Consumers as Citizens

In class we discussed consumers as citizens but I don't think it is a condition that makes good citizens. Everyone is obligated by necessity to consume goods no matter their financial situation. Of course others consume more than others but as Laura said in class"no one can opt out from being a consumer". This is the case for all Americans. There is no other way but to consume goods whether you like it or not unless you are self-sustainable.

The other problematic view about consumption is that many people believe that the government is trying to "seduce" and "encourage" the public to spend more if they want to be good citizens. I don't believe that the government is being malicious but instead is being very pervasive. They are very subtle about the way they offer incentives. This does not mean that they are forcing the public to spend more but to make spending a little cheaper. Nowadays many people are suffering from heavy debt and therefore the government is trying to help them out by offering these incentives. Consuming goods is not a condition for being a good citizen but it is a necessity that we all face. We have to spend to survive and live a decent life.

Income Inequality and the Economy

One moment that struck me in Lizabeth Cohen’s talk at the Miller Center was her three images of the pies and the different classes’ portions of it. The argument was that everyone can improve if the pie simply grows in size. Even if the percentage of the pie that the upper class received was slightly smaller, they would still be better off because the pie doubled in size. This policy was espoused by the government and there seemed to be a movement towards equality. In her article, Cohen states that “between 1941 and 1944, family income rose by over 24 per cent in constant dollars, with the lowest fifth gaining three times more than the highest fifth, essentially doubling the size of the middle class” (p210). Everyone clearly benefited. Indeed, the so-called Consumer’s Republic “stood for an elaborate ideal of economic abundance and democratic political freedom, both equitably distributed” (p214) and lasted from the 1940s until the 1970s. The United States was extremely prosperous during this period and there was tremendous growth.

Reading about this time period made me think of an editorial by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times. In it, he describes how the “richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income” which is a rather striking amount. What makes it especially alarming is that it is “up from almost 9 percent in 1976”. In fact, “from 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.” We have therefore been moving towards a more unequal society for quite some time. I would argue that the results have not necessarily been positive especially in this recession (though perhaps my viewpoint has been affected by the incredibly depressing Peck article. I particularly like how Peck ends the article by pointing out some possible positive outcomes before crushing them and basically saying that nothing good will come of this recession).

This inequality does matter as it affects the economy but more importantly to this class, it would affect government attentiveness and responsiveness. The Bartels article describes how the government is much more likely to listen to the high income voters than low income voters. If we are concentrating wealth into the hands of a few, then presumably fewer people will have a voice in the government. I imagine that the one percent that controls 24 percent of the income would have some extra money to donate to campaigns and influence politics. Regardless, if wealth is more evenly distributed, then politicians will be forced to listen to all people, or at least a larger percentage. I think this is much healthier for a democracy and ultimately leads to better policies and results. However, it does not seem likely that there will be a change to this income inequality in the near future; simply look at the huge Wall Street profits or the Bush tax cuts for the richest 1 percent. Still, it might be a good idea to think about how to narrow the gap between the richest and the poorest citizens.

Equality in the political representation

The readings for this week were really interesting for me, as a student coming from France, a « socialist country ».

Bartels explains in the first part of his text that the low middle class opinion is not represented by their senators:« views of the constituents in the upper third of the income distribution received about 50% more weight than those in the middle third”. Why? The most common assumption is that they don't vote and participate, so politics don't have to listen to them. For me this is really unfair, because the system is built in order to prevent them from participating and after we blame them for non participating. Indeed, the elite shaped the system so that you are more likely to participate if you have more money. In one of the first discussion class, we focused on money, time and civil skills as factors of participation in democracy. Nearly all of us agreed on the fact that money was the most important determinant to participate in democracy. In a system based on money (participation in campaigns..) how can we blame the low middle class if they don't participate?

Bartels suggests at the end of his essay that these people should non the less continue to vote. On the one hand a vote is a voice of course, so they must vote because it is the better way for them to express their opinion. On the other hand, the problem is that if they elect a candidate who doesn't promote their ideas when he is elected, can they really do something in order to punish him? If they voted for the democrats, they could vote for the Republican, but maybe it will be worst...

As a conclusion, I think that the low middle class in this biased system has not enough weight, and no means to change that.

While reading the article of the Financial Times, I was thinking about the differences between the U.S. and France, a « socialist country ». I think that in France, even if low middle class are still under-represented, they have more weight than in the US. In my opinion, it is not the social system that allow the low middle class to have more weight in democracy, but the political system. First, as France has a pluri-party system, if the middle class vote for a candidate that only listens to their voice when he is running for office and forget them when he is in office, they can “punish” him at the next elections by voting for another candidate (maybe from a smaller party). Moreover, as the campaigns are financed by the state, having money doesn't really matter if you want to help during the campaigns. The most important to participate seems to have time, but once again this is linked with the economic situation: if you have a good job you can afford to have time...at the end, we face the same problems.

"It's the economy, stupid"

I’d have to echo a few of the other comments previously posted and say this is one of the more depressing series of articles we’ve read thus far. (First because of the Atlantic article is not very encouraging for 4th years entering the job market and adulthood at that.) Further, linking together the principle points made by each author, from Bartels who summons some empirical evidence for the unresponsiveness of politicians to the lower (and middle) classes and then from the other authors who demonstrate the growing economic disparities in this country and its consequences, the ultimate conclusion is not a hopeful one. In a later chapter Bartels cynically refers to a “debilitating feedback cycle linking the economic and political realms” suggesting that as disparities continue to grow, political policies will increasingly reflect the interests of fewer Americans while reinforcing the existing disparities. Thus not only did this week’s articles paint a sorry picture of America today as we slowly make our way out of the Great Recession, but also of the America of the future. So much for the American Dream.

And in the midst of this Great Recession and a recent election that centered largely on the economy, the articles were especially timely. So much so, that who to blame and how to fix the economy, the joblessness, the country, etc. was a lively, if hotly debated, topic at my Thanksgiving dinner table. Everyday citizens, politicians and economists alike all seem to have an opinion. The Reagan Era, the Clinton Era, the wars, NAFTA, China, lack of innovation, unions, Wall Street, the sub-prime mortgage market, under-regulation – some complex amalgamation of all these circumstances, each compounding the other, is likely to blame.

In light of the points that Bartel raises about policies generally favoring wealthier Americans, I couldn’t help but think of the Bush Era tax cuts for the top 2% of income-earners. I wouldn't suggest that this policy is to blame for our current economic ills, but it seems a near-perfect example of a policy that directly favors the wealthiest Americans and is also, by and large, supported by the Republican party – also a trend Bartels verified. Since the tax cut is to expire at the end of the year, the lame-duck Congress is posed to debate and decide on its extension, a politically charged decision for those in Congress as well as the Obama administration. Purportedly, a majority of Americans favor extending tax cuts to the wealthiest two percent of Americans. I cannot think of a worse policy that better reflects The State We’re In: a sincere and seemingly widespread disillusionment about the wealth disparities in this nation the lack of political will to challenge those disparities. The argument goes that cutting this tax bracket a break will stimulate the economy (via the trickle-down effect) and thus is many ways also a reflection of the Democrat vs. Republican take on economic policy. But for the most part, this policy did not prove the to be the cure-all solution to our economic woes by stimulating the economy and creating jobs. Politics and economics aside though, it undoubtedly seems a policy whereby Congress is more responsive to higher income Americans than to lower income Americans.

