Tuesday, January 27th, 2015 | Daniel Yankelovich
Towards the end of his novel, Skinny Legs And All, author Tom Robbins describes his heroine’s epiphany:
"…She understood suddenly…that it was futile to work for political solutions to humanity's problems because humanity's problems were not political…The primary problems were philosophical, and until the philosophical problems were solved, the political problems would have to be solved over and over and over again."
Ferguson Day 6, Picture 44 by Loavesofbread
This insight applies particularly to the current plight of our democracy. Symptoms of its dysfunction are everywhere. Only about a third of eligible voters bother to vote in non-presidential elections. Congress is gridlocked and polarized. Our economy, our schools, our social mobility escalators, our health care, our social justice system – none of these core institutions of our democracy are working as well as they should for the majority of Americans.
The American public knows something is wrong. For decades a majority of the public has been telling pollsters that the country is "on the wrong track." When we probe into what this means, people state that they don’t feel they have a voice in shaping the decisions that most impact their lives. They experience this lack of voice as a betrayal of the promise of democracy.
Tuesday, January 13th, 2015 | Daniel Yankelovich
It has taken me more than a half century of studying how the public makes up its mind to grasp the complexity of the Public Learning Curve.
Here’s what I’ve learned.
To achieve democracy-as-a-way-of-life we need to accept the reality that it takes a lot longer for people to make up their minds about difficult choices than simply to absorb new information.
This reality is rarely taken into full account. Both the media and public policymakers sometimes act as if the public should be able to make up its mind as soon as it has received relevant information about the choices the nation faces.
This assumption may be valid for "plain vanilla" choices that don’t involve painful tradeoffs or conflicts. But when conflict and sacrifice are involved, a fundamental psychological truth comes into play, namely that conflict breeds denial, wishful thinking, avoidance and procrastination.
It is possible to overcome these all-too-human tendencies. But it always requires time to do so – often long periods of time. In extreme cases like slavery and women’s rights, the time required may stretch into centuries.
In most instances, however, people can manage to process tough choices if they are given ample time and motivation to climb the Public Learning Curve. This ascent takes place in three stages, usually over a period of months or years.
12.08 "Choice-Work" Tools
Monday, December 8th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
Jonny Wikins | Flickr
Motivating people to be thoughtful about issues is a necessary but not sufficient condition for supporting democracy as a way of life (see my previous blog).
Once people are motivated, they then need special tools for thoughtful deliberation. To address and make tough choices, people need to understand what their choices actually are. And what trade-offs and sacrifices go with each choice.
Here are just a few of the tough choices that currently confront the American public:
- What are our options for ending the middle class income stagnation of the past 15 years?
- What are the hard choices we face to slow the disastrous effects of climate change?
- What do we do with the vast numbers of parentless children illegally crossing the border to escape the violence of their home countries?
- What alternatives are there to our present system of warehousing so many mentally ill Americans in our prisons at enormous public expense?
What these and other policy decisions have in common is that very few Americans understand what our choices really are, let alone what sacrifices and trade-offs each one entails.
Monday, November 24th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
In my last blog, I identified three innovations to achieve what John Dewey called democracy as a way of life.
First, we need a political process that unambiguously invites average Americans to deliberate on important policy issues and then communicates back to them that their voices have been heard.
My long experience in public opinion polling has taught me that what often passes for public inattentiveness and ignorance is simply resentment at being ignored. Once people feel their views matter, they participate more responsibly and sensibly.
In an earlier blog, I mentioned the irony that Presidents Clinton and Obama, both ardent democracy advocates, never bothered to consult the public when shaping their health care policies – policies that impact the lives of every American.
They consulted insurance companies, medical professionals and all manner of experts and specialists. But they avoided seeking essential input from the public. It must have seemed unnecessary to them – awkward, time-consuming and a huge bother. So they didn’t do it, and then were surprised at the high levels of public resistance.
