Class Notes and Discussion Questions – Political Participation
Americans are less likely to vote than are Europeans. The reasons for this difference are complex. First, the United States has an almost bewildering number of elective offices, an estimated 521,000 positions. Voters’ enthusiasm for elections is surely deflated by the sheer volume of names with which them must familiarize themselves. In Europe, in contrast, each voter generally is confronted with only one or two offices to fill per election, so that electoral decisions do not impose a burden upon the voter. Even in Europe, however, voter apathy increases with the number of elections. Too much democracy, in terms of either selecting government offices or making policy, is exhausting.
A second explanation for the poor turnout rate involves the mechanics of voting procedures. It is common in other countries for voting to be compulsory by law and for registration to be carried out automatically by the government. Mandatory voting would probably fail to survive a constitutional challenge in this country on First Amendment grounds; just as people have a right not to speak (like refusing to salute the flag), it would seem to follow that they have a right to refrain from voting-a form of speech-as well.
Simplifying registration is a different matter. Republicans in particular have tended to resist any easing of registration standards. President Bush vetoed legislation designed to enable voters to register when obtaining a driver’s license, legislation passed in 1993 and in effect as of 1995. As of summer 1997, the partisan breakdown of new voters remained unknown.
The weakness of political parties must also be considered. Unlike in the past, parties today lack the patronage and welfare incentives to mobilize voting blocs. Moreover, the impact of progressive reforms-such as the Australian ballot and stricter registration requirements for voting-have contributed to the loss of party influence over the electorate.
All these factors combine to explain why people do not vote in large numbers in the United States. Yet it is equally important to comprehend the other side of the issue, namely, the factors that do make people vote. Research underscores the significance of personal characteristics in motivating a person’s decision to participate on election day. Education is the most critical variable. As their educational level increases, individuals develop a stronger sense of civic duty and a greater interest in, and knowledge of, politics. But education alone is not a sufficient explanation, since voting rates have continued to decline despite the proliferation of college degrees in recent decades. Another characteristic that correlates with voting is age; older voters are more likely to participate. But here again, overall voting rates have diminished while the population has aged. Something other than personal characteristics therefore seem to play a role in election turnout: the characteristics of the election itself. Most recent elections have presented voters with uninspiring candidates who failed to stimulate interest or excitement. The lack of a realigning issue has made politics boring. However, turnout reaches notable peaks in certain elections, as in 1964 (a sharp ideological choice between candidates) and 1992 (an economy in recession and the charismatic candidate H. Ross Perot). Voters participate when aroused to do so.
Considering how few tangible rewards participation produces, it is not surprising that over 40 percent of Americans either do not participate at all or limit their participation to voting. Compared to citizens of other democracies,
Americans vote less but engage more in communal activity.
Who participates in politics is an important issue. Because those who participate are likely to have more political influence than those who do not. Higher education is the single most important factor in producing a high degree of participation. Older persons and men are also likely to be active.
Blacks participate more than whites of equal socioeconomic status.
Although voter turnout has decreased over the past twenty years, it seems that other forms of participation, such as writing letters to public officials and engaging in demonstrations, have increased. There are many ways in which
Americans can participate in politics-ranging from voting, which a majority do with some regularity, to belonging to a political club or organization, which only a few do.
In an elaborate analysis of the ways people participate, Verba and Nie discovered six different kinds of citizens.
1. Inactives participate little if at all (22 percent).
2. Parochial participants neither vote nor engage in campaigns or community activity, but they do contact officials about specific, often personal, problems.
3. Communalists engage in community activities of a nonpartisan nature.
4. Voting specialists regularly vote but do little else.
5. Campaigners vote and also participate in conflictual political activities, such as campaigns.
6. Complete activists participate in all forms of political activity (11 percent).
The absence of citizen involvement in other countries carries a cost in that governments have a freer hand to operate without much public scrutiny. As levels of participation escalate, governments come under greater pressure to exchange responsible behavior for openness. B. Guy Peters has found this pattern to exist in contemporary Great Britain: “The increasingly participative nature of British citizens … is making them increasingly resentful of their lack of involvement in government, and there is now a need to reexamine the secrecy and limited democracy of British government.” Thus the participative character of Americans has arguably compelled the government to address public concerns despite the weakness of political parties.
Discussion Questions
1. Why is voter participation lower in the United States than in European countries? Would one not expect voter participation to be higher here, because more offices are up for election?
2. What have been the policy consequences of a broader electorate? Which extensions of the suffrage have changed policy outcomes, and which have mattered little?
3. What could be done to increase voter turnout? Would a program of reforms to increase voting turnout need to focus on the cost of voting, the benefits, or both? Which do current reform proposals do?
