UPDATING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, PART III

[Note:  This posting, the previous several postings, and at least the one to follow are a restatement of what has been addressed previously in this blog.  Some of the sentences to come have been provided before but the concern is that other information has been discovered and an update seems appropriate.  The blog has not changed the overall message – that civics education is seriously deficient – but some of the evidence needs updating.]

Over the last postings, this blog reports information derived from scholarly or journalistic sources that supports a conclusion.  That conclusion is that Americans have, to meaningful levels, avoided engaging in political/governmental behaviors – behaviors federated polities count on to sustain their title of being federated.  But the postings go on to point out that there are meaningful numbers who are engaging in politics, a politics that can be described as disruptive.

Based on the work of Charles Euchner,[1] many Americans have chosen to become involved but by using methods not in the tradition most have used in the past.  They are methods one can describe as disruptive or virulent.  He calls this type of engagement, “extraordinary politics.”

Extraordinary politics is worth highlighting a bit.  Euchner posits that traditional forms of political involvement are disappearing.  Starting with the demonstrations that characterized the Vietnam protests of some years ago, one can note a more virulent form of participation that extends to today – from terrorist activities to causing mayhem.  By watching the evening news, one can say Euchner’s message rings true.

A lot of that printed and video messaging, being shared through mass media outlets, reports on levels of tribalism; a tribalism that provides rationales for engaging in types of behaviors that make at times legitimate claims, at times do not, seem to always leave people no closer to achieving agreement.  And the behaviors are not limited to one side of the political divide; both the left and right are guilty.  Result:  compromise – the needed element in a federated polity – becomes ever more difficult to find.

For example, one writer analyzes what is going on in the form of a psychological review:

Here are the social science lessons I keep coming back to, to help me explain what’s happening in America in the Trump era.  Perhaps you’ll find them helpful too.

·        Rooting for a team alters your perceptions of the world.

·        We can be immune to uncomfortable facts.

·        Leaders like Trump have special powers to sway public opinion.

·        People don’t often make decisions based on the truth.

·        Political opponents are often really, really bad at arguing with one another.

·        White people’s fear of being replaced is a powerful political motivator.

·        It’s shockingly easy to grow numb to mass suffering.

·        Fake news preys on our biases – and will be very hard to stamp out.

·        Conspiracy theories may be rampant, but they’re a specific reaction to a dark, uncertain world.[2]

This is the type of concern the media is offering.  What is interesting, such articles do not need to make the case that disruption is prevalent, the emphasis is on how one should deal with it.

To be clear, traditional forms of engagement include voting, working on political campaigns, discussing politics with one’s neighbors, writing letters to an editor or an elected official, collecting signatures on a petition, and the like.  By contrast, extraordinary politics are “something else.”

They are acts such as civil disobedience, demonstrations, boycotts, and creating or exhibiting subversive art and literature.  This classification of activities can be very disruptive.  Of course, this still does not characterize what typical Americans are apt to do, although, articles like the one cited here make the point that more Americans are engaging in disruptive forms of politics.  But, by looking around – and as indicated by the statistics reported in the last several postings – one can still say most Americans are more likely to sit on their hands. 

Despite that, one can also draw the conclusion:  the prevalence of this sort of engagement – extraordinary politics – among some fills-in what the news media currently describes as divisive politics of recent years which seems to be getting worse.[3]  A very insightful description of tribal politics is offered by Jonah Goldberg.[4]

What of the other form of engagement:  political voice activities, the more traditional forms of political engagement?  The general trend has been for there to be less of it.  Generally, and what is reported earlier, only 23% of young Americans engaged in political campaigning or attended any public policymaking meetings.

This reluctance to become involved in the democratic process is evident, as pointed out earlier, in patterns of voting.[5]  What is a bit ironic, America has built a formidable structure that sponsors and supports volunteer service but lack such structures for other forms of civic engagement such as voting.

Mary Hylton comments on this last point:  “We have thus neglected forms of engagement that aid in developing our ability to engage in difficult discussions, problem solving and collaboration – that is, our ability to create and sustain healthy democratic communities.”[6]  That is what makes the above cited psychological article relevant.

What one can conclude – given Americans general ability to develop such structures for those goods and services in demand – that these qualities are not in demand or sufficiently seen as being needed by either the apathetic or by those engaging in extraordinary politics.

But before leaving these concerns over civic engagement, more recent research seems to add further nuance to what has been described to this point.  That is, research of current political behavior might suggest bucking the trends that existed prior to 2016.  This posting now shares some current demographic and educational differences in civic engagement. 

As has always been the case, higher age levels, higher education levels, and higher levels of ideological bias correlate in the US with citizens engaging in higher variety of political activities.  But there are exceptions worth noting.  In bullet point form, here are further findings by the Pew researchers cited in an earlier posting:

·        College educated citizens donate to or work on political campaigns at a 43% rate – as compared to a 22% rate among non-college degreed citizens – in the past five years.

·        Twice as many older adults – over 65 – contribute to political campaigns than younger Americans.

·        Younger Americans (under 30) attend more often political events (rallies, speeches, or campaign events) than older Americans; plus, they are more likely to express their political opinions on social media (at higher rate during the last five years than the last year).

·        There is little difference between higher educated citizens and non-college-attending citizens in expressing political opinions on social media.

·        Most activities are engaged by less than 20% rate among the various political designated citizens (liberal-Democrats, conservative-Republicans, moderates, etc.).  For example, “About one-in-five liberal Democrats (19%) say they have attended a political rally event or speech in the past year, more than double the shares of conservative and moderate Democrats (8%), conservative Republicans (8%) or moderate and liberal Republicans (7%).”

·        Most who contribute money to political efforts – regardless of ideological bias – do so at a rate of less than $100.

·        Naturally, richer people – incomes of over $100,000/year – give more to political efforts.  Higher income Americans – at a 27% rate – donate over $250.[7]

In terms of speaking politics, the percentage rates are higher, but then again, talk is cheap – it calls on little in terms of exerting energy and cost.  Plus, it has become fashionable to either mock the current administration or sing its praises especially on social media.  These numbers, in other words, further reinforce what this account, on the effectiveness of civics, claims. 

That is, despite an uptick in terms of these behaviors after the election of Trump, overall, including incidences of disruptive activities, American behaviors demonstrate that civics has been deficient in encouraging civic engagement – a one-in-five Americans rate so engaged, as this current research indicates, does not describe an engaged citizenry. 

Before leaving the topic of civic engagement, one might ask:  are the above findings dispiriting?  If the answer is yes, one might be considered, to some degree, an adherent of federation theory.  If not, one is probably more inclined to hold a natural rights view of governance and politics; holding to the credo, “do your own thing.”  This question might be kept in mind as one considers what this blog is advocating, the application of a theory to guide the content of the nation’s civics curriculum; that being federation theory.

---

[1] Charles C. Euchner, Extraordinary Politics:  How Protest and Dissent Are Changing American Democracy (Boulder, CO:  Westview, 1996).

[2] Brian Resnick, “9 Essential Lessons from Psychology to Understand the Trump Era,” Vox, January 10, 2019, accessed April 18, 2019, https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/4/11/16897062/political-psychology-trump-explain-studies-research-science-motivated-reasoning-bias-fake-news .

[3] Admittedly, this is a normative comment.  At times, divisiveness can be judged necessary, but when it becomes prevalent, it undermines any efforts toward enhancing either collaborative or compromising decision-making over public policy.

[4] Jonah Goldberg, Suicide of the West:  How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy (New York, NY:  Crown Forum, 2018).  While this writer does not agree with this work’s prescriptions (the “therefore” statements), he does find this work’s contextual arguments (the “whereas” statements) convincing.

[5] Mary E. Hylton, “The Role of Civic Literacy and Social Empathy on Rates of Civic Engagement among University Students,” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 2018, vol. 22, 1, accessed May 13, 2018, http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/jheoe/article/viewFile/2001/1060 .

[6] Ibid., 91.

[7] “Political Engagement, Knowledge and the Midterms,” Pew Research Center, April 26, 2018, accessed April 8, 2019, https://www.people-press.org/2018/04/26/10-political-engagement-knowledge-and-the-midterms/ .  This posting in reporting current conditions relies on this source.