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

Civic Participation

In order to make a well informed decision about which candidate to choose there are certain expectations citizens have. Citizens are expected to, “be interested and to participate in political affairs… to be well informed…to cast his vote on the basis of principle…and to exercise rational judgment” (Democratic Practice and Democratic Theory, Woll, 207-208). Nevertheless, history proves to show that rarely citizens meet these expectations. Instead they go with the flow, so to speak, they follow past habits, listen to others who seem to know what they are talking about, and watch the news in order to make up their minds about which candidate to vote for. But most citizens’ minds are made up even before they know who is running, they vote for their parties candidate. So then what is the point? The point is to try and increase citizens’ interest in their democracy through voting.

In Document 35 V.O. Key, Jr. states that an election is “a formal act of collective decision that occurs in a stream of connected antecedent and subsequent behavior” (A Theory of Critical Elections, Woll, 200). A “critical election” causes a lasting “realignment” of the electorate also it portrays the changes in political attitudes. The “critical election” according to V.O. Key, Jr. was “developed to cover a type of election in which there occurs a sharp and durable electorate realignment between parties” (A Theory of Critical Elections, Woll, 204). In order to better understand the elections V.O. Key. Jr. suggests, “the study of electoral behavior with the analysis of political systems” (A Theory of Critical Elections, Woll, 205).

“Nearly half of the eligible electorate fails to go to the polls’ in midterm congressional elections, only about one-third of the electorate show up, and in many local elections, turnouts of less then 10 percent of eligible voters are not uncommon” (American Democracy in Peril, Hudson, 143). Over the last century America has fought tirelessly to obtain voting rights for women and African American citizens, so why is voter turnout so low in American? According to Document 36 it is because, “for the bulk of the American people the voting decision is not followed by any direct, immediate, visible personal consequences (Democratic Practice and Democratic Theory, Woll, 207). Citizens may be more concerned with what to make for dinner than who to vote for because it has an immediate impact on their life. For many citizens if their candidate loses, “it doesn’t really matter.”

While it is true that some citizens feel that voting does not affect their lives others such as William Hudson feel, “that voting is a duty of citizenship in a democratic society. My vote symbolizes my participation in a crucial process” (American Democracy in Peril, Hudson, 151). Hudson also contradicts what is said in Document 36 by saying that, “many people will weigh the costs of voting against its benefits and decide to go to the polls” (American Democracy in Peril, Hudson, 151-152). Hudson also addresses a key factor in civic participation “that political participation trained people in the necessary values of democracy” (American Democracy in Peril, Hudson, 145). None of the Woll documents discuss this specific theory that through voting citizens are learning values specific to democracy. By having the citizens share the responsibility in choosing a political candidate it allows for Americas democracy to flourish.

Also what is not addressed in the Woll documents is the differences between “Red” and “Blue” America. In the packet Brooks evaluates the differences between the two. Many political theories state that American is becoming a more politically divided nation, the Republicans versus the Democrats. But according to Brooks, “We are not a divided nation. We are a cafeteria nation,” (One Nation, Slightly Divisible, Brooks, 216). Brooks believes that “we form cliques” and then from those cliques we either create “sub cliques” or migrate to another clique with similar interests.

Document 36 explains that the expectations placed on citizens to produce a successful democracy are not fulfilled by the average citizen. Even though the individual voter falls short of these expectations the “system of democracy” does not. This paradox is caused by the core conjecture that the electorate is “homogeneous” in political thinking, when in fact; the electorate is “heterogeneous”. “The need for heterogeneity arises from the contradictory functions we expect out voting system to serve” (Democratic Practices and Democratic Theory, Woll, 210). America cannot be a nation where citizens are expected to have homogeneous views, enforcing that degrades Americans democracy.

Citizens are expected to make decisions based on the information presented to them but “emotional feeling” affects the decision that many voters will make. Voters are expected to vote based on their own interests and ideas but the truth of the matter is that many citizens “vote the way trusted people around him are voting” (Democratic Practice and Democratic Theory, Woll, 208). As voters we are also expected to have our own opinion but for the greater good of the community. It seems that an electorate is required have a “distribution of qualities along important dimensions” (Democratic Practice and Democratic Theory, Woll, 210).

A major concern in politics is the publics low interest but “low interest provides maneuvering room for political shifts necessary for a complex society” (Democratic Practice and Democratic Theory, Woll, 210). Those who know more are less likely to change than those citizens who have less interest.

