Heads-of-State Need Public-Interest Polling ~ #2 By Alan F. Kay, PhD © 2002, all rights reserved May 21, 2002 Mocking his opponents, Gore and Clinton, for relying on polls to decide what to do as president, globo-cop George W. Bush explains that, in contrast, he "makes decisions based on sound principles", not polls. In fact, he quietly and very effectively uses polls to find out when and how he should speak publicly about what he wants to do, aiming for maximum public support for his policies and actions. He does it often. Polls for his benefit were run in 2001 at levels twice what Bill Clinton spent in his first year. This does not mean that Bush does what the public wants. If that's what he sought, he would use public-interest polls to learn what is best for the whole country. He does not do that. On environmental protection, energy policy, tax cuts for the wealthy, keeping our international agreements, and many other issues, he wants what is best for his core constituency. That is the affluent, the large corporations, and other sectors which finance Republican campaigns like big energy. Unfortunately the Democrats are little better. Their campaigns are also financed by the affluent, but a somewhat different grouping, more in the entertainment and technology industries and among trial lawyers and health care. But Bush's pollster, Fred Steeper, knows a lot of public-interest poll results that occasionally gives Bush an advantage none of the media understand. Let me explain. From a series of polls that Steeper helped design for me and my public-interest colleagues in the '80s and '90s, overwhelming evidence showed that arms control proposals are approved by 75% to 90% of the US public, if they meet four criteria. They must be: 1) understandable (many people will not approve a proposal they do not understand), 2) balanced or better (the US side has to gain as much or more, and lose as little or less, than counterparties), 3) verifiable or approved by credible leaders and finally, perhaps most surprising, 4) embodied in an agreement. The key point is this. If any one of these four requirements are not met, public support drops substantially, often to 50% or lower. Bush learned how to more than satisfy the US population with a new agreement for a 2/3rds reduction in Russian and American nuclear arsenals. If he does not make any big mistakes, this coup might be enough to re-elect Bush in 2004. Here is the story. Bush looked Russian President Putin in the eye and decided he was trustworthy. The two came to a verbal understanding that both sides would greatly reduce their nuclear arsenals. Putin went home and found that his top generals were worried. They could not trust the security of Russia to only a handshake. Bush agreed to satisfy that concern. He would accept a written agreement. A three page agreement was produced. That met the US public's 1st requirement. Three pages, simplistically described by Bush, is certainly more understandable than the typical 500 page arms control agreements of yesteryear. The agreement seems very balanced. It allows both sides to store the warheads removed. Yet it is a remarkably asymmetric balance. Bush has made clear that most of the US warheads would be stored intact and ready for quick reinstallation. Russia, under economic constraints, is unlikely to do the same and will be pushed to dismantle in ways reducing the threat to the US by a promise by Bush for increasing US funds to assist in dismantling. As a practical matter, that meets the 2nd requirement, better-than-balanced for the US. Support by Bush alone assures the 3rd requirement, and embodied in a treaty more than meets the 4th. All things considered, unless new developments change everything, as many as a whopping 90+% of Americans will support the treaty. But wait. The treaty, rather than a handshake, is the 4th requirement for the enthusiastic support of the American people. Bush's "concession", the embodiment of the proposal into a treaty, was not a concession. He needed it too. Putin is not alone in misunderstanding US public opinion. US media has not noticed this either. The net imbalance clearly favors the US. Putin has had his pockets picked. Fred Steeper, who has been my colleague on about thirty polls over 15 years, was also the pollster for George Bush Sr. both during his campaign and his four-year term and later for George W. Bush's campaign and so far during his presidency too. Steeper himself more than confirmed what has recently come to light on how Bush is using polling. In my book, Locating Consensus for Democracy, (1998), Steeper said, "No government leaders really want to know that the public is not behind them on an issue; they would rather measure opinion using their current methods which, to be honest, is close to treating the public like Pavlov's dogs." I close with a most important point. Over 90% of polling is corporate market research and most pollsters do much more of that than political polling. Corporate polls never surface publicly, are little known, and bear fruit in advertising that pushes the developed world into extreme consumerism and overwhelms the cultures of the developing world. Market research sets the standards for political polling and leaves pollsters largely unaware of the damage they cause by helping to sell voters on candidates the way they help corporations sell soap. Political polling becomes marketing. To learn more how polling "spin-meisters" operate — stay tuned. o - o - o - o - o - o - o - o Alan F. Kay is a mathematician, social scientist and pioneer of public-interest polling. He has authored Locating Consensus for Democracy and numerous public policy articles and holds several patents. (see www.publicinterestpolling.com)

Public-interest polling - what's that?    Top    Home    Search    CDI Home