With the vast bulk of society describing itself in polls as middle-class, polarization is not pronounced.

Americans tolerate great differences in wealth if they believe that opportunity is broadly present. Therefore, it is particularly important to examine what people say about opportunity. Do they think that it is present for most Americans? For themselves? Have such judgments changed over time? What are the expectations for the next generation? For their own children? Just a handful of survey trends exists for any of these questions.

Equality of opportunity is a demanding social standard. It requires that people perceive the rules of the game to be fair. If they believe this is the case, they put up with disparities in income and status. If they feel the rules are being rigged to favor one group or another, inequality could become a more important political issue. Beyond this, society requires that certain standards of behavior be observed up and down the social and economic ladders. High salaries for CEOs, entertainers, or the media are not seen as inherently unjust. At some point, though, they may be considered unseemly or excessive, upsetting the social equilibrium. Flaunting wealth or status is offensive, and this too could fuel resentment.

In 1986, James R. Kluegel, a sociologist at the University of Illinois, and Eliot R. Smith, a psychologist from Purdue University, published Beliefs About Inequality: Americans' Views of What Is and What Ought to Be. They conducted a national survey (and one of Illinois residents) in which they investigated why Americans think some people are rich and some are poor. The authors asked respondents to rate the importance of a number of causes of wealth, including personal effort, ability or talent, political pull, inheritance, the unfairness of the economic system, dishonesty, and luck. Sixty-four percent selected personal drive, willingness to take risks, and money inherited from families as very important reasons why there are rich people in the U.S., while 60% cited hard work and initiative; 47% chose political influence or pull; and 46% named great ability or talent.

Significantly, just 29% selected as a very important reason that the American economic system allows the rich to take unfair advantage of the poor; 27% cited dishonesty and willingness to take what they can get; and 26% mentioned good luck or being at the right place at the right time as very important. The average percentage for the explanations based on individual drive, ability, or pluck was higher than that for responses based on the structure of society.

The same pattern of giving great weight to individual achievement appeared in the data about why people are poor. The authors asked respondents to rate the importance of several individual causes for poverty (lack of thrift, ability, and/or effort; attitudes that hold people back; and poor morals) and social ones (being taken advantage of by the rich; poor schools; low wages; and lack of jobs). Kluegel and Smith compared their results with those from a 1969 survey and concluded that people's view of what causes poverty has been remarkably stable over time.

In 1990, the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) asked people to assess the importance of four reasons for the presence of poor people in America. Two explanations related to the individual and two were structural. More people selected as very important the lack of effort by the poor themselves (45%) than any other reason, while eight percent indicated that this was not important as an explanation for poverty. Thirty-eight percent answered that loose morals and drunkenness were very important reasons; 25% dissented. The results were similar for the structural response "failure of society to provide good schools for many Americans," cited as very important by 35% and not important by 24%. Thirty-five percent considered the failure of industry to provide enough jobs as very important, with 21% saying that it was not.

In 1992, NORC asked a national sample about the importance of a long list of factors for getting ahead in life. Ninety percent called ambition essential or very important, while 88% felt that way about hard work, 87% about having a good education, and 52% about natural ability. Fewer selected knowing the right people (43%) and having well-educated parents (41%). Much smaller percentages mentioned coming from a wealthy family or having political connections (18%), being born a man or a woman (17%), race or religion (15%), or political beliefs (11%).

Other surveys reinforce Americans' emphasis on individual responsibility for circumstances. In 1972, for example, the University of Michigan's National Election Study asked people to agree or disagree with this statement: "The poor are poor because the American way of life does not give all people an equal chance." Thirty-eight percent agreed, but 59% disagreed. In its 1990 survey on wealth, Gallup asked which of two things was more often the cause if a person is rich--strong effort to succeed on his or her part, or luck or circumstances beyond the individual's control? Fifty percent responded that it was strong effort; one-third cited luck or circumstances.

