|
Description
Federal government involvement in the case of terminally ill Terri Schiavo provides an interesting opportunity to explore the potential impact of specific institutional actions on public approval of those institutions. We analyze national survey data from the period of federal intervention and a poll conducted several months later. Our analyses, which account for time and exposure to political news, suggest that presidential and congressional actions in the case were associated with a decline in approval for the president and congressional leaders. Thus, the president and Congress can pay a political price when they take high-profile actions a significant majority of the public opposes.
**********
In American politics, many policy actions by Congress and the president do not receive a high degree of public attention. As such, assessment of public approval ratings of these institutions often takes the form of time-series analyses which explore the influence of broad trends, such as economic conditions (Kimball 2005; Rudolph 2002), or dramatic events, such as the start of a military conflict (Clarke et al. 2004; Rosenblatt 1998). But each year, even some policy decisions receive widespread attention. In one recent example, the federal government attempted to intervene in a dispute between members of a Florida family--the case of maintaining life support for Terri Schiavo. Such a high-profile case allows an opportunity for researchers to investigate the impact of specific policy actions on public approval ratings of political institutions using individual-level data.
The death of Terri Schiavo on March 31, 2005, ended nearly seven years of bitter private and public battles over her care. Throughout most of that time, the battle had been waged in the Florida legislature and judicial system, but during the period from January 24, 2005, until Schiavo's death, all three branches of the federal government became involved in the debate over prolonging her life. Throughout March 2005, media coverage of the case was intense, and government officials played a highly visible role in the public drama (Cerminara 2006; Edwards 2007, 244; Kohut 2005). Nevertheless, the American public was opposed to federal government intervention in the Schiavo case, and broader trends in public opinion suggest that Americans prefer that the government refrain from intervening in end-of-life issues and leave the decision to families in consultation with doctors (Benson 1999; Pew Research Center for the People and the Press 2005, 2006). In fact, even a majority of those who self-described themselves as conservatives (68 percent) and white evangelicals (69 percent) disapproved of federal government intervention in the Schiavo case months after the salience of the issue had declined dramatically (Jacobson 2007, 220-21; Pew 2005).
Given this context, our research explores the impact of federal government intervention on public opinion in a case where the public clearly disapproved of intervention. Our goal is to determine whether approval of congressional leaders and the president declined as a result of their specific actions in the case.
We begin with an overview of theoretical perspectives that seek to explain institutional approval ratings. We then shift our attention to a detailed examination of the Schiavo case. Our discussion makes it clear that the Schiavo case was highly salient to the public and that public opinion strongly favored patient/family resolution of end-of-life issues. Nevertheless, in something of a media circus, Congress and the president intervened in the case. Based on the theoretical overview and details of the Schiavo case, we move to examining individual-level approval ratings of congressional leaders and the president, employing national survey data collected during the key days in which Congress and the president were intervening in the case. Based on the way we are able to structure the survey data, our analysis suggests that federal government intervention in the case contributed to a decline in public approval of the president and congressional Republican leaders and, to a lesser extent, approval of congressional Democratic leaders. We supplement this analysis with analysis of opinion regarding congressional intervention in the case using a national poll taken several months after federal intervention in the case. The results of this analysis are consistent with the earlier analysis and suggest that our models of approval at the individual level are robust. We conclude with thoughts for future research.
Theoretical Overview
The literature on public attitudes toward political institutions tends to focus on survey questions regarding (1) confidence in institutions and (2) approval of institutions (Clarke et al. 2004; Gibson, Caldeira, and Spence 2003; Greene 2001; Kritzer 2001; Mondak and Smithey 1997; Newman 2003; Pan and Kosicki 1997; Rudolph 2002; Shah et al. 2002). Although some research has clearly established that the actions and authoritative decisions of governmental institutions can shape public opinion about issues and about institutions, most of this research has not focused on Congress, nor has most of this research used individual-level data (Bailey, Sigelman, and Wilcox 2003; Durr, Gilmour, and Wolbrecht 1997; Edwards, Mitchell, and Welch 1995). In fact, much of the research in this area that employs individual-level data is focused on the U.S. Supreme Court and the influence of Court decisions on public opinion, including specific issues, confidence in the Court, and approval of the Court (Caldeira 1986; Caldeira and Gibson 1992; Franklin and Kosaki 1989; Hoekstra 2003; Johnson and Martin 1998; Kritzer 2001; Mondak 1992; Mondak and Smithey 1997; Nicholson and Howard 2003). Here we focus our attention on literature relating to Congress and the president.
Research on public opinion toward Congress has been quite diverse. Primarily, attitudes toward Congress are shaped by socioeconomic conditions within the country, the partisan predispositions of individuals, and factors outside of the control of Congress (Durr, Gilmour, and Wolbrecht 1997; Grant and Rudolph 2004; Jones and McDermott 2002, 2004; Kimball and Patterson 1997; Patterson, Ripley, and Quinlan 1992; Rudolph 2002). For example, citizens tend to have more positive views of their party in Congress and more positive views of Congress when their party is in charge (Jones and McDermott 2002; Kimball and Patterson 1997; Patterson, Ripley, and Quinlan 1992). However, it is also clear that congressional approval is conditioned by media coverage and specific actions taken by Congress (Durr, Gilmour, and Wolbrecht 1997; Kimball and Patterson 1997). In particular, Durr, Gilmour, and Wolbrecht (1997) find that congressional approval is a function of conflict within Congress, conflict between the president and Congress, scandal and media coverage, and the passage of major legislation. Likewise, Patterson and Caldeira (1990) and Patterson and Magleby (1992) found that the public's evaluation of congressional job performance was affected by negative media coverage of Congress and reports of unethical conduct by congressmen. Kimball (2005) uncovered a similar interactive effect of partisan predisposition, partisan polarization in Congress, and media coverage. However, some research has suggested that media exposure does not decrease public confidence in political institutions, including Congress and the presidency (Moy, Pfau, and Kahlor 1999).
Importantly, scholars have argued that, when Congress acts on a highly salient policy issue, public approval ratings will nearly invariably decline simply because some proportion of the public will be opposed to the action (Durr, Gilmour, and Wolbrecht 1997; Patterson and Caldeira 1990). This is principally true for major legislation (Durr, Gilmour, and Wolbrecht 1997), but we should be especially more likely to see a decline in approval for congressional actions that run counter to majority preferences.
Meanwhile, presidential approval has consistently been shown to be a function of public perceptions of domestic and international economic conditions, media coverage, and highly salient political events, including presidential travel, speeches, and scandal (Brace and Hinckley 1993; Burden and Mughan 2003; Edwards, Mitchell, and Welch 1995; Greene 2001; Kinsey and Chaffee 1996; MacKuen 1983; Newman 2003; Pan and Kosicki 1997; Rosenblatt 1998; Rudolph 2002; Shah et al. 2002; Wolf and Holian 2006). In addition, Ostrom and Simon (1985) found that presidential approval was directly dependent upon the public's knowledge of presidential policy proposals, as well as the president's... |
More articles from Presidential Studies Quarterly
Why did Clinton survive the impeachment crisis? A test of three explan..., September 01, 2007
Affective evaluations of first ladies: a comparison of Hillary Clinton..., September 01, 2007
The Contemporary Presidency: Who Wants Presidential Supremacy? Finding..., September 01, 2007
The Law: Executive Order 13422: an expansion of presidential influence..., September 01, 2007
The polls: presidential referendum effects in the 2006 midterm electio..., September 01, 2007
Looking for additional articles?
Click here
to search our database of over 3 million articles.
|
