American Apathy

8/3/2019 American Apathy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/american-apathy 1/23

Dan Graziano

Dr. Fairfield

Constructing the Public

November 12, 2010

American Apathy: The Decline of Civic Engagement

America’s present-day political landscape is diverse and expansive; both in the

range of ideological views held by the citizenry, and in the varying levels of political

intelligence and understanding. In the earlier days of our nation, participation in the

democratic process was far and away more popular than it is currently. Today, voter

turnout hovers around 50% of registered voters and the average citizen is tragically

uninformed about current events.

It may shock some that Americans would be considered “unintelligent” by any

means; yet there is ample survey data to support the statement that Americans have very

little understanding of how their system of governance works, the state of current affairs,

or the founding of the country. Rick Shenkman, history professor at George Mason

University and author of the book Just How Stupid Are We?, has studied and written

extensively on the subject of American ignorance. He asserts that there are five basic

forms of stupidity that plague America’s civic culture. The first is ignorance: a flat out

disregard for the facts of who runs our government and how its system functions,

followed by negligence which is the disinclination to actively seek out this information.

Third is wooden-headedness, which historian Barbara Tuchman describes as the habit to

believe only what we want to believe, regardless of opposing arguments, mitigating



factors or factual evidence to the contrary. Fourth is short-sightedness: a lack of

understanding regarding the complexities of domestic and foreign policies that results in

a preference for policies and solutions that are mutually-contradictory or will prove

destructive in the long term at the risk of a here and now fix. Finally and possibly most

pervasively, is the broad category that Shenkman is unable to describe as anything but

bone-headedness, which he defines as “susceptibility to meaningless phrases, stereotypes,

irrational biases, and simplistic diagnoses and solutions that play on our hopes and fears.”

To anyone who has ever worked on a campaign team during a major election, this is a far

too common occurrence.

1

But how bad could this ignorance possibly be? After all, America does continue

to be a leader in the global community in many respects. One such example would be the

2004 election, when gay marriage was a hot topic. A national poll attempted to gauge

public opinion regarding the issue, but the results were difficult to interpret. A majority of

those polled favored a constitutional amendment stipulating that marriage should be a

privilege reserved for a man and a woman; yet three questions later, the majority also

agreed that gay marriage was not a big enough issue to merit changing the Constitution.

The New York Times summed it up best, saying that “Americans clearly favor amending

the Constitution but not changing it2.”The most comprehensive surveys, the National

Election Studies (NES), were carried out by the University of Michigan beginning in the

late 1940s. What these studies currently show is that Americans fall into three categories

with regard to their political understanding. A tiny percentage know a lot about politics,

somewhere between 50% and 60% know enough to answer very simple questions, and

the rest know next to nothing, which is an incredibly dangerous amount of knowledge for



a voter to have3. A study by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that one-

tenth of a percentage point of those surveyed, one in one-thousand, was able to correctly

identify the five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment. While this is invaluable

information, it is technically not vital to the functionality of government. But NES data

shows that only 25% of citizens know that a Senator’s term is six years, and an anemic

20% know that there are 100 Senators in Congress, even though the number has stayed

constant for years and is an easy one to remember. On the plus side, 40% of Americans

are now able to identify the three branches of government and properly name them. But

perhaps these people simply judge candidates one election at a time and choose from

there. Many surveys show that up to 50% of citizens can identify and explain a difference

between the Republican and Democratic parties. But it has also been shown that many

are unable to explain a difference between liberals and conservatives, which in reality

means they have no sense of distinction between the two. Even worse, this means that

voters have been identifying and judging their politicians based not just on what party

they are a member of, but these conceptions of the parties may not even be accurate4.

In order for a representative democracy like America to function and survive, it

needs active, informed and intelligent citizens to participate in the democratic process

and continually foster the republic. However, many of our institutions have failed to play

their role in shaping America’s citizens, and so there are several agents who deserve

some blame. Many studies link higher education and political engagement, but no direct

connection or substantive reasoning has ever been established. However, it can be safely

said that more could be done in the area of education to promote civic engagement. The

media, which should be democracy’s watchdog, is in a sad state of affairs. News outlets



should be striving to uncover the latest news and informing the public with facts and

intelligent discourse on relevant issues. But with most news sources being owned by

massive corporations, profit becomes the bottom line; entertainment becomes the priority

rather than information.

