The Gender Gap

One of the most interesting statistics that was repeatedly reported on the Pew Research articles was the statistic that men are more likely than women to keep up with politics and international affairs. It was reported that 45% of men and only 25% of women fell into the top third tier of those who are most interested in international affairs. 42% of women and only 26% of men fell into the bottom third group of people (those least interested in these subjects). It is also a common trend that education level and the number of correct answers people give are positively correlated. Then why do we see fewer women in the 'most aware of public knowledge' group when more women have been attending college than men since the year 2000? The New York Times reports that since 2000, 57% of college attendees have been women and 43% have been men. UVa follows this national trend; in 2009, 57% of the students on grounds were women and 43% were men. Is there something about public knowledge that differs from the knowledge that students seek by going to college? In other words, in 'book smartness' different than 'political smartness'?

If education does not explain this huge gender gap, then what does? We have talked before about the role that intimidation plays in discouraging people from becoming politically active.

It wasn't until 1920 that women were given the right to vote. Women are slowly gaining more higher level governmental roles but maybe the obvious disparity is still a powerful enough message to prevent women from taking an active role in the public realm. Is there something about the nature of political information that is not as appealing to women? The political world is often characterized as being unforgiving and harsh. The majority of women who enter high ranked government position have had the question asked about them: "Will she be able to stand strong when faced with a tough decision?" Hillary Clinton's experience as a Presidential nominee in 2008 is a great example of this. The political world is still a very masculine realm. It is highly possible that even though more women are receiving college educations, they are slower to penetrate the political world.

It may also be that the process of obtaining political knowledge is different than the way students study in order to have successful college careers. The act of seeking political knowledge requires one to feel that the information they are reading is somewhat relevant to their lives. Perhaps women are less likely to relate to the news stories that dominate the media and therefore will invest less time in educating themselves. A large portion of the U.S.'s involvement in international affairs are dominated by war and conflict. As only 20% of the U.S. military is made up of women, women may feel less connected to how the U.S. is fairing overseas. Few women hold high governmental positions. This may discourage women from becoming active and educated citizens if they feel they have no chance at being represented.

The Lodgesteen article assesses claims of conventional voter inattentiveness measured in terms of how much a voter could remember from a campaign. This memory-based model of voter attentiveness is discarded and replaced by an “On-line model” that suggests that rational political conclusions stem from events during the campaign despite the fact that 60% of voters could not mention the gist of a candidate’s platform. This rather optimistic view of voter competency follows that facts are not as politically relevant and do not influence an election in the direct way they are thought to. Lodgesteen and Kuklinski almost blatantly say that facts are not as important as people hold them political outcomes and offered a more practical, heuristic model.

They did not address this at length, but I couldn’t stop wondering what the effects of ‘no facts’ would be on our cultural norms in the arena of political debate. Pundits pride themselves on the ability to enumerate facts, figures and their significance. A few authors this week, while refusing to condone the alternative, almost give citizens a carte blanche to make bold political statements and cast votes without the capacity to verbalize a few basic supporting claims. It reminded me of the “I know it when I see it” clause that Justice Stewart used to evaluate the level of obscenity in a case before the supreme court. X% of the time an efficient, rational outcome is achieved. My concern is for the value that our nation places on information. Would it be acceptable to be “ignorant” provided that you’re always given the benefit of the doubt? Yes, I appreciate the aberration from the incessant theme of voter incompetent that instills little hope in our democracy. But an argument can be made that this would send us in the wrong direction.

Uninformed or Under-informed Citizens?

As discussed in the Carpini article, many scholars have argued that the mass American public is "uniformed" in terms of politics. Carpini argues that the public is not actually uniformed, but poorly informed. The research in the reading shows that when asked about politically relevant questions on the quiz (questions about the government, political leaders, etc.) the average adult answered about 50 percent of the questions correct (pg 136), leading Carpini to conclude that the public is therefore under informed.

In examining Carpini's data, I came to a completely different conclusion. I found a problem with the definition for "uninformed". This relates directly to the findings in the Gaines et al. reading which suggests that people can hold the same beliefs, but form different interpretations and opinions. Maybe I simply used Carpini's findings to reinforce what I already believed, but I felt like answering 50 percent of the questions in correct was proof that our society is largely uninformed. I have never take a class where 50 percent correct served as a "passing grade". In every class I've ever taken, 50 percent is an F, a failure.
Would you let someone who only earned half the points on their driver test drive you around? Absolutely not. Not all drivers need to be experts, but in order to be a safe driver, you must at least prove to know what you're doing. The same applies to American citizens.

I do agree with Caprini's claim that there are "levels" of being informed. It is definitely not a black and white matter. However, unless the test takers were to score at least 60% of the questions correct, I would be hesitant to say that they were simply "under informed". It is no wonder that the voting levels, and political participation, are so low in this country. Who wants to get involved in something that they know nothing about? It is not clear whether being uninformed leads to low political participation, or low levels of political participation lead to an uninformed citizen (which came me first, the chicken or the egg?) but it makes sense that in an information based era of politics so defined by knowledgeable citizens, people who are uniformed are less likely to participate. Of course, as we have learned before, other resources play a role in this too, such as money and time.

Citizen Knowledge in the Health Care Reform Debates

This week’s readings, for the most part, expressed serious doubts about the capacity for citizens to consume and evaluate accurate political information. I imagine no one was particularly surprised about these claims: it seems someone is always mocking Americans’ ignorance about both domestic as well as international politics. Several authors discuss specific political information, including Kuklinski and Quirk who speak primarily about knowledge of welfare. However, a more current political issue that prompted citizen involvement and awareness might be health care reform. The health care debates that spanned much of last year would have been a fantastic case to use in order to evaluate the ways political issues are disseminated and subsequently understood by the mass American public.

In many ways, these debates about the drafting and ultimate passage of health care reform demonstrated some of the points this week’s authors make. Health care reform affected millions of Americans and therefore is an issue that complements the ideal of an informed citizen who is well-aware of how such a public policy might impact them and her community. These theorists and authors may have been happy to see so many “ordinary citizens” taking interest in policy. But understanding the many nuances and particularities and difficult legal language of the Bill was an immense task that begs questions about how these “ordinary” Americans learned about the its contents.

News media was definitely a prominent source and these debates speak to the responsibility of news organizations to take it upon themselves to interpret, synthesize and convey the most important pieces of the bill and how it would affect citizens. As our authors told us, average citizens cannot be expected – even biologically- to fully inform themselves. Thus, news broadcasts, print publications as well as non-traditional blogs, dissected the bill and summarized its contents and their consequences. While this seemed to occur across news media, one wonders the extent to which citizens actively sought out this information in order to decide if the bill would benefit them, or if they simply acted emotionally based on smaller – and perhaps less significant types – of information.

The heuristic model, which Delli Carpini investigates and others follow up on, was definitely at work as many of the protests led by citizens rallied around single issues that were likely misrepresentative of the bill’s central policies: namely death panels and the nation-wide loosening of restrictions on abortions, issues that touch on people's emotional associations. And as Kuklisnki and Quirk demonstrate, systematic bias among of the bill’s outspoken proponents were clearly prevalent. Issue framing and persuasion, which they also raise, was apparent in commercials that both supported and opposed the bill, which emphasized particular aspects that were likely blown out of proportion.

While citizens didn’t have the capacity to directly support or oppose the Bill, the power of their votes was evident as congressmembers seem highly attuned to the opinions of their constituents during these debates. (I at least received several emails from my representatives asking for my take on the issue.) But what I think this example also raises is the benefits of an informed – or uniformed – citizenry. The appeal to the masses seemed to both slow and distort the reform process and politicians spent time clarifying and re-clarifying specifics of the bill or their positions on it in order to defend their seats. Infrequently did the debates in mass media seem intelligent and diplomatic. Might the reform process have been more efficient if citizen input was less considered and instead, left to experts?

