FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Rightwing Manipulation of the Wisconsin Revolt

by ANTHONY DiMAGGIO

Spin has always been a major problem when it comes to interpreting public opinion.  Manipulation of opinion surveys is easy enough for those seeking to muddy the waters of political debate regarding the current war on unions.  A recent survey from the reactionary Rasmussen polling group – celebrated throughout the right-wing press – is a case in point.  The survey paints a picture of the American public as firmly in favor of gutting public union protections in Wisconsin and elsewhere.  Rasmussen’s findings should come as no surprise to those familiar with the firm.  The organization’s president, Scott Rasmussen, is a regular contributor to Fox News, is a political ally of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and has built a career promoting the false notion that most Americans are firmly in the libertarian-right political camp.  This last “finding” has been consistently debunked by scholars who study public opinion, as I describe below.

The effective measurement of public opinion on the Wisconsin rebellion against Governor Scott Walker’s attack on Wisconsin unions is illuminated by a close examination of the polls covering the subject.  First is the Rasmussen poll, which is heavily biased in its many leading questions and in its failure to provide an adequate political context for the rebellion in question.  Rasmussen included a number of questions asked of respondents, prior to asking about their opinions of the situation in Wisconsin. Questions asked included the following (asked in the sequence provided below):

“Does the average public employee in your state earn more than the average private sector worker in your state, less than the average private sector worker in your state or do they earn about the same amount?”
“Should teachers, firemen and policemen be allowed to go on strike?” “In the dispute between the governor and the union workers, do you agree more with the [Wisconsin] governor [Scott Walker] or the union or teachers and other state employees?”

Rasmussen finds that 48 percent of respondents claim to support Governor Walker, founds after asking the third question above, compared to just 38 percent who support the unions.  These figures have been widely disseminated by right-wing television and radio pundits in order to create the notion that the public supports austerity budget cuts and attacks on unions’ collective bargaining rights.

Many problems are immediately observable with this narrative.  The Rasmussen survey establishes a number of false/questionable premises with regard to the situation in Wisconsin.  First, it subtly inserts within respondents’ minds the question of whether public workers are overpaid compared to private sector workers (see question 1).  This is a classic tactic of right-wing pundits, who repeatedly remind their listeners/viewers of the “greedy” nature of union workers, and their position of relative privilege (in terms of pay) when compared to private sector workers (for the record, numerous studies show that public sector workers actually earn less than private sector workers, after controlling for education levels).  Second, the Rasmussen survey premises its study by asking respondents if “teachers, firemen, and policemen” should “be allowed to go on strike.”  This scenario is highly problematic with regard to the events in Wisconsin, since there has been no strike officially declared by Wisconsin police, teachers, or firefighters.  In reality, the vast majority of Wisconsin public sector workers showed up for work over the last week, while a minority appeared in the state capitol of Madison to protest (a large number of firefighters and police did show up, however, to show their solidarity with other public sector workers).  Those I spoke with in Wisconsin over the holiday weekend did indicate that public sector workers in Wisconsin were considering a strike as an act of last resort if the state actually passes a bill stripping workers of collective bargaining rights, although this plan has not yet been implemented.

Other problems also arise in the Rasmussen poll.  Rasmussen typically only contacts “likely voters,” rather than all Americans, meaning that its samples are restricted to a select, relatively elite group (voters) while ignoring those typically unrepresented in the political system (non-voters).  Creating an artificial distinction between the opinions of “worthy” citizens (voters) and “unworthy” ones (non-voters) is unacceptable in a political system asserting that all people are created equal and deserving of an equal say in the policymaking arena.  Finally, and by far most importantly, Rasmussen’s poll is fundamentally flawed in that it failed to provide respondents with the full political context for the conflict in question in Wisconsin.  The survey generically informed respondents of “the Wisconsin governor’s effort to limit collective bargaining rights for most state employees.”  However, the survey doesn’t bother to inform respondents about what specifically “collective bargaining” entails.  This failure should not be overlooked in light of the fact that the vast majority of Americans do not belong to a union – hence they do not enjoy direct knowledge of what rights are specifically included under collective bargaining.

