The True Power of Political Figures: Can they Influence Support for More Government?

John Tyler Mullins

EMORY AND HENRY COLLEGE December 7, 2013

Abstract

The support for government run programs has grown stronger in recent years. People enrolled in these programs as well as liberal politicians are outspoken out about the success of the programs, but conservatives argue against these programs claiming people are becoming too reliant on government. This purpose of this study is to determine whether certain ideals of a political administration are a predictor of support for more or less government intervention and/or assistance. In order to analyze the relationship between the political party in power and public support for government intervention and/ or assistance I will be using data from the 1972-2012 General Social Survey. I argue that the support for more government intervention or assistance is strongest when a more liberal administration that the public has confidence in holds power. When controlling for political views of the respondent I argue that if a respondent identifies as liberal then they will support more intervention and/or assistance, whereas respondents that identify as conservative they will show more support for less or no intervention and/or assistance. When controlling for confidence in the legislative branch and Congress I argue that when confidence in these entities is low respondents will be less likely to support the policies of the party in power. Introduction Researchers and political figures are constantly searching for answers as to what influences individual beliefs about the role of government. Many attempts have been made to identify and explain the factors that play the most prominent role in shaping an individuals ideologies. Researchers have found that political trust matters because if affects citizens beliefs about the proper balance of power in our federal system (Hetherington and Nugent 2001). Levi (1997), Scholz and Lubell (1998), and Tyler and Degoy (1995) believe political trust is important because it fosters citizen compliance with governmental demands, while Hetherington (1999) claims political trust influences citizens likelihood of voting for challengers and third party candidates. If political trust plays an important role in shaping an individuals ideologies about government then it is logical that the political party with the most power in government should influence an individuals beliefs about government policies. This paper will analyze the role a political party has in influencing an individuals beliefs about the appropriate amount of government intervention and/or assistance using the 1972-2012 General Social Survey (GSS).

The recent establishment of a causal link from political trust to policy attitudes is particularly significant because of the connection between the publics policy attitudes and policy outputs (Erikson, MacKuen, and Stimson 2002; Stimson, MacKuen, and Erickson 1995). The role and size of government in the United States is a frequently debated topic among citizens and politicians. Many people have recently attempted to recognize what the majority of voters in the United States respond to when faced with a decision about the role and size of government. Using questions from the General Social Survey I will explore the relationship between the political party in power and respondents answers to questions about the role of government.

This paper will analyze if political party power has any effect, measured as the political party affiliation of the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, on the respondents position about the amount of acceptable government intervention and/or assistance. I argue that the political party that holds the most power in the government directly affects a respondents view about the size of government. When a liberal administration holds power I argue that respondents will be in favor of less government intervention and/or assistance, and when a conservative administration holds power I argue that respondents will be in favor of more government intervention and/or assistance. There could be many different concepts related to the size of government, but in this paper Big Government relates to more spending, expanded government intervention, and more government assistance, whereas Small Government will be less spending, limited intervention, and less assistance.

Other studies have shown attitudes toward size of government may be related to different factors. These factors include political trust, political ideologies, individual sacrifice and self-interest, size of the population, and racial fractionalization. An experiment completed by Hetherington and Globetti

(2002) that analyzed NES panel studies and data from the 1990, 1992, and 1994 NES cross-sections is one example. In this study Hetherington and Globetti found that a preference for racial policies (i.e. Big Government) does not affect the trust in government (i.e. attitudes toward size of government).

Another example lies in a theory developed by Hetherington (2004) where he argues that as political trust declines the support for redistributive programs declines as well. In this theory political trust operates as a simple heuristic that helps citizens decide whether to support or oppose increased government spending. Hetherington (1999) also believed changes in media made trust a likely heuristic. The activation of the trust or mistrust is tied to the perceived sacrifice or risk associated with a particular policy. Hetherington claims to have found that political trust or attitudes towards size of government is related to the risk that person will have to undertake when a certain policy is implemented. To support this claim Hetherington presents evidence that perceived risk conditions the effect of political trust on the racialized redistributive policies (Hetherington, Trust and Government Spending p. 93). Hetherington took political trust and the degree to which people believe that African-Americans are lazy or hardworking as his measure of risk. With this measure Hetherington found respondents that had negative stereotypes about blacks industriousness believed more spending to assist blacks entails risk. Unless the proper authorities can intervene capably, these people will tend to believe that government spending on an undeserving group will be wasted (Hetherington, Trust and Government Spending p. 93). In short, Hetherington demonstrates a strong link between public opinion and policy outcomes.

A study cited in Hetherington (2004) argues that most Americans oppose more government spending on welfare for a variety of reasons. Gilens (1999) claims that Americans oppose more government spending on welfare due to the undeserving poor. The undeserving poor, according to

Gilens, is a broad term that categorizes recipients that do not need assistance but are actively receiving help from the government. Gilens argues that cynicism and suspicion toward the recipients of government benefits help explain Americans support and opposition of welfare-state programs. This supports Hetherington (2004) by showing that Americans perceive the undeserving poor as a risk that the money spent is being wasted. Therefore, as Hetherington argued citizens who believe government spending is being wasted are more likely to have less political trust, and be less likely to support more government intervention and/or assistance.