Since 1964, Gallup occasionally has asked which more often is to blame if a person is poor: lack of effort by the individual or circumstances beyond his control? In nearly every survey, a significant number of people have volunteered the response "both," suggesting that they feel uncomfortable with the stark choice being presented in the question. The identical question has been asked in Great Britain since 1971. In the last four polls (1986, 1989, 1992, and 1994), fewer than 20% have selected the response "lack of effort." In England, where class boundaries remain strong, more people than in the U.S. choose the response of circumstances beyond one's control. In the last four queries, majorities have given this response.

A battery of questions asked by NORC sheds more light on public views about social differences in the U.S. In 1984 and again in 1990, NORC asked respondents to agree or disagree with this statement: "Only if differences in income and social standing are large enough is there an incentive for individual effort." In 1984, 56% agreed and 38% disagreed. In 1990, those figures were 52 and 37%. In 1984, 72% agreed that differences in social standing between people are acceptable because they basically reflect what people have made out of their opportunities, while 25% disagreed. Seventy percent in 1992 agreed that no one would study for years to become a lawyer or doctor unless they expect to earn much more than ordinary workers, and 20% disagreed.

More people disagreed than agreed in 1987, 1992, and 1996 that large differences in income are necessary for America's prosperity. In response to another question, 52% stated that, all in all, social differences in the country are justified.

Given the emphasis that people place on individual effort and talent as sources of achievement, admiration for those who become rich by working hard is widespread. In four surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center in the 1990s, nearly 90% said they agreed with the statement: "I admire people who get rich by working hard."

Historian Oscar Handlin has described the core of the American experiment: "Opportunity is the one prize a free society has to offer. It assures individuals the scope within which to make the most of their abilities, and it permits the community to profit from the appropriate use of talent where it is most advantageous. In that sense opportunity endows a society with justice. Everyone gains when the race for position goes to the swiftest, the winner from having ambition fulfilled, everyone else from having services performed by the best qualified."

The American idea of equality--one that distinguishes it to this day from other nations--is rooted in the notion of equality of opportunity. When provided by the new nation, it meant that people would move up and down the economic ladder and that class and other distinctions would not harden over time. The idea appears indelibly stamped on American minds, as shown by the results of a 1993 NORC survey: "Some people think America should promote equal opportunity for all, that is, allowing everyone to compete for jobs and wealth on a fair and even basis. Other people think that America should promote equal outcomes, that is, ensuring that everyone has a decent standard of living and that there are only small differences in wealth and income between the top and bottom in society." Eighty-four percent favored the standard of equal opportunity, while 12% cited equal outcomes. Perhaps because the ideal has been taken for granted, pollsters--until recently--rarely bothered to inquire about it.

In 1939 survey work for Fortune, Elmo Roper asked a national sample whether their opportunities to succeed were better or worse than their parents' and whether their sons' opportunities to succeed would be better or worse than their own. Strong majorities were optimistic about their own and their sons' opportunities. In 1946, Gallup asked fathers and mothers about their sons' and daughters' opportunities to succeed. Sixty-four percent of fathers expected their sons to have better opportunities; 13%, not as good ones. Sixty-one percent of mothers anticipated better opportunities for their daughters; 20%, worse.

For the next 40 years, no survey organization paid much attention to beliefs about opportunity. This attitude began to change in the early 1980s. One explanation for the new interest is the extraordinary growth spurt in the polling business in the 1970s. Another possibility is that the mirror pollsters hold up to society reflects anxiety about opportunity. Given the centrality of the concept of equal opportunity to how Americans define themselves, any perceived erosion of that idea would be serious.

In addition to concerns about opportunity, there are worries about the "American dream." A common refrain in much political and journalistic commentary today is that the American dream is in danger, that its demise is imminent. Supposedly, at some earlier time, the idea of the American dream was robust.

That case can not be made with public opinion polls, however. The first reference to the American dream in the Roper Center historical archive of polls does not appear until 1983, and it is not even explicitly in the question. ABC News and the Washington Post asked: "All of us want certain things out of life. When you think about what really matters in your own life, what are your wishes and hopes for the future? In other words, if you imagine your future in the best possible light, what would your life look like then if you are to be happy . . . ?" Slightly over one-third mentioned something about financial security, 32% good health, and 21% concerns about their own or their children's happiness. The interviewers cobbled together a hodgepodge of responses about happy marriage, home ownership, and children into a category they coded as the American dream, mentioned by 15% of those surveyed.