Citizen = Consumer

Overall, the Peck reading was pretty depressing. It turns even more depressing, however, when combined with the Cohen video and reading. When trying to draw positive side-effects from the economic meltdown, Peck says that it may lead to "a necessary end to an era of reckless personal spending." This spending is, however, the very thing that Cohen argues has been the underpinning not only of the entire structure of our economy, but of our conception of citizenship as well. Cohen argues that in order to avoid post-war depression, concerted efforts were made to reorganize the economy based on an idea of "consumers as citizens" - the idea that someone who always strives to buy the next best thing is doing good for the nation as a whole. This conception of citizens now underwrites much of our economic existences and even our political pursuits.

Contemporary American conservatism is largely borne out of an idea that the market can organize society better than the government can. The conservative view of the market, however, is made up of two jointly all-powerful groups: producers who provide supply and consumers who each provide demand based on their own preferences and interests and, in aggregate, support the most efficient and beneficial expenditures of capital. This economic aspect of citizens as consumers is an aspect that has been largely overlooked, even in this class. As Cohen demonstrates, it is impossible to separate the conceptions of consumer and citizen while obtaining any full conception of either.

As a result of this tie between citizen and consumer, however, one of the main beneficial side-effects of the economic downturn turns out to simply be another bad omen of the economy's weakness and a sign that the problems with the economy may not be saved by simply enacting a stimulus or tax cut, but could require a full societal effort to refound our economy, and our society, on a radically different conception of the economic role of a citizen.

Shifting Citizen Consumerism

After reading Cohen's essays on the citizenship aspect of consumerism, the new event, "Small Business Saturday" came to mind. The event has a website, and is sponsored by (suspiciously) American Express: http://smallbusinesssaturday.com

The event was heavily publicized on Facebook, but surprisingly received little coverage elsewhere. The lack of publicity could indicate a lack of turnout, which further supports the hypothesis that consumers are becoming more global-minded and detached from their local communities. Nonetheless, here's one I found.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/small-business-saturday-hopes-holiday-shopping-local/story?id=12255389

While Cohen documents the push to buy more goods in general during times of economic recession, it seems the push we're hearing now in this Great Recession is one differentiated on local v. national lines. Large, profitable, corporate chains are now seen as the enemy, where they once were seen as signs of American prosperity. As the two websites argue, though, local businesses are the backbone of American industry, thus making it our civic duty to support them.

If we take what Peck says about the decline in entrepreneurship in Generation Y, however--along with Luce's description of business foreclosures--if these small businesses fail to make their estimated end-of-year profits this year, they may be gone for good. These small, local businesses may fail and then there will be no new effort to replace them. Rather, the nationwide chain businesses, or even only-online stores, will grow to claim an even larger share of national profits in the coming years.

This growing inequality between local and national businesses has the potential to further exacerbate the problems we've already seen from a decline in civic engagement. When citizens fail to perceive themselves as residents of certain neighborhoods--their homes as merely houses (Cohen 219)--but rather as residents of a state or the nation at-large, community bonds are broken. One no longer has a responsibility to one's neighbors, and only relates to the government on a larger scale, potentially making local and state governments obsolete. These isolating effects do not lend themselves well to the collective spirit that is part of our democratic ideal.

Great Stagnation: An Identity

In the article The Crisis of the Middle-Class America, Edward Luce states that many Americans have become pessimistic about their future especially about their children's future regarding the economy. The economy has been on the decline for these past years which slowly creates the stagnation of income. Many middle-class families find it hard to make ends meet to the point that "easy money has turned into debt".

The major problem of this economic "depression" is because of the access to cheap debt and financing which attract many Americans. This results in foreclosures and the possession of heavy debt. The Freeman's find it hard to believe that their current situation will never change regardless on how much they try. They have good jobs but this is not enough for them to step on the ladder and climb higher. They will always be part of the middle-class. The Great Stagnation "which started in January 2002 and ended in December 2007, the median US household income dropped by $2,000 - the first ever instance where most Americans were worst off at the end of a cycle than at the start". The decline in income has had dramatic effects which has jeopardize financial stability and has caused the possession of heavy debt. This is what is happening to many families nowadays. The debt has skyrocketed that they do not know how long it will take to pay off.

The most saddening outcome of this economic downpour is that someone with an education can be seen working in different places just to make ends meet. Education seems to become a burden in the sense that going to college requires a lot of money and many people cannot afford to send their children off to college. America seems to be turning their dreams of economic prosperity into debt, instability, and fear. This new era of economic decline has caused many Americans to think about their current situation and face reality of foreclosure and bankruptcy but this is not to say that there is no hope. The creation of new jobs and opportunities for aid can help the American people get back up on their feet and face their current situations and make it better. The importance of technology can help the American people because it will create new jobs and make things easier on them. This is just a temporary face and will soon get better.

Innovation, the cure to the recession?

Don Peck argues in "How a New Jobless Era Will Transform America" that the key to economic growth is innovation. "Some laid-off employees become entrepreneurs, working on ideas that have been ignored by corporate bureaucracies, while sclerotic firms in declining industries fail, making way for nimbler enterprises." This is certainly not a new idea and seems intuitively correct, so one has to wonder how the Obama administration would respond to such an assertion. Many opponents to the bailouts of the auto industry cited such arguments. Get rid of the old and make room for the new, they said, but the Obama industry seems torn between saving the old while hoping to find room for the new.

The Obama administration, like many democratic administrations before it, has been heavily involved in attempting to regulate/spur the economy, but the actions the administration both appear to agree and disagree with the idea of innovation spurring the economy. Why then would the administration both advocate for new technologies, green energies, etc. while fighting tooth and nail to keep the struggling auto industry afloat? How can innovation happen without making room for such new technologies?

In order for this economy to recover, new jobs must be created, in order for new jobs to be created, new business, ventures, enterprises must be created. The best source of these new jobs: new technologies and green initiatives. Several news articles touted how impressed Obama was of Japan's technological advances at a recent trip to the country and he stated later how behind the United States was. I agree, Mr. President, we are behind, so out with the old, and in with the new.

Short-term loss for long-term gain

Both Peck and Luce attest to the stagnation of incomes within the middle class that has slowly separated any connection to the top third over the past 15-20 years. The real problems had been masked due to the availability of cheap debt and financing. But the Great Recession of 2008 unveiled the implications of a growing wealth disparity. Peck asserts that recessions tend to level the playing field. A man who once wore a suit to work in the morning now has to work the Saturday night shift at Walmart. Peck and Luce and Bartels believe in the reality of political consequences that result from these gaping economic wounds that linger despite a return to normalcy.

