What do you think?
The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences
This monumental study is a comprehensive critical survey of the policy preferences of the American public, and will be the definitive work on American public opinion for some time to come. Drawing on an enormous body of public opinion data, Benjamin I. Page and Robert Y. Shapiro provide the richest available portrait of the political views of Americans, from the 1930's to 1990. They not only cover all types of domestic and foreign policy issues, but also consider how opinions vary by age, gender, race, region, and the like.
The authors unequivocally demonstrate that, notwithstanding fluctuations in the opinions of individuals, collective public opinion is remarkably it reflects a stable system of values shared by the majority of Americans and it responds sensitively to new events, arguments, and information reported in the mass media. While documenting some alarming case of manipulation, Page and Shapiro solidly establish the soundness and value of collective political opinion. The Rational Public provides a wealth of information about what we as a nation have wanted from government, how we have changed our minds over the years, and why.
For anyone interested in the short- and long-term trends in Americans' policy preferences, or eager to learn what Americans have thought about issues ranging from racial equality to the MX missile, welfare to abortion, this book offers by far the most sophisticated and detailed treatment available.
The authors unequivocally demonstrate that, notwithstanding fluctuations in the opinions of individuals, collective public opinion is remarkably it reflects a stable system of values shared by the majority of Americans and it responds sensitively to new events, arguments, and information reported in the mass media. While documenting some alarming case of manipulation, Page and Shapiro solidly establish the soundness and value of collective political opinion. The Rational Public provides a wealth of information about what we as a nation have wanted from government, how we have changed our minds over the years, and why.
For anyone interested in the short- and long-term trends in Americans' policy preferences, or eager to learn what Americans have thought about issues ranging from racial equality to the MX missile, welfare to abortion, this book offers by far the most sophisticated and detailed treatment available.
506 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 1992
About the author
Benjamin I. Page
41 books20 followersBenjamin I. Page is a Gordon S. Fulcher Professor of Decision Making at Northwestern University. He is also a Faculty Associate at the Institute for Policy Research. Page holds a PhD from Stanford University and a JD from Harvard Law School.
Page works on American politics and U.S. foreign policy, specializing in public opinion, democratic policy making, the media, and economic inequality. He is best known for his work (with Robert Y. Shapiro) on the “rationality” of public opinion: the general stability, coherence, and responsiveness to new information of Americans’ collective policy preferences. He is currently studying the political attitudes and behavior of wealthy Americans – the top 1% of U.S. wealth-holders – investigating how they often disagree with average citizens but tend to get their way in policy making. Page’s past civic involvement has been limited, but he is now committed to helping Americans understand the barriers that stand in the way of democratic responsiveness.
Professor Page's interests include public opinion and policy making, the mass media, empirical democratic theory, political economy, policy formation, the presidency, and American foreign policy. He is author of a number of articles, including "Effects of Public Opinion on Policy" and "What Moves Public Opinion," both in the American Political Science Review, and of 11 books, including Living with the Dragon: How the American Public Views the Rise of China (with Tao Xie, Columbia University Press, 2010); Class War?: What Americans Really Think about Economic Inequality (with Lawrence R. Jacobs, University of Chicago Press, 2009); The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences (with Robert Shapiro, University of Chicago Press, 1992), Who Deliberates: Mass Media in Modern Democracy (University of Chicago Press, 1996) and What Government Can Do: Dealing with Poverty and Inequality (with James Simmons, University of Chicago Press, 2000). His research interests include public opinion, policy making, the mass media, and U.S. foreign policy. He is currently engaged in a large collaborative project to study Economically Successful Americans and the Common Good.
Page works on American politics and U.S. foreign policy, specializing in public opinion, democratic policy making, the media, and economic inequality. He is best known for his work (with Robert Y. Shapiro) on the “rationality” of public opinion: the general stability, coherence, and responsiveness to new information of Americans’ collective policy preferences. He is currently studying the political attitudes and behavior of wealthy Americans – the top 1% of U.S. wealth-holders – investigating how they often disagree with average citizens but tend to get their way in policy making. Page’s past civic involvement has been limited, but he is now committed to helping Americans understand the barriers that stand in the way of democratic responsiveness.
