1. Race and Public Opinion Prof. Jim Krueger PS 304 Spring 2010

2. Quiz 2 returned Defining the racial divide in public opinion Kinder and Sanders Competing theories of public opinion Returning to the approaches of last week Self interest, group animosity, competing values Explaining the roots of the divide How might we extend this analysis to include other minority groups? Lecture Outline

3. Focus on the main argument Should be specific, directional Define appropriate terms Social distance, negative stereotypes A short parenthetical comment is sufficient List data source ‘a national survey; used only the white respondents’ List the major findings Focus on brevity Quiz 2 Feedback

4. K and S focus on explaining the views of blacks and whites on matters of race Note that this may be different than providing a precise snapshot of public opinion Defining the racial divide in public opinion

5. K and S suggest that the gap on support for policy could result from several different sources Self-interest: Does the issue present economic threat or benefit? Group animosity: Due to racial resentment, feelings of solidarity with coethnics Values: Individualism v. equality: class of competing principles Returning to our competing theories

6. Public opinion defined “Those opinions held by private citizens which governments find it prudent do heed.” (12) from Key Data are from NES 1970-1992; GSS 1990 Allows for comparison across years (longitudinal) Also provides greater specificity for certain years Provides a glimpse of elite signals during election years How can we test the model?

7. The Gap

8. What are trends the authors uncover for each policy area? Equal Opportunity Federal Programs Affirmative Action What role do class and gender play? What about education or engagement? Defining the Gap

9. Major Findings: Principles The authors look at the impact of three different values on public opinion: Limited government, economic individualism, equality Effects appeared largest for equality Among both blacks and whites those who had stronger attachments to equality as a principle were most supportive of redistributive and rights policies in the abstract More nuanced on specific issues Strong impact on school desegregation, fair employment Weak on affirmative action No difference from others on immigration and english-only laws

10. Self-interest Logically consistent, but little evidence Those who felt personally threatened were not any more opposed to affirmative action policies Those who stood to benefit personally were no more supportive than others Self interest only matters when: Benefits or harms are great, well publicized, and the results are certain Major Findings, 2

11. Rather than focus on individual benefits, many focus on the perceived impact of government policies on their racial group Among whites, a belief in group threat to collective interests led to a reduction in support for policies designed to reduce racial inequalities Among blacks, affirmative action policies generally work to help coethnics, but only rarely If the respondents believed that affirmative action policies enhance opportunities, or that discrimination obstructed the progress of blacks as a group, they were more supportive of the policies From self-interest to group interest:

12. Although racial resentment has undergone a dramatic reduction since the 1940s, it remains pervasive Present in whites’ views on: affirmative action, welfare, capital punishment, urban unrest, sexual harassment, gay rights, immigration, defense spending, etc. Example: Welfare reform. Many whites exaggerate the proportion of poor who are black—those with the most distorted perceptions were least supportive of federal spending on welfare From interests to prejudice

13. Racial resentment, as a force affecting public opinion, is not uniform in impact What matters most often is the presentation of the issue Use of the word ‘quota’ in college admissions v. primary school desegregation ‘special assistance’; ‘unfair advantage’ (rather than reverse discrimination), and the use of race instead of race neutral or class based policies reduced support for government assistance programs Essentially, how the issue was discussed was as important as the nature of the issue The limits of racial resentment

14. The gap in support for specific policies results from how the issues are presented What matters the most is now how individuals understand the issues, but how elites present them. Kinder and Sanders ‘Mimicking the Debate” Presented last week in lecture The idea was that different justifications for the same policy made people think about the policy different More importantly, they caused people to associate the policy with groups and other policies differently Changed the ‘Context’—Taylor and stereotyping Another approach to the gap:

15. Found that using issue frames in questions Increased opinions, connections between opinions and values, and the strength of opinions Frames tended to ‘push’ respondents when they were presented alone Both blacks and whites preferred race neutral to explicitly racial policies Support for neighborhood integration was 25% lower when respondents were not presented with an argument which also supported integration The impact of elite discussion

16. The emergence of the ‘racial code’ A word or phrase which provides a specific meaning for part of an audience, while maintaining deniability for the speaker Appeared in the 1960s, with the decline in acceptability of overt racism The 1988 and 1992 Presidential elections Not discussed by either candidate in 1988, but law enforcement was discussed at length http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y Neglect of African American interests by Democrats Focus on coded appeals by Republicans Horton/Jackson linkages, Horton/Dukakis ticket Race in Elections

17. Given the logic of Kinder and Sanders’ model, how could we incorporate other racial or ethnic minority groups? What does the model tell us their opinion would be? What about attitudes of other groups toward them? Extending our knowledge: