Sergey Kadinsky

Written Works

This term paper was written for the Journalism and Politics class which I took at CCNY in fall 2006. The class was taught by David Diaz, a former news anchor at CBS news in New York.

Power of the Pundit:

 Do opinion leaders affect the polls?

In September 2005, President George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers to succeed retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.  Instead of support, the president received unexpected resistance to the nomination from some of the leading conservative voices in the media. As a result, the nominee’s personal and professional background received closer scrutiny, with many Republican lawmakers and constituents openly criticizing Bush’s choice. Ultimately, Miers withdrew her bid for the nomination, largely as a result of opinion leaders framing the debate, providing the passion that undermined her case. (Kurtz)

From this example, a question arises- “Who are the opinion leaders? How did they become so well-known, respected, and influential?” In this paper, there are not only examples of successful opinion leaders in political parties, election campaigns, and the media, but also information about their rise to power. By framing the debate, opinion leaders help define political debates. Elected officials look to their talking points as inspiration for their own speeches, and the public views the talking points as helpful, making the debate easier to understand.

I began my research by looking for new stories where opinion leaders did just that, resulting in a change in public policy. The failed nomination of Harriet Miers was a perfect example. My search for relevant books was narrowed down to two categories, books on polls, and books on pollsters and pundits. The latter proved more useful than the former, due to a large number of individual examples that became a useful part of this research.

Opinion leaders are often described as upper-middle class or higher, with a graduate education, and active members of their communities. One example of this can be found in a study researching how political actors respond to polls, where a group of party activists from Illinois was chosen. The group of ten represented both parties, and their status as opinion leaders was a result of their participation in their respective parties’ conventions; knowledge of local and statewide races; and campaigning, mostly in the form of organizing meetings, canvassing, and raising money. (Herbst, 39)

 While the author of the Illinois study views journalists as cynical of the government’s actions, it appears that once a journalist or opinion leader becomes a press secretary, some of the cynicism about public affairs leaves in favor of directly addressing the voters. According to the author, the term “public opinion” is often misinterpreted to reflect the thoughts of the media and industry leaders. (83) Alongside these voices, press secretaries research a wide variety of polls to gauge the opinion of the average citizen in order to bypass the media and opinion leaders in gathering the public’s support. Political pundits often act in a similar role, having experience in journalism and close ties to leading political figures.

 Another place where opinion leaders can be found are think tanks, which are policy research organizations that seek to influence the public and elected officials through research and position papers that support ideas promoted by their organizations. Think tanks developed in the 1960s, initially focusing on defense, but as their number grew, so did the ideological tendencies in their research, with the larger number of think tanks favoring politically conservative causes. (Rich) As think tanks become more focused on providing commentary, rather than research for an argument, their reputation and quality appears to diminish. The result is that each think tank targets only a certain audience. While the Heritage Foundation targets a conservative audience, the American Enterprise Institute is centered on less strident conservatives, and the Brookings Institution is trusted mainly by moderates and liberals. (Rich) Think tanks are no longer exclusively comprised of experts holding PhDs, but also visible voices of various political movements, such as retired military and elected officials.

 Defined by William Safire as “political analysts, usually associated with a sizable broadcasting outlet,” pundits are viewed as given the platform to speak their views by the media as a result of their perceived influence and expertise in politics. (Alterman, 5) With the exception of Patrick Buchanan, most pundits do not use their position to run for office. When asked about his chances of becoming Secretary of State, New York Times columnist William Safire quipped, “Why step down?” (141)

  Instead, they work to create political change from their television and newspaper appearances by highlighting hidden news stories. Examples include New York Times columnist William Safire, who condemned West Germany’s 1989 sale of poison gas to Libya, describing it as “Auschwitz in the Sand,” a reference to the Libyan government’s history of anti-Semitism. Chancellor Helmut Kohl complained that “this Safire fellow has done more damage to German-American relations than any other individual.” As a result of the pressure created by Safire’s column, the gas sale was investigated and German export laws were changed. (9)

 Another example of a successful opinion leader is George Will, a syndicated columnist who rose to fame through television. Will symbolizes the rise of the television pundit and the resurgence of political conservatives during the Reagan administration. Will’s popularity rose at a time when the political landscape was undergoing “seismic change.” Former NBC Vice-President Tim Russert notes, “Someone had to explain why Ronald Reagan’s conservatism was sweeping the country, and he filled the vacuum.” (91) Will’s experience comes from being a writer at the National Review. In 1973, as the presidency of Richard Nixon was sinking under the weight of scandals, Will polished his credentials as a conservative and an independent by calling for Nixon’s impeachment, while simultaneously condemning the “infantilism, hedonism, and cultural dissolution” of the previous decade.

 Within the next decade, Will won the Pulitzer Prize, which led him to accept several additional pulpits, including television talk shows, writing books, and developing a friendship with future president Ronald Reagan. Among the controversies of this friendship was his coaching of Reagan in his 1980 election debate against then-President Jimmy Carter. For many pundits, this position frees them from the requirement of being objective, but for Will, his friendship with Reagan also included occasional personal attacks, further adding to the legend that he had become. (101) As a result, the New York Daily News reinstated his columns, and other newspapers also looked to Will’s views on the Reagan administration.

 Less visible opinion leaders are the partisan pollsters, who gauge the polls to find resonating themes for their respective candidates. Less visible than pundits, they work behind the scenes to ensure that their views gain public support. An early example of this is Lou Harris, who worked on the presidential campaign of John F. Kennedy in 1960. Finding that less than 30 percent of American families have sent their children to college, but that 80 percent hope to do so in the future, Harris advised Kennedy to “hammer at educational themes.” As a result, he was able to pick up significant support among northeastern urban and suburban voters. At the time, the nomination process gave more representation to party bosses than delegates chosen by party primaries. Kennedy knew that for many of the party leaders, the idea that a young Catholic senator from Massachusetts can become president was impossible. Through Harris’ polls, Kennedy spoke on the themes that resonated most with the public, resulting in his mass appeal, (Moore, 81) and ultimately, victory in the November elections against Vice President Richard Nixon.

 Another example of a successful campaign pollster is Pat Cadell, who helped Georgia governor Jimmy Carter emerge to win the nomination in a crowded and divisive 1976 Democratic primary field, eventually winning the presidency in November. Cadell’s credentials are a result of a lifetime of working to predict the polls, starting in Harvard, where he organized the polling organization Cambridge Reports out of his dorm room in 1970. A year later, Cadell’s work caught the attention of Gary Hart, the campaign manager for presidential candidate George McGovern. Four years later, Cadell was hired by Carter to help him overcome the negative reputation of being a southerner, and help promote the image of a “new” southern leader, enlightened on racial issues. (137)

 Carter had a number of formidable primary opponents, in the south, George Wallace attempted to preserve the party’s historic ties to racial segregation; and in the north Senator Henry Jackson was vying for the support of moderate Democrats. Thus, Cadell had to choose whether Florida was more important to the campaign than Massachusetts. Despite losing in Massachusetts, Carter narrowly won in Florida, gaining momentum in other states. For the general election, Cadell’s successful strategy was to recall the public’s disillusionment with the Vietnam War, the Watergate Scandal, and government in general, tapping into the public’s discontent with political insiders.

 Unfortunately, by 1979, rising gas prices, led to high interest rates, and a weakening of the economy. To show solidarity with the people, Carter wore sweaters in his speeches, turned off the Christmas decorations on the White House, and created the Department of Energy to promote conservation. The feeling of pessimism that resulted from the crisis created a renewed lack of confidence in the government. Failing to win the confidence even among fellow Democrats in Congress, Carter took his campaign directly to the voters, showing that he was still an outsider. Declaring crisis of confidence in government to be a fundamental threat to American democracy, Carter attacked the Congress for being “twisted and pulled… by powerful interests.” As a result, Carter claimed, there was “paralysis, stagnation and drift.” Further driving home his image as an outsider, Carter declared “You don’t like it and I don’t either.” Carter concluded the speech with a call to action to “rebuild the unity and confidence of America.” (151) Cadell describes the reception to the speech as “unbelievable.” Following the speech, a Gallup poll showed Carter’s popularity rising between 11 and 15 points.

 Unfortunately, Carter faced a tough primary challenge from Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy, and though he won the nomination, he lost the presidency to former California governor Ronald Reagan. Describing Carter’s defeat, Kennedy claims “If Americans are pessimistic, it’s also because they are also realistic…they are demanding something better.” Cadell notes that unlike his predecessor, Carter was elected to power. “Carter was a tremendously better man than Reagan, but in the context of American politics, we deserved to lose. The economy was going south and we had nothing to offer the American people.” (154) After four years, the voters had chosen to give Reagan the chance to improve the economy, rather than Carter, who had faced an energy crisis from most of his presidency.

