Four years ago, when I was associate editor of Public Perspective magazine under editor David Wilber Martel, we did an issue on race relations in the United States. In his lead article, Harvard scholar Lawrence D. Bobo quoted W.E.B. DuBois in writing about the "two-ness" of the black experience--the sense among African Americans that, despite great improvement in race relations in recent decades, they remain "importantly set apart, uniquely stigmatized, disadvantaged and, in a word, a 'problem.'"
In my own introduction to the issue's data essay, I observed that when we looked at the combined responses of all Americans to survey questions regarding race relations, the general picture was a promising one, "a tale of progress," I wrote, "tinged with optimism for the future." But when we separated the responses of black respondents from those of whites, the picture rather dramatically changed. When no longer masked by aggregation, the differences that emerged between the two races in their attitudes toward each other, their opinions on race-related public policy, and their hopes for the future were wide, and quite troubling.
Of course, we were not equipped in our research then to go beyond the question of "two-ness." Given the data, the methods, and the time available to us, we could only look at the divides between black and white.
In this month's issue of Public Opinion Pros, David Wilson gives us the opportunity to expand upon two-ness, in his study of attitudinal differences among black Americans. Specifically, he explores the phenomenon of "Black Rage" in the upper and middle classes of black America, asking who within the black population is most likely to be prejudiced toward whites, and why? His important, and sometimes surprising, findings offer insight into the hope--and the fragility--that for many African Americans characterize the American dream.
In other articles, we continue Larry Hugick and Stacy DiAngelo's series on the controversy over weighting preelection polls by party identification. Part 2 presents the first half of the authors' data analysis, in which they make their case against the view of party ID as a constant around which people organize their political thinking, and maintain that treating it as one casts doubt on the credibility of public polls. The series concludes in our next issue with an examination of historical precedents to party ID movement around conventions, and the horserace.*
Finally, in a fascinating study that sets out to measure people's political attitudes before and after viewing campaign advertisements on television, Christopher Borick seeks more than anecdotal evidence to determine whether John Kerry's presidential campaign really was hurt by the infamous "Swift Boat Vets'" ads, and how badly.
Offerings in our regular departments include a "From the Field" investigation by Peyton Craighill and Michael Dimock of what sorts of people don't respond to surveys no matter how many times you call them, and a commentary by Karlyn Bowman on historical trends in polling on the Supreme Court.
Next month, Public Opinion Pros will be taking a break so that our staff can spend some of what is left of the summer attending conferences, boning up on the latest in website management technology, and swatting at swarms of bloodsucking insects while "relaxing" in the woods. We will continue to respond to article submissions and proposals, letters to the editor and op-eds, and to welcome new subscribers.
We wish you all a happy and productive eight weeks, and look forward to getting back to you when our next issue goes online in October.
—Lisa Ferraro Parmelee, Editor
*The media furor surrounding the weighting of preelection polls by party identification in the 2004 elections revealed this as an important practical as well as theoretical issue. Obviously, there are two sides to the controversy over the method; otherwise, it wouldn't be a controversy. POP would welcome the submission of articles or op-eds that make the case FOR party ID weighting. |
