The role of public opinion in policy argument: an examination of public opinion rhetoric in the federal budget process.

• Author: Levasseur, David G.

Public opinion holds great importance in democracies because a democracy, by its very definition, connotes a form of government that is responsive to the people (Williams & Edy, 1999). Alluding to such importance, Mill (1859/1975) observed the "ascendancy of public opinion" in modern democracies where "the idea of resisting the will of the public ... disappears more and more from the minds of practical politicians" (p. 69). Bryce (1898/1927) similarly argued that in the United States, public opinion "rifles as a pervading and impalpable power, like the ether which passes through all things" (p. 271). Contemporary political scientists have continued to find a strong, but often complex, link between public opinion and political decision making (Burstein, 2003). As Hanson and Marcus (1993) explain, in a democracy "everything depends on public opinion," and this is "the greatest strength--and also the chief weakness--of democratic politics" (p. 6).

Of course, to say that public opinion plays an important role in democratic governance begs the question of what exactly counts as "public opinion." The very meaning of "public opinion" has been contested over time (Herbst, 2001). Ancient Greeks, for example, associated public opinion with public rhetoric; in the Greek city-states the rhetoric of citizen assemblies constituted public opinion (Glynn, Herbst, O'Keefe, & Shapiro, 1999). Habermas (1962/1989) has illuminated a similarly strong connection between discourse and public opinion in eighteenth-century Europe. In this particular historical context, public opinion emerged in the bourgeois public sphere. Citizens created this vibrant public sphere as they came together in public spaces, such as coffee houses and salons, to discuss matters of public concern. In more recent times, public opinion has lost this vital association with discourse. The advent of George Gallup and modern public opinion polling techniques have transformed public opinion from a discursive process into an empirical product. Today, polling has become the dominant definition of public opinion (Glynn et al., 1999) as well as a "cultural obsession" (Hogan, 1997, p. 162).

In response to this proliferation of polls, scholars across disciplines have attempted to reassociate public opinion with discourse. In establishing this reassociation, rhetoricians have endeavored to reveal the rhetorical nature of publics. For example, McGee (1975) has attempted to show how "the people are more process than phenomenon (p. 242). In McGee's (1998) view, the term people actually serves as a "rhetorical device" that transforms individuals into a collectivity (p. 116). Similarly, Willard (1996) has argued that publics are "rhetorically constituted" (p. 228), Hauser (1999) has described publics as "emergences manifested through vernacular rhetoric" (p. 14), and Olson and Goodnight (1994) have shown how a public can be "brought into being by oppositional argument" (p. 272). Rhetoric not only creates and sustains publics, but also determines the very meaning of public opinion. In this view, which I will refer to as the rhetorical view, public opinion is seen as "epiphenomenal, as arising out of the process of social and communicative interaction" (Lipari, 1999, p. 86). This rhetorical construction of public opinion has vital implications for democratic governance (Herbst, 1998). For example, scholars have shown that rhetoric equating public opinion with poll results undermines the health of the public sphere and hence the overall health of a democracy (Goodnight, 1990; Hauser, 1999; Herbst, 1993; Hogan, 1997; Zarefsky, 1994).

The rhetorical construction of public opinion also has significant implications for public policy. The very nature of democratic governance necessitates an interrelationship between public opinion and public policy. The rhetorical view refuses to see public opinion as an entity (citizens' individual, aggregated beliefs) outside the state that policy makers can choose to acknowledge or ignore; instead, policy argument shapes the very meaning and relevance of public opinion in the policy-making process. As Hogan (1994) explains, "the public's role in the policy-making process is a product, not of the actual opinions of the great mass of real people, but of the portraits of the people constructed rhetorically by the policy makers themselves" (p. 120). The rhetorically created meaning of public opinion is part of a larger discursive process that shapes public policy. As Majone (1989) points out: "[P]ublic policy is made of language. Whether in written or oral form, argument is central in all stages of the policy process" (p. 1). Given the discursive nature of policy making, public opinion does not simply translate into legislative votes. Rather, public opinion is defined by and becomes a part of the argumentation process that shapes public policy.

