<<You are quite right. I do not believe that all Americans that support choice are the Radical whatever I said.>>OK we agree then.
LOL
Don't get carried away :-). I think perhaps you're reading into my post something that just ain't there.
Here's some more ideas, insight or grist, depending on your point of view, to mull over.
I know... it's partially about POLLS... I mostly ignore the numbers (they can be easily "cooked") and consider the concepts and ideas. Many observers had this figured out YEARS ago.
jim
The Washington Post
Struggle Over New Standards
Impeachment Reveals Nation's Changing Standards
By David S. Broder and Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 27, 1998; Page A01
Last in a series of occasional articles
The sharply divided public reaction to the impeachment of President Clinton
has provided a dramatic showcase of a struggle for American values that
goes back to the 1960s and remains unresolved today.
As an emblematic figure from that troubled decade, polls and analysts said,
Clinton confronts his fellow citizens with choices between deeply held moral
standards and an abhorrence of judging others' behavior, a conflict the Baby
Boomers have stirred all their adult lives.
This final installment of a series of surveys about values by The Washington
Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University follows
on reports emphasizing the growing tolerance Americans now display for
groups such as homosexuals that have suffered discrimination and toward
practices ranging from interracial marriage to premarital sex that once might
have been condemned. That tolerance also extends to free expression of
controversial views.
But few issues are more revealing than Clinton's impeachment when it
comes to highlighting how values have changed over the past 30 years.
Almost without exception, experts interviewed said the public verdict in his
case is far different than it would have been in the late '60s because the
values environment has changed.
That conflict over the social order is notably less violent than it was in 1968,
when the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy,
anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, urban riots, and violent clashes between
police and protesters at the Democratic National Convention scarred the
nation's consciousness. But 1998, with a bitter, year-long battle in the courts
and Congress climaxing in the first presidential impeachment in 130 years,
has left deep divisions across social, political and generational lines.
They begin, according to the Post/Kaiser/Harvard survey, with a near-even
split between those (50 percent) who think a president "has a greater
responsibility than leaders of other organizations to set the moral tone for the
country" and those (48 percent) who say, "As long as he does a good job
running the country, a president's personal life is not important."
Reflecting the partisanship engendered by the long investigation of Clinton's
relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky, most Republicans demand a moral
example and most Democrats reject it.
But sociologists and other students of American life interviewed last week
said the divisions go much deeper and have their roots in long-standing
controversy generated not just by Clinton but by his Baby Boom generation.
While most Americans want Clinton to finish his term, and prefer censure as
an alternative, few believe he is a good role model. Seven in 10 Americans
-- including a majority of Baby Boomers -- said in the survey that Clinton
does not have high personal moral or ethical standards. Six in 10 -- again
including a majority of Baby Boomers -- also said his standards are no better
or worse than "most people of his generation."
The public sees a nation that lacks agreed-upon ethical guidelines for itself.
More than six out of 10 said the country "was greatly divided when it comes
to the most important values," rather than being in agreement. Ironically, on
this one question there was unity. Republicans and Democrats, men and
women, young and old all said they see a society split on moral and ethical
issues.
With some exceptions, the experts tend to agree. Some describe it as as a
battle of extremes -- the Puritanism of the Religious Right vs. the
permissiveness of the aging children of the '60s. Others see the acceptance
of Clinton's actions as proof that Americans are utterly cynical about their
political leaders, mute spectators at a television drama they despise but
cannot escape.
Some say it is a symptom of national ambivalence, of individuals longing for
moral values but resistant to imposing their standards on others. And the
more hopeful say the preference for censuring the president -- rather than
absolving him or removing him -- is a healthy effort at synthesizing those
opposing tendencies. A few optimists say the upshot of all the discussion will
be a standard for future presidents that is both more demanding and more
realistic.
