Engaged: A Citizen's Perspective on the Future of Civic Life
Andrew Sommers
248 pages, New Degree Press, 2020
For years leading up to the 2016 US Presidential election, I began to notice a growing sense of mistrust in many of our democratic institutions. Dinner table discussions, visits, and phone calls with friends were filled with retorts about untrustworthy institutions, the failings of past presidencies, and other similar musings. “It just feels more like everyone is out for themselves these days,” one friend shared. I wondered if this was just part of getting older and having more of these types of discussions, or was it indicative of something broader?
The 2016 election itself put this sense of mistrust right on display. Mistrust in how the candidates handled their affairs. Mistrust in the election results being accurate. Mistrust of each political party’s commitment to what was best for America. It was—and continues to be—exhausting.
After the 2016 election, a friend and collaborator, David Tansey, began stepping out of our typical urban reality to see if we could better understand this landscape of mistrust. We traveled to areas of Pennsylvania that had voted for President Trump, sat in on town halls, and volunteered to help conduct a door-to-door policy survey. I also personally explored my family history and came to learn of our relation to Moses Stanford, a minuteman of the Revolutionary War—and distant relative to Leland Stanford, the founder of Stanford University. The conversations we engaged in, and the personal history of this service, inspired me to start researching and writing this book, Engaged.
We are now just beyond yet another polarizing presidential election, and many of us are likely exhausted from a year taken over by a global pandemic and a political circus that never seems to stop. Our task now is to turn toward healthier forms of active citizenship and democratic engagement. But what does this look like? My book Engaged provides a unique perspective on the state of our civic life today – how we understand and participate as citizens—and attempts to begin to answer this question. The excerpt offered below outlines some of these ideas as part of a final chapter on “Building a New Civic Culture.” —Andrew Sommers
+++
What Should We Do as a Country?
Systemic change to improve our levels of civic engagement is not necessarily a top issue among likely voters, nor is it being hotly debated these days. Healthcare, climate change, defense, and infrastructure are all more likely to be legislative discussions in the public eye outside of impeachment activities. On the Democratic campaign trail, Pete Buttigieg has added democracy fixes as part of his platform, recognizing the need for better public service programs.
This is partly due to the fact improving civic engagement is a sort of cross-cutting issue; it’s part of education, how we regulate the media, and structural matters like voter registration laws. It also intertwines with a host of other issues, too, including how districts are drawn to how primaries are structured and whether the electoral college is still an effective—or desirable—means of electing a president. Instead, civic engagement tends to be a byproduct of things we do as a country. For instance, the development of the Peace Corps had the overarching aim to support social and economic development abroad where most needed but had the byproduct of inspiring younger generations to be more involved.
This example does not suggest that I think the government is the sole actor to help us do big things to improve our engagement as citizens. Indeed, the mere fact that government may be part of a conduit to civic and public life for many conservatives would be a sort of red flag. In this case, is government part of the problem or part of the solution? Tim Carney alludes to this point in his book Alienated America when he highlights that liberals see government as intrinsic to public life whereas conservatives see big government as part of the decline of civic life.
In the spirit of this book’s aim to be bipartisan, here’s how I would walk that line. Government is not going away anytime soon (I hope), and we need to better familiarize many of our fellow citizens with its core functions. It is a big part of how we solve big problems together. It should not dictate or determine who engages and how they do it, but it can help make it easier for us to do good together.
So, with that in mind, let’s ponder the future. Many of these ideas are not inherently new but have been refined to reflect some of the insight and data from this book and my own perspective. They draw on a collection of sources and other thinkers from across the political spectrum.
What we should do as a country is about affecting the “supply side” of civic engagement, to take from Bowling Alone. I won’t be able to do justice to many of the incredible ideas out there in this short chapter. My goal is not to list every possible idea but consider the themes of what we need to start moving toward.
Increase the number and quality of ways for Americans to learn about their government: We clearly have a civics education challenge on our hands, and getting good information to citizens is becoming increasingly challenging. We know students who receive high-quality civics classes are more likely to be engaged citizens throughout their lives, and more informed citizens are more likely to do the same, even at state and local levels. This is not about merely increasing knowledge retention but reinvigorating our social studies and civics curricula to be more pragmatic and prepare students to be effective citizens. Doing so can also help extend awareness of service opportunities to give up-and-coming high school students a better range of options to explore. And, while I do not suspect the Fairness Doctrine is going to come back anytime soon, we should encourage policymakers and media executives to rethink the media’s role as a core civic institution rather than an extension of our endless consumer driven culture. The goal should be to structure our news consumption to provide us with a holistic “diet” rather than forcing citizens to seek out all the different perspectives on their own. Working families do not have the time.
