Literature Review
The formation of a cohesive massage concerning the Social Security reform movement currently facing congress depends upon several factors. The willingness of a politician to vocalize his or her party’s message may or may not represent their opinions or even the opinions of their constituents. Social Security encompasses an uncommon host of complications due its nature as a comprehensive government program. This study looks into the variables driving senators’ public rhetoric; however, several factors related to the debate over Social Security prove prevalent to a discussion on Social Security reform. When asked about Social Security as a program and its possible reform, several studies show that the immediate perception of the program varies widely. Some of those polled relate the program to race, partly affiliation, the elderly, and others to the poor. These impressions prove prevalent when discussing Social Security because those who shape policy and try to implement reforms must consider these varying views so they may successfully sell the reform to the public.
Issue framing represents an important aspect of how the president, a party, or a senator expresses their position. It can also relate to an individuals perception of a politicians opinion. For example, “framing effects occur when different presentations of an issue generate different reactions among those who are exposed to that issue” (Jacoby, 2000). Jacoby’s study opperationalizes the manner in which a person reacts to the problem of government spending. Government spending proves gravely important when discussing Social Security because it represents a huge amount of government funds and it encompasses a wide variety of personal opinions. The relation of race to Social Security may not be an immediate association for everyone, but the works of Jacoby, Clawson, and Winter demonstrate its importance, especially when related to the issue of government spending.
Opinions on Social Security vary according to perceived beneficiaries, “racist feelings decrease support for government spending, while positive evaluations of welfare recipients and the poor both tend to increase it” (Jacoby, 2000). Conservative and white are the two most common associations for Social Security (Winter, 2003). How does a government program like Social Security gain not only a white face, but a party affiliation? Winter’s group theory explains the conditions under which an issue can become associated with race despite the lack of apparent racial connection as well as the connection to a party. The importance of the group theory extends beyond simply an association with race but to a framer’s ability to link policy to seemingly unrelated topics. In separate analysis, Clawson’s findings about the media back up Winter’s theory. First, media images of whites tend to be much more positive then those of blacks ( Clawson, 2003). Second, the media tend to focus more of their time and attention to the negative rather than the positive ( Clawson, 2003). The media’s ability to put a face on policy comes from their manipulation of the image. They provide the lens through which much of the public get exposed to public policy. Coverage of government programs tend to focused more on the problems associated with them rather than the successes. Winter’s group theory comes into play here. Clawson sites speeches by several conservatives referring to Social Security as a positive program, rewarding those who have worked hard all their lives. In addition, “Republicans frame Social Security in terms of equality to a much greater extent than do independents or Democrats” (Winter, 2003). Neither of these positive frames of equality and individuality typically applies to negatively framed blacks. Current republican frames for Social Security put an emphasis on stability and a safeguard for future generations along with the creation of a “nest egg” to support and reward the hard working individual. These frames according to the group theory reveal the inherent whiteness of Social Security.
The Clawson experiment involves a mixture of several hundred participants, predominately college students. Each participant answers questions about government spending after receiving information on Social Security. The paper containing the facts about Social Security includes an image of either a black couple or a white couple. The results show, conservative participants favoring Social Security reform after viewing the white couple and less positive opinions about reform when presented with the black couple ( Clawson, 2003). The reason for the racial difference goes back to assertion that the motivation for public opinion reaction directly relates to the perceived beneficiaries (Jacoby, 2000). The perceived distinction of Social Security from other welfare programs exposes on the important link between the media and political framing. The ever changing and unpredictable lens of the media forces politicians to craft their own message in anticipation.
Politicians’ success and effectiveness at implementing their policy initiatives depends largely on their ability to build and maintain a cohesive coalition of support. Despite preconceived opinions about Social Security, what kinds of obstacles do politicians face when communicating their message and how do political scientists propose they deal with them? Coordination of media activity is vital for the senate given the decreased incentive for collective action (Sellers, 2002).
