There's hope for us yet

After having read so many pieces that reinforced the public's lack of both political knowledge and political interest, Soss's piece on perceptions of welfare programs seemed (to me, at least) to provide a formidable step in the direction towards increased citizen participation. Although Soss, in this piece, failed to provide a specific plan of action to increase civic participation in politics, he at least identified a reason for the problem: those who experience government programs in negative ways extrapolate those negative feelings to the whole of government.

This seems to be a redress-able problem. Government could emphasize the importance of personnel, especially in programs dominated by low-income citizens, for their general lack of time and formal education makes these one-on-one interactions more salient for these people than for those who are able to distinguish such interactions from the more formal preconceptions of government function. If these negative experiences could be turned into more positive ones, through inter-agency efforts, then perhaps we would see a greater involvement in demographics typically absent from political affairs.

One concern with Soss's findings, however, is that the differences between the SSDI program and the AFDC program themselves--regardless of the demographics they reach, are too great to justify comparisons. Because the SSDI beneficiaries might be receiving benefits from the general Social Security program as well as the disability section of it, they are not as desperate for funds as those who participate in the AFDC program. In addition, those who receive SSDI benefits are acting on their own accord, whereas those in the AFDC program, by definition, are fighting for the livelihood of their children as well. Their children's dependence makes the risks of fighting the system much greater than the same fight for beneficiaries of the SSDI. Furthermore, as Schneider and Ingram want to point out, the social constructions of the two programs are so different. Those impoverished citizens who receive benefits under AFDC are considered undeserving and powerless, whereas disabled citizens who claim benefits under SSDI have been stigmatized as entitled, and justice-deserving.

Soss's findings are still striking, if perhaps in need of further investigation. It would be more interesting and more compelling to compare two needs-based programs for the impoverished, to see if ground-level agency operations truly effect the way beneficiaries view their political efficacy. The difference between SSDI and AFDC seems too stark to allow for an accurate comparison between the two. Similarly, while Mettler's findings are enlightening, comparing the operation of the federal government immediately following World War II and its operation today would prove problematic, for the role of the federal government has so dramatically changed in the past sixty years.