Florida Shooters Network

Have you ever, or do you now, feel that you are alienated from your government to merit a decline in your participation?
_________________________________

Low government participation in the United States has been a source of countless journal articles researching various explanations. This paper will contend that reasons for the decline, considering its many facets, can be generalized into one prevailing category: government alienation. Are citizens who feel alienated by American government less likely to participate when compared to those citizens who do not feel alienated? Discussion will briefly review what is meant by “citizenry” and “government participation.” Alienation will also be explored: what it is and the different forms. Finally, we will look at how government alienation can be measured.

Concepts of what a “citizen” is may include citizenship in oneself wherein your person is your own sovereign property. On the other hand, a “citizen” in the respect to one’s nationality in a defined international border can also be considered. Aoileann Ní Mhurchú (2010) argues that, “two strands of thought can be identified that each produce a different understanding of what it means to be(come) a “citizen” in this context” (374). Does one need to nearly be in order to be a citizen according to self-sovereignty, or does one need to be a contributing participant in a government on any level to enjoy true citizenry? Whatever the answer, this paper will explore the latter as what it means to be a citizen within one’s own country, namely the United States. Government participation, as a voter, an activist, or public official, not only contributes greatly to one’s citizenry as an actor on the United States political stage, but also to our own self-sovereignty as that actor.

Government participation in the United States is one of the greatest gifts the founding fathers provided the citizenry. “One of the major good works of political parties is to engage citizens in the political process” (Huckfeldt and Sprague 1992, 70). For the citizen actor of the political stage, participation can portray many forms: voter influence, rally attendance, wearing a button or displaying a bumper sticker, writing a letter to an editor, or even contributing to a campaign. Running for public office is a significant increase of participation yet even this does not end at election; there is a constituency to uphold. In these, and others not discussed here, is the essence of government participation; yet participation, in all roles of the cast, seems to be in decline in the United States. McDonald & Popkin (2001) argue however, that voter decline is an illusion and that it can be explained in a comparative analysis of how the U.S. Census Bureau uses Voter Age Population (VAP) data versus Voter Eligible Population (VEP). Even so, one cannot ignore the fact that there is countless research accounting for government alienation as a possible cause for a decline in participation.

Alienation as a measure of citizen participation in American government is tough in its own right; it alone has subgroups endogenous to it. Division of the concept then becomes necessary; “division is [a] way of dealing with a difficult variable… alienation, for example, may be divided into four specific characteristics that are tied to the way people are thought to feel when they are alienated: normless, powerless, meaningless, and helpless” (Hoover and Donovan 2007, 75). Does a citizen’s lack of confidence in making a difference contribute to feeling powerless? Do social issues, such as gender, racial, or sexual orientation inequality account for feeling normless? Or do broader issues such as an uninformed participant or indifference factor into feeling helpless? Whatever the explanation, alienation accounts for numerous discussions on the topic; exploration of a few of these* follows.

Confidence in government - in the economy, in political representation, and even one’s own self - is enough to foster government participation. Remove all confidences however, and alienation sets in. “In troubled times, minds are more easily led; in good times, citizens are creatures of habit” (Brader 2005, 402). Citizens will most assuredly, out of habit, increase participation when their confidences increase. Yet in decline, they are easily led away, or alienated from government. For example, in districts where there is a majority-minority non-white population, Caucasian voters most often have no confidence in their voice making a difference in their local constituency; consequently they will not participate in government (Barreto, Segura, and Woods 2004). Social issues are yet another source that can and does cause government alienation, especially those issues surrounding gender, race, and sexual orientation.

“Marginalized groups such as women, racial minorities, and low-income people had few formal political organizations representing their interests in national politics before the 1960s” (Strolovitch 2007, 87). But even today, with over 700 groups now representing such “marginalized” citizens, the degree at which they do demands improvement. Underrepresentation for these groups is not only problematic, it is pandemic. For example, while “51 percent of the American population [are women], they hold only 15 percent of… the House of Representatives and only 14 percent of the… Senate” (91). Similar discrepancies are evidenced among other groups including African and Asian Americans, “Latinos; Native Americans; low-income people; and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people” (91). Alienation is without question apparent even at the highest levels of government. Without a proper measurement however, one can make the argument that issues creating government alienation can conversely energize participation amongst the electorate and political elites alike.

