Political Participation How, Who and Why

Participation Definition: “Those activities of citizens that attempt to influence the structure of government, the selection of government officials, or the policies of government.” Conway, Ch. 1

How we participate Methods of participation: Voting Contributing time: volunteering Contributing money: donations Running for office

Voting: Do most Americans Vote? No. A little more than 50% of the Voting Age Population (VAP) votes in any given presidential election, a little less than 50% for midterm Congressional elections. Lowest turnout? 1996, reelection of Bill Clinton, turnout was 54.2% of VAP Turnout was always above 90% in the late 1800’s, the “Golden Era” of parties and participation.

Some facts Support in the modern era: 1964, LBJ won with 67% of vote, but only gets 37.8% of VAP. 1992, Bill Clinton got 43% of the vote, but just 23.9% of VAP (1996, he got 24.1% of VAP with 49% of the vote). In 1994, Republicans take control of Congress with appx 24% of support of the VAP. What about “mandates” from the people? Does turnout matter? Turnouts make a difference in how supportive people are of those in power. It doesn’t seem to make a difference now, but there could be a “tipping point” where all of a sudden, having large numbers of people not turn out makes a big difference. Suddenly, a crisis of legitimacy could arise. Or not.

Volunteering: Time Who volunteers? The elderly and the better-off tend to volunteer and spend more time in community organizations. Why? More time, especially with elderly. Better resources, both material and mental (tie between education and money). Social environment: their friends and coworkers are all doing it.

Paradox: What happened? People with more education tend to vote more than people without education, but turnout has decreased since 1960, even though education levels have increased. What happened? Voting age population changed. Efficacy fell substantially. Decline in social capital. VAP got younger. Twenty-sixth Amendment passed in 1972, lowered voting age to 18 (from 21), and younger voters less likely to turn out to vote. Efficacy: feeling that government doesn’t listen to the people. Fell starting in the 1960’s. What is social capital?

Social Capital What is it? What does it do? Social capital consists of “the features of social life – networks, norms, and trust – that enable participants to act together more effectively.” Bowling Alone - Robert Putnum What does it do? Motivates people to participate in their communities, to get involved in political environment. Putnam’s thesis is that it’s social capital, and not affects of laws that get people to vote. In a sense, he’s following up on the work of Anthony Downs, who theorized in the 1950’s that it was civic duty that got people to vote even when it didn’t make sense for them to do so.

Social Capital What has caused its decline? Changes in family structure What changes have taken place since the 1960’s? How much has this caused the decline in social capital? Probably not much, Putnam says, because married people tend to be “homebodies” who concentrate on personal family matters to the exclusion of community affairs. Not sure I agree, but that’s what he says. Changes in family structure: More women in work force. Everyone’s off at work, less meetings between people on a block. Single-parent households, non-traditional households, etc. all contribute to decline. I don’t buy Putnam’s idea about married people not being that involved. I think that the lack of stability matters more than he argues. Which doesn’t mean I think we need to go back to the 1950’s . . .

Social Capital Other factors: Changes in family environment have contributed about 10% of the decline in social capital Other factors: Suburbanization, and urban sprawl: Another 10% due to more time spent commuting and psychological distance from home community. Suburbanization combined with changes in family structure might be pretty big.

Social Capital The BIG Factor (according to Putnam): TV!! . . . . . and other electronic entertainment Contribute 25% of the decline in social capital. Don’t ask me how he measures that. Why? Fragmented, personal entertainment. Think about the stereotype now, with everyone in a household doing their own thing – people being emotionally separated from other members of the family. This would be the end result of a process that started with families separating emotionally from their neighborhood. Ever-increasing process of Individualisation, if you will.