Perhaps there are none more blameworthy for this distaste with politics than the

politicians themselves. They realize that the average voter has minimal interest in

actually hearing positions and intelligent debates, so they reduce their platform to a

poignant platitude that can fit on a bumper sticker and turn their refined rhetoric into a

catchy chant.

The most pervasive and apparent symptom of the decline in political activism is

the dramatic shrinking of the American electorate. Since the Kennedy v. Nixon election

in 1960, which has since become the benchmark by which all subsequent elections are

measured with 63% of adults coming out to vote, voter-turnout has decreased in each

presidential election culminating in the 1996 election in which “96.3 million came out

and 100.2 million passed.” This decrease in voter turnout clashes with conventional

wisdom about politics. One such theory states that increased education would likewise

increase voting. Political scientist V.O. Key wrote that “education not only tends to

imbue persons with a sense of civic duty, it also propels them into political activity,” and

in 1960 citizens with a college degree were 50% more likely to vote than those who had

not finished high school. At that time, only half of American adults had finished high

school and less than one-tenth of them had graduated from college. Today, Americans are

definitively more educated with 25% of American adults having graduated college and

another 25% having at least some college experience5. Despite this rise in education,



voter turnout has declined and Americans are still tragically uninformed. A 2007 survey

of Intercollegiate Studies Institute tested 40,000 students at 50 different universities on

their knowledge of basic American civics and history. The average score on the test was

about 55% and less than half of the participants were able to identify the Battle of

Yorktown as the last battle of the American Revolution6.

Declining voter turnout is not the only indication of the downhill slide in political

participation. In the past fifty years, the number of volunteers who work the polls or

elsewhere on political campaigns has decreased drastically; as has the number of people

who watch televised presidential debates

7

. “The United States had 100 million fewer

people in 1960 than it did in 2000 but, even so, more people tuned in to watch the

October presidential debates than did so in 20008.” This huge jump in our population

coupled with the decline of viewership brings the realities of our apathy into sharp relief.

It is very likely that the decrease in political participation is merely symptomatic

of a larger issue. That larger issue in this case is the marked downturn in civic

engagement and political intelligence. While it is arguably the responsibility of the voters

to keep them themselves informed, it is definitely an uphill battle. The media, campaigns,

and candidates themselves have been little to no help to any citizen trying to be a well-

informed and active participant in government.

At the advent of the nightly news broadcast, the American public could tune in

and expect a level-headed and neutral reporting of the events of the day. But in modern

society, one which is dominated by 24 hour news networks that must create and then fill

a 24 hour news cycle, viewers can choose from a multitude of channels and networks

from which to receive their news. But rather than driving competing media teams to



uncover the truth and provide the most relevant information about important and

newsworthy stories, news corporations have embraced sensationalism and fringe opinions

in order to extract the most intrigue and drama out of each story as possible. This means

that providing the news is no longer a public service, but a business with competition

from rival businesses and whose ultimate goal is to make the greatest profit rather than to

fairly and faithfully report the news.

It has become obvious that the news media has discovered that biases appeal to

their viewers. However, their leanings are not always liberal or conservative. Turning on

Fox News today will almost assuredly yield criticisms of President Obama and the

Democratic agenda in general. On the other hand, during President George W. Bush’s

term, networks like MSNBC and CNN were just as critical of him and the Republicans.

What is conspicuously absent from both of these scenarios are media outlets that will do

the opposite, and only heap criticism onto their chosen side.

This illustrates that while many news providers can be decidedly partisan, they

will almost always do so in a negative fashion. The run-up to the 2000 presidential

election proves to be an exemplary illustration of this tendency in the media. News cycles

during this time would often insinuate that George W. Bush was not very intelligent;

there were nine such claims in the news for every one contrary claim. Likewise, Al Gore

was often portrayed as less-than-truthful; these claims outpaced their rebuttals by

seventeen to one during the election season. Such portrayals of the candidates had severe

repercussions on the voters’ opinions. One voter interviewed on NBC was quoted as

having said, “My biggest concern is that Al Gore will say anything he needs to say to get



elected President of the United States.” Prior to the portrayal of Gore as notoriously

dishonest by the media, this concern may have never crossed her mind 9.

But where do news networks get off criticizing candidates and parties, offering

their opinions rather than impartially reporting the news? In the 1950s, a neutral and

impartial news report was the norm. The nightly news consisted mainly of headlines

collected throughout the day by reporters and wire services. But in 1963 when networks

launched the first thirty-minute newscast which launched visually appealing and picture-

centric news programs. They quickly discovered that classic, print style reporting was not

conducive to the visual medium that was a television broadcast. When viewers could read

the headlines on their screen, they didn’t need someone reading it to them as well.

