A Uniting survey

Submitted by Simon on Fri, 08/17/2007 - 4:55pm

This lengthy survey is intended to help - and I participated on the understanding of that "help" meant "help put out of its misery" - Unity '08 better understand its appeal. Quite aside from the substantive demerits of the Unity enterprise (see posts and comments passim, some of which are linked herein), the survey is damaged by badly-worded and loaded questions, to say the least.

Respondents are asked to ponder "[h]ow good a leader will this [existing] nomination and election process likely produce," and to "rate my opinion of the leadership that will emerge from the current process." Keep in mind that this section of the test (as with Unity in general) purports to address the failings of the system. That being so, the question's probative value is minimal: the process is only as good as the raw materials you put in. Suppose you think that Steve Forbes is the best guy in the country to be President, and no one else quite measures up. If Forbes doesn't want to run, then, from your perspective, the present system is going to produce a suboptimal leader, not because the process itself is flawed, but because, like any other system imaginable, it's limited to choosing among the people who actually want the gig. There's nothing broken about the process - the American primary system isn't perfect, but calls to mind Winston Churchill's observation, being the worst imaginable way to perform a necessary function except for all the other ways that have been tried. As with so much about Unity, this overwrought concern with the primary system smacks of the frustration of people who can't implement their preferred agenda - frustration with results dressed up as frustration with process.

A subsequent question vapidly asks if "Democratic and Republican [primaries] both have good quality choices." Good quality" within what parameters and by what criteria? Within the ideology of the individual voter? If "quality" means "people of agreeable politics to me," I'm unlikely to think that the Democrats have any "good quality" choices. On the other hand, I'm sure our liberal friends think there's at least a couple of "good quality" choices in the field, even if they find things to disagree with, and doubtless look with similar dismay at the GOP field.

Some questions are too ambiguous to yield any useful information. What is my opinion of Congress and the Supreme Court? Does that mean institutionally, or in their present incarnations? That is, does the question ask me to asses the Article I Congress of the United States of America in the abstract, or the performance of the present (or recent) Congress(es) in particular? Still other questions seem facially neutral, but invite skepticism. One asks, in connection with Iraq policy, (a) if we can wait for the next administration, or (b) if Bush must change course now. One can't shake the suspicion that by "change course" they mean "troops out ASAP."

Part of Unity's schtick is the division of various "issues" into "crucial" and merely "important" (they argue that "gun control, abortion and gay marriage are important issues, worthy of debate and discussion in a free society, but not issues that should dominate or even crowd our national agenda"). Presumably to determine whether the respondent agrees with their categorization of the issues, they ask survey respondents to select which from a laundry list of issues are "crucial to the safety and well-being of the country" - one of which is "abortion rights." Welcome to George Lakoff's world of framing. "Abortion rights" is a pro-choice framing; nobody who is pro-life uses such terminology. A substantive position is thus revealed: Unity is pro-choice. This inference from the framing colludes with and mutually reinforces the impression that one gets from recalling that when they say it's not a "crucial issue," that statement is made against the background of a status quo. Unity would presumably have us infer no substantive policy position from their relegation of certain issues that to the status of "worthy of debate" but not to the point of impinging onto the national agenda, but as Pat's pointed out before, when someone says that they want to drop an issue off the agenda, you have to consider which side prevails by dropping the issue. The tie goes to the status quo, liberals own the status quo [CLARIFICATION: in the culture wars. See note in the comments.], and so Unity's "drop it" approach to these issues essentially reveals their hand. I've previously noted the similarity of Obama's rhetoric to Unity's, and the door swings both ways; indeed, to take both Obama and Unity at their word, they're a perfect fit for one another.

(The framing of the question also ambiguates it: abortion rights (connoting the preservation thereof) aren't a crucial issue for me, but abortion is an issue I regard as "crucial to the safety and well-being of the country." Depending on how the data is construed, if I answer no, I might be added to the pile of people who don't care about abortion as an issue, while if I answer yes, I might be added to the pile of pro-choice zealots. Bad wording.)

