Introduction
Public opinion is considered extremely important in the modern world. It is impossible to imagine a democratic country that does not pay attention to public opinion about a specific affair that concerns the whole society. Many different models have been used to make conclusions about the relation of public opinion to the specific parameters and events in society. To consider this problem, a specific situation should be taken into account. One of the most crucial questions bothering not only the USA but also the whole world is the war in Iraq. Different people have different points of view and these have often changed over the years. It may be predicted that the reasons for the change in the public opinion are different, starting with those that have relation to the USA and the actions that are taken there and finishing with the actions that take place on the international arena and influence of the war on other spheres of the world life. The main purpose of this article is to consider changing American public opinion and to review and analyze poll data regarding specific public policies, it is clear that changing public opinion influences overall public preference for certain political policies.
The efficiency of Thermostatic Public Responsiveness
This is an amazing way of acting out a developed society when taking the thermostatic public responsiveness for granted. Soroka in his ninth chapter of the book ‘Degrees of Democracy’ speculates that such public responsiveness is ‘self-maintaining, where inputs (preferences) are converted into outputs (policy) and outputs are monitored and fed back on inputs’ (2010, 177). So this should be understood as the interrelated issue that presupposes a perfect hierarchy of relations within society and hence fluent and efficient work of the entire social media. The responsiveness of the public in general is concerned about today because it is regarded
as one of those important levers that make it possible for the policy makers understand if they go in correct directions. Also, the thermostatic public responsiveness debates are essential because this entails certainty that the society has some firm beliefs, grounds, and a certain system that ensures safety and stability to its users – the citizens. However, the system considered to be perfect in terms of responsiveness and efficiency of those responses has some leaks in its structure and effectiveness. For example, it is incorrect to think thermostatic public responsiveness is efficient because ‘Citizens can and should not be equally attentive to all issues all the time’ (Soroka 2010, 170). No wonder it is wrong to suppose that thermostatic public responsiveness is efficient by all means for the society in order for the government to understand the public preference on the certain public policy because the preference even differ geographically. The opinions vary across the states which makes it almost impossible to outline the basic clear coefficient: ‘It may be that some individuals are highly responsive in some domains, and other individuals are highly responsive in others’ (Soroka 2010, 170).
Iraq war polls
Public preference in thermostatic model
According to Soroka (2010), “the representation of the public opinion presupposes that the public actually notices and responds to what policy makers do” (22). Thus, from the first words it is seen that the actions taken by the government and the documents they accept as the legal influence public opinion. Changes in public preference may be either to more positive or more negative opinions, like a thermostat. Thus, the model, which dwells upon the change of public opinion because of the changes made by policymakers, is called thermostatic. The public preference for policy is different in different regions of the USA. People pay much attention to the laws and different policies that are accepted in the society, but at the same time people do not have copies of those documents in their houses. Most people form their personal opinions based on public opinion and form their preferences based on public preferences. These processes are interconnected. People are not predicted to have detailed information about the event as well as not predicted to have a perfectly formulated opinion about some specific fact. The public is also not predicted to be aware of the different actions of policy makers. The only thing that is required is the changes in public preference to the specific occasion with the change of some actions. Public opinion may become either negative or positive with a corresponding change to either greater or lesser public preference.