Throughout the history of polling, survey researchers have asked questions about whether people expected to be better or worse off in the coming year or in the next few years. These questions essentially were referendums on current economic performance, and the answers were positive or negative depending on current conditions. In the spring and summer of 1997, the answers were more positive than they had been in years. In December, 1997, the Conference Board reported the highest level of consumer confidence in 28 years. In July, 1997, the University of Michigan's Index of Consumer Sentiment reached 107, its highest level since the mid 1960s.

* Whenever a question presents opportunity in the context of hard work, large majorities say that opportunity is present for those who are willing to work hard. Cross-national surveys show just how unique the U.S. is on this point. In the 1990-93 World Values Survey, 59% in the U.S. placed themselves at points one to three on the 10-point scale, where point one represented the belief "in the long run, hard work usually brings a better life" and point 10 represented "hard work doesn't generally bring success; it's more a matter of luck and connections." By contrast, 38% in hierarchical Britain and 33% in tradition-bound Japan took this view.

* Solid majorities surveyed over 15 years contended that it still was possible to start out poor, work hard, and become rich.

* When people are asked to compare themselves to their parents, virtually every poll finds that majorities, usually strong ones, say that they are better off today in terms of opportunity, preparation for adulthood, standard of living, quality of life, finances, income, homes, and lifestyle and material possessions.

* The picture is less clear when people are asked to compare their lives with what they think their children's lives will be like. When people are asked about their offspring, they usually are more optimistic than pessimistic. They also generally are more positive about their children than about the next generation as a whole.

Reconciling some findings is hard. A Cambridge Reports/Research International question asked between 1989 and 1995 found 43-52% saying that their children's standard of living would be higher than their own, about 20% believing it would be lower, and approximately 30% feeling it would be the same. The 1996 findings of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research were similar: 53% expected their children to have a higher financial standard of living than they had, 12% a lower one, and 29% about the same. The Los Angeles Times, in a question asked since 1991, consistently finds significant numbers feeling the next generation will have a worse standard of living. Between 13 and 24% have expected it to be better, and around a third said that it would be about the same.

When NBC News and the Wall Street Journal ask people about their children, they do not offer a middle category. The yes and no response categories, no doubt, affect responses. On each of the four occasions in 1996 when the question was asked, responses were more negative than positive. In April and June, 1997, however, bare majorities expected their offspring's standard of living to be higher than their own, suggesting that the answers are a proxy for people's views of current economic conditions and not a statement of their views about their children's long-term prospects.

A Gallup question, asked in 1946 and 1997, finds no change in fathers' positive views about their sons' opportunities, but a sizable increase in mothers' optimism about their daughters' chances. Eighty-five percent of mothers in 1997, compared with 61% in 1946, felt that their daughters' opportunities would be better than theirs.

Roper Starch Worldwide found in 1973 that 26% of respondents were very confident that their children's lives would be better than their own. By 1995, that figure had slipped to 17%. In 1973, 30% were not at all confident that their offspring's lives would be better than theirs; in 1995, that figure rose to 34%.

* In his Political Dictionary, William Satire writes that the term American dream "defies description as much as it invites discussion." This has been borne out by the polls. In 1992, Wirthlin Worldwide asked a question about the meaning of the American dream to which people could give any response they wanted. Nine percent, the highest response given, mentioned freedom. That year, Wirthlin and Roper Starch Worldwide each asked about the idea's personal meaning. Wirthlin asked respondents to place, on a scale of one to 10, attributes representing their sense of the American dream. Good health and financial security in retirement were above nine; tree love, rewards for hard work, and a family placed above eight. College graduation and car ownership followed at 7.9, and marriage and community service at 7.6. A high-paying job was at 7.5 on the dream scale; winning the lottery at 4.8.