Finally, the survey figures out how the participant ranks Unity overall:

200 to 300 -Forget about it
301 to 400 - Not ready for prime time
401 to 500 - Something here, but it needs work
501 to 600 - Good concept, works pretty well
601 to 700 - Very strong idea, great execution
701 to 800 - Excellent

It gave me 200, and I think that overstates my fondness and affinity for the concept, personally. It's a self-deluding moderate left front organization - and nothing more.

In the comments: Chris adds that:

What I found funny was when you answer the part about your opions on Unity 08, they then ask you why you gave positive or negative answers; the negative reasons were all ridiculous things like "I don't think the average person should have a say in the political process, it should be left to professionals". None of them actually took into account any real reasons that a person might disagree with their concept- it's as though they couldn't think of any possible rational reasons for disagreement. Not a good indicator that they're really looking for constructive criticism.

Added: Pat takes the results to task here.

Post facto:
Misguided Missiles (8/22/07)

Simon's blog

Add new comment

1168 reads

Politics

Liberals own the status quo? Are you speaking generally, or in

Submitted by Rafique on Fri, 08/17/2007 - 4:54pm.

the specific case of abortion?

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33

Less specifically than

Submitted by Simon on Fri, 08/17/2007 - 6:13pm.

Less specifically than abortion, but more specifically than the post originally read. I meant it in relation to what you'd think of as "culture wars" issues, the things that Unity wants to eject from the political conversation (and which was the subject of the post I cited). I've added a clarification in the post; sorry about that.

"When someone says their heart needs lifting, don't ask how come, ask how high."

Simon, I'm really too tired

Submitted by Tully on Fri, 08/17/2007 - 8:44pm.

Simon, I'm really too tired to argue the point right now, but want to say that what you really see to be objecting to re: "abortion rights" is that YOUR framing isn't the framing they use. Yet you offer no neutral alternative. Instead you assign them a position of opposition to yours simply because your framing isn't used. To wit, "My side wouldn't say it that way so they're for the other side."

Either there is a neutral

Submitted by Simon on Fri, 08/17/2007 - 9:04pm.

Either there is a neutral alternative, in which case they chose to use a pro-choice framing in spite of the availability of a neutral alternative, strongly suggesting that they're pro-choice, or there isn't a neutral alternative, in which case they chose to use a pro-choice framework, strongly suggesting that they're pro-choice. Either way, the point would seem to stand; the only way that the point would fail, it seems to me, is if the framing they chose isn't a pro-choice frame and there is no alternative phrasing, neutral or otherwise.

You're dodging. "Abortion

Submitted by Tully on Fri, 08/17/2007 - 9:49pm.

You're dodging. "Abortion rights" is no more slanted a framing than any other you can offer, or at least will offer. You're simply alleging by reiteration that any framing that is not acceptably pro-life to you must therefore be pro-choice.

In your dichotomous assumptions, you completely affirm my point. You do not offer any alternative framing that would be considered neutral by you, and explicitly affirm that you consider any framing not acceptable as pro-life MUST be pro-choice.

If you can come up with a single concise term that is more semantically neutral as a descriptor than "abortion rights" to describe this complex issue for survey use, please do. I'm pretty sure that if U'08 could have, they would have. I thought the survey sucked as well, but there's only so many shorthand ways to ask that question.

The world is not either/or.

Without conceding your point

Submitted by Simon on Fri, 08/17/2007 - 10:15pm.

Without conceding your point - I stand by my previous comment - labelling the issue simply as "abortion" would suffice to encompass the issue, just as "gay marriage" suffices without saying "gay marraige rights."

If you're attempting to

Submitted by Tully on Sat, 08/18/2007 - 7:07am.

If you're attempting to actually assess leanings among the respondents, it doesn't suffice at all. You said so yourself in your original posting--"abortion" by itself is too ambiguous to determine leaning on the response, just the "heat level" of the issue. (Which heat level is already well-known, I note.) But then you set up a no-win scenario for their attempt to determine leanings. If they don't frame it to your preference, you assign them a policy position of the opposing preference!