Few of the scholars are comfortable with the status quo, however. "No
analysis can absolve the people themselves of responsibility for the quandary
we appear to be in," said Don Eberly, director of the Civil Society Project in
Harrisburg, Pa. "Nonjudgmentalism, the trump card of moral debate, seems
to have gained strength among the people, especially in the sexual realm, and
this clearly does not bode well for America."
Over the last 30 years, polling shows the proportion of people saying they
think their fellow citizens generally are as honest and moral as they used to
be has fallen significantly. In a 1952 survey, as many answered yes as said
no. In 1965, there were three yeses for every four noes. But this year there
were almost three noes (71 percent) for every yes (26 percent).
In the same period, trust in government also has declined radically. In 1968,
61 percent said they trusted the government in Washington to do the right
thing most or all the time; in 1998, only 33 percent felt that way.
Pollster Dan Yankelovich wrote that "the transformation in values from the
mid-'60s to the late-'70s confronts us with one of the sharpest discontinuities
in our cultural history." In that period's "radical extension of individualism . . .
from the politi domain to personal lifestyles," he notes, the concepts of duty,
social conformity, respectability and sexual morality were devalued, in favor
of expressiveness and pleasure seeking.
This was a time in which Bill Clinton, moving through his twenties at
Georgetown, Oxford and Yale, rejected military service, experimented with
marijuana. But in general, according to his biographer, Washington Post
reporter David Maraniss, Clinton followed "a moderate course during an
increasingly immoderate period." The stamp of that period remained on
Clinton, in at least two areas: the evasiveness that characterized his dealings
with the "threat" of military service and the permissiveness he allowed in his
sexual life.
In judging Clinton's morals to be typical of his generation -- only 7 percent
thought them better; 27 percent, worse -- most of those surveyed made it
clear they disapproved of them.
Yankelovich argues that in the 1990s, "a shift is now occurring toward a
perception of the self as a moral actor with obligations and concerns as well
as rights . . . we are beginning to measure a shift back toward absolute as
distinct from relative values." That theme of individual responsibility is one
Clinton has emphasized in his speeches, if not always in his actions.
From this perspective, the divided public verdict on the Clinton case
represents not just a legal argument about the standards for impeachment
and removal of a president, or a partisan battle between Republicans and
Democrats, but also an unresolved debate about fundamental values.
At the extremes, the conflict amounts almost to the "culture war" some trace
directly back to the 1960s. Randy Tate of the Christian Coalition and William
J. Bennett, former education secretary, have accused Clinton of subverting
standards of honesty and decency so blatantly that he cannot be allowed to
remain in office. Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz and many Democrats
in the House have accused Clinton's opponents -- notably independent
counsel Kenneth W. Starr -- of practicing "sexual McCarthyism," trampling
civil liberties and invading people's privacy.
Alan Wolfe, a Boston University sociologist, argued in his book, "One
Nation, After All," that the "culture war" is confined to political elites, and
that most individuals struggle to balance their yearning for clear standards
against their discomfort with passing judgment on others.
Wolfe said in an interview that he sees exactly that happening in the Clinton
case -- "even though people are torn, they are looking to find a way to
negotiate through these competing impulses." Wolfe said he thought last
January, when Lewinsky first became a household name, that "people would
forgive adultery but lying in public would not pass. But people realized that
the lying and the adultery were part of the same thing. I don't agree, but I
recognize the wisdom in making that connection."
Others see the conflict in starker -- and more worrisome -- terms. David
Blankenhorn, president of the Institute of American Values in New York,
said the reaction to Clinton demonstrates that "many middle-class Americans
obey an 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not judge. They view morality as a
private matter. What I find troublesome is that . . . apart from treason, there
is nothing worse than a democratic leader engaging in ongoing public lying.
And yet, a substantial number Americans have accepted this. . . . Remove
ethics, and it makes this a society where politics trumps everything else."