 Pat Cadell’s work for the Carter administration represents an attempt to follow the polls and demonstrate leadership, and the results of this policy appear mixed. During the Persian Gulf War, the administration of President George H.W. Bush also looked to pundits (not pollsters) to help increase support for the war effort in the polls. Like the Carter campaign, the results were initially favorable, but as the war progressed, went into decline.

 The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 represented the largest foreign policy concern for the United States as the Cold War was coming to an end. Enlisting the support of the American public in the liberation of Kuwait was not an easy task, considering that Kuwait was not exactly a beacon of democracy in the region. Among the results of the war was a reinvigorated punditocracy.

 During the last years of the Soviet Union, many conservative pundits refused to accept Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms, insisting that the Russians could never be trusted. Even as late as November 9, 1989, as the Berlin Wall was being broken, George Will claimed that “Liberalization is a ploy… the wall will remain.” (Alterman, 222) With politicians more concerned with following polls on the war, few were willing to appear on television talk shows with their own independent opinions on the invasion of Kuwait. As a result, the pundits took center stage in the debate, as described by Patrick Buchanan: “The war between the neo-interventionists and the neo-isolationists has moved to the weekend talk shows and op-ed pages” Political consultant Jude Wanniski agreed, “Politicians no longer have time, so it is the business of the professional opinion leaders- the pundits.” Both Buchanan and Wanniski gave these views for a New York Times article titled “The Battle of the Columnists: Telling Leaders how to Think.” (252)

 The use of pundits to help form public opinions was also practiced during the Miers nomination, where a number of prominent conservative columnists began criticizing the nomination even before the administration gave reasons for nominating Miers. Among the critics was National Review columnist David Frum, whose expertise on the topic relates to the fact that he worked with Miers as a speechwriter for the White House. Frum began attacking the nomination on his blog within two hours of the White House press conference. “The talking point was ‘Let’s wait for the hearings because we don’t know anything,’” Frum writes, pointing to his experience- “Well I knew something. It was my responsibility.” Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes disagrees with Frum’s tactics, but credits him for helping create the debate within the Republican Party. “I thought the conservatives who came out so harshly against Miers were off base, but they had some effect in keeping Republican senators from immediately jumping behind Miers” (Kurtz)

 The use of opinion leaders to strengthen public support for the president’s policies has mixed results. Though Ronald Reagan is regarded as popular, the public remained skeptical of his proposal to expand assistance to anti-communist forces in Central America, and liberate Kuwait after it was occupied by Iraq. In a November 1990 poll, taken on the eve of the Persian Gulf War, only 42 percent of Americans supported the use of military force in Iraq. Among opinion leaders, the figure was 55 percent. (Alterman, 298)

 Though opinion leaders do not always reflect the views of the public, and sometimes carry unpopular views, their status as people of experience in government means that they would likely remain respected by the public. An example of this is former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. In 1989, communism was collapsing throughout Eastern Europe, Central America, and Africa. The Tiananmen Square demonstrations provided hope that the same would happen in China. Describing America’s mild condemnation of the massacre as “a test of our political maturity,” Kissinger described China as being “too important for American national security to risk the relationship on the emotions of the moment.” (160) For Kissinger, strategic geopolitical interests were a greater priority than supporting democracy, which could result in instability. The comments resulted in widespread condemnation and investigations of Kissinger’s personal ties to China; this included the Wall Street Journal, which described Kissinger as insensitive. Nevertheless, the controversy gradually faded away, and Kissinger remained a respected figure, continuing to write books, op-eds, and appearing on television talk shows. Such fortune appears common among respected opinion leaders.

 Among politically experienced opinion leaders, such as Pat Cadell, the defeat of President Carter was not the end of his career, but only a setback in a greater string of political successes. For the conservative opinion leaders following the Persian Gulf War, the lack of public support for the war was not enough to sever the trust that many political leaders put in them, with some people holding the view that history would ultimately prove them right. Even among pundits who have no experience in politics, loyal audiences keep them in the spotlight. Examples include Rush Limbaugh (more of a propagandist than pundit), whose career appears to have survived a drug use scandal; and Bill O’Reilly (who is also an experienced journalist), who likewise has outlasted the defeat of his political movement in the 2006 elections. Even if their talk shows do not gather any new followers or have a direct influence on the polls, they arm their friends in power and loyal viewers with persuasive arguments that can be used in the marketplace of ideas, continuing their indirect influence on polls and public policy.

Bibliography

Return to top of this Page

Written Works

my blog

Home