One problem characterizing the American electorate has been
the level of inconsistency in its political opinions. We see this, for example, in voter opinions
as expressed in exit polling surveys; that is, voters express opinions that are
logically inconsistent. Some time ago, I
citied the following:
... voters have contradictory
feelings … A majority agreed that the government was doing too many things that
are better left to businesses and individuals … [but] 47 percent of voters said
Congress should leave the [national health] law as it is or expand it, and 48
percent said Congress should repeal it.
Not exactly a ringing mandate to repeal it.
When people were asked what the
highest priority of the next Congress should be, 37 percent said "spending
to create jobs," which was only slightly behind the 39 percent who said
"reducing the budget deficit."
And only four in 10 voters said they wanted Congress to extend the Bush
era tax cuts for everyone, including families who earn more than a quarter of a
million dollars a year, as Republicans want to do. [1] [I would
like to note that extending the tax cuts, by all accounts, would have driven
the national deficit significantly higher.]
Of course, we don’t see ideal citizenship as one in which
voters need to be cast in the dye liberals or conservatives. One can have mixed views and still be seen as
a responsible, clear thinking voter. The
problem occurs when a voter holds mutually exclusive positions or positions
that are logically inconsistent with each other. But there is another side to this
concern. What if a voter is purely
liberal or conservative to the point that he doesn’t entertain opposing
positions merely because they are offered by those in the other camp? Is this characterization one that can be
levied against our citizenry?
The context of this question is the level of American participation
in political and civic activities. That
is, engagement is a motivator, a reason for holding political views in the
first place. A 2013 Pew Research Center
study[2] which
relied on an extensive telephone survey found that 48% of adults had engaged in
a civic group or activity in the preceding year. They also found:
§ 35% of American adults have recently
worked with fellow citizens to solve a problem in their community
§ 22% have attended a political meeting
on local, town, or school affairs
§ 13% have been active members of a
group that tries to influence the public or government
§ 10% have attended a political rally
or speech
§ 7% have worked or volunteered for a
political party or candidate
§ 6% have attended an organized protest[3]
These numbers do not describe an actively engaged
citizenry. If we add to these figures
the percentage of registered voters who actually voted in the last national
election – the off-year elections of 2014 – the picture is dire; that was a
turnout of roughly 33%. Given that non-participating
citizens reflect a lack of concern over political matters, they tend to be less
knowledgeable about politics and governmental policy. It is, therefore, no surprise that that
segment would express higher degrees of inconsistency in its political beliefs
and opinions.
I will more directly address political and governmental
knowledge in my next posting, but as for the issue of consistency, what can be
said about those who are engaged? What level of consistency is noted by those
who do participate in our political arena?
To answer these questions, a look at another Pew Research
Center study[4]
is helpful. Its overall conclusion is
that the active US electorate has become extremely polarized in its political
opinions. Here, the problem is not a lack
of consistency, but the opposite. The
study offers a long list of statistics which point to this polarization. Our political class is more intolerant of opposing
positions and extends its dislike of those who hold those positions into other
social realms of life. This refers to the
inclusion and exclusion of those with whom these citizens want to socialize and
with whom they want their relatives to marry.
These opinions can even affect where people live. The one stat that is most telling, in my opinion,
is the following: “[t]oday, 92% of
Republicans are to the right of the median Democrat, and 94% of Democrats are
to the left of the median Republican.”[5] This is not an ideal situation.
Ideally, what we want is a citizen who is knowledgeable and
engaged, but who should be open to discussion, apt to have his/her mind changed
if the facts warrant it, and is also accepting and seeks out those with whom
he/she disagrees. Oh yes, and while not
compromising basic values, one who is willing and able to engage in
compromise. The polarization that the
Pew Research Center reports is far from this ideal.
This all points to a citizenry that can be characterized as
belonging to one or another extreme camp; that is, between those who don’t care
about politics and government or those who counterproductively care too
vehemently. In either case, federalist
principles are what are being discarded.
The federalist ideal is upheld where those engaged see the arena between
adversaries as a disagreement between partners who understand that, at least in
the long run, their interests coincide.
[1]Cooper,
M. (2010). Parsing the myths of the
midterm elections, New York Times (November 6). Retrieved from the
Internet: http://nytimes.com/2010/11/6/us/politics/06myths.html?_r=&hp .
[2]
See Civic engagement in a digital age, http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/04/25/civic-engagement-in-the-digital-age/ .
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
See Political polarization in the American
public, http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/
.
[5]
Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment