November 6, 2006
by Nathan Newcomer
When looking at what democracy is and what it means to the American citizen, the idea of government by the people and for the people resonates as the number one sentiment. Another way to define democracy is that it is a system where popular sovereignty or the ultimate political authority is vested in the people. This idea of a representative democracy operates as a system in which citizens can insure that whoever they elect to public office, whether to the city council, school board, congress or presidency, can hold their elected officials accountable for the actions they make. However, many Americans do not fully understand the political process that runs many facets of their lives. Combined with severe inequalities in income, healthcare, insurance, and education, the overall participation of citizens in politics continues to suffer greatly. This is a dire situation, with implications not only affecting the individual but also the community and future generations to come.
A recent survey found that just 1 percent out of 1,000 Americans could name all five First Amendment freedoms afforded to them, compared to 22 percent naming all five characters from the Simpsons television show. As Joe Madeira, director of exhibitions at the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum pointed out, "We have our job cut out for us" (BBC News).
The fundamental fact that most Americans cannot identify the rights afforded to them under the First Amendment is a startling problem. Yet, this problem is only a side affect of the overarching crisis-American democracy is becoming more and more of a slogan, rather than an action.
Increasingly, Americans are becoming indifferent and oblivious to the political system that governs their lives. We are becoming insulated, fat, and lazy when it comes to politics and our participation in it. The problems of illegeracy, an uneducative media, and the iron fist of money ruling politics today, represents three key categories as to why Americans don't participate and act more in politics. Though social class discrimination is another large contributor to decreasing political participation, this paper will not focus on that aspect.
While this crisis ultimately undermines our democratic system, there are many positive steps Americans and our government can take to alleviate and heal the challenges afflicting our political system.
In order to discuss political participation, we must first have an operational definition of participation. Sidney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady describe political participation in their book "Voice and Equality," in this way:
Political participation affords citizens in a democracy an opportunity to communicate information to government officials about their concerns and preferences and to put pressure on them to respond (Verba, Schlozman, Brady 1995: 37).
Verba, Schlozman, and Brady go on to say that participatory acts require a degree of activity by the participant. In politics, these activities break out into time, money, or skills. These three ingredients are significant in that depending on how much one applies themselves through these acts determines how much one will be heard by the elected, media, and/or public. Simply voting only requires time and according to Verba et all, holds a low capacity for conveying information, whereas actually contacting your representative or being a part of a protest holds a high capacity for conveying information. But what turns people out to vote or to protest or contribute money to a campaign?
The Presidential election of 1896 drew almost 80 percent of registered voters to participate. By contrast, just 49 percent of registered voters voted in the 1996 presidential election (Federal Election Commission). The 1896 election is perhaps an exception to modern day politics, in that there has not really been a viable, competitive party since the time of the Populists. In the 1890's, it was Populists, a group who fought for regulation of big business and tax reform, among other things, who were successful in capturing five congressional seats in Kansas and 76 percent of the State's legislature. Though their presidential bid was unsuccessful (losing by less than 3 percent), the Populists earned enough widespread support that the Democratic Party eventually incorporated their concerns into their agenda. Sadly, not since 1896, has there been a viable third party to challenge the two party system. As Katherine Tate and Kim DeFronzo point out in a May 2000 essay entitled, "Unequal Participation in American Politics and Its Implications for Children & Family Policies," the lack of competitiveness in an election can have a significant negative impact on voter turnout. Yet, with the supremacy of the two party system ruling American politics, many citizens may feel neither party represents their ideals, therefore making political involvement unattractive.
It may be true that the two party system is failing the American electorate, and that American ideals and opinions expand far beyond the platform of just two parties but the biggest difficulty within the current system is the dominance of power in money. Before there is another Populist Party, or even ten other viable parties to pick from, there must be strong local and congressional steps taken to clean up the money in politics.
According to The Center for Responsive Politics, $4 billion was spent during the 2004 presidential and congressional elections, "up from $3 billion in 2000, $2.2 billion in 1996 and $1.8 billion in 1992." Even though Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2002 the McCain-Feingold "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act," which was supposed to limit money funneled into elections, Michael J. Malbin, Executive Director of the Campaign Finance Institute noted that in respect to financing, the two parties "are alive and well." The Wall Street Journal editorialized on November 3, 2004 that "in effect, McCain-Feingold made the 2004 election a showcase for the mega-rich," and that "the reform's main effect has been merely to channel the cash through different political hands, and with less accountability."
While Congress has seemingly been ineffective in passing legislation to seriously curb spending on elections, many states and municipalities are taking action. The Hoover Institution of Stanford University reports "since 1990, 30 states have radically changed their campaign finance laws, 17 of them between 1995 and 1998." One problem with the state led initiatives though is that each jurisdiction operates by its own set of election rules, leaving the solutions to vary widely from state to state. According to the Hoover Institution, states have enacted a combination of reforms, ranging from electronic filing, spending restrictions, lower contribution levels, and shorter campaign periods. In spite of the strong voter sentiment for campaign finance reform, these initiatives face constant obstacles, including court challenges to their constitutionality. This is where Congress must take the leadership and pass real campaign finance reforms that unify the country and guide states and municipalities in the proper direction. With the right kind of guidance and leadership, campaign finance reform could encourage citizens to regain faith in politics, and therefore participate more in the political process.