What I liked about the Bartels piece was the reference to not only primary income, but effective access to collective resources in determining actual representation (both ideological and responsiveness). But to me the fundamental problem lies again in both economic disparity and the lack of a relatively higher baseline infrastructure. And this is where his case study on Katrina fits in. Local authorities told residents to evacuate or write your SSN on your arm in permanent ink so that the body could be identified. But those without the access to individual and collective resources had no avenue for evacuation. Would a "city of utmost necessity" work? Bartels seems to think so with many caveats...especially America's insatiable appetite for luxury. Can the recent push nationwide for self-sustainability somehow advance or inhibit this dream? Peck discusses the fluid face of the American labor industry. How flexible is the American worker today?

"But however high the tide of economic forces may rise, we are not condemned to wait behind our levees for disaster to engulf us. Imperfect as they are, the processes and institutions of American democracy provide us with consequential choices". Peck and Luce say that higher natural unemployment may be the norm but political actions and consequences can alter social and cultural norms. Or will changed norms as a result of the recession have to expedite the political action we need to eliminate political equality?

Money Makes the World Go 'Round (Unfortunately for Democracy)

In Larry Bartels’ “Unequal Democracy” writing he cites evidence that US Senators pay little to no attention to lower income sects of society, a trend that he suspects is applicable to the entirety of the US government. This claim obviously came as no surprise to me, as we have been often discussed the ways in which lower socio-economic strata of society are ignored by the government. However, what did come as more of shock to me, and what I find to be most depressing, was his assertion that even when lower income citizens inform themselves and participate politically (by voting), they remain almost completely unheeded. He evidences this claim by referencing the fact that in a previous election 60% of the “low income” voting bracket did indeed vote, though according to his Senatorial research their opinions were still not listened to by representatives. As if this information was not disheartening enough, Bartels further finds in his research that even when participatory acts are controlled for between the two economic groups, Senators maintain their exclusive focus on the middle to upper class sections of the electorate. As a result, his research makes relatively clear the idea that political representatives seem to represent their most affluent constituents, not because of any participatory differences between socio-economic groups, but instead because of a focus on possible campaign contributions (as the satisfaction of wealthier constituents are seen as more profitable for their campaign).

This hypothesis is not only discouraging in relation to America’s broad ideals of democracy (which many American citizens maintain to be the nation’s foundation), but is discouraging which respect to what our class has been discussing over the past months as well. We have asserted time and time again in class discussion, blog posts and midterm papers, that with more access to knowledge and a more robust participatory spirit, the lower strata of the US can not only voice their concern more effectively, but that these concerns will be heeded by representatives. According to this reading, however, this statement is utopian at best. In Bartels’ opinion, the best way for lower classes to effect change (even after becoming educated and participatory) is to “indirectly” affect the government through non-voting participation. I, for one, find this conclusion to be unacceptable for a nation that is supposedly founded on equality of citizens.

This statement then leaves us with the question of how exactly we can make lower socio-economic sects more politically efficacious. Up until this point in the semester I would have without a doubt argued for the empowerment of the group through education and civic skill acts. However, now I can’t help but feel that the only way to fix this problem lies on the side of the government itself. If money is the only way to be heard by representatives, it is clearly impossible for these “poor people”
to acquire enough money to gain political efficacy simply for the purpose of being listened to. Therefore I believe that the responsibility lies in the hands of the government that made the choice to ignore segments of the population to begin with. I cannot claim to have a plan laid out to bring about this change, but it seems that changes in how campaign contributions affect reelection, or caps on the amount of money that private donors can contribute could alleviate some of the pressure put onto politicians to cater to wealthier constituents. Generally, Bartels clearly brings to light one particularly dramatic problem with the image of citizen equality that pervades so much of our national rhetoric, and I believe that this problem inherently demonstrates a need for reform on the side of the government, not the citizens.

Recession and Political Participation

In his article, How a New Jobless Era Will Transform America, Don Peck writes about how the economic recession will affect our generation. I wish to expand on his thoughts and question how the economic recession will affect the ability of our generation to be good citizens. Peck writes that the National Association of College and Employers found that job offers to graduating seniors declined by 21% last year and are projected to decline 7% this year. As a result of the recession 10% of young adults have moved back in with their parents as a result of the recession. I personally know several people who graduated from college without a job, moved back in with their parents, and got a temporary job in the service industry (waiter, sales associate, etc.)

Earlier in the semester we read about how people can gain civic skills from their job (such as ability to speak publicly, and write letters). However, this only applies to white collar jobs. People generally don't have the opportunity to learn these skills through jobs in the service industry. Will the fact that many graduating seniors fail to get jobs in careers of their choice and instead work part time as sales associates or don't work at all affect their civic skills? Can these people make up for these missed civic skills later on in life, or will they be able to retain what they have learned in college? I don't really know the answer to this question. I have a feeling, however, that this recession will affect how young adults who are unemployed after college participate in politics.

Does our Government Owe Us for Being Americans?

Of all of our readings, this week's were the most depressing. Declining wages, unemployment, underemployment all appear to significantly affect the depth of political representation and access to crucial resources. While this does not surprise me - I think we have all figured this out by now - it does have serious implications for American democracy. I have long believed that access to resources (such as education, home loans, etc.) is something that should be earned. Never a fan of handouts, I've often wondered why it should be the responsibility of the government to fix the economic disparities prevalent in America. However, I now find that my conservative assumptions are not a one-size-fits all approach to governance. Our government has increasingly become incapable, perhaps unwilling, to take care of those most in need, including those who've exhausted themselves attempting to achieve success. The inability of hard-working folks to improve their circumstances despite their tireless efforts should spark the government and the citizenry into action. When college graduates cannot find employment, when career workers are being laid-off, when families can't pay the mortgage, or take care of their dependent children, the government does have a responsibility to step in. When those who follow all the rules and work for years to achieve the American dream are still capable of drowning, something is not right. And to make it worse, the "Haves-turned-have-nots" are also in danger of losing, according to Bartels, political participation. It may be too easy to look at our poorer citizens and say "better them than me", but what happens when "me" becomes "them"?

But we still cannot blame the government entirely. A new generation of entitled Americans who believe they deserve it all would probably disgust most of our WWII generation grandparents, who were willing to give up everything when called upon by their government. We have become a culture of expectations. We are changing our identity and our beliefs. Indeed we are a nature of consumers content with our attempts and desires to keep up with the Jones'. Does the government have a responsibility to ensure our necessities only, or should they also provide for our frivolities as well? Is a roof over our heads, food on our tables, and clothes on our backs enough? Or are we also including in our demands for assistance a flat-screen television, a brand new car, and wages beyond our skill? While we have the right to demand equality, security, and representation from our government, perhaps we also have the responsibility to not spend beyond our means, to expect our children to go to JMU instead of Harvard, to drive a 5 year old care instead of a brand new one...

If we look at citizenship and political participation as something to be earned instead of given to us, when we have exhausted, as some certainly have, all of our own options to make our lives better (this may not mean better-off), then we may begin to demand that our government provide for us, or at a bare minimum, make up the difference.