Research completed by Hetherington and Nugent (2001) found that political trust matters because it affects citizens beliefs about the proper balance of power in our federal system. In order to support this claim Hetherington and Nugent analyzed data from the 1996 NES related to respondents level of faith and confidence in different levels of government and tested them against various variables and the NES four item index for political trust. Using this data Hetherington and Nugent concluded that people who live in states with a low per-capita state debt would be more likely to support federal level government rather than their state and local governments compared to people who live in states with a higher per-capita debt. Ultimately, Hetherington and Nugent claim that their results show popular support for sub-national government is part of the result for declining trust in the federal government. This balance of power between state and federal government could represent the size of government, and political trust could represent the influence the current administration has on citizens. If a trust in political officials, political policies, and level of government truly matters then there should be an effect on answers given by GSS respondents in relation to the current political party in power.

A study conducted by Rudolph and Evans (2005) built upon the research completed by Hetherington and Nugent (2001), and Hetherington and Globetti (2002). In this study Rudolph and Evans set out to explain that the activation of political trust was not limited to cases involving the sacrifice of material interests. In order to support this they analyzed data from the 2000 NAES. The data analyzed included questions relating to political trust ideological identification, and items that measured attitudes toward spending on distributive policies, as well as attitudes toward spending on redistributive policies. Rudolph and Evans (2005) found that political trust is activated when individuals are asked to sacrifice ideological principles as well as their own material self-interest. In short, when people are asked to make personal sacrifices for certain policies they are more or less likely to express trust in government. Rudolph and Evans claim that political trust has a larger impact on spending attitudes among conservatives than among liberals. Thanks to this claim made by Rudolph and Evans I have decided to use a control variable for political views in my research.

Political Trust at the local level could also have an effect on the views a citizen has about the size of government. Rudolph and Rahn (2005) suggest that trust in political policies at the local level is not only affected by individual-level factors but also city-level factors such as income inequality, racial fractionalization, ideological polarization, political institutions, and size of population. They find that as individuals perceptions of their personal financial situation become more favorable, so too do their evaluations of local government (Rudolph and Rahn A Tale of Political Trust in American Cities p. 545). Rudolph and Rahn also claim that liberals are less trusting of local government than conservatives. Schneider, Jacoby, and Lewis (2011) found that citizens want all levels of government to do more, but that it differentiates among policy areas. Interestingly, Rudolph and Rahn find evidence that median

level of income is insignificant, suggesting that a citys wealth has no effect on trust in local government, which is contrary to the claim of Hetherington and Nugent (2001).

Research conducted by Popp and Rudolph (2011) claims that an individuals policy judgments will reflect both principled and symbolic considerations. In order to come to this conclusion Popp and Rudolph analyze policy judgments in situations where individuals are ideologically cross pressured (Popp and Rudolph A Tale of Two Ideologies: Explaining Public Support for Economic Intervention p. 811). The policy judgments that Popp and Rudolph analyzed are those of conflicted liberals and conflicted conservatives in relation to the policies of Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Popp and Rudolph claim that consistent liberals would have more support for an Obama plan because their affective attachments and principled beliefs are congruent with both the symbol and the substance of the proposed plan (Popp and Rudolph A Tale of Two Ideologies: Explaining Public Support for Economic Intervention p. 812). In relation to a Bush plan Popp and Rudolph claim that ideological pressures occure among consistent liberals and consistent conservatives. According to Popp and Rudolph the Bush plan would create a scenario where conservatives have only principled reasons for supporting the plan and liberals only have symbolic reasons for doing so. Popp and Rudolph believe that based on their core ideological beliefs individuals will make principled policy judgments and based on their ideological identity they will make symbolic considerations. In an event of ideological sacrifice Popp and Rudolph believe that political trust will have a greater impact on individuals who support a plan that requires them to sacrifice symbolic and principled ideologies. This claim by Popp and Rudolph is consistent with the claim made by Rudolph and Evans (2005) that political trust is activated when individuals are asked to sacrifice ideological principles. These claims give relevance to my research by providing a basis that political ideologies and trust are related to an individuals beliefs about the role of government.

Berry and Lowery (1987) conducted research to distinguish the reason for the changing size of government in the United States. Using data from Citibank, the University of Kentucky Center for Applied Economic Research, and complex variables that they created Berry and Lowery claim that party control influenced the scope of transfers 1. Berry and Lowery (1987) explained that liberal party control of government is associated with higher transfers share of GDP than conservative control (p 427). If the claims of Berry and Lowery as well as Hetherington and Nugent (2001) make are true then my research should show a significant relationship between the political party in power and their influence on individuals attitudes towards government intervention and/or assistance.

