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.

Friday, June 10, 2016

AND IN THIS CORNER

So, the presidential campaign seems to be set:  Hillary vs. the Donald.  What a joy- ride it promises to be.  The thing is that these candidates are all too familiar to the American public.  Consequently, an institutional practice which we usually would see at the respective convention, the “meet” the candidate film, might not be so important.  This is the film that is shown just before the candidate addresses the bevy of Democrats or Republicans – the speech being the culminating event of the convention.  At least, that is what usually happens.  Trump promises that his convention will be different; it will be more entertaining, showtime.  And since these two candidates are very well known, can either candidate really reintroduce him or herself; can a campaign really “define” the opponent to its liking?  We’ll see what the attempt will be, assuming one or the other convention follows the usual script.

To the extent that such an effort is made – introducing the candidate and defining the opponent – certain psychological principles will be relied upon to guide producers in their efforts.  I have, in a previous posting, I’ll Get My Fix, reported that the cognitive psychologist, Drew Westen,[1] believes that people generally don’t reason over politics; rather, they feel politics.  It turns out, when it comes to thinking about whom to vote for or what policy position to accept and support, people in general let their gut feelings control their decision-making.  Successful producers of such efforts as an “introductory film” understand this, while those who are guided by notions of presenting a logical argument are not so successful.  That previous posting explains these mental operations a bit – check it out (posted on April 26, 2016).  It all has to do with your neurons working in association among themselves.

Westen, in describing these phenomena, uses two contrasting examples to illustrate this difference.  On the successful side, he cites the Bill Clinton film.  He judges that effort as one of the most successful ever.  He explains how footage of his “birth town,” Hope, Arkansas, and his meeting, as a teenager, of President Kennedy at the White House – an event sponsored by a youth group – engendered those emotional ties to which people could relate.  Here is the story of a poor kid, whose father died just before he was born, struggling to improve himself while the narration informs the audience that his professional commitment is to help others through his public service – he was governor of Arkansas at the time.  Westen then provides a counter example as he describes the film produced for John Kerry, the Ivy Leaguer, born to privilege and married to an exceptionally wealthy woman who has a foreign accent to boot.  While there is nothing wrong with having a wife with a foreign accent, the whole image was one to which the average American voter would have a difficult time relating.

In that previous posting, I pointed out that the electorate is fairly evenly divided into three groups:  30% Democrat, 30% Republican, and 40% not committed to either major party and open to persuasion.  This time around, this might not be the case.  Since the primary/caucus season drew so much attention, given the Trump factor and that it has been going on for a year now, – Trump announced his candidacy last June 16 – many more Americans have probably made up their minds; that is, their gut feelings have settled on a choice and that has been further reinforced by their adoption of the respective narratives the campaigns have been using about their candidate and the opposition.  Coming up this week, Trump is going to make notorious charges against Clinton on her schemes to become wealthy, entailing her official duties as secretary of state, and Clinton surrogates are attacking Trump on his attacks on a federal judge and intimating that he would use the power of the executive branch to intimidate the judiciary – a real no-no under our separation of powers principle.  Vice President Biden just yesterday claimed that that is what Trump threatened to initiate in his tirade against the judge who is presiding over the case in which Trump is being sued over matters concerning his defunct Trump University.  All of this is nasty and promises to get nastier.  The one thing I would add is that Trump, with his experience in show business, does have an advantage in this game of pricking emotions.  The result might very well rely on Hillary’s ability to adopt more emotionally laden messaging; she seems to be getting better at it.  She not only is evoking fear of a Trump administration, but also has taken a reflective demeanor and is able to communicate with an air of knowing what she is talking about – a quality which the punditry will help – whereas Trump seems to be limited as to how deeply he can expound on any issue.  Again, the important thing here is not how true this is, but how the candidate can generate or quell fear or other relevant emotions in the audience.

It is said that successful lawyers are successful not because they can muster the better argument, but because they can put on the better show that plucks at the existing emotional biases of the jury.  Well, in an election, the same principle holds, only we voters inhabit the jury box and the two candidates are the opposing lawyers.  Think more of Johnny Cochran than Daniel Webster or Henry Clay.  I would argue this truism has been true all through our history, but it has gotten worse.  When seeing on TV a Trump rally, for example, one can’t help feeling that we are witnessing a modern version of the Roman Circus.  An event lacking in any substance with a speaker spouting mostly banalities and noted for his outrageous and inconsistent messaging.  And, of course, a news media that has abandoned just about any claim at providing a public service – seeking eyes and ears to bolster its ratings and, therefore, its revenues – has broadcast every spectacle of this roadshow as it moved around the country.  There is more to come, and Trump has promised his convention will be something to remember – not so much an introduction, but a heightened effort to cater the inexhaustible demand for entertainment.  Let the good times roll?



[1] Westen, D.  (2007).  The political brain:  The role of emotions in deciding the fate of the nation.  New York, NY:  PublicAffairs.

No comments:

Post a Comment