annenberg media ♪ by: narrador: bienvenidos a otro episodio de destinos: an introduction to spanish. primero, algunas escenas de este episodio. hola, raquel. i¿luis?! sí, raquel, soy yo. ivaya sorpresa! ¿y qué haces aquí? ¿has notado cómo se miran raquel y tío arturo? sí, hacen una buena pareja. arturo: ¿ud. también es méxicoamericano? no, soy mexicano. pero vivo desde hace muchos años en los estados unidos. claro, y ahí conoció a raquel.

pues, sí. nos conocimos en la universidad de california. ¿te acuerdas? en este episodio vamos a ver cómo se pide en un restaurante. ¿en qué consiste una cena? ¿qué se dice en un restaurante? primero, viene el camarero a preguntarles a los clientes qué van a tomar. ¿desean algo de tomar? después, el camarero les pregunta si quieren un plato para comenzar. ¿no desean algo para comenzar? también les toma la orden para el plato principal. ¿están listos para ordenar? luis: después viví muchos años en nueva york por razones de trabajo. pero ahora he vuelto a los angeles para quedarme.

captioning of this program is made possible by the annenberg/cpb project and the geraldine r. dodge foundation. en el episodio previo angela y roberto iban a conocer a su abuelo, don fernando. estaban un poco nerviosos. por fin conoceremos al abuelo. estoy... ¿nerviosa? sí, pero... muy contenta. entiendo perfectamente. yo también. raquel: arturo, ino está! ¿cómo? don fernando no está. ila habitación está vacía! al entrar raquel en el cuarto de don fernando

descubrió que no estaba. ven. no está. no hay nadie. ( sirena ) una enfermera les explicó que habían llevado a don fernando a guadalajara. vinimos a ver al señor fernando castillo y no hay nadie en la habitación. ¿el señor castillo? claro, ya se fue. ¿cómo que se fue? ¿adónde? pues, a guadalajara. i¿a guadalajara?! mientras tanto, en la casa de pedro carlos empezó a contarle a su familia el secreto que ocultaba. gloria juega. pedro: ¿juega? ¿quieres decir, por dinero? carlos: sí, es... como un vicio, y... no para. pero, ¿qué necesidad hay de vender el apartamento? más tarde, angela y roberto hablaban de la venta del apartamento en san juan. a mí me dan tristeza los recuerdos.

¿quieres decir que no tienes otros motivos? y roberto acusó a angela de tener motivos personales. ia ver, dímelo! esto ya lo hablamos hace una semana. angela quiere darle parte del dinero a su novio, jorge. es otra vez la señora, lópez de estrada. ¿quién es? una agente de bienes raíces. un empresario de los estados unidos quiere comprar la gavia. nos ha hecho una oferta. ¿comprar la gavia? ¿y desde cuándo está en venta? ila hacienda es lo que más quiere papá! al final, raquel y arturo decidieron ir a cenar. si es una invitación a cenar antes debo subir a mi habitación. bueno, nos encontramos abajo en quince minutos. media hora. bueno. raquel no sabía que le esperaba una sorpresa.

buenas. buenas.

hola, raquel. i¿luis?! sí, raquel, soy yo. ivaya sorpresa! ¿y qué haces aquí? acabo de llegar a méxico. raquel: ¿estás alojado aquí en este hotel? sí. disculpen. arturo... él es luis villareal. es... un viejo amigo mío. el doctor arturo iglesias es un buen amigo de argentina. mucho gusto. el gusto es mío. bueno... pues, iésta sí es una verdadera sorpresa!

luis, arturo y yo íbamos a cenar. ¿quieres cenar con nosotros? no, gracias. no quisiera ser una molestia, yo... por favor, no hay ninguna molestia. anda, ven. bueno, si insisten. pero yo invito. ino, faltaba más! invito yo. no, señor iyo los invito! así que, en esta noche en que raquel quería estar a solas con arturo luis los acompaña a cenar. ( tocan canción tradicional ) van a "el refugio", un restaurante con música típica y de muy buena comida. buenas noches. todos: buenas noches. ¿desean algo de tomar? sí, gracias. mmm, yo quiero... un margarita, por favor.

