A Hart to Hart: With America's Top Pollster

Edited by Mark Paustenbach

PAR: How did you originally become interested in politics?

Peter: Well, my interest goes all the way back to when I was a child I got interested through my parents. My mother was very involved in the political campaign of Adlai Stevenson who ran for President in 1952 so I think I got the honor of passing out leaflets and doing the things kids do at that stage and I stayed interested. My grandmother was very involved in politics. She was actually a socialist who worked for Norman Thomas so I guess I was destined to become left of center and involved with politics.

PAR: How did your political involvement at Colby prepare you for your professional career?

Peter: Well, at Colby I got very interested in politics. In fact, I ran for Student Government and served as both Cultural Chairman and Social Chairman of the student body. It was there where I helped invite various political leaders into campus. I learned very much about politics from these speeches. In one way or another I spent my January term working on politics. One semester I wrote an analysis of my home congressional district which was in Berkeley, California, so it gave me a chance to build my skills which I’ve used the rest of my life. I also followed politics closely on my own.

PAR: Doesn’t polling create public opinion, not reflect it?

Peter: I think that public opinion does both. I mean, in many instances, public opinion becomes a guardian of democracy. If you look back a year ago we had the media telling us that President Clinton had to leave office. They told us this in January 1998 and a year later we still hear the same drum beat. But the difference of course is that public opinion has been pretty steadfast here and in that case I think that public opinion is informing rather than leading. In other cases, I truly believe that public opinion is a reflection of what goes on in the media and you will see a great bandwagon or swell that dies very quickly. We’ve seen this in some respect for the Republicans in 1995 with the Contract with America-a lot of supporters at the beginning and then it quickly perished. So I think public opinion is playing an important role but the role that it is playing is both reflecting the events but in other cases I think that it does lead events and changes the dynamic of how we cover and talk about them.

PAR: According to recent statistics by the Pew Center, 50% of 18 to 29 year old males consider themselves to be independents. In your estimation, why is this percentage so high?

Peter: I think that if you look back through history you’ll find that young people tend to be less affiliated with either of the two parties, so it is not surprising that among any young person, whether male or female, you’ll find a high degree of independents. As people get more rooted in society there’s a tendency to join one of the two parties. But at this stage in our history, I think young people have a more difficult time joining either of the two parties because they see the bickering back and forth. It seems like there’s some sort of a hold up in the greater idea or greater sense for the well-being for the country.

PAR: Is it rue that even the older generations in America believe that their leaders are out of touch?

Peter: Yes. It’s one measurement of what we call alienation or disaffection in American society. And we have seen disaffection grow and grow. It’s very hard to be sitting in Washington in January of 1999 and not be thinking about the disaffection the public must have as it looks at the impeachment trial of the President of the United States. Everything that goes on here are things that seem to begin to tear down that faith in the system.

PAR: It seems that polling is being used more and more to surmise what the public wants and also to determine policy objectives at nearly all levels of politics. That being said, the public still seems to feel that politicians ignore their concerns. Is the polling being done by politicians inconclusive, or are politicians not passing the appropriate legislation or are they finding roadblocks to enacting these laws?

Peter: There are so many different elements of why the public may feel disaffected or why the public may feel that their voice is not answered. In many cases the public wants something done instantaneously. And in a legislative body it doesn’t always happen. But if you look, I think the public opinion has made politicians more sensitive, and in some cases we’ve been able to reach compromise and move ahead in ways that wouldn’t have happened without the voice of public opinion. Overall, I think that when politicians hear the voices sometimes, they are too often too prone slavishly follow those ideas of the public rather than providing leadership.

PAR: When those who are disaffected go to vote, is there some sort of trend that we generally see? Does one particular party receive the lion-share of the votes from these individuals?