Soroka (2010) has proven that the public reacts to the policy change even though people do not read the entire documents nor are present during specific events. Information flow plays an important role in the thermostatic model as it makes it possible for people to get to know something about the changes and identify their personal attitude to the change either positively or negatively. It may be stated that public creates its opinion not based on the credible information they get from numerous sources, but based on the feedback. Depending on the nature of the feedback, either positive or negative, public preference becomes either lower or higher. Nevertheless, even when positive feedback is obtained, public opinion may change in different ways, either favourably or not. The behaviour of the political elites may become crucial in the decision. Moreover, not only the political leaders’ behaviour and their election campaign promises matter. The latter are the content, what matters is the context. Namely, it is important to watch for the way politicians convey their policies to the citizens. As it was stated above, frequently, people are influenced by the already fixed opinion not by the initial policies’ instructions. Although it is highly crucial to read and get acquainted with what a political party introduces, public is impacted by the mass opinion which is formed by other people’s efforts. Here, the significant fact to outline is that the opinion that people are doomed to is released and delivered to masses by politicians, too. So, it is undeniable that society is so-called surrounded by the foregone conclusion, hence this way or another the thermostatic public responsiveness will be formed according to the desires and preferences of the authorities. All the more, it is believed that all possible responses of the policies are predicted and the necessary sub-responses are formed beforehand to achieve the needed result subsequently. So, this presupposes adequate means of influence on public opinion. ‘Representatives who face very strong electoral pressures, or are prone to be highly reactive to public interests, may tend to overshoot the equilibrium’ (Soroka 2010, 179). Therefore, we can speculate here that equilibrium is a highly important factor as per the beliefs and thermostatic public responsiveness. Also, Soroka states: ‘By contrast, we may expect that representatives with a broader … view… will respond more incrementally’ (Soroka 2010, 179) that makes a political behaviour a main link in thermostatic public responsiveness.
When opinion is created, the public has an opportunity to respond to the specific event or policy that has been accepted. There are two main avenues for public response to the policy, namely elections (indirect) and the response of the politicians to the desires of the public (direct). These two kinds of public responses are closely related. People are not interested in how their desires are going to be met. They just want to express their opinion, respond to the government reaction, and get what they want. This is what Soroka states in his ninth chapter of Degrees of Democracy: “Expecting representative democracy to represent preferences that do not exist, in domains about which people do not care, is unreasonable” (2010, 182). This is true, since the society of Americans and three other English-speaking countries’ representative democracies presented by Soroka directly depend on the way the thermostatic public responsiveness is regarded, namely the way its efficiency is regarded. The salience of the issue is of critical importance here. Since what people want is to see the actions taken by the government in response to public’s demands (though disregarding the means and actual actions’ process), the government in their turn, of course, try to influence the salience of the issue. The attitude of the public towards the specific public policy is trying to be transformed in what is convenient for the government. Nevertheless, the diversity of public preferences is not taken into consideration often, which entails wrong conclusions by the authorities and hence dissatisfaction by society with the ultimate public response. It is necessary to mention that some issues simply to not evoke much response of public for it may be not interesting enough unlike Iraqi issues. These kinds of polls are the most clear and exact ones for they are gathered from the range of sae-interested small group of people, which gives precise through poor in quantity results. Nevertheless, the theoretical information considered above may be easily related to poll results about the war in Iraq and the public opinion was created by means of different information and feedback, as well as changing public preference with changing situations and policies. Of course, it is hard to determine now which internal/hidden role was played by the government in forming public opinions and hence public preference due to mass media, interest groups, policy advocates (Soroka 2010, 182) but the results are obvious through years.
Public opinion in different years
Regarding public opinion about the war in Iraq in different years, the information has slight differences depending on the poll. The margin of error should be considered ±3, which corresponds to the norm. Thus, here are the results considered by different research centers for different years in the relation to the war in Iraq. According to CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll, 74% of Americans thought that it was the right decision to start a military campaign in Iraq. Only 41% of people thought the same in 2006.
According to a Gallup poll, 23% of Americans considered the war in Iraq as a mistake at the beginning of 2003 while at the end of 2010 this number has increased significantly to about 55% of the American population. It should be noted that public opinion changed and public preference became less with specific events, like torture by the US military, the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, and the surge at the beginning of presidential primaries (“Big mistake” 2010). All these events negatively influenced public preference for the war in Iraq. The reaction of the public in relation to keeping American troops in Iraq has been changing as well. In 2003, 64% of Americans supported troops staying in Iraq until the situation there was stabilized. Only 47% of Americans thought the same in 2008 (“Public Attitudes toward the War in Iraq,” 2008).
