Dream Weaver

Zogby’s polling has proven remarkably
prescient in the last three presidential elections. “All hail Zogby,
the maverick predictor who beat us all,” proclaimed The Washington Post
in November 1996 after Zogby alone called the re-election of Bill
Clinton with pinpoint accuracy. Following his correct call in the 1997
New Jersey gubernatorial election, which Christie Whitman won, The Houston Chronicle exclaimed, “and the winner again is John Zogby.”

But the pundit hasn’t
been perfect. One of his largest gaffes involved his missed call of the
2004 election, the one which burdened us with four more years of George
W. Bush. On Nov. 2, 2004, Zogby’s poll showed John Kerry getting 311
electoral votes to Bush’s 213. Yeah, right.

Since the 1996 presidential election,
Zogby, 60, has polled for the Reuters New Agency, NBC News, Fox News
and most every daily newspaper in New York state. For this year’s
election, Zogby International has partnered with Reuters and C-Span.
Despite all this fanfare, Zogby says the high point of his life was his
Oct. 28, 2004, appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart; he was a guest again last Jan. 9.

A Central New Yorker all the way, Zogby
holds degrees in history from Le Moyne College and Syracuse University.
He has taught history at Utica College for 25 years and is a member of
the Board of Trustees at Le Moyne. He is a senior adviser at the
Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He is married to
Kathleen Zogby, and they have three children, Jonathan, Benjamin and
Jeremy. They live in Utica.

Perhaps what is most interesting about
your book is you are describing the melting permafrost beneath the
power structures in this country. By sampling tens of thousands of
ordinary Americans you were able to identify a consensus, which is much
more practical and much more personal than all the omnipresent media
megaphone spin. I wonder why anybody would think this is such a bad
thing.

I can’t look at the media without being
inundated by news about John McCain and Sarah Palin. Even critically
negative coverage of these candidates is still coverage nonetheless. It
seems as if Obama is mentioned as merely an afterthought much of time.
Do your recent polls reveal Americans as having a perception of the
McCain/Palin ticket as being a formidable juggernaut?

I don’t believe “juggernaut” is the
correct term, but the McCain/Palin team is formidable and let’s make no
mistake about it: John McCain is a very credible maverick and war hero.
There was not a moment where I did not believe that he would be
effective. The selection of Sarah Palin actually helped McCain by
rallying conservatives, providing a fresh face and allowing McCain to
do what he does best, which is not run as a red-meat conservative. This
is a competitive race and for a while Palin has become the fresh face
and stolen a lot of Obama’s flair. But I think lots of Americans have made up their minds and much of the TV news coverage is preaching to the choir on both sides.

In his review of The Way We’ll Be for The New York Times,
Joe Queenan called you a “Pollyanna if there ever was one, engaging in
what is known as ‘reverse prognostication,’ a process whereby a
pollster stakes his reputation on correctly prophesying events that
have already occurred.” What do you have to say to this?

The fundamental flaw with the Queenan
piece is that he can’t have it both ways. If this is “reverse
prognostication” then it means these things have already occurred and
are true, and if they’re true, then I am merely a reporter, not a
Pollyanna. Another problem is that I submit lots of data. I don’t see
any data backing up any of his contentions. The truth is I set out
years ago to write a completely different book, actually about millions
of Americans who I believed were giving up on the American dream. The
more I polled and checked real behavioral data like retail figures, use
of electricity and sacrifices made at home, the more I came away with a
different book. I’m very proud of this work.

The Way We’ll Be offers a
compelling analysis of the generations currently alive today. Your
assessment of First Globals {18- to 29-year-olds} asserts that they are
trailblazers of a new bilateral global view which places
humanitarianism and environmental friendliness over the more unilateral
aims of acquisition, profit and patriotism. Concerning baby boomers,
you identify the hedonism during the late 1960s as being a potential
indicator at that time of the materialism which would come to define
the 1980s. Can you spot any lurking characteristics of First Globals
which might suggest they will pull an unlikely about-face in the coming
decades?

As you know, I’m very high on these
First Globals, but we have to remember that they still are
20-somethings. They are still consumed with how they look, what they
buy and wear and very personal intimate things like relationships,
careers and so on. That is just a part of the life cycle. I can assure
you that this is what 20-somethings were consumed with up to Dec. 6,
1941—the next day they became the Greatest Generation.
Twenty-somethings today are probably spoiled and do have high
expectations, and there’s always the risk that they may expect too much
to come their way. But I do love their planetary sensibility.

You describe First Globals as having a
few similar social viewpoints as their elders who you call the Private
Generation {people born between 1926 and 1945}. One particular topic
these two generations can agree on is abortion as 54 percent of
20-somethings feel “it is in everyone’s interest to reduce the number
of abortions.” Anybody over 30 who has eyes and ears will also notice
that the drug culture has mostly come and half-gone. Do you think the
tendency among First Globals to be more socially tame and conservative
is unique to that age group or is it rather the consequence of years of
aggressive messages from the Christian right and anti-drug campaigns
which were mostly lost on Generation X?

Mark Reinertson photo

I think that the First Globals provide a
necessary synthesis to the warring extremes. Like the Nikes before them
{Generation X}, they don’t have much reason to believe in institutions
and leaders that seem to have let us all down. At the same time it
appears that much of the Christian right leadership has just burned
itself out. We see significant changes taking place among young
Christian conservatives. I think a lot of the “socially tame”
characteristics come from a group who really see so much of the world
as their playing field and want to be ready for all the excitement.

You admit in your book that you do not have a crystal ball but write that polling statistics do in fact “point the way.” In The Way We’ll Be
you claim that Americans are fed up with polarization and yearn for a
return to the workable center. What will you say if John McCain wins
this election and our nation continues to veer further to the radical
right?

I don’t believe that the country has drifted further to
the radical right. I don’t believe that they were ever a majority,
although that is how this past administration seemed to govern. The
changes that I talk about are broad and are taking place and will
continue to do so. Elections, on the other hand, revolve around other
variables, too, like personality, trust, leadership, specific events.
Suffice it to say, whether Barack Obama wins, this is already his
moment and the nation’s moment. We will have an African-American
president—our demographics will continue to change and a new era of
internationalism and a planetary worldview will continue unabated. So
much so that a McCain victory also means moving the ball forward—on
energy and the environment and campaign reform. The era of radical
right leadership will have passed.

Michael Davis photo