To date, only a small body of scholarship, much of it authored by J. Michael Hogan, has focused on the role of public opinion in policy argument. Hogan has investigated the rhetorical mediation of public opinion in the Congressional nuclear freeze debates of the early 1980s (Hogan, 1994; Hogan & Dorsey, 1991) as well as in the Senate debate over the Panama Canal Treaty (Hogan, 1985, 1986). In addition, he has explored the role of public opinion in shaping America's propaganda strategy during the Cold War (Hogan, 2000). Such scholarship has greatly enhanced our knowledge of how public opinion is constructed and conveyed in policy rhetoric. Nevertheless, the rhetoric of public opinion in policy argument remains uncharted in many significant political contexts. Hogan (1994) himself notes that "It]he public's role in the policy-making process varies situationally, and we have only begun to identify the variables involved" (p. 121). Hogan has focused primarily on foreign policy rhetoric. Public opinion argument may play a unique rhetorical role in this policy realm. After all, survey research indicates that citizens are generally less knowledgeable, less interested, and less active when it comes to foreign affairs (Neuman, Just,& Crigler, 1992; Powlick & Katz, 1998). Rhetorical scholars have yet to focus on the role of public opinion in other vital policy arenas.

Some recent intriguing studies suggest that public opinion may operate differently in different policy realms (Cook, Barabas, & Page, 2002a, 2002b; Paden & Page, 2003). The results of content analyses that focus on domestic policy debates look quite different than Hogan's findings regarding foreign policy rhetoric. Hogan found that public opinion and the interpretation of public opinion polls became central points of contention in both the nuclear freeze and Panama Canal Treaty debates. In contrast, Cook, Barabas and Page (2002a, 2002b) analyzed political discourse in a domestic policy dispute; they examined public opinion references in Presidential and Congressional arguments on Social Security reform over a 10-year period. Using a similar methodology, Paden and Page (2003) analyzed the 1995 Congressional debate over welfare reform. These studies produced concurring and curious results: very few references to public opinion and even fewer references to public opinion polls. Politicians, it seems, may invoke public opinion extensively in certain policy contexts but not in others.

The present study examines how public opinion is constructed rhetorically in an unexplored and highly significant policy context. Specifically, this study charts the role of public opinion in federal budget rhetoric. This policy area merits particular attention due to its recurring significance. The budget is the "one place in American government where almost everything of importance comes together" (Kettl, 2003, p. 3). This may explain why the federal budget has become the focal point of national policy making (Ippolito, 2003). The budget now serves as the nation's preeminent policy document because it sets forth policy choices that constrain all other policy choices. Budgeting also serves an important symbolic role. In the rhetorical struggle for scarce resources, budget debates become the contested space where policy makers define what they stand for and what they stand against.

This essay will examine the rhetorical construction of public opinion in this highly significant area of public policy debate. I begin by discussing the texts and methods employed in this study. Next, I identify four dominant argumentation patterns centering on public opinion. These patterns reveal a surprisingly negligible role for public opinion. Through close rhetorical examination, I will endeavor to explain why these public opinion arguments possessed little rhetorical force. In closing, I will argue that the construction of public opinion in these debates has both hopeful and troubling implications for our democracy.

TEXTS AND METHODS

This study focuses on the use of public opinion in federal budget policy arguments. The federal budget process is built around a budget resolution. Under current procedure, the president initiates the budget process by submitting a budget to Congress within 15 days of the start of the legislative session (Shuman, 1984). Congressional committees then hold hearings on the president's proposal. These hearings generally revolve around testimony from the various executive departments that have compiled the budget. Most of these hearings take place in the House and Senate budget committees, which are charged with producing a budget resolution. This resolution sets overall taxing and spending targets. Once both houses of Congress have approved the budget resolution, these targets become guidelines for the various authorizing and appropriating committees that craft specific taxing and spending bills (for an overall review of the budget process see Schick, 1995).

Since the budget process runs from the time the administration submits its budget to Congress to...