Does voting seem to be an individual act? Well, yes on the surface a citizen chooses a candidate whose beliefs they support and they vote for that person. But as Document 36 points out deciding on who to vote for is not an individual act at all it involves many people. “The individual casts his own personal ballot… that is perhaps the most individualized action he takes in an election” (Democratic Practice and Democratic Theory, Woll, 212).
In Document 37 V.O. Key, Jr. argues against the notion that voters are incompetent he feels that voters are not a foolish as they have been made out to be by politicians. By winning a candidates assume that they know all the reasons for their win when in face no one can fully understand why voters vote they way they do. Assuming that you know the reasons voters vote is “repugnant” according to V.O. Key, Jr. He feels that no one can truly know all the reasons for voting but that through political surveys it has allowed “them to make fairly trustworthy estimates on the characteristics and behaviors of large human populations” (The Responsible Electorate, Woll, 214). Just because a candidate wins does not mean that he is liked by the majority of the population, look at George W. Bush he did not with the popular vote Al Gore won that but he still became President.

The older view about electorates regarded, “the voter as an erratic and irrational fellow susceptible to manipulation by skilled humbugs” (The Responsible Electorate, Woll, 215). By understanding specific information about the voter according to Document 37 one can predict who one will vote for base on certain characteristics. The voter behavior theory is important because it “effects, both potentially and in reality, on candidates and other political leaders” (The Responsible Electorate, Woll, 216).

As interests in civic participation continue to decrease what does this mean for America’s democracy? Will America’s fate be decided by the few who vote or will voting cease to exist? These questions seem absurd but if nothing is done to boost voting interests it could become a reality.

-Harbhajan

Special Interest Groups

We all have our own interests. We all have viewpoints and causes that we are at least somewhat attracted to. This is where interest groups come in. They are essentially organized groups of people that share common ideals or concerns, like the AARP or the NRA. In America especially, they have become politically associated. In the Federalist No.10, James Madison stated, “The latent causes of factions are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degree of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society.” (Document 30, Federalist 10, pg. 174) Everyone feels a need to associate with a larger group that exists to protect beliefs of their own. This is an issue of concern for many Americans. Though people feel a need to belong to an interest group, they are quick to criticize them for interfering with government, “Intellectually we accept the legitimacy of all interest groups; emotionally we separate them into those we support and those we must view with suspicion.” (Document 38, Madison’s Dilemma, pg. 223)
Today interest groups are viewed with suspicion when the public perceives that a specific group has gained too much power. Interest groups achieve their political power through different political figures. In Document 40, David B. Truman outlines some of the different ways that interest groups achieve political power. The decentralized American government allows for independent power centers, which can be manipulated in order to gain access to higher forms of government. The national party system is an example used by Truman because it is essentially large interest groups composed of smaller interest groups. Having access to local organizations means having a “channel” that could eventually lead from the larger party to the government. Truman also describes what influences the power a certain interest group can have, “The extent to which a group achieves effective access to the institutions of government is the resultant of a complex of interdependent factors. For the sake of simplicity these may be classified to in three somewhat overlapping categories: (1) factors relating to a group’s strategic position in the society; (2) factors associated with the internal characteristics of the group; and (3) factors peculiar to the governmental institutions themselves.” (Document 40, The Governmental Process, pg. 236) In other words, an interests group’s power depends on the status and money of the group, their organization and cohesion, and the way the government itself operates. Document 42, “Interest Groups and the American