The Flawed Heuristics Approach

Of this week’s readings, I was most intrigued by Delli Carpini’s argument. Delli Carpini offers a few different theories; however, essentially stating that an informed citizen could constitute any citizen that based political decisions on some rational facet of information. I contend that Delli Carpini perhaps sets the bar too low for what creates an “informed” citizen. In his opening paragraph he generalizes that ‘democracy becomes more responsive and responsible the more informed, and the more equitably informed, is its citizens’ (Delli Carpini 138). I somewhat agree with this point; however, I find fault with his definition of an “informed citizenry”.

Delli Carpini’s major contention is that the American people are poorly informed, but not completely uniformed. He uses several examples of how American’s lack the concrete information of the political world such as names of political leaders, definitions, geographic locations, and political structures. He raises the theory of the “heuristics model”, which contends that Americans may forge political interests informatively, yet remember them through an informal cognition. Essentially, citizens create shortcuts to remember political preferences or policy. In essence, the heuristics model creates an “informed” citizen based on a less intimidating amount of political information. Citizens are able to determine their political preferences or exercise political knowledge through sweeping party stereotypes or other similar generalizations. Is this really an informed public? Or just obedient sheep shepherded by political stereotypes?

I believe Delli Carpini mentions that even though some voters could not even locate Nicaragua, they still voted in favor of candidates who favored military support for Contras. They did this in accordance with heuristic based political shortcuts such as partisanship or values , such as anti-dictatorship ideals. Was that really a politically informed decision? In my mind, the heuristics model represents more of a regurgitation of generalized values being applied to a more specific issue or policy. Real and concrete political decisions and information do not always line up with generalized values or political support. I disagree with Delli Carpini in his contention that the political elites should create a deeper trust with the general public. Let the political experts call the shots, not the emotion-charged opinions of the general public.

Information and Rationalization

The Gaines, et al. reading for this week had several important take-away points: even partisans update their opinions based on changing facts, there was no evidence of fact avoidance even among strong Republicans during the Iraq War, and several others. The most interesting and possibly problematic point in their entire article, however, is contained in a single sentence at the end of their conclusion.

"Indeed," they claim, "in what may be a central paradox of mass politics, those who acquire the most information about a policy and its consequences are also the most likely to rationalize their existing opinions." The only evidence in their article I can find to support such a claim is that strong Republicans and strong Democrats change their original opinions only slightly based on the developments in Iraq. This interpretation, however, assumes that a strong partisan identification is linked with having more information about policies and their consequences. There is no measure that compares knowledge of the casualties in Iraq across groups, making the claim made in the conclusion ungrounded. It does, however, raise an interesting question: do we all interpret new, dissonant information in a way that simply serves to strengthen our pre-existing opinions, or is this simply the behavior of an smaller group? If the former is the case, it throws into question one of the central premises of democratic debate: that if people are exposed to more information and viewpoints, they will end up with a "more informed," better opinion about a possible public policy. If the latter is the case, is there a way to identify this group? Should they be separated from public policy discussion so they don't contaminate the rest of the citizenry and cause them to begin to interpret facts in order to justify their pre-existing opinions?

Either way, Gaines, et al. probably should not have made such a claim. Depending on how their data is broken down, they could provide some evidence for this claim if they saw that the people who had the most accurate responses for objective facts (such as the level of troop casualties in Bosnia and Iraq) were strong partisans, the groups that had the most evidence of meaning avoidance and rationalization of pre-existing opinions in the two cases examined in the article.

A "healthy" amount of voter non-participation?

In his article, "In Search of the Informed Citizen: What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters" Delli Carpini writes about a "knowledge gap" between citizens. Men are generally more informed than women; white people more informed than black people; those with higher incomes more informed than those with lower incomes; and the old more informed than the poor. According to Delli Carpini these knowledge gaps are substantial. Knowing this, the next question we need to ask when debating citizen knowledge and participation is, "Does increased knowledge about the issues enable a citizen to more accurately support policies that benefit their well being?" From reading an excerpt from Kuklinsky and Quirk's book I agree with Delli Carpini that in order to people to be good citizens they must be informed about the issues. People use heuristic cues unintentionally and haphazardly which makes them an inefficient tool when deciding what policies to support.

Delli Carpini writes about the "collective public opinion" which some scholars believe can be rational even if individual opinions are not because the random and incorrect views of uninformed citizens will cancel each other out, leaving the true choices of the more informed citizens to become public policy.

If the collective public opinion does work in this way and if there is indeed this knowledge gap between the citizenry (there is evidence to support this assumption) and if this knowledge is important for a person to accurately advance policies that are beneficial to themselves, we can understand the significance of this gap. The voice of those groups with higher percentages of citizens who are knowledgeable about politics (men, whites, the wealthy, and older people) will win out over the random voices of those who are uninformed about politics (women, blacks, the poor, and the young) which will cancel each other out.

If you hold this beliefs about the way the collective public opinion is created, it would be difficult to support a "healthy" amount of voter non-participation. Those people who are not participating (or are participating inefficiently/ineffectively) do not come from all segments of society. Rather, they come from specific groups, who are as a result underrepresented in the formation of public policy.

It is not enough just to encourage increased participation. We must also find ways to increase accurate knowledge about policies among these groups so that they can have their voices hear in the formation of public policy and not simply drowned out by the coherent and rational voice of the knowledgeable elites.

What Is an Informed Citizen?

All four of this week’s readings either directly or indirectly addressed the idea of the “informed citizen,” the requirements and contributions to becoming an informed citizen, and/or the way knowledge is received and perceived by citizens. As I read through these articles, specifically the pieces by Carpini and Lodge, et al, I found myself asking what exactly an informed citizen is. Is an informed citizen an individual voter who can simply acquire knowledge and remember it? Or is an informed citizen a person who can apply their knowledge in order to make rational and factually based decisions? Lodge, et al argues that when the online model of voter responsiveness is utilized, the conception of an informed citizen is “radically different” from the notion of an informed citizen used in the conventional memory based model (311). According to the online model, informed citizens are not necessarily able to recall certain facts from campaigns; however, they are able to utilize or recall certain facets of or feelings on campaign information in order to make a political choice. They are able to evaluate information and apply it in order to make political decisions, even if they cannot remember certain specifics. In my opinion, there are many voters who have a lot of information on important political issues, but the extent to which they are able to use and evaluate this information in making important decisions is debatable. Being able to use information productively is completely different from simply possessing information and reciting facts.

Along the same lines, I started to question whether an informed (or more often misinformed) citizen necessarily equals a good citizen. Ultimately, I agree with Lodge’s, et al assertion that “information holding” is simply one standard of good citizenship (322), but also with Carpini’s statement that any notion of the “good citizen” must include the “informed citizen (129).” Furthermore, I started to think about the role information plays in politics for those committed to partisan lines, as described in “Same Facts, Different Interpretations” by Gaines, et al. I know many well-informed individuals who have strong partisan leanings, yet after reading Gaines’ piece, I began to wonder if these know-it-all partisans are really what we want when it comes to informed citizens. As the authors describe, information (especially information pertaining to controversial issues like WMD’s or American causalities) can be interpreted is vastly different ways in order to fit party lines, objectives, and agendas. Too often, the power and effects of interpretation is undermined when it comes to discussions on the informed citizen.

Finally, with the rise of other models of political decision making like the heuristic, online, elite, and pluralist models, is an informed citizenry an essential component required to sustain a successful democracy?

