The inability to assess the thought processes underlying political and social attitudes is a source of frustration for many public opinion and political behavior scholars. How survey respondents rationalize their thoughts and opinions, respond to countervailing thoughts, and defend their opinions in the face of contradictory information are usually inaccessible. While the incorporation of experimental methodology in the public opinion survey has made it possible to delve below the surface of political attitudes, Katherine Cramer, in The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker, offers an interpretative approach capable of capturing the motivations underlying perceptions of government. And, it just so happens that this approach tackles an incredibly important and timely concept; resentment.
Through observations of conversations among thirty-nine groups over a five-year period in twenty-seven different over communities in Wisconsin, Cramer illuminates the way people arrive at preferences for less government. There is no doubt that Cramer’s herculean efforts to systematize the selection of groups and the analysis of verbatim responses is now the standard bearer of qualitative public opinion research.
In interacting with small groups of rural residents of Wisconsin, Cramer uncovers a rural consciousness that encompasses a sense of resentment toward people who live in urban society. Cramer needs to be commended for the conceptualization of resentment and not being constrained by the ANES racial resentment battery of questions, which seems to be the norm nowadays. We learn that resentment is an emotional response to the perception that people are not getting their fair share while others who are perceived as lazy, not working hard enough, and less deserving are benefitting. In the Wisconsin context in which the lines of cleavage appear to be between rural versus urban, as opposed to racial, rural residents develop a consciousness in which they perceive their way of life is being challenged by urban residents who do not work hard enough and who unfairly receive a disproportionate share of tax dollars. By examining state financial data (Chapter 4), we also learn that the basis for this rural consciousness is unsupported by objective data; another contribution which could not have been uncovered using traditional surveying methods.
Nevertheless, Cramer shows how this rural consciousness structures the way people think about politics. For instance, rural residents think the deck is stacked against communities like theirs that even hard work could not allow them to get ahead. They have a sense of being ignored and having fundamentally differentvalues and lifestyles than city dwellers. City dwellers enjoy certain advantages in terms of gas prices, utility bills, and infrastructure and they are essentially oblivious to the economic hardships that rural residents face. Among rural residents, small government (Chapter 6) is valued over big government because they perceive they do not receiving their fair share of tax dollars and government programs that they would benefit from (e.g., Obamacare) would eventually end up costing them more in the end. Big government, in their eyes, reflected bloated government programs which benefitted overpaid and underworked public employees.
Cramer also explores how Scott Walker’s campaigning on a Tea Party platform tapped into economic anxiety and rural consciousness. Accordingly, the implement Act 10, which required state workers to pay more into their health and pension benefits, also fed into a belief among rural residents that state employees or people who lived in the cities have extravagant health care and pensions do not work very hard. Public employee benefits were seen as another unfair and unearned privilege that came at their expense. Governor Walker’s support for Act 10 largely reflected how rural residents conceived of politics.
Given Cramer’s argument that this “walking around” or interpretative approach should be seen as an alternative form of public opinion, analyzing this approach through a traditional public opinion lens raises several important questions. First, Cramer’s “interpretive” interviews are not how we are accustomed to thinking about public opinion research. What Cramer taps into are not individual private opinions that are acquired from polling. Questions were posed, but they were not directed to individuals. There was essentially no privacy, anonymity, or confidentiality among group members. While there are many things people will say in private that they will not state in public, group dynamics could potentially play a big role in group interactions. For instance, if an individual was reluctant to voice a dissenting view on an issue, because of the violation of group or social norms, a false consensus could evolve. Norms regarding social acceptance and social desirability are likely enhanced in group settings.
Second, resentment and its components of deservingness, fairness, and privilege have been associated with the deep-seated and intense anger toward African Americans. It is through this anger toward African Americans that we have come to recognize resentment. While it is certainly possible for individuals to be resentful toward other groups, the intensity of such emotion is not sufficiently conveyed in the verbatim responses. Where is the willingness to demean, humiliate, and discriminate against urban residents that we have come to expect from the resentment toward African Americans? Since this is not evident in the verbatim responses, it raises a question regarding if it is resentment or something else Cramer observes, such as a strong dislike.
Cramer asserts that race is a component of rural consciousness, but this is another area where such a sentiment does not come through in the verbatim responses. Perhaps with more prodding the underlying connection between race and rural consciousness would have become more explicit.
Third, while Cramer’s conceptualization of resentment is on target, the language of resentment, such as words, phrases, or expressions in the verbatim responses, is not obvious. Anger and being mad come through well in the verbatim responses, but not the language of resentment. Thus, for a different reason, a question can be raised about whether resentment is the best descriptor of the emotion.
Last, knowing that rural residents’ concerns are not supported by objective data raises questions about the level of consciousness and the extent to which perceptions of government could be expressions of conservatism. Rural residents have essentially misperceived one of the most important components of their identity and anger. A rural identity can be expected to be connected to geography, the nature of work, financial resources, and lifestyle, but consciousness conveys stems from deeper attachment and connection to life experiences.
In short, this is an important book. And, as in any good book should, Cramer raises important questions about an extremely important concept.