Political System”, also examines the different ways in which special interest groups. The first is that the American decision making system offers many opportunities for policy to be influenced, the second is that because the major parties are open to outside influences of any kind a member with any beliefs could theoretically rise to power, and the third is that the frequency of American elections offer many opportunities for a candidate with certain beliefs to rise to power. (Document 42, Interest Groups and the American Political System, pg. 241) In addition to interest being able to influence bureaucrats, they can also be members of the interest groups themselves. This means that interest groups have a wider sphere of influencing policy because members of the interest groups could be the ones making the policy.
Certainly, all interest groups try and protect their own interests to some extent or another. Some are even lucky enough to have relationships with politicians, who seek their support for power. The American government, as outlined in the Constitution, is designed to try and keep such groups from gaining so much power that they are able to dominate competing views. James Madison was able to predict the different groups that would eventually arise in the American public. He sought not to prevent these groups, but to control their effects, “The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed; and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.” (Document 30, pg. 176) He found that the relief could be found in a republican government. A pure democracy allowed too much opportunity for the majority to overpower the minority, but a republican government offered “delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest;” (Document 30, pg. 177) This delegation would allow for the generalization of views, or, in other words, force those in power to focus on the greater good and not the views of a specific group. Madison also accounted for the opposite reaction, that the elected representatives would be susceptible to the persuasions of different interest groups. He argued that the size and scope of a nation determined the outcome. A small nation would allow more opportunity for the majority to grow and gain the favor of the representatives, but a large nation would have a far greater spectrum of different views fighting for dominance and that would keep any one interest group from gaining much greater power over the others. The larger nation would also keep the interest groups from controlling the elected representatives, “as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts, by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of men being more free, will be more likely to center in men who possess the most attractive merit, and the most diffusive and established in characters.” (Document 30, pg. 177) However, though America is a large nation, interest groups are still able to exert a considerable amount of power over the government. Relationships with politicians are still being formed and maintained, and, whether we like it or not, American citizens are also influenced by interest groups. In Document 38, “Madison’s Dilemma”, Jeffrey M. Berry examines the influence of interest groups. In his article, Berry states that though there are groups in power Madison’s theory is still credible and might even be a goal for modern America, “groups freely participating in the policymaking process, none becoming too powerful because of natural conflict of interest, and government acting as a synthesizer of competing interests. This ideal remains cotemporary America’s hope for making interest group politics compatible with democratic views.” (Document 38, pg. 222) So, instead of preventing special interest groups, Madison’s solution was to create a balance between the protection of a citizen’s freedom to have his beliefs and the protection of an uncorrupted government.
This debate over special interest groups raises a question: doesn’t a person act on his or her own personal beliefs, regardless of involvement in an interest group? Every day each one of us talks and acts based on some of our own principles. Simply because a person may not be affiliated with an interest group does not mean that person is not biased in any way. When it comes down to simple definitions, interest groups are ways of organizing people with the same set of beliefs, ideals, or goals. So, in order to solve the problem modern America has with interest groups gaining to much political power, there need to be strong and educated representatives in government who know how to take in all the opposing views and come up with compromises to benefit the greater good.