A Jeffersonian Vision

Carpini's "In Search of the Informed Citizen: What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters" provided a much needed positive outlook on democracy in the United States. The people need to feel as though they are making progress, that they are being rewarded for their efforts. We, as a society, are no worse off than we were fifty years ago, despite arguments to the contrary. Carpini feels that, "democracy becomes more responsive and more responsible the more informed, and the more equitably informed, is its citizenry" (133). However, the population as a whole should not be discouraged by the statistics Schudson and other such authors have presented in the past. It is not the case that the United States is only as strong as its weakest link when it comes to political participation. On the contrary, it is the case that, under certain conditions, the informed population makes up for what the uninformed population lacks. The discrepancy between the two groups may be large, but most citizens fall somewhere in the middle. Therefore, there is obviously room for improvement, as society as a whole is clearly capable of becoming informed and subsequently participatory on some level given a proper education and motivation. In fact, Americans proved to be informed when it came to matters concerning the actual concepts of primary elections, key social conditions, etc.; in other words, the population is actually educated on a very basic, yet vital level. Such is "evidence perhaps of an under-informed public, but not of an uninformed one" (136).

The major distinction between an informed citizen and an under-informed or uninformed citizen comes down to education, and more importantly motivation. Without a proper education, it would be unreasonable to expect an individual to be a functioning member of society. The standard for the informed citizen is, as Schudson points out, unrealistic due to natural tendencies. Some people are not afforded the same opportunities as others, and such is life. However, disadvantages in education can be overcome through motivation; a motivation that begins with reading a newspaper, and ends with full fledged participation in elections, etc. Carpini argues, "Too often "the citizenry" is described in monolithic terms. The evidence suggests, however, that there are dramatic differences in how informed Americans are" (140). While I am inclined to agree, I do not believe that individual differences in participation among citizens are the root of the problem. It is certainly an important distinction to acknowledge, but it does not account for a solution. For Carpini, it would seem as though increased educational opportunities could seemingly solve for the lack of an informed citizenry. However, I do not find this to be the case. Some people are just not interested in politics, no matter how much they do or do not believe their one "vote" will actually count. Individuals are actually content with their lives and do not see the need to change their situation. For those who are not content, however, it should be their responsibility to engage in political discourse. This is not to say that it is not one's civic duty to be politically aware, but to be politically inclined is to have an inherent liking for the political sphere itself. Most Americans, unfortunately, try to steer clear of political conversation because it is riddled with conflicting opinions and subsequently makes for uncomfortable situations. I say unfortunately largely due to the belief that "informed citizens are "better" citizens in a number of ways" (142). For the most part, that is, in fact, the case. Yet, that is not to say that the majority of citizens today are uninformed, as Carpini argues. He has a very positive outlook on the American public as it pertains to democracy. In fact, "Research suggests that even elites such as foreign policy makers make decisions under conditions of imperfect information and use heuristics in making decisions" (146). While that may not be very comforting, it affirms the notion that nobody is perfect; therefore, it would be unfair to expect every individual to be perfect with respect to their duties as a member of society. Some individuals do not have the means by which to acquire information, at which point it is up to those who are more informed to bridge the gap between political competence and seemingly social ignorance.

Overall, I found Carpini's literature to be extremely articulate, in that he addressed all aspects of his argument from both sides. At times, it was more or less embarrassing to discover just how uninformed, or under-informed, some Americans actually are. But is that truly their fault? It really is the luck of the draw when it comes to opportunity, and a lack of it is exactly where we need to begin in order to address such issues. Reaching out to those who are less fortunate seems like a foolproof way to increase political awareness. Yet, at the same time, Carpini is very adamant about supporting our current status as a more or less educated population. He does not want to discount how far we have come, only encourage us to improve upon our already successful democratic regime. "[S]hort-term patterns suggest that, given the right mix of ability, opportunity, and motivation, citizens are capable of significant political learning. This, coupled with the strong and significant relationship between socioeconomic status, the political and information environment, and political knowledge levels, strongly suggests the potential for improvement" (155). When it comes down to it, it is truly the case that we as a society hold the metaphorical key to our own democratic destiny.

The Chain of Misinformation

It is evident from the readings for this week that citizens are often misinformed or under-informed rather than uninformed. Is this any better than being uninformed? If anything, it can be argued that a citizen who is misinformed is more dangerous than a citizen who is not informed at all. The misinformed individual may hold on dearly to his or her opinions and end up making poor decisions on the basis of misinformation. The uninformed citizen, however, may not end up participating at all and this might be preferable to misguided participation.

What I really found troubling is the "impression driven" model. I can understand how it may be convenient to link emotions with certain information and recall that emotion later on to make a decision, but to forget on what criteria you made that emotional connection is quite scary to be honest. Consider a friendly debate amongst two neighbors about a candidate's policy. One individual likes the candidate and provides reasons (based on campaign events/information/speeches) to support his stance. The other individual dislikes the candidate, but is unable to explain why. The latter individual is going to appear quite ignorant, since his opinion of the candidate was based off of information he has long since forgotten.

Putting aside the risk of looking ignorant, the impression driven, or on-line model when combined with misinformation looks to be a disastrous duo. Individuals receiving information from the media, interest groups or public officials may be mislead, sometimes unintentionally and other times deliberately. If this same individual proceeds to take this faulty information and develops an impression while forgetting how he arrived at that impression, it is truly unfortunate. Even if later on he receives new, updated, correct information that contradicts the misinformation he already received, it is too late for him to change his stored impression. The damage has been done.

While it may be difficult and in some sense infeasible to expect people to always remember why they came up with a certain impression or opinion, people do need to increase their overall recall of political facts. The last thing we need is a chain starting with misinformation leading to a faulty impression and thus a misguided vote.

Debate in the Public Sphere

People are not perfect, so any idealized model of democratic citizenship will ultimately fall short in practice. In this week's readings, Delli Carpini supports the necessity of information in a democracy, and Kulinski and Quirk seem to agree by pointing out the problems with mass opinion theories. On the other hand, Lodge et al and Gaines et al think that the information-based model sets impossible standards, thus setting citizens up to miss the mark. They suggest that detailed knowledge may not be necessary for individuals to perform their democratic functions.

The on-line model of recall and the idea that people interpret facts in partisan ways resonate most with my experience of people's political opinions. Many individuals seem to have generalized opinions that match up with their previous beliefs and some of the information in the media, without the ability to recall details. While this reality might be functional in terms of getting people to vote because they feel familiar with politics, the lack of deep comprehension stifles debate for the average citizen.

Learning from debate requires both specific facts and an open mind. One cannot simply say "My impression is the candidate X will do a good job." Instead, they must be able to recall and use specific issue points to justify their argument. When facts are present, people have to be willing to understand them from a variety of possible viewpoints. Putting "spin" on information so that it suits your beliefs automatically closes you off to the possibility of sharpening your mind.

The ability to debate politics with others is not necessary for voting. However, it should be a goal in democracies, because it helps bring out the best policies through testing. An information-based model for citizenship is required to make debate happen.

Misinformation and the Internet

How prevalent is misinformation? This is a question that Kuklinski et al. pose near the close of their article “Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship”. I find this question particularly intriguing because generally, in both everyday political discussion and in the classroom, we tend to focus on the prevalence of uninformed citizens, but rarely do we consider those who are simply misinformed. In this new media age, where news outlets are fragmented and much reporting is done by amateur journalists or everyday citizens, it is easy to see how people could become misinformed about politics and society overall. To be clear, I do think the arrival of blogs and citizen journalism is, in general, extremely useful for democracy. I believe that it is capable of fostering a type of Habermasian public sphere in which private, individual citizens can actively participate in discourse with no regard to class, gender or race, and which can act as a valuable check on the government when necessary. However, this type of technology also has the distinct ability to create what Chris Anderson has referred to as “echo chambers”. In other words, it can enable, and even encourage, people to surround themselves with affirming political and social information, essentially making it possible for people to only ever encounter information that support their preexisting beliefs.