According to the research of NBC News/Wall Street Journal, 31% of Americans supported the sending of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq in 2007. This would indicate that the general appreciation for the war is reduced. More and more people have begun to think that it is impossible to implement democracy in the country and there is no need to stay there, otherwise, the USA has some different reasons to send more troops to Iraq and stay there as long as possible. The attitude of public to the financial has aspects of the war have not changed much. According to the results of an ABC News/Washington Post (2009) poll in 2007, 40% of respondents considered it financially profitable; in 2009, only 39% thought that the war was worth the cost.
Comparison and contrast of public opinion in different years
Numerous polls related to public opinion about the Iraq War since 2003 to the present have found that it was changing. According to the summary of a poll provided by the USA Today, Benedetto (2003) states that people in the USA supported the fighting that began in Iraq. “The news from Iraq is mostly bad, and criticism of President Bush from the Democrats is relentless. But nearly two-thirds — 63% — of Americans say the war in Iraq was worth fighting” (Benedetto 2003). The information in the polls states that in January about 53% of respondents said that the situation was worth going to war for and in August this number had increased to 63% (USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll results 2005). The positive opinion about the war during this period may be explained by the public mood. The events of September 11, 2001 were still fresh in everyone’s mind. The inability to apply democracy in Iraq and to avoid blind submission to the desire of one dictator were also important for Americans as the nation that had a reputation for respecting democracy most of all. The promotion of the idea of the war also influenced the population in the USA. Moreover, the idea of the war against terrorism was proclaimed.
For 2005, the following results were considered. Forty-one percent stated that the war was the right thing and 55% of respondents wanted American troops to stay out of Iraq. At the same time, 59% of respondents stated that the war was not worth the cost. According to another poll, 64% sated that financial profitableness of the war was not confirmed. It is possible to conclude that the people were reconsidering something; the policies that were adopted and the actions that were taken made some people realize that the war was not exactly what they though. Public preference was reduced; still, the change was not so great as most people still considered the war to be right (Roberts 2005). Furthermore, the Iraqi referendum was expected at that time and most Americans did not consider Iraq secure enough to take it up. All these policies and events influenced the public preference. People began to understand that the inability of the USA to lead a quick war influenced them directly. The financial costs were great and the USA could not state firmly that they would be able to reach their goals. Thus, it is possible to conclude that Americans wanted the Iraq war to finish as soon as possible in 2005, while in 2003 it was impossible to state that the USA would have this opinion in the near future.
Considering the data collected from 2007, it may be noticed that “Americans now view the war in Iraq more negatively than at any time since the invasion more than four years ago” (Sussman 2007). Only 35% of respondents considered the war in Iraq to be right; others believed that it was a mistake. Forty-seven percent of Americans were sure that the efforts of the US government were useless. Bush had sent troops to Iraq in 2007, but 51% of Americans said that this was useless. Those troops could not change anything, but the financial support of the war increased. Furthermore, Americans began to say that the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq was one of the most reasonable decisions the president could make. Only 20% of respondents saw the positive effect of the increase of US troops. Financing the war was the main problem that changed public opinion. Fifteen percent of respondents were in favour of blocking the financing of the war by Congress. Sixty-two percent thought that Congress should allow the war, but “on the condition that the United States sets benchmarks for progress and the Iraqi government meets those goals” (Sussman 2007).
Thus, it may be concluded that the change in public opinion was influenced by a number of different factors. The changing situation in Iraq influenced the internal political situation in the US. Public preference changed but only slightly. About half of the respondents were either for or against the war in Iraq.
