Political Knowledge:
Voter Information and the Democratic Citizen Many Americans proudly assert that the “American Experiment” has been a success. The optimistic and patriotic American will point to the “stability” and strength of the country's democratic institutions upheld by the United States Constitution as proof that the democratic notions and principles that were envisioned by the Founding Fathers continue to flourish to this day. A pessimistic individual on the other hand may easily point out that the current political climate exemplifies the decline of civic responsibility, and ultimately, the decline of democratic rule. In Washington, politicians are split along partisan lines, battling one another on decisive and controversial issues such as raising the debt limit, balancing the budget, and health care reform. While politicians carefully calculate the potential consequences of their decisions, the same battles are being waged ferociously on other fronts by the media and other self-interested groups. Ultimately, the results of these policy decisions depend on which party could convince the American public of what is in their best collective interest. This is precisely the nature of politics and democracy, and neither one is always fair. In a world where interest groups and lobbies have tremendous sway and influence over those in power, and when media reporting of the issues lacks fairness and accuracy, it should be the citizen's duty and responsibility to ensure that they are politically aware and civically engaged. This paper will argue that an informed citizenry is necessary to the proper functioning of the American political system. Decreasing levels of political knowledge amongst citizens and the manipulation of the facts by the media obfuscate the important issues that affect the public good, while preventing democracy from flourishing. As James Madison once wrote: “A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologues to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both” (Carpini and Keeter, 23).

Review of Literature The debate over democracy and self-government is an age old debate that will surely continue for generations to come. Thousands of years ago, intellectual giants such as Plato and Aristotle advocated for self rule, yet they criticized the notion that the average citizen was capable of effectively participating in a democracy. The last three centuries, however, opinions about the effectiveness of democracy have consistently changed. Most world leaders, citizens, and intellectuals actively promote democracy and popular government, while many so called “third world countries” strive to model their governments based on western democratic principles and institutions. Despite such significant strides, many critics of democracy still point out that the “systems of checks and balances” that safeguard democratic institutions and the political processes meant to ensure that citizens have a voice in government “assure only stablility—not democracy” (Carpini and Keeter, 2). Some of these critics will cite evidence that warrants low levels of political knowledge amongst the public as proof that citizens are incapable of making sound decisions on relevant issues that affect the collective good. Others will argue that citizens do not necessarily need to be highly informed since they are able to make “reasonably good low-information decisions” (Carpini and Keeter, 3 ). Contrary to these findings, more compelling research by Carpini and Keeter, among others, shows that knowledge about politics is essential for citizens to evaluate their best interests, while providing individuals with the tools required to protect those interests (Carpini and Keeter, 3). Prior to analyzing the research and literature supporting the case for a politically aware and knowledgeable public, it is imperative to discuss how individuals acquire their knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes regarding the political sphere. Indeed, an understanding of how and why individuals hold certain political beliefs is a prerequisite to increasing political knowledge levels in the United States.