According to the recent research conducted by many scholars political trust plays a major role in how citizens feel about policies presented by certain political parties or administrations. If political trust is a major factor then I would argue that the political party in power will affect the respondents answers as not everyone trusts both political parties. Hetherington (1998) suggests a person who knows more about politics and current policies will be better suited to make evaluations whereas, many citizens only have knowledge about what the President stands for and how his ideas will affect them personally. This would make an observation of the President as the standard for political power more representative of the nation as a whole allowing my research to be significant in pointing towards an answer that represents the whole of the United States.

Transfers according to Berry and Lowery (1987) is a ration of (total federal, state and local government expenditures for transfer programs divided by the implicit price deflator or IPD for personal consumption expenditures) to (GDP divided by IPD for GDP)

Hypotheses

When looking at Presidential Power I argue that if the President in power is a Democrat the respondent, will be more likely to agree with more government intervention and/or assistance. If the President in power is a Republican the respondent will be more likely to agree with less government intervention and/or assistance. I argue that the President is more likely to have an influence on a respondents answers than Congress. This is because the President and his views are always broadcast nationwide through the main stream media, whereas the Congress isnt as talked about. The political party with a majority in the Senate will be less likely to have an influence on respondents ideas about the appropriate amount of government intervention and/or assistance. I also argue the political party with a majority in the House; will be more likely to have little or no influence on respondents ideas about the appropriate amount of government intervention and/or assistance. My argument for the House and Senate having little influence on Americans is because their views and ideas are less talked about, and very rarely known throughout the nation. Most citizens only know the views and ideas of their representatives and worry little about the representatives of other states. When controlling for the confidence in Congress, if confidence is high, the political party with a majority in the House and/or Senate will be more likely to have an influence on respondents ideas about the appropriate amount of government intervention and/or assistance. If confidence is low the political party with a majority in the House and/or Senate will have no influence on respondents answers. If confidence in Congress is high then more people are likely to know about the ideas and policy plans of those in Congress. The more people that know about the ideas and policy plans the more likely Congress is to have an impact on what citizens believe. When controlling for the confidence in the

executive branch of government, if confidence is high, the President in power will be more likely to have a significant influence on respondents ideas about the appropriate amount of government intervention and/or assistance. If confidence is low the President in power will be less likely to have a significant influence on respondents answers. If confidence in the President is low then he (or she) is less likely to have influence on what Americans believe, whereas if confidence is high Americans are more likely to believe his (or her) policy plans are what is best for America. When controlling for political views, no matter what political party holds power, the more liberal views a respondent has the more likely they will be to agree with more government intervention and/or assistance. The more conservative a respondent is the more likely they will be to agree with less government intervention and/or assistance. I argue that no matter what the political affiliation of the President is the more liberal a person is the more likely they will agree with more government intervention and/or assistance, whereas the more conservative a person is the more likely they will agree with less government intervention and/or assistance. Data and Measures The data analyzed in this study are taken from the 1972-2012 General Social Survey (GSS). The 1972-2012 GSS is the largest and longest running project funded by the Sociology Program of the National Science Foundation. According to the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) website the GSS contains a standard core of demographic and attitudinal questions, plus topics of special interest that will allow for the testing of my hypotheses. According to NORC many of the core questions on the GSS have been unchanged since 1972 to facilitate time trend studies as well as replications. Without the aspect of unchanged questions it would be impossible for me to test my hypothesis accurately due to the infrequent shifts of political power in our government. NORC explains that the GSS conducts basic scientific research on the structure and development of American society that is designed to monitor

societal change within the United States. According to NORC many researchers believe the GSS to be the best source of data on trends in American society. Dependent Variables The dependent variables used in this study include four survey questions from the GSS that are related to a respondents preferences for government aid programs. All four variables contained five possible answer choices until I recoded to three possible answer choices. The first variable, helpnot_rec, contained three answer choices after being recoded (1 = Government Should Do More, 2 = I Agree With Both Answers, 3 = Government Is Doing Too Much). The second variable, helppoor_rec, contained three answer choices after being recoded (1 = Government Should Take Action, 2 = I Agree With Both Answers, 3 = People Should Help Themselves). The third variable, helpsick_rec, contained three answer choices after being recoded (1 = Government Should Take Action, 2 = I Agree With Both Answers, 3 = People Should Help Themselves). The fourth and final dependent variable, helpblk_rec, contained three answer choices after being recoded (1 = Government Should Do More, 2 = I Agree With Both Answers, 3 = Government Does Too Much). The reason for recoding these variables was to combine attributes within the variables that were essentially the same (i.e. Strongly Agree Government Does Too Much and Agree Government Does Too Much). HELPNOT Some people think that the government in Washington is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and private business; they are at point 5 on this card. Others disagree and think that the government should do even more to solve our country's problems; they are at point 1. a. Where would you place yourself on this scale, or haven't you made up your mind on this? Some people think that the government in Washington should do everything possible to improve the standard of living of all poor Americans; they are at point 1 on this card. Other people think it is not the government's responsibility, and that each person should take care of himself; they are at point 5. a. Where would you place yourself on this scale, or haven't you made up your mind on this?