However, according to Tate and DeFronzo, cleansing politics of money that promotes unfairness and exploitation will not alone solve the issue of low participation levels. They conclude that the social characteristics of a citizen, including age, education, and indeed income, determines how much one will participate in politics. Verba, et all echo this conclusion too:
Over and over, our data showed that participatory input is tilted in the direction of the more advantaged groups in society-especially in terms of economic and educational position, but in terms of race and ethnicity as well (Verba, Schlozman, Brady 1995: 512).
Americans that have received a well-rounded education, and I would argue, who read regularly, are more likely to be familiar with the process of politics. This includes understanding the fundamental aspects of participation in civil action: i.e. registering and acting on voting, keeping an eye on political matters and finding out how a candidate stands on "the" issues (Tate, DeFronzo). Additionally, ones income is a good reflection of voter engagement. Personal finances, as highlighted by Tate and DeFronzo, are also an issue tied to the participation of a citizen. If you are poor, you generally have less time to spend on politics, and seemingly fewer minutes to devote to voting.
Steven J. Rosenstone and John Mark Hansen explain the link between income and participation in their book, "Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America":
Citizens with lots of income can simply afford to do more-of everything-than citizens with little money. The wealthy have discretionary income that they can contribute directly to political parties, candidates, political action committees, and other causes. Moreover, money is fungible-it can be freely converted into other political resources that make it easier for people to take part in politics. A car is not a necessary condition for political action, for example, but having one makes it much easier to get to a school board meeting, a political rally, or a candidate's campaign headquarters. Money can be used to hire someone to do the daily chores-to clean the house, buy the groceries, cook dinner, baby-sit the kids-and free up time for politics. Thus, if people want to participate in politics, money makes it easier for them to do so (Rosenstone and Hansen 1993: 12-13).
So the irony arises-politicians are generally able spend vast sums of money to support their re-election campaigns, but the common voter is strapped for cash, forced to pick between contributing to the DNC or paying the utility bill.
While income plays a significant role in determining political participation among a voter, the larger problem of illegeracy, prevents many more citizens from even acknowledging that their voice counts in politics.
Illegeracy, or the inability of a citizen to recognize and make decisions about political matters that affect them and their community, is a wide-spreading disease consuming American democracy. This serious problem leads to the depoliticization of society and ultimately erodes the foundation of democracy (Fox 2006).
Yet, the disease of illegeracy could be considered a by-product of low income. If one lacks a sustainable source of income, one is more likely to pay less attention to political discourse and more attention to putting food on the table. This lifestyle could then lead to less informed opinions about issues, and eventually foster an attitude of indifference (Fox 2006).
The willingness of an illegerate to ignore and passively observe is fed by an education system that fails to teach and a media system, which is mainly concerned with profits rather than being an educative outlet (Fox 2005). Rush Limbaugh's radio program is just one example of the media promoting anti-intellectualism, and therefore fostering more illegerates. Limbaugh cannot take all the blame though. Even local television stations tend to report more on criminal acts and that which is sensational, than the dissenting viewpoints of two candidates running for State Land Commissioner.
Coupled with the media's push to entertain, rather than educate, America's education system itself is failing (Fox 2005). Thousands of public school systems across the country are having a difficult time accommodating the No Child Left Behind Act, while the schools themselves lack quality teachers and/or are facing tremendous budget cuts.
In April 2003, the Kentucky Board of Education found that the state should be spending an extra $740 million per year for preschool through 12th grade students. In November 2004, the Great Falls Tribune published that the Montana Supreme Court upheld a lower-court ruling that said Montana is not "adequately funding its public schools." Furthermore, the Washington Post stated in March 2006 that "more than a quarter of U.S. schools are failing under terms of President Bush's No Child Left Behind law," as found in a state-by-state statistics report prepared by the U.S. Department of Education. House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi spoke of the education failures in this way:
Over the last four years, they [President Bush and Congressional Republicans] have shortchanged No Child Left Behind by $40 billion, leaving states with new mandates, but not enough funding, and leaving children without the necessary resources.
Though the failure of education and media systems are the main problem with continuing illegeracy, other factors have affects on ones political socialization. In other words, political socialization is the way that we acquire our views from the time of birth. These factors include family upbringing, peers, religion, and personal experiences/historical events. All of these have an impact on how an individual or community views their role in government, and without clear analytical thinking, the disease of illegeracy has more room to spread.
The illegerate constantly sees himself or herself as having no bearing on political issues or outcomes. They are confused and cannot make sense of their own culture. Thus, they avoid politics, thereby abdicating their political power and exiting the political system all together (Fox 2006).
We could begin to fix the problem of illegeracy by doing two things: 1) demand a media market that actually reports and encourages debate so that citizens can make informed decisions instead of baseless accusations and stereotyping, and 2) truly commit national and local funding to the public school system.
One way for media outlets to move away from sensationalism is to first gain strong leadership-leadership, which will seek to provide the public with quality news separate from entertainment.