Several observers traced this back to the 1960s. Christopher Gates,
president of the Denver-based National Civic League, said that pollster
George Gallup Jr. "says the '60s and '70s were the time when our country
fell apart and the bonds began to dissolve. You had a war between the
generations, a war between the genders, you had Vietnam, break-ins,
resignations, pardons. You had a huge dissolution of trust. And we have
gone from a time when we presumed good intentions on the part of our
leaders to the presumption of bad intentions."
Blankenhorn suggested that as a result of that legacy, "Clinton is in many
ways the beneficiary of people's very low expectations of politicians and
government."
But Georgia Sorenson, director of the center for political leadership and
participation of the University of Maryland, pointed out that, "Participation
has been deteriorating since the '60s, and it makes it hard for any person to
lead now, no matter how committed."
Michael Sandel, director of the Harvard institute for policy studies, said the
consequences go further. "We've witnessed a politics of scandal, sensation
and spectacle that has turned the president into another figure in the
celebrity culture," he said. "The majesty and dignity of the presidency have
been stripped away, but paradoxically that hasn't destroyed the popularity of
this president.
"As citizens, we have become just spectators, even voyeurs. . . . We've told
the pollsters we want the whole issue to be over, and yet we can't bring
ourselves to change the channel. . . . It reflects a cynicism beyond mistrust.
It reflects a view that government really doesn't matter, except as it provides
occasional spectacular entertainment. It is not good news for democracy."
The Post/Kaiser/Harvard survey attempted to test Sandel's thesis by asking
how many respondents had contacted their members of Congress about the
impeachment issue. About one out of nine -- 11 percent -- claimed to have
done so. Among the vast majority who did not, the main reasons were that
they didn't think it would make a difference (53 percent) or the issue wasn't
important enough for them to get involved (21 percent).
But other experts interviewed are not nearly so concerned about public
indifference or a decline in trust or an erosion of values. And there was
some support for their views in the survey. About half those interviewed (48
percent) said they thought their representative in Congress had paid at least
"a fair amount of attention" to opinions in their district, while only a third (35
percent) thought their elected officials largely ignored their constituents.
Charles Quigley, executive director of the Center for Civic Education in
Calabasas, Calif., said, "What the Clinton thing says to me is that the
majority are making subtle, sophisticated distinctions. They condemn what he
did, but they want proportionality in punishment. They're questioning not only
Clinton's values but those of the people who have gone after him."
Michael Josephson, president of the Josephson Institute of Ethics in Marina
del Ray, Calif., and David Mathews, president of the Charles F. Kettering
Foundation in Dayton, Ohio, said the partisanship of the House impeachment
proceedings sent a worrisome signal to people. "Everyone thinks it is
[political] positioning," Josephson said. "Otherwise, why would Republicans
and Democrats come out so differently?"
"But," Mathews added, "they have deep feelings about accountability and
taking responsibility, not just by the president but by everyone. And when
they see it disappearing, it scares them."
That may be true, but Wolfe and Eberly said politicians are not seen as the
ones to lead a values revival. "When government becomes involved in moral
matters, Americans are no longer sure they can trust it," Wolfe wrote in
"One Nation, After All."
Eberly said, "The people just don't see the answer to our moral condition
coming predominantly from lawmakers. . . . Americans tend to be generous
toward sinners and hard on hypocrites, and the working assumption of many
Americans is that most politicians fall into the latter category. While the
American people strongly disapproved of Clinton's behavior, they grew
steadily more unwilling to approve of action against him as it became clear
that Congress would serve as judge and jury."
When asked what will be important to them in the presidential election of
2000, more of those surveyed in the Post/Kaiser/Harvard poll said the
candidates' stands on issues than the combined total for those naming
personal morals and ethics and broad principles and values.
On the other hand, looking to the future, a majority of Americans -- 55
percent -- said in the survey they fear this society will become too accepting
of behaviors that are bad for people, while 38 percent said their greatest
worry was that the country would become too intolerant of actions that pose
no such threat.
The survey indicates the divisions that have marked the past 30 years are
likely to continue into the next generation.
