I was supposed to keynote the League of Women Voters’ state meeting yesterday, but the event was cancelled due to the weather. I do hate to waste a good rant, so here–for those willing to wade through a longer-than-usual post–are the (slightly edited) observations I’d planned to share.
_____________
The news—you will be unsurprised to learn—is not good. At the end of March, the Center for Civic Literacy, which I direct, will join the Indiana Bar Foundation and IU Northwest to release data from the latest Civic Health Index. I don’t intend to step on that release, but I will tell you that Indiana’s civic health is not good. If Indiana was a person, she’d be on life support.
Indiana had one of the lowest turnout rates in the last midterm elections. And although Hoosiers are rarely in the vanguard of anything, we do remain on the cutting edge when it comes to voter suppression tactics—to begin with, we were among the very first states to pass a so-called “voter ID” law. The legal challenge to that law was unsuccessful largely because its actual operation was speculative at that point; since the Seventh Circuit rejected that challenge, it has become clear even to the Judges who voted to uphold the law that its sole purpose was to discourage voting by poor and minority voters who might be expected to vote for Democrats. Voter ID laws were a “remedy” for a non-existent problem—in-person voter fraud.
But the World’s Worst Legislature certainly isn’t resting on its laurels: this session, lawmakers have voted down efforts to change the time the polls close to 8:00—Indiana’s polls close at 6:00, much earlier than most states. This makes it much more difficult for non-professional working people to vote. Lawmakers have also left in place the ability of a single member of a county election board to prevent the establishment of a voting center. Wouldn’t want to make voting more convenient!
Laws making voting more onerous are only one reason among many for low voter turnout and disappointing citizen engagement. I am going to suggest three others that combine to depress interest in government and the electoral process: gerrrymandering, widespread and growing distrust of government, and low levels of civic literacy.
Let’s start with gerrymandering.
The goal of partisan redistricting is to draw as many “safe” seats as possible—more for the party in charge, of course, but also for the minority party, because in order to retain control, the winners need to cram as many of the losers into as few districts as possible, and those districts are safer still. While we have engaged in this effort since Vice-President Gerry’s time (and he signed the Declaration of Independence!), the advent of computers has made the process far, far more efficient.
Neighborhoods, cities, towns, townships—even precincts—are evaluated solely on the basis of voting history, and then broken up to meet the political needs of mapmakers. Numbers are what drive the results—not compactness of districts, not communities of interest, and certainly not democratic competitiveness. There are several consequences of this effort to retain the political edge, none pretty but some worse than others:
1) The interests of cities, neighborhoods, etc., are less likely to be represented.
2) Safe districts create sloppy legislation: if you are guaranteed victory every election, it is hard to be motivated and interested, easy to become lazy and arrogant.
3) Party preoccupation with gerrymandering consumes an enormous amount of money and energy that could arguably be better directed (although given the Indiana legislature’s fixation on disabling environmental regulations, enabling religious discrimination and privatizing education, maybe not.)
4) Safe seats allow politicians to scuttle popular measures—or sponsor unpopular ones—without fear of retribution: if you doubt me, just take a look at the current General Assembly! The avalanche of truly awful bills has kept me supplied with blogging fodder, but I’d happily find other things to blog about.
5) Lack of competitiveness makes it impossible to trace campaign donations, since unopposed candidates send their unneeded money to those running in the dwindling number of competitive districts. When the folks with “Family Friendly Libraries” send a check to Rep. Censor, who is unopposed, he then sends it to Sen. MeToo, who is in one of the few hot races; but Sen. MeToo’s campaign report shows only a contribution from Rep. Censor.
More important than all of these negative consequences, however, is the fact that lack of competitiveness breeds voter apathy and reduced political participation. Why vote when the result is foreordained? Why donate to a sure loser? For that matter, unless you are trying to buy political influence for some reason, why donate to a sure winner? Why volunteer or put up a yard sign, or attend a political event when those efforts are clearly irrelevant?
It isn’t only voters who lack incentives for participation: it becomes increasingly difficult to recruit credible candidates to run on the ticket of the “sure loser” party. The result is that in many of these races, there is either no candidate running from the minority party, or a token, where voters are left with a choice between the anointed and the annoying—marginal candidates who offer no new ideas, no energy, and no challenge of any sort.
We hear a lot about voter apathy, as if it were a moral deficiency of the voters. Allow me to suggest that it may be a highly rational response to noncompetitive politics. Watch those same “apathetic” folks at the local zoning hearing when a liquor store is trying to locate down the block! I would suggest that people save their efforts for places where those efforts might actually count, and thanks to the increasing lack of competitiveness, those places may NOT include the voting booth.