Peter: Well, two things you have to understand. The first thing that we’ve seen is that people don’t vote. I mean, if you go look at 1998, the vote was way down. I think we had 36%, 38% of those who were eligible go to the polls actually end up going to the polls-that means that over two-thirds of American’s chose not to go to the polls. That’s a bad sign and a dangerous sign. The second thing is the one state where there was a tremendous rise in voter participation was the state of Minnesota where there was an independent candidate, Jesse Ventura. The former wrestler who ran for governor gave people a vehicle and an outlet to say “I want something different.” So I think that voter non-participation is not necessarily to the benefit of the Republicans or Democrats. It’s to the benefit of the out party.

PAR: As you mentioned earlier, more and more people, sitting from your perspective in Washington, because of the impeachment trial of the President are becoming more and more disaffected. Does that mean in the 2000 election, that we will see more or less people turn out to vote? Will there be fewer people turning out to vote, in effect saying "I've had it, I have had enough with the political process"? Or, will they go out and elect somebody new or a dark horse candidate?

Peter: It’s hard to predict what the turnout will be in year 2000 because we don’t know what the candidate line up will look like. But my feeling is that if we have the two current front runners, I don’t think that it will be a particularly large turnout. Turnout is not based on the closeness of the race. It’s more the electricity and excitement of the candidate. And in 1992 with the edition of Ross Perot in the race the turnout was very good. I think that in the year 2000 if it’s just simply Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George Bush from Texas the turnout will not be particularly high.

PAR: Despite the rise of the socially conservative wing of the Republican Party, George W. Bush, the main contender for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2000 has suggested that the future of the Republican Party should be defined by a "compassionate conservatism". Can this new vision work to attract those who would not otherwise vote Republican? Peter: W ell, I think George W. has the ability to appeal to a broad segment of the electorate. I think that the major advantage that he has right now is name recognition. Also, he’s an officeholder that comes out of the Deep South that at the same time in regards to appearance, style, and manner he also has an appeal to the northern part of the nation. You’re going to need to be able to do that to win the general election. However, I would think there are a lot of other Republicans who have the ability not only to win with a broad segment of support but also be competitive with their own party. I think the southern conservative movement is going to be an extremely important factor in the 2000 election. And it’s going to be important because the candidate is going to have to be able to win the nomination with their votes and at the same time position themselves for the general election

PAR: How do you account for the rising power of socially conservative Republicans from the South?

Peter: I think the rise in the Republican party has moved from the frost belt to the Sunbelt and correspondingly the Democratic party has diminished in strength in the Sunbelt. You’ve seen that through the elections in the last 14 years. Given that, who would be moving up the ladder 14 years later? Well, it would be the people from the Sunbelt. If you looked, if Livingston had not had his personal problems, the entire Republican leadership would have come from what we call the “oil South.” And the Republican voters in that region tend to be more socially conservative. So its hardly a surprise that it’s a socially conservative group. I’m looking at data that has to do with the whole impeachment trial of the President and the question is: why is there so much partianship? And the answer is: each party is looking at polls among its own members. And when you look at you own members Republicans are very much in favor of getting rid of Clinton and Democrats are very much in favor of keeping Clinton. Each of the leaders are responding to that.

PAR: A few questions now about emerging groups in society, whether they be ethnic groups or changes in the economic structure of our society. What groups do you see becoming more politically active in the future, that are just now becoming important to politicians?

Peter: Well, I think that both Hispanics and Asians may make up a small portion of the current American society but I think they will be taking on an increasing role in terms of leadership positions in the future. I would expect that both Asian and Hispanic voices will have tremendous leadership roles in the 21st century as their numbers grow and their reflections grow. There is a changing ethnic makeup of our country. What this means politically is that both parties need to address these growing ethnic dynamics. I think what you saw in 1998 is that given a good, attractive, and sensitive Republican candidate, the Republicans can do well with the Hispanic population. I think part of it is the sense of linkage-and linkage is language, for one thing. But the other part is policy and you cannot continue to win with any ethnic group just on the bases of speaking their language. It is understanding their aspirations and needs. And I think Al Gore will do very well with that in the year 2000.