A Government Shutdown

With a looming federal government shutdown, we've heard a lot about the last time this happened and how Clinton bested Congressional Republicans led by Newt Gingrich.  I agree with pundits who say this time is different.  Obama is no Clinton, and no one is playing the evil part as well as Gingrich, except maybe Lord Voldemort or Dick Cheney.

Recent polls put the blame game about even. For example, a Washington Post poll in March scored it 37 percent blaming the Republicans, 37 percent blaming the Obama administration, 15 percent wagging their fingers at both. 

But I'm less interested in in who wins the blame game than in how this affects people's attitudes toward government.  There are a lot of ways to look at this.  In a nod to the Tea Party folks, there's a great poll question asked for many years by USAToday/Gallup: "In your opinion, which of the following will be the biggest threat to the country in the future: big business, big labor, or big government?"

Back in 1999 and 2000, 65 percent pointed at big government.  By 2009 that had dropped to 55 percent.  No more recent data available from this poll.  Big business has gone up as a threat, from 24 percent to 32 percent.  Those evil unions?  Always around 8 to 10 percent.  Again, these data are a bit old, ending in 2009, so we have to read them with some caution.

A different poll looks at whether people think government is doing too much or too little.  Asked from 2002 to 2010, there's been little change, easily within the margin of error.

But trust in government is the big one.  A democratic government relies on the trust of the governed, it draws on that reservoir of trust (yeah, and cash) in other to operate.  Check out the graphic below, drawn from American National Elections Studies data.  Other than a few blips up (post 9/11 being the most recent), there is a steady trend toward less trust.  If you like, you can flip the chart below and look only at the rise in distrust (see here).  What's interesting to note is the steady rise in federal government trust after the 1994 takeover by Republicans (and the budget squabble with Clinton).  It's hard to tease out whether this is a function of GOP leadership, Clinton political skill, or the feds just coming off looking better as the Republicans forced a shutdown.  I'm leaning toward the latter, though I'd need to go find studies with a detailed analysis.  The ultimate point is this -- a shutdown, if it happens, might lead to people realizing how much they depend on the federal government and improve it's reputation among a cynical public.  But it's only a theory.

Satisfied with Government? Not? Take the Quiz

The fine folks at Pew have a quick quiz to find out just how much you like or dislike government.  See how you stack up to my score, shown in the graphic below.  I'm kinda in the middle, inching toward more rather than less satisfaction with government.

Pissed at Government

People are pissed off at the federal government (until, of course, they need help, but that's a different issue).

According to a new Pew Center poll getting attention everywhere, trust in the federal government has reached a low point.  Or, they they put it:

By almost every conceivable measure Americans are less positive and more critical of government these days. A new Pew Research Center survey finds a perfect storm of conditions associated with distrust of government – a dismal economy, an unhappy public, bitter partisan-based backlash, and epic discontent with Congress and elected officials. 

Read the report.  And check out the graphic below:

Hating the Feds

The recent plane crash into an IRS building by a man angry at the federal government over taxes brings into sharp relief what Americans think about the feds.

A Gallup Poll last month had the "federal government" with the highest negative score of several institutions, beaten only by the vague and abstract "socialism."  "Small business" did best, followed by some vague abstractions like "capitalism."  Asking over time what's the biggest threat and given three choices (big government, big labor, and big business), a USAToday/Gallup poll finds big government improving by comparison and big business becoming the bad boy of the three.  No doubt this is a bailout/recession effect.

You can find these numbers here.

Another way to view distrust in the federal government is below, a graph taken from the American National Election Studies data.

The trend line obviously increases, drops a little during the 1980s, then begins a slow rise during the partisan 1990s but begins a curious turn downward, perhaps in part caused by 9/11.  What I don't have here is the line from 2006-2008 data, which I suspect inches downward again.  But that's just a guess.

When a Good Idea Unravels

Another good theory -- shot down by the data.

I'm looking at how much people trust the government and are satisfied with democracy after an election. There's been a lot of work that shows, much of the time, losers are -- not surprisingly -- more unhappy with government and democracy after they become, well, losers. It occurred to me that when you expect to win, but lose, you'd be even less satisfied with democracy or the government.

Not so much.