Even though Presidents Clinton and Obama are experienced and skilled political leaders, they don’t seem to grasp a basic reality about public opinion. Americans insist on being heard. And they can be resentful and non-responsive when they feel they aren’t.
This is a reality that many former Presidents did understand.
Tuesday, November 11th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
In addition to supporting the strong version of democracy that calls for a fully engaged citizenry, Dewey’s pragmatic philosophy also featured four other important core values.
Many Ways to Arrive at Truth. No aspect of pragmatic philosophy has been attacked more consistently than the popularized version of its theory of truth -- the version that equates pragmatic truth with “whatever works.”
Dewey rejected this simplistic definition, but he also rejected as much too narrow most other conceptions of truth prevalent in his day. He was eager to rescue truth from the logicians and scientists who equated it exclusively with formal verification. He disassociated himself from his own early religious upbringing where truth was identified with revelation and religious authority. And he wrote a scathing criticism of those whose definition of truth arose out of their obsession with a quest for a level of certainty that life cannot provide.
All in all, he was far less concerned with finding some abstract definition of truth than with discovering valid insights into how society can advance human flourishing.
Dewey was not a fluent phrasemaker. His labels were rarely vivid or memorable. Characteristically, he labeled his own broad conception of truth as “warranted assertability.”
Closely examined, this definition covers an immense patch of ground. You can assert truth claims about gravity or DNA because these are warranted by science. You can also assert truth claims about human living when these are warranted by poetry, art or everyday experience. In other words, there are multiple ways to arrive at truth.
11.04 John Dewey's Heritage
Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
I’ve argued in these blogs that the great majority of Americans who believe the nation is on the wrong track are, unfortunately, correct in their suspicions.
The most obvious signs of being on the wrong track are the countless instances of our institutions pursuing their own self-interest rather than the public good.
The most compelling aspects of pragmatic philosophy for today’s America are those advanced by the philosopher John Dewey.
As to the major cause of the nation’s derailment, I’ve pinpointed an inadvertent consequence of the nation’s shift from the 1950s ethic of sacrificing one’s own self-fulfillment for others to an ethic of celebrating one’s own self-expressiveness. Self-expressiveness and other forms of individualism are fine in their place, but they must leave room for values that also advance the public good.
My most consequential proposal is that the American public needs to develop and nourish a countervailing ethic to the prevailing cult of the self. This would be an ethic that preserves individualism while also enhancing the integrity and official mission of our institutions.
Bringing about an ethical transformation in our society poses a monumental challenge. If we were obliged to create such a transformation from scratch it might be nearly impossible to achieve. The task becomes far more doable once we realize that we don’t have to invent the sort of ethic that is needed: it existed and thrived in the early and late decades of the last century in the doctrine of pragmatic philosophy.
Some parts of pragmatic philosophy are now obsolete, but others are powerfully germane to our current situation. The most compelling aspects of pragmatic philosophy for today’s America are those advanced by the philosopher John Dewey.
Tuesday, October 28th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
My main thesis in these Rebooting Democracy blogs is that an unintended consequence of recent cultural change has encouraged many of our institutions’ leaders to subordinate the mission of their institution to their own personal interests. Our culture’s overemphasis on individual rights has been so sweeping and pervasive that it has inadvertently weakened our commitment to individual responsibility.
William James first introduced the philosophy of pragmatism.
This is not a deep or universal form of corruption. All big companies aren’t evolving into Enron. All executives aren’t morphing into Andy Mozillo, whose company, Countrywide Insurance, flooded the nation with egregious “liar loans” destined to fail.
Similarly, all government agencies haven’t fallen into the Veterans Administration trap of putting their hospitals’ scheduling convenience ahead of veterans’ health and then lying about it. Our criminal justice system, our health care system, our schools and colleges still manage to get many things right.
