In the last posting of
this blog, this writer made the argument that in relation to what citizens
should know concerning government and politics, there is a serious lack of
knowledge. He also made a connection
between that lack and a common characteristic among the citizenry; that is,
many Americans exhibit inconsistent beliefs and attitudes regarding this area
of concern.
In
turn, that lack of consistency leads to impressionable reactions to political
challenges and irrational behavior. Too
many citizens adopt a mental posture that avoids thinking about politics. When forced to do so, they rely on intuitive
notions that are based on impressions of the political world. Seldom does such a citizen engage in
reflective political thinking and when he/she does, as a reaction to a personally
threatening situation,[1]
reactions will tend to be counterproductive.
But
there is another side to this concern.
What if a citizen is engaged, but purely liberal or conservative to the
point that he/she doesn’t entertain opposing positions? Is this characterization one that can be
levied against the nation’s citizenry?
What level of consistency do active participants exhibit? To answer these questions, a look at a Pew
Research Center study is helpful.
Its
overall conclusion is that the active US electorate has become extremely
polarized.[2] Here, the problem is not a lack of
consistency, but the opposite. The study
offers a long list of supportive statistics which point out a political class – made up of a minority
of citizens – which is more intolerant of opposing positions and extends its
dislike to other social realms of life.
There
are those who will determine with whom they will socialize, whom they want
their relatives to marry, as well as decide where they live based on their
political beliefs. The one stat that is
most telling, in the opinion of this writer, 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.”[3]
A
preferred situation, one that promotes social capital, occurs when citizens are
knowledgeable and engaged, but open to discussion, apt to have their minds
changed if the facts warrant it, and accepting of and seeking out those with
whom they disagree; oh yes, and while not compromising basic values, are
willing and able to engage in compromise.
This type of political engagement lends itself to citizens federating
themselves, one to another.
The
polarization that the Pew Research Center reports is far from this ideal. Instead, it is the type of consistency that divides
citizens between those with whom one agrees, the smart ones, and with those whom
one disagrees, the not so smart ones or, worse, the ones who are morally
bankrupt. At least that seems to be how politically
engaged Americans today think of their fellow citizens.
Overall,
therefore, what seems to characterize the electorate are citizens who are
unengaged in politics, but if they are engaged, they belong to one or another
extreme camp. That is, the citizenry is
divided between those who don’t care about politics and government – who
consequently don’t know about their political world and are apt to form
inconsistent beliefs and views[4]
– or those who unproductively care too vehemently.
In
either case, the citizenry can be described as discarding the more responsible
qualities of good citizenship. Those
qualities, which exemplify social capital, are upheld when those engaged see
the arena between adversaries as a disagreement between partners – fellow
citizens; – and who understand that, at least in the long run, their interests
coincide. That is, they see this arena
less as an arena and more as a square – a town square.
As
end points of a continuum, the arena is where every issue becomes one of
competition; where there is a win-lose orientation; and where every worthwhile
stake is a personally held asset. The
square, on the other hand, is where collaboration is sought, where participants
are seeking win-win outcomes; and where worthwhile stakes include commonly held
assets. The social capital ideal favors
the square end of the continuum.
Summarily, the effects of low levels of political knowledge can
lead people to adopt simplistic phrases from the media or from a flamboyant but
shallow candidate or to support ill-considered policy positions. Unfortunately, this affects the quality of
our elections in attaining a better future for the republic and/or the
individual citizen.
[1] Such a situation could be a cut in a government
benefit or a local introduction of a private interest posing an unwanted change
in the person’s immediate vicinity. For
example, this could be a developer proposing construction of an apartment
complex in the person’s neighborhood. In
this latter case, the situation is political in that the developer would need
to secure an approval from a public entity such as a zoning board.
[2] “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/
.
[4] Herbert McCloskey, “Political Participation,” International Encyclopedia of the Social
Sciences, 2008, http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Political_Participation.aspx .
No comments:
Post a Comment