It is indeed a poor questionaire, for many of the reasons you cited, and because it's entirely too "busy" for easy administration, which will skew the results as well. But you're setting up conditions that do not allow them to extract any real data from respondents without having policy position labels glued to them. After having complained that they're too vague in their questions, you then claim that when they get less vague they've actually assumed policy positions. Uh uh. They're trying to find out YOUR positions.

They're aiming at the disaffected populist middle, and trying to parse out the target ground of their base. I've written enough of these surveys (doing a better job of it, mind you) to see what they're aiming at. They're crafting a marketing campaign, not assuming or revealing policy positions.

I'm with Simon on this. If

Submitted by C Stanley on Sat, 08/18/2007 - 11:26am.

I'm with Simon on this.

If they want to assess leanings rather than just "heat level", as you suggest, Tully, then they'd have to include two questions: one asking if the respondent thinks abortion rights are important, and one asking if the respondent thinks that 'right to life for fetuses at certain stages of pregnancy".

What Simon is noting is that there's no room for a respondent to express any level of heat on the issue if the heat isn't in the direction of ensuring right to abortion.

I guess as an alternative to my suggestion of two questions, you could try to lump it together to at least allow the heat from both sides to be expressed. Something along the lines of: "legal restrictions on abortion". That way, those who feel strongly that they need to continue to fight restrictions could check off that response, and those who feel we need to fight FOR restrictions could do so as well.

This still wouldn't have given a measure of which way the person meant it, but none of the other responses were designed to do that on any issue either (checking off illegal immigration didn't allow a determination of whether respondents fall in the camp of favoring amnesty, favoring deportation, or favoring a comprehensive plan with some elements of both, for example.) But the other issues didn't frame the question in a way that only allowed people to express the heat if they were on one side or another, and I think that's Simon's complaint.

What I found funny was when you answer the part about your opions on Unity 08, they then ask you why you gave positive or negative answers; the negative reasons were all ridiculous things like "I don't think the average person should have a say in the political process, it should be left to professionals". None of them actually took into account any real reasons that a person might disagree with their concept- it's as though they couldn't think of any possible rational reasons for disagreement. Not a good indicator that they're really looking for constructive criticism.

Of course another way

Submitted by Maxtrue on Sat, 08/18/2007 - 1:15pm.

to ask the question would be 1. Do you support or oppose a woman's right to a legal abortion? 2. What level of State/Local restriction (from 1 (complete restriction save accidental abortion) to 10 ( no restriction)) do you support? 2b. What level of Federal restriction (from 1 - 10) do you support? 3. How important an issue is this for you at a Federal level? (1 (deal breaker) to 10 (I could care less)). 3b. How important an issue is this for you at a State level l (1 to 10)?

present restrictions = 5 on the above scale

I think this would disclose heat and ideology. 5 questions on a scale 1 through 10. On what political/Unity XYZ axis you would place the voter is anyone's guess and would involve all the answers.

Archie: "Nuttin a Pole's gonna tell me I don't already know, Meathead."

Meathead: "A Poll Archie, a "mathematical" questionnaire
to show you where you are. It?s all based on algorithms."

Archie: "I don't NEED to know where I am, Meathead and
some Lefty AlGorisms wasn't what my math teacher
taught me."

Meathead: "And what WAS that Archie?"

Archie: "You can't learn nuttin from no Pole."

Which is still dodging the

Submitted by Tully on Sat, 08/18/2007 - 1:23pm.

Which is still dodging the point--that Simon's created a standard that allows no "win" for the U08 survey, one in which ANY phrasing used is assessed as an either/or dichotomy that automatically assigns a policy position to U08, regardless of whether they even actually have one. Under his standard, no phrasing CAN be nuetral, and any choice of phrasing automatically attributes a policy position. Steer manure. It's an exploratory market-definition survey. It's not betraying a held position or attempting to promote one, as he asserts, it's exploring the target market to design the "product" (the party platform) for the future. The ojective is to design the product to have the broadest appeal for the largest market.