Effects: What are the effects of all this decline of social capital? Lack of communication between segments of society. Why does this matter? Increasing isolation of members/citizens Lower efficacy, diminished sense of duty. Lower participation and vote turnout. Putnam ties social capital to everything that’s going wrong, basically. Less social capital means less involvement of people in the community, Which leads to all manner of social ills. Lack of communication between segments of society means that people don’t care about their neighbors. Greater fragmentation of society means people are more likely to only support policies and politicians that help their segment of society, not society at large. What about increase in gated communities?

Then there’s Theda: Theda Skocpol, also of Harvard. Book: Diminished Democracy Makes many of the same points as Putnam. Lower involvement in civic organizations leads to lower political involvement. But she sees it from a different perspective. Some people think she has the better argument. She has better statistics. Putnam doesn’t have many statistics on his side for this book, but he has a lot of stats for other stuff he’s written about social capital.

Where Theda and Putnum differ: Putnum: traditional civil groups were mostly local endeavors, not national. Skocpol deals with changes in the organizational structure of national civic groups: traditional civic organizations were part of national federations Central office with many local offshoots. Groups like Elks, Rotarians, etc. – they reflected structure of national government. Very “federalistic” Central organizations fostered cooperation between local groups. They were different, but part of the same group.

Key difference National groups brought together many different kinds of people, even if they didn’t see each other that much. Fostered sense of national unity, not just local friendship. Kept a lid on inter-group animosity.

Another key difference: Importance of local groups. Putnum gives them less direct political importance. Skocpol shows local groups very important politically. Example: Women’s civic orgs in Progressive Era. Think about these groups today. They’re still important. Every politician in every small town still goes to Rotarian meetings.

So What Happened? Skocpol says: Decentralized groups were replaced by centralized groups. Want to be a member? Write a check. Groups that are dominated by experts: Environmental, other single-interest groups. Changes in the groups led to changes in social capital. Local groups replaced by groups with more national focus. Older groups were local active with a national office. Now, groups are nationally active groups with local offshoots. But they’re still more issue-oriented. Not as service oriented. More people leave it to the experts mentality. Less personal involvement.

More Skocpol: Decline of social capital also correlates nicely with rise in power of federal government. Or, it could be a generational effect: “Greatest generation” were also greatest joiners. Maybe we’re just seeing a slight decline from a historically aberrant high. As fed govt got bigger, and took a greater role in local social ills, local social groups became less important. Decline of social capital = rise in federal government AND the single-issue groups that seek to influence the federal government. What do you get when you combine the two theories? An interesting idea in and of itself.

Participation Rule #1 Best-known finding about voting turnout and participation: “citizens of higher social-economic status participate more in politics” (Verba and Nie, Participation in America 1972). This holds true regardless of whether we use education, income, or occupation as the measure of social status.

What we know: College grads participate more than high-school grads. The rich more than the poor. White-collar workers more than blue-collar workers. All of this holds true for voting, of course, as well as other methods of participation. Of course, people with more income are more likely to give to political causes.

But . . . . What about those people whose education and income don’t match? Librarians vs. plumbers What is the relationship between participation and each of these variables? Do the rich participate more because they’re rich, or because they have better jobs, or more education, or what?

Education vs. Income Wolfinger and Rosenstone: Who Votes? Education is a better predictor of voting than is income or job status. Effect of income is limited, while effect of education is great. Which brings us back to the old paradox: why has voting fallen while education levels have gone up? When people with high incomes tend to vote and participate more, it’s because of higher education more so than income. It’s the librarian.

Alternative explanation for the SES effect. Since those in the higher SES categories are more likely to: join groups, read newspapers, pay attention to politics and news, and discuss politics with others . . .

Alternative explanation for the SES effect. . . . they’re MUCH easier to mobilize. Rosenstone and Hansen (Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America, 1993) Find that it’s easier for elites to mobilize higher SES categories. It’s this difference that matters. Why? The difference in the ease of mobilization is what causes the differences in participation of all types. Again, the difference comes down to education. Education gives people ability to think about politics and how it relates to their lives. Education is generally closely tied to income, so income is a good predictor also. Show numbers from NES online.