HELPPOOR

HELPSICK

In general, some people think that it is the responsibility of the government in Washington to see to it that people have help in paying for doctors and hospital bills; they are at point 1. Others think that these matters are not the responsibility of the federal government and that people should take care of these things themselves; they are at point 5.A. Where would you place yourself on this scale, or haven't you made up your mind on this? Some people think that (blacks/negroes/African-Americans) have been discriminated against for so long that the government has a special obligation to help improve their living standards; they are at point 1. Others believe that the government should not be giving special treatment to (blacks/negroes/African-Americans); they are at point 5. a. Where would you place yourself on this scale, or haven't you made up your mind on this?

HELPBLK

Independent Variables The independent variables used in this study include three custom variables that I created myself. In order to test whether certain political administrations truly influenced respondents answers to the dependent variable questions I had to create a variable that allowed me to extract answers to the dependent variable in relation to certain years and the political party in power. The first independent variable, prespow, contained two possible outcomes (1 = Democrat, 2 = Republican). In order to determine the outcome I set the variable to extract the answers to the dependent variable question based on the year and party affiliation of the President in power (i.e. if year = 1975 then 2 = Republican). The variable had to be able to give me only the answers for years in which a certain political party held office. The second and third variables, senatepow and housepow, were coded the same way as prespow. These variables were determined by the political party who held a majority in the House or Senate. Senatepow had a possibility of three outcomes due to a statistical tie for majority rule in 2002 and 2008.

PRESPOW

The answers to the dependent variable questions (helpsick, helppoor, helpnot, helpblk) in relation to political party affiliation (Democrat or Republican) of the President of the United States based on years in office and years the questions were asked.

HOUSEPOW

The answers to the dependent variable questions (helpsick, helppoor, helpnot, helpblk) in relation to political party affiliation (Democrat or Republican) of the political party with majority rule in the House of Representatives based on years in office and years the questions were asked. The answers to the dependent variable questions (helpsick, helppoor, helpnot, helpblk) in relation to political party affiliation (Democrat or Republican) of the political party with majority rule in the Senate based on years in office and years the questions were asked. Control Variables

SENATEPOW

The control variables used in this study include three survey questions from the GSS that are related to a respondents confidence in government and their political views. The first variable, polviews_rec, contained seven possible choices ranging from Extremely Conservative to Extremely Liberal. I recoded this variable to contain only three possible choices (1 = Liberal, 2 = Moderate, 3 = Conservative). My reason for recoding was to reduce the amount of attributes, and I wanted to merge attributes that were relatively the same choice (i.e. Extremely Liberal and Liberal). The second and third variables, confed and conlegis, contain three possible choices (1 = A Great Deal, 2 = Only Some 3 = Hardly Any). These two variables pertain to a respondents confidence in the executive and legislative branch of government.

POLVIEWS

We hear a lot of talk these days about liberals and conservatives. I'm going to show you a seven-point scale on which the political views that people might hold are arranged from extremely liberal - point 1 - to extremely conservative - point 7. Where would you place yourself on this scale? I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them? l. Congress I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them? e. Executive branch of the federal government.

CONLEGIS

CONFED

Methods/Analysis Plan

In order to support my hypotheses and complete my research I will use data from the GSS spanning the years 1975-2012. Since my dependent variables are ordinal and contain three attributes, I will examine chi-square to test for statistical significance and gamma to test for strength of association. My plan to analyze the relationship between my independent and dependent variables includes running multiple bivariate analyses in SPSS. This will allow me to test for significance and strength of association. In order to control my variables for respondents confidence in congress and political views I will run various multivariate analyses. This will allow me to test for significance, strength of associate, and nonspuriousness. Using the elaboration model I will determine if my multivariate analyses replicate, explain, interpret, or specify the strength of association between variables. Results

According to the results, 20.0 percent of respondents who answered when a Republican held presidential power support the use of government funds to aid blacks, compared with 17.4 percent when a Democrat held presidential power. Results of the chi-square tests (c2=29.521 df =2, p < 0.001) suggest that the relationship between presidential power and support for government aid to blacks is statistically significant. The value of gamma (G = -0.041, p < 0.001) suggests that the relationship is too weak to be meaningful. Thus, there is no relationship between presidential power and government aid for blacks.

According to the results, 29.5 percent of respondents who answered when a Republican held presidential power believe the government should do more to improve lives of citizens, compared with

26.1 percent when a Democrat held presidential power. Results of the chi-square tests (c2=79.408 df =2, p < 0.001) suggest that the relationship between presidential power and belief that government should do more to improve lives of citizens is statistically significant. The value of gamma (G = -0.089, p < 0.001) suggests that the relationship is too weak to be meaningful. Thus, there is no relationship between presidential power and more government.

According to the results, 32.3 percent of respondents who answered when a Republican held presidential power support the use of government funds to aid poor, compared with 26.8 percent when a Democrat held presidential power. Results of the chi-square tests (c2=116.020 df =2, p < 0.001) suggest that the relationship between presidential power and support for government aid to poor is statistically significant. The value of gamma (G = -0.109, p < 0.001) suggests that the relationship is too weak to be meaningful. Thus, there is no relationship between presidential power and government aid for poor.