The (College) Kids Are Alright

My post for this week stems from a topic that was brought up on Monday about the variation that can occur throughout different college students, and how this may be a particularly troublesome flaw within the work of Kam and Palmer. As I brought up in class, to assume that every individual fitting into the “college” category is necessarily the same type of student or citizen is a bit overbroad. Kam and Palmer use this categorization to demonstrate that our college system may not be accomplishing its widely assumed goal: to make its students more fully educated (and generally, better) citizens for the nation. I beg to differ on this conclusion. While I make no argument that the collegiate experience cannot be improved, or that it will automatically make each student a model citizen, I do believe that the institutional nature of universities and colleges allows them to make available resources and opportunities that most people would never encounter without attending college. For this reason I believe that going to college has the potential for vastly increasing one’s value as a citizen, if only because it allows any individual to access new environments, interact with driven and highly educated individuals, and to learn their own efficacy within a system.

Though these benefits are available for everyone who attends college they are not necessarily utilized by everyone, and in my opinion this trend is what leads to results like those of Kam and Palmer. However, in my opinion this is no reason to disparage the collegiate system as it is currently. People may choose not to take advantage of the resources available to them, for it is often easier to “coast” through commitments, and as a result many people do just that. Still, I believe that this would happen in any system, and that no matter how many changes are introduced, some students will always find the easy way out. It sounds disheartening, but in fact it’s just reality. My point is that while some students will always shirk the responsibilities and therefore not be as affected by their experience, others will take advantage of the opportunities available in college, and will indeed become better citizens as a result. Further, I believe that this will be the case regardless of the system in place, and that therefore Kam and Palmer should not assume that college’s inability to yield and 100% success rate makes it a failure.

This being said, I do agree fully with Kam and Palmer’s assertion that the most influential time frame in each individual’s life is most likely their elementary school years. I believe that if a change is truly to be made with regards to making citizens more participatory and civic spirited, the change is to be made in elementary schools, where standardized testing and “tracked” students create an environment that discourages critical analysis and debate. We also discussed ways by which this could possibly be brought about, and though we heard some decidedly negative results about the past efforts in France, I would love to see some attempts at making these crucial early years of education more open and discussion oriented.

Education: Just what is it good for?

I found this week’s readings particularly salient for college students, raising important questions about the role of education, particularly of higher education, as well as the content of our education. Especially in the current era in which public education is becoming less affordable and less accessible and the gap between the rich and the poor in the U.S. is wider than at any other time in American history, and still, fewer people are engaged in politics, it seems necessary to merge these realities and think about them as interreleatled phenomena. Debates about just what our education system is doing and for whom are pressing discussions. (I strongly recommend this piece in the American Scholar that sheds some perspective on this gap that is not only economic, but cultural in so many ways that higher education creates in this country, not exactly found in substantive empirical data, but whose arguments are worth considering. Its author explains how "Our best universities have forgotten that the reason they exist is to make minds, not careers.")

But the articles we read for this class provided some empirical grounding for claims that education cultivates a wide range of civic engagement activities, Campbell reaffirming, but adding additional variables to the sorting model and Kam and Palmer further complicating the causality between education and civic engagement. Though the correlation is evidently a complex one and overall the readings suggest that education is perhaps not the absolute universal solvent, I do not believe undermines the importance of quality education. Perhaps what these readings can do is help pinpoint just what policy-makers should look to when thinking about educational reform. Should it be increasing access to college for a greater number of Americans? Improving civic education in public schools? Or perhaps taking a more holistic approach to what primary and secondary education does in low-income communities, such as Geoffrey Canada of the Harlem Children’s Zone who focuses on not only students, but their families within the specific community or Harlem, and starts his programs with children at a very young age.

Lipman’s piece was the most provocative and while I’m not convinced there is a direct relationship between U.S.’s power alignment and its education policy (since schools vary across the country and she doesn’t compare this surveillance-era education to past eras), I think she excites the debate about the role of education for citizenship. If it does turn us into better citizens, what does this better citizen look like? Is it someone who votes and volunteers and participates in politics in some capacity? Or, is it someone who (also) supports the U.S.’s neoliberal aim for economic domination. The current push to increase education in the math and sciences is ridden with language about the U.S. competing with other nation’s in a globalized era. Policy makers often seem to cite China’s prowess in math and sciences, as if suggesting we need to turn citizens into an army of competitors on the global market and contribute to the U.S.’s GDP as well as its defense industry. If we talk about education as the universal solvent or great equalizer, certainly it means increasing the participation of citizens in the marketplace, and therefore increasing their
overall well being and quality of life as well as that of their family and descendants. How this helps the U.S. economy overall seems like a secondary function, but not the primary goal. Nonetheless, I agree that our definition of good citizenship, promoted through education in a variety of ways discussed in these articles, should encompass more than economic participation.

Political Participation from TFA

McAdams measure levels of service/civic participation based on participation in the Teach for America program. His findings describe the effects of "felt efficacy" and "collaborative activities" as important determining factors for future involvement. I think it is reasonable to extend this conclusion to other service involvement as well. Anytime a person feels responsible for change or connected with a social group, they are likely to enjoy that feeling and desire its replication.

However, I think the study brings up our previous conversations about the value of civic involvement and its correlation to political participation. In terms of citizen competence, we have primarily been concerned with people's involvement in political activity, rather than all volunteering or community participation. Thus, we might be concerned by the tables in the study that show less participation in "institutional politics" than in "civic activity" or "social movements", but encouraged by the statistic that 92 percent of the subjects voted in the last presidential election.

I'm not convinced that the results of the study bode ill for service activities and their effects in general. The actual work performed by TFA members could be valuable enough on its own merits that the lack of increase in service later might not matter. More generally, I believe civic participation matters to communities, states, and the country as a positive social good such that it should be encouraged regardless of whether or not it makes individuals more politically active.

TFA and whether it's Effective

I found the McAdam and Brandt article on Teach for America to be interesting but I’m not sure I buy all their conclusions. The authors allude to this, but “virtually all accepted applicants are already highly engaged citizens” (p966). All applicants that are accepted already have a college degree and clearly must be motivated to be involved with the community if they are applying for TFA. Even if the rate of current service activities of TFA graduates is a little below the dropouts or non-matriculant, it is still significantly higher than the average American population. Additionally, it seems to be only the 15% of TFA members with a negative experience that create the gap. The “satisfied graduates are indistinguishable from [the] other subjects” in terms of current service/civic participation. I’m not sure then that I would be too critical of TFA since the work they are doing is often stressful and certainly not easy. I would argue that teaching in a poor, inner-city school is much tougher than other service activities which could include things like working a bake sale. The fact that some TFA members burn out or are unsatisfied is not all that surprising.

However, the Kam and Palmer article as well as the Lipman article have made me consider whether or not TFA is an effective way to change the system for the better. Kam and Palmer argue that “preadult experiences and predispositions” influence the likelihood of pursuing higher education. They posit that it is less education but rather family background that influences people the most. Parents pass on values and “can transmit the importance of education to their children”. Kam and Palmer seem to minimize the effect of school on students’ decision to attend college and argue that they students were already predisposed to attend. If this is the case, then TFA would not really have much of an impact on students. If family is the most important factor, then it does not really matter if the teacher is amazing or mediocre. The focus would have to be on improving parents first through programs rather than focus on educating children.

