annenberg media ♪ provided by: narrador: bienvenidos a otro episodio de destinos: an introduction to spanish. primero, algunas escenas de este episodio. aquí tenemos el dios del sol de los mayas, quirixajao. mujer: lo llamaba porque he hablado con mi cliente

en los estados unidos. ¿sí? pues, me ha pedido que les comunique que está dispuesto a mejorar la oferta. pues, lo platicaré con el resto de la familia. perdone. creo que me he equivocado de número. quería hablar con jorge. mujer: un momento, por favor. ¿cómo? papi, ¿cuándo regresará mami? pronto, juanita, no tarda, ¿eh? bueno. narrador: en este episodio, vamos a aprender vocabulario relacionado con los deportes. iah, miren! este es el estadio olímpico.

ah, sí, aquí se jugaron los juegos olímpicos. ¿en qué año fueron? en el mil novecientos sesenta y ocho. ah, sí, ahora me acuerdo. también en este episodio, vamos a ver unos murales de tres pintores mexicanos de fama internacional: diego rivera josé clemente orozco y david alfaro siqueiros. te tengo una sorpresa. ¿qué es esto? se trata de un fin de semana en zihuatanejo... para dos. captioning of this program is made possible

by the annenberg/cpb project and the geraldine r. dodge foundation. ¿ahora? sí. ¿no te animas? en el episodio previo, luis quería ver a raquel. pero raquel no quiso verlo en ese momento. entonces, le prometió a luis que lo vería al día siguiente. te lo prometo. hasta luego. adiós. pero al día siguiente raquel recordó una conversación muy importante... una conversación que tuvo con luis hace unos años. pero, luis, eso significa que tienes que irte a vivir a nueva york. iclaro! nos vamos a nueva york. yo no puedo, luis. me falta un año para graduarme.

yo no puedo irme ahora. pero es que yo tengo que ir. quiero irme. no pienso perder esta oportunidad. sí... entiendo. mientras tanto, arturo fue a una agencia de viajes para pedir información sobre un viaje para cuatro personas. estoy pensando en pasar unos días en la playa. ¿cuántos irán? seremos dos... no, no, seremos cuatro. también luis fue a la agencia e hizo reservaciones para dos personas. buenos días, señor. ¿se le ofrece algo? sí, por favor. quiero hacer reservaciones para dos. sin saber que arturo y luis habían estado en la agencia raquel también fue a pedir información sobre un viaje a guadalajara para cuatro personas. mientras tanto...

mujer: ialó! ¿quién es? perdone. creo que me he equivocado de número. quería hablar con jorge. mujer: un momento, por favor. ¿cómo? mujer: que espere un momento. lo voy a llamar. ¿qué pasa? nada. sólo que no reconocí la voz de la persona que contestó. era una mujer. ¿hola? jorge... te llamo desde méxico. muy bien, muy bien. no, no sufrió nada. está aquí conmigo.

jorge, ¿quién era la mujer que contestó el teléfono? ah, unos amigos... de nueva york. ¿papá? sí, hijita. cuando tenías mi edad, ¿practicabas algún deporte? pues, no. ¿no jugabas al béisbol ni al fútbol? al fútbol, sí. dime tú... ¿a qué juegan uds. en la escuela? pues, a todo. al fútbol, baloncesto, béisbol. pero mi preferido es el baloncesto. pero uds. también hacen ejercicio, ¿no? corren, nadan... pues, sí pero no me gusta correr, y nadar es aburrido.

¿sabes? cuando regresemos a miami quiero tomar lecciones de tenis. ¿tenis? sí. quiero hacerme famosa y rica jugando tenis. yo creo que sería mejor que estudiaras más, ¿eh? tus notas bajaron la última vez. papi, ¿cuándo regresará mami? pronto, juanita, no tarda, ¿eh? bueno. el libro que lee juanita trata de los deportes. algunos deportes comunes son:

juan: ¿pati? ipati! pati: querido juan: tuve que irme a dar clases. no quise despertarte. hay café recién hecho en la cafetera. hasta luego. un beso, pati. ( teléfono suena )