The importance of public preference while collecting public opinion
Human opinion was formed under the influence of the situation in the whole world. People acted according to the thermostatic model when they learned about the situation in Iraq and their opinions changed. In order to stay completely unbiased it is necessary to add that people were fiercely made to change their opinions throughout the years as per the situation in Iraq. This was made due to different means such as mass media, for example. Politicians could either ‘diffuse responsibility or make responsibility more clear’ (Soroka 2010, 182), in other words public’s opinion was formed according to the government’s needs, which subsequently contravenes the importance of the public preference at all. However, the actual issue of public opinion is blurry itself. Making thousands of opinions every day the mass media, for example, is the source by means of which politicians convey their thoughts and policies to the public, of course in tone and color they want. As decided previously in the paper, the public opinion is formed frequently (mainly always) due to the heard, seen, or discussed with the neighbour, friend, or relative, not the initial actual source. Therefore, the importance of ‘public preference’ towards specific public policy can be brought into question because of at least two factors: the biased opinion of public and manipulated sources of conveying the information. This is what Soroka’s opinion about the way the above is implemented as well as democracy is carried out: ‘the public surely plays the central role in producing the ‘degrees’ of the democracy. But it also may be that democracy works only as we as politicians want it to’ (2010, 182). Depending on the actions taken in the country, the public learned about the latest news and its preferences changed as well, or to be more exact the actions taken in the country forced the citizens to join the opinion of those who ordered to take actions because this is necessary for the overall international image of USA’s democracy.
The reduction of support for the war between 2003 and 2005 may be easily explained. The fall of support began when people began to understand that the financial stability of the country might be ruined. Again, according to Soroka’s opinion about the importance of public preference, the political authorities were forced to form such an opinion due to the reducing state budgets so that the entire country can support them in terms of withdrawal of US military troops because this would entail overall poor welfare. (Pierson 2010, 32). Financing the war, the federal deficit increased. More than half of respondents (62%) said that it would be better to finance the Gulf Coast rebuilding rather than a war where the outcome seemed unpredictable. Though it seem like there is no actual importance of true public’s opinion for the government, it must be said that the importance of American’s attitude towards war in Iraq yet exists. Since people agree to the opinion that is delivered to public about the nonsense of war, this witnesses for the American nation being a highly democratic, considerate, and deliberate nation. Given that the premises for the war were bombing of 9/11, the nation is magnanimous generous as well. Extracting at least this conclusion from the polls can be a reason to do it. Of course, another reason is that Americans did not believe that it was possible to build stable democracy in Iraq (Roberts 2005). Thus, people began to criticize the war and the preference for it reduced. The public was dissatisfied with the situation and this led to the reduction of public support for the war.
Public preference for the specific events is important as it influenced public opinion about the situation. Moreover, the importance of the public preferences’ investigation is that the government needs to know why the public opinion changes and, due to which factors, and how this can be ultimately used in future because ‘Representative democracy works’ (Soroka 2010, 182). The beginning of the Presidential primaries was one of the most influential events on public opinion and it reduced interest for the war in general. Many people began to be less interested in what was happening there. The Presidential primaries provoked the debate as each candidate wanted to refer his/her election campaign to the situation in Iraq. It is obvious that these debates made many people think about Iraq, for some people more and more new information was revealed. Many facts about the situation in Iraq were dwelt upon in the daily newspapers. According to Soroka (2010), most Americans do not read newspapers, but this does not prevent them from forming public preferences and remaining responsive to various policies. The author was sure that one of the main components of public preference is “whether policy has gone ‘too far’ in one direction or ‘not far enough’” (Soroka 2010, 31). To give such an opinion is possible even without being aware of the detailed facts about the policy or events. Thus, public preference is created based on superficial knowledge. This knowledge makes it possible to formulate public opinion. Returning to the practical example considered throughout the whole paper, the preference for the war in Iraq was either less or more during different periods. This influenced public opinion and, at different times, more or fewer people supported the war or considered it a mistake.
The Economist in 2010 provided research that considered when public opinion was more preferable to the war in Iraq and when the situation was less positive. When President Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq, the public thought that it was not a mistake (76%). When reports about torture by the US military came to light, public opinion changed and the preference to the war was reduced, only 66% of Americans still believed that the war was not a mistake. With the bombing of Golden Mosque in Samarra, public opinion about the war began to stabilize in the idea that the USA should not have to attack Iraq. Public preference for the war reduced and 65% believed that the war in Iraq was a great mistake. The Presidential primaries revealed much information and public preference for the war was even less than before, with only 40% sure that the war was not a mistake (‘Big mistake’ 2010).
Thus, referencing Soroka and the thermostatic model of public preference, we can conclude that public opinion is very important in the situation. “Without public responsiveness to policy, there is little basis for policy responsiveness to public opinion” (Soroka 2010, 41), but public responsiveness to policy is an obligatory condition for the existence of the society. People get used to the idea that they have their opinion about some specific situation. Each American had an opinion about the war in Iraq and the responsiveness to that event created the public opinion and changed public preference to either less or more.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the thermostatic model states that public preference reacts to changes in the public opinion formed based on different policies and events that take place. However, society has to be very attentive and sensitive to the information spread among masses, it has to be filtered off thoroughly because politicians are likely to form public opinion according to their needs, while many people do not care where the information comes from. Therefore, it is essential to understand and beware of adequate opinion and forming the opinion according to reliable sources. (Fiorina, 2009, 163).The information flow in this process is very important, as many Americans are not interested in detailed studies of legal documents and reports about the events. Being aware of the general facts of the problem, people form opinions that influence public preference. The attitude to the war in Iraq changed with the occurrence of different events. When Americans thought that the war would be fast and the desired goal to make Iraq democratic was almost reached, the preference to the war increased, but when the war continued for several years and the desired goal seemed too far off, public preference for the war, influenced by negative public opinion was reduced as well. The poll results presented by different research campaigns showed that the change in public preference was influenced by different events, both inside the country and outside. It was obvious that the public learned about different events later and their opinion changed greatly with those events. The nature of the events caused either public satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq and made public preference become greater or lesser.
Reference List
ABC News/Washington Post. 2009. Opinion Polls/Surveys.
Benedetto, R. 2003. “Most say Iraq war was worth fighting.” USA Today. Web.
“Big mistake.”2010. The Economist. Web.
Fiorina, M. P., and Abrams S. J. 2009. Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
“Iraq.” 2011. CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll.
“NBC News/Wall Street Journal.” 2009. Opinion Polls/Surveys.
Piercon, P., and Hacker, J. S. 2010. Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer–and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class. New York: Simon & Schuster.
“Public Attitudes toward the War in Iraq: 2003-2008.” 2008. Pew Research Center Publications.
Roberts, J. 2005. “Poll: Fading support for Iraq war.” CBS NEWS. Web.
Soroka, S.N., and Wiezien, C. 2010. Degrees of democracy: politics, public opinion, and policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sussman, D. 2007. “Poll shows view of Iraq war is most negative since start.” The New York Times.
“USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll results.” 2005. USA Today.
Appendix 1
“Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?” (CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll in ‘Iraq’ 2011)
Appendix 2
(New York Times/CBS News poll in Sussman 2007)
Did the USA do the right thing in taking military action against Iraq?
How are things going for the U.S. in its efforts to bring stability and order to Iraq?
Appendix 3
USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll results 2005
All in all, do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, or not?
How would you say things are going for the U.S. in Iraq now that the major fighting has ended – very well, moderately well, moderately badly, (or) very badly?
Appendix 4
NBC News/Wall Street Journal (2007)
“In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that George W. Bush is doing in handling the situation in Iraq?”
“Do you favor or oppose the decision to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq?”
Appendix 5
ABC News/Washington Post 2009
“All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?”
Appendix 6
Appendix 7
CBS in Roberts 2005
Did U.S. do the right thing going to war with Iraq?