Gerrymandering has also contributed mightily to the polarization of politics, and the gridlock and disaffection such polarization causes. When a safe district disenfranchizes one party, the only way to oppose an incumbent is in the primary—and that generally means that the challenge will come from the “flank” or extreme. In competitive districts, nominees know that they have to run to the middle in order to win a general election. When the primary is, in effect, the general election, the battle takes place among the party faithful, who also tend to be the most ideological voters. So Republican incumbents will be challenged from the Right and Democratic incumbents will be attacked from the Left. Even where those challenges fail, they are a powerful incentive for the incumbent to toe the line–to placate the most rigid elements of each party. Instead of the system working as intended, with both parties nominating folks they think will be most likely to appeal to the broad middle, we get nominees who play to the base— the most extreme voters on each side of the philosophical divide—because those are the voters who show up at the polls.
In “The Big Sort,” Bill Bishop detailed the increasing tendency of Americans to live in areas where others share their values. We can’t eliminate such residential “self-sorting,” a phenomenon that has given us bright blue cities in very red states, but we can and should eliminate the intentional gerrymandering that exacerbates it. If we don’t, it really won’t matter who wins election, because the winner will encounter the intransigence and gridlock that is such a vivid consequence of the current system. That gridlock adds to the pervasive cynicism about government, which further reduces participation.
These truly nefarious effects of partisan redistricting are a major reason we have seen so much erosion of trust in government, but they are hardly the only reason.
So let’s talk about trust—or more accurately, the lack thereof.
Ever since Ronald Reagan said that government was the problem, not the solution, pundits and politicians have been beating on government. The people who want services but don’t want to pay taxes to pay for those services have crippled government’s ability to do many things we want and expect government to do. That disdain for the collective mechanism we call government is a big part of the problem—but there are other reasons as well for our current cynicism and distrust.
The problem is, that distrust infects other aspects of our communal lives.
Political scientists have accumulated a significant amount of data suggesting that over the past decades, Americans have become less trusting of each other. They warn that this erosion of interpersonal social trust—sometimes called social capital—has very negative implications for our ability to govern ourselves.
In 2009, I wrote a book titled Distrust, American Style, in which I argued that the “generalized social trust” our society requires depends upon our ability to trust our social and governing institutions.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but fish rot from the head. When we no longer trust the integrity of our social and governing institutions, that distrust infects everything else.
Many people get it backwards: they blame America’s growing diversity for the erosion of social trust. I disagree. The cure for what ails us doesn’t lie in building a wall between the United States and Mexico, discriminating against Muslims or LGBT folks, or recasting America as a “Christian Nation.” The remedy is to make our governmental, religious and civic institutions trustworthyagain. And we can’t do that without recognizing the pre-eminent role of government, which is an essential “umpire,” enforcing the rules of fair play and setting the standard for our other institutions, both private and nonprofit.
If I am correct, and government has an important role in building trust and social capital, we have a problem. There is a widespread perception right now that our governing institutions are not trustworthy—and there is plenty of evidence that American elected officials—even the non-crazy ones—have pursued policies or behaviors that are actually destructive of social trust. I would include in those policies the “privatization” and “reinventing government” ideology that has grown over the past thirty plus years, which has had the unintended consequence of “hollowing out” not just government, but a substantial segment of the nonprofit and voluntary sector. If healthy and functioning government agencies, and a robust civil society are necessary to the maintenance of trustworthy institutions, such “hollowing out” makes their task infinitely more difficult.
Since Distrust, American Style was written, it has gotten worse. We have had Citizens United and its progeny, we have had a Great Recession brought about by inadequate regulation of venal and greedy financial institutions, and we have seen daily reports of government corruption and incompetence—some true, some not. Which brings me to today’s media environment.
It is always tempting to assert that we live in times that are radically unlike past eras—that somehow, the challenges we face are not only fundamentally different than the problems that confronted our forebears, but worse; to worry that children growing up today are subject to more pernicious influences than children of prior generations. (In Stephanie Coontz’ felicitous phrase, there is a great deal of nostalgia for “the way we never were.”) I grew up in the 1950s, and can personally attest to the fact that all of our contemporary, misty-eyed evocations of that time are revisionist nonsense. The widespread belief that 50s-era Americans all lived like the characters from shows like “Father Knows Best” or “Leave it to Beaver” is highly inaccurate, to put it mildly. (Ask the African-Americans who were still relegated to separate restrooms and drinking fountains in much of the American South, or the women who couldn’t get equal pay for equal work or a credit rating separate from their husbands.)