Playing with data from the 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential elections, I really found no significant effect. I was sure people who predicted their candidate would win but ended up on the losing side would be really pissed, for all kinds of solid theoretical reasons. But noooo, the data says I need to find something else to think and write about, at least for publication in a respected academic, peer-reviewed journal. So instead I write about it here, and a not-so-respected, no-peer-review blog

The winner-loser thing doesn't always work, either. In fact, winners in 2000 (Republicans) actually score lower on trust than the winners. This gets all mired in partisan and ideological feelings about big bad federal government that goes beyond mere winning and losing. A lot of the research fails to take this into account, by the way. A serious failing.

Anyway, I'm gonna set this one aside as one of those great ideas that didn't quite pan out, one I may revisit at some point if inspiration strikes.

But while I'm in prediction mode for elections, I am going to do some work in a favorite topics of mine, wishful thinking, which is basically the notion that we tend to see our own candidates (or sports team, or whatever) as the likely winner. This effect is robust and even exposure to polls that tell us our guy/gal is certain to lose does not moderate this preference-expectation link.

Basically, who we prefer is who we think will win, and all other information be damned. Gonna play with that and examine the effects media consumption might play, because dammit it ought to moderate the effect. But ... and here's an angle worth exploring, selective exposure/attention to bias-confirming information (conservatives watching Fox News, for example) may actually enhance wishful thinking. Here we have two competing hypotheses -- that means if I present 'em both, maybe I'll nab support for at least one of 'em.

Time to get the old SPSS rolling ...

Confidence in Major institutions

I'm always a sucker for surveys and one of my favorites is tracking people's confidence or trust in major institutions such as Congress, the military, the press, and all the rest. You can tell a lot about the whims of public opinion by examining them over time.

Using Harris poll data drawn from here, let's look at a few.

The Press. Of course I start here, being a journalism guy. Since 2002 the press has seen a high of 16 percent saying they have "a great deal of confidence" to a low of 2009, where it sits at 12 percent. Still, that's probably within the margin of error. There's also a category for Television News and the latest number was 22 percent. It's bounced around the 20 mark for several years.

Colleges and Universities. Gotta go here too given that a major university pays my salary. This has actually gone up from a low of 33 percent with "great confidence" to 40 percent this year. Woo woo! We rock.

Wall Street. Oh what a beating Wall Street has taken, so it's no surprise that the richies have dropped from 19 to 4 percent of people having great confidence. Four percent? That's the lowest of any of the 16 institutions examined. Even Congress, which has slipped to 9 percent from a high of 22 percent.

Organized Religion was at its lowest in 2002 but now is at 28 percent. Not bad.

Overall, most major institutions have seen a drop in confidence over time. This is nothing new. I remember in graduate school reading a textbook, The Confidence Gap, that discussed the trend from the 1970s as trust in major institutions slowly eroded (in part a Watergate effect, in part Vietnam, in part everything else).

Coincidentally (not really) I am working on a research paper that examines trust in government and how being a winner or loser in an election affects your trust. Lots of people have mined this territory, including a couple of professors of mine in grad school, but I'm taking a different twist that, as far as I can tell, no one has explored yet. More when I get the blasted thing actually finished, but basically I'm looking at winners and losers and whether or not you expected to win (but lost) and how that may lead to even less trust. And there's media stuff there too. Sigh ... if I finish grading, maybe I can get back to it.

Data Gets in the Way of Theory

First, the background. There's research that suggests being on the losing side in an election will cause one to be less trustful of government. Makes sense.

So I extended this idea to something I blogged about a day or so ago -- perception of opinion.

It's simple. In the ANES are these questions about who you think is going to win an election. I figure that people who think their candidate is going to win and end up on the losing side will be even less trustful of government and democracy than those who are on the losing side but guessed their guy was going to lose.

Dammit. Data gets in the way of good theory.

I looked at data over three decades, certain I'd stumbled on this brilliantly publishable idea. To add a dash of mass comm to the recipe, I figured news consumption would help dampen this effect. Media tend to include poll results, so even if you're on the losing side you'd be more likely to be exposed to polls that tell you this and be a little more accepting when you lose -- even if you thought you might win.

Again, dammit. Data. In the way. Good theory.

None of this really worked as expected. It should have. It should have been this groundbreaking piece of research destined to appear in Political Communication or some journal of that stature. Shoulda woulda coulda. Instead I have this great theoretical idea that simply doesn't pan out in the data. I will revisit the idea at some point, or maybe someone will take up the challenge and prove that I was an idiot and missed something obvious, making an academic name for themself. Maybe.

Bugger the data.