UPDATING CIVILITY, PART V

[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 supporting that message needs updating.]

The last couple of postings looked at the affect economic conditions and related factors can have on civility.  They also indicate that the current times are particularly challenging, and, one would think, that would encourage, among civics educators, a heightened concern.  That would be the case if those educators saw civility as a prime target area of their instruction.  But alas, that is not the case.

So, one who wants to encourage such a concern, without trying to be patronizing, might ask basic questions of educators.  For example, what characterizes a populace that is well-educated in civic affairs?  Is it one that will be able to discern social realities not just for their own well-being but for the benefit of the general good as well?  And if the general welfare is a legitimate concern, isn’t levels of civility part of that concern?

This blog argues that a civics curriculum should include civil behavior and an ability to see beyond one's immediate interests, but that's not all.  More fundamentally, one should be able to expect a populace to be consistent and rational in its expressed opinions concerning political and governmental conditions of the day.  It should be able to see the more obvious and reasonable consequences of its favored political and policy options.  Why?  Well, for many reasons, but among them is a realization that civility is closely linked to these concerns.

How does the US populous meet these expectations?  In future postings, the connection to civility is made.  Here, the reader should just take this connection as a given; one can intuitively see the relationship between civility and political beliefs, so this posting will proceed with that intuitive sense.

One of the good innovations surrounding our elections has been the institutionalized practice of conducting “exit polls.”  These are survey questionnaires administered to voters as they leave their precinct, voting sites.  The questionnaires have become more and more sophisticated and have generated a lot of data about the feelings and opinions of millions of American voters. 

Of course, social scientists, especially political scientists, can mull over this information, run analyses against a whole host of demographic factors and discover insights into not only what people feel, but speculate why they feel the way they do.  So, a look at a relatively recent election, as an example, can help.  Take the 2010 election; what did the exit polls of that election show?  Journalists reported and interpreted the findings.  One of them was Michael Cooper; he reported 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.  [And since this poll, the Affordable Health Care law has become more popular.]

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]

All of this does not mean that all people are inconsistent in their opinions or feelings.  The math indicates, on many questions, that it is possible for the nation to be completely split on these questions, where most who might have voiced a more conservative answer to one question responded conservatively when asked another – that would be consistent. 

But when one points out that a vast majority say government is doing too much and 47 percent say retain or expand the national health law, significant number of voters are being inconsistent over an issue that affects people in a very personal way. 

Of course, earlier this blog reported the GU study that found the inconsistency among voters who wanted their politicians to “work across the aisle” to achieve by-partisan solutions to problems (at about an 85% rate), but at a 79% rate, they were tired of their representatives compromising their values.[2]  So, one can readily tap into a significant streak of inconsistency among American voters.

Can one give an overall descriptor as to what the consistency of Americans is?  At times, the answer is found in inadvertent places.  Here’s one:  look at what an online study aid, produced by Quizlet (fastest growing educational site in 2015) instructs its users regarding this factor of consistency.  They ask the following question of advanced placement students of government:

Which of the following statements about Americans’ ideological thinking is correct?

a.       Most Americans take ideologically consistent views on political issues

b.     People often express opinions at odds with the ideological label they attach to themselves

c.      The strength of ideological thinking tends to be uniform from year to year

d.     Most Americans describe themselves as either liberal or conservative

e.      Very few Americans classify themselves as moderate

Correct Answer:  b …[3]

This testing company is so assured of this generalization that it includes the generalization as a defining characteristic of the American electorate.

To address one possible cause of inconsistency, a look at levels of political knowledge is helpful.  People who know little about a concern will probably be inconsistent in their opinions over that concern.  So, the reader is reminded:  earlier in this blog, results of studies attempting to gauge how knowledgeable citizens are about politics do not provide much comfort.  They provide some insight into current levels of inconsistency.

In addition to those studies cited earlier, another study was conducted by the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS).  It extensively surveyed young people in order to get an idea of how knowledgeable they are about the American political system.  After relating a host of statistics showing low levels of knowledge, the study goes on to provide a descriptive sense of this deficiency.