Furthermore, straightforward descriptions of news events seemed dull when presented to

a television audience. NBC nightly news executive producer Reuven Frank famously told

all of his reporters, “Every news story should, without any sacrifice of probity or

responsibility, display the attributes of fiction, of drama. It should have structure and

conflict, problem and denouement, rising action and falling action, a beginning, middle

and an end.” Frank’s point was that these news stories must be gripping and engaging,

this marks the shift of the news from an impartial report to the events of the day into a

compelling narrative that required reporters to provide their own analysis and opinions to

create interest10.

With this new development in the presentation of the news, a new style of

reporting also arose. Traditionally, reporters were called upon to transport viewers to the

scene of the event, and relay the events of the story. But this new style, this interpretive



style, called upon journalists to not only report the news, but also to provide analysis of

the events. News reports became news stories.

But what makes this development in the logistics of journalism noteworthy is that

it shifted the power of the media and news stories from the newsmaker to the journalist.

As faithful and neutral reporters of the news, journalists were subject to the facts of the

events they were covering; leaving the implications and consequences of the story in the

hands of those who were being reported. But with the innovation of interpretive

reporting, newsmakers now had to be wary of the spin or bias that could be applied to

their media event.

The free market style of news reporting, in which networks compete with one

another for the most viewers, combined with this new style of interpretive reporting

allows and even encourages media outlets to diversify their coverage from others to

create a unique perspective on the news which will attract the maximum amount of

viewers. Political scientist James E. Combs calls this media logic. He claims that

American mass media are businesses just like any other and must market and sell their

products to customers. The logic and methodology of those who sell the mass media

product is partially supplemented and shaped by the logic of the consumer. People are

attracted to the products of news outlets because they wish to be entertained by them.

“The creators of mass media stories are interested in how to use a medium to tell the

stories that will sell. The consumers of this medium are interested in selecting which tales

they want to be entertained by.” The confluence of these two trains of logic creates a

perfect storm of partisan media; viewers have a specific set of views that they wish to



have validated, and there are plenty of news sources who are willing to fulfill those

wishes11.

Of course the media is not alone in their culpability for the decline of political

knowledge, campaigns and candidates themselves are equally to blame; but when the two

collude, such as they do on televised Presidential debates, the subversion of thoughtful

discourse and implementation of subtle trickery skyrockets.

Presidential debates have been built up as media events that can often be a turning

point in the election; the pressure for candidates to perform is absurdly high given the

amount of substance debates usually contain. To prepare themselves for this harrowing

ordeal, candidates rely on advisors and coaches to stuff them full of facts and figures,

slogans and tricks of the trade, anything that will give them the impression of “wide-

ranging, unflappable competence.” Under the cold scrutiny of dozens of cameras and

with even more journalists and pundits ready to leap at any sign of weakness, the

candidates must radiate confidence and leadership. But all the emphasis and amplification

of visual stimulation is not the worst subversion of the debate as a democratic instrument.

Because of the nature of the debates and the high amount importance placed on them,

candidates are required to “exaggerate the effectiveness of public policy, to give the

impression that the right programs and the right leadership can meet every challenge.”

This only builds up the public to be disappointed and underwhelmed by the legislation

and public policy that their elected-leaders can pass. It is no small wonder that Americans

have grown disillusioned with Washington and embittered at politics in general12.

The politicking began with deciding format for the very first debate, Nixon v.

Kennedy, which became the format that all subsequent debates would follow; a Meet the



Press style forum was decided upon because it would be familiar and easy for viewers to

digest. The issue that was more relevant to the campaigns was that the moderators should

ask the questions as both camps feared that if they candidates interrogated each other they

would be too polite with one another; said one aide, “no one likes the prosecuting-

attorney type on television.” So the candidates happily forfeited this responsibility to the

journalists and let them do the heavy lifting13.

The pigeon-holing of a particular candidate like this may seem far-fetched and

alarmist, but studies show that viewers do form certain preconceptions or character types

that they then try to impose on candidates. The party responsible for forming these

archetypes is once again found in the media, but this time soap operas are the culprit.

Characters on these shows often run for public office and their political ambitions will be

directly tied to their personal lives and temperament. Viewers will develop attachments to

characters based on their personal actions on these shows, which is fine in a world where

the viewers are not meant to participate in the election of these characters. Unfortunately,

much of the prejudice towards the disposition and character of candidates that viewers

have is transferred to real-world politics and actual politicians so that they are now

judged less by the merits of their public policy and more by their private lives14.

Unfortunately, the debates were hardly the enlightening roundtable discussion that

many political theorists hoped. In fact Clinton Rossiter, writing for the President’s

Commission on National Goals, called television the “Circus Maximus rather than the

Forum of American Democracy.” He further concluded that television had sufficiently

supplanted democracy with entertainment and that “democratic dialogue was in real

danger of being smothered.” Historian Daniel Boorstin called Presidential debates



“pseudo-events” or counterfeit events that drove spontaneous events and news out of the

realm of interest. He saw no redeeming qualities in the debates as he failed to make the

connection between the ability, while under hot lights, without notes, to answer in

approximately two minutes a question that had until recently been a secret.

Critics of the debates were disappointed by the results, and rightly so. There was

no enlightened discussion of issues, no rhetorical compromise to find middle ground or

seek solutions. Many believe that being broadcast on television inherently tainted the

debates by naturally drawing more attention to appearance and the individual combatants

rather than issues. Television seems to have failed as a political medium, “it is not a new

mode for expressing citizenship but a new barrier to expression, not the speakers’ corner

for a new virtual community but a trivialization of the potentially serious” says Robert

Putnam. The necessity for quick answers and an inability to allow dead airtime for

candidates to think doomed television as a medium of reason; neither candidate was

allowed the time for thoughtful deliberation or the opportunity to consider alternatives

which are the inner qualities of a good and wise leader.

Still others criticized the format of the debate for not allowing open discourse and

inhibiting the depth of discussions. Even still, many voters, supporters from both sides of

the aisle, said that they learned a great deal from the televised debates. The debate’s

transcript reveals that both candidates seemingly made serious and conscious efforts to

state substantively opposing positions. It would appear that both Nixon and Kennedy

succeeded in at least making voters feel informed15.

But maybe, some theorized, this is simply the nature of politics and public

debates. These candidates are trying to be popularly elected and every action is



scrutinized to the minutest detail in an effort to glean relevant information. But history

tells us that this is not the case, the Lincoln-Douglas debates epitomize oratory and

rhetoric at their best. To wit, they debated boldly and without restraint. Breaking most

standards of modern politics, they would explore all issues and consequences in depth,

spoke candidly about their positions and made claims from which it was difficult to

retreat. Christopher Lasch summarizes it best, saying that “They conducted themselves as

if political leadership carried with it an obligation to clarify issues instead of merely

getting elected16.”

Savvy political machines that they are, politicians and their staffs quickly identify

the average voter’s attention span to the issues and will adjust accordingly if they hope to

win the election. This characteristic of the electorate not only authorizes pithy and catchy

slogans over substantive rhetoric and debate, but opens the door for precipitous amounts

of mudslinging and lies to curry public favor.

Efforts to restrain campaigning to the truthful realm have been laughable. Ideally,

lies and mistruths would be instantly identified by the target’s campaign and the liar

would pay for his dishonesty by losing votes. But in a world that is so saturated by

misinformation and where white lies and half-truths are commonplace, voters become

desensitized to the lies and disenchanted with the candidates themselves.

The health and well-being of a representative democracy depends on the citizens’

favorable view of their government. “But,” Congressman James Bayard asked in 1799,

“how is that good opinion to be preserved, if wicked and unprincipled men, men of

inordinate and desperate ambition, are allowed to state facts to the people which are not

true, which they know at the time to be false, and which are stated with the criminal



intention of bringing the government into disrepute among the people? This is falsely and

deceitfully stealing the public opinion; it is a felony of the worst and most dangerous

nature17.” When deception and fraud become such a regular aspect of politicking, how

are the American people expected to hold any member of government in any sort of

esteem? Not only are the politicians themselves painted as dishonest cheats, but

unfortunately, this deceit is often effective. Take for example, the 2010 Congressional

race between Steve Chabot and Steve Driehaus. Critics attacked Driehaus for voting for

federally funded abortion through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Despite lack of factual backing, Driehaus’ repeated, vehement denials, and even his

prolonged explanation detailing the process by which he managed to circumvent federal

funding for abortions, he was continually implicated by pro-life groups and the Chabot

camp.

