Or, as many polls have found in the past, that people don't trust the government to run a health care system, while a strong majority approves of keeping or even expanding Medi care and Medicaid. This is the subject of Reading Mixed Signals. The Cantrils argue that sending mixed signals doesn't necessarily mean the public is mixed up or that its contradictions are due to a lack of information, or a sign of weak opinions. What the people have is a case of deep and persistent ambivalence. To say that 'the public' is pro or con on an issue may slight, if not miss entirely, the fact that sometimes people are both.
All reputable pollsters are aware of public ambivalence.
Most have a tendency to brush it aside, as an inconvenient wrinkle that interferes with their findings. Within the public opinion community, the problem has been discussed for years, but mostly in different terms and by different methods than those the Cantrils use. Reading Mixed Signals takes the study of ambivalence further. The Cantrils pick up on a neglected approach pioneered by Lloyd Free and Hadley Cantril, who conducted surveys in 1964 designed to explore contradictory opinions about government. One need only think back a few years to come up with a current illustration of the same phenomenon at work.