While this type of environment is clearly poisonous to the goals of democracy, when applied to the work of Kuklinski et al it conveys both a way for misinformation to come about, and a way for it to flourish and intensify. The scholars assert in the reading that not only are many citizens misinformed (in their study, the misinformation involved welfare), but that they are often very confident about their incorrect beliefs. This study, published in 2000, was surveying individuals who, while most likely familiar with the internet, probably did not experience blogs or online journalism like the world does today, ten years later. This leads me to wonder; has this misinformation trend grown since the study was conducted? Aside from the growth of independent journalists, the prevalence of partisan blogs and even partisan mainstream media today could certainly have exacerbated this trend by introducing or affirming misleading information.

If this misinformed sect of public has in fact grown, what can we do about it? While we strive for a public sphere in which citizens can freely communicate and spread ideas, when does this lead to the creation of “good” democracy and when does it cross over into the creation of citizens who only consume media that bolsters their beliefs? This reminds me of a point in the Carpini article that struck me; the fact that while knowledge gaps related to race, class, and gender have remained stable over the years, the gap between older and younger citizens has substantially increased. Does this relate at all to a possible rise in misinformation? Is it possible that instead of helping to create a public sphere, the internet is actually just fragmenting and misinforming us?

The more I learn, the fewer answers I have.

In the first of this week’s readings Michael Delli Carpini asserts that “democracy becomes more responsive and responsible the more informed, and the more equitably informed, is its citizenry”. The likelihood of having an equitable anything in American politics is as probable as finding a method for its implementation in Delli Carpini’s article. But this is not to say that I disagree entirely with the logic of Carpini’s argument. I accept his distinction between the “uninformed” and the “poorly informed”, and I claim that this is a relatively important distinction to make, one which I admittedly failed to acknowledge until recently. Carpini goes in to interesting detail of the varying depth of political knowledge across several of the Occidental states, showing that – compared to its peers – the US suffers from a lack of knowledge concerning foreign affairs. While I lack the information and the time to reinterpret the research findings, at least one possible explanation comes to mind. In looking at the date of the study-1994- it occurs to me that willful ignorance may be a factor in the failure to achieve better “scores” than our Western counterparts. Several important events had recently taken place which may have undermined the willingness of the American people to take interest in Bosnian affairs and the U.N. leadership of Boutros-Ghali. First, America’s excitement over driving the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait in the early 90’s cannot be overstated. But, much like today’s Iraq War, the end did not necessarily mean The End. America’s army and air force were still heavily involved – and sometimes engaged – in controlling Hussein’s army with the use of coercive air superiority and a strategic denial campaign, namely Operations Southern Watch and Northern Watch. Additionally, and more recently, our tactical and strategic failures to achieve any of our official and unofficial military and political objectives in the Horn of Africa culminated in the tragic Battle of Mogadishu in 1993. This event alone was enough to undermine the superiority complex of the US public – still celebrating its partial 1991 success in Southwest Asia – and divert its attentions away from international affairs. I would also contend that this, along with a general disinterest in African affairs, helps explain the fact that the general public could not name the Secretary-General of the UN in 1994, the worst year of the Rwanda Genocide. To be fair to the US, however, it seems that proximity plays a significant factor in the knowledge base of these countries; five of the eight states surveyed are in Europe, thereby providing them with considerably higher stakes in regards to Baltic conflicts. Unfortunately I cannot substantiate my ideas today with research, but considering how fluid our interests in international affairs can be these explanations may hold water. Barring research, however, I’m afraid my ideas are nothing more than a product of “poorly informed” opinions.

Despite some of my questions over the interpretation of the studies, I agree that a well-informed citizenry would make for better democracy. My concerns are not with the ends but with the means. As an example, we have made significant improvements at all levels of our education system over the past century. But other than emphasizing its importance, we cannot force the disinterested and the unwilling to participate successfully. This applies to politics as well, and the consequences are parallel. Our truancy laws may force class attendance, but they do not ensure willingness, motivation, or interest in participation or successful completion. Likewise, Americans may attempt to pressure their peers into political participation – recall the adage “if you don’t vote don’t complain” – but in the absence of true interest the results will be lacking in meaning and strength. By encouraging subpar participation, we invite even more self-interested participants who base their choices on emotional responses to “easy arguments”, a negative side effect of today’s political world in America according to Kuklinski and Quirk. Do we need more of that in American politics? Do we want that?

I found the Gaines, et al article particularly interesting, and it helps to reinforce a few of my own opinions. First, that citizens often interpret and support the facts that substantiate those beliefs that already correspond with their political views. And second, that citizens are loathe to change their beliefs in the face of alternative or changing facts. To find particularly strong support for the Gaines, et al argument we need look no further than our military. From personal experience I can say that a rather large plurality of those I served with have supported the Iraq War from its beginning. And in light of new facts that stood the Bush regime’s claim of WMD on its head, this plurality maintained their support, simply shifting the reason for the invasion from WMD to issues of humanity and the “necessary” removal of Hussein. Kuklinski and Quirk also criticize this “resistance to correction” in their article. Admittedly there are problems with this example, however. The largest proportion of our military are undoubtedly conservative, although this is arguably changing even as I write this. Furthermore, there is a strongly ingrained psychological motivation for troops to support military action that places them directly in the line of fire and often requires them to take the life of another human being. This involves a need to believe in what they’re doing, leaving the judgment of their actions for others. Another problem is that the military is not encouraged to consider possible alternatives. Instead, coercion prevents them from publicly criticizing their leaders and their choices; there are even military laws preventing these acts of “sedition”. Despite these distinctly service-oriented differences, however, this example supports the conclusions of Gaines, et al. I’m not certain that this changes my views of American democracy, however. I still believe in the power of the political pendulum. We have seen it first hand in the past few years with the shift from the Bush administration to the Obama administration. The danger of the pendulum is that it allows the American people to swing it too far to one side, thereby enabling it to “tip over”. And when it swings too far to the right – as it did with Bush – the electorate may force it too far to the left – as I argue it did with Obama. This is certainly dangerous for our political system, but it’s a danger we have created and one which we must live with. The only alternative is to place more trust in our political leadership to make decisions which may appear to abrogate our rights-based citizenry, but which may overall be better for America. I have no answer for how this would happen, and it certainly would invite its own dangers.

Responsive versus Rational Citizenship

I am both relieved and excited to hear that citizens do, in fact, make rational evaluations about political candidates, according to the "on-line" model tested by Lodge et. al. This model provides a sort of scapegoat for Americans who are often accused of being uninformed and disinterested: even if they're too busy to remember specific facts, at least they can hold onto evaluations they've made at some point that were based on rational judgments of relevant facts.

Despite these hopeful findings, if people are unable to recall the reasons for forming political opinions, their ability to hold meaningful political discussions--either with other citizens or in confrontation to an opposing message-- is severely inhibited. Political discussion then becomes a one-way track: from political campaign messages to their recipients, without the beneficial interference of alternative perspectives. Citizens might add or subtract to their mental "tallies," but they are seemingly unable to retain the reasons for these additions and subtractions that could prove useful should opposing information come along. Without these reasons, citizens are more susceptible to emotional campaign advertisements, for example, because they lack the informational resources to fend off contrary emotional claims. Such an advertisement would cause a shift in the "tallies," but for the wrong reasons--without a rational re-consideration of the evidence because they no longer have the evidence to draw from. (And, as Kuklinski and Quirk point out, "in the constant interaction between emotion and cognition, emotion usually dominates.") Responsiveness to political messages, for which Lodge et. al. have found great evidence, is definitely an important factor in political evaluations, but the rationality of this responsiveness seems, to me, much more important in our evaluation of citizen competence.

Moreover, perhaps it is for this very reason that political discussion is so daunting to the ordinary American. Eliasoph's research provides evidence that many Americans do not feel knowledgeable--at least on the "frontstage"--to discuss their political opinions with others, and perhaps this is because they are unable to generate specific reasons for the opinions they possess, however strong. Without compelling facts to support one's opinion--or as Lodge et. al. discover: usually without any facts at all-- any effort to convince someone else to adopt your opinion becomes an irrational appeal based on a gut feeling. Such an appeal dampens one's own feelings of agency in the political arena.