The Roper Starch Worldwide question found that a happy relationship was a very important element in the American dream for 90% of respondents; a family was cited by 84%; friends who respect you mattered to 83%; and being one of the best in your job was crucial to 80%.

People's answers about whether it still is possible to attain the American dream differ, depending on the wording of questions. In response to a 1996 ABC News survey, 71% thought most people could, but a Yankelovich Partners series finds majorities in three recent polls saying that the dream has become impossible for most people to achieve. An Opinion Dynamics survey for Fox News in February, 1997, asked about the dream in the context of hard work: "Do you think that if an individual works hard, they can still achieve the American Dream of making a decent living, owning a home, and sending their children to college?" Seventy-two percent said yes; 24%, no.

A survey conducted in February, 1997, for the Council for Excellence in Government found 30% responding that, in today's society, the American dream was achievable for all those willing to work for it; 29% felt it was achievable for most; 24% said it was achievable only for some; and 16% believed it was possible for very few Americans, even if they were willing to work for it.

In a November, 1996, survey by Luntz Research Companies, 20% responded that they already had achieved the American dream; 46% that they were close; 21%, very far away; and nine percent said that they never expected to experience it. A Wirthlin Worldwide question asked in 1992 and 1995 found majorities in both years reporting that their parents had achieved the dream. Larger majorities expected that their children, or the next generation, would. Fewer than 20% said that they themselves would not achieve the dream, and a substantial number in both years felt they already had achieved it. The general picture from such questions shows more optimism than pessimism about personal prospects for the American dream, though people say it is harder to attain than in the past and will be harder to attain in the future.

Which of the many different answers about opportunity or the American dream should be trusted? Many polls these days pick up a negativity or "pop" cynicism about society as a whole that is pervasive. In a kind of vicious circle, the ubiquitous polls regurgitate the cynicism common in the culture.

A polling exercise illustrates the point. In 1945, the word "lie" was used for the first time in a survey question. From the early 1970s through Pres. Richard Nixon's resignation in 1974, it was used four times. During the Iran-contra investigation in 1986-87, it was utilized in survey questions 88 times. The pejorative "politics as usual" was used three times in the 1940s, not again until the 1970s, and several dozen times in 1997 to describe Democratic and Republican fundraising practices.

The authors were unable to find any references to a politician "hiding something" before 1988. The situation, of course, changed radically a decade later with Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's pursuit of Pres. Clinton.

The impression gleaned from the poll-infused media is a much more negative one than was experienced years ago. What Americans say about most politicians is likely to be informed and colored by a media culture that accentuates the negative.

In the November, 1996, round-table discussion at the American Enterprise Institute, Stanley Greenberg and Guy Molyneux cautioned that there is a reason to pay close attention to perceived views of most Americans as well as personal attitudes. Molyneux argued that people want to feel good about their own situation, particularly male respondents, who often see themselves as breadwinners. He maintained that it was hard for them "to tell an interviewer that they are doing a lousy job providing for their families." He concluded that people do not tell pollsters that their own wages and salaries are too low when questions are phrased that way.

Greenberg pointed out that "most people think they are--often by heroic efforts--doing a good job supporting their families." However, he added, they think that "living standards for average Americans are stagnant." In their personal optimism, he found "a critique of what is happening to average Americans," one which contains the seeds of a politics that may make concerns about inequality resonate more strongly.

Being middle-class, Greenberg suggested, "represents at one level a view of household income, but it also represents the idea of people who are working hard, taking personal responsibility, living by the rules, and trying to support their families." These people, he stated, "feel that they are not honored today and that they are playing by a harder set of rules than others in society." The issue is not, he continued, "CEOs making more money; it is CEOs making more money while downsizing and layoffs are occurring. It is not about having wealth; it is about having wealth at the expense of people who are working hard and trying to do better for their families. It is not about punitive taxation or redistribution; it is about achieving a society consistent with the norms of working-class Americans. What is happening to average Americans violates the norm of fairness and leads people to be more sensitive to inequality issues such as the power and tax burdens of various groups."