Examining the Rasmussen-right-wing narrative alongside other recent surveys places the former’s flaws into better context.  One example is a survey done by WeAskAmerica, a research arm of the pro-Republican Illinois Manufacturers’ Association.  The group’s recent survey of those in Wisconsin simply asks respondents: “As you may know, Gov. Scott Walker has proposed a plan to limit the pay of government workers and teachers, increase their share of the cost of benefits, and strip some public-employ unions of much of their power.  We’d like to know if you approve or disapprove of Governor Walker’s plan.”  This survey question is far more precise with regard to the specifics of Walker’s policy reform when compared to the Rasmussen question.  Asking a policy-specific question, WeAskAmerica finds, in contrast to Rasmussen, that 52 percent of those surveyed disapprove of Walker’s plan, compared to 43 percent who do support it.  Nearly identical results were found by the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (GQR) research firm (which conducted a survey for the AFL-CIO), reporting that 52 percent of Wisconsin residents supported and 42 percent opposed Walker’s actions after being asked the following question:

“As you may know, Governor Scott Walker recently announced a plan to limit most public employees’ ability to negotiate their wages and benefits. The plan cuts pension and health care benefits for current public workers, and restricts new wage increases unless approved by a voter referendum. Contracts would be limited to one year, with wages frozen until a new contract is settled. In addition, Walker’s plan also changes rules to require collective bargaining units to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union, stops employers from collecting union dues, and allows members of collective bargaining units to avoid paying dues. Law enforcement, fire employees and state troopers and inspectors would be exempt from the changes.”

GQR is also rather straightforward in its other survey questions.  The group prompts readers by explaining: “I’m going to read you a list of groups and people, for each one, please tell me if you agree or disagree with the position they are taking in the current situation at the [Wisconsin] state capitol.  For each one, tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?”  Asking about various actors involved, GQR finds the following levels of support: 67 percent for “public employees,” 62 percent for “protesters at the state capitol,” 59 percent for “unions,” 56 percent for “Dems in the legislature” [who are opposing Walker’s plan], 48 percent for “Reps. In the legislature [who support Walker], and just 43 percent for Scott Walker.  This again is a dramatic contrast when compared to Rasmussen’s results.

One might point out that the WeAskAmerica and GQR polls are not strictly comparable to the Rasmussen poll, since the first two survey Americans overall and the other surveys Wisconsin residents.  This criticism is valid at first glance, but neglects the reality that national surveys also find strong opposition to government attacks on unions.  A poll this week from USA Today, for example, finds that 61 percent of all Americans surveyed oppose laws that remove collective bargaining rights for public sector union workers, compared to just 33 percent who support attacks on collective bargaining.  The same survey finds that 53 percent of Americans oppose reducing budget deficits through the cutting of pay and benefits for state workers.  Looking again at the questions at hand, one can see that the political context in question (as related to Wisconsin) is far better explained in the USA Today poll, when compared to the Rasmussen poll.

Questions leading up to USA Today’s results read as follows:

“As you may know, many U.S. state governments are facing large budget deficits this year.  Please say whether you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose each of the following ways state officials could reduce their budget deficits.  How about reducing pay or benefits the state provides for government workers?”

“As you may know, one way the legislature in Wisconsin is seeking to reduce its budget deficit is by passing a bill that would take away some of the collective bargaining rights of most public unions, including the state teachers’ union.  Would you favor or oppose such a bill in your state?”

No one with any real expertise in the study of public opinion should be surprised by my contention that the American public is generally progressive on issues related to social welfare and worker protections – at least when polled through specific policy questions.  Well respected scholars in political science regularly have uncovered such patterns in their analyses of public opinion.1  Similarly, no one who attended the Madison rally last weekend should be surprised that there is widespread opposition in Wisconsin to Walker’s attack on public sector workers.

Those I spoke with at the rally regularly stated that there is strong resistance to Walker’s initiative in their own communities, and consistently reinforced the point that the rebellion was widespread, with an estimated half of those attending not even belonging to public sector unions.

Sadly, many Americans (particularly those consuming right wing media) will be left with a grossly distorted opinion of public opinion with regard to the war against unions.  Such ignorance is typical in a right-wing media system that only views public opinion polls as valuable when they are manipulated to serve reactionary purposes.  As progressives, it is our responsibility to correct these distortions, and remind our friends and family of the need to evaluate information from partisan media (such as Fox and right wing radio) with a healthy degree of skepticism. The reality remains that the American public is strongly opposed to the recent wave of attacks on unions, as seen in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and elsewhere.  This opposition will become increasingly important in the public rebellions emerging in these states, and will be needed if we are to push for policy victories for American workers.

