Congress as Public Enemy: Public Attitudes toward American Political Institutions

Cambridge Studies in Public Opinion and Political Psychology

by John R. Hibbing, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse

This timely book describes and explains the American people's alleged hatred of their own branch of government, the U.S. Congress. Focus group sessions held across the country and a specially designed national survey indicate that much of the negativity is generated by popular perceptions of the processes of governing visible in Congress. But Hibbing and Theiss-Morse conclude that the public's unwitting desire to reform democracy out of a democratic legislature is a cure more dangerous than the disease.

208 pages, Paperback

First published September 29, 1995

Reviews

[Bobbi · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is no secret that approval for Congress is low. In both the early 1990s—when Hibbing and Theiss-Morse conducted their research—and now, support for Congress has been modest at best. According to Gallup News (2018), job approval for Congress in 1992 was at 18 percent and in 2018 it was recorded at 20 percent. While this trend is troubling, Hibbing and Theiss-Morse showcase a few important distinctions that should be considered when reflecting on the approval ratings of Congress in their book Congress as the Public Enemy: Public Attitudes Toward American Political Institutions.

Perhaps the most significant finding in their research deals with the difference between the institution of Congress and the people who run Congress. Hibbing and Theiss-Morse (1995) find that when individuals are asked how they feel about Congress they are likely to respond in light of how they feel about the membership of Congress, not the institution itself (p. 46). Overall, Hibbing and Theiss-Morse (1995) report that support for Congress as an institution is much higher than support for individual representatives and senators (p. 45). In one study they conducted, Hibbing and Theiss-Morse (1995) found that 88 percent of their respondents approved of the institution of Congress, while 24 percent approved of members of Congress (p. 45). This supports the author’s assertion that Americans are largely satisfied with their form of government, but not with the membership of these institutions (Hibbing & Theiss-Morse, 1995, p. 59). One caveat that they presented here was that people tend to have higher approval rating for their own member of Congress (Hibbing & Theiss-Morse, 1995, p. 45). In fact, they report that “67 percent of our respondents claim to approve of their own member of Congress” (Hibbing & Theiss-Morse, 1995, p. 45).

Feelings toward the Presidency and Supreme Court follow the same trend as Congress, with individual members getting lower approval scores than the institutions themselves, but Congress still has the lowest level of support on all fronts (Hibbing & Theiss-Morse, 1995, p. 45). Approval for the executive and judicial branches is much greater than support for the legislative branch, both the members and the institutions. Over 45 percent of respondents approve of the president as an individual and 96 percent approve of the office (Hibbing & Theiss-Morse, 1995, p. 45). The Supreme Court enjoys the highest approval numbers with 73 percent of participants indicating they approve of justices and 94 approve of the institution (Hibbing & Theiss-Morse, 1995, p. 45). The authors account for the lower approval rating for Congress by concluding that Americans are exposed to the democratic process more through Congress than through the Office of the President or the Supreme Court of the United States (Hibbing & Theiss-Morse, 1995, p. 61). They report:

"The public, for the most part does not like the partisan debates, competing interests, and compromises that many close observers of modern democratic politics believe are unavoidable. Congress is the institution in which these distasteful elements of politics are most readily visible. Thus, while Congress is sometimes viewed by the public as an enemy, we wish to call attention to the fact that it is often viewed as the enemy because it is so public" (Hibbing & Theiss-Morse, 1995, p. 61).


Education about democratic practices is one tactic Hibbing and Theiss-Morse propose to improve people’s perceptions of Congress. They write:

"The people need to be educated on the nature of democratic procedures. They need to be told that these procedures feature public disagreements, debates, compromises, competing interests, conflicting information, and slowness. Our political institutions are paying a price for the fact that people demand democratic procedures and then recoil when exposed to them. Congress pays the biggest price for this situation because it is in Congress that democratic procedures are consistently, nay relentlessly, on display" (Hibbing & Theiss-Morse, 1995, p. 82).