Why are American citizens poorly informed?

Based on the essay of Michael X. Delli Carpini, we understand that the citizens have a lack of knowledge about politics - even if it is not uniformed among all the population. But we can go further by using this essay to question why are the American citizens poorly informed.
On the one hand, we can say that Americans may not be interested in politics because the political structure is sometimes hard to understand. In his essay, Michael X. Delli Carpini wrote "the American political system is an enigma. [...] It allows almost unlimited participation while doing nothing to facilitate it" (Caprini, p.152). The complexity of the institutions and how they work may be one of the reasons why the task of the citizens -getting informed about politics- is not facilitated.
On the other hand, we can consider that the lack of interest of Americans in politics is due in part to the politicians themselves. Indeed, in the light of what Kuklinski and Quirk are saying, politicians use rethoric in order to convince the voters. That may be the reason why Americans don't think they have to focus on serious knowledge, because they are not educated by the politicians to do so. But this information can be discussed. The relationship between politicians and citizens is a vicious circle: politicians have to use rhetoric because some citizens don't focus on their ideology, but by using this rhetoric, they are not going to push the citizens to improve their knowledge about politics.

Today, many citizens and scholars are blaming the media and citizens for focussing on the image of the politicians rather than on their speech, and therefore decreasing the integrity of the political debate. As an example, Delli Caprini said that "the single most commonly known thing about George Bush's opinion while he was president was that he hated broccoli" (Caprini p.134). Maybe we can use the same thought process: we may not have to blame the citizens and the media for focusing on less serious concerns about politics, but rather blaming the politicians -and their communication advisers- for their use of the image in order to attract the voters. This may lead again to a lack of interest in the political knowledge.

The Value of Voluntary Participation

This post is in response to "amd5m"'s post titled Civic Engagement: Is UVA fooling us?...are we fooling ourselves?"

I certainly believe that a re-evaluation of the worth and necessity of volunteer work needs to take place. Evaluations of the quantity of volunteer work are not limited to just colleges; the military services use volunteer work and civic participation as criterion for promotions and lateral job movement as well. When civic participation is forced, I fear that it may often result in sub-par participation and performance. While personnel numbers may be important in garnering support for a specific lobby or interest, especially the larger ones, for small organizations the quantity is not as important as quality of participation.

However, I am not arguing against occasional civic participation, even if such participation does not translate into political activity. There is something to be said for the character-building nature of civic participation and volunteerism. Having a broader understanding of how these small associations work stands to offer valuable organizational skills at a level where resources such as materiel and personnel may be limited. I once again offer my question: why should we care if civic participation translates into political participation? I stand by my originial assertion that we should NOT care if it leads to broader political activity. But there are immense benefits for those wishing to involve themselves. In the long run, I believe that civic participation can help any participant whether they were volunteered or "volun-told".

Volunteerism: Valuable but not a Remedy

I wholeheartedly agree with amd5m in her blog entitled, "Civic Engagement: Is UVA fooling us? Are we Fooling Ourselves?" that we need to look critically at the organizations we and members of our community are involved in and determine what exactly our purpose and role is in these voluntary associations. I do believe that some voluntary associations can create civic skills, enhance political behavior, and improve democracy and society. What I got out of the readings for this week is that we cannot just assume that volunteering is a fulfillment of our civic duty.

Before reading the Theiss-Morse and Hibbing article I would have agreed that belonging to a voluntary association would most likely increase members political participation because it gives them a forum in which to practice civic skills like letter writing and public speaking. However, Theiss-Morse and Hibbing caution that most people who are involved in voluntary associations already tend to be involved in politics. One of the other authors mentioned that people who volunteer are generally from a higher socio-economic class. Therefore those people who have time to volunteer are probably the people who have more opportunities to practice civic skills in their workplace (they don't work in customer service or preform manual labor). Therefore, voluntary associations are not a place for them to gain civic skills, but rather to utilize the knowledge they already have. It has also been shown that people who are actively engaged in voluntary associations are already more actively engaged in politics.

Although the majority of the time volunteers already possess civic skills, I can imagine some cases where voluntary associations may be the only way certain citizens can gain civic skills (someone who has a blue collared job but decides to become involved in the PTA). Additionally, I believe that even though voluntary associations focus on small local issues, they can be a way to get these issues noticed by the public. I would be more likely to consider a candidates views on education if I knew that my neighbor tutored underprivileged children once a week. These considerations come back to my first point that we need to take a critical look at the voluntary associations people are involved in and why they are involved. I agree with the authors that we cannot prescribe participation in civic associations as a remedy for lessened political participation. However, it is important to remember that voluntary associations are important and can function to increase civic skills and improve democracy if used correctly.

Under-informed vs. Uninformed

Michael X. Deli Carpini brings up an important point about political participation which we have hinted about during our class discussions already. Intimidation plays a much greater role in shaping the way Americans participate in our democracy than I would have once imagined. Carpini argues that when Americans emphasize the importance of being an 'informed citizen,' they are really weakening the participation of Americans more than they are promoting it. The idea behind this is that when citizens are constantly reminded that they must be informed on every issue of politics to be considered a 'good citizen,' they become discouraged and refrain from any level of participation. They remove themselves from the political sphere because they are intimidated by the thought of sounding politically educated. As a student, I can completely relate to this thought process. There have been numerous occasions when I have not offered an answer to the teacher for fear of sounding stupid or illiterate on the topic being discussed. This doesn't necessarily mean I don't care about the subject matter. It may simply mean that I don't have the most perfect answer (the answer that an informed student might have), therefore choose to refrain from participating at all. Intimidation is a feeling that few people like to admit having, yet I am afraid it is more prevalent throughout the electorate than we might admit to.

I also appreciated Caprini's classification of 'under-informed' citizens. Caprini insists that we do not gain anything by taking an overall measure of how educated the entire population is. Rather, we need to look at how informed certain groups of the population are, because there are distinct differences. Education level is not random across race, gender, and age. Neither are preferences. If preferences (about financial and social issues for example) were random across these various groups, we would not have to worry about 100% participation from the population. Everyone's ideas would be well represented. The problem arises because the groups that prove to be less informed (blacks, women, younger people) tend have different needs than those in the most informed groups. The most informed groups are the ones that participate and shape policy the most.

How do we correct for this? Part of the problem with our current form of government is it is so vast that it is hard for most people to understand how their input into the system has a direct affect on their daily life. If people could place an obvious value on the time they spend working towards implementing a policy that will help them, they will be able to value the time they spend informing themselves on political issues. If the value is high enough, more people will set aside time for these activities. It is hard to imagine how we can make government more transparent though. Maybe an emphasis on the participation on local politics would help. People are more likely to see the lasting affects they can have on a smaller scale.

Politics at the Dinner Table, Please

In response to the post entitled “Being Politically ‘Correct’ Isn’t Always A Good Thing”, I agree that an issue of contention within our society today is our general unwillingness to discuss things that are controversial, or “politically incorrect”. In my opinion this disincentive to openly discuss issues that are affecting our society; such as race relations, abortion, sexuality and many other morally or socially “uncomfortable” topics, is degrading the quality and inevitably the effectiveness of discourse on the national level. When I began to think about this issue in correlation to our readings for this week, the possibility struck me that what Eliasoph and the other theorists of this week identify as the ineffectiveness of service and volunteer organizations to foster meaningful, politically applicable experiences could actually be actually the inability of volunteers to translate their knowledge and experience into meaningful discourse.