¿bueno? buenos días. habla la señora lópez estrada. ¿con quién hablo? con ramón castillo. ¿cómo está ud., señora? muy bien, señor castillo, gracias. mire, lo llamaba porque he hablado con mi cliente en los estados unidos. ¿sí? pues, me ha pedido que les comunique que está dispuesto a mejorar la oferta. pues, lo platicaré con el resto de la familia. bien, ud. tiene mi teléfono. puede llamarme cuando tomen una decisión. muy bien. muchas gracias por su interés. buenos días. buenos días.

ay, raquel, por fin llegas. raquel, te esperábamos para conocer la ciudad. ¿vamos? miren. yo creo que es mejor que los deje solos. uds. necesitan conocerse. ¿por qué no van sin mí? raquel, ya tú eres parte de la familia. gracias, angela. pero, ¿no crees que deben estar más tiempo juntos? pero, raquel... bueno, está bien. pero te llamamos después para comer juntos, ¿de acuerdo? de acuerdo. idiviértanse! gracias. estos pajaritos, viste, no me dejan dormir a la mañana.

es terrible porque tienden a cantar y a cantar... ( teléfono suena ) ¿bueno? raquel, habla luis. hola, luis, ¿cómo estás? bien. espero que no te hayas olvidado de lo que me prometiste anoche. ¿promesa? sí, de que tú y yo hablaríamos a solas. ah, sí, es cierto... pero ahora estoy trabajando. entonces, ¿qué te parece si comemos juntos? pues, no sé si voy a tener tiempo. una promesa es una promesa. está bien. de acuerdo. nos encontramos en el vestíbulo... a las dos. bien. ahí estaré.

roberto lleva a su hermana y a su tío a uno de los museos más conocidos de toda américa el museo nacional de antropología. roberto: en este salón hay unas reliquias históricas muy importantes del imperio azteca. miren eso. esta es la piedra del sol monumento que hicieron los aztecas a su dios principal. arturo: iqué fantástico!

pues, pasen por acá. esto es un plano de la ciudad de tenochtitlán. ahora, vamos a la sala de los mayas. como uds. saben, los mayas no sólo se establecieron en méxico sino también se establecieron en centroamérica. aquí tenemos el dios del sol de los mayas, quirixajao. angela: iqué increíble! arturo: iqué raro!

roberto: ven, esta escultura representa a chac mool, el dios de la lluvia. ( campanas suenan )

juan: quizás pati y yo necesitamos pasar unas vacaciones juntos después de que papá se mejore. imaría! ¿ falta mucho? vamos a perder el avión. iay, cálmate! faltan más de tres horas. ¿desenchufaste la plancha? ay, no me pongas nerviosa. siempre la desenchufo en cuanto termino de planchar. ¿y la cafetera? ¿desenchufaste la cafetera? mira, ¿por qué no te ocupas de cerrar las maletas y me dejas maquillarme en paz? ya cerré la maleta. pues ahora, ponlas al lado de la puerta. bien. icaramba!

iah, miren! este es el estadio olímpico. ah, sí, aquí se jugaron los juegos olímpicos. ¿en qué año fueron? en mil novecientos sesenta y ocho. ah, sí, ahora me acuerdo. angela: ojalá algún día los juegos olímpicos tengan lugar en san juan. ieso sería fabuloso para nosotros! narrador: como dice roberto los juegos olímpicos tuvieron lugar en méxico en mil novecientos sesenta y ocho. atletas de todas partes del mundo compitieron en todos los deportes oficiales. en mil novecientos noventa y dos españa se añade a la lista de países donde han ocurrido los juegos.

oye, raquel, ¿te gusta nadar todavía? ¿nadar? pues, no he nadado últimamente. mi trabajo me toma mucho tiempo. además, no creo estar en forma. ¿y el esquí acuático? no me dirás que ya no te gusta esquiar en el agua. oye, ¿por qué este repentino interés por mis actividades acuáticas? porque... te tengo una sorpresa. ¿qué es esto? se trata de un fin de semana en zihuatanejo... para dos. ¿para dos? ¿quieres decir, para nosotros dos? claro. ¿para quiénes más? pero luis, ¿no crees que es mejor consultar a las personas antes de hacer planes de este tipo? no te enojes. se trata de una sorpresa. creí que te alegrarías.

sí, luis, gracias, pero... mira, luis, no sé qué es lo que piensas pero creo que debemos hablar claramente sobre estas cos ¿no crees? este mural es de diego rivera. qué impresionante es, ¿no creen? a papá le hubiera gustado ver esto. roberto: diego rivera es un pintor muy importante pues es uno de los fundadores

del movimiento muralista mexicano. era muy nacionalista y se identificaba mucho con el pueblo y especialmente con el indio mexicano. este aquí es de siqueiros. como pueden ver los murales de siqueiros dan una impresión distinta de los de rivera, pues su técnica es diferente. sus murales tienden a representar imágenes muy fuertes y sus temas eran más contemporáneos. el mural que estamos viendo ahora es de orozco. como rivera y siqueiros orozco pintaba en sus murales imágenes de la revolución. aunque muchos de sus murales representan también temas universales.

roberto, sabes bastante del arte mexicano, ¿no? no tanto, angela. lo que pasa es que una persona no puede vivir en un país sin aprender nada de su cultura, ¿no? tío... ¿en qué piensas? no, estaba pensando cuando raquel vino a visitarme en buenos aires que yo también la llevé a conocer la ciudad igual que roberto está haciendo con nosotros. dinos, tío, te gusta raquel, ¿no es verdad? ¿se me nota tanto? ¿vamos? sí. vamos.

hola. hola. hola. ellos son angela y roberto castillo. encantada. mucho gusto. luis villareal. hola. hola, ¿cómo estás? ¿qué tal? ¿qué hiciste hoy? trabajé un poco y luego luis y yo fuimos a almorzar. ¿y uds.? iay, lo pasamos muy bien! yo creo que roberto podría vivir muy bien de guía turístico, ¿verdad, tío? sí, claro. hubieras venido con nosotros. fuimos a ver los murales en el palacio de bellas artes y roberto nos describió cómo los muralistas comenzaron un movimiento durante la revolución mexicana. iay, raquel, son tan impresionantes!

y me recordaban mucho a mi papá, pobrecito. le hubiera gustado verlos. más tarde, en su habitación, raquel está pensando. bueno, parece que angela, roberto y arturo lo pasaron muy bien en su excursión. según angela vieron unos murales impresionantes. ¿recuerdan quiénes son los pintores que los pintaron? los pintores son diego rivera, david alfaro siqueiros y josé clemente orozco. son pintores de fama mundial y de mucha importancia en la historia de méxico.

pero antes de ver los murales ¿adónde fueron primero arturo y sus sobrinos? ¿al museo de antropología o al museo de historia mexicana? antes de ver los murales, habían ido al museo de antropología. también dijo angela que habían pasado por un estadio. ¿qué tipo de estadio era? ¿un estadio de béisbol, un estadio de fútbol o un estadio olímpico? iah, miren! este es el estadio olímpico. raquel: exacto. habían pasado por el estadio olímpico.

mientras tanto, luis me llamó. yo le había prometido algo anoche, ¿recuerdan? ¿qué le había prometido yo? ¿no te animas? no, luis, disculpa, pero estoy muy cansada. bueno, está bien. pero prométeme que hablaremos mañana... a solas. sí. te lo prometo. durante esa conversación por teléfono yo le había prometido que hablaría hoy con él. por fin bajé a la cafetería y almorcé con él. al final del almuerzo me dijo que me tenía una sorpresa. te tengo una sorpresa.

raquel: luis sacó un sobre y me mostró unos boletos. ¿qué había hecho luis? ¿qué es esto? se trata de un fin de semana en zihuatanejo... para dos. raquel: el había comprado dos boletos para ir a zihuatanejo y también había conseguido información sobre un hotel. pues, mi reacción fue bastante negativa. luis nunca debió haber comprado esos boletos sin consultarme. yo creo que eso muestra una falta de respeto hacia la otra persona ¿no creen? bueno, mañana hablaré más sobre eso con luis.

venga, señora. tenemos que hablar. doctor, ¿cómo está mi padre? mire, los resultados ya están hechos pero tenemos que hablar muy seriamente. pobre don fernando. captioned by the caption center wgbh educational foundation

annenberg media ♪ ided by: for information about this and other annenberg media programs call 1-800-learner and visit us at www.learner.org.