¿cómo no? ¿y ud., señor? para mí también. bueno, que sean tres. tres margaritas. con permiso. sí. ( suspira ) ( suspira ) ¿ud. también es méxicoamericano? no. soy mexicano, pero vivo desde hace muchos años en los estados unidos. claro, ahí conoció a raquel. pues, sí. nos conocimos en la universidad de california. ¿te acuerdas? después viví muchos años en nueva york por razones de trabajo. pero ahora he vuelto a los angeles para quedarme. arturo: ¿algún hombre habrá vivido en tu vida? hubo uno. nos conocimos en la universidad de california. el estudiaba administración de empresas. ¿y...? después de graduarse consiguió un buen trabajo en nueva york

y se fue a vivir allá. y uds., ¿dónde se conocieron? en buenos aires. vaya. ¿y qué hacías tú en buenos aires? asuntos de trabajo. hacía una investigación. es una larga historia. es bonita esa pulsera. gracias, es un regalo de arturo. ¿y en qué trabaja ud., arturo? soy psiquiatra. y también doy clases en la universidad. no sé si creo en la terapia psicológica. ¿no cree ud. que las personas deben resolver sus problemas por su propia cuenta? bueno, eso depende del problema, ¿no? si ud. sufriera de una enfermedad física grave ¿no consultaría con un médico?

con permiso. ah, gracias. gracias. ¿están listos para ordenar? sí. yo quiero pollo en mole, por favor. ¿ud., caballero? unas enchiladas verdes, por favor. ¿carne asada puede ser? ¿no le gustaría el plato surtido? trae distintas carnes. perfecto, gracias. ¿no desean algo para comenzar? ¿unas quesadillas tal vez? no, gracias. traiga mejor una botella de vino tinto. con todo gusto. pues, salud. salud. salud. roberto: "me gustaría verlo otra vez, pero es imposible.

es muy tarde". "el mar. mi inspiración... y mi destino final". ( suspira ) ¿qué increíble, no? ¿has notado cómo se miran raquel y tío arturo? sí, hacen una buena pareja. si se casaran entonces raquel sería nuestra tía. le he tomado mucho cariño. es casi como una hermana mayor para mí. a mí también me gusta mucho igual que tío arturo. bueno, es tarde. debes estar cansadísima. ay, bastante. ¿no te importa si hablamos del apartamento mañana?

está bien... mañana. y luego llamamos a tío jaime. mientras tanto, en nueva york juan llega a su apartamento. pero no encuentra a pati. ( suspira ) ( suspira )

pati: a ver... va. hombre: ilaura! ( gritan ) mujer: laura, icorre, corre! iya, ya, ya! muy bien, muy bien. esa parte ya. raquel: y así fue como arturo y yo emprendimos la búsqueda que terminó cuando encontré a sus sobrinos en puerto rico. ahora están todos aquí para conocerse y conocer a su abuelo, don fernando. y tú, luis, ¿qué has hecho durante todos estos años? ¿sigues trabajando en la misma compañía? no. al poco tiempo de estar en nueva york encontré una mejor oferta de trabajo. así que renuncié a mi antiguo puesto y me fui a esta nueva compañía. me ha ido muy bien, no me puedo quejar. soy ahora vicepresidente de la compañía.

¿y por qué has decidido regresar a los angeles? estamos por abrir una oficina en los angeles. iqué bien! me gustaría quedarme a vivir en los angeles. camarero: ¿todo bien? sí. ¿no desean algo más? no, muchas gracias. gracias. salud. todos: hasta luego. adiós. ¿vamos a tomar algo? bueno. me alegro de tener tu compañía.

sí, pues entonces tú puedes invitar. toma tu chaqueta. sí. ¿viste que manuel se quedaba mirando la obra con mucha atención? ino! no lo vi. pues, sí. allí estaba sentado. ¿qué vas a hacer? no te preocupes, guillermo. ( música sigue ) ¿todo bien? sí, gracias. ¿no desean un postre? no. ¿café? todos: no, gracias. ¿la cuenta? sí. sí. gracias. ( arturo y luis protestan ) no, señor, invitó yo, por favor.

no, de ninguna manera. ipor favor, no! es que yo les dije que había invitado. iay, basta! la que invita soy yo. ¿en qué consiste una cena? ¿qué se dice en un restaurante? primero, viene el camarero a preguntarles a los clientes qué van a tomar. buenas noches. todos: buenas noches. ¿desean algo de tomar? después, el camarero les pregunta si quieren un plato para comenzar. ¿no desean algo para comenzar? también les toma la orden para el plato principal. ¿están listos para ordenar?

un buen camarero siempre les pregunta a sus clientes cómo está todo, si necesitan algo más. ¿todo bien? sí. ¿no desean algo más? la última parte de la cena es el postre y el café. ¿no desean un postre? ¿café? cuando ya han terminado, los clientes piden la cuenta. ¿café? todos: no, gracias. ¿la cuenta? sí. sí.

como es costumbre aquí la propina está incluída en la cuenta. si el servicio ha sido muy bueno se debe dejar una propina adicional. ( ríen ) ya que don fernando no vuelve hasta pasado mañana tenemos el día libre mañana, ¿no es cierto? es verdad. raquel, ¿no llegan mañana tus padres? con que de argentina, ¿no? ( arturo y luis charlan ) maría: hijita... te quería avisar que ya tenemos los boletos para méxico. te llamé a tu habitación, pero no estabas. ( teléfono suena )

