Justin Lewis

Reproducing political hegemony in the United States

How is the hegemony of corporate, center‐right interests that dominate U.S. government sustained? The answer cannot be found in any simple sense at the ideological level‐opinion surveys reveal substantial areas of popular resistance to dominant agendas. The question then becomes: how is consent achieved for a system in which most popular social democratic ideas are suppressed? The solution lies less in any direct form of media persuasion than in garnering support for the system in general, whereby government is seen to be broadly representative of a wide range of political positions. The article explores the discursive character of this support, drawing upon a “discursive survey “ conducted in February 1998.

The opinion poll as a cultural form

The article examines public opinion polls from a cultural studies perspective. Polls are discussed as a cultural form, a system of representation that attempts to signify the public. The article explores the differences between the products of polling agencies and the interpretation of polls in the mainstream media. It is argued that for all its attempts at closure, the opinion poll discourse is a fairly ‘open’ text, signifying a far wider range of political ideas than is found in mainstream political discourse. Once these representations of the public are re-presented in mainstream media, the discourse narrows: responses that might be articulated within a progressive political framework are generally ignored or repressed. The article examines this form of closure and concludes by proposing that a pro-corporate, center-right hegemony in the field of public opinion is a narrow, strategic project rather than a broad ideological victory.

He may not be a liberal, but he plays one on TV: Imagining the ideology of president Clinton*

This study focuses on questions of knowledge and belief in terms of public assumptions about President Clinton. Data from a national survey reveal the widespread assumption that Clinton is more liberal than his record would indicate. The data suggest that while people may not structure their own beliefs along conventional ideological lines, many interpret contemporary politics in terms of broad ideological frameworks, even if those frameworks lead to misleading conclusions. Thus while Clintons liberal side is well‐known (or correctly assumed), his conservative side is not: indeed, most respondents associate him with liberal indicators in nearly every area. This point is explored in the context of the relation between traditional indicators of political knowledge and ideological assumptions. The authors conclude by speculating how the notion of a uniformly “liberal” Clinton may have its origins in media coverage.