According to the results, 51.0 percent of respondents who answered when a Republican held presidential power support the use of government funds to provide healthcare, compared with 48.9 percent when a Democrat held presidential power. Results of the chi-square tests (c2=19.087 df =2, p < 0.001) suggest that the relationship between presidential power and support for government provided healthcare is statistically significant. The value of gamma (G = -0.043, p < 0.001) suggests that the relationship is too weak to be meaningful. Thus, there is no relationship between presidential power and government provided healthcare.

According to the results, 17.5 percent of respondents who answered when Republicans held a majority in the House support the use of government funds to aid blacks, compared with 19.9 percent when Democrats held the majority. Results of the chi-square tests (c2=32.133 df =2, p < 0.001) suggest that the relationship between house power and support for government aid to blacks is statistically significant. The value of gamma (G = 0.021, p < 0.05) suggests that the relationship is too weak to be meaningful. Thus, there is no relationship between house power and government aid for blacks.

According to the results, 25.7 percent of respondents who answered when Republicans held a majority in the House believe the government should do more to improve lives of citizens, compared with 29.7 percent when Democrats held the majority. Results of the chi-square tests (c2=51.627 df =2, p < 0.001) suggest that the relationship between house power and belief that government should do more to improve lives of citizens is statistically significant. The value of gamma (G = .052, p < 0.001) suggests that the relationship is too weak to be meaningful. Thus, there is no relationship between house power and more government.

According to the results, 27.3 percent of respondents who answered when Republicans held a majority in the House support the use of government funds to aid poor, compared with 31.8 percent when Democrats held the majority. Results of the chi-square tests (c2=68.020, df =2, p < 0.001) suggest that the relationship between house power and support for government aid to poor is statistically significant. The value of gamma (G = 0.082, p < 0.001) suggests that the relationship is too weak to be meaningful. Thus, there is no relationship between house power and government aid for poor.

According to the results, 50.3 percent of respondents who answered when Republicans held a majority in the House support the use of government funds to provide healthcare, compared with 50.1 percent when Democrats held the majority. Results of the chi-square tests (c2=3.677, df =2, p > .05) suggest that the relationship between house power and support for government provided healthcare is not statistically significant. The value of gamma (G = -0.010, p > 0.05) suggests that the relationship is too weak to be meaningful. Thus, there is no relationship between house power and government provided healthcare. According to the results, 19.1 percent of respondents who answered when Republicans held a majority in the Senate support the use of government funds to aid blacks, compared with 19.1 percent when Democrats held the majority, and 17.3 percent when there was no majority. Results of the chisquare tests (c2=12.696, df =4, p < 0.05) suggest that the relationship between senate power and support for government aid to blacks is statistically significant. The value of gamma (G = -0.010, p > 0.05) suggests that the relationship is too weak to be meaningful. Thus, there is no relationship between senate power and government aid for blacks.

According to the results, 27.0 percent of respondents who answered when Republicans held a majority in the Senate believe the government should do more to improve lives of citizens, compared with 29.7 percent when Democrats held the majority. Results of the chi-square tests (c2=45.131, df =4, p < 0.001) suggest that the relationship between senate power and belief that government should do more to improve lives of citizens is statistically significant. The value of gamma (G = .013, p > 0.05) suggests that the relationship is too weak to be meaningful. Thus, there is no relationship between senate power and more government.

According to the results, 29.3 percent of respondents who answered when Republicans held a majority in the Senate support the use of government funds to aid poor, compared with 30.9 percent when Democrats held the majority. Results of the chi-square tests (c2=8.472, df =4, p > 0.05) suggest that the relationship between house power and support for government aid to poor is not statistically significant. The value of gamma (G = 0.013, p > 0.05) suggests that the relationship is too weak to be meaningful. Thus, there is no relationship between senate power and government aid for poor.

According to the results, 49.5 percent of respondents who answered when Republicans held a majority in the Senate support the use of government funds to provide healthcare, compared with 50.5 percent when Democrats held the majority. Results of the chi-square tests (c2=20.427, df =4, p < .001) suggest that the relationship between senate power and support for government provided healthcare is statistically significant. The value of gamma (G = -0.011, p > 0.05) suggests that the relationship is too weak to be meaningful. Thus, there is no relationship between senate power and government provided healthcare.

Index of Tables

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Dependent Variables N Should Government Aid Blacks? Should Help Blacks Agree With Both Shouldn't Help Blacks Total Should Government Do More or Less? Should Do More Agree With Both Should Do Less Total Should Government Improve Standard of Living? Should Improve Standard Agree With Both Shouldn't Improve Standard Total Should Government Help Pay for Medical Care? Should Help Pay Agree With Both People Should Help Selves Total 13870 8903 4873 27646 50% 32% 18% 100% 8297 12273 7000 27570 3010% 45% 25% 100% 7582 10874 8464 26920 28% 40% 31% 100% 5294 8540 14050 27884 19.0% 30.6% 50.4% 100.0% %