I agree with his more general criticisms of the survey. It's a kludge. It's an even worse kludge because it's a market-definition survey, and not an opinion poll as we're used to seeing. Expanding the number of questions would quickly make the survey even more kludgy than it already is--if that's possible.

Simon seems to think they're trying to promote a pre-determined agenda via the survey with framing language. I think he's 180° off. I think they're seeking ways to promote their product, which is as yet a completely hollow and nebulous populist "machine" designed for no purpose other than power-seeking. They have no platform, no agenda, other than trying to pick off the middle ground between the parties. Their only real position to date is "not Dem/not GOP."

Well, now I see your point

Submitted by C Stanley on Sat, 08/18/2007 - 5:59pm.

Well, now I see your point (but still disagree on that one question, they phrased it to only capture those who care about abortion from the liberal POV). Surely you'd agree that if it went the other way (phrasing the question about whether or not one felt it important to allow state legislatures to put more restriction on abortion), that people who are pro-choice would have a dilemma on how to answer that? As Simon points out, if you say no, then you are either saying that you don't WANT any restriction-which is how such a person would want their answer to be interpreted- or that the issue on a whole is unimportant- which is not the way that person would have intended to answer if he/she felt strongly about maintaining abortion rights.

But then again, putting that together with your point about this being a marketing outreach(which I think is probably accurate), maybe that means that they decided that they're not going to market to people in the pro-life camp. Maybe they've predetermined that no one on that side of the issue can be in the moderate camp?

That's what I get out of it anyway; not so much that Unity 08 has an agenda to push a hard left agenda, but a center left one. More than likely, they would say that they are truly trying to define the center, but in doing so they're going to choose which centrists seem more reasonable and more likely to "unify". And therein lies the problem, because unity can't be a goal unto itself- you have to first define whose unity it will be.

But then again, putting that

Submitted by Tully on Sat, 08/18/2007 - 9:33pm.

The assigning of motivation and intention is problematical. I lost my psychoprobe. ;-)

But for an organization that is fairly explicitly aimed at disaffected independents and centrist-leaning partisans for its recruitment base, it would seem logical that one could reasonably exclude some dedicated single-issue voters from the target demographic when making cost/benefit marketing decisions.

It is not a matter of chasing them away, or of taking concrete policy positions on that particular issue. It a matter of intentional policy indifference to the hot-button issue, at least in any range outside of the "big tent" political center. Not really for, nor yet against. There is nothing to be gained by them in taking any firm position at either pole on that issue, as it's simply not a defining issue for their target base. To those whom it is a defining issue, their votes are already for the most part spoken for. Low yield demographic. Active disincentive to take any solid position at all that isn't "moderate," at most.

I beat you, Simon!

Submitted by Pat on Sat, 08/18/2007 - 9:31pm.

I got a 67! When asked how best to improve the Unity '08 idea, my response was "scrap it."

LOL

Submitted by Tully on Sat, 08/18/2007 - 10:02pm.

When asked how best to improve the Unity '08 idea, my response was "scrap it."

Mine was "nothing." Parse at will--it wasn't a compliment.

Heh, mine was, "Back to the

Submitted by C Stanley on Sun, 08/19/2007 - 8:06am.

Heh, mine was, "Back to the drawing board!"

Navigation

User login

Subscribe via RSS

Resources

The latest from our partner, the PoliGazette

Blog Roll

Search

A Uniting survey

Liberals own the status quo? Are you speaking generally, or in

Less specifically than

Simon, I'm really too tired

Either there is a neutral

You're dodging. "Abortion

Without conceding your point

If you're attempting to

I'm with Simon on this. If

Of course another way

Which is still dodging the

Well, now I see your point

But then again, putting that

I beat you, Simon!

LOL

Heh, mine was, "Back to the

Recent comments

Featured Movie

Syndicate

Who's online

Centerfield

The Volokh Conspiracy

Edward Tufte

Scrappleface