Compiling a list of incidents of civil unrest in the United States would leave you with quite a lengthy list, but how many of these events are relevant today? It would seem that when it comes to government and politics, Americans have become stagnant and uninterested in changing the status quo. Is there a way to explain this shift from a rebellious, revolutionary past?
To understand politics in America, one must understand democracy. Unsurprisingly, there are many opinions offering a version of democracy. Lets begin with historian Robert H. Wiebe, in his work Self Rule 1, Wiebe breaks democracy into two categories, that of the 19th century and that of the 20th century. In Wiebe’s opinion, democracy during the 19th century can best be represented by America’s original democratic government, the result of a departure from European rule. Government was made up of a nationwide public, that excluded women and people of color, which represented the People in a radical way. As industrialization swept the country, classes began to develop, creating a hierarchy. This gave way to individualism, and brought us into the 20th century, replacing the collective self-governance with the popularity of the individual and consumerism.
Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America 2 not only observed American democracy from a social scientists viewpoint, but from a European viewpoint. de Tocqueville wrote about democracy as France was transitioning from aristocratic rule into a more democratic rule. de Tocqueville found that democracy leads to two distinct stages; the first leads men to independence, which could push them over to anarchy - terming this democratic liberty. The second leads men to servitude, aptly named democratic servitude. Democratic liberty would be democracy in its early stages, power was decentralized allowing local governments the flexibility to solve their own problems based on their personal experiences and nearness to the problem. The later stages of democracy as described by democratic servitude place power in the central government, universal laws and rules are put in place to eradicate problems, these laws are not subject to interpretation by local governments. de Tocqueville argues that a central government frees individuals from their responsibility to find solutions to any given problem they face, which in turn restrains people from developing the ability to weigh options and the subsequent possible effects.
In Why Americans Hate Politics 3 journalist, E.J. Dionne, Jr, describes democracy in terms of conservatives versus liberals. In Dionne’s opinion, Americans have become disinterested in politics because of the party system, conservatives and liberals are too concerned with undermining the other party that they disregard the actual problems the people are faced with. Politics has become driven by an “either/or” viewpoint, politicians debate over “issues” when they should be looking at the “problems.” Dionne argues that issues divide voters, creating an us versus them politics, if politicians were to focus on problems, solutions would be demanded of them as soon as they were elected. By avoiding the problem, politicians and the government sustain a system where the people are distracted by “phony” issues, politicians argue the same issues continually without searching for new answers or solutions. Dionne also argues that we have forgotten the argument between big and small government as a result of the way politics have evolved, as a society we have come to accept big government and power being in the hands of a select group of people. Although he finds most people would agree on where America should be, conservatives and liberals have made it impossible for there changes to be made by offering a set of false choices for citizens.
Jacques Ellul, in Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, describes democracy as an ideology and “a myth in that it has an explanation for all questions and an image of a future world in which all contradictions will be solved.” 4 (125) Democracy and propaganda form at the same time, propaganda turns an ideology into a myth:
For it is evident that a conflict exists between the principles of democracy -- particularly its concept of the individual -- and the processes of propaganda. The notion of rational man, capable of thinking and living according to reason, of controlling his passions and living according to scientific patterns, of choosing freely between good and evil -- all this seems opposed to the secret influences, the mobilizations of myth, the swift appeals to the irrational, so characteristic of propaganda. 5 (233)
Ellul explains that democracy is grounded in the individual, it is a government for the people, by the people, politicians work to receive the most votes from the people (in doing so they use propaganda). But, he also explains that the people are not capable of making the choices government is forced to make, propaganda is then used to give the people an artificial reality, which fulfills a need to participate in government without actually doing so. Propaganda needs to be understood in terms of its two distinctions; agitation propaganda and integration propaganda. Agitation propaganda leads men from resentment to rebellion, while integration propaganda directs men towards desired patterns. Both types of propaganda have been used through mass media and advertising since World War I.