Nevertheless—even conceding our human tendency to overstate the effects of social change for good or ill—it is impossible to understand the current cynicism about government without recognizing the profound social changes that have been wrought by communication technologies, most prominently the Internet.
We live today in an incessant babble of information. Some of that information is transmitted through hundreds of cable and broadcast television stations, increasing numbers of which are devoted to news and commentary twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. But it’s the Web that has had the greatest impact on the way we live our daily lives. We read news and commentary from all over the world on line, we shop for goods and services, we communicate with our friends and families, and we consult web-based sources for everything from medical advice to housekeeping hints to comedy routines. When we don’t know something, we Google it. The web is rapidly becoming a repository of all human knowledge—not to mention human rumors, hatreds, gossip, trivia and paranoid fantasies. Picking our way through this landscape requires new skills, new ways of accessing, sorting and evaluating the credibility and value of what we see and hear—and most of us have yet to develop those skills.
Today, anyone with access to the internet can hire a few reporters or “content providers” and create her own media outlet. One result is that the previously hierarchical nature of public knowledge is rapidly diminishing. The time-honored “gatekeeper” function of the press—when journalists decided what constituted news and verified information before publishing it—will soon be a thing of the past, if it isn’t already.
The Web allows like-minded people to connect with each other and form communities that span traditional geographical and political boundaries. It has encouraged—and enabled—a wide array of political and civic activism, and that’s great, but it has also created and facilitated what Eli Pariser calls “the filter bubble”–the ability to live within our preferred “realities” with others who share our biases.
The information revolution is particularly pertinent to the issue of trust in our civic and governing institutions. At no time in human history have citizens been as aware of every failure of competence, every allegation of corruption or malfeasance. At no time have we been as swamped with propaganda and partisan spin. Politicians like to talk about “low-information” voters, but even the most detached American citizen cannot escape hearing about institutional failures on a daily basis, whether those failures are true or not. It may be the case that corruption and ineptitude are no worse than they ever were, but it is certainly the case that information and misinformation about public wrongdoing or incompetence is infinitely more widespread in today’s wired and connected world.
When people do not respect the enterprise that is government, when they suspect their lawmakers have been bought and paid for, is it any wonder they remain detached from it?
Finally, there’s our astonishing lack of civic literacy. Research confirms a correlation between civic knowledge and civic participation, and Americans overall are civically illiterate.
Only 36 percent of Americans can correctly name the three branches of government. Fewer than half of 12th grade students can describe the meaning of federalism. Only 35% of teenagers can correctly identify “We the People” as the first three words of the Constitution. This isn’t a new phenomenon: in a 1998 survey, nearly 94% of teenagers could name the Fresh Prince of Bel Air, but only 2.2 percent could name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Most Americans (58%) are unable to identify even a single department in the United States Cabinet. The National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) 2006 report on civics competencies found that barely a quarter of the nation’s 4th, 8th and 12th graders are proficient in civics, with only five percent of seniors able to identify and explain checks on presidential power. Only 43% of high school seniors could name the two major political parties; only 11% knew the length of a Senator’s term; and only 23% could name the first President of the United States. One scholar has reacted to the 2010 NAEP results by worrying that the amount of civic knowledge in this country may be “too low to sustain democratic governance.”
Here’s the bottom line: when citizens do not understand the most basic structure and purpose of their governing institutions, we shouldn’t be surprised if they fail to recognize the multiple ways that structure affects them, as well as their obligations to their fellow citizens.
When you don’t know that there are three branches of government, and you have a zoning problem or a social security issue—you don’t know where to start, where to go to resolve the issue. You find the system unresponsive and intimidating—and you opt out.
If we are going to encourage more people to participate, to vote, to become involved in electing and monitoring our government at all levels, we have to do at least three things: we have to work for laws that will enable rather than discourage voting, beginning with nonpartisan redistricting; we have to start talking about the things that government does well, while working to make it more ethical and accountable; and we have to raise the level of civic knowledge, so people will know how to do those things and why they matter.
Piece of cake, right?
You seem to be an intelligent woman so I wonder why it is you don’t tell people the truth…that elections are held to make people think they have a voice in government. Everybody that pays attention realize the political parties select the candidate(s) to run…solicit the cash to pay for them to run…and after the election (where usually only half the electorate turn out to vote) place the party loyal into government jobs. Once the candidate is in office, reelection solicitations begin. This process continues until the next election and of course, votes are sold to insure those donors will donate again so our little oligarchy system can pass for a democracy.
Each state reelects representatives based on how much of the government pie he or she brings back to the state. This may be the biggest problem with our form of government since it ignores the good of all the people.
I support term limits to eliminate the need for reelection funding and until term limits are in place…I vote against all incumbents. If you really want to display civic responsibility…sign the petition at http://www.termlimits.org.
