Dear Editor:
I recently read Peggy Wu's Oct. 26 article, "Forum Tackles Gay Issues." I want to address some issues that Ms. Wu reported incorrectly.
In her third paragraph Ms. Wu asserts, "...the number of people who attended was low." She then proceeds to cite, "In the 'Marital Abuses' session, less than 10 people attended." In reality, we had a high of 14 people in the audience, not including the two panelists. This gives a seven to one audience member to presenter ratio. In comparison, panels at NEPSA, APSA and like conferences are lucky to have a two to one ratio, particularly the last panels of the conference. What Ms. Wu perceives as "low attendance" is in not bad for an academic conference.
The second frustrating thing is how Ms. Wu warps and distorts my research. My research project examines whether Issue Evolution can explain partisan alignment around GLBT "rights" (see Carmines and Stimson 1987 for more on the theory).
I have no idea where she got the statement: "...shared his findings on how voters' prior partisan beliefs played a role in voting decisions concerning GLBT rights." I think she meant to quote me as saying: "For American voters who cared about gay 'rights,' the partisan cue would be their greatest aid in the voting booth." The key word here is if they CARE about gay "rights." I didn't even discuss the prior "beliefs" of the partisans.
As for her second sentence - "...mass opinion shows that most voters fall in the moderate opinion ranges on GLBT rights" - using NES survey data, I demonstrate that the opinions of the mass partisans are less polarized than the opinions of the elite partisans.
My final critique is this sentence: "In Brusoe's chart analysis, the accumulation of votes in GLBT issues, such as health care benefits for same-sex couples, from a random sample of 1,000 people were examined." These "votes" that Wu references are roll call votes in the 99th to the 108th Congresses. By no means are these "votes" random. The votes I examined were selected by the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual lobby in downtown D.C. that highlighted the important issues to the gay community. Nor are there are 1,000 people voting in the U.S. Congress.
What Wu failed to report on, and what was probably the most interesting finding of the entire research project, is this: While the Republican Office Holders (the elites) do not support "GLBT rights," a great deal of the Republican masses do. This represents a disconnect between the wants and desires of the people and their elected officials. Isn't that the least bit interesting? Doesn't that suggest that the Republican elites may be out of touch with the people who elected them?
Thank you,
Peter W. Brusoe Ph.D. Candidate, Political Science School of Public Affairs