To properly measure alienation, a comparison would be required between those citizens who regularly participate in government and those who do not. Amongst those citizens who feel their interests are most represented, are they more likely to participate as actors on the government stage? Conversely, do citizens who feel underrepresented remain as far away from political activity as possible feeling their efforts will never make a difference? A powerful indicator for this type of measurement is the black voter registration in Mississippi before and after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Danielson 2009).

Prior to 1960, black voter registration in Mississippi was less than 5 percent; government alienation in the form of Jim Crow laws accounting for the gross underrepresentation. With the advent of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 however, accompanied with the 1967 gubernatorial candidacy of Rubel Phillips running as a racial moderate, “he registered African American voters at higher rates than did his counterparts in other counties” (Danielson 2009, 91). Without representation, African Americans in Mississippi observed very little to no government participation due vastly to alienation. With alienation removed, participation reached higher levels than years previous (jumping to 60 percent). Utilizing this one example without the consideration of others, we can conclude that citizens who felt alienated by American government in Mississippi were indeed less likely to participate when compared to years later when they did not feel alienated. Of course, additional observations and data should be provided for a more representative sample yet, given this argument, it has been shown that further research upon the subject is merited.

The term “citizen” has been attributed to two definitions: in one’s own personal sovereignty and another as an actor within a nation state. To participate in government as a citizen actor is a gift afforded to the same in the United States. For this reason, American Government must make it their duty to ensure alienation from these benefits do not occur. Alienation has been divided for easier examination and different forms of it were discussed. In the example of the Mississippi Gubernatorial Race of 1967, it has been shown that government alienation was prevalent prior to the VRA. While controlling for black voter registration prior to the act, these same citizens increased their participation after implementation of the act casting their votes for a candidate claiming to represent their interests. This alone shows that alienation cannot be ignored. Future studies most assuredly would want to monopolize on the concepts of alienation and perhaps research will continue to move forward from not only words on cause and prevention, but will convert into actions.

References
Barreto, Matt A., Segura, Gary M. and Woods, Nathan D. "The Mobilizing Effect of Majority–Minority Districts on Latino Turnout." American Political Science Review 98, no. 1 (February 2004): 65-75.

Brader, Ted. "Striking a Responsive Chord: How Political Ads Motivate and Persuade Voters by Appealing to Emotions." American Journal of Political Science 49, no. 2 (April 2005): 388-405.

Danielson, Chris. "Lily White and Hard Right: The Mississippi Republican Party and Black Voting, 1965-1980." Journal of Southern History 75, no. 1 (February 2009): 83-118.

Hoover, Kenneth, and Donovan, Todd. "Chapter 4, Refinements." In The Elements of Social Scientific Thinking, 58-77. Boston: Wadsworth Publishing, 2007.

Huckfeldt, Robert, and Sprague, John. "Political Parties and Electoral Mobilization: Political Structure, Social Structure, and the Party Canvass." The American Political Science Review 86, no. 1 (1992): 70-86.

McDonald, Michael P., and Popkin, Samuel L. "The Myth of the Vanishing Voter." American Political Science Review 95, no. 4 (2001): 963-974.

Ní Mhurchú, Aoileann. "Citizenship as Absolute Space, Citizenship as Contingent Trace." Alternatives 35 (2010): 373-400.

Strolovitch, Dara Z. "A More Level Playing Field or a New Mobilization of Bias?" In In Interest Group Politics 7e, edited by Allan Cigler and Burdett Loomis, 86-107. CQ Press, 2007.


*Other factors considered by the author but not discussed in this paper include ideology, investment, and government exhaustion.

ETA: Grammar

Author: Tom Fernandez (a recent class paper)

The more democratic we become, the more alienated I feel. Why should a welfare queen's vote cancel out the vote of someone who isn't on the dole?

A US Army field manual created in 1928 hit the nail on the head regarding democracy:

A government of the masses. Authority — derived through mass meeting or any form of 'direct' expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

Yes Tom I feel I have been alienated since the end of the Nixon administration. By this I mean that I have not voted, on the national level, FOR a candidate. Voting against or abstaining from voting for POTUS most of the time. And this election cycle is no different.
Now I know that the focus of the essay you shared with the board is not about voting as much as it is about why.
I feel disenfranchised by this and I feel it is the objective of the political party to keep most people disgusted with the process. I use the singular for a reason; there is no significant difference in Ds and Rs. Neither, are keeping the Constitution and our founding principles in mind when they write legislation or executive orders. And the Party only wants the faithful to participate in the elections. In order to preserve their positions this is a must.
The opinion that NOT voting on a certain person is wasting one's vote, making certain that particular classes of people vote (convicts are the first that come to mind) and with little proof of the person's eligibility to the RIGHT to vote. Assuring that the status quo is not disrupted is the reason for this. The status quo would be upset by having interlopers involved in the voting ritual.