Our system has always favored the wealthy and perhaps rightly so, but if you want a true democracy…each persons vote has to be important and until you remove money from the equation, those votes will remain insignificant.
That was brilliant. Thank you.
You have clearly and concisely identified the problems. Thank you for articulating so well the issues and their effects.
Solving the problems is going to be very hard when those in power do not recognize the problems as such and have a vested interest in keeping the status quo or even cementing the rules to favor their power.
I have not supported term limits in the past because I believed that voters already had the ability to remove those they no longer supported by voting them out of office. Doug makes a compelling argument for term limits in an era of voter distrust and apathy, political corruption and privatization. Is there another solution? I hope to hear from those who have rebuttal to his stance.
Sheila says that democracy is dying and Doug says that its already dead. The difference being whether we have to rely on evolution or revolution to solve the problem. As compared to accepting another Dark Ages for our grandchildren.
Just for the sake of argument, as a starting point for discussion, let’s see where this assumption leads us. We can save democracy democratically. How.
My opinion. It is necessary to artificially recreate the conditions of yesteryear when democracy flourished to make it work again. Those conditions? Eliminating the threat of oligarchy by the elimination of it’s most potent weapon, campaign financing. In other words reversing the current direction established by the Supreme Court, legislatively.
The changes to the law would, compared to many, be quite simple in design. No big media campaigning. Public funded public debate at both the Primary and election stages as the only allowable means to recruit votes.
Am I unrealistic in believing that evolution can be chosen over revolution or Dark Ages? Only history will tell us the answer. Based on 2016 in my opinion. That year will either be recorded as the rebirth of democracy or the year of no turning back from the Dark Ages except by revolution.
Oligarchs will not cripple oligarchy. We, the people only have that power. It takes only some imagination to dream up can we.
Will we is the unknown. The answer will be cast in stone by the makeup of the 115th Congress.
As a White Male Baby-Boomer I grew up during the Golden Days or Good Old Days. How many brilliant minds were lost to prejudice and discrimination that was rampant during that era we will never know.
Years ago during the Cold War I read a brief article from a Soviet Source which mocked our Two Party System. The essence of it was we had a One Party System and did not know it. The wealthy controlled the power levers including: The selection process of who could run for office, who would receive campaign financing, and favorable Media Coverage.
Our system today is one of cascading failures over decades, which has resulted in a more purified Oligopoly. It is difficult to vote or be involved when critical parts in the system are sabotaged.
I recently read an article in the NY Times (1/26/2015) by Zephyr Teachout commenting on the arrest and indictment of Sheldon Silver, the Speaker of the New York Assembly for 20 years on charges mail and wire fraud, extortion and receiving bribes. He said – “Corruption exists when institutions and officials charged with serving the public serve their own ends.” He further writes – “Think of campaign contributions as the gateway drug to bribes.” Also he states, “The structure of private campaign has essentially pre-corrupted our politicians. “New York lawmakers can’t carry water for two masters when in office.”
Thank you, Sheila, (genuinely) for all of this really helpful information and for the answers to so many questions. And now, in order to protect this democracy from a counterclockwise swirl, the real challenge will be for us to come up with an answer to more than 50% of the population’s question: Why bother? This will be the most important marketing challenge that we face and needs to be addressed now. It’s going to take a really strong, orchestrated, and well funded marketing campaign to turn it around.
The 50’s did have wide-eyed young folks who knew, “In this great country…..,” that the world was in the palms of their hands and that they could accomplish anything they dreamed of. Accomplished since then, we have what should be wide-eyed enthusiasm that instead has become, ” Why bother? Flush it.”
Big money untrammeled is one problem. We need another Teddy Roosevelt to bust up the trusts. Another problem is religious ignorance and intolerance. I don’t know what will upend that. We surely should put more emphasis on Science and Civics. Civics education, particularly, needs to be in the 12th grade. There is no knowledge of more importance for graduating seniors. They need to become aware of the importance of being effective citizens immediately before leaving high school. In Arkansas, we have half a year of Civics and half a year of economics in the 9th grade.
Louie.“Think of campaign contributions as the gateway drug to bribes.”
Beautiful!!
My little sticker on the back of my aging vehicle Ruby, says, “I am a bright blue dot in a really red state.” So far, no wacko has tried to Ruby and me off the road because of a sticker. When a probably inebriated influential Nashvillian did that to a dad (with just such a sticker on his car) who had just picked up his child from school, running them off the road and causing a wreck, I knew that even bumper or window stickers could be cause for road rage.
