Re: [apsa_itp] a quiet revolution in democracy - Very quiet!

["Peter Muhlberger" <peter.muhlberger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Steffen:  I'm not sure I buy the idea of rational ignorance, albeit
it is deeply engrained in our field.  The fact is that a small portion
of the public, but still millions of people, is extremely informed
about politics and this is typically the best-educated part of the
public--the people you'd expect to be able to figure out that it's not
'economically rational' to learn about politics.  Same situation goes
for a closely related problem:  why people choose to participate
politically.  While there are a plethora of theory-saving solutions in
political science as to why intelligent people choose to be
politically involved and knowledgeable, I think those fall quite short
as well.  Check out Green and Shapiro's Pathologies of Rational Choice
for a more extended argument along these lines.  In a paper in
Political Communication, I offer the beginnings of an alternative
theory that may better explain political engagement.  The theory,
which taps self-regulation and self-perception theories in psychology,
suggests that strategic rationality is dependent on identity
construction and maintenance and that these identity processes can
require what Habermas calls 'communicative rationality'--a type of
rationality from which it is rational to participate politically and
obey ethical norms, unlike with economic rationality.  The gist is
that most Americans have not internalized a political identity because
their environment hasn't demanded it of them (and frankly, it's a
rather abstract beast).  People who do internalize such an identity
will be politically engaged and informed (some interesting research by
Koestner, Losier et al. along these lines in psychology).  The
problem, then, is not that it's irrational to be politically engaged
but that our world offers too little opportunity for meaningful
citizen engagement.  Our idealistic computer science colleagues may be
on to something, though I think a more engaged world would require a
long and difficult transformation of the average citizen and political
structures.

Peter

On 8/17/07, Steffen W Schmidt <sws@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  It's all very logical. The demand on the public time and energy is SO
> unrealistic as to make this political utopia a nightmare!
>
>  When people have the opportunity to shape policy at the most proximate
> level - local elections; say school board races - the turnout is usually
> abysmal. Often less than 10% vote. In many places where there are "many
> elections" intelligent and motivated voters complain that there are "too
> many elections" so voter turnout is low.
>
>  We are all smart and well read. We have seen the data on the "rational
> ignorance" effect which causes people to ignore politics and even ignore
> spending a lot of time studying the issues.
>
>  The "quiet revolution" also completely ignores the reality of human
> behavior which will cause "vote auctions" and "election brokerages" to pop
> up. These will commodify voting - people will sell their votes to these
> brokers who will deliver them to interest who can then overwhelm the system
> and determine what the outputs will be - "digital Cyber elites" will become
> the centers of power.
>
>  This discussion is very much like the early discussions about the Internet
> as a democratic, kind, positive, empowering village green where everyone is
> a "good person". How much maleware and malicious spam did YOU get today!
>
>


-- 
--
Peter Muhlberger
http://geocities.com/pmuhl78/

--
apsa_itp mailing list served by Harvard-MIT Data Center
List Address: apsa_itp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.hmdc.harvard.edu/?info=apsa_itp