KNOWING ENOUGH?

Let me begin this posting with an acknowledgement that today marks the fourteenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.  We shall never forget the sacrifice of so many Americans who lost their lives on that sorrowful day.  May the families of those victims take comfort in the knowledge that this nation commemorates that sacrifice.

Back in November 10, 2010, I wrote a posting that combined concerns over a lack of both political knowledge and social capital.  I made the point that while I had, to that point in this blog, reported on low levels of political knowledge among American students, there was research that favorably compared the knowledge of American kids to that of youngsters in other countries.  I also made the assertion that there is a link between political participation and political knowledge; that is, there is an obvious educational result from people gaining the experience of actual political work.  In trying to update information I used in those early postings, I do have one more recent study, but before relating it, let me point out that gauging how knowledgeable US students are or how knowledgeable their adult counterparts are is dicey at best.  One can give knowledge tests, but you might shortchange what political knowledge a person tested has by “missing” that knowledge in the questions one asks.  So, in this update – of sorts – let me just qualify what I am reporting by making this point:  any generalization over what Americans know or do not know is speculative, at best.  What often goes unreported are the types of knowledge that stem from more day to day experiences; the type of knowledge obtained on the streets.

The only meaningful study I can add to the earlier reporting is one conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2014.[1]  They found the following:

(Paraphrasing the questions, the percent of respondents getting the questions correct, and the correct answer)

·        What is the federal minimal wage?  73% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer:  $7.25.

·        In what nation does ISIS control territory?  67% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer (in 2014):  Syria.

·        Ukraine was a part of what political entity?  60% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer:  USSR.

·        What is Common Core?  49% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer:  national educational standards.

·        What is the source of North Dakota’s economic boom?  46% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer:  oil.

·        In what country is there an outbreak of Ebola?  46% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer:  Liberia.

·        What is the name of Israel’s prime minister?  38% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer:  Netanyahu.

·        What is the current unemployment rate?  33% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer (in 2014):  circa 6%.

·        In which country do Shiites outnumber Sunnis?  29% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer:  Iran.

·        Who is the chairperson of the Federal Reserve (FED)?  24% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer:  Yellen.

·        In which budget line item does the federal government spend most funds?  20% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer:  Social Security.

·        What portion of the US population is below the poverty line?  20% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer:  15%.

Is this a good or not so good level of political knowledge?  Are the questions reflective of useful political knowledge or are they random concerns that a person engaged or interested in politics and government might know or not know?  These are useful questions about which I can only speculate.  I do know that the state of our politics today and how general political issues are discussed and argued about, at least in how the media portray that process, give one concern.  When you have a candidate for president who is leading in the polls and is accused by other candidates as being a non-serious candidate, questions of how knowledgeable the general public is pop up.  The above numbers are interesting.  Distressful are the results on the questions concerning the unemployment rate, FED chairperson, government spending, and poverty line.  These questions reflect how well our nation is doing.  One would suppose that such questions would have higher correct rates in a nation where it was common to be involved in the political environment of the day.  I believe that these numbers reflect poorly on not just how we as a people are involved, but on the educational efforts in civics and government to promote that involvement.

---

[1] See http://www.people-press.org/2014/10/02/from-isis-to-unemployment-what-do-americans-know/ .

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 .

[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.