>we know how useless opinion polls are
Speaking of which...
New York Times - May 20, 2002
U.S. Attitudes Altered Little by Sept. 11, Pollsters Say By ADAM CLYMER
ST. PETERSBURG BEACH, Fla. May 19 - Authorities on public opinion meeting here this weekend expressed doubt that the attacks of Sept. 11 had led to fundamental changes in American attitudes.
Even the nation's willingness to restrict civil liberties after Sept. 11 followed historical patterns, except for resistance to singling out American Muslims, which contrasted with attitudes toward Japanese-Americans in World War II and German-Americans in World War I.
As academic and news media pollsters discussed shifts in public opinion since Sept. 11 at the 57th annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, they repeatedly reacted skeptically to the aphorism that "everything has changed."
Tom W. Smith of the National Opinion Research Center said, "Many things changed remarkably, but many things never changed." For example, Dr. Smith said, the crisis did not change attitudes toward capital punishment and gun control.
G. Donald Ferree Jr. of the University of Wisconsin said that while people spoke of religion being increasingly important to the nation after Sept. 11, their patterns of church attendance and reports of the relevance of religion to their own lives had not changed.
Kimberly Downing of the University of Cincinnati reported that after Sept. 11, people polled in the Cincinnati area were able to define what they meant by freedom more specifically. But, Dr. Downing said, only greater definition was overlaying "a relatively stable set of attitudes."
Robert J. Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health said at one session that research over more than 50 years showed that "during periods of crisis, when security against serious foreign or domestic threats becomes more important, the public will support substantial limits on civil liberties."
"This includes limits on freedom of speech, the press, right to a fair trial and individual privacy, even as they affect average citizens," Dr. Blendon said. But support for such curbs is "cyclical" and declines after the threat recedes, he added.
In that context, he said, public support for the use of military tribunals or for eavesdropping on lawyers' conversations with clients was consistent with curbs on liberties the public supported in World War II and at the height of the cold war.
But the country had changed dramatically since then in terms of its attitude toward minorities, he said, and the support for putting Japanese-Americans in concentration camps found no parallel in attitudes toward Muslims today.
Chase Harrison of the University of Connecticut reported that polls showed the public was scarcely readier to restrict the freedom of Muslims than of other Americans. This was demonstrated, Mr. Harrison said, in a survey that identified the targets of possible restrictions, like being jailed without a warrant, as "Muslim or Arab" to half of those polled, but without any specific identification to the other half. The percentages supporting the restrictions were about the same in both groups, he said.
One group that has not supported new government powers is African-Americans, said Sarah L. Dutton and Jennifer De Pinto of CBS News.
Combining data from CBS News and New York Times/CBS News Polls, the two concluded that "blacks were much more alarmed about the possible loss" of civil liberties than whites were, though none of the Bush administration proposals in the survey focused on them.
George Bishop of the University of Cincinnati argued that several reported changes in public opinion, including trust in government and approval of President Bush's handling of his job, were not changes in attitudes.
The higher numbers expressing trust in government, Dr. Bishop said, reflected only changes in the context in which those polled heard the question. For Mr. Bush and "government in Washington," he contended, people were concentrated on how he and the government were dealing with terrorism. Contrary to the interpretations of some analysts, he said, there was no sudden affection for big government.
Dr. Bishop's view of trust in government was supported by Gary Langer of ABC News, who said his polls showed that when people were asked if they trusted the government to deal with terrorism, their answers reflected the same levels of trust as when they were asked an unspecific question about trusting government.
Dr. Bishop said pollsters had an obligation not to make too much of answers to "the vague questions that have become our stock in trade" like "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George Bush is handling his job as president?" He said pollsters had an obligation to follow up and ask people "what they mean when they say they approve or disapprove."