Yet, it is as if the cult of the self and its rights has grown so deeply embedded in the culture that otherwise honest and responsible people don’t think twice about exploiting others as long as their actions are not blatantly illegal. I can’t think of a more ethically blind rationalization than the familiar lament: “I didn’t do anything wrong; I didn’t break the law.”
The frustrating aspect of this diagnosis is that it identifies a problem that is awesomely difficult to fix. Our society is skillful in addressing economic, technical or administrative problems. It is less skilled at addressing cultural and ethical problems.
Fortunately, we have a firmly grounded ethical tradition that we can call upon to come to our rescue. It is an authentically American philosophy that contains all the elements we need to construct a countervailing ethic to the cult of the self.
Tuesday, October 21st, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
There is a way to nudge the nation back to public trust, self-confidence and optimism. It is to restore the “rising tide raises all boats” and democracy-friendly form of capitalism that dominated our economy in the decades following WWII.
If Main Street as well as Wall Street were once again to benefit from corporate profitability, Americans would have faith that the nation’s traditional social mobility (the American Dream) had been restored.
I am convinced that this is an achievable goal, especially if the public is fully engaged in making it happen.
Attribution: BI Watercooler | Flickr
It would constitute a huge win for everyone: it would raise public morale; business would regain the public trust it craves; our institutions of governance could once again be counted on to “do the right thing,” just as they had in earlier decades; our consumer-driven economy would achieve the higher levels of growth we need to sustain productivity and prosperity.
There is nothing mysterious about the strategy needed to make this happen. But it does require building a new national consensus about how to manage our form of capitalism.
Tuesday, October 14th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
The irrationalities and dysfunctions I described in my last blog crept up on us largely undetected. In earlier blogs I theorized that they are mainly traceable to a psychosocial flaw, an unintended byproduct of our cult of the self.
I hasten to add that the American embrace of individualism has had many good consequences. Our culture has grown more pluralistic, more diverse, more tolerant, and less stifling and conformist than it was in the 1950s when I was coming of age. The flowering of individualism launched on the nation’s college campuses in the 1960s has enhanced our individual freedoms and enriched our life styles.
Photo: Liz West | Flickr
My concern is that, in seeking more space for self-expressiveness and individual rights, Americans have also grown more opinionated, willful and insistent that their voice be heard.
On the positive side, this outlook strengthens people’s sense of agency and reduces their feelings of helplessness. But if this form of entitlement is frustrated, it can fill people with resentment. And it can cause other values to be brushed aside without much thought to consequences.
The values that have suffered the most include an erosion of our communal ethics and our willingness to sacrifice for others, postpone gratification or place a high value on the well-being of the larger community.
Tuesday, October 7th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
We are not accustomed to judging our institutions by how faithfully they adhere to their own mandates. I am shocked by the conclusions I reach when I do take this perspective.
Consider our hugely successful institution of big business. Since the 1970s, the doctrine known as shareholder value has dominated our business culture. This is the doctrine that the investors who own the company’s stock come first and take priority; all other stakeholders take a back seat.
This means that a casual day trader with no stake in the company other than some shares he bought yesterday and may sell tomorrow is given precedence over all of the company’s employees, however committed and effective they may be. The company’s obligations to the larger community are likewise shoved to the side in favor of shareholders. The long-term interests of the company are subordinated to the trading manipulations of hedge fund managers who don’t give a damn about the company and want only to add to their unimaginably huge, undeserved profits.
It is hard to conceive of a more irrational, shortsighted and frankly stupid doctrine for a nation that prides itself on maintaining a democracy-friendly form of capitalism.
In the domain of politics, our cult of the self has engendered a form of polarization where voters grow ever more doctrinaire and opinionated – a symptom of the willfulness I identified in a previous blog post. Our leaders are even worse – a situation that guarantees paralysis at a time when urgent problems cry out for action.
Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
We should expect a deluge of theories about what has gone wrong with American life and why the public is growing ever more distressed. The only reason we haven't heard many of these theories yet is the widespread expectation that economic recovery will cure whatever ails us, including the public’s current dark mood.