While the lessons one learns while working, for instance, in a soup kitchen can be personally and morally significant, in relation to democracy they are only important to the extent which the individual uses them for the public good. In this sense, volunteers may in fact learn a great deal about other sects within society or various problems within the nation, but they may not be able to, or comfortable with, conveying this knowledge in the public sphere (because of the cultural limits placed on rhetoric mentioned by my classmate). With this hypothesis in place, the “group meetings” referenced by Eliasoph, with their lack of verbal connection between volunteer work and broader issues, could have been caused by the participants' general lack of comfort concerning the issues that the service brought up within the community.

I, like my fellow classmate, believe that this is both a serious, and a deeply ingrained problem within our society. If it is true that people do not feel comfortable discussing what they take away from service or civic organizations, then I also have to agree with the theorists in their denouncement of these institutions. How can we foster greater, more open communication about controversial issues? There will most always be groups of people willing to bring these issues to the political forefront, but what about the everyday citizen? What about the suburban woman who volunteers in the inner city, but doesn’t feel comfortable speaking up about race or education issues because of her race, gender, or for whatever reason? This is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed if we expect volunteer organizations to effect real change through their participants.

Civic Engagement: Is UVA fooling us?...are we fooling ourselves?

All of the authors we read this week were deeply critical about the promises of civic engagement for improving democracies and democratic citizens. Their reservations and critiques seem topics that are often overlooked in conversations about what it means to be good citizens. Community service, community engagement, public activism, volunteerism are terms we generally associate as unequivocally good. As we have discussed in class, this assumption forms the premise of the establishment of entire institutions, organizations and public policies, including and especially at UVA. Our administration devotes thousands – probably millions – of dollars into developing programs for community engagement (just glance at the “Public Service” tab on UVA’s homepage) and students, as someone mentioned in class, have volunteered 3 million hours of service at Madison House and thousands of dollars on Alternative Spring Break trips. These activities consume a substantial portion of our time and money, and it seems, few students, administrators and other committed to civic activism are taking a moment to question its benefits or even surmise this possibility of detrimental effects.

Eliasoph, THeiss-Morse, Hibbing et al. contend this sort of citizen activity does not translate into improved political participation, so if we accept their conclusions, we must ask ourselves, what other public good – outside of increased political awareness – do acts of civic engagement produce? Many activists and volunteers might respond they're fulfilling a community’s needs: a need for food, for funds, for housing, education, environmental protection. So too, might volunteerism fulfill our own needs: for satisfaction, for feeling like we are doing good, caring, and contributing to the solutions of the nation’s and others’ social ills, despite the fact that we might be the very benefactors of such ills.

I wouldn’t argue that all forms of civic engagement are ineffective or misguided, and I've been a part of many of them myself, but, as critically-thinking members of an academic institution devoted to service, who study issues and go out into the world and act on those issues, I believe we too quickly accept these normative assumptions of goodness. We need to question the deep-rooted causes of the community’s needs so we can go into these spaces more thoughtfully and more effectively. Why do 20-year-old college students need to tutor the children in Charlottesville’s public schools? And further, what difference does it make? How does an ethic of service serve the University? And how does civic engagement even fit into our conception of academics – does it at all?

This week’s discussion definitely began to complicate these questions about the purpose and impact of civic engagement, but it’s a discussion that should be taking place at a university-wide scale.

Is Public Talk Necessary?

Eliasoph argues in Avoiding Politics that “in group meetings, volunteers never drew connections between their everyday acts of charity and public issues” (p24). For her, this is a huge negative. I wonder, however, if in certain volunteer groups talking publically is somewhat unnecessary. Yes, people might not draw connections out loud in group meetings, but if they do so in private isn’t that nearly as good (or at least better than doing nothing at all)? If for example, Eliasoph’s Parent League decided it had to raise money because the school did not have enough funds; wouldn’t its members be likely to vote for someone willing to increase public school spending? Voting even ties in to their idea that they only volunteer for selfish reasons which could mean they should vote for self-serving reasons too. Yes, the members might have to read about the candidates’ policies on their own since they aren’t discussed in meetings. But, at least the meetings might pique the members’ interest enough to actually look into issues. It certainly seemed that there were some well informed people in these volunteer groups who obviously received their information from outside sources. All they may have needed was a push to start researching.

Another example, is working in a soup kitchen. Volunteering for a soup kitchen may “do nothing to address broader problems of homelessness and poverty…[which] need government” (Theiss-Morse and Hibbing 238). Yet because one sees the suffering of the homeless, this could increase sympathy for issues involving homelessness. If there is a proposition to vote on that increases the number of homeless shelters, perhaps those who have had direct involvement would be more likely to get out and vote for it despite not publically talking about it. Or even if volunteering does not increase the number of voters necessarily, those who do vote will be more sympathetic towards issues involving homelessness.

Also on a side note, I disagreed with Theiss-Morse and Hibbing on their point that “reinforcing the message that consensus and harmony are good whereas conflict and disagreements are bad undermines what democracy is about” (237). Yes, democracy does have conflict, yet learning about others and how to get along with people who are different from you is not a bad thing. I think that perhaps people would be better able to compromise if they were not demonizing the other side. I believe that compromise is an inherent part of politics in the US (especially if one side does not have a large majority). If Republicans and Democrats can come together to work in a soup kitchen, perhaps they will see that there are other things they can work together on.

Tired of Talking When No One is Listening

This week's readings appear to challenge the participatory theorists in Pateman's article who encourage community-level involvement as a source for democratic skills and "training" for the national arena. Unlike the participatory theorists, the authors state that voluntary associations don't actually provide us with the sort of political practice and good-citizen-like qualities that are assumed to evolve from group engagement. This typically occurs because of the lack of debate and face-to-face deliberation that we would expect from this voluntary sphere.

The Eliasoph and Theiss-Morse & Hibbing articles illustrate possible reasons for the minimal amount of group discussion such as homogeneity of members, fear of causing confusion or discouragement, hesitance to bring up competing views due to the possibility of disagreement and discomfort, etc. I agree that discussing politics (or religion) can cause some uneasiness within a group; and bringing up issues in which there are no solutions can be upsetting. But I think one of the main things that I have personally experienced in a group setting is that people become unmotivated and deterred from speaking up, because others simply do not listen. In Eliasoph's "Avoiding Politics" there were examples of newcomers who asked questions or brought up issues of race or the effectiveness of some of the group's ideas, and another member would simply disregard it and shift the conversation back to fund raising and money, a more concrete and convenient way to contribute to a social problem.

People are also taught to follow the leader. Possibly, members are hesitant to question a group leader's rules or the routine of the group itself. Why speak up and probe a group's ways of doing things when a majority will not care to listen when they are already comfortable and familiar with their procedures and abilities? This may be why bureaucrats, teachers, and childcare givers mentioned in Eliasoph's "Where Can Americans Talk Politics" are more likely to deliberate - they are leaders (or at least in charge within their own occupation). So as leaders they have the power to question and criticize; they know that their followers or members of their group or workplace are there to listen to what they have to say. Eliasoph also mentioned how in comparison to the mainstream volunteers, members of institutionally-based groups were more likely to feel empowered and discussed their fears and issues often - rather than feeling as if no one were listening to them, they felt that they had their institutions to hear their "complaints."

So how come these volunteers are less likely to participate in national-level politics? Maybe it is due to the same reason - no one is listening. They may feel that their complaints, worries, and issues will not be heard in the midst of so many other national concerns. Much like the blog entry below, people are not so nice that they will keep their own concerns and criticisms to themselves because they don't want to offend the rest of the group - they simply may be too exhausted of talking and not being heard.

People Aren't That Nice

As noted in the previous posts for this week, the readings highlighted the relative effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) and the impact of voluntary and civic associations on our democratic political system. To generalize, the authors largely conclude that citizens’ involvement and participation in voluntary and civic associations has very little meaningful impact when it comes to producing substantive debate on controversial political and social issues. As I read the assigned articles- specifically the two pieces by Nina Eliasoph and the piece by Theiss-Morse and Hibbing- I wondered how American culture and commonly accepted societal norms have impacted the current state of citizen involvement in civic associations.

Through my own experiences, I can see how citizens, specifically young adults, have been cultured to avoid substantive contributions to society. In part, higher levels of academia are to blame. College admissions boards have placed such an emphasis on the importance of finding well rounded applicants. In my mind, this often equates to quantity of involvement rather than quality. What kind of ideal are we setting for our country’s youth? Do we really want them to be content with superficial involvement in an array of different organizations? Do we want to promote the development of check writing zombies or volunteers that complete routine tasks? Or do we want to encourage active participation and thought development through discussion and substantive involvement?

Along the same lines, Eliasoph notes that volunteers are afraid to speak openly for fear that they may stir up controversy or offend other individuals. She uses Noelle-Neumann’s term, “the spiral of silence,” to describe how people are eager to appease others when it comes to difficult political and social discourse and decisions. Ultimately, I think this notion is used as a scapegoat; it is simply an excuse for the real reason behind why more Americans do not make substantial contributions to political discourse. It is a very utopian idea to think that every American citizen is nice and never intends to hurt or offend others. I am positive that if you spend a day sitting in Newcomb or in the study areas of the South Lawn, you will hear an array of unkind, offensive, and politically incorrect conversations. Now granted, this conversation is probably occurring with a friend (or a homogenous group member); however, the fact cannot be denied that real ideas are out there. Furthermore, the fact that others (potential outsiders or strangers) can hear the conversation also cannot be ignored. The bottom line: a lot of people are lazy and damage control takes a lot more effort than avoiding difficult discussions in the first place. The solution: encourage honesty, confidence, and courage in the next generation of American citizens. We are all different people and offending someone for the progression and development of democracy and our political system is not the end of the world.

The Band-Aid Effect

Eliasoph laments that the front stage and back stage politics of civic voluntary groups have reduced political participation in changing the actual policies themselves. In an effort to reduce discouragement, she argues that these groups are becoming band-aids rather than solutions to large-scale policy issues. For example, she notes that instead of attacking the funding policies of the school district with decrepit and outdated resources, parents would rather have a bake sale in order to raise money. These groups, while doing good for the community, really have a “dark side”. Group members are affected by personal interest, and the ability to see immediate results. Would there time be better spent by publically campaigning for legislation to help the homeless? Or is their time better spent ladling soup at the local shelter? Eliasoph mentions that the group works more as independent contractors than as a collaborated effort. I think it is a safe argument that these voluntary organizations can create a general good for their community; however, by stifling political conversation, it hurts a long term solution.

I found the passage about the racist teacher the most telling of this hesitance to expressing real issues. It was as if the report of a “real” problem burst the safety bubble of the group. By pretending to claim ignorance to these real issues, the groups were able to maintain a “feel good” atmosphere. The focus was not on how can we end this problem, but rather on what is the best way to bandage the issue. When the group was confronted with a real issue (someone brought backstage politics to the front stage arena) it used it’s safety valve: we will channel that to the appropriate authorities. They would rather pass the problem along, creating homogenous results, than deal with the problem head on. It is easier for the groups to claim ignorance of a problem than actually tackle the problem head on.

I am curious in how this relates to our discussion in class on the reasons for why people choose to participate in national politics over local politics. These articles seem to suggest an entirely opposite result in describing civic participation. Is there any type of correlation between the two?

Being Politically "Correct" Isn't Always a Good Thing

I originally intended to write about the irony of a democratic society in which people are discouraged from talking about "politics and religion" at the dinner table. However, as many of us seemed to have the same idea (Hooray for homogeneity within our group, lol) I have decided to take a slightly different approach and attempt to explain how and why it happens.

On page the 31 of Eliasoph's book, (Chapter entitled "Volunteers trying to make sense of the world"), she notes that members of the Parents League attempted to avoid having a conversation about racial relations at the school at all costs, even in light of a recent race related incident. This made me think about why Americans try so hard to avoid politically relevant conversations about race, sexuality, abortion laws, homelessness, etc. Here is what I came up with:

At a young age, we are taught that we are all "equal". Equality of course plays a huge part in democracy. We are also told that we should learn to appreciate differences in opinion and diversity, and taught how to behave in a "politically correct manner". After 18 years of being taught to walk on egg shells, as to not offend anyone who might be different, it's no wonder people shy away from touchy subjects! Instead of making a conscious effort to express our true opinions, we take the easy way out and don't express our opinions at all. In my high school, debates about things like abortion, religion, and politics were kept to a minimum. They told us people have such strong opinions on the subjects that it is best if they are not mentioned. Well, if people feel so strongly about it, shouldn't it be something we DO talk about? Even today, as a 4th year college student at UVA, it still feels "unnatural" to discuss these issues in a class setting, especially, as expected, around people who are different than I am. It goes against everything I was subliminally and physically taught. Even national politicians shy away from talking about important issues so as not to offend anyone. (This is nothing new, it dates back to the avoidance of addressing the issue of slavery in the beginning stages of our country's democracy). As long as our culture continues to place more emphasis on "political correctness" than on healthy debate, people are never going to learn how to hold a real political conversation.

My advice: Stated bluntly, people should stop being so sensitive! How are we going to solve anything if we're scared to talk about it in a public setting?

Political Discourse- Who wants it??

Most of the articles we read for this week at least mentioned briefly the idea that people refrain from political debate because they are afraid to upset people who have differing views. The realm of politics is no longer 'dinner conversation.' If democracy is founded upon the principles of deliberation and debate, why do so many people refrain from entering into political discourse with their neighbors, family friends, etc... ? I grew up knowing what families I could expect my parents to talk politics with and what families they would avoid talking politics with at all cost. Yet the most interesting debates are those in which both parties hold different view points. Only in these conversations do people get to challenge their ideas in the context of what is best for the entire community as a whole.

In our democracy, these most interesting debates are held at the governmental level, not within the home or within the community. Like Hibbing suggests, politics is a 'dirty' subject, avoided by everyday people who can easily find others who agree with their view points. Because debate is not happening between neighbors, extended family members..etc, people become isolated from the idea that political debate is key to political participation. This 'dirty job' is left for politicians to battle over. In my opinion, this is one reason politicians have such a bad reputation- they are the people who 'so rudely' enter into political debate at the dinner table.

Avoiding Politics?

As Elizabeth Theiss-Morse and John R. Hibbing suggest in "Citizenship and Civic Engagement," voluntary associations are a means by which individuals can avoid the difficulty and the conflict that are inherent in the political decision-making process. Furthermore, voluntary associations actually have a negative effect on civic participation for a number of reasons. First and foremost, voluntary associations typically attract individuals of similar backgrounds; whether it be race, socio-economic status, or geographical location as the unifying agent. Such homogeneity does not promote the democratic values that are essential to society's success. Tolerance, for one, cannot be achieved if the members of a voluntary association share similar beliefs, attitudes, etc. Open deliberation is an essential aspect of democracy because it allows for a multitude of opinions to be heard. Without it, the same viewpoints will continue to dominate the political sphere; viewpoints that belong to those in positions of power, thereby negating the main function of a democracy. Secondly, voluntary associations seemingly offer an alternative to the conflict and discomfort that is associated with political decision-making. Individuals join these associations in order to pursue goals that will benefit the community, a selfless act given the time-consuming nature of such associations. However, voluntary associations do not offer a "Free Pass" with respect to political involvement/participation. Helping those in and around one's community does not mean you are exempt from your civic duties as an American citizen, and a main function of civic duty is political participation. Democracy is not a right, it is a privilege: The United States had to fight for its independence, while other countries are still subjected to cruel and unusual forms of government. Therefore, it is necessary for individuals to engage in political activities in order to ensure the success and sustainability of our democratic system. Lastly, voluntary associations are not "good" by nature. Some, such as the Ku Klux Klan, even promote the outright intolerance of certain racial, religious, and political groups. While such groups are a minority, they do not foster a positive environment, political or otherwise.