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Independent Variables N Political Party of President Democrat Republican Total Political Party with Majority in Senate Democrat Republican Total Political Party with Majority in House Democrat Republican No Majority Total 16013 22236 4788 43037 37.2% 51.7% 11.1% 100.0% 22423 20614 43037 52.1% 47.9% 100.0% 17169 25868 43037 39.9% 60.1% 100.0% %

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Control Variables N Political Views of Respondent Liberal Moderate Conservative Total Confidence in Executive Branch of Government A Great Deal Only Some Hardly Any Total Confidence in Congress A Great Deal Only Some Hardly Any Total 3224 15330 8537 27091 11.9% 56.6% 31.5% 100.0% 4360 13817 8918 27095 16.1% 51.0% 32.9% 100.0% 10186 14416 12945 37547 27.1% 38.4% 34.5% 100.0% %

Table 4. Relationship Between Presidential Power and Support for Government Aid to Blacks. Presidential Power Republican Total

Democrat Should Government Aid Blacks Should Help Blacks Agree With Both Shouldn't Help Blacks Total

1924 17.4% 3457 31.3% 5669 51.3% 11050 100.0%

3370 20.0% 5083 30.2% 8381 49.8% 16834 100.0%

5294 19.0% 8540 30.6% 14050 50.4% 27884 100.0%

29.521***

(-)0.041***

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 5. Relationship Between Presidential Power and Support for More Government. Presidential Power Republican Total

Should Government Do More Government Should Do More Agree With Both Government Does Too Much Total

Democrat

2856 26.1% 4318 39.5% 3752 34.3% 10926 100.0%

4726 29.5% 6556 41.0% 4712 29.5% 15994 100.0%

7582 28.2% 10874 40.4% 8464 31.4% 26920 100.0%

79.408(2)***

(-)0.089***

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 6. Relationship Between Presidential Power and Support for Government Aid to The Poor. Presidential Power Republican Total 5312 32.3% 7250 44.1% 3890 23.6% 16452 100.0% 8297 30.1% 12273 44.5% 7000 25.4% 27570 100.0%

Democrat Should Government Aid The Poor Government Action Agree With Both People Help Themselves Total 2985 26.8% 5023 45.2% 3110 28.0% 11118 100.0%

2 116.020(2)***

(-)0.109***

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 7. Relationship Between Presidential Power and Support for Government Aid to The Sick. Presidential Power Republican Total 8420 51.0% 5301 32.1% 2785 16.9% 16506 100.0% 13870 50.2% 8903 32.2% 4873 17.6% 27646 100.0%

Democrat Should Government Aid The Sick Government Action Agree With Both People Help Themselves Total 5450 48.9% 3602 32.3% 2088 18.7% 11140 100.0%

2 19.087(2)***

(-)0.043***

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 8. Relationship Between House Power and Support for Government Aid to Blacks. House Power Republican

Democrat Should Government Aid Blacks Should Help Blacks Agree With Both Shouldn't Help Blacks Total

Total

3467 19.9% 5183 29.8% 8769 50.3% 17419 100.0%

1827 17.5% 3357 32.1% 5281 50.5% 10465 100.0%

5294 19.0% 8540 30.6% 14050 50.4% 27884 100.0%

32.133(2)***

0.021*

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 9. Relationship Between House Power and Support for More Government. House Power Republican

Should Government Do More Government Should Do More Agree With Both Government Does Too Much Total

Democrat

Total

4913 29.7% 6493 39.2% 5140 31.1% 16546 100.0%

2669 25.7% 4381 42.2% 3324 32.0% 10374 100.0%

7582 28.2% 10874 40.4% 8464 31.4% 26920 100.0%

51.627(2)***

0.052***

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 10 . Relationship Between House Power and Support for Government Aid to The Poor. House Power Republican 2872 27.3% 4800 45.6% 2849 27.1% 10521 100.0%

Democrat Should Government Aid The Poor Government Action Agree With Both People Help Themselves Total 5425 31.8% 7473 43.8% 4151 24.3% 17049 100.0%

Total 8297 30.1% 12273 44.5% 7000 25.4% 27570 100.0%

2 68.020(2)***

0.082***

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 11. Relationship Between House Power and Support for Government Aid to The Sick. House Power Republican 5319 50.3% 3444 32.6% 1806 17.1% 10569 100.0%

Democrat Should Government Aid The Sick Government Action Agree With Both People Help Themselves Total 8551 50.1% 5459 32.0% 3067 18.0% 17077 100.0%

Total 13870 50.2% 8903 32.2% 4873 17.6% 27646 100.0%

2 3.677(2)

(-)0.010

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 12. Relationship Between Senate Power and Support for Government Aid to Blacks. Senate Power Republican

Democrat Should Government Aid Blacks Should Help Blacks Agree With Both Shouldn't Help Blacks Total

99.00

Total

2159 19.1% 3353 29.7% 5764 51.1% 11276 100.0%

2755 19.1% 4465 31.0% 7190 49.9% 14410 100.0%

380 17.3% 722 32.8% 1096 49.9% 2198 100.0%

5294 19.0% 8540 30.6% 14050 50.4% 27884 100.0%

12.696(4)*

(-)0.010

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 13. Relationship Between Senate Power and Support for More Government. Senate Power Republican