Facilitate more automatic opportunities for Americans to participate in their government: We know that national service is connected to a range of valuable outcomes for all ages. We just need to make it easier on more of us to do so. Period. Compulsory service, however, feels like a dead end for bipartisans. I believe if we made these opportunities better available and more attractive, more of us would naturally gravitate there. There is an abundance of evidence that the current set of opportunities out there cannot keep up with demand. But this extends beyond just national service; we need to make it easier for everyday Americans to vote. And if they don’t find it valuable to vote, our representatives ought to be out there making the case as to why it does matter. Automatic voter registration can help. I think this would serve a double purpose to engage more political Independents—a crucial voting block that tends to shy away from a lot of political activity, especially during the off years. Engaging more moderate voters will invariably help us muffle the voices on both the far left and the far right.
Build the next generation of digital spaces to supplement our engagement: Social media platforms are not going away. Technology is not going away. And the pace of its change will continue to accelerate. Our task should be to not let the social media shape our civic habits but have our aspirational positive civic habits shape how we use these technologies. Until new business models are designed, social media and technology companies will compete for our attention. We should give them our attention sparingly and invest in programs that teach students the basics of “tech ethics.” But any demand-side changes that citizens can make should be coupled with “supply-side” investments to the design and availability of technologies and platforms. Existing social media platforms can do more to combat our silos with online discussion and news consumption, and we need to inspire new technologists to think about the next platforms that are going to support our efforts as citizens, not consumers.
Foster better representatives and new coalitions: Congress has been and continues to be one of the most distrusted institutions of our government. This is a problem not least because an effective Congress means more stuff done that people want to see done. It has become standard course that representatives are bought, only out for themselves, or only care about re-election. We need to change both reality and perception. The role of the representative should include politicians being students of social capital and taking ownership over issues like trust and transparency in government, rather than being purveyors of large donors. There are many issues wrapped up in this. Money in politics, the effects of political primaries, and gerrymandering all play roles in how well our congressmen and women engage with their constituents given how they believe they will best get elected and re-elected. But political science findings are not conclusive that these issues alone are driving political polarization. Engaging a diversity of constituents is also part of the equation, as we also need a new wave of efforts for cross-ideological coalition building. As highlighted in chapter 6, the political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt give historical context for our increasingly ideological political parties. The party “big tents” with diverse constituencies are likely not return any day soon, so politicians and civic leaders who care about big issues like healthcare and climate change may be well served to get outside of their silos and make friends with opposing factions where they can find common ground in like areas.
Contemporary coalition building is often a coming-together of like-minded groups... Coalitions of the like-minded are important but they are not enough to defend democracy. The most effective coalitions are those that bring together groups with dissimilar—even opposing—views on many issues. They are built not among friends but among adversaries.
Ultimately, our next generation of politicians need to find ways to get elected through engaging more constituents rather than catering to the few. Civic leaders who find value in cross-ideological coalition-building may find that it increases civic engagement rather than depresses it.
What Can We Do as Individuals?
We can also do things as individuals to not only improve our own engagement but also encourage it in others. In some ways we can view it like we do diet and exercise. There are clearly some things we should try to do more of—such as vote, consider public service, and read a diversity of news sources. Others we should avoid, such as putting in all of our political time online. To carry the analogy a bit further, I would consider social media to be a side dish or dessert; it’s neat technology but not where we should be taking in all of our calories.
As technology drives consumer culture and hyper-individualism (think “my newsfeed”) it would be helpful to consider the encouragement to swing the pendulum back to think about ourselves as citizens. We all know the famous line from Kennedy’s 1961 Inaugural Address: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country.” Let’s ask again right now. For starters, engagement doesn’t happen every four years during a presidential election. What we do in between counts. That would be like going to the gym once every January after making a New Year’s resolution and then waiting another twelve months.
What we can do as individuals is about affecting the “demand side” of civic engagement, again from Bowling Alone. To be sure, big changes happen collectively, and there are no guarantees that any of the above will happen immediately. But as Eric Liu points out in You’re More Powerful Than You Think, good citizenship is contagious. When you go to the gym and tell your friends how good it feels, they begin to catch on.
Explore new ways to know your fellow Americans: Today, more than twenty or thirty years ago, voters appear to be “sorting” themselves into neighborhoods with more like-minded voters, now with less opportunity to bump into folks they normally would not see. It’s a big country and we need to get to know each other, at least the best we can. In earlier periods of our history, Americans were more likely to either have served or know someone who served. Veterans today are one of the most civically active groups out there. That is not surprising. They have been on the front lines and know what is at stake. We should get to know our veterans and fellow service members. Others, like Katherine Mangu-Ward, editor-in-chief at the libertarian Reason magazine, suggests getting to know a libertarian. I personally am not a libertarian but love the spirit of her suggestion.
On the left and finding that Trump fans turn your stomach? Consider chatting with someone who will give you a hearty amen when you grouse about his immigration restrictionism and warmongering over a craft cocktail or a joint, but can still offer some insight into why a sane person might think environmental regulatory rollback or Social Security privatization is a good idea.
On the right and struggling to figure out how you’d connect with a blue-haired Occupy Wall Streeter? Find a libertarian: We’ll grab some burgers and cigars. We can talk about repealing Obamacare and cutting taxes before easing into a conversation about why it might be time to seriously consider reforming our criminal justice system.
