How Current Events Shape Public Opinion of America's Weaknesses

Introduction: The Weight of Public Opinion

If physics can lend anything to the sphere of political science, it is that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. As the world becomes more quickly polarized than ever before, public opinion of America — both internally and externally — has never been more important. Despite the significance of popular support for the American nation as battles surge overseas and nebulous dangers threaten the home front, recent events in the Middle East, at home, and throughout the rest of the world have caused a degeneration of that support. The power of public opinion is nothing new; the lessons of Vietnam have never been more relevant to the formation of American policy aimed at garnering popular support than they are today. In both past and present circumstances, the power of current events on the formation of public opinion is clear: while events can serve to bolster support for an administration in good times, in bad times, current events and their coverage transform public opinion, zeroing in on and amplifying America's weaknesses.

The most recent headlines make that history plain — one of disjoint, confusion, and dismay. While media sources reveal the chagrin manifested in the 60% of Americans who disapprove of the President's performance in office, it is the unrelenting bombardment of the American public with news of a failing war campaign in Iraq, disagreement on the home front, and growing concern over recent events that have drawn attention to America's weaknesses.

The correlation between public opinion and widespread support — or its absence — for the ruling government is nothing new. While a prolific and pervasive problem, the failings of perception can be the downfall of an administration and, by extension, its nation's standing in the broader sphere. When Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger contemplated the viability of American military intervention abroad in 1984, he understood well the importance that public support would play. "There must be some reasonable assurance that we will have the support of the American people," he said (Weinberger, New York Times, November 29).

Historical Precedent: Roosevelt and the Supreme Court

The role of public support in shaping perceptions of governmental strength and weakness stretches back to the earliest days of the nation. In 1937, public opinion provided the lens through which the power of the administration was judged when President Roosevelt proposed reorganizing the Supreme Court from nine to fifteen members. This reconstruction was not without significant support, but popular hesitation proved more consequential.

As Frank Cantwell explained in the American Political Science Review, "Enlargement of the Supreme Court from nine to fifteen members was the most controversial feature of the general reorganization of the federal judiciary proposed by the President, aimed at speeding up the process of clearing cases through the federal court system, and making the system more 'representative' of the wishes of the people" (Cantwell, 924).

The enlargement was welcomed by many for the speed with which it could move long-standing and costly cases through the judiciary, but recent events cast a shadow of doubt upon the plan. The New Deal, while alleviating many of the nation's woes, had arrived on the heels of the market crash and ensuing Depression. In an era in which so many people's futures were tied to national finances, the prospect of one President expanding his influence over the law of the land was frightening. The power of one President to nominate, one Congress to confirm, and one limited pool from which to select six new Supreme Court Justices was perceived as too much authority for a single administration to hold — even if the goal of that administration was to prevent the Court from "usurping" powers and exerting them unduly upon the citizenry (Cantwell, 925).

From February to April of the same year, Gallup polling tested the national mood regarding President Roosevelt's proposal. Not even half of the surveyed American populace approved of the plan (Cantwell, 925). At the same time, the New York Times reported that 35 senators were "uncommitted" to the plan, 28 were firmly "against," and only 32 were on record as "favoring" it (Cantwell, 925). As this discontent was disseminated to the public, a parallel reverberation was felt across all walks of American society.

The Weinberger Doctrine and the Vietnam Legacy

Fifty years later, the story remained familiar. The Weinberger Doctrine was characterized as a vital precondition for governmental action abroad, though not all of Washington's officers were willing to defer to public opinion. Secretary of State George Shultz publicly disagreed with Weinberger's framework, "characterizing it both at that time and later in his memoirs as an unreasonably stringent set of preconditions that would rarely, if ever, be met. Consequently, Shultz argued, these restrictions effectively would serve as an excuse for inaction, even when vital American interests abroad were potentially threatened" (Holsti, 2).

Their disagreement represented a foundational moment in the construction of American foreign and public policy. It extended from conflicting interpretations of the end of the Vietnam War, but within a decade, the end of the Cold War would make clear that the modern world demanded ample public opinion and support — particularly as the widespread dissemination of facts, figures, and media-influenced perspectives became unavoidable. Without factoring in public opinion, "post-Cold War interventions in Somalia, Haiti, and parts of the former Yugoslavia have, if anything, sharpened rather than tempered debates about the use of American armed forces abroad" (Holsti, 1).

Conclusion: Current Events as a Mirror of National Weakness

No matter what the era, current events highlight the power with which a leader, or group of leaders, runs a country and commands its respect. With a powerful nation like America — whose strength is tested and evidenced across the world — the revelation of its weaknesses at home is rapidly disseminated to the rest of the globe. As public approval ratings shift for a leader, as they did for Bush and as they have for many leaders during turbulent times throughout history, current events most frequently serve to highlight a nation's weaknesses rather than underscore its strengths.

References

Burns, John F. "Iraq to Investigate Alleged Abuse of 173 Detainees." New York Times. November 15, 2005. A1.

Cantwell, Frank V. "Public Opinion and the Legislative Process." American Political Science Review. Vol. 40, No. 5 (Oct. 1946): 924–925.

Holsti, Ole R. Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2004.

Morin, Richard, and Dan Balz. "Bush's Popularity Reaches New Low." Washington Post. November 4, 2005. A1.

Wallace, Chris. "Governors Evaluate 2005 Election." Fox News. November 14, 2005.

Weinberger, Caspar. "Excerpts from Address of Weinberger." New York Times. November 29. A5.

Weisman, Jonathan. "Senate Rebukes Bush on Iraq War Policy." Washington Post. November 15, 2005. A1.

Yglesias, Matthew. "The Revision Thing." The American Prospect. Online edition.