4. Why not simply make voting compulsory? If you do not want to use coercion to induce voting, why not pay people to vote? If elections are a public good in which all citizens have a stake, why should we depend on unpaid voluntary action?
5. Why is a large turnout a good thing? We say, rightly, that we have free speech in this country, even though most people have nothing particularly controversial or interesting to say. Why is our country less democratic if people simply choose not to vote?
Political Participation – from Bill Clinton to Joe Biden
Introduction
Political participation forms the cornerstone of a functioning democracy, representing the myriad ways in which citizens can express their preferences, hold governments accountable, and influence the political landscape. This essay seeks to chart the evolution of political participation in the United States from the presidency of Bill Clinton through to the current tenure of Joe Biden. It delves into the changing dynamics of citizen engagement, the role of technology and media, and the impact of pivotal national and international events on the American political process.
Political Landscape during Bill Clinton’s Presidency (1993-2001)
Clinton’s Governance and Public Engagement
During Bill Clinton’s presidency, America saw a significant shift in political participation as traditional grassroots movements began to interplay with emerging digital technology. Clinton’s centrist policies, along with his charismatic approach to public engagement, drew both support and opposition, sparking various forms of political participation. His two terms were marked by a focus on economic prosperity and social welfare, shaping public engagement around these themes.
Key Political Issues and Participation
The key issues of Clinton’s era, such as healthcare reform, the debate over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and the handling of the Branch Davidian siege in Waco, galvanized both public support and dissent. The debates over these matters often played out in town hall meetings and public forums, which were mainstays of political participation at the time.
Influence of Technology and Media
The advent of the internet during Clinton’s presidency had a groundbreaking impact on political participation. For the first time, information could flow freely and quickly across the globe, enabling citizens to become more informed and engaged. This era saw the birth of online forums and early digital campaigns, laying the groundwork for future political engagement and the rapid dissemination of political information.
Grassroots Movements and Policy-Making
Grassroots movements under Clinton’s presidency, including those advocating for environmental protection and healthcare reform, demonstrated the growing power of citizen-led initiatives in shaping policy. This period underscored the potential of organized civic involvement to bring about substantial changes at the highest levels of government.
Transition and Transformation (2001-2008)
The Bush Years and Post-9/11 Response
The transition to George W. Bush’s presidency brought a different tone to political participation, particularly in the wake of the September 11 attacks. The national tragedy unified the American public, resulting in a surge of patriotic expressions of political participation. However, as the Bush administration initiated the War on Terror and the subsequent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, public opinion and participation began to polarize.
Shifts in Political Participation Post-9/11
Post-9/11, political participation took on new forms, ranging from increased community involvement and military enlistment to public demonstrations against war. This period was characterized by heightened security concerns, which influenced public discourse and the manner in which citizens engaged with the state.
Impact of the Iraq War on Public Opinion
As the Iraq War progressed, it became a defining issue for political participation in America. Opposition to the war sparked a resurgence of anti-war activism reminiscent of the Vietnam War era, leading to mass demonstrations, vigils, and public calls for policy change. The war’s contentious nature and the administration’s response to it significantly shaped the political climate and the ways in which Americans chose to participate in their democracy.
The Obama Era and the Rise of Digital Campaigning (2009-2016)
Obama’s Digital and Grassroots Campaign Strategies
President Barack Obama’s election campaigns in 2008 and 2012 marked a revolutionary change in the way political participation was conducted. Leveraging the power of the Internet and social media, Obama’s team connected with millions of Americans, especially younger voters, through platforms that had not been used as extensively in previous elections. These digital strategies democratized participation, enabling supporters to organize grassroots fundraising, volunteer, and spread messages with unprecedented efficiency and scale.
Role of Social Media in Mobilization
The Obama years saw social media emerge as a central arena for political discourse and mobilization. Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube became integral to how people engaged with political content, discussed issues, and mobilized for causes. This period underscored the participatory power of social media, allowing citizens to contribute to political conversations, coordinate actions, and influence public opinion directly from their devices.
Citizen Engagement in Key Issues
During Obama’s tenure, political participation extended beyond electoral politics into policy debates. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), economic recovery efforts following the Great Recession, and discussions about marriage equality and climate change saw substantial citizen engagement. Advocacy groups and ordinary citizens alike utilized both digital and traditional methods to influence legislation and public policy.
Comparative Analysis with Clinton’s Public Engagement
Compared to Clinton’s presidency, Obama’s era of political participation was far more technology-driven, leveraging data analytics and online engagement. While Clinton initiated the conversation on healthcare reform, it was during Obama’s presidency that such policy debates became a mainstay in the digital public sphere, making the political process more accessible and open for public scrutiny and participation.