The world, not just the League of Women Voters, should have heard Sheila’s intended speech. Ahhhh…but for the rotten weather. And the same world should be able to read the great comments (pro and con) expressed here today and every day. If it weren’t for Sheila and others who offer such great avenues for venting, we might all be crazier than we already are. We have to work right where we are to change the blatantly obvious voter discrimination and district maneuvering going on in every state. Our little Southern state is full of just such sleight-of-hand tricks and skullduggery. It’s ugly and it must stop.
Now, pause to think of what went down with NBC Nightly News’ Brian Williams and what is going down now with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. Think the playing field is level? Think again.
I hope the League of Women Voters can reschedule Sheila’s talk for a day with better weather. No telling when that would be.
Make that “…no wacko has tried to run Ruby and me off the road….”
Money is to politics what force is to reason.
Between beating the drum for term limits and beating the drum for civic literacy and public participation in our republic, I’ll take literacy. Term limits is a relatively easy but ineffective quick fix. The idea that 18% participated in the most recent election allowed the demagogues to take office, gave comfort to the ones in office and allowed people to shout that the people spoke when 78% of the voters were silent. Sheila’s comments build a compelling case for literacy and participation, but do we actually need to be convinced that a large and informed voter turnout builds a strong democracy? The quick and easy “fixes”, like term limits don’t fix the most difficult problem: Why is it such a problem to effectively motivate the public to do the hard thing and become informed and participate when their lives and fortunes are at stake? All those empty faux heroic claims about “give me liberty or give me death” are hollow, when it’s shown that you don’t have to die for your country if you choose to actually live for it. That is the difficult task, but worth the effort, because it can save the republic. True patriots educate themselves and vote intelligently, but it’s the kind of patriotism that works quietly, without fanfare, but it can be dynamite.
Sheila,
As a member of the League of Women Voters of Indianapolis and a member of a LWV national task force on redistricting I so appreciate your comments concerning the pernicious effects of gerrymandering. I regret that that our weather got in the way of hearing you in person. I was supposed to share a few comments yesterday about the redistricting coalition that the LWV of Indiana and Common Cause have worked to create on behalf of redistricting reform. We are following closely HB1003 and are lobbying for expert citizens to be appointed to the study commission that will undoubtedly come of the 2015 General Assembly. This bill is our best hope of getting redistricting reform in place before the 2020 census and the maps are redrawn in 2021. The League of Women Voters is a non partisan political organization doing everything we can in ‘making democracy work’. Thank you for everything you are doing to promote civic literacy and helping to keep this great experiment of democracy alive and well.
There is simply no evidence that people in Indiana are being turned away at the polls because they’re required to show photo ID. Rather the chief reason turnout is down is because we have inflated voter registration rolls with scores of deceased voters on the rolls along with voters registered at multiple residencies. This artificially drives down the turnout rate.
Sheila – Your prescriptions for what ails us are right on. In a recent interview at the Brookings Institute, Sen. Bernie Sanders said that if 2 million people gave him $100 each to run for president, that would be 20% of what the Koch brothers alone are prepared to spend.
It’s said that Members of Congress must spend hours each day to raise the thousands to be competitive in their next campaigns. The needed amount per day increased with the advent of Citizens United and unlimited expenditures by independent PACs.
I keep hoping that the onerous task of constant begging will grow so old that all politicians will make the needed changes in campaign finance laws. Until then, education, social media, and voting will have to do their best to keep democracy alive and the privatizers at bay.
Thank you for a very well written piece. I would hope the LWV would reschedule so you can present it as it should be. A great number of our citizens need to read this, get up and take part in this society.
I note a great deal of political fear among many people. Fear of government, fear of governmental reprisals if they stand up and speak their minds. And they have reason to fear. This government, at all levels, is out of control. It is up to the people to bring it back.
Like a bully, government and politicians really fear the people, so they behave boorishly, threaten, steal from and even kill to boost fear in the people. When one is scared of the government, one tends to walk a straight and narrow path, not looking around, keeping one’s head down and hoping no one notices them. Government can do what it wants at that point.
The government still respects the rule of law, and the rights of the people to elect their representatives. Otherwise, they would not go to such lengths to go around laws and liberties that still exist in this nation and would simply remove them. They may very well be in the process of doing that.
As with a bully, when you turn around and smack them a good one, they usually back down. It is imperative that if this nation, this state, this city, are going to survive with any semblance of freedom, that the people stand up to this government and demand positive change.
Sheila, I agree with you 100%. I live in Westfield, and very rarely ever have a challenger to the republican in any category for local offices. I always vote, but unfortunately it winds up being for the lesser evil. I hope the LWV can have an positive impact on the redistricting issues.