While more young people between 18 and 34 say they are more pessimistic
about the threat of moral decline than their parents and grandparents, they
are also more conflicted over values. They, more than their elders, express
the greatest tolerance toward divorce, adultery and casual drug use. While
many young Americans say that values are important to their politics, young
adults are the least likely to agree that a president has a special obligation to
"set an example with his personal life."
WASHINGTON POST POLL
American Values: Three Decades of Change
Since the 1960s, Americans have grown deeply suspicious of the federal
government and increasingly worry that the country's moral and ethical
standards have eroded.
Q: How much of the time do you trust the government in Washington to do
the right thing: Just about always, most of the time, or only some of the time?
1968 1998
All/Most 61% 33%
Some/None 36 65
1968 data: University of Michigan National Election Studies
Q: In your opinion, which of the following do you think will be the biggest
threat to the country in the future: big business, big labor or big government?
1965 1998
Big business 17% 25%
Big labor 29 11
Big government 35 59
Don't know1806
1965 data: The Gallup Organization
Q: Do you think people in general today lead as good lives -- honest and
moral -- as they used to?
1965 1998
Yes 39% 26%
No 52 71
1965 data: The Gallup Organization
Looking Ahead
Voters say that a candidate's stands on the important issues will matter most
when they select a president in the year 2000. Still, about one in four say
personal morals or the broad principles and values a candidate stands for will
be the deciding factors for them. And a majority fear the country is
becoming too tolerant of harmful behavior.
Q: Which of the following do you think will be most important to you in
choosing the next president?
The candidate's stands on the issues: 37%
The candidate's personal morals and ethics: 16%
The broad principles and values a candidate campaigns on: 10%
The candidate's experience: 10%
The candidate's political party: 8%
All of the above: 10%
None of the above: 4%
Q: Which of the following worries you more about the future: That the
country will become too tolerant of behaviors that are bad for society, or that
the country will become too intolerant of behaviors that do not do any real
harm to society?
Too tolerant 55%
Too intolerant 38
Clinton and His Generation
Most Americans believe President Clinton has low moral and ethical
standards -- just like the rest of his generation.
Q: Please tell me whether the following statement applies to Clinton, or not:
He has high personal moral and ethical standards.
Yes 24%
No 71
Q: As you know, Clinton is a member of the generation that came of age in
the 1960s. Do you think that Clinton's moral and ethical standards are better,
worse or about the same as those of most people in his generation?
Better 7%
Worse 27
Same 61
NOTE: Percentages may not total 100 because those who expressed no
opinion are not shown. Results for 1998 shown here come from four surveys
conducted between August and December by The Washington Post, Henry
J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University. Sample sizes varied
between 1,000 and 2,000 with margins of sampling error of about plus or
minus 3 percentage points. Sample sizes of earlier polls also ranged between
1,000 to 2,000.
The Survey Team
These surveys are the fifth in a series of projects that The Washington Post,
the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University are
conducting on contemporary issues.
Representatives of the three sponsors worked closely to develop the survey
questionnaire and analyze the results on which this series is based. The Post
and the Kaiser Family Foundation, with Harvard University, are publishing
independent summaries of the findings; each organization bears the sole
responsibility for the work that appears under its name. The Kaiser Family
Foundation and The Post paid for the surveys and related expenses.
The survey data will be sent later this year to the Roper Center for Public
Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut, where copies of the
survey questionnaire and data will be available.
The project team included Richard Morin, Post director of polling, and
Claudia Deane, assistant director of polling; Robert J. Blendon, a Harvard
University professor who holds joint appointments in the School of Public
Health and the Kennedy School of Government, and John Benson, deputy
director for public opinion and health/social policy at the Harvard School of
Public Health; Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation; and
Mollyann Brodie, director of special projects for the Kaiser Foundation, a
nonprofit organization that sponsors research into health care and other
public policy issues.
© Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company
search.washingtonpost.com |