The feasibility of implementing wide sweeping reforms represents a battle for the President, Congress, the media, the evolving characteristics of the program, and the logistics of the policy campaign. To begin, the Republican National Committee (RNC) work as one when it comes to policy initiatives. The roles of the DNC and RNC have evolved from simply getting the president re-elected to helping him establish support for his initiative and build a cohesive foundation in congress. A study of media party image and the evening news in 2004 surprisingly reveals, “that it is extremely difficult for the presidential party in Congress to present a “unified front” with the president in the news” (Groeling, 2004). The president’s party in congress appears more likely to criticize him in the news, thus damaging his policy efforts more than opposition complaint. The president is currently spending a large amount of political capital on the Social Security reform initiative. Despite the likelihood for public critique, “the president’s partisans in Congress actually support their leader’s position about 75 percent of the time in their voting but only in about 40% of their evaluations in the national news” (Groeling, 2004). The battle waged across media outlets by politicians represents the ongoing campaign that now exists in modern politics. Despite close proximity in Washington, many politicians have begun to use the media to communicate their policy position.
Re-election in 2006 represents one important variable in determining a senator’s public rhetoric and adherence to party frames. The importance of the re-election campaign adds another complicating dynamic to the president and the party’s ability to sustain his message. The tools of a campaign have blended themselves into the governing and negotiating tactics of policymaking. Polls, town hall meetings, strategic public statements, and party driven coalitions, shot to make headlines and the top of the fold, just as they were for the campaign of 2004 (Ornstein and Mann, 2000). The media’s ability to guide any form of campaign symbolize their growing involvement in daily governing. As a result, politicians adjust to the requirements of the media and the need to appear “in-touch” with the public.
The evolution of the role of the instant news media forces politicians to focus an increasingly large amount of time on crafting a broad public opinion for fear of spending too much of their political capital on one initiative. The 24-hour news networks ensure that the average American gets their news from a media source. “By appealing to the media, one can attempt to indicates one’s preferences, respond to ongoing events, and attempt to persuade en masse en entire and desperate set of political actors across branches and levels to the correctness of one’s stance” (Cook, 124). The media, however, determines the events that receive attention and the lens through which those events reach the voting public. Politicians now seek to craft the image of their message to appeal either to a target audience or the masses. This new role of creating “crafted talk” serves to simplify a complicated policy issue for its use in the media (Jacobs and Shapiro, 27). The need for crafted talk does not necessarily symbolize pandering on the part of politicians, Jacobs and Shapiro suggests that politicians do not pander; instead, they manipulate their actions and message to appease public opinion. Clinton created focus groups to discuss health care reform when in fact their purpose was simply to give the impression of collective decision making (Jacobs and Shapiro, 90).
The management and anticipation of public opinion on an issue like Social Security has already proven to evoke a myriad of different emotions depending on the manner in which the media or politicians present their story. This study will not investigate racial implications associated with Social Security reform; however, any association the public adds to an issue be there a direct link or not, drives the need for politicians to anticipate a response. They must walk a fine line of responsiveness so as not to give the impression of pandering to the public. In their work, Politicians Don’t Pander, Jacobs and Shapiro portray Clinton’s use of focus groups to present the image of appealing to the public while in reality following his own policy goals. Social Security reform, like HealthCare, represents a huge barrier naturally generated by well-established programs, for which many depend upon and feel entitled to (Beland, 2004). Politicians, party’s, and interest groups all have something to say about the reforms, they all want to make a headline, but in the end they are all at the mercy of the reporters pen. Politicians do not pander to the whim of the public, but they do engage in year round campaigns to sell themselves and their agenda. The rhetoric they choose and the vehicle through which they convey their message represents a calculated move. The debate of social security supports Ornstein and Mann’s theory of the never-ending campaign as well as Jacobs and Shapiro’s discussion of crafted talk. The factors motivating public rhetoric on a controversial issue like Social Security and the willingness of a politician to fall in line with their party message depends on a host of variables. U.S. Senators are motivated by the electoral size of their state, the date of their next election, and interest group ratings. As for citizens, their “opinions will be shaped by politicians’ rhetoric, by the actions of interest groups and the champions of various causes, and by the way the mass media cover the unfolding story. Also relevant is how legislators anticipate that public opinion might evolve after a plan is approved and implemented” ( Arnold, 1998). The best guides for analyzing senatorial public rhetoric are the most traditional, floor speeches and press releases.
Created by Katie Parsley
Created on May 1, 2005