Professor Page's interests include public opinion and policy making, the mass media, empirical democratic theory, political economy, policy formation, the presidency, and American foreign policy. He is author of a number of articles, including "Effects of Public Opinion on Policy" and "What Moves Public Opinion," both in the American Political Science Review, and of 11 books, including Living with the Dragon: How the American Public Views the Rise of China (with Tao Xie, Columbia University Press, 2010); Class War?: What Americans Really Think about Economic Inequality (with Lawrence R. Jacobs, University of Chicago Press, 2009); The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences (with Robert Shapiro, University of Chicago Press, 1992), Who Deliberates: Mass Media in Modern Democracy (University of Chicago Press, 1996) and What Government Can Do: Dealing with Poverty and Inequality (with James Simmons, University of Chicago Press, 2000). His research interests include public opinion, policy making, the mass media, and U.S. foreign policy. He is currently engaged in a large collaborative project to study Economically Successful Americans and the Common Good.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
May 2, 2013
I thought this was a good read on the trends of public opinion between 1935 and 1990. Seeing as it is now 2013, I really would like to see an updated version. The authors argue that the media helps share public opinion (of course!) and the media has certainly changed a lots since 1990 - 24 hr cable news channels, internet, social media. I can take a guess at how these new media impact public opinion, but it would be great to read a thorough review of their impact - and how it differs from pre-1990.
September 20, 2026
Huge fan of this theory. Too many political scientists write about how "unsophisticated" and "uninformed" American voters are. These terms serve as euphemisms for dumb, unlike the "intelligent and informed" auidence these kinds of articles pander too. I can hear the snickers behind the pretentious examples they offer. Such as, "...only X% of voters were able to identify two currently serving Supreme Court Justices."
The truth is, there is no reason for the average voter to spend that type of intellectual effort knowing random facts of political information. They have complicated lives as is, and being able to name every policy stance of their lower chamber state legislator likely wont keep food on the table.
That's the premise Shapiro and Page start with. Voters are rationally uniformed. But political scientists looking to study the voter behavior shouldn't care about individual voters, they should care about aggregate voters. They posit that individual voters can be uninformed, but that the aggregation of all voters means that the random error of uniformed voters cancel out (a statistical concept most social scientists should be very familiar with) leaving a rational pattern of voting behavior of the aggregate.
They spend most of their book testing this theory and find that the basic idea holds. Information is introduced to the universe of voters (usually mass media as this was written in 1992). The information is distilled throughout the universe, and through the division of labor, certain voters have a more detailed understanding of that information. The conclusions are discussed, spread, and adopted my various members of the universe. Random error of votes are canceled out via the large sample size. And what is left is a stable, predictable, and reasonable voter prefernece based on the information available.
This statistical theory helps explain why only a small number of voters would be deemed "sophisticated" by political sciencist, yet the American government can rationally operate quite well for 250 years. Now the authors do advocate for better civic knowledge, obviously. However, they patently reject ideas like those espoused by Dr. Converse, that voting behavior is essentially random and voters hold a series of "nonattitudes" towards specific policies. Voters do hold specific beliefs (though not always ideologically stringent...another topic) and they react accordingly when policy is passed.
The truth is, there is no reason for the average voter to spend that type of intellectual effort knowing random facts of political information. They have complicated lives as is, and being able to name every policy stance of their lower chamber state legislator likely wont keep food on the table.
That's the premise Shapiro and Page start with. Voters are rationally uniformed. But political scientists looking to study the voter behavior shouldn't care about individual voters, they should care about aggregate voters. They posit that individual voters can be uninformed, but that the aggregation of all voters means that the random error of uniformed voters cancel out (a statistical concept most social scientists should be very familiar with) leaving a rational pattern of voting behavior of the aggregate.
They spend most of their book testing this theory and find that the basic idea holds. Information is introduced to the universe of voters (usually mass media as this was written in 1992). The information is distilled throughout the universe, and through the division of labor, certain voters have a more detailed understanding of that information. The conclusions are discussed, spread, and adopted my various members of the universe. Random error of votes are canceled out via the large sample size. And what is left is a stable, predictable, and reasonable voter prefernece based on the information available.
This statistical theory helps explain why only a small number of voters would be deemed "sophisticated" by political sciencist, yet the American government can rationally operate quite well for 250 years. Now the authors do advocate for better civic knowledge, obviously. However, they patently reject ideas like those espoused by Dr. Converse, that voting behavior is essentially random and voters hold a series of "nonattitudes" towards specific policies. Voters do hold specific beliefs (though not always ideologically stringent...another topic) and they react accordingly when policy is passed.
September 19, 2023
i’d have enjoyed this more if i wasn’t so jaded from having to read so much for this class but overall pretty ok. kinda repetitive, kinda dragged, but a good concept to explore. i’m just a lippmann hater so this is # perf.
February 25, 2011
Are American voters irrational? Are they incapable of living up to the ideals of democratic citizens? Page and Shapiro are optimists. This book provides data to suggest that the public as a whole is not a collective fool. It was published nearly two decadfes ago, but it has lasting relevance for debates over the competence of the public in a democracy.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews