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.

UPDATING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, PART II

[Note:  This posting, the previous two 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.]

The previous posting focuses on defining and describing political activities as being a central element of civic engagement which in turn, it is argued here, should be a main concern of civics education.  This posting will address two other elements, political voice and electoral activities.

As for these two elements, the first includes those actions citizens can take to advocate a public policy option – signing petitions, communicating with government officials, writing letters to editors and other media outlets, boycotting, etc. – and the latter, electoral activities, includes voting and other election related behaviors that, in turn, have social implications.  The general thrust in civics education should be to advance those behaviors that one can link to communal duties and obligations. 

The question here is:  what does recent research indicate how often and how well do Americans are perform these behaviors?  To provide some context, Mary Hylton makes a connection in her reportage.  That is, that a citizenry that engages in these types of activities add to their communities’ resources and further can be associated with economic resilience.[1] 

This was demonstrated in those years following the onset of the financial crisis of 2008.  Communities that had among their citizenry higher levels of civic engagement were able to recover more readily.  While this is a correlational finding, one cannot help but think that either directly or indirectly there is a mutual reinforcing dynamic between civic engagement and economic health. 

People who actively behave in sufficient numbers to advance their community add a vibrance that can only help stimulate that community to do what is necessary to spur economic energy.  And, further strengthening this connection, one can detect this relationship at a communal level but also at the individual level. 

Jonathan Greenblatt reports in a White House paper: 

Volunteering also helps people develop skills and confidence.  A recent report by the National Conference on Citizenship found the “participation in civil society (such as volunteerism) can develop habits that make individuals enjoyable and strengthen the networks that help them find jobs.”[2]

In a study, Malte Klar and Tim Kasser found that political activism is positively associated with measures of good feelings (hedonic), a sense of being happy, healthy, and prosperous (eudaimonic), and social well-being.[3]  And college students, according to an Association of American Colleges and Universities publication, who are civically engaged, register greater levels of satisfaction with their educational experience, enjoy higher grade point averages, and are more apt to gain their degrees than those who are not so engaged.[4]

And what can one say about the levels of community responsibility and civic belongingness – i.e., political engagement from a social perspective – exhibited by Americans?  According to Putnam, Americans have “a shriveled sense of we.”[5] Despite many school systems introducing “volunteerism” as a graduation requirement, a program with little thought-out function, overall participation by Americans has fallen drastically during the last fifty years. 

Peter Levine and Eric Liu report, “The proportions of Americans who say that they have attended community meetings, worked with neighbors to address problems, and belonged to organizations have fallen between 1975 and 2005.”[6]  This conclusion is backed by a slew of research over the past several decades.[7]

That research basically provides evidence supportive of the conclusion that political participation is seriously low and that for those who do participate, they are more apt to engage in what Charles Euchner identifies as extraordinary politics,[8] a topic that will be highlighted in the next posting.

But recent studies have further connected volunteerism with either physical health or psychological health.  There seems to be a correlational relationship between this civic behavior and cardiovascular disease factors:  “[Researchers] found older adult volunteers (65 and older) had lower risk of hypertension than older non-volunteers, but not for middle-aged volunteers (51-64 years old).”[9]  This study goes on to report other relationships, but the purpose here is not to give a rundown of these findings.

The purpose is to give the reader a sense of areas of research that investigate the effects of civic behaviors have on a person’s physical health.  Another study worth noting is by Frank J. Infurna, Morris A. Okun, and Kevin J. Grimm that notes a relationship between volunteering and the avoidance of cognitive impairment, a psychological condition. 

Consistent civic engagement in old age [over 70 years of age] is associated with lower risk of cognitive impairment and provides impetus for interventions to protect against the onset of cognitive impairment.  Given the increasing number of baby boomers entering old age, the findings support the public health benefits of volunteering and the potential role of geriatricians, who can promote volunteering by incorporating “prescriptions to volunteer” into their patient care.[10]

Again, a positive effect attributable or, at least, associated with proactive civic behavior is noted.

This posting will abruptly end here.  The next posting will begin with a description of extraordinary politics and pose questions:  is this sort of politics necessary in the pursuit of desired public policy?  Also, how federal – how much does it promote a federated citizenship – is extraordinary politics? 

---

[1] 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, 87-106.

[2] Jonathan Greenblatt, “The Benefit of Civic Engagement for Tomorrow’s Leaders,”  White House (of Barack Obama), April 17, 2012, accessed May 10, 2018, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2012/04/17/benefits-civic-engagement-tomorrows-leaders .

[3] See Malte Klar and Tim Kasser, “Some Benefits of Being an Activist:  Measuring Activism and Its Role in Psychological Well-Being,” (abstract), accessed May 10, 2018, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00724.x .

[4] The National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement, “A Crucible Moment: College Learning and Democracy’s Future” (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2012), accessed May 7, 2018, http://www.aacu.org/civiclearning/crucible .

[5] Robert D. Putnam, “Our Kids:  The American Dream in Crisis” (Keynote presented at the Campus Compact 30th Anniversary Meeting, Boston, MA, 2016, March 21).

[6] Peter Levine and Eric Liu,  “America’s Civic Renewal Movement: A View from Organizational Leaders (Medford, MA:  Tufts Report, Tufts University, 2015), 3.

[7] “Political Polarization in the American Public,” Pew Research Center, June 12, 2014, accessed on February 17, 2017, http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/, AND Herbert McCloskey, “Political Participation,” International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2008, accessed December 27, 2017, http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Political_Participation.aspx , AND “The Civic Mission of Schools,” National Conference of State Legislatures, 2015, accessed on February 24, 2017, http://www.ncsl.org/legislators-staff/legislators/trust-for-representative-democracy/the-civic-mission-of-schools-executive-summary.aspx , AND Paul Burnstein, American Public Opinion, Advocacy, and Policy in Congress:  What the Public Wants and What It Gets (New York, NY:  Cambridge University Press, 2014), AND Arron Smith, Kay Lehman Schlozman, Sidney Verba, and Henry Brady, “The Current State of Civic Engagement in America,” Pew Research Center, September 1, 2009, accessed on December 6, 2017, http://www.pewinternet.org/2009/09/01/the-current-state-of-civic-engagement-in-america/,  AND Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000), AND “What Democracy Means to Ninth-Graders: U.S. Results from the International IEA Civic Education Study,” National Center for Education Statistics (U. S. Department of Education, Washington, D. C., 2001).

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

[9] Jeffrey A. Burr, Sae Hwang Han, and Jane L. Tavares, “Volunteering and Cardiovascular Disease Risk:  Does Helping Others Get ‘Under the Skin?’”  The Gerontologist, April 15, 2015, accessed April 15, 2019, 937-947, 944, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/43c7/f901d13837320cbce6c8254bbcaad7070659.pdf .  A summary of the results are as follows:  “formal volunteering is beneficial for middle-aged adults, and to a lesser degree, older adults. Further research is required to determine what factors may mediate the volunteer–CVD risk relationships.”  Page 937.

[10] Frank J. Infurna, Morris A. Okun, and Kevin J. Grimm, “Volunteering Is Associated with Risk of Cognitive Impairment,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (Wiley Online Library), 64 (11), November 2016, accessed April 15, 2019, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jgs.14398 .