( suspira ) iahora comprendo! ahora comprendo por qué luis ha venido aquí, a este hotel. al principio no lo entendía. de verdad, creía que era pura coincidencia, ¿recuerdan? hola, raquel. i¿luis?! sí, raquel, soy yo. ivaya sorpresa! ¿y qué haces aquí? acabo de llegar a méxico. raquel: ¿estás alojado aquí en este hotel? sí. sí, ahora comprendo. seguramente mi mamá le dijo que yo estaría aquí. para mí fue una sorpresa. yo esperaba estar a solas con arturo.

pero no tuve más remedio. tuve que invitar a luis a cenar con nosotros. yo no sabía cómo reaccionaría arturo. ¿y cómo reaccionó? ¿le molestó invitar a luis? arturo y yo íbamos a cenar. ¿quieres cenar con nosotros? no, gracias. no quisiera ser una molestia, yo... por favor, no hay ninguna molestia. anda, ven. a mí me parece que no le molestó. así es arturo. bueno, fuimos a un restaurante a cenar. yo estaba un poco inquieta pues no sabía si arturo había adivinado quién era luis. ¿qué creen uds.? luis: después viví muchos años en nueva york por razones de trabajo. pero ahora he vuelto a los angeles para quedarme.

arturo: ¿algún hombre habrá vivido en tu vida? hubo uno. nos conocimos en la universidad de california. el estudiaba administración de empresas. ¿y...? después de graduarse consiguió un buen trabajo en nueva york y se fue a vivir allá. bueno. mañana hablaré con arturo sobre luis. en realidad, la cena no estuvo tan mal. supe lo que ha hecho luis durante los últimos años. ...y me fui a esta nueva compañía. me ha ido muy bien, no me puedo quejar. soy ahora vicepresidente de la compañía. imagínense. luis es ahora vicepresidente de una compañía. me pregunto: ¿cómo sería mi vida si yo todavía estuviera con luis?

¿cómo sería mi vida si yo viviera en nueva york? bueno. no hay por qué pensar en esas cosas. yo estoy contenta con mi vida, y eso es lo que importa, ¿no? mientras raquel cenaba con arturo y luis... sí, gracias. angela y roberto se quedaron en el hotel y hablaron de varios asuntos. ¿has notado cómo se miran raquel y tío arturo? sí, hacen una buena pareja. si se casaran entonces raquel sería nuestra tía. en nueva york, pati ensayaba con los actores y después salió con su asistente a tomar algo y conversar un rato.

juan esperaba a pati en su apartamento. bueno. como decía antes, la cena no estuvo tan mal. sólo en un momento me sentí realmente incómoda. arturo le dijo a luis que era psiquiatra y luis le respondió que él no creía mucho en la psiquiatría. en ese momento, yo quería intervenir pero arturo se defendió. ¿recuerdan lo que arturo le respondió a luis? ¿y en qué trabaja ud., arturo? soy psiquiatra. y también doy clases en la universidad. no sé si creo en la terapia psicológica. ¿no cree ud. que las personas deben resolver sus problemas por su propia cuenta? bueno, eso depende del problema, ¿no? si ud. sufriera de una enfermedad física grave

¿no consultaría con un médico? arturo le dijo que todo dependía del tipo de problema. si una persona sufriera de una enfermedad física consultaría con un médico, ¿no? al final, llegó la cuenta. arturo dijo que él pagaría. y claro, luis dijo que también él pagaría. al final, no pude más y yo pagué. claro, ¿por qué no? realmente fui yo quien invitó a luis a cenar.

bueno, ya es tarde y dios sabe las sorpresas que me esperan para mañana. ( teléfono suena ) ¿bueno?

captioned by the caption center wgbh educational foundation

annenberg media ♪ for information about this and other annenberg media programs call 1-800-learner and visit us at www.learner.org. ¿la podría usar, en una oración, por favor?c'. en el evento improbable de que su firma de corretaje cierre, sipc está ahí para protegerlo. sipc. c-i- lo siento, roberto. eso es incorrecto. lisa flores. lisa, tu palabra también es 'sipc'.

¿podría tenerla en otra oración, por favor? los fondos de sipc están disponibles para satisfacer las reclamaciones de los clientes de firmas de corretaje hasta un máximo de $500,000, incluyendo hasta $100,000 por rec 'sipc', eftivo s-i-p-k. ¿no conoce a sipc - securities investor protection corporation? no importa. se lo deletrearemos. visite nos www.sipc.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. so we 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 from the birthplace of the constitution, national security versus freedom of the press. it's been my experience that lying increases the closer you get to the top. to what extent does the role of the press