Political Socialization and Political Knowledge First and foremost, political socialization is generally defined by most scholars as “the process through which individuals acquire their particular political orientations” – meaning how they consciously and subconsciously formulate their feelings and evaluations regarding the political realm, as well as the tools and methods by which individuals acquire specific knowledge to confirm these beliefs (Wong & Tseng, 151). Similarly, Bloemraad and Trost define political socialization as “the process of acquiring or developing attitudes, values, beliefs, skills, and the behaviors related to public affairs and politics” (Bloemraad & Trost, 509). For Carpini and Keeter, political learning is a “lifelong activity” that is influenced by many social, economic, cultural, and even biological infleunces (Carpini and Keeter, 178). Traditional research on political socialization and political learning within the family suggests that the process by which individuals enhance their political knowledge is based on a “unidirectional intergenerational transmission” of political attitudes and information from the parents or guardians to the child (Wong & Tseng, 151).When research on this process began in the 1950s, the traditional nuclear family was still dominant and it was thus the basis for most major studies. Many scholars assumed that focusing on the parents as the dominant actors in regards transmission of political beliefs was the most viable model since children have to depend on them for physical support (i.e. providing safety, food, clothes) and for emotional support as they grew older (McDevitt, 68). In addition, one can safely assert that children who are raised by their parents are simultaneously trained to conceptualize and understand certain knowledge, skills, and beliefs that reflect the family’s ethnicity or social identity. Recent research and findings show that children and adolescents—even during their early stages of life—are not merely empty slates, receptive to any political stimulation; rather, evidence shows that children are very capable of comprehending their parents’ stances and beliefs and subsequently adapting their beliefs to their own while at the same time formulating their own stances and meanings (McDevitt, 69). Furthermore, children will also take what they learn—be it from the television, media, or classroom—and use it to initiate discussion with their parents and other family members. Through this process children do not only enhance their own “civic competence” and ability to formulate opinions, but they are also able to “transform patterns of family communication in ways that benefit themselves and their parents” (McDevitt & Chaffe , 281). The research by McDevitt and Chaffe on family interaction and political socialization processes strongly suggests that once adolescents became more civically engaged or interested in politics, they are more likely to influence the political knowledge of their family unit (McDevitt & Chaffe, 287). Findings provided by Carpini and Keeter on political socialization and political knowledge are based on a much broader approach that analyzes both psychological and biological influences. They postulate that individuals learn about a particular subject if the have the “ability, motivation, and opportunity to do so” (Carpini and Keeter, 179). The ability of an individual to acquire knowledge is based on their possession of cognitive skills. Motivation on the other hand, is based upon the individual's desire to acquire relevant information and the extent to which they wish to utilize that information, while opportunity is reliant upon the availability of information and the means by which it is delivered to the individual. Using this model, Carpini and and Keeter are able to account for the difference in political knowledge amongst different socioeconomic groups, racial groups, and age groups. Unsurprisingly, their survey findings show that better educated individuals are more politically knowledgeable because they have developed the cognitive skills or ability to seek out and comprehend information relevant to the political sphere. Furthermore, their results documented substantial differences in political knowledge amongst groups facing “structural disadvantages, such as: “women, blacks, the young, and the economically less affluent” (Carpini and Keeter, 199).
The Role of The Media in Political Knowledge Based on existing research, it is safe to assume that political knowledge is necessary for political power and socioeconomic power (Carpini and Keeter, 1). Those who have access to factual information on the institutions and the functions of government are better able to serve their own self interest. However, simply having access to information does not necessarily mean that a citizen is able to empower herself. It goes without saying that individuals vary in their interests and they are constantly exposed to a variety of opportunities to learn about relevant political issues. The variation of political information that citizens acquire during their lifetime is manifested through relationships with family and friends, their interactions with coworkers, and most importantly, “through the mass media” (Carpini and Keeter, 210). Therefore, access to information alone is not the most significant factor when it comes to garnering political knowledge; the type of information, it's accuracy, and the way that it is delivered to citizens also affects how much they understand about politics. With the advance of technology, the mass media has become one of the primary sources of information, however, the information that is provided by the media is not always relevant, accurate, or coherent. On the contrary, research shows that the mass media's trend toward negative news stories, in addition to the negative campaign ads conducted by politicians, disillusions voters and decreases voter participation in elections and the democratic process altogether (Lau, Sigelman, and Rovner, 1187). In some respects, the influx of new media and different methods to attain information from the Internet ensures that political information is more readily available today than it has ever been in history. Unsurprisingly, scholars are divided on the question of whether the mass media is actually good news or bad news for electoral participation and the American political system. In the current political and economic climate it is not uncommon to turn on the television to a news channel only to be bombarded by