When 90% isn’t really 90%

So we all know that 90% of people support background checks.  A fact which has caused Maureen Dowd to become a parody of herself (seriously, that column has to represent the exact moment when we hit Peak Dowd, right?).  But some new polling helps to splash a bit of cold water on that number – and clarifies some of the confusing elements at work in our contemporary political environment.

According to a Pew poll:

The key Senate vote that halted gun control legislation last week is drawing a mixed reaction from the American public: 47% express negative feelings about the vote while 39% have a positive reaction to the Senate’s rejection of gun control legislation that included background checks on gun purchases. Overall, 15% say they are angry this legislation was voted down and 32% say they are disappointed. On the other side, 20% say are very happy the legislation was blocked, while 19% say they are relieved.

That doesn’t sound like 90% support.  So what’s up?

Well, a couple things. First, there are ‘background checks’ and then there are background checks. People might support the general concept that there should be some sort of check without supporting the specific things that were up for debate here. That said, I think you would find many people who fell into the ‘relieved’ and ‘very happy’ category who couldn’t really explain what precisely was wrong with this bill. Which leads to the second – and far more important – point.

The way people feel about policies is VERY STRONGLY connected to larger themes of partisan/communal identification. For many people, strong NRA rejection of a proposal indicates that it’s the ‘wrong sort’ of background check, and strong Republican opposition signifies the same thing. Conversely, a strong push from Obama might well dissuade a lot of these people from supporting the idea. If you think that Obama is a socialist Fifth Column for global UN domination, then you’re just never going to trust him to implement this stuff in a good manner.

The larger point here is that MANY policies fall into this confusing area, where theoretical support evaporates as soon as actual ideas are on the table. Lots of people want to cut spending, but they aren’t very happy about the actual proposed spending cuts. Lots of people in 2009 were pretty sure that health care was broken, but hated every single idea for improving things. Even up in the Supreme Court, you can find Anthony Kennedy: who thinks that states are not allowed to impose ‘undue burdens’ on women seeking abortion, but never seems to think that any actual policy constitutes such a burden.