By Doug Pinkham
Public Affairs Council President

March 17, 2011

In many ways, the U.S. is a country divided.

Exactly one-half of American adults approves of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, says a recent CNN poll.  Fifty percent also believe developing energy supplies is a higher priority than protecting the environment, reports Gallup. And, for the first time, a Pew Research Center poll shows that public opinion on gay marriage is evenly split.

Are Americans ever unanimous - or close to unanimous - about anything? According to a recent article from Pew, it's extremely rare for nine out of 10 people to agree on an issue. Pew calls it "the elusive 90% solution."

It's elusive because a certain percentage of respondents always seem to have a contrarian opinion. Back in early 2009, for example, while virtually no one said the economy was in good shape, "only" 71% rated economic conditions as "poor." A remarkable 24% still said they were "fair."

Politicians' job approval ratings rarely come close to 90%, even when their popularity is at its zenith. George W. Bush's rating briefly passed 80% right after 9/11, and his father's popularity soared to that level immediately after the Persian Gulf War. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, never reached 80% and Obama has yet to hit 70%.

What do we agree on? Pew's most recent survey on political values (which dates back to 2009) reveals a set of common beliefs, including the following:

• 90% feel it's their duty as citizens to always vote
• 90% admire people who get rich by working hard
• 90% think it's best for the future of this country to be active in world affairs
• 88% call themselves "very patriotic"
• 88% are interested in keeping up with national affairs
• 87% believe "our society should do what is necessary to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed"

Some may call these results outdated because of recent shifts in political attitudes. But Pew points out that views on equal opportunity, the duty to vote, patriotism and the like have been remarkably stable over time. The portion of Americans calling themselves "very patriotic" has varied by just four percentage points during the last 22 years. And the percentage supporting "equal opportunity" has dropped only three points since 1987.

Understanding society's core values can help a politician or business leader stay on track - and on message. But governing on the basis of values is a tricky business because people may have conflicting beliefs. Despite the public's interest in world affairs, for example, 78% say we should pay less attention to problems overseas. And the public doesn't always back up its beliefs with action. While nearly everyone says it's important to vote, only 40% of eligible voters cast their ballot in the 2010 elections.

The most important point raised by these data, however, is that there is a major difference between "values" and "opinions." While Americans may have a strong sense of patriotism, their definition of "what is patriotic" differs widely. Is it more patriotic, for example, to trust government to make good choices or to demand that government be more transparent? (Filmmaker Michael Moore recently called Pfc. Bradley Manning, who released classified war records to Wikileaks, "a courageous patriot.")

In the same way, the public almost universally believes that everyone should have an equal opportunity to succeed. But does "equal opportunity" mean the ability to be free of discrimination or the chance to start a small business with the help of an SBA loan?  It depends whom you ask.

Politicians frequently mistake opinions for values, which creates an expectations gap. While values are slow to change, opinions can shift dramatically.

Democratic and Republican leaders have been equally guilty of misreading the public - and have paid a price. This typically happens when a party puts forward an agenda that forces Americans to trade off one closely held belief for another. There are a host of examples in our recent political past, from Clinton's failed healthcare proposal, to the Newt Gingrich-led budget showdown of 1995-96, to Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security.

Gingrich, for example, thought his mandate to reshape federal policy was so strong that he could force the president to implement the Contract with America through the budget process. But most people didn't want to see government shut down while the White House and Congress argued over spending. The unease created by the conflict - and the public's belief that the legislative and executive branches ought to work together - trumped Americans' fundamental distrust of government.

Every Republican and Democrat involved in the current budget negotiations is hoping to learn from the Gingrich-Clinton confrontation. But based on the rhetoric of the last few months, it still sounds like both sides have an exaggerated sense of mandate. When the budget issue comes to a head, whoever threatens the public's belief system the most will receive the greatest pushback.

This is not to say that smart politicians must be constant poll-watchers, refusing to make a move unless the "elusive 90%" of the public is behind them. (If they were to take this approach, they would be largely motionless.) But it does mean they need to be watching the right polls - the ones that illuminate the public's core beliefs and not simply its moods, fears, impulses or other short-term opinions.

Comments? Email me at http://pac.org/contact/blog.