Monthly Archives: July 2003

the place of ideology

I have been approached

by a publisher about the idea of writing a popular guide to politics for new voters,

in time for the 2004 campaign season. I don’t know if this idea will come to pass,

but it’s interesting.

Perhaps the "ideal citizen" would make an

independent and informed judgment about each issue and also each candidate, and

then vote accordingly. But none of us has the time or energy to do this. Instead,

we use shortcuts to make our voting choices. The most common shortcut, I believe,

is to choose a political identity for oneself: for example, "liberal"

or "conservative," or something somewhat more complicated, like "pro-choice

conservative" or "social liberal/fiscal conservative." We then

learn how to identify the candidates who fit this label, based on clues in their

rhetoric and a few issues that serve as proxies. If we are better-than-average

citizens, then we choose an ideology in a provisional way, trying to stay open-minded

and to understand the merits of alternative views. But we still use ideology as

a cue. CIRCLE surveys show that people

who cannot place themselves on an ideological scale or identify the differences

between Democrats and Republicans also do not vote.

Thus I may propose

to write a book that begins with a quiz, designed to identify the reader’s starting

ideology or political identity. If a reader chooses "don’t know" as

an answer to any question, he or she will be sent to pages in the book that introduce

the relevant issue. Once the reader has completed the quiz and identified a provisional

ideology, the rest of the book will help him or her to (a) think critically about

the pros and cons of this ideology and (b) learn how to identify candidates who

espouse it.

working with power

I’m reading all the back issues

of the Higher

Education Exchange, in order to write a mini-report for the editors about

their future strategy for the journal. One generally excellent article is Edward

Royce’s "The Practice of the Public Intellectual" (1999). In passing,

Royce makes a point that I consider very important. He writes: "public intellectuals

can work with those subject to power as well as against those who

exercise power." Working with ordinary people (or with especially

oppressed people) is an entirely different form of engagement from "speaking

truth to power." It requires more listening, more quiet work within institutions

and communities, more development of personal relationships and trust, more building

on local assets—and less dramatic rhetoric. Working against the powerful

is an important role for intellectuals to play. But working "with those

subject to power" seems equally valuable (and interesting).

new research on civic ed

I was in Boston today, for the International

Society for Political Psychology‘s annual conference. I went to give a presentation

on The Civic Mission of Schools.

While there, I heard interesting papers on civic education and on the effects

of public deliberation. I’ve summarized the latter papers on the DD-Net

blog. Regarding civic education:

  • Jon Miller of Northwestern

    University Medical School presented a very important study that has followed 3,000

    young Americans from 1987 to the present. Based on the data that his group has

    collected, they are able to show what factors predict political engagement in

    early adulthood. The courses taken in high school and students’ performance in

    these courses do not seem to matter at all. This finding is somewhat at odds with

    the Civic Mission of Schools, which claims that school-based civic education

    works, at least when done well.

    There’s a lot more to be said on this topic.

    For example, Miller’s work doesn’t distinguish between the kind of civic education

    that we would recommend and ordinary civic education. Furthermore, ordinary civic

    education does seem to increase students’ knowledge, which can itself be

    considered a good. Still, it should give us pause to note that there was no observed

    connection between taking a government/civics class in high school and voting

    later on.

  • Arthur "Skip" Lupia of Michigan is writing a very

    interesting book that applies insights from cognitive science to the question

    of civic education. There are obstacles to learning about civics that are hard-wired,

    he believes; and good teaching must address these obstacles. For example, when

    two equally respectable people say opposite things—which often happens in

    politics—we tend not to put either view into our long-term memories. I think

    it is undeniable that biological constraints are relevant. But I would have to

    be persuaded that the findings of cognitive science were very solid before I would

    want them to influence policy.

the Hatch/Wyden bill

The

Senate has passed a bill that would represent a very important experiment in

public deliberation. It is the Wyden-Hatch

bill, now section 620 of S. 1, the Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement

Act of 2003. If this provision survives the rest of the legislative process, it

will "provide for a nationwide public debate about improving the health care

system to provide every American with the ability to obtain quality, affordable

health care coverage; and …. provide for a vote by Congress on the recommendations

that result from the debate."

