Why are so many Americans interested in politics?

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=Cunctator]
Clearly Australians don’t all agree with that, otherwise the Liberal party wouldn’t have won the last four federal elections.
[/quote]

That’s as well as may be, but I’ve yet to meet anyone who actually admits to voting for him. :wink:

No-one I work with has any interest in politics, and I can’t say I read the papers much because all the news in them is outdated by the time I see the paper, courtesy of the internet.

I certainly don’t mass campaigns to organise petitions or encouraging people to contact their MP the way I see people in the US doing.

Even though this is a US-centric board, there’s still a lot of political stuff here, and the same is true on many other messageboards I’ve been on, even related to what should be nonpolitical things like film. You don’t get that on messageboards with a predominantly non-US membership base, I’ve found.

22

[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
Why are so many people from the US so interested in politics?
[/QUOTE]

Because our cup overfloweth and that is what happens when humans have too much time on their hands… for better or for worse.

You can walk the streets of our fair nation and see many fat people who have had too much food and you can stroll the beaches of our nation and see many people who have had the luxury of toning their bodies to perfection.

Same goes for the internets.

Our nation has an overabundance of free time available to their citizens and it naturally spills out to where the desires of the user takes them and for some it is food, for some it is body toning and for some it is political activity.

If you care to debate the issue then meet me on the beach of any Somali town and point out the bodybuilt, fat, or laptop equipped person there and we will peck away at the finer points of my hypothesis.

23

[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
Why are so many people from the US so interested in politics?

Anyone like to shed any light on it?
[/QUOTE]
What’s your definition of “so many”? I think the percentage of the general American public who are interested in politics is quite low, and in times like these, dangerously so. Of those interested, there seems to be a higher-than-one-would-consider-possible percentage who are completely ignorant of how government functions and how it’s supposed to function, don’t know the history and evolution of the American political system and don’t care to know, and are quite satisfied being fed a pablum of lies as long as it fits with and promotes their world-view…and I’m talking about Republicans AND Democrats, although Republicans have a somewhat deeper hole to crawl out of in this regard, in my opinion.

There are a very small number (less than 1%? …someone will correct me here) of Americans who are involved, even peripherally, within the political blogosphere, including those who frequent political message boards. However, those who do tend to be a laaaaaaaaht more vocal about their positions than the average citizen, and some of us maintain memberships on multiple boards. Plus we tend to be slightly more prolific than average, and possess a surfeit of ego along with a neverending need (like a junkie hopped-up on crack) to be recognized through our prose.

Also, because America is, as another poster put it, the 800lb. gorilla, those of us concerned about our inevitable impact on the world feel a responsibility to ensure the stewardship of such power is held to account via our constitutionally endowed freedoms of speech and press whenever necessary.

24

[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
Beyond agreeing John Howard is a wanker, you don’t typically hear Australians getting involved in political discussions on the internet, for example.

[/QUOTE]

:eek:

:confused:

Just FTR, would any other Aussies like to confirm or disconfirm this? (The part about participation in online political discussion, not the part about the wanker.)

-FrL-

25

[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
What’s your definition of “so many”? I think the percentage of the general American public who are interested in politics is quite low, and in times like these, dangerously so.
[/QUOTE]
I keep hearing this, but I can’t hardly get through a week even IRL without getting sucked in to a political discussion of some kind. The people that don’t talk politics face-to-face aren’t uninterested, they’re just outnumbered - at work we have 2 SDMB-quality liberals, 8 almost Bush level conservatives, one middle of the road Democrat, one uninterested, and me. Guess which two keep to themselves?

The grocery store, Scout meetings, everywhere but Lodge (where it’s prohibited) there are people discussing politics - Not very well, but they’re trying. Of course, I’ve been told that polite people don’t talk about religion or politics, so it’s probable I’m associating with the uncouth once again.

26

[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
Why are so many people from the US so interested in politics?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, what you are witnessing are the last gasps of an ancient and honorable–and moribund–tradition. Far more than any field game, politics was the national sport for nearly 200 years. However, as Tris notes, the numbers indicate that a pathetically paltrey number of citizens even vote (or are even registered to vote), and far fewer take part in any political activity outside wandering past a polling station on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November (or similar days) every couple of years.

Whether the drop-off has been the result of the disgust of voters following the revelations regarding the Nixon dirty tricks, the impression derived from the prolonging of the Vietnam War after public opinion had turned against it that no one’s vote counted, the heavy use of negative ads (that tend to drive away voters), or the heavy use of “media consultants” that tend to force candidates to take ever more “centrist” positions so that the electorate has come to believe that the parties are indistinguishable and there is little point in worrying about it, or a general trend among Yanks to sit in front of their TVs (or XBoxs) and be entertained, (or some of all of the above), the U.S. electorate has been particularly apathetic–certainly in contrast to earleir generations–for 35 years or more.