In order to establish a blossoming education system we could pay (eh-gasp!) our teachers more money, which would ensure that we have high-quality educators fostering a new generation of leaders and thinkers. Furthermore, we could ensure that our schools have proper heating and cooling so that students can actually focus on learning instead of their sweating brows or shivering toes.
By improving our media and education systems, our country could begin to develop a prescription to battle illegeracy, and therefore increase the political participation levels of citizens.
To understand the role of media and why it should support political discourse, instead of hindering it, one must understand the importance of the media in a democracy.
The media acts as an additional check and balance on government. The citizen should be able to rely upon analytical reporting, and the media should encourage discourse and debate among viewers, readers, and listeners so that informed opinions and decisions can be made. It is the highest job of the media to turn ordinary, sometimes unexciting, but important information into interesting stories and reports that will tell citizens what to think about, not how to think about it. The more informed the public is, the greater the public will be engaged in governmental affairs. This engagement thus equals more participation and therefore generates more democracy (Fox 2005). As the late Christopher Lasch argued in his book, "The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy," a citizenry cannot be informed unless it argues, and until "we have to defend our opinions in public," these opinions "remain half-formed convictions based on random impressions." It is not only the media's job to promote these healthy arguments, but it is their civic duty to enrich the public's political insight.
When any election faces the American people, whether presidential, congressional or city council, it is up to the media to provide facts, history and the issues of each campaign so that the public can make an educated opinion on whom to vote for. Furthermore, it is up to the media to also present balanced coverage on these same facts, history and issues, to avoid encouraging stereotyping or labeling, which could impact ones "informed" vote in an election. Yet, the coverage of issues that the media gives us suggests that they are not yet willing to change their course and help lift illegerates out of the fold.
This statement is validated by the Brookings Institution, which reported that network newscasts leading up to the 2000 presidential election "provided the skimpiest campaign coverage ever." In addition to the seven-second sound bite, these newscasts blurt out irrelevancies like how a candidate looks in Wrangler jeans, or that they smoked cannabis-sativa back in the college dorms. With this type of so-called "coverage," it is no wonder why many Americans tune out politics, or tune in for that matter, to gain an opinion based upon perceived character rather than a character's actions or agenda. It appears to be the same old dog and pony show as before, with no new information. This is where the media truly fails the American public, by not making the important information needed to make informed decisions interesting. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "the fuel of democracy is information."
Conceivably the biggest threat to an informed electorate is the conglomeration of media outlets. Thanks to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a single company now has a blank check on how many media outlets it can own. The inherit problem with this type of monopoly is that information becomes censored and there becomes less diverse opinions, leaving voters with only a few ideas to debate. This problem of unregulated companies dates back to the era of the Populists. Perhaps it is time for another party to advocate regulation of monopolies.
Another problem with media conglomeration is self-censorship. In 1995, CBS television's prominent news program "60 Minutes" had obtained credible information from a former tobacco executive, who was going to blow the whistle on his company and many others that knew their cigarettes were causing harm to those that smoked their product. According to a New York Times editorial, CBS bagged the interview "out of fear of a lawsuit that the [tobacco] industry had not even threatened to file." This decision, as the Times points out, was not made by news executives, but by corporate officers who were working out a $54 billion merger deal with Westinghouse Electric Corporation, which is now owned by Viacom. Obviously, the threat of a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit would hardly have been a welcome development for the new merger. As Walter Goodman of the New York Times wrote, "with media conglomerates being steadily engorged through mergers and consolidations, the prospect of news departments' taking on their own industries becomes ever dimmer."
We need a media and free press that is a rigorous watchdog of government and the powerful, and of those seeking power. It is the job of the media to ferret out the truth from the lies; to reinforce accountability; to present a wide range of informed positions on key issues in public interest, and to above all, trigger discourse.
It is not the job of the media to self-censor its reports; to present misleading sides of a debate; to focus election coverage on trivial aspects of a candidates personality over the candidates stances on the issues, and it is certainly not the job of the media to contribute to the de-politicizing of society. More citizens need to become informed and begin participating in the political system and not just swallow everything the television tells (sells) them. This type of ill-informed behavior only encourages illegeracy and political oblivion.
The problems of illegeracy, an uneducative media, and the rule of money in politics are truly affecting the levels of political participatory acts of Americans. So, what can be done to turn more citizens out to vote or to protest or contribute money to a campaign? The simplest answers are that we need 1) an education system that teaches students early on the importance and ownership of politics in every day life; 2) a media system that promotes discourse and debate of ideas amongst political and social issues, and 3) a political process that is not engorged with money, thereby excluding those with less of it.
Politics is the study of power, influence, authority, and the behavior of the influential. Politics is also an argument about the future, about what the past was and what the future holds. Without this type of debate, politics could seemingly be useless because it is ignorant of the past and does not have a goal for the future.
In American life today, politics is extremely important and necessary. Without it, there would be no democracy, or political legacies to fight for and uphold. Politics gives the country the opportunity to engage in the process and actually work for change. It is this concept that Thomas Mann once talked about when he said: "Politics is Destiny."
Nathan Newcomer [send him email] is Media Coordinator for the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance.
