?
When considering the impact of over 308 million voices we first must be sure we are hearing them correctly. Consider these cautionary steps before accepting the results of that recent public opinion poll. Let us be certain that when our government claims to be representing the people they are actually telling the truth.
Perhaps then we can truly say our voice counts.
_______________________
From: themonkeycage.org
Public Opinion and Taxes
Andrew Therriault, has a very interesting blog post up today about a recent Pew survey on public opinion towards the Bush tax cuts. First, the numbers in answer to the question Which comes closer to your view about the tax cuts passed when George W. Bush was president?
30% All of the tax cuts should remain in place. 27% Tax cuts for the wealthy should be repealed, while others stay in place. 31% All of the tax cuts should be repealed.
Andrew’s take on this:
This is pretty amazing. We could argue to no end about the reasonableness of (effectively) raising taxes during a recession, but that’s not the point. Nor are the exact numbers themselves gospel–I imagine more than a few respondents are reacting to the “Bush” part of “Bush tax cuts”, and the option of sticking it to the unspecified “wealthy” does summon the populist rage in a bipartisan fashion. What’s really important here is that, while Democratic lawmakers are clamoring to get on the tax cut bandwagon (or off of the tax increase bandwagon, if you’re thinking about attack ads), Americans appear willing to have a reasonable conversation about taxes, that is, one in which raising taxes is at least on the table.
His caveats:
In reality, the outcome is always somewhat muddled–voters vary widely in the amount and quality of information they hold about policy, and act accordingly. But given the pocketbook appeal of tax cuts and the public’s general disdain for government spending (waste and inefficiency aside, most everyone’s tax dollars at least partially fund things they oppose), along with the pundrity’s dire warnings against raising taxes in a recession, it’s remarkable that a clear majority of voters are open to raising at least some taxes. And moreover, many are willing to pay more out of their own pockets. I’d have to see more data to see what this means:
Is it the budget deficit worrying voters?
Do they want better services (healthcare, Social Security, education, or others) and are tired of hearing that there’s no money for them? Are they simply reacting against the Bush-era economic policies in general, in light of their results? (The same poll shows that only 29% think Bush’s economic policies would be better right now than Obama’s.)
So to throw out to readers of the Political Warrior by way of the Monkey Cage: are we witnessing something new in American public opinion?
Not sure if President Obama's appearance on The View has anything to do with his fading popularity with independent women voters, but there is a place where the 44th President still can be welcomed like a prodigal son -- the 50th State, Hawaii.
Just back from paradise, where I had a Kua Aina burger that the president bought for the press corps on his spring break vacation and the shaved ice that apparently is one of his favorites, I bring home news that Obama is still polling at a 72 percent approval that he tallied in the 2008 election:
Rasmussen says that 72 percent approve of Obama's performance (with 52 percent "strongly" approving) while 26 percent disapprove. Forty-nine percent oppose repeal of the new health care reform law while 43 percent favor it, with 8 percent undecided. Thirty-nine percent oppose enactment of an Arizona-like immigration law while 37 percent favor it, with 24 percent undecided.
The rest of the state polling reports show trouble signs for Obama in key swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. The latest one where his numbers have gone south is Missouri, Bruce Drake of AOL Politics reports.
This is a common occurrence, as historically presidential popularity is kind of like driving a new car our of a showroom. It's value is at it's highest with the first drive. If they are fortunate enough to get to a second term, often their numbers slump, or hit fatigue. Obama's numbers and potential lack of coattails have Democrats concerned heading into the Nov. midterm Congressional elections.
And there may even be trouble in paradise. The Hawaiian Obama bobble head I picture here was advertised as retailing for $16. I paid just $8 for my shaved iced holding presidential bobble doll.
Maybe like the bobble head itself, especially with better job numbers, the President's popularity can bounce back.
A New York Times poll that came out about two weeks ago has a nice explanation of how it reaches people with unlisted (aren't they all) cell phones which are now necessary to conduct a reliable poll. I use polls to explain how and why politicians need to craft their language. Also, it is a great way to show how they can be biased (as in the NYTimes asking should we look into alternative fuels). Here is the entire poll.
Polling and cell phone usage will be topics we will cover this fall.
As we watch the Elena Kagan hearings, here are some sites to help you teach the US Supreme Court. First off the Chief Justice always writes a year end report which, among other things, talks about the number of cases appealed to the Court each year and how many were given certiorari. It is a very short document that your students could easily digest.
SCOTUS Blog is another great resource. Here is a link they put together yesterday on year end statistics, graphs, etc. (including how often each judge voted w. each other, the number of 9-0 decisions (more on this than any other) and much more.
Selective incorporation is a key constitutional component we will cover in class this fall. My graduates should have recognized the importance of this week's 5-4 decision by the Supremes in McDonald v. Chicago, as it marked the first time in our nation's history that the 2nd amendment has been made bound as a right in all of the states. Local governmental officials in Chicago immediately began planning to make new gun ordinances that would withstand constitutional muster. Robert J. Spitzer is Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at SUNY Cortland, and the author of 13 books, including "The Politics of Gun Control," "Gun Control: A Documentary and Reference Guide," and "Saving the Constitution From Lawyers." He gave a solid lesson on selective incorporation through this week's decision for CNN. ______________
Teachers -- like me -- love "teachable moments," so here's a big one from Monday's sweeping Supreme Court decision on gun rights and the states, McDonald v. Chicago. In it, the court not only validated individual gun rights, but applied them to every state and locality in the country.