Lipman’s article too would appear to be rather ambivalent as to whether or not TFA could have an effect. Lipman seems to make a systemic argument about education. It is not so much the teachers’ fault but rather the system that is intent on punishments and surveillance. Teachers have to “learn not to speak up against practices many privately abhor” for example. If TFA teachers have to follow the system based on test scores (like No Child Left Behind), then there is not much they can do. However, there is some hope. Lipman states that “a turn toward an equitable education that promotes critical thought and democratic public action is urgent” and would make a difference. One of TFA’s tenets is creating an equal opportunity for all regardless of race or the school district one lives in. Perhaps TFA members could help work to change the system for the better from within. At least with Lipman’s article there is a possibility for teachers to make a difference.

The Effect of Education

Civic Engagement and Education: An Empirical Test of the Sorting Model, Campbell discusses the effect that education has on the individual. However, Kam and Palmer take a different approach, and discuss the role of the individual in higher education. These two articles lead us to the big question: Does education really have a role in political participation, or is there something innate about students who attend higher education that makes them more likely to be politically active? Although both articles made excellent points, I am more inclined to agree with Kam and Palmer.

However, my critique of both Campbell and Kam and Plamer is that higher education is more complicated than the articles suggest. It is too diverse to be viewed in terms of "college attendees" and "no college". Colleges range from ivy league schools, to schools with very low selectivity. The level of learning and academic rigor is not equal at all higher education institutions. If Kam and Palmer are correct, then they should be able to take two students at very different types of colleges, control for race, SES, gender, background, etc., and find that the students have similar levels of political participation. However, if the students levels of participation differs significantly, then it can be inferred that there is something about the institution that shapes the individual.

I also find it slightly problematic that both articles lump everyone into the same group with out looking at the effect of things like SES, race, and major. As Kam and Plamer briefly mention in the their conclusion, higher education is extremely heterogenous. I would be interested in looking at specific groups within higher education, and comparing educational attainment to political participation. For example, for Latino's, attending college may have a different effect than it does for blacks, Asians, or white Americans.

Factor to Compel Political Participation: Long-Term Thinking

I found this week's articles to be enlightening and quite surprising since I have always assumed only positive implications of education. The Kam and Palmer article explains how higher education is a proxy for preadult experiences, not necessarily a cause of political participation. Seeing that their results placed a focal point on socialization and the growth of characteristics that can emerge from socialization, similar to what Mark said, maybe we should foster these qualities at an earlier age in primary and secondary schools. Somehow encouraging students to think with a long-term mindset may compel them to be more politically active as they grow up, seeing that people who contemplated going to college (most likely for the long-term benefits of getting a good job, being able to raise a family, etc.) were also ones who were more likely to engage in civic participation (which can foster long-term benefits for those they service, for themselves through voting, for personal fulfillment, etc.). Maybe thinking about the far future is a factor that propels individuals to acquire higher education as well as to participate in the political sphere.

How exactly we are to instill the importance of planning or considering the future is beyond me, but from my personal experiences in high school, we were never told about the long-term benefits our community service hours would create for those we were volunteering for or how they would help ourselves in the long run. It was assumed that the students understood why community service hours were important, but then seeing how individuals would try their best to obtain the easiest types of service or even manipulate household chores to count as service hours prove otherwise. I remember a faculty member being extra generous and giving us double the hours we actually worked to set up for a career fair because the facility had no air conditioning and we were working in a hot and uncomfortable environment. It seems like these required service hours are not taken seriously or given much attention because long-term benefits are not illustrated to show what an impact students can actually make for others and themselves. I feel that this simple change will lead student to think further into the future and maybe compel them to be more politically involved.

Education Hurting…Not Helping?

We have focused extensively on the importance of both information and knowledge this semester. Inevitably, any discussion of knowledge and information contains at least minor references to the role of education in the dissemination of information and the formation of good citizens within the democratic society of America. We have discussed, how despite reforms, the education system in this country remains largely unequal across social and economic groups and geographic locations.

As I read the articles this week, I could not help put question if democracy and education are at odds with one another. Perhaps we should be asking if the effects of education contradict the goals of democracy. We often hear arguments that greater education will lead to more effective participation and the emergence of a better informed citizenry. However, maybe there is an inverse relationship between education and the establishment and maintenance of a healthy democracy. I have many family members and friends who are or have been teachers--ranging from the elementary to collegiate levels. One interesting topic of conversation that arises is the curriculum taught in schools. Generally, the consensus I hear is that there needs to be a greater focus on both math and science. These sentiments are increasingly and regularly echoed and reinforced in the media and popular culture (Example: Video of how to encourage your daughter to excel in math and science http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf5BLio6qGQ). Yet after reading Pauline Lipman’s “Politics by Other Means: Education Accountability and the Surveillance State,” I began to wonder if society’s push for math and science has minimized the emphasis on the study of subjects—like government or ethics--that allows for debate and free thought. Lipman argues that free thinking and discourse is “undermined by educational processes driven by standardized education.” To me, there seems to be an impasse between what society deems as necessary and appropriate--standardized testing and a focus on math and science—and what is required to promote democratic characteristics and effective citizens.

Additionally, Lipman addresses the role education plays in the “racialization of the enemy.” Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Lipman argues that American authority via the government has reduced civil liberties and democratic privilege based on the platform of ensuring security. Although I believe Lipman takes her critique of government action and the American quest for unilateralism too far, I think her underlying concern about the power of education in the greater realm of American society and politics is valid. Ultimately, the domestic and international environments which shape American policy and life affect the state of public education. In part as a result of the overreliance on standardized testing and the stigmas attached to “failing schools,” the country has isolated minority children (particularly blacks and Latinos). We have been taught that education is key to participation, but from what I see, it appears that public education may be a contributor to disenfranchisement. Furthermore, the focus on passing standardized tests in order to “compete for resources” limits the bounds of education. Since teachers are scrutinized over whether their students pass state tests, they have little incentive or desire to become engaged in their profession beyond the minimum standard. Instead of shaping the future democratic leaders of our country, teachers simply cover standardized material without addressing other important issues not required by mandated tests.

Ultimately, the issues and controversies surrounding education that were addressed in this week’s readings are important to the future of American democracy. Obviously, there are some problems with the way public education addresses learning and standardized curriculum, but there are really no easy answers. The bottom line is that teachers are very influential in shaping the future leaders of our country. Yet if their state mandated practices in the classroom breed “fear, suppression…and dissent,” teachers are/will be unable to impart important lessons to the next generation of democratic citizens.

Effects of Education

In the article, Reconsidering the Effects of Education on Political Participation by Cindy D. Kam and Carl L. Palmer, support the idea that the "relationship between higher education and political participation derives not from higher education per se, but from preadult characterisitics". Education is indeed an important "universal solvent" and it is the aim of education to stimulate the population and encourage them to become good citizens. The idea that higher education does not stimulate political participation is indeed off putting.

Kam and Palmer celebrate the idea that "higher education is a proxy for preadult experiences and influences, not a cause of political participation". They place importance on the role of parents as reliable sources to encourage their children to "mimic" their lifestyle and become politically active in the future by exposing them to an active environment where newspapers and discussion of politics become essential in the household. Parents also have the ability to "transmit to their children basic postures toward life which the children carry with them at least until the development of their own critical faculties". This seems plausible but does not completely convince me. Parents do become role models but not to the extent that they describe it as. They place too much importance on the parents and forget that universities and other environments also encourage children to become involved in politics by simply informing them about what is going on around the world. Education allows them to become open-minded and to listen to different opinions and to understand why different people think differently.

The aim of education is to create good citizens meaning educating them and placing them in an environment where they can be exposed to different opinions and arguments. This stimulates debate about different issues with many different people. Parents also can create debate but does not expand their understanding on issues because they usually see the opinion of their parents. Education is important and it does encourage political participation.

TFA: Failure of Intention or Implementation?

In the McAdam and Brandt piece for this week, the authors considered whether in-depth service opportunities, such as Teach for America (TFA) lead to life-long shifts in attitude concerning civic participation and engagement. Paradoxically, the TFA graduates tend to have better attitudes regarding participation and engagement, yet, on average, lag behind people who are accepted into TFA and either drop out of the program before finishing two years or refuse the offer to participate.

To me, these findings point to one possible explanation: service opportunities such as TFA do have their intended consequences in fostering civic-mindedness, but fail to foster the feelings of personal efficacy that would allow their graduates to apply their new civic-mindedness after their service is finished. This finding is consistent with several of the stories I have heard from returning TFA teachers who graduated from college with my older brothers. Several of them found the work they were doing to be fulfilling and important, but they felt that the problems they were facing were too big or complex for them to personally make any difference. My favorite example is one friend of my brother who was assigned to a special education classroom. After arriving, he found that he loved working with the kids, but had no real clue what to do in many situations; he was not given any kind of training by TFA and left to find his own way by trying to get the other teachers to take the time out of their own schedules to train him. At the end of the program, he was left with the distinct impression that he wasn't really cut out to be a special education teacher, despite the fact that he still thought fondly of the idea of working with special ed students.

One important piece of information that would help to boost this interpretation of McAdam and Brandt's findings would be a measure of self-efficacy to see if the TFA graduates scored lower than TFA dropouts and non-matriculants. If this were the case, it would support this interpretation and the implication that programs such as TFA are beneficial in principle, but that their current implementation prevents them from providing their possible benefits; if TFA were structured differently (namely, to provide more support for its teachers and improve their self-efficacy), it could possibly deliver on all of its high-minded promises.

Education

Education as the “universal solvent”…seems like a phrase taken out of the Enlightenment. Most would agree that making higher education more accessible and desirable is a worthwhile initiative. On average, college graduates participate in the civic realm at a higher rate so there must be some tangible benefits that are conferred to individuals with higher education.

Kam and McAdam are not enamored with the alleged relative or absolute effects of higher education. In what seems like a typical economist argument, they assert that certain “preadult dispositions” are better indication of civic participation and education is just another byproduct of these dispositions…simply confusing an association for a cause.

I was impressed with the empirical work on this subject despite the lackluster policy implications on their work. This is where I tend to agree with Campbell’s work on relative versus absolute effects of education. Kam and McAdam casually mention at the conclusion of their piece that individuals who are more likely to participate are more likely to go to college so the causal relationship is worthless. But it might be worth reforming earlier sources of inequality that stem from primary and secondary education. Might be?? Starting at the foundation seems like the most logical avenue to me. If you’re predetermined by your environment in a number of ways before the conclusion of high school then why don’t we start younger? Making college accessible sounds fantastic, but how about we make participation accessible as well.

The Teach for America piece is very interesting to me mainly for policy implications. I would agree with the findings for the same reasons Kam discusses but it starts the conversation for potential funding or government marketing in programs like TFA and Peace Corps. I guess you could say that an increase in the raw number of applications provides some in-depth commentary on the predisposition to participate.

A Self Reinforcing Cycle of Participation and Non Participation

If we accept the results of Kam and Palmer's study on the effects of education on political participation, I think we should be very worried about the future of our citizenry. Kam and Palmer find that higher education is a proxy for pre-adult influences and experiences and not a cause of political participation (the view taken by traditional literature on education). They argue that the same factors that cause people to pursue higher education also cause them to be more politically active. Among the factors they list is the fact that well-educated parents are more likely to be active in politics and are likely to pass this value on to their children. Children of parents who are educated and politically active tend to interact with other children in similar situations, thus reinforcing the values and orientations they learn from their parents. This appears to me to be a very exclusive cycle whereby those who are more likely to go to college and be politically active are encourage to do these things and those who are less likely to do the above are not encouraged to do either.

Kam and Palmer suggest breaking this cycle by focusing on "external agents of mobilization, such as parties, interest groups, and particularly nonpartisan organizations" to get citizens who aren't predisposed to attaining higher education and being politically active more involved in politics. While this sounds like a decent solution, I question what will motivate people to get involved in these types of groups. According to Kam and Palmer, parental factors are very important in shaping a person's values; so what catalysts are there for people without these pre-adult values to get involved in political organizations?

Can these people be forced from a young age to participate in political parties, interest groups, or nonpartisan organizations by their schools? Its possible that requiring participation with such organizations would take away from their effectiveness. Students would be participating in politics for a grade which is an immediate and personal benefit, whereas for real political participation it is necessary to have a sense of civic duty and conceive of long term and less well defined benefits.

It is doubtful that people who who lack the values needed for the desire to pursue higher education would voluntarily participate in "external agents of mobilization" for the same reasons. We appear to be stuck with a self reinforcing cycle. I think that the only way to solve this dilemma is to encourage children of college educated parents to interact with children of non college educated parents through after school activities. This challenge is greatest for communities that are more geographically divided based on the college educated and those without a college degree.

Collective Action

Both Lipman and McAdam argue that volunteerism fails to promote collective action. High school students are required to obtain a certain number of hours in community service, but these hours are largely obtained individually. Students are encouraged to report these hours on their college applications in order to 'beat out' other applicants. This does not create a healthy environment for a citizenry that should be founded on collective action. If school requirements for volunteerism threatens this 'collaborative community', one would think that associations such as TFA, which are purely voluntary, would produce a group of citizens that are engaged in other service projects. Students in TFA have joined an organization that is collectively trying to improve the education of students in less privileged schools.

McAdams finds that graduates of TFA are less likely to engage in 'pro-social' employment and civic activities. They are also less likely to give to charitable organizations or to vote, than non participants of TFA. The study fails to comment on how the views of TFA participants change after their experience. Though it would be very hard to measure, it would be interesting to see whether these students think more about the common good of the people when voting on policy issues. Do their views reflect the interests of more people after participating in TFA? If volunteering makes individuals more conscious of the needs of people who come from different social classes, racial backgrounds...etc., then it is a success for a democratic government. Perhaps TFA graduates are better citizens than those that did not participate, but they exert their civic power in methods not measured by the study. It is possible that these graduates are more likely to engage in deliberative rhetoric or be more proactive in getting other citizens involved in like minded service activities. It is possible that by measuring 'civic engagement' by a set number of activities, we fail to see the positive benefit that TFA has on creating engaged citizens.

