“For me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”
Most of us remember this seminal moment in American politics that took place
May 9, 2012. When the President made the statement in his ABC interview it was a reflection of what he called a "personal evolution." It was a watershed moment though, and since that date the national polling has steadily moved towards greater public acceptance of this basic civil right. I give the President due credit as a leader and for doing the right thing. But, was it really a true act of courage or was Obama just getting with the program and wanting to be seen leading when he knew well the trend toward national acceptance had been steadily advancing? In fact, the day before his interview, Gallup released new polling data
showing national sentiment had finally hit the 50% mark.
If you had just seen the snapshot that is that poll, you might be inclined to say his move was indeed gutsy. But, if you had the historical data from Gallup, which of course the Administration had, you'd have seen this trend.
Nation opinion poll about whether gay marriage "should be valid." Collected historical data from Gallup to May 2012.
In other words, jump right in Mr. President, the water's just fine.
...and if you jump across, I'll offer why polls are for technocrats, and if you want truly inspired voters you need vision, which manifest entirely outside the world of polling.
Even post the President's endorsement the trend remains intact, so Obama really can't be given credit for increasing rates of acceptance -- the trend was already baked in as you can see in this graph, which adds the newer data to the same question.
So it my judgment as a modestly informed citizen, I'll give the President here props as a leader for recognizing the trend and diving in well before supermajority levels of support, even if that firm trend shows his political risk was minimal.
I think understanding the distinction between follower and leader is important, as it is my opinion that voters are inspired or made cynical (and more apathetic) depending on the timing of political decisions. Get way in front of a trend and you buy enthusiasm and nods for courage; jump in line well after polls show mass support and you'll be rightly labeled an opportunistic panderer. One GOTV, the other represses it.
I've been dinged lately by several posters demanding I offer polling data why the Democrats should support an issue, such as repeal of the Patriot Act or legalization of the cannabis plant. I admit I get testy in my responses to those questions because I tire of politics by poll, finding it to be cynical and soul-killing. It disturbs me to find people here who demand polls to justify every issue -- they don't even ask for trends, they just want to see a snapshot that shows majority support. Well the hell, what about a moral imperative?
This data comes from the same
Gallup link if you scroll further down the page. It shows what whites thought versus what black supported when asked about allowing intermarriage between the races. By this data, my critics might have said the Party should have been mute on the subject of allowing this basic human right until maybe 1991, when 44% of whites thought it okay and 70% of blacks agreed. At that point the national average was close enough to a plurality to be a safe position for a president seeking office. Inspiring, right?
But let me offer another category of idea where the true gold mine of voters may be found. No poll will uncover it, because it exists completely outside the view of pollsters, who ONLY seek opinion for issues and ideas already in the public sphere. This is the domain of the Big Idea, ideas that come only from visionaries and American politics hasn't seen one perhaps since Kennedy and his bold space vision. But when they come and introduce their Big Idea, voters reward them with landslides.
There's Eisenhower and the federal interstate system, Lincoln's courage in taking the South to task, Teddy R.'s national parks, FDR's New Deal. Even Nixon and his opening of China (and ending Vietnam). Presidents with the true audacity to CREATE new paradigms were met with a thankful public and resounding electoral success. Visionary ideas inspire.
Eisenhower's idea for the interstate system did not emerge out of a set of polls, it came from an experience he had a lieutenant colonel. In 1919, shortly after World War I, he was part of group of less than 300 military personnel who decided to convoy across the entire country from Washington, Dc to San Francisco. The trip took 62 days and averaged 6 miles per hour.
The convoy made a lasting impression on the young officer and stoked in him an interest in good roads that would last for decades.
A generation later, during World War II, Dwight D. Eisenhower was still thinking about good roads as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, where he oversaw the invasion of Western Europe and the defeat of the Nazi army, which was able to move quickly on the autobahns running throughout Germany.
He drew upon these distinct experiences to advocate a radical plan that would re-shape the entire American economy and turn the United States into a global economic powerhouse. Poll? What poll? Maybe the next election he won with 457 electoral votes, surpassing even his first landslide of 442 in 1952.
Teddy Roosevelt's idea for the National Park system arose from the rejuvenation he found outdoors as a sickly kid.
While he ascended to the Presidency in 1901 with McKinnley's assassination, the people gave him 336 electoral votes in 1904. Was it his big stick or his big ideas?
The New Deal programs from 1933-1936 earned Franklin Roosevelt three more terms, each with no less than 432 electoral votes and his opponents never cracking 100. In fact, so complete was the public's gratitude, Roosevelt won the 1936 election with an astounding 523 electoral votes to Alfred Landon's (who? exactly) 8. You have to go back to 1820 to find any other election so lob-sided, when Monroe won 231 electoral votes to 1 when he ran essentially unopposed by the other party.
Even in business one can forge a successful model as a follower or a leader, but it is the visionaries that create the markets. Think as the consummate follower building better mainframes, Dell in the 1990s as a trend leader building laptops, and then Apple as the visionary who blew both sky high.
It works, frightening enough, in reverse as well. Bush II was an evil visionary. With his henchman Cheney he seized upon a scared public and gave us preemptive war and the Patriot Act. Can it not be said he's created this bleak present where the NSA lurks everywhere and the even Carter says most of the world considers us the global warmonger?
Sure, polls matter, especially those that print the trends, but if all you've got to offer voters is a platform driven by what side of your finger dries in the wind first, don't criticize the electorate for their cynicism, don't attack them for their apathy. If all we wanted were tea leaf readers, we'd be clamoring for Nate Silver as president. If all we craved was competence Meg Whitman would have been made governor of California.
...and the next time you natter to me about "show me the polls," forgive me my yawn.