The Stars of an Ideological Constellation

In regards to political culture in the United States, public opinion is the cornerstone of American democracy. It serves as a mechanism by which those in power must adhere to the voices of the people, for it is what drives the circulation of policy, order, and balance in the nation. Should the channeling of public opinion to those in government become in any way blurred or misconstrued, therein rises a great risk in the existence of an increased dissatisfaction with those in power, mass protest, or in more extreme circumstances, revolution. As a result, the concept of public opinion is a major responsibility for the public to hold, but unfortunately, the American public is not competent enough as a whole to fulfill the responsibilities of democratic citizenship. By the combination of lack of political knowledge, minimal trust in government, and poor ideological backing, the public ultimately fails to meet a high enough standard to which it can be a dependable, competent voice.

There cannot exist competence without knowledge, which is the first primary reason Americans cannot be trusted to fulfill the proper requirements to carry out democratic duties. As a whole, the public simply lacks true comprehension of politics, and as a result, hold an impressively weak grasp on their own ideologies. While the meaning of ideology is usually referred to as a plain form of cognition that is utilized to configure beliefs, it is not this aspect that causes the American people to lose the ability to connect the dots of their ideological constellations. Rather, it is applying their broad, far-reaching perspectives into more narrowly tailored circumstances. Put more simply, when people are asked to delve into the meanings of their economic, social, or political opinions, they are unable to provide proper explanations or reasonings. A truly formed, stable ideology “requires breadth, structure, and stability” (Kinder and Kalmoe, 21). In reference to investigations held by Philip Ernest Converse, a political scientist, the overall American population is lacking in all three of the aforementioned requirements, leading to a similarly weakly formed populace of ideologies altogether. From this, Converse coined a term that best describes what he considers to be a summary of the status of the political principles held by Americans: “innocence of ideology” (Kinder and Kalmoe, 21). Loosely defined, it is the claim that ideology isn’t absent entirely, but instead weakly backed and lacking in true design. Whether or not the American people hold no ideology at all or a naive version of it, both situations lead to a level of incompetence that cannot be reliable in executing acceptable democratic obligations.

It is not just the existence of improper ideological knowledge that brings the role of Americans in democratic citizenship into question, but also the inconsistencies the public holds in already weakly-formed opinions. If we were to consider ideology as a metaphorical wheel, the hub would be the deeply ingrained political identification, with the spokes representing the policies, events, and personal experiences which make up, defend, and ultimately lead back to the creation of the singular core party affiliation. With this newly mentioned issue in mind, the ideological wheel cannot function properly without consistency, which is the very issue John Zaller investigates. The individuals in question seemed to hold a firm grasp on their perspectives of the answers to questions intended to delve into their personal ideologies on economic or otherwise worldly topics. However, after a mere four weeks, these very same people were once again interviewed on the same topics, but this time, with a new phrasing; Zaller discovered that “most citizens appeared not to have just one attitude toward political issues” (Zaller, 54). In fact, survey responses changed significantly, with the respondents appearing “to base their...responses on whichever of their multiple and sometimes conflicting attitudes was most immediately salient to them” (Zaller, 54). Not only did this result in clashing and inconsistent feedback, but it is an indisputable example of just how weak the Americans’ ideological wheel is.

The inability of Americans to properly carry out their democratic duties extends far beyond mere lack of political awareness, however, with another primary issue lying in their simple lack of faith in government. Trust of those in power is a critical aspect of a pro-democratic nation, and lack of can prove to be detrimental to the governmental institution. More than this, a low level of political trust can also lead to a deficiency in desire to be involved in politics at all. Political trust is a substantial feature of diffuse support, which can be loosely defined as the existence patriotic feelings, coupled with an absence of knowledge of specific policies or issues (Meer, 2017). While it is fair to say that the concept of distrust can be construed based on factors such as values, interests, and personal perceptions, the effect ultimately remains the same (Bertsou, 28). Americans who deem their government to be untrustworthy become convinced that participation in the established order is a hopeless endeavor, and one in which their opinion alone will not make any significant change. It is a philosophy which trickles down into simple political processes, often resulting in refusal to “lend support” to their affiliated party on election day (Bertsou, 27). Thus, the disengagement problem is created, with a population of people refusing to partake in politics because they believe that not only is it not worth it to participate, but also that their individual contribution will make no difference. Keeping all aforementioned factors in mind, such phenomena explains further why the American people do not meet the proper requirements to fulfill their democratic responsibilities.