Should Government Do More Government Should Do More Agree With Both Government Does Too Much Total

Democrat

99.00

Total

3145 29.7% 4112 38.9% 3323 31.4% 10580 100.0%

3815 27.0% 5792 40.9% 4541 32.1% 14148 100.0%

622 28.4% 970 44.3% 600 27.4% 2192 100.0%

7582 28.2% 10874 40.4% 8464 31.4% 26920 100.0%

45.131(4)***

0.013

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 14. Relationship Between Senate Power and Support for Government Aid to The Poor. Senate Power Republican 4246 29.3% 6511 45.0% 3713 25.7% 14470 100.0%

Democrat Should Government Aid The Poor Government Action Agree With Both People Help Themselves Total 3367 30.9% 4774 43.9% 2738 25.2% 10879 100.0%

99.00 684 30.8% 988 44.5% 549 24.7% 2221 100.0%

Total 8297 30.1% 12273 44.5% 7000 25.4% 27570 100.0%

2 8.472(4)

0.013

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 15. Relationship Between Senate Power and Support for Government Aid to The Sick. Senate Power Republican 7184 49.5% 4808 33.1% 2532 17.4% 14524 100.0%

Democrat Should Government Aid The Sick Government Action Agree With Both People Help Themselves Total 5501 50.5% 3403 31.2% 1989 18.3% 10893 100.0%

99.00 1185 53.2% 692 31.0% 352 15.8% 2229 100.0%

Total 13870 50.2% 8903 32.2% 4873 17.6% 27646 100.0%

2 20.427(4)***

(-)0.011

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 16. Relationship Between Presidential Power and Support for Government Aid to Blacks, Controlling for Confidence in Executive Branch of the Federal Government. 2 29.521(2)*** (-)0.041***

Presidential Power and Support for Aid to Blacks Confidence in Executive Branch is A Great Deal Only Some Hardly Any *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

103.351(2)*** 12.930(2)** 231.393(2)***

0.272*** 0.027 (-)0.268***

Table 17. Relationship Between Presidential Power and Support for Government Aid to Blacks, Controlling for Political View. 2 29.521(2)*** (-)0.041***

Presidential Power and Support for Aid to Blacks Political View is Liberal Moderate Conservative *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

13.947(2)** 3.761(2) 20.888(2)***

(-)0.057** 0.007 (-)0.088***

Table 18. Relationship Between Presidential Power and Support for More Government, Controlling for Confidence in Executive Branch of the Federal Government. 2 79.408(2)*** (-)0.089***

Presidential Power and Support for More Government Confidence in Executive Branch is A Great Deal Only Some Hardly Any *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

107.074(2)*** 2.476(2) 345.258(2)***

0.276*** (-)0.023 (-)0.320***

Table 19. Relationship Between Presidential Power and Support for More Government, Controlling for Political View. 2 79.408(2)*** (-)0.089***

Presidential Power and Support for More Government Political View is Liberal Moderate Conservative *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

9.736(2)** 31.82(2)*** 60.53(2)***

(-)0.057** (-)0.097*** (-)0.122***

Table 20. Relationship Between Presidential Power and Support for Helping the Poor, Controlling for Confidence in Executive Branch of the Federal Government. 2 116.020(2)*** (-)0.109***

Presidential Power and Support for Helping the Poor Confidence in Executive Branch is A Great Deal Only Some Hardly Any *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

92.775(2)*** 27.081(2)*** 391.143(2)***

0.256*** (-)0.060*** (-)0.340***

Table 21. Relationship Between Presidential Power and Support for Helping the Poor, Controlling for Political View. 2 116.020(2)*** (-)0.109***

Presidential Power and Support for Helping the Poor Political View is Liberal Moderate Conservative *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

26.733(2)*** 31.12(2)*** 52.393(2)***

(-)0.105*** (-)0.096*** (-)0.128***

Table 22. Relationship Between Presidential Power and Support for Helping the Sick, Controlling for Confidence in Executive Branch of the Federal Government. 2 19.087(2)*** (-)0.043***

Presidential Power and Support for Helping the Sick Confidence in Executive Branch is A Great Deal Only Some Hardly Any *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

113.051(2)*** 3.857(2) 290.403(2)***

0.295*** 0.03 (-)0.304***

Table 23. Relationship Between Presidential Power and Support for Helping the Sick, Controlling for Political View. 2 19.087(2)*** (-)0.043***

Presidential Power and Support for Helping the Sick Political View is Liberal Moderate Conservative *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

.010(2) .060(2) 38.930(2)***

(-)0.001 0 (-)0.105***

Table 24. Relationship Between House Power and Support for Government Aid to Blacks, Controlling for Confidence in Congress. 2 32.133(2)*** 0.021*

House Power and Support for Aid to Blacks Confidence in Congress is A Great Deal Only Some Hardly Any *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