-Christie

Bradley Effect Poll Continued...

The Bradley Effect theory could have a possible influence on the 2008 election. The Bradley Effect is believed to contribute to an inaccurate polling system. Some voters fear saying they would chose a white candidate over a non-white candidate which can lead to the discrepancy in the polls. Although many believe that by this day in age the Bradley theory is no longer an issue, there is still a possibility that the polls taken prior to the presidential election will not accurately portray the outcome. The polls are currently favoring Obama but if the Bradley Effect has any influence on voters it could possibly be a false lead. Even though Obama appears to have a lead, when citizens are polled they do not always give a truthful response, which can cause the polls to differ from the actual election results.
- Ellie

Interest Groups

In a country as diverse as the United States with the political freedoms that we as citizens have, there are many issues or ideas that we as individual would like to be fixed or put in place. When people realize that they do have the same ideas as one other it is natural to form groups in order to create a plan in order to see the vision come to reality. However special interests groups have been seen as a threat to the idea of democracy ever since the conception of the country.
James Madison in Federalist 10 saw that the United States would have the tendency to go in this direction. He called what we know as interests groups “factions” and that “ whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interest of the community”. By noticing this trend in people, Madison stated in Federalist 10 that having these groups in government in a pure democracy couldn’t work because of the confusion, and instability it would cause in government. Having too many people would cause “men of factious tempers of local prejudices, or sinister designs, may by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interest of the people.”(Woll Federalist 10 P.177)
Madison’s solution to this issue since he knew that factions in the United States would never be able to be removed completely from the democratic government was to make sure the United States was a republic. Having people in represent the country Madison argued would “ refine and enlarge public views.”(Woll Federalist 10 P.177) and have the people “ whose wisdom may be best discern the true interest in the country”. Madison also acknowledges the potential of corrupt people, but in a republic system it would be really hard for them to extend their power to other states. The Republican form of government allows there to be a checks and balance on these factions.
While it is true that the republic way keeps there from being any instability, and confusion the system only allows the power of government to be in the hands of a few people. Madison wanted groups to share their ideas and to make policies, but did not want them to be too powerful, “ because of natural conflict of interest and government acting as a synthesizer.”
Many interests groups have influence policymaking without becoming too powerful. Although he did not support a candidate, Martin Luther King Jr. by definition was a leader of an interest group because of he was looking for policy to change. Likewise with the all of the women who were involved with universal suffrage, they all lobbied to try to get their ability to vote. Both causes are not the traditional form of interest group in the way that they are not looking for economic advantages and gains.
However even with Madison’s idea of forming a republic so that the interest groups would not get more powerful, did not exactly turn out the way he wanted it to. Jeffery Berry sates “ Those with large resources have always been better represented by interest groups, and the least wealthy have suffered because of their failure to organized (Woll Madison’s Dilemma p.222) While it can be argued that it is the fault of the smaller groups of people that they have not organized well enough, it is still not fair to them that they do not have the representation by the interest groups.
No matter the good this that interest groups have done, their influences in government can really affect the way policy is made. Interest groups have two things that are vital to the political process.
The first thing in the world of politics today, especially in congress reelection is a vital thing in order for a person to maintain the power they hold. Interests groups come into play a lot during election time, because people gravitate towards people who share the same interests in their community. This is “ because interest groups have recourses — mailing list, newsletters, conventions, and volunteers — that can help political parties reach out to group members and other voters” (Woll Interest Groups and the American Political System p 243). Especially since the United States has one of the lowest voter turnouts in all of the democracy it is very crucial for the candidate to be herd about.
An example that was used was the Christian Coalition, whom uses their recourses to help promote the Republican Party because of that stance that they have on issues of the collation have. Likewise goes for the Democratic Party, who usually gets support from Labor Unions especially in times of economic decline. Having these interests groups helps parties “ refine their image and their messages” (Woll Interest Groups and the American Political System P.243) to the American people.
Back to the martin Luther King and Universal suffrage example, the interest groups influence the platform of the candidates running at the time as well. If the candidate had taken a stance that was not to the liking of his constituents then he can risk the chance of getting reelected by the people. So in many cases although interest groups can help refine the candidate’s image and message, if they are not popular with the people, the candidates usually go with the flow of the people.
Secondly, money that is collected by the interest groups helps parties, and candidates run their campaign. Since here in America, party does not base the voting, but is “ candidate centered” interest groups help insure that there is money to promote their candidate win the election. Money helped raised by the interests is very important because candidates need to make sure that they reach every possible voter who has the same ideals as them. If the candidate is very unsure or moderate on the themes of these campaigns, special interests groups help choose out the themes that the candidate will run on. For example earlier in his campaign John McCain was on the fence about the topic of abortion, but somewhere along the lines the Christian Collation influence him to be against it in a way that allows him to still seem moderate.
Money is such an importance in the world of politics that there is Political Action Committee (PCA) which raise money from members of a special group in order to make donations that are over $1,000. While many candidates get up to 3/5 of their money, many times candidates usually reject money depending of the circumstances. “ If party loyalty can have a stronger pull than PAC contribution, then surely the view’s of the congressman’s constituents can also take a precedence over those political action committees.” ( The Misplaced Obsession with PACs p.249) Money in politics is not always guaranteed that a Politian is going to accept the terms the PAC wants them to follow, but it can also mean that politicians can potentially be very rash in their decisions.
As long as we have the freedoms that we do have in the United States, there will always be interest groups. It is a system that has work in the passed, but like any other system comes with some disclaimers that have to be monitored carefully to insure that nothing gets out of hand.



—Angelo
( ps. dr.berry i need to talk to u. )

The Bradley Effect Poll

The Bradley Effect is referred to as an explanation for why the actual outcome in an election diverges from the expected outcome in polls. The Bradley Effect is named after Tom Bradley. Tom Bradley was the first, and only, African-American mayor of Los Angeles and served for five terms. In 1982 Bradley ran for governor of California twice against Republic George Deukmejian and despite the apparent lead in the polls, when election day rolled around Bradley lost to his white opponent. This unexpected outcome is rooted in the racial aspects which today face our country; the thought behind it is that many voters feel the need to lie in order to not be accused of racism or in order to follow what is seen as socially acceptable. Thus this effect was given the term Bradley Effect to explain that although the polls may reflect those who claim they are undecided or will vote for the African-American candidate, when they are left alone in the voting booth their actual decision is much different.

-Isabella