annenberg media ♪ public opinion plays an influential role. it represents the pulse of the nation, and there are strong ties between public opinion and how government and politicians behave. today, public opinion reflects an american paradox -- on the one hand, we express a common faith in our democracy. on the other, we express cynicism about government and politics. for those trying to assess and use public opinion, it is a daunting challenge. i'm renee poussaint.

whatever public opinion may be on an issue, it has become an important tool for citizens to influence the government. no one should underestimate the power of a poll or a letter-writing campaign or any avenue by which public officials can discover what americans are thinking. our voices are heard, even at the highest levels.

[ sirens wail ] the shock waves from the terrorist attacks on september 11th rolled through american society. in addition to destroying thousands of lives and millions of dollars in property, the terrorists had grounded the nation's airlines. because they had slipped past airport security, the saboteurs shook americans' faith in the safety of air travel. fearing more attú!ks, the government shut down the airports and kept the skies empty of commercial traffic. for days, the only people walking the halls of the nation's airports were maintenance workers, marshals, and other security forces. america's economy had come to a screeching halt and congress was under pressure to get it moving again. for veteran republican pollster william mcinturff, the shock of september 11th caused historic shifts in american public opinion.

right after the attack, 6 out of 10 americans said they were worried about flying. a month later, still almost a majority of americans said they were worried about flying. i think that people believed and the members of congress believed you had to take action to demonstrate something was being done to make sure that people could fly and be safe. our challenge was, is to say we've got to do something to get this economy going. now this is where public opinion played a serious role. poussaint: what was the best way to convince americans to get back on the plane in order to jump-start the economy? democrats wanted to make 28,000 airport screeners federal employees, with training and pay equal to law enforcement officers. republicans did not want any more federal employees. they wanted to remove supervision of the screeners from the airline companies but leave the hiring and training

in the hands of private contractors. congressman james oberstar, ranking democrat on the transportation and infrastructure committee, had long advocated upgrading the screening process at airports. they, the traveling public, see the lack of attentiveness. they also know that these are minimum wage workers. they know that there was a huge turnover every two or three months in that screener workforce. poussaint: on october 11th, the senate passed an aviation security bill unanimously. checkpoint personnel at the 142 largest commercial airports would be federal employees, but without the right to strike. the white house was trying to tiptoe around the issue of federal workers. transportation secretary norman mineta told congress the president would accept federal workers if they could not strike and were exempt from civil service protections. but that infuriated conservative house republican leaders

who saw the federalization of screeners as a boost to unions, who would organize them, and democrats, who would recruit them. mcinturff: the people who are in the leadership of our party were saying, you can't convince me that just because there are going to be federal union members that they are really going to be safer at the airport -- that's not the standard. we have lots of stuff to do in terms of training, in terms of screening, but we can do all those things under a private system and do them better. poussaint: but while the leadership was digging in its heels, public opinion stood firm in favor of federalizing screeners. initial polls by the washington post and time/cnn found overwhelming public support r federal takeover of airport screening. because if you're a member of congress, from the tim you step off a plane when you go back to your congressional district, the people in the cabs, the people in the airport, the people you meet in town meetings, your donors, your friends, your neighbors, you know what they all say is, "hey, what are you going to do about..." fill in the blank. and when they get those kind of issues where everywhere they go

and everyone they talk to is saying, "what are you going to do about x?" they come back and say, "wow, guess what, people are really riled up and they want us to do something." and guess what, congress acts. poussaint: despite the clamor for federalizing employees, the republican leadership of the house refused to budge. they succeeded in passing a bill that would keep screeners in the private sector. and they did what was right. and it wasn't an issue that mr. delay or mr. armey pushed, it was an issue, i think, that members felt basic comfort with having a good combination of the federal government with its particular role and then the private sector, which does such a good job with its role. poussaint: after the house vote, the legislation went to a conference committee to resolve differences with the senate version. but the battle over making screeners federal employees created a stalemate, and the american public was still not

returning to air travel, despite the president's order to increase the number of national guard troops patrolling terminal corridors. public opinion continued in favor of federalizing screeners. an abc/washington post poll found 55% in favor of a government takeover while only 36% wanted private companies in charge. on capitol hill, the stalemate continued. clearly, after the vote that did not include a federalized screener workforce resulted in a reaction from the public, and that outcry of public opinion came into play as we went into conference with the senate. [ siren wails ] poussaint: public anxiety spiked again when an american airlines jet crashed after takeoff on the outskirts of new york city. although not linked to terrorism,

it came amid news reports about more breaches in airport security. these events forced a compromise on capitol hill. soe did act, we got it done, buried our differences. we bring to this body a bill that will substantially enhance security and restore airline finances. poussaint: events and public pressure had moved both sides to agreement, compromising to make screeners federal employees, but only on an interim basis with an option to privatize them later. man: on this vote, the yeas are 410, the nays are 9, the conference report is agreed to. poussaint: the post-vote analysis pointed to a disconnect between republican party policy and public sentiment on this issue. oberstar: they were pursuing their own ideological bent and they misjudged what the public wanted. poussaint: on november 16th, president bush

and a delegation from congress went to the airport for the signing ceremony. today, we take permanent and aggressive steps to improve the security of our airwa. poussaint: and so, because of public opinion, there was a dramatic shift by republicans from private to federal control of airport screeners. we are all aware that public officials, political candidates, and media outlets are generating a mountain of polls to gauge public opinion and that they use these polls to guide their actions. however, while polls can be a useful measure, poorly designed polls provide inaccurate and misleading findings. who is polled, what they're asked, and how they are asked a question can make all the difference. it is important for people who rely on polls

to make judgments to understand the basics. every four years, there's a national contest -- the presidential elections -- who's up, who's down? americans wonder. public opinion polls, a barometer of that national contest, help us keep track of the changing fortunes of candidates. ♪ out of sight ♪ ross perot will carry the fight ♪ ♪ something's gotta give, bush has gotta go ♪ ♪ the people want perot poussaint: polling, the modern day scientific method of measuring public opinion, first drew national attention with two colossal failures to predict presidential outcomes. in 1936, alf landon was proclaimed the winner and lost. and in 1948, harry truman was picked to lose

and won. man: you've watched the debates -- learn anything new? did you decide? express your opinion tonight at debates.org. poussaint: what elements make up a good poll? carefully crafted questions arranged in a precise order. and a sample that accurately reflects the makeup of a larger population -- that's the scientific part. analyzing and interpreting the results is more of an art. the ordinary person would think if you have 1,000 respondents, it would not be as accurate as if you have a million respondents. but the truth of the matter is, if you have 1,000 adults selected properly and the interviewing done well, then you're going to have a more accurate sample than if you just go out and interview a million people "at random." poussaint: during and after the 1992 presidential campaign,

polling numbers were watched with close attention. a third party candidate, ross perot, threw his hat into the ring with george bush, the incumbent republican candidate, and bill clinton, the democratic nominee. americans wondered, would perot's candidacy succeed? and if not, would it cause a shift in the fortunes of the other two candidates by fragmenting the vote? i saw the perot movement as, initially, as being able only to kind of fire a shot across the bow of the status quo and shake things up. and nobody was more surprised than myself that for some period of time, 30 or 45 days, he had a chance to actually be president of this country. as you and i know, we are in deep voodoo. man: perot himself did not use any polling data at all for planning his behavior in the campaign. he considered that immoral. i mean, it was an issue campaign for him,

it was a campaign of principle, and he thought that trying to shape your campaign with polls was not something he was going to do. if i could have one wish for the two parties, it would be to stop taking polls and go talk to people. washington doesn't listen. washington takes a 1,900-person poll sample and makes a decision affecting 250 million people. poussaint: the league of women voters asked perot to participate in the presidential debate because he was polling at 10% or better of the projected vote -- he got a huge boost from that inclusion. but elation soon turned to sorrow when the votes were counted on election night. man: we asked on the exit polling, "would you have voted for ross perot if you thought he could win?" and it turned out he would have gotten 40% of the vote. it's extraordinary. but because people discounted it and they didn't believe he had a chance of winning, he ended up getting 19% of the vote.