They summarize their findings by reporting that only 25% of their subjects are able to correctly identify all three of the following: the vice president’s name, their governor’s name, and the length of a term for a member of the US House of Representatives.  NASS arrived at a disturbing conclusion:  young people “lack any real understanding of citizenship…information and understanding about the democratic process…and information about candidates and political parties.”[4]

If this indeed reflects the knowledge level of the average American, one can readily see how and why Americans are inconsistent; they lack the ability to see how political factors and facts connect and they respond to most political questions on an intuitive basis with little to no reflection.  And one can add, they think and act compulsively to government policies or issues, most often when such policies are viewed negatively.  Can one more clearly see the link to uncivil behavior?

Of course, one should not 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 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; or when the liberal or conservative view boils down to simplistic set of answers for complex realities?  Does this characterization describe engaged citizens in the US?

In other words, in terms of consistency, what can be said about those who are engaged?  The Pew Research Center regularly reports on high levels of polarization among Americans when it comes to civic issues.[5]  In terms of this concern, a look at one Pew study is useful.  It overall concludes that the engaged portion of the US electorate has become extremely polarized in its political opinions.[6]  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.  The nation’s political class – made up of the minority of citizens who do become politically active – 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 people to various non-political aspects of social life, including with whom these citizens want to socialize and with whom they want their relatives to marry or even where they choose to live.  The one stat that is very telling 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.”[7]  This is not an ideal situation.  

A question one can ask:  how knowledgeable are these engaged citizens?  Ideally, what would be more in line with the quality of social capital would be citizens who are knowledgeable and engaged, but open to discussion, apt to have their minds changed if the facts warrant it. 

It would further indicate citizens who are accepting and seeking out those with whom they disagree; oh yes, and while not compromising basic values (such as a belief in equality), in terms of values over policy questions, citizens should be willing and able to engage in compromise.  The polarization that the Pew Research Center reports identify is far from this ideal. 

In summary then, this all points to a citizenry unengaged in politics, but among those who are, belonging to one or another extreme camp.  In either case, more responsible principles are what are being discarded.  These more positive principles or ideals are upheld when those engaged see the arena between adversaries as a disagreement between partners – fellow citizens – who understand that, at least in the long run, their interests coincide. 

To get to the original point, lack of knowledge can contribute to citizens being less than consistent in their positions.  When overwhelmed with economic and other social realities, a lack of relevant awareness of the institutions and other factors making up our governmental system can make dealing with those realities more daunting.  The total of such effects can lead people to adopt simplistic phrases from the media or flamboyant candidates and disposed to repeat ill-considered policy positions. 

Unfortunately, this affects the quality of our elections to attain a better future for the republic and its citizens.  It also affects how civil people will be when discussing or acting in the political arena.  Yet, to the degree that the research indicates that students lack political knowledge, to what extent can one blame school systems for this lack?  The next posting will look at the role the schools play in this unfortunate state.  It looks at the research of Kathleen Hall Jamison.

---

[1] Michael Cooper, “Parsing the Myths of the Midterm Elections, The New York Times, November 6, 2010, accessed May 4, 2019, http://nytimes.com/2010/11/6/us/politics/06myths.html?_r=&hp .  It can be reported that extending the tax cuts, by all accounts, would have driven the national deficit significantly higher as the tax cut in 2017 is currently doing.

[2] “New Survey:  Overwhelming in Politics, But Conflicted on Desire for ‘Compromise and Common Ground’,” GU Politics, Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service, April 24, 2019, accessed April 25, 2019, http://politics.georgetown.edu/press-releases/civility-poll-pr-1/ .

[3] Quizlet, AP Gov Unit 2, n. d., accessed May 4, 2019, https://quizlet.com/33367294/ap-gov-unit-2-flash-cards/ .

[4] “Report on Survey Conducted by NASS on Americans’ Knowledge of Political System,” National Association of Secretaries of State, 1999, accessed originally through online site, http://www.nass.org/ .  Actual cited study needs to be requested of this organization; the online report has been removed.

[5] Political Polarization, Pew Research Center, accessed May 4, 2019, https://www.pewresearch.org/topics/political-polarization/ .

[6] “Pew Research: Political Polarization in the American Public,” Pew Research Center, June 12, 2014, accessed May 4, 2019, http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/ .

[7] Ibid.