Ultimately, poor reliability in Americans’ role as proper democratic citizens can be traced back to the original acquisition of their political ideologies. Political beliefs are socially-structured frameworks. In the world of behavioral genetics, “social attitudes are partially heritable,” and as a result, the very same can be said for political attitudes (Smith, 17). Consequently, it can be safely concluded that obtainment of unique political beliefs begin in the home and are ultimately inherited from family. Herein arise the vital questions: Is this a reliable source? And does it craft equally reliable democratic citizens?

A major determinant of family influence on political views begins with the parental units, as well as the overall presence of politics in the household, whether they be weak or strong. The degree to which political attributes, discussions, and affiliations are active in the home have positive correlations to the extent of how political a person may be later on in life. With that being said, in recent years, it has been discovered that parental influence in the home has actually declined as a result of increased polarization in the political parties (Jennings, 785). Drawing from this, there is a heavy reliance on families to properly educate and nurture their children to create what will become the knowledgeable, democratic citizens of the future. Not only is this a weighty responsibility to place on child-rearing individuals, it is a duty that is being performed incorrectly, leading to the dissociation of children from the political world. Considering that parental influence has declined in recent years, a path is being forged to a future in which the new democratic societal makeup is unable to properly carry out their democratic citizenships.

In the world of public opinion, there is a concept known formally as cuetaking, or the modeling of one’s positions based on those offered by another individual. We accept our cues based on the grounds of three essential factors: expertise, trustworthiness, and shared values, and if any of the aforementioned components are lacking, the source of the cues becomes greatly questionable in terms of reliability (Kantack, 2 March). Families are the ultimate examples of cuegivers, for as children are grown and nurtured in the home, the political features which therein exist are either accepted or not. Parents play a critical role in the development of a child’s political ideologies and beliefs. The dependability of the cues they send to their offspring is called into question when considering that the mass majority of American families cannot be considered credible or consistent (Jennings, 783). They tend to lean strongly towards one ideological side or another, and as a result, provide a biased outlook on politics. More than this, they cannot be compared in terms of political knowledge to those in power, such as government officials, politicians, senators, or justices. Consequently, parents lack in expertise and trustworthiness, and as a result, are essentially poor cuegivers. If we couple this with the proven deterioration of parental influence in the home, we are left with a generation of children that is built on ill-formed political foundations and unprepared to carry out their democratic citizenship.

More than this, features such as geographical location, religious backgrounds, race, and other similar social cleavages all influence party identification and outlooks on politics (Abramowitz, 549). Built on the fact that the frequency of family-born political beliefs vary from home to home, this creates an incredibly diverse array of potentially weakly-backed political ideologies. When combined and placed on a mass scale, the American public as a whole simply cannot be considered competent enough to fulfill the responsibilities of democratic citizenship. As a result, strong polarization can only be entrusted by a select group of elites who are truly knowledgeable in the realm of politics (Fiorina, 2008). These elites, who possess political power and are highly ranked in government, contain the necessary understanding of politics needed to properly and suitably attain democratic citizenry. The American public, however, cannot be held to such standards.

Based on factors that range from lack of sustainable political knowledge, to an indisputable low level of trust in government, to weak political foundations, the American public as a whole cannot be expected to properly carry out competent democratic duties. Although public opinion is essential to the functioning of American democracy, a sound ideology is critical and indispensable to fulfill a proper democratic citizenship, as it denotes a clear frame of reference that comes to demonstrate individual thought, behavior, and reasoning. It is from a true, valid ideology that dependable public opinion is born. However, based on my research and findings, a truly competent public opinion by the American people simply does not exist. It is as Gore Vidal once said: “Public opinion is a chaos of superstition, misinformation and prejudice.”

Works Cited

Bertsou. “Citizen Attitudes of Political Distrust: Examining Distrust through Technical, Ethical, and Interest-Based Evaluations.”

Jennings, et al. Politics across Generations: Family Transmission Reexamined. Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 2001.

Kantack, Benjamin. “Heuristics and Cue Taking.” Public Opinion. Public Opinion, 2 Mar. 2018, Athens.

Kinder, and Kalmoe. “Neither Liberal nor Conservative.” University of Chicago Press, 1 May 2017.

Meer. “Political Trust and the ‘Crisis of Democracy.’” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 8 June 2017, politics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-77.

Zaller. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge University Press, 2011.