Many studies have been conducted about civics education in the United States and the outlook is not as promising as Hibbing and Theiss-Morse had hoped. Tripodo and Pondiscio (2017) report that “it’s fair to say that the citizenmaking role of schools has become a forgotten purpose of public education” (p. 20). Statistics gathered by National Assessment of Educational Progress support this statement. In 2014, only 23 percent of eighth graders polled were found to be at or above proficient level in civics (NAEP, n.d.). It seems that more research is needed to find ways to improve civics education before Hibbing’s and Theiss-Morse’s goal of a more informed electorate can be realized.

The objectives of Hibbing’s and Theiss-Morse’s (1995) research were to furnish data on political institutions and to “construct a more complete theory of popular political support in the United States” (p. 5). They succeeded in this endeavor and their findings have given other scholars many different facets they can study in greater detail to improve the understanding of Americans’ feelings toward their government. Hibbing and Theiss-Morse have continued their scholarship on this topic as well.

A later work by Hibbing and Theiss-Morse (2002), Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about how Government Should Work, further explores the idea that Americans do not want to be exposed to as many democratic processes as they are. Following up on these conclusions, VanderMolen (2017) conducted research about American’s desire for less involvement in government. Her “results show that citizens are not strongly attached to representative democracy’s processes and norms. Preferences for more participatory opportunities and democratic deliberation are shallow at best” (VanderMolen, 2017, p. 696).

Despite these findings, there has been a push toward more participatory governance in America in contemporary research. Toscano (2016) argues that citizen governance is preferable because the public might be better suited to come up with solutions to contentious issues than elected officials. Still others argue for the use of more collaborative approaches to decision making (Gray, 1989). Participatory budgeting seems to be gaining a foothold across America as well. Castillo (2015) concludes “this innovation in democratic governance has garnered considerable public support as it has the potential to reinvigorate civic participation, modernize local government administration, and foster social equity in the provision of public goods and services” (p. 2). While this might be so, Castillo also highlights issues associated with participatory budgeting. Chiefly, the idea that participation in this process is not likely to be representative across racial and socioeconomic lines (Castillo, 2015, p. 5). Further research into citizen engagement in these endeavors would be needed to access if they in fact do increase participation. In light of the studies that illustrate Americans’ resistance to engaging in democratic processes, researchers should focus their energies on analyses of these enterprises and the level of support and engagement actually achieved before declaring them a success.

Overall, the information provided in Congress as Public Enemy: Public Attitudes Toward American Political Institutions is highly readable and provides a wealth of information that other scholars can use to begin their own studies. It illustrates public opinion on American political institutions in a thoughtful manner that separates responses between the institutions and individuals in elected office, which is very useful for future research. Congressional approval trends seem to be continuing today, so Hibbing’s and Theiss-Morse’s findings may be more relevant than expected more than two decades later.

References

Castillo, Marco. (2015). Reflections on Participatory Budgeting in New York City. The
Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 20(2), 1-11.

Gallup News. (2018). Congress and the Public. Retrieved on February 3, 2018, from
http://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/cong....

Gray, Barbara. (1989). Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty
Problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.¬

Hibbing, John R., & Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. (1995). Congress as Public Enemy: Public
Attitudes Toward American Political Institutions. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hibbing, John R., & Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. (2002). Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about how Government Should Work. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (n.d.). 2014 Civics Assessment. Retrieved on
February 4, 2018, from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/hgc....

Toscano, James P. (2016). Can Citizen Governance Save Our Republic? Governing. Retrieved
on February 4, 2018 from http://www.governing.com/topics/polit...- governance-direct-role-policymaking.html.

Tripodo, Andrew, & Pondiscio, Robert. (2017). Seizing the Civic Education Moment.
Educational Leadership, 75(3), 20-25.

VanderMolen, Kathryn. (2017). Stealth Democracy Revisited: Reconsidering Preferences for
Less Visible Government. Political Research Quarterly, 70(3), 687-698.