Regardless of the direction our economy takes, however, I believe we can no longer ignore how dysfunctional our institutions are becoming. These include our political, economic, health care, criminal justice and education systems. None are functioning as well as they can and should.
Exactly what has gone wrong? The answer points to our national psychology and culture rather than to our economics or politics. Our exuberant embrace of individualism has inadvertently brought to the surface several negative trends.
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
The public is in a bad funk. This is, of course, not the first time the public mood has turned negative in recent years. Whether one calls it “malaise,” “unwinding,” “off balance,” “wrong track” or some other term connoting a public mood of pessimism, such states of mind are bound to occur whenever our economies and politics are volatile, as they inevitably are from time to time. These moods do no lasting harm as long as they eventually dissipate and the nation returns to its traditional optimistic outlook.
Madeleine Holland | Flickr
I am worried about this particular funk because I see no signs of it lifting, and some troubling signs that it might even grow worse. Despite a slowly improving economy, a recent Wall Street Journal poll shows that Americans are very anxious about the state of the nation and gloomy about prospects for the future -- a state of mind that has deepened over the past few years.
The poll shows that more than seven out of ten Americans:
- Lack confidence that their children will have a better life than they have had (76%).
- Express deep concern with how our political system is failing us (79%).
- Blame our problems on the inability of our elected officials to take effective action (71%).
- Believe the country is on the wrong track (71%).
These levels of public distress are extraordinarily high. When pessimism exceeds a two-thirds majority it should be seen as a tipping point. Beyond this point, the country’s political mood becomes volatile and unstable.
09.16 A Two-Pronged Strategy
Tuesday, September 16th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
Is it possible to transform public opinion from its current state of mistrust, frustration and lack of confidence in our institutions – a mood of being turned off and disengaged – to one of being turned on and fully engaged? If so, what would it take? How long would it take? What are the most promising strategies? And what is the likelihood of success or failure?
Based on extensive research, I am convinced that Americans yearn to have the public voice exert more influence than it does currently. A critical mass of Americans deeply desires to be invited to engage more actively in shaping the public policies that bear on their lives.
Despite this hopeful sign, however, it would be a mistake to assume that the transformation can be quick or easy. It will take a great deal of intelligent effort and leadership to transform the public mood from one that is disengaged to one that is fully engaged – from mistrust to trust, from sounding off and venting frustration to thoughtful deliberation and willingness to compromise.
Monday, September 8th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
Dialogue research follows strict rules. Participants are encouraged to:
- listen rather than to argue;
- suspend judgment rather than debate;
- dig behind their surface opinions in order to explore their own tacit assumptions;
- engage other dialogue participants to help uncover likely consequences of the strong emotional positions that people take on controversial issues.
The general findings from a variety of these dialogues are quite revealing and consistent across dialogue subjects.
One-day dialogues do not lead to consensus. At the end of a day of difficult dialogue, widespread disagreements persist. Yet, people’s positions do evolve to some degree, and there is almost always some narrowing of differences. For example, on dialogues about illegal immigration, strong opponents of legalization usually soften their opposition as they wrestle with traditional American pride in being a nation of immigrants.
Far more dramatic is the attitude change toward dialogue participants who hold opposing points of view. Almost always, a shift occurs from hostility and contempt to friendliness and cordiality. After a dialogue on abortion, for example, it is not unusual to see pro-choice and pro-life opponents walking out of the room engaged in cordial conversation.
Tuesday, September 2nd, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
Our democracy is betraying ever-stronger symptoms of stress. Congress is too polarized to take action on urgent problems. The President reels from one crisis to another with sagging levels of public approval. The business community seems blind to everything except its own profitability. Doctors, lawyers, colleges and universities thrive in their own isolated silos, often pursuing their own agendas at the expense of the larger society.
How serious is the widespread sense of our society unraveling?
