According to Rasmussen Reports, 50 percent of the nation ranks Memorial Day as one of the nation’s most important holidays. Not bad, but perhaps that number should be stronger, considering the primary purpose of the holiday is not to welcome in summer, but to honor men and women who sacrificed their lives in defense of the country.
Respect for the holiday doesn’t appear to be correlated with views toward the military. In fact, 74 percent of respondents claim to have a favorable opinion of the U.S. military, and 40 percent say they have a relative or close friend who lost their life serving the nation.
But what other holidays might trump Memorial Day? July 4th, perhaps. Thanksgiving, a good possibility. But Labor Day? Columbus Day? Doubtful.
Perhaps the modest support for Memorial Day has less to do with the meaning of the holiday and more to do with the loss of meaning. 54 percent of adults told Rasmussen they plan to do something special to celebrate the holiday. I was certainly one of those people who took advantage of the long weekend to attend a BBQ and spend time splashing in the water with my children.
But with weak numbers like these, I think next year our family is going to do a little more memorializing and a little less celebrating.
Today I was a guest on a radio show to talk about last night’s primary elections, and the host asked an important question: “What can listeners do to make their opinions heard?”
There are lots of ways for individuals to communicate their opinions – write an op-ed or a letter-to-the-editor, donate money to political parties or candidates, and vote. But I told listeners one of the best ways for citizens to make their voices heard is by engaging in political conversation.
It made me think about a book I read by Katherine Cramer Walsh, an Associate Professor at the University of Wisconsin, Talking About Politics: Informal Groups and Social Identity in American Life.
According to Walsh, small groups can influence individual’s understanding of politics. Contrary to many in the political science literature who claim opinion is a top-down phenomenon, in which messages are directed by elites, Walsh presents a different picture. While elite media frames might help the average citizen make sense of an otherwise complicated policy, Walsh argues that people do not necessarily blindly accept these interpretations. Rather, the act of communicating with friends and family has a significant impact on public opinion.
Communication comes in many different forms. But sometimes sitting around and shootin’ the breeze is the best way to make an impact.
In honor of Mother’s Day this year, Rasmussen Reports released some interesting numbers about Americans’ views on motherhood.
According to the survey, 64 percent of Americans view being a mother as “the most important role for a woman to fill in today’s world.” Perhaps not surprising, “women are more likely than men to think being a mother is their most fulfilling role.” Yet, opinion does not differ between those who have and don’t have children living at home.
These findings come on the heels of another interesting survey conducted by the Pew Research Center that revealed some striking changes in the demography of motherhood in the United States over the past two decades.
Compared to mothers of newborns in 1990, mothers today are older and more educated. Today there appears to be a lower rate of teen pregnancy than in 1990, and an increase in mothers over the age of 35 – and that’s across all race and ethnic groups.
One of the most striking findings in the Pew study was that today 41 percent of mothers are unmarried. When this number is broken down, non-marital births are highest among Black women (72%), then Hispanics (53%), Whites (29%) and Asians (17%). Interestingly, however, the increase has been greatest among whites, whose out-of-wedlock births grew by 69%.
When news broke this week that a housing developer was buying the land where the famous HOLLYWOOD sign in Los Angeles stands, top names in the entertainment industry went on a rescue mission.
As a native of a Los Angeles suburb, I’m deeply familiar with the sign that punctuates the Chapparral Hollywood hillsides. It’s certainly not a work of art; but it is a landmark.
Not many people probably know that the original sign – ironically an advertisement for a housing development – read Hollywoodland. Dedicated in July 1923, the first letters were each 30 feet wide, 50 feet tall, and studded with 4000 light bulbs. The developers only intended for the sign to be temporary, but the rise of American cinema in Los Angeles helped turn this advertisement into an attraction.
It didn’t take long before the sign began to be the source of trouble. Suicides, car accidents, vandalism – HOLLYWOOD had it all. So in the late 1970s several industry moguls – including rocker Alice Cooper and Playboy publisher Hugh Hefner –replaced the deteriorating sign with something more permanent.
So it’s no surprise that so many movie tycoons rushed to rescue the sign again this week. (Hugh Hefner provided nearly $1 million himself.) In many ways, the HOLLYWOOD sign reflects America’s zeitgeist – both past and present: promise land, hope, opportunity, fame, and wealth. As it turns out, saving HOLLYWOOD is about a whole lot more than saving a sign.
No matter how you slice it, Americans today are down on government. New research from the Pew Research Center shows that “by almost every conceivable measure Americans are less positive and more critical of government these days.”
Compared to the Kennedy-Johnson years, when public trust in government reached nearly 80 percent, today that number has dropped below the 25 percent mark. Increasingly, Americans claim to want to curtail government growth and limit its power.
While big-picture economic and political explanations abound, one researcher at Claremont Graduate University believes there may be a biological component, as well. Professor Paul Zak recently told NPR that the chemical oxytocin administered by the brain allows us to determine whom to trust. His research has demonstrated that by increasing the amount of oxytocin an individual receives, the more trusting he or she becomes.
So, as Zak told NPR, he began to wonder, “How much does this scale up?” To what extent could biology – or, oxytocin – affect the public’s trust in government? As it turns out, people who received more oxytocin did report trusting other people more and those same individuals also claimed to trust their government more.
But, perhaps more telling, is that trust in government usually decreases during periods of economic hardship – that’s when the public is generally exposed to prolonged periods of stress. And stress, Zak says, is toxic to oxytocin. Stress inhibits the release of oxytocin, which therefore decreases public trust.
So while Republicans and Democrats will both try to explain this recent rebuff of Uncle Sam, perhaps one of the best explanations doesn’t bear any partisan weight at all.
Thursday is Earth Day – it also marks the 40th anniversary of the environmental movement. And while being green is very much in vogue today, it appears to be a trend on its way out.
It’s hard to avoid the green message – it permeates television, movies, online social networking sites, corporate messaging and the fashion industry. And businesses regularly seek out ways to balance the environment with their bottom line. But the question is: With all this eco-focused media and entertainment, are Americans still giddy for green?
As it turns out, the public is not as concerned about the environment as the green industry might like. According to recent poll numbers, Americans rank the economy (way) ahead of the environment. A March Gallup poll found 53 percent of respondents believe “economic growth should be given priority even if the environment suffers to some extent.” While a much smaller 38 percent thought protecting the environment should take priority – even if that means curbing economic growth.
Gallup is not alone in its findings – several other polls confirm these results. For instance, the Pew Research Center found that 44 percent of Americans view protecting the environment as a top priority for the president and Congress. Yet, 83 percent cited strengthening the economy.
For now, appealing to the public through being green might help boost revenue, but this is one style that just might not be made to last.
The exposure last fall of Tiger Woods’s philandering largely ended America’s crush on the golf star. Now Nike – one of Woods’s leading sponsors – is trying to reform his image. Or, in the language of Washington, they’re trying to shape public opinion.
At the same time as the golfer re-emerged onto the green for the annual Masters in Augusta, GA, Nike released a new ad. Sober, humble, and regretful are words that come to mind when you see Tiger Woods staring directly into the camera, while a voice-over of his late father talks about responsibility.
But if Tiger Woods is serious about changing his image, he might want to take a lesson from the world of public opinion.
In the vast land of pubic opinion research, John Zaller is king. And according to Zaller, elite communication is the lifeblood of mass public opinion. Public opinion, he explains, moves in response to the consistency and intensity of elite messages. So when elites are divided the public tends to follow suit based on varying levels of political awareness and values.
Unfortunately for Woods, this newest product from Madison Avenue isn’t going to be sufficient to win back the American public. Some ad execs are touting how great Woods is for confronting his past. But most continue to condemn the golfer and see this ad as nothing more than much-needed self-promotion. Already the Augusta National Chairman Billy Payne targeted Woods as part of his opening remarks and the morning news shows are having a field day.
If Woods wants to improve his image, it’s going to take a lot more than one trendy ad. The public is going to have to see Woods consistently and tirelessly giving back to his community, engaging with his fans, and contributing to good causes.
There’s no hole in one for Woods on the course of public opinion.
Ever show up for a party on the wrong day?
Hard to imagine, considering invitations are sent by email, responded to by text message, and directions can be accessed by phone. Miscommunication about a date seems, well, a little out-of-date.
But, that’s exactly what happened to French peasants in the 16th century, and today we have April Fool’s Day to commemorate their foolishness. While it’s hard to pinpoint the very first April Fool’s Day, experts look to 1582 as the origin. That’s the year Pope Gregory XIII replaced the Julian calendar with the Gregorian calendar. Since the Pope’s authority did not extend beyond the Papal States and the Catholic Church, it was up to individual countries to adopt this reformed calendar on their own time. Read
It has become commonplace for American presidents to develop slogans to help sell their policies. From FDR’s “New Deal” to JFK’s “New Frontier” to LBJ’s “Great Society,” leaders have long sought brands to identify their agendas.
While most of these historical phrases denote grand domestic programs, President Bush’s “War on Terror” identified a new foreign policy in which the country was at war with a radical ideology rather than a state.
President Obama has settled on “New Foundation” – a phrase he first used in his inaugural address – to brand his approach to everything from education to health care to financial security. Read
Amidst all the commotion around health care reform this week, it was easy to miss another important headline: the Indian military is using the world’s hottest chili pepper as a new weapon in the war on terror.
While some view the bhut jolokia, or “ghost chili,” as simply something for the kitchen, others see potential for a new tear gas-like hand grenade. It’s all in the way we frame the chili pepper.
We talk about framing all the time – it’s become part of the national lexicon: Republicans framed the health care debate as a government-takeover; Democrats framed it as a means of providing all Americans with health coverage. But when a term gets used so frequently, it’s often easy to lose site of what it really means.
Some political scientists explain framing as a means of cataloguing, or organizing, complicated policy issues – “not as individual items but as interpretive packages.” A frame simply presents the public with the heart of an issue: what’s at stake, what it means to a person. Frames allow lawmakers, researchers, political players, and communication experts to converse more easily with the public.
Framing is how we wrap our minds around something as large and open to dispute as the health care bill — or, something as small as a chili pepper. There are endless debates over different kinds of political frames, the effectiveness of framing, and the limitations of framing. But, in the end, frames are perspectives based in reality.
The health reform bill is an expansion of government and of health coverage. That’s reality. Chilis are food and chemical warfare. That’s reality too.