Civic Participation:

Vote or Die. These are the strong words that were displayed on t-shirts, posters, and more during the presidential election that took place four years ago. While failing to vote does not ultimately lead to death, the slogan does serve useful and makes a compelling and even persuasive point. To not vote is to silence yourself ultimately. It is to assume that you, as a single citizen, make no difference in the outcome that determines much of your own life. Essentially, without civic participation, democracy is lost in a black hole of overwhelming and sometimes formidable leaders. Thus, we must remember that civic participation may be the greatest facet of democracy. Because governmental systems may change, civic participation must remain in order for a democracy to truly be held up to its name.

Document 36 best represents the notions that are needed to develop an understanding of civic participation. Effectively, the article acknowledges that there are two aspects to a democracy in terms of participation: requirements for the citizens and requirements for the system itself. First noted, is the requirements necessary for citizens. Such characteristics include interest, discussion, and motivation. The article states about discussion, “On the grass roots level there was more talk than debate, and , at least inferentially, the talk had important effects upon voting, in reinforcing or activating partisans if not in converting the opposition.” (Woll, Document 36, p. 207) In terms of motivation the article states, “The ballot is cast, and for most people that is the end of it. If their side is defeated, ‘It doesn’t really matter.’” (Woll, Document 36, p. 207) The roles of interest, discussion, and motivation each correlate into one specific concept: getting involved. While it may sound a bit “preachy,” becoming involved within your own community, school, county, state, or country in some, even in the most minuscule way, creates the basis that we know as basic democracy.

The Document then moves on to discuss more important, “required” characteristics necessary for a citizen. However, these characteristics are intended more for how a voter should actually vote. These include knowledge, principle, and rationality. However, the document maintains a common pattern when discussing each of these required characteristics. While such requirements would be ideal in a democracy, generally it does not push voters to vote a certain way. Because of the two party system that dominates America, voters are generally pushed by an emotional feeling towards a certain candidate or party. Especially within the past 50 years, citizens (whom we can assume will grow up to become an avid voter) grow up within a family that predominantly associates themselves with one particular party. With this in mind, persuasion is generally determined by attachment for a certain political party. Yet, with the society in which we live in, this system is for the most part, inevitable.

Finally, the Document discusses the requirements for the system. One such requirement includes involvement and indifference. Involvement and indifference are regarded as needed to balance each other out. Low interests create maneuvering room for political shifts that are necessary for a complex society that is changing. This concept is similar to the next requirement: stability and flexibility. These yet again balance each other out so as the society does not becomes too frigid or too loose. Stability is reaffirming for the settled majority, while flexibility is used as a creative force for the unsettled minority. Finally, another similar concept that correlates with these first two includes consensus and cleavage. Too much consensus is restrictive on liberty, while too much cleavage leads an anarchical society. Progress and conservation, which can best be thought of as liberal versus conservative, is also a requirement for the system, as well as individualism and collectivism.

A significant question that has arisen within the last 100 years that appears to have heightened since the Reagan presidency which was touched upon in the previous article, involves the division that remains within the country. Republicans and Democrats within the United States no longer represent two separate political parties; they now appear as cultural parties, economic parties, and more. Has our civic participation led us into a cultural war? David Brooks attempts to bring up this point in “One Nation, Slightly Divisible.” However, Brooks’ bias shadows over the point and, in my opinion, ruins the points he was attempting to debate. Brooks states that the United States is divided into two sections: liberal and conservative. Most Americans would easily agree with this point. Just as you see on election night on the news, the country is split between blue (Democratic) states and red (Republican)states. Brooks does do an overwhelming job exhibiting the stereotype of both the democrat and the republican. Essentially based on the elaborate detail that Brooks goes into, the reader is left to believe that Republicans live in small, rural areas, go to church every Sunday, and for the most part, are just so darn “wholesome.” While Democrats live in urban cities, regularly go to exotic restaurants, and are for the most part, narcissistic. Brooks states that this division within the country is not along class lines; economics, he says, play no such role. However, he does agree that moral systems as well as ego has something to do with the matter. Civic participation that has been formally divided into a two party system, is in fact based very much of economic status. Who is generally favored politically within America for the past 300 years? While, Anglo-Saxon, male, citizens. And who is it that is favored in terms of job opportunities? White, Anglo-Saxon, male citizens.

My overall impression of the article was that it was situated as an anthem for the small, rural, white American who doesn’t know too much about politics, however sure is “wholesome.” The added insignificant statistics that were not sited did not help much either. In fact, Brooks makes an entirely racist comment referring to the poor (as well as the rich) ruining the middle-class equality. He states, “First there are the poor immigrants from Mexico, Vietnam, and the Philippines. They come in, a dozen to a house, and they introduce an element of unpredictability to what was a comforting milieu. They shout. They’re less tidy. Suddenly you feel you lose control of your children, and begin to feel a new level of anxiety in the neighborhood.” (One Nation, Slightly Divisible). I’m not quite sure what his intentions were in making such a derogatory comment, but I know that when a family from Vietnam moves in across the street, I don’t feel any less comfortable than if it were a white, “wholesome”, family.

Democracy does not run without some sort of civic participation, however what is most interesting, is that according to the article “Political Parties and Elections: Are Voters United or Divided?”, only about half of the electorate votes in the presidential elections, and the United States ranks near the bottom on voter participation rates in democratic countries. Yet somehow, we still maintain a system that has been working somewhat efficiently for the past 350 years. Considering this, as well as Document 36 and the article by David Brooks, while certain requirements for civic participation appear ideal, the two party system, which in America’s case does not run on many votes, may not be so bad.

-Emma