The political fights on this board are simply among the remnants of citizens of the older tradition who never quite got the message that they should shut up, sit down, and wait for their bread and circuses.
(Even here, I doubt that among the 3,000 - 5,000 active members in any year, there are more than a hundred or so posters actively engaged in political discussions.)

27

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
a pathetically paltrey number of citizens even vote
[/QUOTE]

No. Wrong.

Republican Bush
(Incumbent)
62,040,606

Democratic Kerry
59,028,109

Population 2004: 299,000,000

Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2005 24.8%

Temper the “paltry” with the fact that certain states need not have their mass of citizens vote due to the fact that they are a given one way or another and you have a quite impressive turnout.

Over 50% by my humble count.

28

[QUOTE=DevNull]
Temper the “paltry” with the fact that certain states need not have their mass of citizens vote due to the fact that they are a given one way or another and you have a quite impressive turnout.

Over 50% by my humble count.
[/QUOTE]

This site has some recent (1998 and later) numbers, and gives the turnout for 2004 as ~60%.

I’d consider the fact that 40% of the voting eligible population couldn’t be bothered to vote for any office, referendum, or initiative at all to be pretty pathetic. YMMV.

29

[QUOTE=Frank]
I’d consider the fact that 40% of the voting eligible population couldn’t be bothered to vote for any office, referendum, or initiative at all to be pretty pathetic. YMMV.
[/QUOTE]

Pathetic, possibly.

Paltry, no way.

Semantics aside, imagine the drooling over the 40%+

30

I would observe that very few of the people posting on the SDMB are interested in politics. While there are many lively and well-attended discussions in GD and the Pit, most of the political posts are made by a comparitavely small number of devoted posters, and the vast majority of members simply avoid GD and the Pit. MPSIMS is the most popular forum for a reason. As in life, most people just don’t care.

31

My own (admittedly very limited) experience as someone who has now been living outside the US for a while is that the OP’s premise is probably broadly correct when comparing the US to most of its “peers” (i.e. the EU, Canada, the Pacific Rim).

I think that this can be largely attributed to 3 relative factors:

  1. The USA is an extremely heterogeneous country, with a fantastically diverse population.

  2. The USA is the world’s only remaining superpower (for now).

  3. The USA has a very poorly developed social safety net.

Taken together, these factors would lend themselves to the formation of innumerable political sub-groupings who passionately argue about the USA’s proper role in world affairs, while domestically, they struggle over the scraps that government largesse bestows through limited social programs.

My perspective is probably highly skewed by living in Ireland (and I mean no offense to my Irish hosts), but the feeling I get here is that:

  1. Internationally, Ireland matters little on the world stage, so who cares what foregin policy is adopted?

  2. Domestically, there is a well-developed network of social services (quasi-nationalized healthcare, equitable distribution of primary and secondary education services, heavily subsidized public transportation, etc.) such that, for all intents and purposes, daily life here is much less risky and stressful than in the USA. If you know that you’re going to be OK from day-to-day, who cares about the arcane details of public policy?

A more mundane observation to back up my bald assertions: I see hardly any political bumper stickers on cars here. The few stickers you do see are almost always for local sports teams, schools, and radio stations. Quite a change from what I was used to.

32

Before asking why Americans are more interested in politics than their contemporaries in other advanced democracies, one might best ask whether it’s so.

I can’t answer that question.

The first hurdle is to come up with a robust measure of ‘interest.’ This is the reason that, as Jared Diamond once wrote, ‘soft’ sciences are harder than ‘hard’ sciences.

I don’t have such a robust measure, so I’ll go with what I can easily grab: voter turnout rates. Here’s how our contemporaries do. Excluding countries such as Australia and Belgium that have compulsory voting, and unusually small countries like Malta, what are the turnout rates in other advanced democracies’ elections?

Canada and the UK are at 76%. Ditto France. Germany, 86%. Italy, 90%. Austria, 92%. New Zealand, 88%. Norway, Sweden, and Denmark come in at 81%, 86%, and 87% respectively. Greece, 86%. Spain and Portugal, 73% and 79%, respectively. Over on the Pacific side of things, Japan clocks in at 71%.

The only advanced democracy with at least a middlin’-length history of free elections that appears to be down around the U.S.’ numbers is Switzerland at 54%.

33

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Actually, what you are witnessing are the last gasps of an ancient and honorable–and moribund–tradition. Far more than any field game, politics was the national sport for nearly 200 years. However, as Tris notes, the numbers indicate that a pathetically paltrey number of citizens even vote (or are even registered to vote), and far fewer take part in any political activity outside wandering past a polling station on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November (or similar days) every couple of years.

Whether the drop-off has been the result of the disgust of voters following the revelations regarding the Nixon dirty tricks, the impression derived from the prolonging of the Vietnam War after public opinion had turned against it that no one’s vote counted, the heavy use of negative ads (that tend to drive away voters), or the heavy use of “media consultants” that tend to force candidates to take ever more “centrist” positions so that the electorate has come to believe that the parties are indistinguishable and there is little point in worrying about it, or a general trend among Yanks to sit in front of their TVs (or XBoxs) and be entertained, (or some of all of the above), the U.S. electorate has been particularly apathetic–certainly in contrast to earleir generations–for 35 years or more.

The political fights on this board are simply among the remnants of citizens of the older tradition who never quite got the message that they should shut up, sit down, and wait for their bread and circuses.
(Even here, I doubt that among the 3,000 - 5,000 active members in any year, there are more than a hundred or so posters actively engaged in political discussions.)
[/QUOTE]

I think your impressions are colored by your own upbringing. The 1960s-1970s were a unique period of political awareness in United States history. All indications are that the “norm” throughout most of American history is a great disinterest in politics. I think the lowest turnout for any election ever came during the 19th century, for example.

The big political machines that used to dominate politics had the effect of keeping public discourse at an all-time low, in my opinion.

34

Simple. Americans who *don’t * care about politics don’t write many posts about it.

35

[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
The myth of American involvement in politics is omnipresent. For the next eighteen months, anyway.

Of the citizens of the United States, fewer than 60 percent are actually registered to vote. Of the ones who are registered, about the same percentage vote in presidential election years, and usually only in the final election, the one in November. So, thirty six percent are “interested in politics” if you define that to mean vote for president.

During the rest of the four year cycle, the percentage drops to 25 even here “inside the beltway” where I live. So, if you have the support of three and a half percent of the local population, you can get a nomination from one or the other party to pretty much any office you want. Seven percent will get you elected. The hard facts of life are that the margins between parties are such that either one party always wins, or the process so closely resembles random that any real conscious effort to mobilize a vote can get your candidate into a position of actual power.

But, it doesn’t happen. Why? Because Americans actually don’t give a rats ass for politics.

Tris

"A nihilist? That must be exhausting! " ~ Lebowski ~
[/QUOTE]

These numbers are a bit misleading.

In 2004 the Voting Age Population was 221,285,099. VAP is simply defined as “age 18 or above.” Of the Voting Age Population, only 202,746,417 were eligible to vote. What happened to the roughly 19m people who were “ineligible?” Some were foreign nationals unable to vote as they were not citizens of the United States. Some were incarcerated and ineligible to vote, some were formerly convicted felons and ineligible to vote (not all States make felons ineligible, but many do.) Some were mentally incapacitated individuals who were not eligible to vote.

So the Voting Eligible Population was 202,746,417 in 2004. The total turnout of the VEP was 60.93%, which still obviously has room for improvement, however far more than half of those who can vote, did vote in 2004. Tracking what percentage of the VEP were registered voters is a bit more difficult, as voter registration rolls are often inaccurate and contain tons of “dead wood” (people who have moved to other precincts but haven’t updated their registration.)

When people talk about political participation it is the norm to talk about participation among the segment of the population that can vote, because the segment of the population that can’t vote can’t be self-motivated to vote. We can of course lower the voting age further, remove restrictions on inmates/convicted felons/the mentally ill, but on an individual basis those individuals can’t register to vote and thus can’t directly effect policy at the ballot box.

36

DevNull writes:

> Our nation has an overabundance of free time available to their citizens and it
> naturally spills out to where the desires of the user takes them and for some it
> is food, for some it is body toning and for some it is political activity.

I don’t have the figures just offhand, but it’s my impression that Americans work more hours per year than the citizens of other developed countries, so I don’t understand in what sense we have an overabundance of free time.

37

[QUOTE=]
we would now be debating the legacy of President Gore.
[/QUOTE]

Despite the many messes that George W. has been involved in, when I read that line a chill went down my spine. :eek:

38

[QUOTE=kniz]
Despite the many messes that George W. has been involved in, when I read that line a chill went down my spine. :eek:
[/QUOTE]

At the risk of hijacking this thread, WHY?!

39

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
I think your impressions are colored by your own upbringing. The 1960s-1970s were a unique period of political awareness in United States history. All indications are that the “norm” throughout most of American history is a great disinterest in politics. I think the lowest turnout for any election ever came during the 19th century, for example.

The big political machines that used to dominate politics had the effect of keeping public discourse at an all-time low, in my opinion.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think so.
This graph shows a fairly high voter turnout from around 1840, on, with a serious dip around WWI (when soldiers who were away from home were not permitted absentee ballots) and the Influenza epidemic and another dip in WWII for similar reasons, then a trailing off following the 1960s.

Reports of public participation in camapign conventions, attendance at stump speeches, and similar events throughout that long period indicate, to me, that interest tended to be higher.

It will be interesting to see whether the fitfull small rises since 1990 indicate a trend upward or are simply responses to single issues that dominated those elections.

40

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
At the risk of hijacking this thread, . . .
[/QUOTE]
Let’s not hijack the thread.

A new thread with a link to this post seems an appropriate response.