A Crucial Element of Democracy

This is a blog by Robert Gutierrez ...
While often taken for granted, civics education plays a crucial role in a democracy like ours. This Blog is dedicated to enticing its readers into taking an active role in the formulation of the civics curriculum found in their local schools. In order to do this, the Blog is offering a newer way to look at civics education, a newer construct - liberated federalism or federation theory. Daniel Elazar defines federalism as "the mode of political organization that unites separate polities within an overarching political system by distributing power among general and constituent governments in a manner designed to protect the existence and authority of both." It depends on its citizens acting in certain ways which Elazar calls federalism's processes. Federation theory, as applied to civics curriculum, has a set of aims. They are:
*Teach a view of government as a supra federated institution of society in which collective interests of the commonwealth are protected and advanced.
*Teach the philosophical basis of government's role as guardian of the grand partnership of citizens at both levels of individuals and associations of political and social intercourse.
*Convey the need of government to engender levels of support promoting a general sense of obligation and duty toward agreed upon goals and processes aimed at advancing the common betterment.
*Establish and justify a political morality which includes a process to assess whether that morality meets the needs of changing times while holding true to federalist values.
*Emphasize the integrity of the individual both in terms of liberty and equity in which each citizen is a member of a compacted arrangement and whose role is legally, politically, and socially congruent with the spirit of the Bill of Rights.
*Find a balance between a respect for national expertise and an encouragement of local, unsophisticated participation in policy decision-making and implementation.
Your input, as to the content of this Blog, is encouraged through this Blog directly or the Blog's email address: gravitascivics@gmail.com .
NOTE: This blog has led to the publication of a book. The title of that book is TOWARD A FEDERATED NATION: IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL CIVICS STANDARDS and it is available through Amazon in both ebook and paperback versions.

Tuesday, September 1, 2020

SOME DEMOGRAPHICS IN ELECTION YEARS

 

As the nation approaches the election, it is a good time to review the makeup of the electorate.  In the time leading up to the last presidential election, The Pew Research Center published information that indicated how the electorate was changing from the 1990s.[1]  The assumption here is that those changes between 1992 and 2016 have indicated certain patterns and the patterns are still in place.  If so, the 2016 information provides contextual background for the polarization this blog is currently addressing and will affect the upcoming national elections.

          For example, one telling figure informs one of how the non-Hispanic whites’ share of registered voters dropped from 84% in 1992 to 70% in 2016.  The Hispanic share just about doubled, but was still a single percentage figure, 9% (up from 5% in ’92).  During that time, the black percent increased from 10% to 12% and the mixed-race percent went up from 1% to 5%.  Altogether, non-white percent has shot up from 16% to 26% during those twenty-four years. Today, an estimate has it that the white population share is at 60.7% and there is a projection that that percent will fall below 50% by 2045.

          These kinds of shifts and projected changes have and will have political repercussions.  This blog, in its review of the growing polarization issue, has pointed out some of these.  In short, political analysis needs to recognize the makeup of both major parties and how it is changing.  Overall, the changes are more heavily pronounced on the Democratic biased side.[2]

That side in 1992 was 76% white, 17% black, and only 6% Hispanic.  In 2016, the percentages were 57% white, 21% black, 12% Hispanic, 3% Asian, and 5% “other.”  These numbers further support the descriptive generalization this blog has made – the Democratic Party is, relative to the Republicans, the diverse party.  Compare these numbers with the Republican/Republican leaning makeup:  in 1992, 93% white, 3% Hispanic, 2% black; and in 2016, 86% white, 6% Hispanic, and 2% black.

          Another shift of note in the electorate has to do with age.  Due to an aging Baby Boomer generation and the increased longevity among them, the median age of registered voters increased from 46 to 50 between ’92 and ’16.[3]   Adding to this shift is the added effect of the decreased birth rates in the subsequent generations since the Baby Boomer generation’s procreating years. 

