Activist Ingredient

This marks Part 2 of the discussion on the effectiveness of social movements in affecting political policy based on the work of Felix Kolb (see Part 1 here).  We are looking at the theoretical ways in which activists help to shape society.  This time we’ll look at changing the public’s attitude about an issue as a means to positive social change.

The Public Preference Mechanism (p. 76-9)

This model states that based on the theory that politicians do not simply state their own policy choice but must also appeal to their voting constituency in order to get reelected, social movements can try to change the public’s attitudes and opinions on topics in order to push politicians to also support those causes.

An example: as public sentiment swayed from support of racial segregation to opposing segregation thanks to the civil rights movement (and the integration that occurred in popular culture – sports, music, entertainment), the political climate in the courts and in Congress changed to fit their constituency’s tastes.

Another way the changing public preference could help change government policy is through an election itself – if an issue/or a range of issues becomes really important in the public eye and is not supported by the current government, they may then elect a different politician who does support that/those policy/policies.

After the long  tenure of G.W. Bush as U.S. President a painfully low approval ratings for him and his policies particularly on the war (probably thanks to the popular yet quick-to-distinct antiwar movement), the 2008 election year brought significant victories for the Democratic Party (whether or not this brings substantive change in actual policy is another story – yet highly plausible).

Kolb suggests that the actual level of public support for some policy position is not as important a the perceived level of support.  Social movements can signal to politicians that the public does indeed support their cause whether or not the majority really does support it.  This is really what lobbying, petitions and letters to your representatives are about – you are signaling to them what the public position is.

An important thing to note here is that ANY increase in adding direct democracy measures into the political process (such as referendums, popular initiatives) and such things as proportional representation should increase the public opinion’s influence on policy – this is why these seemingly reformist struggles or actually struggle for nonreformist reforms: the public gains some level of political power which it can then use, with the help of social movements, to advance toward a more just society in other areas.

How can an activist organization and social movement change public preferences?  Through things such as media events (protests, marches, vigils etc…), by canvassing door to door, by talking to friends, family, coworkers, and/or classmates about the issue(s).  Reading groups was one way that (largely middle class) women became aware of feminist thinking, women’s issues, and an array of new ideas and preferences.

But let’s not be too enthusiastic about this method without considering its limitations.  First, if the issue is not seen as important – even if the public is in line with the position of the social movement – their opinions wont matter since the issue wouldn’t influence their vote very much.  Not only does the public have to agree with your issue then, they also have to care about it enough to influence their vote – or at least appear as if it were likely to influence their vote.

Only a small percentage of the public endorses (household) animal abuse and would likely support legislation that works to limit such abuse, but the issue (at this point) is not nearly as important of a concern to most as the economy is, for example.  Therefore, just because a candidate does not support anti-animal abuse legislation does not mean that he will not get elected since the issue is low in public importance.

Second, if elite groups are strongly in support of one position and few if any elite groups favor the social movement position, the chances of legislation being passed in favor of the activists are much less likely.

Think about it this way, suppose in the 1930s, during the time of great political mobilization of radicals in America, instead of being disruptive (see Part 1), the public simply supported a position of anti-capitalism.  Since the major forces were obviously pro-capitalist, little was likely to change without disrupting the peace.  (Others have a different point of view – they say that votes for third parties rather than disruption led to the policy changes of the Roosevelt Administration (see Seymour Martin Lipset and Gary Marks).

Also, policy makers, and other elites, can influence public opinion and preferences.  The strength of these institutions may counteract the social movement and defeat public support for activist causes.  This could simply be done by bringing in a new issue and making it even more important in the minds of the public.

In many ways, the W. Administration was able to pass a whole package of otherwise (probably) unpopular policies by playing up the importance of national security – trumping people’s interests in human rights, freedoms, and international law.

Even if the public does withstand the push from the Right and maintains the agenda of the social movement on a particular policy, and even if the public is serious enough about it to worry politicians into supporting some legislation on the topic, the general public is either uninterested, or more likely poorly informed about the specifics of legislation thereby allowing the politicians to appease the public without enacting strong reform.

The publics current disapproval of the war in Afghanistan may certainly bring Obama to address the people’s concerns, but it hardly means that significant changes are going to occur.  In this case however, time will still tell whether or not this is true.

The Public Preference Mechanism is really about changing politics by changing people’s minds, or at least by making issues more important.  We try to do this every day when we talk politics with our friends and families.  We hardly ever agree on everything.  But to make a real impact on the existing political institutions, politicians have to believe that a strong segment of her or his constituency is supportive of the social movement position and that they are willing to vote based on that policy.