Does it foretell a trend likely to grow even worse? Or is it a transient mood that will dissipate as our economy improves? Is it deep and profound, or is it superficial and subject to change when circumstances change? What would make it change for the better?
In the quest for answers, I want to share with you some results of extensive research I’ve conducted with the public over the past few decades. The research findings shed light on a number of these questions. They lead me to adopt a cautious optimism. They create reasonable grounds for hope for our future.
In recent decades I have conducted a new in-depth form of research called dialogic research. It seeks to engage small samples of the public in dialogue with one another. It differs markedly from the more familiar forms of public research such as public opinion polls, individual interviews and focus groups.
Tuesday, August 26th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
Economic inequality and blocked social mobility are so closely linked they are often confused with one another. But they are two quite different problems.
Economic inequality refers to the widening gaps in income and wealth between the low-middle and high income strata of our society. Social mobility refers to the ease (or difficulty) of moving up the income escalator through one’s own efforts.
Franco Folini | Flickr
Advocates tend to offer one-sided strategies to address the two problems. Those focused on social mobility tend to emphasize redistribution strategies. But advocates of redistribution do not always realize that reducing income inequality may not improve social mobility. Conversely, strategies for easing social mobility may leave income inequality barely touched.
There are also large differences in public support for the two strategies. Strategies for improving social mobility enjoy much broader public support than redistribution strategies.
In our era of specialization, it is important to decide whether the strategy of choice for addressing both problems is economic or political. I agree with the many economists like Nobel winner Joseph Stiglitz who strongly insists that they require political rather than economic remedies.
Tuesday, August 19th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
Wicked problems share these characteristics: there are no quick fixes; they are complex and multi-faceted; conventional methods (legislation, regulation, money, power, technology) don’t – and can’t – solve them; solutions depend on how the problem is framed. Every wicked problem is essentially novel and unique.
Foto_Michel | Flickr
Many of the wicked problems we confront today are familiar:
- growing income inequality;
- blocked social mobility;
- political polarization;
- climate change;
- erosion of our social ethics;
- a health care system spiraling out of control;
- a prison system that warehouses the mentally ill and stigmatizes huge numbers of young black and Hispanic males;
- a less democracy-friendly form of capitalism.
Our most urgent wicked problem, I believe, is our blocked system of social mobility. It poses the most immediate and gravest threat to our political stability and it makes all the other problems worse. When people feel trapped, large income inequalities and other frustrations become far less tolerable.
Tuesday, August 12th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
Americans must become as adept and engaged as citizens as they are as consumers.
The public must be willing and able to give as much thought as they do to buying a car or a new home to alternative choices on policies relating to the economy, health care, education, the environment and other matters of concern to individuals and the community.
Credit: Marc Wathieu | Flickr
The public’s task as citizens is to deliberate on the nation’s most important issues and form thoughtful judgments free of bias and wishful thinking.
This is a far call from the present response patterns of the public. In recent years, the American public has almost lost the habit of becoming engaged in the search for solutions to the nation’s most pressing problems. Successful public engagement involves both will and skill, and at present both are lacking.
Monday, August 4th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
If we are to dig ourselves out of the hole created by the shift away from democracy-friendly capitalism, our system of democracy must function at its best rather than at its present mediocre level.
What does this mean in practice? For sure it means that our political leaders and elites (as well as the public) must do things differently.
Tuesday, July 29th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
I fear that the current state of our democracy is not robust enough to prevent the damage a biased-toward-the-rich form of capitalism is bound to wreak on our society.
We are doing reasonably well in observing the external trappings of democracy – voting, the rule of law, divided powers, etc. This is vitally important because it helps us to preserve our freedom and political stability.
But we are not doing as well on the substantive side of democracy – the side implicit in Lincoln’s definition of democracy as government of, by and for the people. Government by the people clearly implies that the people must have a say in the decisions that affect their lives.
Monday, July 21st, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
If traditional economic policies can get our economy back to healthy growth that benefits average households (the old normal), then we can be optimistic about the future.
I don’t think, however, that we can return to the old normal. The conditions that made the old normal possible – lots of low-skill/well paying manufacturing jobs, strong labor bargaining power, less mechanization of jobs, less demand for higher education skills, unique global competitiveness – no longer exist. Nor have we developed policies to induce the new form of capitalism to benefit average households.
Kheel Center / Flickr
The perceptive political analyst William Galston reluctantly draws the inevitable inferences in a recent column in the Wall Street Journal. He personally favors old-normal economic policies. But he admits that the facts push him “to a more radical conclusion," namely, that “we need a …revised social contract that links compensation to productivity and…new policies to bring it about.” He realizes that there is no going back to the policies that worked in the past.
In the near future, momentous decisions need to be made. Do we accept as the new normal the reality that large numbers of Americans are no longer needed for the private sector job market of the future? If so, what do we do with all these “redundant” people?
Monday, July 14th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
The recent decline in moral norms is, I believe, relatively superficial. It reflects frustration with the political status quo rather than its outright rejection. People are frustrated because they feel they don’t have a voice.
This is the common pattern we've seen in recent years:
- Americans demand a greater voice in shaping the decisions that directly affect their lives. This demand is repeatedly unfulfilled.
- In frustration, the public’s mistrust of our institutions, inattention to important issues, and general cynicism all grow stronger.
- Elites often seem contemptuous of the views of average Americans. This attitude contributes to the public’s frustration.
- Elites also tend to define problems in technical terms that the general public doesn’t understand, exacerbating the public’s feelings of isolation.
- Both Democrats and Republicans show a disregard for the public’s voice in shaping policy initiatives.
Tuesday, July 8th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
Our current form of capitalism undermines America’s core ethic. It has become ridden with obstacles to social mobility. A strong commitment to fairness is essential to our nation’s conception of the common good; a less democracy-friendly capitalism violates the common good in favor of top tier of the income scale.
κύριαsity / flickr
Large inequalities of income, by themselves, do not violate America’s sense of fairness. Billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are actually folk heroes. Large inequalities become unfair in people’s minds only when they feel that they themselves are stuck in a rut with no opportunity to improve their lot in life.
07.01 Harbingers of Change
Tuesday, July 1st, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
Two recent news items may be harbingers of a massive change in our society. If so, it will be a mostly positive change that reduces inequality and restores greater social mobility. But it may also create upheaval in our institutions of higher education.
One of the news items describes a college-support program for Starbucks employees. Starbucks and Arizona State University have agreed to a partnership whereby Starbucks will pay a big part of the tuition for employees taking online courses for credit toward a college degree.
The other news item concerns Corinthian Colleges, one of the nation’s largest for-profit colleges. Regulators are investigating whether Corinthian’s colleges have been pushing their students into high-cost loans, saddling them with debt while not delivering on their promise of well-paying jobs. Student enrollment is declining sharply and Corinthian, facing bankruptcy, agreed to sell off and shutter its campuses.
Why are these two events harbingers of change?
Tuesday, June 24th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
I fear that the deep trends unwinding social mobility cannot be reversed merely by modest short-term fixes like increasing the minimum wage. Of course we should do as much as possible to ensure that people with full time jobs do not fall below the poverty line. These are necessary but not sufficient actions.
We also need a long-term strategy to restore our economic and moral vitality based on a sound understanding of the deeper forces at work and how to reverse them. The least understood of these deep forces is the one undermining our social and ethical norms.
Increasingly, we equate doing wrong with breaking the law, thereby condoning selfish, irresponsible behavior as long as it is lawful. In my last post, I described this phenomenon as “anomie” -- the state of normlessness.
The causes of this condition of anomie are clear if one knows how to connect the dots.
Tuesday, June 17th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
The Wall Street versus Main Street narrative is popular. It is comforting to believe that greed and putting your own interests ahead of others are confined to Wall Street, while the rest of us are merely innocent, norm-abiding bystanders.
Wall Street’s behavior does feed this perception. The real estate boom preceding the Great Recession of 2007-08 featured an ugly feeding-frenzy devoid of ethics. Some of our most highly esteemed financial institutions developed a massive ethical blind spot that violated our society’s most treasured moral norms.
A closer look, however, shows a more nuanced – and balanced – picture. Yes, the banks had lowered their ethical norms. Yes, they had handed out so-called “liar mortgages” indiscriminately. Yes, the rest of us were fleeced.
But that doesn’t mean that Main Street’s ethical norms remained pristine while Wall Street’s norms deteriorated. The liar mortgages were given to people who blatantly lied about their own financial situation.
Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
Equality of opportunity is shrinking, and there is a growing national consensus that we must reverse this trend. Both political parties, as well as the public at large, share a reasonably sound understanding that distortions in our economy have led to stagnant wages for middle- and lower-income Americans with greater concentrations of wealth at the top.
A global economy that makes it profitable for American companies to export jobs to lower wage nations, technological advances that permit companies to replace workers with machines, high rates of unemployment that rob workers of bargaining power -- these are some of the main economic forces that create the inequality of opportunity eroding our social contract and driving American society into a hole. Now that we understand them, we are likely to move toward remedying the economic problems they create for us.
Unfortunately, we do not yet have an equally sound understanding of the non-economic forces exacerbating these problems. Economies don’t operate in a vacuum; their strengths and weaknesses depend on the larger political and ethical contexts of the society of which they are a part. That is why capitalism is so different in China, Russia, Brazil and Turkey than in the United States and its closest allies.
Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
Structural changes are making our form of capitalism less democratic. Not surprisingly, these changes are also creating a new wave of populism. In his 2014 State of the Union address, President Obama labeled inequality of opportunities and declining social mobility as America’s "defining challenge of our times", and proclaimed that "we must reverse these trends."
In advance of his speech observers wondered whether he would emphasize the left/liberal remedy of seeking redistribution of incomes or the more moderate/conservative remedy of seeking to improve equality of opportunity.
He unequivocally chose the latter. I think he made the right choice.
Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
What are the forces driving our nation into this deep hole? One is a structural change in our system of capitalism. It is shifting from a form of capitalism friendly to the core principles of democracy to one much less so.
In the decades following WWII, our growing economy was referred to as the “rising tide that raises all boats.” This metaphor captured the democracy-friendly thrust of our economy.
Consumer demand accounts for an astounding 70 percent of our economy. When jobs are plentiful and wages at all levels rise steadily, consumer demand stimulates economic growth. This form of capitalism is profoundly democratic, spreading opportunity throughout the working population.
Tuesday, May 20th, 2014 | Daniel Yankelovich
For years now, our nation has been digging itself into a pit of social immobility that threatens the very core of our democracy. Every year we confront:
- Growing income inequality.
- Shrinking opportunities for individuals to better themselves and their children.
- Disproportionate accumulation of wealth in the top income brackets.
- Slow recovery from the Great Recession of 2007-8.
- The failure of our education system in preparing our children to compete successfully in today's global economy.
- Paralysis in Washington.
Polls show that, by greater than two to one margins (58 percent to 28 percent), Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track. A 70 percent majority use words like "divided", "troubled" and "deteriorating" to describe the state of the nation.
Tuesday, May 20th, 2014 | Will Friedman, Ph.D.
Today, Public Agenda announces the launch of a new blog. It is called Rebooting Democracy and is authored by our co-founder, Dan Yankelovich.
Dan is not only one of the towering figures in the evolution of public opinion research. He is also a public-spirited and pragmatic intellectual who has devoted his life to thinking through the problems facing America’s democratic experiment and the strategies we might employ to keep it on course. And he does this without partisan rancor or indulgence.