Now, looking at these definitions, is it possible to find a determining factor as to why individuals do not participate in government as actively as they once have, or is there a model that best explains why we have become so content
If we use Wiebe’s description of democracy, we can determine that the public is no longer interested in rebelling against the government as a mass or whole, people are instead concerned only with their individual needs. As long as government satisfies these needs, there is no reason to participate in government in ways other than voting. The main problem with this idea comes into play when you look at the hierarchy that was created by the industrialization. Those in the upper class did not have as much incentive to rebel against the centralized government, as many of them had their hand in government and they were the greatest beneficiaries in the system . For those in the lower classes there was much more at stake by centralizing government, and many riots or uprisings took place during the 19th and 20th century, further proving that people were not only concerned with individual goals. The idea of individualism and consumerism makes more sense today. Looking at a list 6 of riots taking place in the 2010s alone, a majority of the riots are related to sports not politics. People will come together and riot or speak out in the name of their football or basketball team, why are they not as engaged when it comes to the rules and regulations that command their daily actions?
de Tocqueville’s democratic servitude provides another example as to why citizens have become complacent, if government is centralized, leaving the decision making process in the hands of the few, individuals do not need to weigh options and outcomes, they merely must accept what the government is setting forth. In effect, by centralizing government, the people not only took power out of their own hands they took much of their decision making abilities out of their own hands. This might better explain why Americans are not actively participating, if the process of making decisions and weighing outcomes is taken away from us, allowing politicians to make all of our decisions becomes effortless. By getting rid of this decision making process, we might also be giving away our abilities to critically analyze government.
E.J. Dionne, Jr’s writing offers a direct view into the frustrations of American citizens, rather than working to make change or progress in America, politicians continually argue the same points. In effect, Americans give up on the democratic system and often chose to not participate in politics in any form. This inactivity makes people disinterested in politics all together, they find all politicians liars, fools, corrupt, etc. I think this might play a role, but more in terms of voting, I think many people choose not to engage in politics because they feel they are faced with a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Jacques Ellul offers an interesting look at democracy, instead of just taking democracy as a government by the people for the people, he looks at the tools used to create outcomes best suited for the state:
The aim of modern propaganda is no longer to modify ideas, but to provoke action. It is no longer to change adherence to a doctrine, but to make the individual cling irrationally to a process of action. It is no longer to lead to a choice, but to loosen the reflexes. It is no longer to transform an opinion, but to arouse an active and mythical belief. 7 (25)
By using propaganda, politicians create an atmosphere where the public feel as though they are participating in politics by placing a vote in the ballot box. While in some senses this is participation, it is not the end all be all of political participation as many posit. In fact we are just perpetuating the status quo, we are not challenging politicians or their propaganda to our full extent.
Robespierre, an influential actor in the French Revolution, might offer some of the most relevant explanations in On The Silver Mark, where he describes passive and active citizens. Active citizens defined as “those able to pay a contribution equivalent to three days’ work were eligible to vote” 8 (5), and passive citizens some three million men (out of seven million) that were excluded. Those that did not have money were not able to participate in politics, in some ways this can be applied to politics today. People are able to vote no matter how much money they make but those with lower incomes vote less often and protesting or engaging in a rebellion often times pulls people away from their normal lives and jobs. Realistically, those most unsatisfied with the government are the people who do not have the luxury of skipping work to participate in a protest. According to Eric Hoffer, in The True Believer, mass movements require people willing to sacrifice themselves and others to achieve goals, they appeal to others by offering an escape. Hoffer argues mass movements target poor, misfits, former soldiers, or people that feel hindered by government.
In conclusion, it would seem as though there is not one answer for this lull in participation by Americans. The class division rising out of industrialization has added to a more active participation by higher classes. Centralized government removing the decision making power of individuals could explain why the public does not fight for a localized government to make decisions. Peoples distrust in politicians can largely explain a decrease in voting turnouts and overall disinterest in politics. Propaganda and our inability to detect its uses can be used to guide citizens to make decisions the state deems as the best rather than leaving them to make decisions that are best suited for them as individuals. Class system and economics can also play a role in ones ability to participate actively. While Hoffer’s argument can be used to explain the participation in the recent Occupy movements, it shows how rare such movements are, inciting change in a large group of people from many different backgrounds does not happen as often as it once has in America.
1 Wiebe, Robert H., Self Rule. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1996.
2 de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. London: Penguin Books, 1863.
3 Dionne, Jr., E.J. Why Americans Hate Politics. New York: Touchstone, 1991
4 Ellul, Jacques. Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes. New York: Random House, 1965.
5 Ibid.
7 Ellul, Jacques. Propaganda.
8 Robespierre, Maximilien. Virtue and Terror. London: Verso, 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment