the bottom up theory of public opinion stresses the role played by?
819461
the bottom would be the average person
1156528
Very good point.  \n\nI think people become intransigent in their points of view because their POVs are being attacked.  There's little room for reasoned discussion when the first statement of an argument is "you're an idiot."
706297
It's called political socialization. They usually pick up their political views from their parents and other influential adults in their lives.
91165
What happens is just human nature. It is normal human interaction to speak up against things they see as wrong. When things are going well people have no reason to bring things up. However, when things are not going well, I would hope people will bring it up and speak about it. It is the only way change can come about. Basically in a nut shell, when things are going well there isn't really reason to talk about them, when things are not going well then it becomes a serious topic of conversation. However, as we have so many differant opinions of what is well and what isn't, we have a lot of debates going on all the time, and they are all about how bad something is. One persons interpretation is not anothers. I also would like to see more positive talk about things going well, it just isn't likely to happen.
153470
You know, you really should do your own homework.  But I'll give you some starters: \n\nNormative: social norms shape human behaviors, as such, it approaches the policitical science from a "top-down" point of view.  The dominant social norms will determine the political environments during that time period.\n\nBehavioral: individual behaviors directly determine the outcome of political activities.  This is a "bottom-up" approach, where people's actions/reactions will dictate who gets to be the government and the direction of the government
334285
Yes it does, just look around.  Society expects certain actions and attitudes from all of us.  Our society demands certain behavor in all of us.  The price of not conforming to some of these expectations is just too high for most folks.
968256
As people witness acts that they are averse to, they seek alternative leadershi that speaks to their needs.  With the US being the major political and economic power in the world and affecting every part of the globe, I think that the actions of our leaders do affect who people look to for better leadership.
212421
The relationship the company has with the public.  Does it create a positive image?
620627
On the face of it, this is wonderful opportunity to rant and rave over the faults of the global media industry and to have a pop at the media barons.\n\nThe trouble is that there are greater perils in a government seeking to appear populist by following 'public opinion'.\n\nIn the run up to the Iraq war 68% of American wrapped themselves in the stars and stripes and supported the war only 26% objected.\n\nOnly one in four Americans opposed their Governments strange idea that state instituted violence solves problems.\n\nTwo out of three Americans felt that attacking a country and the innocent civilians living there would somehow make things better.\n\nThe US Government followed public opinion then.\n\nNow we find that the figures are almost reversed. Two out of three Americans say the Iraq war was a bad idea.\n\nStrangely, it's not their fault. Oh no. The fact that they supported the war seems to be forgotten. The fact that their Government followed their opinion just doesn't enter the equation. \n\nRather than admit their moral failings - they blame someone else. The President, liberals - anyone other than themselves it seems.\n\nPublic opinion is fickle and flawed. Sometimes it is based around gut reactions to a symptom of a problem. Trying to cure symptoms doesn't actually cure the problems. Sometimes it will only serve to initiate a far worse side effect.\n\nFor example if you cut off the ability of 11 million illegals to earn a living the US, is there a chance that a substantial number turn to crime in order to survive?\n\nThe problem with the media may be that they are more concerned to increase readers and viewers rather than take their social responsibilities seriously.\n\nHowever, it pales into insignificance when it comes to how the majority of us react when faced with a moral issue. far too many people fail to actually answer the very basic moral questions when faced with an issue.\n\nTell me when was the last time you looked at an issue and asked yourself about the morality of the situation?\n\nToo few of us stop and consider the moralities and even fewer consider the other mans point of view.
362552
Society drives government policy.  In the court of society no matter how right you are the society and in this case the media influences the mob to its whim.  Government imposes control to the extent that benefits control.  Ultimately media wins because they are looked upon favorably.\n  \nFor example the Teri schiavo case.  Who other than the media cared about the situation where a woman was vegetable and her husband did not want her to suffer any longer.  Portrayed her husband like a merciless criminal, the vultures of government swooped in to impose control... but it wasn't until the media spun its web into public policy.  hope this helps.
1021001
at the root of the political institutions of the left and right, there are simple human emotions.  Because of this, what those institutions eventually achieve or fail to achieve is ultimately beyond the reach of such institutions to predict, no matter how much the followers of a particular philosophy want it to be otherwise.  \n\nto sum up the emotions I'm referring to: If the status quo benefits someone, they tend to be conservative and on the right.  If the status quo doesn't particularly do any good for a person, they tend to be liberal and on the left.  \n\nthis is why students and young people tend to the left - they have no property or high social status to defend, no great steady job to hang onto.  But these same people, a few years later, often wouldn't be going to protests anymore, because they have a good job and a mortgage and car payments and whatnot.  Generally, as people age they become more conservative.   \n\nthe more status and property people have, the higher their priority is to protect what they've got.  So, the old dad who used to be a hippy, is a grumpy stick-in-the-mud by the time his kids are idealistic teens!\n\nthis dynamic all works on a large, collective scale as well.  It's all about what people have to lose.  The more they have to lose, the further right they drift...
1000477
Yes it does and this is unfortunate, it goes against my belief that if you lift from the bottom, you lift the whole society. I use the example of three boxes, with the top box being the rich and the middle as just that, and the bottom being the poor. If you lift just the top box that is all that you move leaving the other two behind. But if you lift from the bottom then you lift all three boxes and society benefits as the standard of living goes up for all. This is why I am so against the repuglican agenda of tax cuts for the very rich, or supply side economics. We saw in the Clinton administration an example of consumer driven economics the rich got richer and so did the poor and middle class. The economy boomed. It did not take Bush long to end all of that with supply side economics did it.
639034
It is a symbiotic relationship.  Sometimes societies beliefs are shaped by public policy such as the entire indoctrination of saying the pledge of alligiance in the classroom every morning.  That policy scoops up a great deal of children who later become unquestioning citizens, it is mind control from early on.  \nSometimes (more often I think) societies beliefs shape public policy, many of the gains for people in the 60's such as freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, maybe even ending the Vietnam war was not the government policy makers choice, and it wasn't a politician who made the changes (JFK and all that) they signed on the dotted lines, passed laws (think of the civil rights movement) because people put on such pressure that they had to for political reasons. \n\nIf more people understood the latter position, we would have a much more just society today.  Politicians reply to the greatest pressure.  If it is not people pressure, then they just go for the money and that is what drives society at the current time.  \n\nThe only break in this pattern was the May 1 marches for immigrant rights.  That was more about people than profit.
297695
Good question. I'd say the public, as they generally don't know more than what the media tell them- which is often an overblown version of the truth.
179938
because sometimes they need reaasurance of there opinion. Other than that, who knows.
272763
because people have opinions
1180194
yea ... unfortunately its led the americans to understimate the world outside .. their opinion is further clouded by an insatiable materialistic pursuit... they constitute 5% of the worlds population and consume 45% of the worlds natural resources ... \n\nthey fail to realise that people have different satifaction levels.. for example i live in india... just cause my country isnt fully developed it doesnt mean that we aren happy...  it would broaden the perspective of americans if they stopped lookin at negatives of other communities and recognisin positives.