Although requiring students to meet a certain number of volunteering hours is counterproductive in promoting a collective community, I believe that initiatives from the government are very encouraging of this collective community. For example, Obama launched 'Renew America Together' which not only promotes volunteerism, but stresses the importance of collective activity. This initiative promotes the idea that the problems we face are problems of all Americans.

I found the McAdam and Brand article, "Assessing the Effects of Voluntary Youth Service: The Case of Teach For America", to be very interesting. Incredibly, it finds that our presumptions of the benefits for youth community service are actually wrong. The authors find that youth service does not actually increase service into adulthood. The authors found that those young professionals who were part of the Teach For America program for two years were actually less likely to be involved in civic groups. The most noticeable reason cited for the decrease in civic engagement was that graduates of the program had felt that their own actions were futile, and the program itself was failing. Is this type of cynicism visible in other forms of civic participation? In other words, is TFA an outlier, in that TFA requires a very extensive commitment than most forms of civic engagement.

I remember that there were a few people in class, whose high schools required mandatory volunteer hours. According to the article, early volunteering does not necessarily increase civic engagement in later years. In fact, civic engagement can develop bad habits. For one, they can make a citizen feel too small to create change, resulting in less participation. Similarly, civic engagement can encourage a"bake sale" effect. Volunteers instead of attacking or focusing on the problem, will participate in bake sales or organize events to raise money. In essence, no policy is being changed and there is a decrease in political participation. Is it possible to separate civic engagement from the political sphere? What are the possible solutions to increasing political activism through civic engagement?

Dangers of education

The readings for this week were very interesting because they presented in a new way the impact of education on civic participation. Indeed, we often stop at the conclusion that more education is linked with more civic participation. Of course, education gives to people a “higher” social status, and we've seen in the past readings/discussions that the participation in democracy is highly linked with the status of the citizen in the society.

I think that we should also be careful about education and its impact on civic participation. I totally agree with Pauline Lipman when she says that the frames of the American education policy shape the general way of thinking of the citizens. She uses the example of the discourse of containment after 9/11, but it reminded me of another example. At the beginning of this fall semester, I went to a discussion for a class of foreign policy. The theme of discussion was: “Do we have to interfere in the conflict in Korea and in Pakistan?”. In reality, this was only written in the paper, and the debate turned to be on how U.S. should interfere. I think this is a good example that shows how education can be dangerous for democracy, because in this case it directly presented the intervention as the only way to handle a conflict.

In the past few weeks, we have seen the dangers of the mis-information, but we can consider that education can be worst than mis-information. Indeed, when you are a student, even if you try to take a critical look at the information given to you -searching for other sources as an example-, it's hard to resist to the common schemes that education give you.

That's why I clearly agree with the famous quotation of Stuart Hall about education as politics by other means. We have seen that politicians can win new votes with rhetoric, and that some newspapers and organizations use mis-information in order to convince voters, readers or consumers, but education is a more powerful tool for politics because it is hard to take a step back when you are a student, especially in high school. Even if you can critic the informations and data given to you in class, it is really difficult be critical of the structure of education, and the values that education promotes.

Political Participation or Political Bankruptcy...

Campbell offers a very optimistic view of education’s effects on democratic citizenship, positing that education has a cumulative effect on “political tolerance and knowledge”. He calls this the “rising tide” – specifically that higher levels of education – on average – positively impact levels of tolerance and knowledge of even the lesser-educated persons within the same environment. Importantly, however, Campbell concludes from his analysis that educational environment has its greatest impact on voting. Those with the highest levels of education are closer to the center of their environment, have more at stake than those on the periphery, and thus are more likely to participate in elections.

Kam and Palmer don’t dispute the correlation between higher education and greater political participation, but they question the causal relationship between the two. They offer an alternative view that, instead of education being the cause, it is merely a proxy for pre-adult experiences. Put simply, higher education is related to greater political participation because those who pursue education are also likely to engage politically. This coincidental relationship may (or may not, according to Kam and Palmer) stem from several significant factors: parents as models of behavior for both education and political activity; pre-adult cognitive skills; personality; noncognitive factors such as genetic predisposition and social learning; school systems; and peer groups, to name a few. Kam and Palmer make a compelling argument, but I am not quite ready to dismiss the positive impact that higher education has on young adults, particularly when it comes to engaging politically. It seems to me – and I most certainly could be wrong – that their study does not qualify levels of political participation. Moreover, we still need to discover if those who are more likely to graduate college are also more likely to (a) feel entitled to participate without understanding their responsibilities (participating for participation’s sake), (b) feel responsible for the outcomes of that participation (should they – and do they – abstain from participation when they are unaware of the ramifications), or (c) participate according to their parent’s political convictions without developing their own political awareness. Of course there are more possibilities, but it seems these relate well to the readings.

Turning to service learning, McAdam and Brandt assess the impact of one type of voluntary service on civic engagement. Ignoring their specific evaluation of TFA volunteers, the authors uncover some interesting results concerning civic engagement; that voluntary associations promote long-term civic engagement while non-voluntary associations do not, and for good reasons. Voluntary associations typically foster a community-relations mentality by bringing together similarly interested individuals which gain important inter-personal relationship skills – McAdam and Brandt call these civil and political skills. Alternatively, non-voluntary associations include an aggregate of folks whose common cause, in general, is the completion of their individual time and engagement requirements. They also provide some explanations for why TFA matriculants fall behind in civic participation following their service experiences. These include exhaustion, slow transition to stable adult life, a feeling that they have earned their way, and disillusionment with civic participation itself (I hope I’ve understood these correctly). The authors conclude that youth service does not necessarily encourage long term civic engagement. I question their assumptions, however. I have trouble understanding how their TFA findings can be used to justify their broader claims against youth service. I also wonder whether or not a study of different organizations may yield different results.

If we put stock in Pauline Lipman’s blistering essay “Politics by Other Means” we need to ask, to what extent does our current education system level the democratic playing field in America? According to Lipman it does not. I share Lipman’s assessment of the educational system as it stands now, but I’m not sure I would place as much emphasis or blame on the “surveillance state” as a causal mechanism. Certainly America as a surveillance state is not new, simply the methods by which the state carries out its surveillance. Moreover, our knowledge and understanding of its depth and reach has been made possible by the same electronic methods with which the state surveils us. What’s the main difference between pre-electronic era and now? Simply that we now know about it. This also ties into the fear-mongering made so prevalent during the post 9/11era. Again, this is not new. In almost any major foreign policy decision made since the birth of our republic the state has instilled and fed on the fears of the American people. Only the actors have changed, not the game. And let’s be real, we have things to be fearful of. In the increasingly uncontrollable world of non-state actors and the threat they pose, we cannot rely on our hopes and ideology to “fix” things. But, I do share some of Lipman’s concerns. Our current education system does not establish an equal playing field. It further stratifies groups of people, eliminates possible civic and political engagement for certain subsets of our population, and it teaches large numbers of young Americans that their participation is neither worthy nor invited. This brings to mind a very real problem with severe implications. We have longed asked and often demanded that those who gain the least from our republic pay the most for it. Perhaps we need to reevaluate the demands we place on our lower socio-economic strata to defend and fight for a country that does little for them. On the other hand, perhaps we also need to demand more of our upper strata in terms of service and defense. If the children of policy makers are affected by those policies, perhaps more thought will go into establishing and enforcing policy. But I digress. In sum, for Lipman none of the views of Campbell, Kam and Palmer, and McAdam and Brandt matter if we don’t remove ourselves from the American panopticon. Certainly, in our current security state, we are not promoting tolerance, knowledge, civic engagement, and political participation, unless of course participants meet certain criteria.