poussaint: perot and the party he helped form, united we stand, did not give up. they started planning for the 1996 presidential campaign. their strategy included buying national airtime on nbc for a series of infomercials. we're going to vote on 17 vital issues that face our country and we will send the results directly to your congressmen and senators so that they can know exactly how you feel about government reform. poussaint: during the broadcast, ross perot asked viewers to respond to a poll he had placed in tv guide. the poll questions mirrored his agenda -- cutting federal spending, reducing the federal debt, a presidential line item veto, and shutting out special interest groups. 1.4 million americans responded to this survey.

the polling community had nothing but harsh words for the methods used to create this poll. hart: his questions were biased, they were loaded to get certain answers. secondly, he put this questionnaire in tv guide, which is fine, i suppose, as a place to go, but that's not a cross-section of america, and it's self-selecting who sends this in. it's not the fact that a million people answered, it's the fact that you don't have any sample at all. poussaint: perot, feeling the heat from the polling community, yet still wanting legitimate polling results on these questions, sought out gordon black, president of gordon black corporation, to re-administer the poll. black: he approached me through his son-in-law to ask us if we would be willing to poll for him. my condition was that we had to rewrite the questions to be real polling questions. poussaint: perot agreed to all of black's conditions.

how did the black corporation poll differ from the tv guide poll? poussaint: the black poll asked, "which of the following deficit reduction approaches would you prefer?" a. a program that relies entirely on tax increases with no spending cuts? b. a program that requires $1 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases? or c. a program that requires at least $2 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases? the results of the black poll, arrived at by using a representative sample, and the tv guide poll differed. on the question about making bigger federal spending cuts, 97% of the respondents answered yes

to the tv guide poll question. on the black poll, 5% favored a tax increase with no spending cuts, 27% favored a dollar-for-dollar cut on taxing and spending, and 60% favored a $2 cut in taxes for every $1 of spending cuts. it's easy to see from this example that the black poll had more depth and gave a more precise measure of opinion than did the tv guide poll. perot: if we simply keep asking the question, "is it right or wrong?" then we can get our country back on the track. poussaint: knowing something about good polling practices makes us appreciate that getting reliable polling results is trickier than it looks. it's time to pick up a shovel and clean out the barn. let's get to work -- it will be tough, but it will be fun.

although it is evident that public officials and political candidates use polls to guide their actions, that does not mean that their decision-making is guided solely by poll results. in assessing public opinion, politicians use polls as only one form of feedback. they also talk with their constituents, they read their mail, listen to interest groups, they interpret election results, and they rely on their own political instincts and values. man: you're looking at the house chamber in the vermont statehouse and what is once again an extraordinary turnout. poussaint: it was an issue that brought more people to vermont's state capitol than any other in memory. i've been working here for 20 years, and there's never been an issue like this one. poussaint: david moats won a pulitzer prize for his editorials in vermont's rutland herald about the state's passage of a so-called "civil unions bill."

it was the most volatile and heated and divisive issue i've ever covered. poussaint: the civil unions legislation was passed by vermont's general assembly in the spring of 2000. woman: well, there you go. poussaint: it gave this state the distinction of becoming the first to give gay and lesbian couples the same legal rights as married couples. and by the end of today, we will be, believe it or not, legally connected to each other. well, civil unions is about sex, morality, marriage. it's about how society organizes itself. it's about equal rights. it's about the dignity of people and tolerance. poussaint: and it's also about public opinion and the role it played or perhaps didn't play in decision-making by vermont lawmakers. man: they weren't listening, they didn't want to listen. poussaint: reverend craig bensen was and is

an ardent opponent of civil unions. he says there's absolutely no doubt that the majority of vermont's electorate opposed civil unions. the majority opposed both same-sex marriage, civil unions, and comprehensive domestic benefits, as high as 3-to-1 against, specifically when polled in the spring of 2000 at the vermont town meetings. poussaint: supporters of civil unions dispute that 3-to-1 margin of opposition, but they still concede that the majority of vermont voters did not want to see civil unions become law. talk to the people. a majority of them, according to the polls, do not support marriage for homosexuals. poussaint: public hearings were overflowing, and broadcast live by vermont public television, rallies were huge,

