Public Opinion & Republican Government
Before we can we hold government accountable to genuine public opinion, we must learn to distinguish it from its rival, popular opinion.
The English word republic (a.k.a. commonwealth) comes from the Latin res publica, meaning “the people’s thing.” At its heart, a republic is a government that recognizes its duty under natural and divine law to represent its people in their quest to secure the conditions in which each of them has a maximum opportunity to flourish.
Through the centuries, philosophers and statesmen have found that holding government accountable to the people is easier when there is a certain degree of institutional dependency on the good will of the public, exercised most obviously but not exclusively by means of voting.
In contemporary democratic republics, there is tremendous emphasis not only on elections—the right to vote, getting out the vote, etc.—but also on a never-ending measurement of the present state of public opinion through various means of polling. The premise would seem to be that government will better adapt to the people’s expectations if it doesn’t have to wait for the next ballot to gauge them.
In a probing 1975 essay, sociologist Robert Nisbet explains how this obsession with perpetual polling—measuring what he calls popular opinion—inevitably fails to capture genuine public opinion, thereby allowing an imposter to usurp the role of an essential element of republican government.
Though good government rests on the consent of the governed, and public policy ought to be based on (as Madison puts it) a refinement and enlargement of public views, this does not mean that legislators, executives, and judges ought simply to mandate whatever seems “popular” at the moment.
The reasons for distrusting “popular opinion” are clearly articulated in The Federalist Papers. Since the purpose of government is to secure justice (#51), and justice is ascertained by right reason (#10), the foundation of good government is deliberation, or sound reasoning. By contrast, the essence of tyranny is the abuse of reason to secure the objects of unregulated passion (#48).
Truly republican government does not fall into the trap of assuming that what people desire must be good, recognizing instead that “it is the reason, alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government,” whereas their “passions ought to be controlled and regulated by the government” (#49).
Innocent as they are at heart, the spontaneous impulses of passion that may dominate popular opinion for a time can be oppressive in nature. Though we might wish to think that truly tyrannical policies will seldom achieve lasting popularity, we must also bear in mind that malevolent actors are well aware that popularity is the cleverest of all disguises despotism can wear.
It is therefore necessary to guard against the hardening of popular passions into imperious political positions. Here is where Nisbet’s distinction between genuine public opinion, and desultory popular opinion, proves its vitality.
To see the difference, consider two scenarios. In the the first, someone is interviewing you about your job, your family, or a longtime hobby. They ask you tough questions, but you have an answer for everything. Although another person in your shoes might disagree with some of your judgments—which are of course fallible—everything you say is based on convictions that are firm because they rest on the solid ground of experience, practice, and firsthand knowledge.
This situation illustrates what Nisbet means by public opinion, which represents what people think about things they understand. In reference to political and social problems, public opinion is the fruit of genuine deliberation taking place in the institutions of civil society, where public life is conducted: in families, townhalls, churches, active associations, serious schools, and well informed media.
Because it is reality-based, public opinion is characterized by awareness of the complexity of human affairs. Consequently, proposals favored by public opinion demonstrate an awareness of the costs inevitably associated with particular approaches to social challenges, and a willingness to pay worthwhile costs with money, sweat, or other necessary sacrifices.
In the second scenario, imagine you are sitting at home binge-watching your favorite TV series, when the phone rings. Someone wants to know what you think about the latest multibillion dollar omnibus bill concocted by Congress, or the newest executive order issuing from the Whitehouse.
Maybe you’ve heard something about this issue—or was that another one? They all sound the same. You may have seen it in your newsfeed that morning, or in a meme you liked—was it for or against? You might have a hunch about where it fits into your ideology, assuming you have one, and can probably guess (from the phrasing of the question if nothing else) what the powers that be expect you to think about it. But what do you really know about it?
In all honesty, a truthful response would be something like “no opinion.” But who’s willing to confess ignorance to a pollster?
I’ll never forget seeing a certain shock-jock interviewing likely voters in a sophisticated urban setting during the 2012 presidential election. “What’s Mitt Romney’s biggest disadvantage in this campaign?” he asked, “It is being black? Or being poor?” Without missing a beat, one respondent cocked his head, assumed a knowing look, and intoned: “I think it’s a little of both.”
Such is the stuff of which popular opinion is made: an endless stream of pokes and prompts, and our conditioned responses to them.
The fact is that popular opinion does not constitute opinion in any meaningful sense. It fails to measure our considered thoughts on a subject, nor does it require us to take responsibility for our views. Instead, it dresses up our ignorance and apathy to make them appear serious and significant.
Why then the obsession with polling? Clearly, it does not reflect a serious interest on the part of government to seek guidance from a public they know is faking it a substantial portion of the time.
Sadly, the popularity of popular opinion probably has more to do with its susceptibility to manipulation by those who regulate the flow of the various mental and emotional stimuli with which modern souls are inundated.
In particular, the shallow nature of popular opinion allows for the promotion of radical measures, the real-life consequences of which need never trouble the conscience of a concerned citizen dutifully checking the prescribed box.
The fact is, those who most loudly claim to follow popular opinion are often attempting to manufacture it first. Before giving us what we think we want, they have attempted to make us want what they want us to want.
What can be done about this problem? To begin with, I do not advise checking the latest poll in search of the most popular solution.
Rather, I think it would pay to reflect on the fact that genuine public opinion begins with each of us taking active responsibility for ourselves, our families, and our communities, and evaluating government on its eagerness and ability to aid us in these efforts, rather than to supplant, discourage, or even prohibit them.
Only when a critical mass of citizens engages politics from this angle is anything like a genuinely republican government a practical possibility.
If you enjoyed these reflections, please forward to a friend!