Visual Political Knowledge: A Different Road To Competence

Most people are exposed to the same principals and agents of political socialization. Families spread values that support political authorities and can heavily contribute to children's initial political ideological views, or party preferences. Families influence political knowledge and identification depending on variables such as family demographics, life cycle, parenting style, parental level of political skepticism and frequency of political discussions. Demographics such as gender and age also attribute to political socialization. School is another agent of political socialization. Spending numerous years in school, children in the United States are taught and reinforced a view of the world that their text books tell them to trust. Through primary, secondary and high schools, students are taught key principles such as individual rights and property, personal responsibility and duty to their nation. Another is mass media. Mass media is not only a source of political information; it is an influence on political values and beliefs. Various media outlets, through news coverage and late-night programs, provide different partisan policy stances that are associated with political participation. Religions, beliefs, and practices play a role in political opinion formation and political participation. The perspective offered by religious institutions shape judgement regarding public policy, and political decision

Many scholars believe that falling civic organization membership and the general decline in our Social Capital has negatively impacted voter turnout.” (Kaufmann. 145) To summarize, people in the United States are “less involved” with other groups and other people as a whole, so it is only logical to feel they would be less involved or interest in our political and governmental future.

They also believed that the Electors would be more informed and educated than the average citizen (Raasch 1). Many citizens lived in areas where they could not access information about national elections. Moreover, elite society, from which many national candidates came, frowned upon campaigning. Thus, many citizens were unlikely to be able to gather information about candidates to make an informed decision (Raasch 1).

While there are many hypotheses and theories as to why education is important for democratic citizens, there is common and consistent agreement within the literature since the 1970s. There is consistency in the belief that education provides both the skills to become politically engaged and the knowledge to understand and accept democratic principles leading to correlative effects on party identification on both individual and aggregate levels (Golebiowska 1995; Galston 2004). Angus Campbell and Philip E. Converse (1972) describe education as the universal solvent, strongly and positively correlated with a host of valued civic attitudes and behaviors such as political party or ideology formation.

Verba and his co-authors examine the import of participation, both voting and non-voting, in our American society. According to their argument, the typical citizen activist “tend[s] to be drawn disproportionately from more advantaged groups–to be well-educated and well-heeled and to be White and male” (Verba et al., 1995: 231). Indeed, Verba et al. explore participation along both gender and racial lines and concludes that both women and minorities are comparatively less active than men, especially white men, who stand peerless both in terms of affiliation with a political organization, contributing to a campaign, contacting their Representatives, and more direct forms of participation like voting.

Public opinion plays a huge role in the development of democracy. “A society is unlikely to maintain democratic institutions over the long term, unless democracy has solid support among the public” (Andersen 2012). Most research on the issue demonstrates a positive link between economic development and support for democracy(Andersen 2012). Some researchers also consider social trust (Putnam 1993) and social tolerance (Andersen and Fetner 2008) to be a major factor of support of democracy. Most Americans see unequal economy as a result of individuals work ethics and talent rather then a flaw in the economic system. However, most Americans accept inequality because they believe everyone has the same chances in life to make the best. A properly running government is supposed to make positive that all the citizen are equal. By believing in equal democratic rights Americans support everyone citizen having the same level of equality and the same equal voice in representative government. Since citizens don’t feel that they can trust the government to create and equal ground for all they are much less likely to be involve and participate in political field. Concerned citizens have the right to be worried about the health of our democracy. It seems that the government resounds more often and effectively to the more privileged group in society then to needs of the

For example, Abramowitz uses the Converse study to show that education was a strong predictor of ideological sophistication. This is important to note, because as Abramowitz mentions on page 35, from 1956-2004 the percentage of respondents that took place in the ANES survey with only a grade school education went from 37% all the way down to 3%. Furthermore, participants with at least some college experience went from 19% to 61%. Using this information, Abramowitz directly refutes Fiorina’s claim that little has changed in the American public since the 1950’s. Fiorina believes that even 21st Century Americans are still not very well informed about politics, along with not holding views very strongly and are not ideological. This is at odds with Abramowitz’s view. Abramowitz concedes that among the politically disengaged, Fiorina’s argument does make some sense, however, when referring to the politically engaged his argument does not hold up. It is important to remember too, as Abramowitz points out, the politically engaged is not just some small fringe group, they are actually a substantial group of the American

