A Crucial Element of Democracy

This is a blog by Robert Gutierrez ...
While often taken for granted, civics education plays a crucial role in a democracy like ours. This Blog is dedicated to enticing its readers into taking an active role in the formulation of the civics curriculum found in their local schools. In order to do this, the Blog is offering a newer way to look at civics education, a newer construct - liberated federalism or federation theory. Daniel Elazar defines federalism as "the mode of political organization that unites separate polities within an overarching political system by distributing power among general and constituent governments in a manner designed to protect the existence and authority of both." It depends on its citizens acting in certain ways which Elazar calls federalism's processes. Federation theory, as applied to civics curriculum, has a set of aims. They are:
*Teach a view of government as a supra federated institution of society in which collective interests of the commonwealth are protected and advanced.
*Teach the philosophical basis of government's role as guardian of the grand partnership of citizens at both levels of individuals and associations of political and social intercourse.
*Convey the need of government to engender levels of support promoting a general sense of obligation and duty toward agreed upon goals and processes aimed at advancing the common betterment.
*Establish and justify a political morality which includes a process to assess whether that morality meets the needs of changing times while holding true to federalist values.
*Emphasize the integrity of the individual both in terms of liberty and equity in which each citizen is a member of a compacted arrangement and whose role is legally, politically, and socially congruent with the spirit of the Bill of Rights.
*Find a balance between a respect for national expertise and an encouragement of local, unsophisticated participation in policy decision-making and implementation.
Your input, as to the content of this Blog, is encouraged through this Blog directly or the Blog's email address: gravitascivics@gmail.com .
NOTE: This blog has led to the publication of a book. The title of that book is TOWARD A FEDERATED NATION: IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL CIVICS STANDARDS and it is available through Amazon in both ebook and paperback versions.

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

MISSING THE RIGHT KIND OF CONSISTENCY

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 .
[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