While I agree with Theiss-Morse and Hibbing given the persuasiveness of their argument, I also believe that voluntary associations can lead to increased citizenship in America over time. Groups like the KKK are on the decline, making room for groups that can actually motivate political participation within its members. Appropriate student organizations at any level tend to be informative and positive with respect to citizenship. At UVa alone, there are countless voluntary associations whose sole purpose is political discussion and deliberation. In high schools across the country, there are students participating in Constitution Teams, etc., which travel to nearby schools and engage in political discourse. Therefore, I do not agree with Theiss-Morse and Hibbing when it comes to their assessment of younger generations. For our parents, politics was almost a taboo-like topic that was not to be discussed in social settings. They grew up in a society where social conflict was to be avoided at all costs, much like the society that Theiss-Morse and Hibbing describe in "Citizenship and Civic Engagement." However, there is no indication that our generation has experienced any such limitation when it comes to social conduct. If anything, there are more individuals now willing to speak their mind, at any cost, than there were during times of civil unrest in United States history.

On the other hand, the decline in political participation over the years clearly indicates that the younger generations are not committed to good citizenship. Difficult decision-making is not only required as part of one's civic duty as an American, it is the very foundation of democracy itself. Without it, there would be no political parties, or even majority rule. The democratic system itself arose out of a lack of decisiveness following Andrew Jackson's presidency. Individuals were either opposed to Jackson or for Jackson; therefore, when Jackson's presidency came to an end, the people had to find a more solid polarizing feature on which to cast their votes. We need difficult decision-making in order to foster a political environment in which fair, unambiguous majority rule reigns supreme. Therefore, if voluntary associations do, indeed, lead individuals to avoid politics, then they are a detriment to American society.

Avoiding conversational faux pas

People just cannot talk about politics in everyday situations. It is not considered socially acceptable to do so. As Eliasoph says, "avoid talking politics in public because political conversation might be too discouraging or divisive." As mentioned in many of the readings, volunteers would avoid troubling social issues. It wasn't just limited to volunteers, but even political figures like the mayor who practiced "political silence" and thought it was beneficial.

On the other hand, discussing certain issues in private, homogeneous groups was acceptable. Of course this also increases the chances for similarity of thought and opinion and thus avoidance of conflict. It seems like everyone is afraid of disagreement or debate. I agreed with Putnam in the Hill and Matsubayashi reading when he said, "social networks must encompass people of various social groups and statuses." Heterogeneous groups would be better in fostering meaningful discussion.

Personally, I think it would be better if political discussion in public places could become a social norm. Just because someone has a different stance or outlook on an issue than you, does not mean that the conversation needs to turn sour. I hope that with increased interactions, political topics will not be so hostile.

Jungle Gym Citizenship

Eliasoph's emphasis on democratic conversation that takes place at playgrounds, library story-times, and childcare facilities makes me wonder if the same sorts of conversations are possible for those Americans who do not have children, for those who do not interact in these sort of arenas (such as non-custodial parents, or families who have nannies to pick their children up from school), and for those who are yet to have children or (on the opposite end of the age spectrum) whose children are fully grown. While I realize that Eliasoph says much of civic life happens in these arenas, and not all of it, I still think that if her conclusions about democratic/political conversations are true, we need another investigation for arenas available to Americans outside claim a child-rearing identity. Is an interest in the civic life of your children a significant advantage in your level of political participation--whether on a national or local level?

Or is it perhaps that Eliasoph's conclusions can be extrapolated, so that when she's talking about these arenas and mind-sets, she's really talking about a forward-looking mentality--for posterity? If this is the case, then having children of your own would not be necessary to reap the benefits of these interpersonal associations. Rather, one would only have to care about future generations--and the morality of that future--and discuss the direction of our country and/or its government in an everyday fashion. Even if this is so, the main question on which Eliasoph focuses, namely where are there places citizens can develop their citizenship, remains problematic for these people, who cannot take advantage of these specific child-oriented arenas like their child-rearing counterparts.

A real threat to Democracy? Nah, just a nuisance.

“If [voluntary] groups teach something other than democratic values or if they serve to weaken ties among diverse people by strengthening ties among those who are similar, then the effects of voluntary associations are not just irrelevant to democracy, they are deleterious” (Theiss-Morse & Hibbing 244). Assuming its validity, this quote from “Citizenship and Civic Engagement” could have seemingly disastrous effects on the stability of our political system. If the authors are correct, even apolitical associations/groups stand to upset the relatively pacific nature of our polity. I agree with a lot of what the political science authors offer in this week’s readings, but I’m not certain that I can agree with how dangerous these small groups are to American Democracy.
The groups spoken of in the articles are relatively powerless compared to larger national, regional, and even some municipal organizations. Yet the authors seem concerned with the inability of members of these small civic organizations to act out their roles on the larger political stage. Additionally, as quoted in the passage, some of these homogenous home grown associations stand to undermine the polity as they aid only to further polarize their members. Theiss-Morse, Hibbing, Hill and Matsubayashi all assert the dangers of these voluntary organizations, and specifically the bonding social-capital civic associations. I agree with these well researched views, but perhaps I have trouble understanding why anyone should care. None of these associations actually have the power to unbalance our political system. In a worst case scenario, a polarized – perhaps even radical – group may disrupt our dinner talk when they take action which catches media attention, but they cannot upset our political system. And while we may concern ourselves with the fact that they are unprepared to participate in democracy, the truth is that we do not WANT them participating in democracy.
One of the authors discusses those groups that function on the periphery of American democracy…I contend that we should leave those groups where they are. Watch the dangerous groups, but leave associations like the PTA to their own devices (I know the authors are not attacking the PTA). When we encourage advanced political and civic engagement by those who do not wish to do so or who lack the necessary information, we encourage an eventual unhealthy form of dissent based on emotion, lack of understanding, and frustration at the slow-moving nature of our political machine. In short, the authors are correct: not all civic engagement prepares or encourages persons to involve themselves in Democracy, but this is okay. Let the bystanders standby, and encourage not those who are satisfied with their life on the political periphery. American national politics is barely manageable as it is, we need not add any more confusion or voices.

Issues with The Big Tilt

I found the Big Tilt article by Verba, Schlozman, and Brady to be a very interesting read but I do question some of the ideas behind the arguments presented. I agree with the authors in that it is not ideal that there is participatory inequality in America and that the poor seem to be at a major disadvantage. For example, one seemingly alarming fact is that “the advantaged are so much more active than the disadvantaged that public officials actually receive more messages from the advantaged suggesting a curtailment of government and social programs than messages from the disadvantaged urging an expansion of them” (H22). I would be alarmed if people who really need social programs like welfare were being harmed just because a minority had better access to politicians. However, just because people send more messages does not actually mean that their ideas are accepted. According to the Heritage Foundation, “[i]n constant dollars, welfare spending has risen every year but four since the beginning of the War on Poverty in 1965”. To me, this suggests that perhaps elected officials are not quite as susceptible to messages from constituents as we think. In other words, just because the disadvantaged do not send as many messages it does not mean that their interests are going unheeded.

I also have a slight problem with the claim that the authors make when they state that democracy “rests on the notion that the needs and preferences of no individual should rank higher than those of any other” (H22). I think an essential part of democracy is debating with fellow citizens to try to determine the best ideas. Perhaps one citizen’s preference would actually be more beneficial to the country as a whole than another’s preference. Why shouldn’t we rank that one citizen’s favorable preference higher? For example, I’m sure many rich people in the United States are against having higher taxes than those who are less well off. Their preference would be to have lower taxes. Yet, one can argue that many more people benefit from the increased government revenue and programs such as welfare can be financed through these higher taxes. I agree that people should be equal in a democracy but do think that there should be exceptions for ideas and preferences since some are better than others.