A large and diverse commission of stakeholders,

experts, and citizens would be appointed that would hold hearings; issue a public

"Health Report to the American People"; hold facilitated public deliberations

across the country (based on the Report); and then generate final recommendations.

The President would be required to comment formally on the results, and Congress

would have to hold formal hearings. The bill embodies the most advanced thinking

about how to organize public deliberations, and it would be a wonderful showcase.

limitations of the Dean model

Apparently, Gov. Howard Dean’s extraordinary fundraising success

is due to the Internet. In a broadcast email (read

full text here), Mike Weiksner, Chairman of e-thePeople,

writes, "It started out last December when a small cabal of online pundits

started posting supportive commentary about a relatively unknown candidate, Dr.

Howard Dean. These pundits posted their commentary on ‘blogs’." The next

step was Dean’s launch of a campaign website,

which described his positions and requested donations. "Then, www.meetup.com

got involved. Meetup.com hosts informal get-togethers for like-minded individuals,

and offered to help Dean to link supporters together." Finally, MoveOn

held its unofficial online Democratic "primary," which Dean won. Mainly

as a result of these events, he is first in fundraising, having raised $10.1 million

in 2003. He is a leading candidate instead of a protest vote.

Whenever

someone scores a political success by using an unconventional tactic, it is natural

to ask whether the change will last and whether it will benefit or harm the political

system overall. But it is important not to generalize hastily from the first candidate

who uses the new methods. For instance, an insurgent leftist candidate could invent

a tactic that is ultimately used most effectively by mainstream conservatives.

Furthermore, novel tactics may play out very differently once they’ve become routine.

Thus I think we should be cautious about predicting the effects of a new tactic

or technology on the political system over the long haul. But I’ll risk some guesses:

  • Campaigns that successfully exploit peer-to-peer networks and advanced technology

    will have highly educated, youthful, reasonably affluent constituencies. I do

    not know the demographics of Dean supporters, but it stands to reason that young

    urban techies would gravitate to a politician who is socially liberal, fiscally

    conservative, anti-war, and conspicuously educated. ("Dr. Dean," the

    newspapers call him.) It wasn’t Al Sharpton who won the "blog primary."

  • If

    these tactics work, they will benefit independent candidates who have little or

    no institutional base but who take unconventional positions—to the disadvantage

    of organized movements such as unions, churches, and parties. Dean is a quirky

    guy from a small and quirky state; his success contrasts starkly with the troubles

    now facing Rep. Dick Gephardt, an urban midwesterner who gradually built support

    in unions, his state and national party, and Congress. As a general matter, I

    think that average people (those without special skills or capital) desperately

    need such organized institutions to represent them. Therefore, it may not be a

    good thing if someone like Howard Dean can easily beat someone like Dick Gephardt

    by using new technologies. (And I say this as someone who would probably vote

    for Dean over Gephardt on the issues.)

  • These tactics will work best in

    multi-person competitions with small numbers of voters. In such races, a candidate

    can stake out an unusual position, capture a small but energetic constituency,

    and come in first. In contrast, two-person races, especially at the national level,

    require mass mobilization. Blogs and peer-to-peer networks don’t have the necessary

    reach. Imagine that Dean won the Democratic nomination on the strength of the

    Internet. I believe he would be crushed by George Bush, who has a party and other

    organized political movements behind him. In fact, Bush has raised three times

    more than Dean this year, relying on just a few fundraisers. One could argue that

    blogs and peer-to-peer networks will grow until they are truly mass phenomena.

    I doubt it. Their growth will be limited by shortages of education, background

    knowledge, and motivation.