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.