It is too easy to vote, this is my personal opinion. Early voting, absentee voting, and not providing identification are problems I see. Along with the personal opinion that most of the population IS NOT QUALIFIED to vote for American Idol let alone the President and Representatives, the Senate which once was the Higher House of Congress.
I know no one will think that having a test of any kind to vote is proper, but there should be a personal investment in the country, state, county, and municipality. An informed citizenry would not have allowed the USA to get to this point.
These opinions are mine and in no way reflect the views of this board.

I completely agree w/ you P5. And though the essay used the VRA to show an example of alienation, a much larger essay would most assuredly show all effects, from voting all the way up to alienation even amongst serving public officials.

I would be very interested in studying it some more and I'm sure there are plenty of articles out there that possibly discuss the reasons. But as you noted, the paper is more concerned on the why and its interesting how your experience actually epitomizes the why. Lack of representation has defeated your confidence in the system and thus you feel very much alienated by it and them. Consequently removing participation.

And you know what? I honestly don't think there's anything wrong w/ that! Our founding fathers gave us a system wherein we can feel that we are being properly represented and over the course of two centuries, that representation has eroded to basically nothing. Myself? I voted YES in this poll and did so w/ a heavy sigh.

Unless our government takes action and takes action NOW, not tomorrow, alienation will grow into a pandemic that it will no longer control.

Your last statement "Unless our government takes action, NOW not tomorrow..."

Government? They are the single largest contributor to the "pandemic" of alienation. Maybe my tinfoil hat isn't as secure as it should be. The Government wants/needs to keep the alienation going.
I'm in no way meaning to besmirch any board members character. Barrack, Mitt, Newt, Rick and all are the status quo. I cannot think of one that I would vote FOR.
As in the past three elections I voted against Al Gore, John Kerry and lastly Barrack Obama. I have yet to abstain from voting in a presidential election. This may be my first since I came of voting age.
On the local level I will never miss an election. If the persons or ballot question I voted for do not get a pass then, so be it. I have NPA on my voter's card for a reason.
I would NOT want to affiliate with most members of The Party.
Government will never be the answer, Centralized power cannot suit all the citizens. The founders of the USA knew better. The peoples of the "Several States" have allowed their governing bodies to delegate their responsibilities to D.C. And in this the problems that I personally see. D.C. will not willingly relinquish this authority and The Party is doing its best to see to it, on all levels.
As I have stated; these are my opinions and mine alone.

P5 guy wrote:Your last statement "Unless our government takes action, NOW not tomorrow..."

Not necessarily what I meant. By it I meant the government (those who are elected to serve US) need to cease alienation. What we need are real representatives that will do all in their power to make sure government stays out of our way. Government's real purpose is to make itself as transparent as possible. Unfortunately we have a bunch of ppl in Washington that think quite the opposite (on both sides of the aisle).

C'mon Tom. This is America and our custom is to use and exploit the government, avoid it when it tries to do something to us we don't like, suck it dry and avoid paying for it because it belongs to everyone and thus no one.

Government is not your Mommy, your Big Brother, or a warm and cuddly pet. It's a necessary evil that's gotten too necessary, grown too big on borrowed money, and too stupid and clumsy to survive unless big chunks of it are lopped off. Use it as your security blanket instead of treating it warily as a potential adversary and you are bound to be disappointed and "alienated".

PS. I was part of that government for 26 years before retiring. I found out real fast that it has its own interests at heart, a combination of politics, bureaucratic career building/protecting, and business profits at heart, not just Eisenhower's simplistic Military-industrial complex. It doesn't give a damn about you unless helping you advances those interests.

Why? Well, altruism is not a real big part of anyone's life or paycheck as compared to self interest. In 30 years charitable donations haven't exceeded 2.16% of adjusted gross income according to the IRS. Why should you think the people who make up the government and its supporting structures are going to be more dedicated and selfless than the rest of us?