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.