This spread of misinformation in the political arena is only made worse by the

Supreme Court’s most recent decision. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,

a case that was decided 5-4 in 2008, upheld that the FEC cannot limit corporate spending

for political ads during election season18. The Court’s ruling stipulates that corporations

have the same rights as citizens and therefore have the full freedom of expression

guaranteed under the First Amendment; in this situation, expression means money.

Writing for the affirmative, Justice Kennedy argues that “When government seeks to use

its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her

information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control

thought19.”



The results of the case were evident in the 2010 midterm elections when the

number of “independent” ads spiked, particularly on the conservative side. Sporting non-

partisan and independent names like Americans for Job Security, Crossroads Grassroots

Policy Strategies, or the 60 Plus Association, these political action committees all give

the impression of being grassroots organized and dedicated to progress through

bipartisanship. However, all the organizations named above, and hundreds more which

have only sprung up very recently, are all located within 20 minutes of Capitol Hill, most

in fact, in just two office suites20.

So these “grassroots, independent” organizations are not as much so as they

would appear. The results of this case would be far more tolerable and less devastating on

the political sphere if only these newfound bastions of bipartisanship and concern were

obligated to disclose their sources of funding. Unfortunately, this is not the case. As it is,

corporations are able to set up dummy non-profit or grassroots organizations with the

intention of promoting their own personal agendas.

While these groups are forbidden by election law to collude with specific political

candidates or the Republican Party committees, they manage to stay fairly well-

organized. This is where companies like American Crossroads enter the picture. "If one

group puts an ad on television in a certain congressional district, they let everyone else

know that," says Jonathan Collegio with American Crossroads. "This way they don't

double up on the advertising." This level of organization and cooperation is not the sort

of thing that happens incidentally. But the amount of interconnectedness and

relationships between all of these organizations can be slightly mind-boggling21.



22

The above chart details the intricate networking and connections between a

relatively small group of individuals and their respective front-organizations. It clearly

illustrates how these so-called independent and bipartisan organizations are not actually

individual groups, but merely part of the larger Republican political machine, working

entirely outside of the official party.

It is easy to see how disseminating lies and misinformation about opponents could

have disastrous effects on the individual candidate basis. But when these strategies are

implemented on the massive corporate level as is now legal, the ramifications are

magnified to epic proportions that are not only corrosive to the political atmosphere but

incredibly difficult to trace making it nearly impossible to attribute responsibility for the

ads we see during election season. With such structures in place that are so readily

available to circumvent the law, it becomes criminally easy for large corporations or

private interest groups to hijack the lines of communication and saturate them with half-



truths and pseudo-facts in order to spin public opinion to their liking. It is no small

wonder that half the country is misinformed and the other half disillusioned.

With so much working against the cause, one begins to wonder if this idealized,

omnicompetent, and sovereign model of the citizen is even achievable. It certainly does

seem like a tall order, and many experts do believe it to be an unattainable goal. Doubters

of the ideal citizen first began appearing in the early 20th Century. The 1920 and 1924

elections showcased the lowest voter turnout since 1830 and would remain the lowest in

history until 1988. Journalists Arthur M. Schlesigner and Erik M. Erikson lamented the

lack of participation in The New Republic article “The Vanishing Voter,” they noted

wryly that voter turnout was declining shortly after more extensive and more

independently exercised suffrage had been achieved. This decline, they claimed, could be

attributed to both a lack of difference between the current parties and also to the

increasing complexity of modern life. “Ours is now a ‘frantic, over-organized,

spectacular, urbanized, machine-driven world’ they lamented.” If an overly-modernized

society filled with introspective and overly-stimulated citizenry was a considered the end

of democratic citizenship nearly 100 years ago, then today’s modern age must be the

post-apocalyptic wasteland of government and civic engagement.

The studies of Sigmund Freud, among other psychologists and behaviorists

attempted to offer a scientific explanation for why our lofty goals were unachievable.

They began questioning whether the ideal of democracy was even rationally possible

given all of the imperfections of the human psyche. Walter Lippmann took up this issue

directly in his writings. He found that “the citizens’ capacity to clearly see and judge the

world was blocked not so much by outside obstacles as by their own distortions of will



and desire.” Even without the outside influences of campaign ads, political propaganda,

and the sway of other voters, citizens would be unable to vote objectively. Lippmann

claimed that alone in the voting booth voters were finally autonomous, except that

autonomy itself was a sham promulgated by political idealists. Freud now taught that

human beings are conflicted creatures, driven by desire; and “they are social creatures,

the sedimentary collecting points for the deposits of social forces.” Humans, it would

appear, are anything but rational and autonomous individuals23.

