The general narrative from feature articles, polls, social media, and coverage of the recent 2024 election suggests that the American people are fed up with Washington and the regulations that come with it. But voters have a nuanced attitude towards regulation and the administrative state which has significant impact on how reformers should talk about updating or reducing burdensome government regulation.
According to State Policy Network’s recent State Voice poll, only about one-quarter of voters think there is too much regulation in a variety of policy areas. Starting and running a business, something that has become increasingly burdensome in recent years, is only seen as overregulated by three-in-ten voters. For most policy topics tested, a plurality of voters believe we have the right amount of regulation, with the exception of corporate oversight where voters actually want to see a heavier hand from the government.
There are expected party differences in how voters perceive regulation. Democrats are far less likely to say that there is too much regulation across different policy areas. Republicans are much more likely to perceive overregulation but still significantly fewer than half of self-identified Republicans see too much regulation in key policy areas.
Furthermore, most Americans are not focused on the broader government approach to regulation. Just 10 percent of voters have strong familiarity with the term “administrative state.” The term, which is used frequently within the policy world, where it is strong connotations, does not resonate with the general public.
The majority of voters care about outcomes, not about the specific mechanisms or even the broader systems that create outcomes. A recent YouGov poll showed that for 40 different industries, a majority of Americans wanted more regulation or the current level of regulation. In that environment, messaging that starts with reducing regulation is unlikely to move minds or even attract attention. Instead, policy organizations who aim to reduce regulation should talk about the outcomes they are trying to achieve—a lower cost of living, better healthcare and education or stronger communities.
A high-level description of goals can win voters over without getting into the details of regulation cutting. A recent nationwide Scott Rasmussen poll shows that 49 percent of Americans support the new Department of Government Efficiency compared to just 34 percent who oppose it after a brief description—which was needed as only one-in-five correctly identified the department. These are impressive figures considering the poll attributed the department to Trump and Elon Musk. There was no mention of regulation cutting in the department description or the question, although those familiar with DOGE and its goals know that will certainly be a key component of the initiative.
The traditional rallying cry of policy professionals has been to attack regulation as the cause of poor outcomes. While that may be true, the argument is lost on the majority of Americans who are more focused on their day-to-day lives than the cause and effect of policy. If a regulation is driving up the cost of living, focus on the outcome of making life more affordable to everyday Americans. Instead of calling attention to cutting regulation, which voters largely think holds people accountable, talk about reforming government. These are themes that proved to be incredibly popular and effective in the 2024 election. Policy groups wanting to make progress on reducing regulatory burdens must remember that for most Americans, fewer regulations is not an end goal.