Americans know they have rights. Even some of my students who confess to near-total ignorance of American politics know they have free speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to have a lawyer, should they run afoul of the law. But what none of my students know -- and what most Americans also don't know -- is that we can lay claim to these and other sacred Bill of Rights freedoms because of a different constitutional amendment, a cluster of 20th-century court cases, and something called "incorporation."
Early in America's history, court rulings established that the Constitution's Bill of Rights applied only to actions by the federal government, not the states. So, for example, if local police tried to shutter a newspaper for publishing legitimate, if unpopular, news, the newspaper would have to turn to that state's constitution for protection or help, and not to the First Amendment's protection of a free press.
And since every state constitution is different, the actual rights of citizens varied widely from state to state. Moreover, in the nation's first century, citizens rarely had direct dealings with a national government of limited size and reach.
All this changed when the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War. Several decades later, the court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment's provision saying that states may not deprive persons of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" could now be used to apply or "incorporate" key provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states.
Note, however, that this process occurred selectively, provision by provision, and over seven decades. The first Bill of Rights protection to be applied to the states was in 1897, when the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that private property was not to be taken for public use "without just compensation" was incorporated. Following that, the court incorporated free speech in 1925, press freedom in 1931, free exercise of religion in 1934, and so on until 1969, when it applied the protection against double jeopardy (being tried for the same crime twice) to the states.
By design, this piecemeal process didn't include everything. (No one would argue that the Seventh Amendment's unincorporated right to common law suits "where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars" was the equivalent of free speech.) But most felt that incorporation was at an end, until two years ago.
In its landmark 2008 decision, D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's decades-old handgun ban as in violation of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.
This decision was momentous for two reasons. First, it was the first time in history that a gun law was struck down as a violation of the amendment. Second, the court contradicted past rulings that interpreted the amendment as pertaining only to citizen gun possession in connection with the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the first half of the amendment, and instead concluded that it protected an individual or personal right to own a handgun for protection in the home.
Because D.C. is a federal enclave, the Second Amendment could be brought to bear without addressing the fact that it had never been applied to the states (the high court has repeatedly refused to hear Second Amendment-based challenges in the past).
This brings us to McDonald, in which gun rights advocates challenged Chicago's local handgun ban as in violation of Heller -- but they also asked the court to now incorporate the Second Amendment. A five-member majority obliged. In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito concluded that the individual right to bear arms, while subject to the limits outlined in Heller two years earlier that recognized most existing gun laws, was "fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty" -- the litmus test for judging whether a right was important enough to be applied to the 50 states.
Readers eager to learn more about competing theories of incorporation are invited to plow through the five separate opinions that compose the case's 214 page decision.
But whether one agrees with Justice Alito that the right to own handguns promotes ordered liberty because they are "the most preferred firearm. . .for protection of one's home and family," or with Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote in his dissent that guns in society "destabilize ordered liberty" by taking the lives of 30,000 Americans annually, Americans should at least know better today that the path to American rights runs through the Fourteenth Amendment.
We were reminded again this weekend that the subtle lessons learned from a box of animated toys from our youth remain timeless.
Sheriff Woody and Space Ranger Buzz Lightyear along with the rest of the Toy Story gang are back in 3D. In their latest adventure we learn an important lesson about “the consent of the governed” but that is not the only government message in this classic tale.
Sheriff Woody teaches us about our Foundations. Woody is brave and can always be counted on. So too were our Founding Fathers. They left enduring principles that still guide us.
The Green Aliens teach us about Federalism. Their ability to adapt to new environments and experiment with new policies is a lot like what we see in our fifty states. Federalism recognizes our regional differences while at the same time counting on our ability to work together. In the latest Toy Story this lesson is learned just in time.
Rex teaches us about Public Opinion. Large and loud but tender is what best characterizes the big green dinosaur and the big voice of the American people. Both provide the narrative to our human story.
Lots – O – Huggin’ Bear teaches us about Participation. Though tempted to follow certain elites it is only through the consent of the governed that we find our true solutions. This sweet smelling bear turns out to be something a little bit more unexpected.
Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head could be stand ins for our Political Parties. Both can change their appearance to get what they want.
Slinky Dog teaches us about Interest Groups. Always looking to help Slinky Dog like Interest Groups can bend, twist and maneuver in ways others cannot. Therefore we often rely upon them whether we like it or not.
Barbie and Campaigns have a lot in common. Wardrobe changes are the norm. Barbie like our campaigns can dress up to fit any situation.
Hamm teaches us about Congress. Clearly both keep our money. Pork projects would be the obvious comparison though a careful analysis would discover that Hamm rarely can keep the money secure. More often Hamm, the piggy bank, is empty.
Mr. Spell teaches us not unlike our Courts do. In the first two Toy Story movies Mr. Spell educates the other toys. When confusion arises Mr. Spell brings clarity. Our Supreme Court fulfills that same role in our polity.
And without question Buzz Lightyear is the archetype of our President. Always making bold promises Buzz suffers from dramatic swings both in personality and in ability. His idealism often trumps the others’ pragmatism. At times this is what is needed. Frequent mode changes, however, mean that Buzz can never quite meet expectations. Buzz thinks he can actually fly. After countless tries we now know better.
The best lesson to learn this summer just may be found inside the heart of our toy boxes.
In the end “You’ve got a friend in me…” is a much more assuring message than more hollow promises claiming “to infinity and beyond.”
(Left) Martin Kastler, a European Parliament member, and his family. He wants a law barring shops all across Europe from opening on Sundays.