But if there is hope for the American public, hope that they may prove themselves

as intelligent, insightful, and independent agents, it is in education. Education is the

proverbial silver bullet of public policy; however it is also arguably the hardest public

program to effectively steer. Bad schools in many parts of the country continue to fail

despite excessive funding and programs like No Child Left Behind that attempt to

remedy the system have been fraught with more failings than successes. And none of

these solutions have been able to adequately address the issue of children who are

uninterested in learning. This is partially an economic program as the areas where this is

most prevalent are poorer inner cities where there is less of an educational presence in the

home and whose culture is dominated by the glorification of gangster life over formal

education and a respectable career.

The current model for American public schools today is based on Horace Mann’s

theories of the common school. Called the Father of American education, Mann’s

proposals and theories have shaped our current conception of what schooling is and

should be. Many of his measures were good ones that have positively impacted American

education; we rejected the European model which provided a liberal education only to the



privileged and vocational training for the masses, abolished child labor and provided a

free education to all, trained and utilized professional educators, and enforced a strict

separation between church and state.

These innovations have been largely beneficial to the school system and are now

considered staples of American education and a quality education worldwide. But these

strict controls on how the system operates, though they themselves are laudable, came

with some that Mann misjudged. “His educational philosophy was hostile to imagination

as such. He preferred fact to fiction, science to mythology. He complained that young

people were given a mass of fictions, when they needed true stories and real examples of

real men.” It was his goal to eliminate all aspects of moral ambiguity in the materials and

lessons that children were taught in order to properly inculcate them with the mindset of

good, moral, and rational citizens. Mann wanted children to receive their impressions of

the world from those who were properly qualified to display it to them, rather than the

children picking up impressions haphazardly from both written and oral narratives that

were not necessarily intended for consumption by children. The flaw in this logic, and

the great weakness in Mann’s philosophy, is that he assumed that education took place

only in the classroom. This fatal assumption has persisted through many of today’s

educators; it is probably an occupational hazard of teaching, to view education and

schooling as synonymous terms.

But the aspect of Mann’s influence on education that has most drastically affected

civil engagement is his intense distaste for partisan politics. It did not occur to him that

politics, like war and love, was a subject that could be educational in it of itself. Though

he was elected to the House of Representatives in 1848, Mann had a strong aversion to



polarizing and partisan politics which he believed served as a corroding agent on the

morality of all those involved. Mann describes how the fervor of election season gripped

the nation, “agitation pervaded the country. There was no stagnant mind; no stagnant

atmosphere… Wit, argument, eloquence, were in such demand, that they were sent for at

the distance of a thousand miles.” The election of 1848, as described by Mann, would

today be cause for a joyous celebration that the American people finally seemed to care

about the future of their nation. Yet all Mann is able to find in the excitement is

“violence… din… a Saturnalia of license, evil-speaking, and falsehood.” Elsewhere he

calls it a “conflagration” and a “poison,” wishing that the energy devoted to politics could

be redirected towards putting kids in school and properly educating them.

We can begin to see from Mann’s writings that he wanted politics out of the

school not only because he was afraid of his system being hijacked and used for partisan

purposes, but because he distrusted the entire business of politics in general. It produced

controversy, an inflammation of the passions, which Mann believed not to fuel education,

but to destroy it through dividing men rather than uniting them. Many today would argue

that controversy is a necessary part of education, which fuels and pushes forward debate

so that new levels of discourse can be reached. But Mann saw it only as divisive in

nature, destined to drive a stake between the educated and peaceful populace he was

trying to breed. Mann did realize however that if his schools taught nothing on the

subject, children would be destined to pick up on the fierce partisan rhetoric from some

other source and would adapt it as their only concept of politics. To avoid this, schools

taught only limited political history, “those articles in the creed of republicanism, which

are accepted by all, believed in by all, and which form the common basis for our political



faith” and that anything controversial would be treated with silence or at best with the

admonition that “the schoolroom is neither the tribunal to adjudicate, nor the forum to

discuss it.” The fact that Mann never questioned whether his teachings on politics were

controversial or whether others would disagree with his views on the nature of

government itself is not the worst part of all this. What is worse is that his bland

teachings of the subject deprived the children of anything that might have appealed to

their passions or intrigued them. Political history as taught by the Mann method would be

sanitized and drained of excitement. It would become mild, boring, innocuous, and

“trivialized by a suffering didacticism.” And so for generations, millions of potentially

brilliant political minds have gone untapped; they lie still dormant in the child’s mind,

waiting to be awakened by a taste of the thrill of politics24.