People who disagree with you about who should be president are almost certainly not evil. But that can be hard to see when everything is painted in stark ideological hues of red and blue—or when everyone you know and like shares your views. Finding someone who agrees with your politics about half the time can help expose the ways that our current political coalitions aren’t set in stone. And perhaps even offer hope for real compromise and dialogue in the future, instead of the usual shouting match.
And, in getting to know our fellow Americans, we should strive to get to know those in our congressional districts. Some of these districts are not designed for us to easily do this, and we often have multiple districts that bound us to both federal, state and local representation. This can be exhausting but we should try. These physical geographies matter more than the digital spaces where we spend time.
Explore new ways to know your government: For many of us whose formal educations have passed, there are still amazing ways to better get to know some of the great stuff our government does. Ample evidence suggests many Americans are highly unaware of the breadth of some of the great work our civilian government employees and leaders do for the country. This may sound like an endorsement for big government; it is not. Putting someone on the moon, tracking hurricanes, building innovative vaccines, protecting our food supply, ensuring our planes run on time, and—certainly not least—protecting us from terrorism at home and abroad are just a small sampling of the work that many of us take for granted. Your taxpayer dollars go well beyond just political infighting and Obamacare (if that is a concern for you).
As Liu points out, much of this civic illiteracy is willful. Many of us think the business of politics is not worth our energy. Now it is time to opt in.
Be political: We need to stop thinking that being political is a bad thing. Sure, for our leaders in office, the prospect of only being political—considering only the implication for party and power—is not what I am after here. Blocking a vote for a supreme court nominee is not the example here; I am referring to the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt when he wrote The Duties of American Citizenship:
It ought to be axiomatic in this country that every man must devote a reasonable share of his time to doing his duty in the Political life of the community. ...The first duty of an American citizen, then, is that he shall work in politics; his second duty is that he shall do that work in a practical manner; and his third is that it shall be done in accord with the highest principles of honor and justice.
Much has changed since Roosevelt’s day as this should clearly expand to all men and women, regardless of personal orientation. But the spirit should be carried on. Doing this for many of us will take a concerted effort. Taking some time out to get organized in your political life can be a good start; make sure you understand your districts, get registered to vote, get to know those who work for your local parties, and take small steps to talk about politics. And, just as our congressional representatives should have a role in engaging others, we, too should strive to get to know our district’s representative. (And if you live in an area that has no representation, like the District of Columbia, you should spend some time advocating for it.)
Unfortunately, some research also suggests that partisans who are more politically involved actually have a greater sense of antipathy toward members of the opposing party, which might imply that increasing Americans’ political engagement will not help bring citizens together in shared purpose or understanding that we all are in this together. It will more likely take Americans being willing to step outside of their echo-chambers to actually share these experiences with people from their country who think, feel, and look differently from themselves. The less engaged middle third of the country—most notably moderate Democrats, Republicans, and Independents—constitute a big opportunity for reclaiming Roosevelt’s spirit.
Lastly, when it comes to voting, I will once again draw inspiration from Eric Liu, who encourages us to imagine what 100 percent participation looks like. In the 2016 election there were enough unregistered Americans to hypothetically pick a third-party candidate and garner more votes than both candidates Trump and Clinton. Full participation could have even more considerable effects at state and local levels, too. One hundred percent voting participation may be unrealistic, but we can—and should—get up to par with other leading democracies around the world.
Redistribute your time from digital to in person: As more of our time moves toward digital sources, where we read the news, tweet, post, and interact with our friends and families, we should take breaks, too, and move some of our time to doing these activities in person. While critical of social media, I by no means think we should do away with these digital platforms. But in some ways, depending on our type of engagement, they resemble more of civic “junk food” than they do the more nutritious salad, meat (or fish) and potatoes. Instead of a hypothetical 80 percent of our time online and 20 percent in person, we should aim to flip the equation to 80 percent in-person and 20 percent online. We need to be a nation of joiners and civic entrepreneurs, which requires us to engage with our fellow citizens in person.
Political scientist Yuval Levin also made a recommendation in The Washington Post’s piece “Fix this democracy—now” that is worth repeating:
Life in a free society requires us to hone habits of accommodation, but today Americans seem to be losing the knack for living together. Recovering our worn civic spirit would require some major institutional reforms—political, economic, civic and social. No one step can get us there.
But if we seek one simple thing to do for a start, maybe we could make ourselves more receptive to the music of accommodation, particularly by abstaining from the blare of vain and vicious animosity. If only as a marker of our desire to do this, we should each commit to staying away from social media for a month this coming year.
The boundaries of social media can be blurry, but take thirty days away from any platform on which you express or display yourself online without mediation in return for being “liked,” “followed,” “friended” or “favorited.” A break will give you peace from the impulse to flaunt yourself to prove your virtue, a respite from constant incitement to smug anger and self-pitying resentment, and more time to live your life.
This won’t transform our society, but it’s not wholly separate from the need for institutional reform. Social media often act like informality machines, corroding the forms of our social life—that is, precisely our institutions. Taking a break from them won’t heal our divisions, but it might put us in a better frame of mind to try.