and a letter-writing campaign jammed the mailboxes of legislators. there is no doubt that lawmakers knew they were treading in dangerous political waters. i give my own personal poll of what the people, hundreds and hundreds, are saying and feeling about the homosexual marriage debate and of how upset they are with their elected officials and how they will put them out of office if they vote yes. poussaint: there's no doubt that mark macdonald was fighting a strong current of public opinion. macdonald: i'm a history teacher, and all change that is worth doing has opposition. poussaint: these days, when mark macdonald isn't teaching middle school civics and history, he's tending to his small cattle farm in orange county, vermont. fading election signs spotlight a time when macdonald

wore a third hat, that of vermont state senator. he was one of the legislators who voted to pass the civil unions bill, despite the public will. macdonald: i don't know how you do something that's against what you think is right and your conscience and your oath of office and then look people in the eye and say, "i did the wrong thing because you asked me to." poussaint: macdonald says vermont's supreme court virtually forced the legislature to pass civil unions. the supreme court ruled that the current statute, which provided a host of benefits and privileges for married people, was unconstitutional because it denied the same benefits and privileges to others who were willing to make the same commitment. poussaint: regardless of the supreme court ruling, many vermont voters were outraged when the civil unions bill was enacted into law. their own districts were 2-to-1 opposed to it,

and they still would say, "i don't care what my people are saying about this." moats: public opinion shifts with the wind. it can be one thing one day and one thing the next. we elect leaders to think about what the right course is, to consider the public opinion, take it into account, and consider the constitution. i think depending upon the significance of the issue, there is an expectation in the public mind that there are some areas where the representative is free to use their best judgment, and there are some areas where the representative had best pay very careful attention to who they're representing. poussaint: reaction to passage of civil unions was immediate. a grassroots campaign sprang up almost overnight. people expressed their contempt during rallies and took to the streets to show their disapproval. "take back vermont" signs were everywhere, and at election time, civil unions became the hot button issue. a lot of legislators who supported civil unions

lost their seats -- it was a dozen or 15 house members lost their seats because they voted for civil unions, and so the house went republican. it had been democratic, it went republican. one democratic senator lost his seat, but the senate retained its democratic majority. poussaint: that single senator who lost his seat was mark macdonald. moats: he knew it would be dangerous for his re-election if he voted for it. i believe the democrats told him that, "we have enough votes, you can vote against it if you think you need to to save your seat," but he decided his conscience wouldn't allow him to do that. he voted for civil unions and lost his seat. so he's one of those profiles in courage that people talk about. courage was only something for a few of the folks who voted. defiance was the message that usually came across. poussaint: so depending on who you talk to, mark macdonald was either a courageous legislator or a lawmaker who didn't listen to public opinion.

by voting macdonald and his colleagues out of office, civil unions' opponents say they reacted the only way they could. that was the only option we were given in the process that we have, because vermont does not have a referendum or a popular-vote way of coming at issues. poussaint: so while public opinion may not have tipped the scales in the legislative debate over civil unions, in the general election, it was the only thing that mattered. no democratic government can afford to simply ignore public opinion, and political leaders in a democracy who disregard it do so at their peril. the term for those who too often ignore public opinion might be "former leaders." we know what we want the government to do. what's the problem? why doesn't it simply follow the public will?

the problem is, there isn't one public, there are many. people seldom think alike or even about the same things. in this vast and varied nation, differences in religion, education, region, class, gender, race, and ethnicity produce a broad spectrum of views about the political world. even when people have similar backgrounds, they often have different opinions. we wish everyone would just think like us, but they don't. as a wise old saying puts it, "never talk politics with someone you just met." for those trying to implement the public will, this great diversity of opinion makes it difficult to even define public opinion -- which public are we talking about? of course, none of this stops political leaders from engaging in a constant search for public opinion, employing ever more sophisticated and expensive methods. the truth seems to be that this search is like the quest for the holy grail.

as soon as sometng that can be called public opinion is identified, it changes. for "democracy in america," i'm renee poussaint.

annenberg media ♪ for information about this and other annenberg media programs call 1-800-learner and visit us at www.learner.org.

annenberg media ♪ this program has been edited in sequence. captioning is made possible by the annenberg/cpb project