A SPECULATIVE WANDER

[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 posting attempted to make a connection:  intuitively, there can be a causal relationship among several factors.  The factors are political knowledge, consistent political beliefs, political engagement, and civility.  This posting hopefully adds some evidence that while not proving these connections, add weight to their existence.  It wanders through these relationships.

The posting begins in a round about way by looking at the effectiveness of civics education in imparting knowledge, and encouraging certain beliefs, attitudes, and values that are related to civility.  A researcher who has addressed these concerns, in 2013, is Kathleen Hall Jamieson.[1]  A recent academic article reviews her research.  Jamieson’s article reports a certain inconsistency.  Overall, she agrees with the message this blog has expressed:  civics education is deficient (more on this below).

In addition to this judgement, though, she reports on some notable exceptions.  Jamison extends hope by citing these more successful efforts:

A randomized field experiment concluded that involvement “in Student Voices [a civics program] significantly boosted students’ confidence in their ability to make informed political decisions, their knowledge about how to register to vote, and their belief that their vote matters.”  Moreover, in a randomized controlled experiment, “participation in Facing History and Ourselves programs result[ed] in:  greater engagement in learning; increased skills for understanding and analyzing history; greater empathy and ethical awareness; increased civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions; and improved ability to recognize racism, anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in themselves and in others; and reduced racist attitudes and self-reported fighting.”  Some civics programs, such as Kids Voting USA [another program], have been shown to create a trickle-up effect, not only increasing the knowledge level and civic dispositions of the young but enhancing their parents’ political knowledge as well.  Evidence also suggest that inclusion of civics education in a curriculum may correlate with a decrease dropout rate.[2]

It this type of instruction that would lead to what Robert Putnam has called social capital[3] among students and, eventually, the general population.

          But Jamieson goes further in her analysis.  She lists a set of consequences to what generally happens with current civics efforts.  They are:

1) neither the federal government nor the states have made high-quality civics education a priority; 2) social studies textbooks may not adequately convey the knowledge or facilitate the development of the skills required of an informed, engaged citizenry; 3) consequential differences in access and outcomes between upper- and lower-class students persist; 4) cutbacks in funding for schools make implementation of changes in any area of the curriculum difficult; and 5) the polarized political climate increases the likelihood that curricular changes will be cast as advancing a partisan agenda.[4]

She provides supportive literature of these conclusions.  This blog agrees as it has made ample comment, for example, on the state of civics textbooks – they are solely concerned with the structural elements of government and other related arrangements such as political parties.  Very little of the content deals with issues or problems and the obstacles that exist in devising, enacting, and implementing governmental policy to ameliorate or solve those issues.[5]

So, how does a lack of political knowledge, then, relate to social capital?  Using Robert Putnam's take on social capital, as it speaks to communal bonds and cooperative interactions, assuming one accepts the federalist value of cooperative political activities, a public-school curriculum should actively promote this quality.  One can state, social capital amounts to civic civility.  Two ways schools can do this is to impart political and governmental knowledge and to promote citizen participation in governmental affairs, especially at the local level.

On this front, a helpful contextual word or two is in order:  political engagement at the local level is important for two reasons.  The reasons are both practical – grass root action encourages effective strategies that lead to policy implementations[6] – and they are also effective as educating experiences.[7]   A federalist principle is to have as much local governance as is possible.  If done meaningfully and continuously, it ultimately heightens the quality of a democratic society. 

In turn, there are various reasons for this.  For one, an average individual has little chance of affecting politics at a national level.  He or she, though, can engage locally and have an impact.  However, there are enormous forces that act against this principle.  One, locals tend to be very parochial in their inclinations.  Not only are parochial concerns oftentimes anti-democratic, as in biases against minorities, but also hinder a citizen in seeing those developments that originate in other places as affecting local politics and economic conditions. 

Life has become more and more affected not only by national forces, but by global forces as well.  This is a challenge for those who promote local power, local action.  Yet, by getting involved, at the local level, in any national/global movement or effort, one can have meaningful input as to how that issue or problem is addressed.[8]  These issues can extend, for examples, from job lose to foreign, cheap labor to gun regulation to the opioid crisis.

Yes, the forces responsible for these issues can seem beyond anyone's reach.  One can easily feel justifiably overwhelmed.  This whole development undermines both local governance and the chances of increasing the social capital or civic civility of any citizenry.  But one can cite two conditions that still make local engagement a powerful political activity.

That is, while all of these nationalist and globalist trends are true, one can make the case that enough political realities are governed and generally handled by local politics, and that local access to government is still the foundation of our democratic project.  And when that is not the case, citizen action in national and international, organized efforts have proven to be successful – look at the effort to curtail smoking, especially in public places.[9]

What of the relationship between political engagement and political knowledge?  That is, engagement can be a motivator, a reason for holding political views and obtaining political knowledge in the first place.  It also assists if one has consistency in one’s thinking about politics.  Engagement demands reasonable and logically consistent views, knowledge, and opinions. 

This blog has reported a lack of engagement.  To cite another study along this line, in 2013, the Pew Research Center people conducted one that relies on an extensive telephone survey.  It found 48% of adults 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[10]

These numbers do not describe an actively engaged citizenry.  If one adds to these figures the percentage of registered voters that voted in any recent election as also cited often in this blog, the result is disappointing.

Given that non-participating citizens reflect a lack of concern over political matters, they tend to be less knowledgeable about politics and governmental policy.  Naturally, one can see these results reflect a less than successful civics education since these adults should have been encouraged in their civics classes to be active citizens.  This is not the case.

It is, therefore, no surprise that that segment of the populous that does not engage would express higher degrees of inconsistency in its political beliefs and opinions.  In addition, they have low levels of political knowledge and they tend to be inconsistent in their political thinking as earlier cited research in this blog indicates.

With these conditions as context, one can advance the claim that healthy levels of social capital are dependent on the amount of political knowledge citizens have and the levels of political engagement in which citizens are willing to participate.  Oh yes, and it helps one to contextualize the political and economic realities that are in fact before a nation at a given time when thinking of such factors.  They present a set of challenges that test how well one is disposed to treat others with civic civility; i.e., cooperative political action. 

To round off this connection, the next posting further addresses this relationship via the concept, social capital.

---

[1] Kathleen H. Jamieson, “The Challenges Facing Civic Education.  Daedalus:  Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, Spring 2013, vol. 142, no. 2, 65-83.

[2] Ibid., 72-73.

[3] Robert D. Putnam, Bowling alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York, NY:  Simon & Schuster, 2000).  Reminder:  social capital, as a societal quality, is characterized by having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation.

[4] Kathleen H. Jamieson, “The Challenges Facing Civic Education.  Daedalus:  Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 74-75.

[5] This blog has cited the largest selling American government textbook to make this point.  See Willian A. McClenaghan, Magruder’s American Government (Florida Teacher’s Edition) (Boston, MA:  Prentice Hall/Pearson, 2013).

[6] Leslie R. Crutchfield, How Change Happens:  Why Some Social Movements Succeed While Others Don’t (Hoboken, NJ:  John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2018).

[7] For example, Janet Eyler, “The Power of Experiential Education,” Association of American Colleges and Universities, n. d., accessed December 11, 2018, https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/power-experiential-education .

[8] Leslie R. Crutchfield, How Change Happens:  Why Some Social Movements Succeed While Others Don’t.

[9] Ibid.

[10] “Civic Engagement in a Digital Age,” Pew Research Center, April 4, 2013, accessed May 8, 2019, http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/04/25/civic-engagement-in-the-digital-age/ .

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.