(Bloomberg Opinion) -- What can the rapid increase in popular support for impeaching President Donald Trump tell us about how public opinion works? It wasn’t the shock of the Ukraine story that led a sizable chunk of voters to change or make up their minds. The surge happened after the scandal prompted House Democrats to unite around a more formal impeachment inquiry.
As Perry Bacon Jr. at FiveThirtyEight points out, the takeaway is completely consistent with one of the most important research findings about public opinion: People tend to follow highly visible party leaders. That’s why I was able to correctly predict the jump in support.
For months, Democratic politicians were split on impeachment, while Republicans were united against it. That sent a mixed signal to anti-Trump voters. After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leaders came out for a serious inquiry, these voters received a clear sign that opposing Trump now meant it was time to support impeachment, so they moved in that direction.
I have to object, however, to the idea that this means voters are “sheep” or “basically lemmings following the dictates of their party’s leaders,” in Bacon’s words. In fact, those who adopt the opinions of their parties are probably doing something smart.
What’s happening is that normal people – those who don’t make their living in the political world and who can’t possibly become experts on every public policy – are seeking shortcuts to get up to speed on issues. It doesn’t mean they don’t want to be responsible citizens. It’s just that their knowledge and interests are likely limited to a fairly small subset of subjects. Perhaps gun rights, but not abortion or Syria or climate; perhaps taxes, but not water management or health care or trade agreements.
Here’s where political parties come in. Pick a party, and then all you have to do is pay attention to a few people and – boom – you have your opinions on a bunch of issues. It’s possible to learn enough to be able to answer some survey questions if contacted. In fact, we’re so skilled at doing this that it often doesn’t feel as if we’re getting our opinions from party leaders; as political scientists have said, it seems as if we’re thinking things through by ourselves.
Yes, this does mean that most people will accept false information as true if their political party lines up solidly in favor of it. It also means, however, that having false information doesn't, in most cases, affect political behavior; those Republicans, for example, who believed Barack Obama wasn't a U.S. citizen weren't going to vote for any Democrat anyway. In most cases, the spread of lies should be blamed on party leaders who spread it, not voters who buy it.
After all, each of us belongs to a zillion demographic groups. For example, I’m Jewish, from the West and now a Texan, male, Anglo, left-handed, a baseball fan, a feminist, a father, heterosexual and married, a horseplayer, a TV watcher, a political scientist and so on. Some of those things become relevant to my political identity; some don’t. From there, I identify with a party, and that comes with a set of politicians and other visible party actors I’m inclined to listen to. This, in turn, helps determine what I know in policy areas that I otherwise wouldn’t have strong opinions about. All of us do some version of this dance.
If that makes us sheep, then we are a particular breed that gets to choose our own shepherd and that can always opt for a different one when we care about something. These choices can change as the circumstances of our lives, or even our interests and beliefs, change.
If this process sounds complex, that’s because it is. By identifying with a party we are adopting a set of beliefs about policy, perhaps even some broad ideas about what government should do, and (maybe most important) allies and enemies. This makes it more likely we will adopt the positions the party takes in the future and harder to switch to the other party. And our political identities are also constrained by the available choices; if there was a political party for left-handed San Francisco Giants fans, I would join it and consider those attributes as central to how I approach politics. Since there isn’t, I don’t normally think of those things as political at all.
So how does this affect the course of impeachment? We shouldn’t assume that voters have absorbed the facts on the Ukraine story and, after considering the evidence, come to independent conclusions. Perhaps what politicians see when they look at the polls is just a reflection of how those same politicians are handling things. The sight of Democrats standing united, while Republicans hide from reporters, can eventually change how people answer survey questions.
That doesn’t mean the views voters are reporting to pollsters are any less real. We “sheep” are making our voices heard, and smart politicians are going to listen.
At least, it's potentially an active choice. Most of us make that choice once and then let it stand until something comes along that rocks it. The party we've chosen might take a position against something we really care about. There might be some change in what we consider politically relevant. Or it could be that a group we identify with changes parties. Most of the time, however, the status quo works well enough, and we stick with the same party without giving it much thought.
Which potential identities count as political? It's complicated. I don't think of myself as a TV watcher when it comes to politics, but in fact government regulation has plenty to do with what's available for me to watch. It's possible to imagine a movement to make watching shows on FX, HBO and the streaming services become a far more politicized identity, just as the consumer movement of the 1970s tried with some success to get people to think of shopping as an identity, with important political implications.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Katy Roberts at kroberts29@bloomberg.net
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. He taught political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio and DePauw University and wrote A Plain Blog About Politics.
©2019 Bloomberg L.P.