But looking back on Lasch’s theories of the lost art of argument, there is yet a

light at the end of the tunnel. America’s educational systems are in drastic need of an

overhaul, as they have been for years, and none of our solutions have yet had substantial

effect. But, “if we insist on argument as the essence of education, we will defend

democracy not as the most efficient but as the most educational form of government, one

that extends the circle of debate as widely as possible and thus forces citizens to articulate

their views, to put their views at risk, and to cultivate the virtues of eloquence, clarity of

thought and expression, and sound judgment.” Lippmann notes that democracy seems to

work best in small communities, but this is not, as he claims, because they are self-

contained in nature. It is because they are small enough so that all members of the

community can join into the discussion.



Lasch argues that rather than dismissing representative democracy as a broken

system not applicable to a nation our size, it should be re-created on a larger scale;

expanding the debate to the schoolyards and from there, every corner of the country. It is

by exposing our opinions to the criticisms of others that we are able to grow in them. In

this way we come to know what we have learned, and what we still need to learn; we

better understand our opponents’ arguments, sometimes at the risk of being persuaded,

but this is the nature of debate and the driving force of democracy. Argument is risky and

unpredictable, but it is this that makes it educational. Only by explaining and defending

our beliefs can we grow in them, develop them, until the point when we can effectively

express our experiences and hope that others will recognize themselves in them. Until we

are willing to subject ourselves to this, our opinions will remain opinions in Lippmann’s

derogatory sense of the word, as “half-formed convictions based on random impressions

and unexamined assumptions.” Argument and politics are not as Lippmann and Dewey

view them, as a shouting match between rival dogmas. Rather, it is the most crucial tool

democracy has to effectively move forward debates and ideas on the issues that

determine the course of our lives every day25.

Undoubtedly, America’s political landscape is in a bleak condition. Though its

faults are numerous, pervasive, and infectious, it is still functioning to its effect. But

improvements must be made; the American voter is at the mercy of the media and the

campaigns for information about the election. Citizens who wish to become truly

informed about the issues and then vote rationally must make the effort to find the truth

themselves, then, use it to combat the misinformation they encounter. But this is only a

stop-gap measure, the true reform must come in our education and how we are



conditioned to treat politics. Educational institutions need to instill a passion for

argument and politics at an early age by properly exposing them to historical and current

events in order to create a new generation of politicos. Only through expanding the

debate and the decision-making power will citizens be empowered to take back the

control of their government and foster their republic.



1 Rick Shenkman, “Ignorant America: Just How Stupid Are We?” http://www.alternet.org/news/90161/?

page=entire (accessed November 7, 2010)2 Shenkman3 The American National Election Studies (www.electionstudies.org). THE ANES GUIDE TO PUBLIC OPINION

AND ELECTORAL BEHAVIOR. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies4 Shenkman5Robert E. Patterson, The Vanishing Voter: Public Involvement in an Age of Uncertainty (New York: Vintage,

2003), 776 Shenkman7 The American National Election Studies (www.electionstudies.org). THE ANES GUIDE TO PUBLIC OPINION

AND ELECTORAL BEHAVIOR. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies8Patterson , 789Patterson, 8110Patterson, 84-8811James E. Combs, Polpop: Politics and Popular Culture in America (Bowling Green: Bowling Green Popular

Press, 1984), 8912 Christopher Lasch, The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy (New York: Norton, 1996), 16513Michael Schudson, The Good Citizen: A History of American Civil Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998),

23514Combs, 9315Schudson, 236-240

16Lasch, 16417Schudson, 73-7418U.S. Supreme Court, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Case # 08-205, January 21, 201019Adam Liptak, “Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit,” The New York Times, January 21, 201020Peter Overby and Andrea Seabrook, “’Independent’ Groups Behind Ads Not So Independent,”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130836771 (accessed December 2, 2010)21Overby and Seabrook 22 National Public Radio, Election 2010, “A Web of GOP Influence,” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?

storyId=130845545 (Accessed December 2, 2010)23Schudson, 189-19124Lasch, 147-15425Lasch, 171-172

American Apathy

Documents