13.396(2)** 29.379(2)*** 23.166(2)***

0.088** 0.045** 0.019***

Table 25. Relationship Between House Power and Support for Government Aid to Blacks, Controlling for Political View. 2 32.133(2)*** 0.021*

House Power and Support for Aid to Blacks Political View is Liberal Moderate Conservative *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

18.456(2)*** 9.678(2)** 25.877(2)***

0.004 (-)0.025 0.097***

Table 26. Relationship Between House Power and Support for More Government, Controlling for Confidence in Congress. 2 51.627(2)*** 0.052***

House Power and Support for More Government Confidence inCongress is A Great Deal Only Some Hardly Any *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

18.894(2)*** 36.380(2)*** 20.821(2)***

0.124*** 0.076*** (-)0.046*

Table 27. Relationship Between House Power and Support for More Government, Controlling for Political View. 2 51.627(2)*** 0.052***

House Power and Support for More Government Political View is Liberal Moderate Conservative *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

28.154(2)*** 21.672(2*** 13.291(2)**

0.051 0.058** 0.062**

Table 28. Relationship Between House Power and Support for Helping the Poor, Controlling for Confidence in Congress. 2 68.020(2)*** 0.082***

House Power and Support for Helping the Poor Confidence in Congress is A Great Deal Only Some Hardly Any *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

21.694(2)*** 77.364(2)*** 10.333(2)**

0.144*** 0.124*** (-)0.040*

Table 29. Relationship Between House Power and Support for Helping the Poor, Controlling for Political View. 2 68.020(2)*** 0.082***

House Power and Support for Helping the Poor Political View is Liberal Moderate Conservative *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

14.772(2)** 13.549(2)** 30.023(2)***

0.074*** 0.062*** 0.096***

Table 30. Relationship Between House Power and Support for Helping the Sick, Controlling for Confidence in Congress. 2 3.677(2) (-)0.010

House Power and Support for Helping the Sick Confidence in Congress is A Great Deal Only Some Hardly Any *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

1.096(2) 3.324(2) 31.736(2)***

0.033 0.027 (-)0.096***

Table 31. Relationship Between House Power and Support for Helping the Sick, Controlling for Political View. 2 3.677(2) (-)0.010

House Power and Support for Helping the Sick Political View is Liberal Moderate Conservative *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

10.024(2)** 8.980(2)* 5.733(2)

(-)0.043 (-)0.052** 0.041*

Table 32. Relationship Between Senate Power and Support for Government Aid to Blacks, Controlling for Confidence in Congress. 2 12.696(4)* (-)0.010

Senate Power and Support for Aid to Blacks Confidence in Congress is A Great Deal Only Some Hardly Any *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

8.043(4) 10.611(4)* 28.427(4)***

0.068* 0.006 (-)0.071***

Table 33. Relationship Between Senate Power and Support for Government Aid to Blacks, Controlling for Political View. 2 12.696(4)* (-)0.010

Senate Power and Support for Aid to Blacks Political View is Liberal Moderate Conservative *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

12.180(4)* 6.521(4) 11.008(4)*

(-)0.030 (-)0.033* 0.031

Table 34. Relationship Between Senate Power and Support for More Government, Controlling for Confidence in Congress. 2 45.131(4)*** 0.013

Senate Power and Support for More Government Confidence in Congress is A Great Deal Only Some Hardly Any *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

28.109(4)*** 61.776(4)*** 26.862(24***

0.114*** 0.045*** (-)0.060***

Table 35. Relationship Between Senate Power and Support for More Government, Controlling for Political View. 2 45.131(4)*** 0.013

Senate Power and Support for More Government Political View is Liberal Moderate Conservative *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

31.653(4)*** 12.075(4)* 9.918(4)*

0.045* (-)0.001 0.001**

Table 36. Relationship Between Senate Power and Support for Helping the Poor, Controlling for Confidence in Congress. 2 8.472(4) 0.013

Senate Power and Support for Helping the Poor Confidence in Congress is A Great Deal Only Some Hardly Any *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

18.149(4)** 29.562(4)*** 35.040(4)***

0.109*** 0.051*** (-)0.085***

Table 37. Relationship Between Senate Power and Support for Helping the Poor, Controlling for Political View. 2 8.472(4) 0.013

Senate Power and Support for Helping the Poor Political View is Liberal Moderate Conservative *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

16.744(4)** 1.755(4) 2.077(4)

0.024 0.004 0.013

Table 38. Relationship Between Senate Power and Support for Helping the Sick, Controlling for Confidence in Congress. 2 20.427(4)*** (-)0.011

Senate Power and Support for Helping the Sick Confidence in Congress is A Great Deal Only Some Hardly Any *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

16.352(4)** 30.847(4)*** 50.484(4)***

0.061* 0.019 (-)0.091***

Table 39. Relationship Between Senate Power and Support for Helping the Sick, Controlling for Political View. 2 20.427(4)*** (-)0.011

Senate Power and Support for Helping the Sick Political View is Liberal Moderate Conservative *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

14.991(4)** 11.174(4)* 3.259(4)

0.007 (-)0.030 (-)0.013