Educational Equality: an ideal?

Taken together, the pieces we read this week do not bode well for the future of our country. Our education system, that creates a sense of "monitoring and punishment" (Lipman 161) in our teachers and "uncritical habits of thought" (Lipman 171) in our students, is creating a sort of "educational inflation" (Campbell) that is making higher levels of education necessary but probably ineffective in creating more politically active citizens (Kam and Palmer 624). So what are we to do?

Although equality in education is often thought of as an ideal--for a more educated citizenry supposedly makes for better democracy, I'm wondering now if maybe this isn't the case. Perhaps our efforts to create a minimum standard-of-learning does an injustice to the health of our nation. As Campbell points out, education is experiencing a "cheapening" (although we can only dream that he means in the monetary sense...), in that a college degree does not have as much value as it did a decade ago. While the ideal to give everyone a college education seems, on its face, to promote higher expectations of learning for all, steps towards this ideal may have in fact reduced actual expectations, by making a college degree easier to attain. Similarly, NCLB has tried to standardize education on the primary level, which has only worked to exacerbate the problems of educational inequalities, rather than alleviate them. Do these studies then give support to a purposefully unequal education system, where it's okay for some children to be left behind, and that not everyone should get a college degree?

What is missing from all of these readings is a proposed solution to these problems. If the current trends and policies are leading the country in a dangerous direction, how are we to stop them? Perhaps the ideal of educational equality should be reconsidered.

Unreasonable Expectations

I agree with Laura's post below. Polarization is having disastrous effects on the American politic. As Laura points out, the current elections are a prime example. What we see in campaign ads is an example of intentional misinformation. For instance, a candidate may blame an incumbent for voting against a bill that would stop puppy mills (a goofy example, I know). So we may, as the citizenry, assume that the incumbent hates puppies, certainly he must for he voted to not save them...but perhaps we assume too much. Often times when we hear this blame game all we need to do is check loc.gov. We may find something very interesting...we may discover that the puppy legislation was attached as a rider to an appropriations bill (for example) which would fund another "bridge to nowhere". In this case, politicians must make choices which may be displeasing to SOME, but are also beneficial to MOST. Politicians are most often required to compromise on the legislation they choose to support, and they are also required to prioritize. Sure, we all want to save puppies, but we can't afford nonsense legislation to pass which wastes even more tax dollars. Sure, the candidate running the ad is correct - the incumbent voted against a measure, but we have a right and a responsibility to know all of the facts.

But the problem of polarization is not just the fault of our politicians, it is also the fault of the electorate. We have, as Americans, no sense of reality concerning how much time it takes to turn the cogs of our political machine. This certainly came into play in the midterms. We have become so dissatisfied, so antsy, so impatient toward our government that we do not allow them enough time to exact changes. Certainly we cannot expect our government to "fix" our economy in two years when we have created this problem over at least the past decade? This may bring another dilemma to light. The fast-paced infusion of information about our economy may have led to the expectation of an equally fast-paced solution. Certainly the news has been gracious enough to tell us how poor our economy is, but they have largely failed in suggesting realistic timelines for recovery. Our unreasonable expectations, coupled with misinformation-providing politicians, do no favors for us or themselves. Unfortunately, you will not find a solution in my rants either.

Elite Expectations

Our discussion of the negative ramifications of a polarized electorate can further be applied to the types of messages we, as the electorate, are sending our political leaders. If the electorate harbors misconceptions about the process of policy-making--in that it is a battle between opposing groups who can see no middle ground--these people will hold representatives more accountable for crossing party lines. While good politicians have always rightly feared the recall power of their constituents, politicians in the modern era might fear compromising with their so-called opponents--even if such compromise is for the good of the nation. An electorate who is so polarized that they do not find the opposing party legitimate will see support for that opposing party's policy as similarly illegitimate and even traitorous. As someone brought up in class, this hinders the progress our policy-makers strive to achieve.

This reminds me of an instance that occurred in the recent mid-term election. Tom Perriello reflected on his defeat, saying that voters might have been disappointed when he voted on some controversial bill, but there "has got to be something more important than getting re-elected." Although this instance might not refer specifically to polarization, we can expect similar instances to grow in frequency if this trend of polarization continues. If our representatives are constantly being recalled by the electorate, this will further hinder progress because representatives might not be in office long enough to create long-term change.

Iyengar and Hahn and Recent Events

Iyengar and Hahn’s article on media bias and partisan attraction is very interesting especially in light of some current events. George W Bush is currently going on a book tour to promote Decision Points which is about his time in the White House and his decisions. The New York Times recently ran an article about his first interview which will be with Matt Lauer on NBC. It is a little bit of an unexpected start for the book tour. One media expert tried explaining why Bush would pick Lauer instead of an evening news anchor or a Fox News anchor. He said, “on the one hand, you’re looking for comfort. On the other hand, you don’t want the interview to be perceived as a series of softballs.” Matt Lauer is thus seen as a good middle ground. The producer of Today elaborated saying that “We’re living in a time when some of television news is partisan, and Matt and the ‘Today’ show are decidedly not so.” Thus in order to get his message out and advertise, Bush is trying to appeal to as many people as possible without going on a channel with too much of a left or right leaning news crew. It is quite a logical decision if it’s true that there is an “increased exposure to one sided news coverage [creating] an echo chamber effect” (p34).

Another recent story in the news was that on MSNBC, Keith Olbermann was suspended for two shows when MSNBC found that he had made political donations to Democratic candidates in the last elections. Olbermann is unabashedly a supporter of the Democrats on his show and he is often seen as a counterweight to Fox News. Interestingly, Rachel Maddow, another anchor on MSNBC, used the suspension to call out Fox News’ bias by saying “We [MSNBC] are not a political operation. Fox is. We are a news operation. And the rules around here are part of how you know that.” I think that MSNBC and Fox are fairly similar but I find it interesting that Maddow would try to somehow prove that MSNBC is less biased. I’m not sure if that is really going to appeal to Independents (which I assume she is targeting) since MSNBC already has a reputation. Still these two articles confirm how current figures are trying to use the partisan makeup of news to help them. I imagine we will continue to see this type of attempted media manipulation for quite some time.