Among non-voting Americans, many categorize into demographic groups that are being pushed out by the political system in the form of misrepresentation and corruption among government officials. According to voter trends in “Who Votes? Congressional Elections and the American Electorate: 1978–2014 ” by Thom File, Americans with low incomes, lower levels of education, younger Americans, and minorities are among some of the demographic groups experiencing the lowest voter rates. On the other hand, the wealthy, higher educated, older, and non minority white

How do people compensate for their lack of knowledge? Many people use information shortcuts to help them make decisions on how to vote. An information shortcut is voting for a party because they know the beliefs of the party but not the specific facts of the issue or the specific candidate. Voters use information shortcuts in order to learn about a topic without spending more time. For example, author Ilya Somin wrote that 57 percent of the population did not know who Newt Gingrich was in 1994. Somin also stated, “70 percent cannot name either of their states senators. Overall, close to a third of Americans can be categorized as ‘know-nothings’ who are almost completely ignorant of relevant political information” (Somin 416-417).

As politics and government becomes more complex and involved, more effort is required to keep up with and understand it. As a result, many Americans have lost touch with current events and happenings. Therefore, when election time rolls around, many people lack enough information to develop an educated opinion and support a candidate with their vote, so they just do not vote at all. This lack of information is also related to the belief that one vote will not matter. People believe that their vote will not count, and are therefore following the news less and becoming out of touch with public affairs and politics (Is the System Broken?”). This lack of information is also more strongly apparent among the younger voting population. When interviewed

figures point to a lack of knowledge in youth about how to participate in politics, and

In his book, Tyranny of the Minority, Benjamin Bishin refers to this occurrence through his very own proposed concept called the Subconstituency Politics Theory of Representation. Centered on social psychology and reinforced by multifaceted studies on the behavior pattern illustrated in legislators’ voting, the subconstituency theory is able to effectively explain how candidates ' behavior in campaigns and legislators ' behavior in Congress are affected by the degree of knowledge and participation harbored in the average citizen. According to Bishin, a candidate’s career depends on their ability to “transform passive citizens into active

The government in the United States supposedly revolves around American ideals such as equality and diversity; however, this is simply not the case as perpetuated by class inequalities. The meaning of democracy has been skewed in the United States to represent something entirely different than it did in 1776. Today, American democracy behaves more like an aristocracy, where the upper class exercises power within the government and state, influencing discourse and therefore the laws and resources in our country, which are purportedly “for the people”. Democracy is presumed to provide everyone with equal political power, but the government in today’s America, although seemingly following this ideal model, does not. Instead, the elite upper class has a monopoly over the political influence and are the sole benefactors from public policies due to their influence over the policy making process. The upper class has an overall benefit from class inequality, as it greatly impacts American ‘democracy’ through the significant power gained through money and status, leadership roles that impact government, and the influence in the policymaking process that creates upper class advantages.

Following this, corresponding to the two biases of communication, there are both oral and written media. Oral communication can be seen as time-binding because in oral societies, knowledge can only be passed through generations by word of mouth which generally take place within groups or communities (Innis, 1990). Also, because memory is limited, it is necessary to be particularly selective about knowledge, as a result of which, knowledge not related to maintaining tradition is difficult to be handed down (ibid.).

Why do Americans have limited amount of political knowledge? It’s because the public lacks interest in politics. They rely on group/party loyalty, rather than reasoning. Their responses change randomly from survey to survey. Recent research shows that the public knows some basic things. For example, they know the location of the capital and the length of president’s term, but they lack knowledge about other basic things. About 50% know there are 2 senators for each state, and only 66% know which party controls the House. They show high instability of their preferences, so explosion of information sources has not helped. The authors Greenburg and Page believe that political “trivia” may not be a good measure of adequate knowledge. They also mentioned that the reason for the instability of preference is because people change their minds and reflect on multidimensional ideology. It’s understandable that American citizens have lost trust in the government as well as interest, but the group of people that show the least amount of interest in politics and voting are the young generation.