Of special note is that the Republican/Republican leaning voters were relatively younger than the Democratic side back in ’92 but in ’16 they were a good deal older.  According to the Pew Center report, the GOP side was, in ’92, 61% under 50 (38% were 50 and older), but in ’16, 41% under 50 (58% were 50 and over).  For the Democratic/Democratic leaning side:  in 1992, 57% were under 50; and in 2016, only 42% were 50 and over.

How about in education?  In a time when Americans have generally become better educated (in 1992, 50% of voters did not have any college exposure, in 2016 that figure dropped to 33%), the percentage of four-year college degreed Americans increased from 23% in ’92 to 33% in ’16.  Added to that shift has been the relative proportion of how educated each side of the political divide has become. 

Republicans were the better educated electorate in 1992, but that changed significantly by 2016.  The numbers are:  28% of Republican voters had college degrees in ’92 compared to 31% in ’16 (with some college exposure, the percentage increase was 28% to 35%); 21% of Democratic voters had degrees in ’92 compared to 37% in ’16.  Or stated another way, the portion of Democratic voters that had no college experience dropped significantly from 55% in 1992 to 32% in 2016.

What has been the change among non-whites in terms of college education?  The change between ’92 and ’16 for this demographic can be viewed from different perspectives.  As indicated above, non-whites account for a larger portion of the voting population.  There are two categories of note:  non-whites with college degrees and non-whites without degrees.  Non-whites with college degrees went up (3% to 8%) and the category non-whites without degrees also went up (13% to 21%).

Further context:  in 1992, 63% of registered voters were non college degree holding whites.  That percentage fell to 45% in 2016.  But in terms of the share of all voters who were white and had gotten degrees that only edged up four percentage points (21% to 25%) between those two years.

Another demographic category experiencing a shift is religious membership.  Here, those who do not identify with any religion have increased in their percent from 8% in 1992 to 21% in 2016.  And that increase is found more often on the Democratic side.  That, in effect, widens the gap in terms of religion.  That side, the Democratic side, was noted for having 29% classifying themselves as atheist, agnostic, or non-affiliated in 2016.  It was only 10% in 1992.

As for Democrats or Democratic leaning respondents, in 2016, 11% were white mainline Protestants, 10% white Catholics, and 8% white evangelicals.  Together, these three groups had fewer percentages in 2016 than in 1992.  In terms of black Protestants, they constitute 15% of all Democratic voters.  Hispanic Catholic make up 6%.  These last two groups have not changed in terms of percentages since 1992.

On the Republican side, change has been very small.  To no surprise, they are more likely to be affiliated with a religion, and that likelihood is increasing.  There, 2016, the numbers were:  35% of Republican voters were white evangelical Protestants, 18% were white Catholics, 17% were white mainline Protestants, and 12% were religiously unaffiliated.  This last rate rose six points in the years between 1992 and 2016.

The Pew report states, “There has been little change in the share of all GOP voters who are white evangelical Protestants or white Catholics over the past two decades, but the share who are white mainline Protestants has declined 12 points.”[4]  This last bit of information further heightens what this blog is reporting, i.e., demographic factors seem to be feeding the polarization forces one finds among the electorate.

Surely, after the upcoming election has taken place and groups such as the Pew Center do their analyses of the results or any surveying they do, one can see if the assumption cited earlier bear out, i.e., that the trends the 2016 analysis discovered have continued if not increased in the subsequent years. 

If a civics teacher chooses to address these or similar numbers, students can probably add to any ensuing discussion by relating anecdotal information as to whether their home or neighborhood life resembles or stands in counter distinction to the trends the above statistics point out.



[1] “1.  The Changing Composition of the Political Parties,”  The Pew Research Center (September 13, 2016), accessed August 31, 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/09/13/1-the-changing-composition-of-the-political-parties/ .

[2] By Democratic biased side, the reference is to those voters who either vote Democratic or tend to vote Democratic.

[3] Readers should note these percentages refer to registered voters and not the population, as a whole.  According to one site, the current median age is 38.3.  See “United States Population,” Worldometer (n.d.) accessed August 31, 2020, https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/#:~:text=The%20median%20age%20in%20the%20United%20States%20is%2038.3%20years.

[4] Ibid.

No comments:

Post a Comment