Political Participation in the Trump Years (2017-2020)
Changing Political Rhetoric and Impact on Public Participation
The Trump presidency was characterized by a stark change in political rhetoric, often marked by controversy and confrontation, which energized and divided public participation. His direct communication style, particularly on Twitter, galvanized supporters and detractors alike, resulting in an engaged and frequently polarized electorate. This period saw increased activism, with individuals on both sides of the political spectrum taking to both traditional and new media platforms to voice their support or opposition.
Social Media’s Role in Shaping Public Discourse
Donald Trump’s use of social media as a primary tool for communication was unprecedented for a sitting president. His tweets often drove the news cycle and public discourse, setting the agenda and sparking political discussions that dominated social media platforms. The participatory nature of these platforms meant that political engagement became instantaneous and visceral, reflecting the divided nature of American politics during his term.
Rise of Movements and Counter-Movements
The Trump years saw the rise of several significant movements and counter-movements, such as the Women’s March, #MeToo, and Black Lives Matter. These movements, which were largely organized and propelled by social media, became powerful forces for political and social change, showing the increasing strength of decentralized, citizen-led participation in the political process.
Polarization and Its Effects on Political Participation
Political polarization reached new heights during Trump’s presidency, influencing how Americans participated in the political process. Sharp ideological divides led to increased political activism, with protests and counter-protests becoming more frequent and sometimes violent. This division was reflective of the deeper societal cleavages and highlighted the challenges that extreme polarization poses to democratic discourse and political participation.
Joe Biden’s Presidency and Political Participation
2020 Election: Voter Turnout and Engagement Amidst a Pandemic
The 2020 election, which occurred in the midst of the global COVID-19 pandemic, presented unprecedented challenges and changes to political participation in the United States. Measures such as mail-in voting and early voting were expanded, resulting in record-high voter turnout. Joe Biden’s campaign, like his opponent’s, capitalized on digital tools to reach voters, adapting to a landscape where traditional in-person campaigning was limited. This period was a testament to the resilience of political engagement under extraordinary circumstances.
Technology in Political Participation During Biden’s Term
President Biden’s term has continued to navigate the complexities of a digitized political environment. The reliance on digital platforms for political messaging and organization persisted post-election, shaping his administration’s engagement strategies. Technology not only facilitated political participation but also brought to the forefront the critical discussions about misinformation, censorship, and the role of social media giants in the democratic process.
Restoration of Traditional Political Engagement
Alongside the sustained digital strategies, there has been a conscious effort by the Biden administration to restore traditional forms of political engagement. This has involved reengaging with international allies, holding press conferences, and utilizing more conventional channels of communication, aiming to strike a balance between new media engagement and traditional governance methods.
Engaging with the Public on Key Issues
The Biden presidency faces the ongoing challenge of engaging a polarized public on critical issues such as the COVID-19 response, economic recovery, racial justice, and climate change. The administration’s approach to these issues has been to encourage active participation from various stakeholders and to foster a more inclusive and deliberate public discourse.
Comparative Analysis
Comparison of Levels and Forms of Participation
The levels and forms of political participation have notably evolved from the Clinton era to the Biden presidency. While Clinton’s term saw the initial integration of technology in political engagement, it was under Obama that digital campaigning and social media became a mainstay. The Trump administration amplified the power of social media, using it as a direct line to the public, whereas the Biden administration appears to be seeking a more moderated and traditional form of engagement alongside digital strategies.
Role of Technology and Media Evolution
Technology and media have played an increasingly significant role in shaping political participation over these presidencies. Starting with the nascent internet of the Clinton years to the omnipresent social media platforms of the Biden era, each administration has utilized these tools differently, impacting the level and nature of political engagement in America.
Impact of International Events on Domestic Participation
International events have consistently influenced domestic political participation throughout these presidencies. Clinton dealt with globalization, Bush with 9/11 and its aftermath, Obama with the Arab Spring and the rise of ISIS, Trump with a renewed focus on American sovereignty, and Biden with a global pandemic. Each event has had repercussions on how Americans participate in their democracy, reflecting the interconnected nature of global and domestic politics.
Conclusion
The trajectory of political participation in the United States has been shaped by a combination of leadership styles, technological advancements, and pivotal global events. From the traditional grassroots mobilization during Clinton’s time to the digitized and polarized landscape of the Trump era, culminating in the hybrid approach of the Biden administration, the mechanisms and intensity of political engagement have undergone significant transformations. The enduring lesson is that political participation is both reflective of and influential in the democratic process, adapting to the challenges and opportunities of its time. As America moves forward, the evolution of political participation will continue to shape the nation’s political future.