ANTHONY DiMAGGIO is the co-author (with Paul Street) of the forthcoming “Crashing the Tea Party” (Paradigm Publishers) due out in May 2011.  He is also the author of When Media Goes to War (2010) and Mass Media, Mass Propaganda (2008).   He has taught U.S. and Global Politics at Illinois State University, and can be reached at: adimag2@uic.edu

1     See: Benjamin Page and Lawrence Jacob’s seminal The Rational Public and Class War?, and Page’s The Foreign Policy Disconnect.  Also see Martin Gilen’s Why Americans Hate Welfare and Robert Erikson and Kent Tedin’s American Public Opinion for further validation.

Anthony DiMaggio holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Illinois, Chicago.  He has taught American politics at numerous colleges, and is the author of Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media, and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (SUNY Press, paperback, July 2016).

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
July 29, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Michael Hudson
Obama Said Hillary will Continue His Legacy and Indeed She Will!
Jeffrey St. Clair
She Stoops to Conquer: Notes From the Democratic Convention
Rob Urie
Long Live the Queen of Chaos
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh
Evolution of Capitalism, Escalation of Imperialism
Vijay Prashad
The Iraq War: a Story of Deceit
Chris Odinet
It Wasn’t Just the Baton Rouge Police Who Killed Alton Sterling
Brian Cloughley
Could Trump be Good for Peace?
Patrick Timmons
Racism, Freedom of Expression and the Prohibition of Guns at Universities in Texas
Gary Leupp
The Coming Crisis in U.S.-Turkey Relations
Pepe Escobar
Is War Inevitable in the South China Sea?
Margot Kidder
My Fellow Americans: We Are Fools
Norman Pollack
Clinton Incorruptible: An Ideological Contrivance
Robert Fantina
The Time for Third Parties is Now!
Andrew Tillett-Saks
Labor’s Political Stockholm Syndrome: Why Unions Must Stop Supporting Democrats Like Clinton
Andre Vltchek
Like Trump, Hitler Also Liked His “Small People”
Serge Halimi
Provoking Russia
Andrew Stewart
Countering The Nader Baiter Mythology
Rev. William Alberts
“Law and Order:” Code words for White Lives Matter Most
Ron Jacobs
Something Besides Politics for Summer’s End
David Swanson
It’s Not the Economy, Stupid
Erwan Castel
A Faith that Lifts Barricades: The Ukraine Government Bows and the Ultra-Nationalists are Furious
Steve Horn
Did Industry Ties Lead Democratic Party Platform Committee to Nix Fracking Ban?
Robert Fisk
How to Understand the Beheading of a French Priest
Colin Todhunter
Sugar-Coated Lies: How The Food Lobby Destroys Health In The EU
Franklin Lamb
“Don’t Cry For Us Syria … The Truth is We Shall Never Leave You!”
Frederick B. Hudson
Well Fed, Bill?
Harvey Wasserman
NY Times Pushes Nukes While Claiming Renewables Fail to Fight Climate Change
Elliot Sperber
 Pseudo-Democracy, Reparations, and Actual Democracy
Uri Avnery
The Orange Man: Trump and the Middle East
Marjorie Cohn
The Content of Trump’s Character
Missy Comley Beattie
Pick Your Poison
Joseph Grosso
Serving The Grid: Urban Planning in New York
John Repp
Real Cooperation with Nations Is the Best Survival Tactic
Binoy Kampmark
The Scourge of Youth Detention: The Northern Territory, Torture, and Australia’s Detention Disease
Kim Nicolini
Rain the Color Blue with a Little Red In It
Cesar Chelala
Gang Violence Rages Across Central America
Tom H. Hastings
Africa/America
Robert Koehler
Slavery, War and Presidential Politics
July 28, 2016
Paul Street
Politician Speak at the DNC
Jeffrey St. Clair
Night of the Hollow Men: Notes From the Democratic Convention
Renee Parsons
Blame It on the Russians
Herbert Dyer, Jr.
Is it the Cops or the Cameras? Putting Police Brutality in Historical Context
Russell Mokhiber
Dems Dropping the N Word: When in Trouble, Blame Ralph
Howard Lisnoff
The Elephant in the Living Room
Pepe Escobar
The Real Secret of the South China Sea
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail