Jennifer Merolla Ph.D.2013-05-22T04:55:13-04:00Jennifer Merolla Ph.D.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=jennifer-merolla-phdCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Jennifer Merolla Ph.D.Good old fashioned elbow grease.Freedom from Religion? Public Opposition to Mosquestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.6875542010-08-20T16:07:09-04:002011-05-25T17:25:21-04:00Jennifer Merolla Ph.D.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-merolla-phd/
Fierce debate has erupted in recent weeks over the proposed construction of the Cordoba House, a mosque and Islamic cultural center that, if built, will sit a few blocks from Ground Zero. The issue, which only a short time ago was considered a local one, has spiraled onto the national stage. An August poll by CNN, for example, shows that the vast majority of Americans, 68 percent, are decidedly against construction of the Cordoba facility.
A question many are asking is why so much controversy surrounds the Cordoba Initiative, a matter UCLA constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh deemed an "open and shut" case since the facility will be built by a private organization, on its own property. But an arguably more important issue underlying that debate concerns the general rights of Muslims to practice their religion in America. Perhaps, then, a more critical question is this: why are citizens and politicians in a country founded by individuals who sought religious freedom and enshrined it in their constitution overlooking this value by condemning the Muslim center in Manhattan in a manner that is increasingly demagogic and vitriolic?
Some claim that their stance against the building of the mosque and cultural center has nothing to do with religious freedom. Instead, they argue that the project shows insensitivity to what happened on 9/11 as well as a lack of empathy for families of the victims of those devastating attacks. Jim Renacci, a Republican congressional candidate from Ohio, remarked that "Just because we may have the right to do something, doesn't necessarily make it right to do it." Some comments have been far more disparaging. For instance, Newt Gingrich has stated that putting a "mosque" near Ground Zero "...would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum."
While this sentiment may arguably make sense in the context of the proposed project, what is less clear is why we observe similar opposition to the building of mosques across the U.S. In June, opponents of the construction of a Muslim center in Temecula, California picketed outside of the local mosque, protesting plans for a new worship center on land owned by the mosque. Following the lead of Tennessee's Republican candidates for governor and congress, hundreds of protesters gathered in the city of Murfreesboro recently to voice their opposition to the purchase of land for construction of a Muslim center near a subdivision. A similar battle is taking place in Sheboygan, Wisconsin. Have some members of the U.S. public and government forgotten about democratic values and rights?
Political scientists are likely not very surprised by the recent opposition and polls. Research has long demonstrated that the U.S. public does not practice what it preaches when it comes to democratic values. That is, support for democratic values in the abstract is always quite high. However, support tends to wane when people are asked about support for democratic rights and values in practice. The right to freedom of religion is an abstract democratic right, while the right to build mosques and cultural centers is that value put into practice.
We also know that support for democratic rights and values in practice wanes even further in times of threat. During the McCarthy era, a researcher named Samuel Stouffer found that majorities of citizens did not think that an admitted Communist should be allowed to speak publicly, teach in schools, or work as a clerk in a store, and this was more pronounced among those who saw Communism as an internal danger to the security of the country. These days, and as demonstrated in our book, Democracy at Risk, individuals worried about terrorism exhibit less trust, express more intolerance, support more punitive policies toward others, and prefer stricter laws, even if they curtail civil liberties. Interestingly, Muslims are not the only outgroup affected; instead, feelings toward immigrants and gays also become less positive under the specter of terrorism. In short, the threat of terrorism carries a social cost: reminders of the threat posed by terrorists breed suspicion, dislike, and open hostility toward societal outsiders.
Is there any way around this pattern wherein individuals become less supportive of democratic values and rights in times of threat? One potential solution that we are exploring is elite recall, which takes place when elites remind people of such values. This is essentially what Barack Obama attempted to do when he stated: "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are." Mayor Bloomberg also offered a reminder when he said, "This proposed mosque and community center in Lower Manhattan is as important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime, and I applaud President Obama's clarion defense of the freedom of religion."
While such reminders may resonate among some, their impact is limited to the extent that there is not a unified voice reminding the public of these core values. Instead, many Republicans are capitalizing on the mosque issue for electoral gain while some Democratic incumbents are reluctant to stand behind the President. For instance, Rick Scott, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Florida, is running a TV ad that proclaims: ''Mr. President, Ground Zero is the wrong place for a mosque." Harry Reid, a prominent Democrat who is facing a tight Senate race in Nevada, has also spoken out against the location of the Cordoba Center.
Reminders of democratic values are likely to fall on deaf ears when elites appear divided. If the United States today follows the historical pattern of curtailing rights under conditions of insecurity, it is not much of a stretch to suppose that the first amendment guarantee of freedom of religion may come to be viewed as a privilege instead of a right: one that is offered only to those groups the majority of Americans consider non-threatening.]]>Recent Terrorist Threats and the Lack of an Obama Rallytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.4174712010-01-11T16:50:37-05:002011-05-25T15:10:21-04:00Jennifer Merolla Ph.D.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-merolla-phd/The following article was written by Jennifer L. Merolla and Elizabeth Zechmeister.
Throughout most of his presidency, public support for George W. Bush increased in conjunction with the terror threat level. Conventional wisdom tells us that the public rallies behind the sitting president when its national security is perceivably threatened. Yet, following the recent Christmas Day bombing attempt, approval ratings for President Barack Obama have remained fairly flat. Is this lukewarm response to our current president symptomatic of public apathy toward terrorism?
A Gallup poll conducted in the first half of December reported that only 39 percent of the public was worried or very worried about being victimized by terrorism. If the public is no longer capable of being frightened by terrorism, then this could explain why we did not witness a traditional "rally 'round the flag" in the aftermath of the Detroit incident.
This explanation doesn't pass muster. News coverage of terrorism in recent days has reached tsunami proportions and public reaction to the matter has been substantial. A new online poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion reveals that 81% of the U.S. public supports the use of full body scans for all passengers on international flights. It seems unlikely that citizens would show a renewed willingness to trade civil liberties for greater security if they were not significantly concerned about terrorism.
If lack of fear does not explain Obama's flat approval ratings, then what does? Our research points instead to an important, disadvantageous attribute that President Obama carries into any terror threat situation: his Democrat party label.
President George W. Bush and New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani saw their approval ratings soar following 9/11. In our book, Democracy at Risk, we document numerous ways that the public shifted their evaluations of President Bush in a favorable direction when they were presented with information about the possibility of another terrorist attack.
Political science has several well-regarded theories that converge to predict a strong political advantage to sitting Republicans in times of terrorist threat. According to one theory, when the U.S. faces a national security threat, the public rallies around the flag, or the sitting incumbent. Another theory suggests that the two parties are perceived to have different competencies in handling issues, with Republicans "owning" the issue of national security.
Therefore, when we have a president who is both an incumbent and a Republican, we expect exactly the kind of reaction that President George W. Bush and New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani received after 9/11 - a tremendous out-pouring of public support.
In a series of laboratory experiments we conducted years out from 9/11, we found that when individuals were presented with news about potential terrorist threats, their support for George W. Bush increased. These effects were not limited to expressions of general support. Rather, those threatened by terrorism perceived Bush to be more charismatic and as a stronger leader compared to participants who were not similarly threatened.
This brings us back to our original question: Why was there no rally behind Barack Obama? The answer lies in his party affiliation.
At the end of 2008, we conducted a national internet study in which we asked participants to evaluate candidates in a hypothetical gubernatorial race. A sub-set of participants read a news article describing a context of high terror threat and some of these individuals were told that the election featured a Republican Incumbent against a Democratic Challenger, while others were told the race pitted a Democratic Incumbent against a Republican Challenger. All other information across the articles was the same.
The Democratic Incumbent was evaluated in a worse light than the Republican Incumbent. Like the worse-off fictional candidate in our study, President Obama is an incumbent, a characteristic that should lead to a rally effect, but is also a member of the Democratic Party, the party not perceived as most capable on national security issues. These dueling characteristics compete and largely cancel each other out in the public's mind, leading to the muted response by the public that we have seen in recent weeks.
If President Obama is disappointed by the fact that the terrorist threat does not give him the same image boost that it bestows on sitting Republicans, he can take solace in the fact that he is a sitting executive. In our study, the worst of all possible worlds belonged to our fictional Democratic Challenger, who was not only disadvantaged by an affiliation with the party deemed less capable of handling terrorism but also did not have the benefit of occupying the seat during the threat.
You can bet that savvy Democrats looking to challenge sitting Republicans in the next round of elections are hoping that the issue of terrorism soon fades from the spotlight. On the other side of the aisle, we can expect to see some strategic actors in the Republican Party try to keep the issue of terrorism center stage as we move toward the November elections.
]]>Cracks in Obama's Coalition or Conventional Wisdom?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.3499662009-11-09T17:38:03-05:002011-05-25T14:35:20-04:00Jennifer Merolla Ph.D.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-merolla-phd/
An example of this type of article appeared the day after the election in the Washington Post in an article by Dan Balz. In assessing the results of the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races, he argued: "Neither gubernatorial election amounted to a referendum on the president, but the changing shape of the electorate in both states and the shifts among key constituencies revealed cracks in the Obama 2008 faction."
In particular, McDonnell's win over Democratic challenger Deeds ended eight years of Democratic control of the governorship in Virginia, while Republican Chris Christie unseated Democratic governor Jon Corzine in New Jersey.
As evidence of a fracturing coalition, Balz pointed to the fact that Independents, who overwhelmingly broke for Barack Obama in the 2008 election were key to the Republican wins in Virginia and New Jersey. Exit polls in Virginia showed that McDonnell led Deeds by a 2 to 1 ratio among Independents. Poll results leading up to the election also revealed that Independents were becoming disaffected with some of Obama's policies.
The conventional wisdom among political scientists is that voters punish incumbents during poor economic times, and this is especially the case among those who are not strongly committed to a political party. Balz's account of Independents could be correct or at least correct for some Independents. Some may have punished the Democratic candidates for discontent with Obama's handling of the national economy. This would be an indicator of cracks in Obama's coalition, at least among Independents in these two states.
There is another way to interpret the behavior of Independents. Some independents may have only been focused on state economic conditions and the race in that state. In an article in Politico, Jonathan Martin revealed information that Creigh Deeds' pollster, David Petts, was actually advising Deeds to keep a distance from Obama, which would have separated national politics from the state level race. If some Independents were only looking at who the incumbent party happened to be in their state, then they would punish the incumbent party, which happened to be the Democratic Party in each state. If the incumbent party was instead Republican, then they may have supported the Democratic candidates. According to this interpretation, Independents have not necessarily shifted their behavior from 2008 to now since they are consistently voting against incumbent parties in the face of poor economic performance.
It is likely that both types of interpretations were present among Independents voting in Virginia and New Jersey, especially since these are state level races. If we look ahead to the 2010 congressional elections, it is probable that Balz's interpretation may end up carrying more weight since congressional races are national level affairs.
As another indicator of cracks in Obama's coalition, Balz discussed the fact that turnout was much lower among voters under 30 compared to their presence in the 2008 race. In Virginia, they only accounted for 10 percent of the electorate compared to the 20 percent they represented in the presidential election. If the youth continue to stay home, then it may pose a problem for Democrats in the future.
Conventional wisdom would have predicted that turnout among the youth would be lower than it was in the 2008 race. Turnout is typically much lower when there is not a presidential race on the ballot and the voters who show up at the polls in these contexts tend to be older, more partisan, and higher in socio-economic status. It is likely that voters under 30 will again show lower turnout in 2010 compared to 2008, but that does not mean that they will necessarily stay home in 2012. If they were mobilized into politics in part by Obama's presence in the race, then they may turnout just as strong in 2012. In short, Obama's coalition may not necessarily translate into the Democratic coalition.
While some have made a fairly convincing case that there may be warning signals for the Democratic Party, I would caution against reading too deeply into the electoral tea leaves. First, there are not really enough cases to make broad generalizations. Second, there are several alternative explanations we can use to explain some of the outcomes.]]>Reconsidering Public Reactions to Terrorismtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.3225052009-10-15T13:13:16-04:002011-05-25T14:20:22-04:00Jennifer Merolla Ph.D.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-merolla-phd/
A couple weeks ago, we learned that authorities arrested Najibullah Zazi, an immigrant from Afghanistan, on allegations of plotting an attack on the New York City subway system on Sept. 11. Two men were spotted taking extensive photos of the Philadelphia subway system, but have not yet been identified. Earlier that week, a Jordanian was charged with trying to blow up a skyscraper in Dallas, while a citizen was arrested for trying to blow up a building in Illinois.
In short, these events reminded us that the threat posed by international terrorism is far from over. Does such a shift in the media's focus on terrorist threat carry political implications? The findings of our new book reveal that this type of news coverage can profoundly affect how the public engages with politics.
For the last five years we have researched the connection between times of terrorist threats and public opinion. In a series of tightly designed experiments, we expose subsets of research participants to a news story not unlike the type that aired last week. We argue that attitudes, evaluations, and behaviors change in at least three politically-relevant ways when terror threat is more prominent in the news. Some of these transformations are in accord with conventional wisdom concerning how we might expect the public to react. Others are more surprising, and more disconcerting in their implications for the quality of democracy.
One way that public opinion shifts is toward increased expressions of distrust. In some ways this strategy has been actively promoted by our political leaders. The Bush administration repeatedly reminded the public to keep eyes and ears open to help identify dangerous persons. A strategy of vigilance has also been endorsed by the new secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano.
Nonetheless, the breadth of increased distrust that the public puts into practice is striking. Individuals threatened by terrorism become less trusting of others, even their own neighbors. Other studies have shown that they become less supportive of the rights of Arab and Muslim Americans. In addition, we found that such effects extend to immigrants and, as well, to a group entirely remote from the subject of terrorism: gay Americans. The specter of terrorist threat creates ruptures in our social fabric, some of which may be justified as necessary tactics in the fight against terrorism and others that simply cannot.
Another way public opinion shifts under a terrorist threat is toward inflated evaluations of certain leaders. To look for strong leadership makes sense: crises should impel us toward leadership bold enough to confront the threat and strong enough to protect us from it. But the public does more than call for heroes in times of crisis. It projects leadership qualities onto political figures, with serious political consequences.
In studies conducted in 2004, we found that individuals threatened by terrorism perceived George W. Bush as more charismatic and stronger than did non-threatened individuals. This projection of leadership had important consequences for voting decisions. Individuals threatened by terrorism were more likely to base voting decisions on leadership qualities rather than on their own issue positions or partisanship. You did read that correctly. Threatened individuals responded with elevated evaluations of Bush's capacity for leadership and then used those inflated evaluations as the primary determinant in their voting decision.
These findings did not just occur among Republicans, but also among Independents and Democrats. All partisan groups who perceived Bush as more charismatic were also less willing to blame him for policy failures such as faulty intelligence that led to the war in Iraq.
The Bush phenomenon is not unique. We found a similar projection of enhanced leadership qualities onto Arnold Schwarzenegger, among those exposed to our terror threat news story during the 2006 California gubernatorial election. We even found the same type of effect in Mexico during their 2006 presidential election in support of Felipe Caldéron, a conservative candidate representing the incumbent party.
Why these leaders? The public's tendency to rally around the sitting executive when confronted with an external threat has been well documented by political science research, as has the Republican Party's ownership of national security issues. It is unclear whether the threat of terrorism will similarly enhance evaluations of Barack Obama. On the one hand, his incumbency status may benefit him; on the other, his party does not carry the mantle of national security policy.
A third way public opinion shifts in response to terrorism is toward greater preferences for policies that protect the homeland, even at the expense of civil liberties, and active engagement against terrorists abroad. Such a strategy was advocated and implemented by the Bush administration. Again, however, we found that preferences shifted toward these objectives regardless of one's partisan stripes and, as well, outside the U.S.
While some of these changes may differ in the post-Bush era, they still have the potential to place stress on the quality of our nation's democracy. When increased media attention on terrorism sends a chill up our collective spine, our research cautions us to take pause, and consider whether our desire to cope psychologically with the fear of international terrorism is changing our political attitudes, evaluations, and behaviors in some ways that are more detrimental than useful.
Jennifer Merolla and Elizabeth Zechmeister are the authors of Democracy at Risk: How Terrorist Threats Affect the Public (University of Chicago Press, 2009).]]>