negative news of crimes, war, threat of economic collapse, and partisan political commentators spewing mean-spirited comments about their political enemies. The recent trends in news sources relies less on longer stories by providing quotes from candidates and to move toward less fact-oriented stories (Carpini and Keeter, 274). The lack of accurate information coupled with issue negativity in news pose a threat to the access of abundant and relevant political knowledge as well as maintaing an effective American democracy. Somescholars such as Paul S. Martin, however, have attempted refute such conclusions by asserting that “negative news coverage of politically relevant social issues simulates political participation” (Martin, 180). According Martin, negative news coverage by the media reminds citizens when to pay attention to relevant issues and what issues should concern them the most. His survey findings show that “higher levels of issue negativity” in the news result in a heightened problem awareness and political interest (Martin, 183). Furthermore, his findings suggest that citizens will be more likely to vote if they are more aware of the negative social conditions and problems affecting the public. Moreover, Martin points out that even issue negativity within political campaigns are valuable in the sense that they help to inform citizens on political issues and provide them with information regarding the character and issue positions of political candidates (Martin, 181). Martin's conclusion is similar to the conventional wisdom that negative campaigns are more effective because individuals will pay attention to them. Despite some changes in campaign finance laws, election campaigns advertisements continue to portray their opponents in a negative light with ad hominem attacks (Lau, Sigelman, and Rovner, 1176). There is reason for concern, especially since the last federal election was considered one of the most negative election campaigns on record. According to Lau, Sigelman, and Rovner, only 1% and 46% of ads sponsored by the Democractic and Republican Campaign Committees were negative during the 2004 elections, whereas in 2006, those same percentages were equal to 83% and 89% (Lau, Sigelman, and Rovner, 1177). Even though negative campaigning may be effective in some ways, it also carries many negative consequences. For one thing, research literature on negative ads does not provide enough information to prove that such ads are actually effective. Indeed, negative advertisements may be more memorable to the viewer, but they also negatively alter the viewer's perception of the attacker, causing a backlash effect (Lau, Sigelman, and Rovner, 1182). Aside from the impact that it may have on both the attacker and the target candidate, research shows that negative campaigning might also have a detrimental effect on the political system by decreasing voter turnout and participation. Whereas the payout may show in short term polls, in the long term, negative campaigning “has the potential to do damage to the political system itself” by reducing political efficacy, trust in government, and “perhaps even satisfaction with government itself” (Lau, Sigelman, and Rovner, 1184).
Discussion of the Research and Experience Undeniably, there is a consensus among scholars that political socialization is a lifelong process that is affected by a variety of idiosyncrasies. Furthermore, new findings that show political socialization to be a bidirectional process help shed new light on what America must do in order to educate its future generations. In order to educate the populace and to encourage civic engagement, civic education should focus on adults and younger age groups. Despite some disagreements as to what is important for the public to know, it is clear that the research and literature explored in this paper generally supports the thesis that an informed citizenry is necessary for a flourishing democracy. The analyses and findings by Carpini and Keeter are the most comprehensive and warranted arguments. First and foremost, we can deduce that individuals who are politically well informed are more likely to empower themselves by engaging the government and rationally making political decisions that protect their best interest (Carpini and Keeter, 269). Secondly, Carpini and Keeter do have some good news with respect to the current levels of political knowledge. According to their data, overall political knowledge levels in the U.S today are nearly the same as political knowledge levels about 50 years ago. This position can be interpreted in an optimistic way by concluding that political knowledge, and therefore democracy, has not deteriorated in the U.S.; however, it would be wise to keep in mind that educational attainment levels have also risen (Carpini and Keeter, 270). Ultimately, even though political knowledge may have remained stable in the last five decades, the lack of an increase in political knowledge in correlation to education attainment may be a sign that civc education in the U.S is not as effective as it should be.
Another conclusion that should concern Americans is the results that show women, African Americans, the poor, and the younger age groups to be substantially less knowledgeable about political affairs. Alarmingly, the data shows that the knowledge gap between the aforementioned groups exists even when certain characteristics such as level of educational attainment and occupation were taken into account (Carpini and Keeter, 271). These obvious differences in political knowledge are historically consequences of the exclusion of these groups from the public and political sphere. As long as these systemic differences exist, there is a potential for the groups to be marginalized. Political empowerment requires the necessary political knowledge to participate in the electoral process so that historically marginalized groups can protect their best interest. Ultimately these results also provide deeper insight into the fact that our democratic system may still be inherently unequal.
Finally and most important, Carpini and Keeter are able to effectively warrant that an informed citizenry is necessary to a democratic system. They postulates that knowledge is in and of itself an instrumental good that “enlightens one's self interest and translates into effective political action” (Carpini and Keeter, 218). If the public is able to articulate their wishes and self interest, the government will function more appropriately to align itself accordingly with the interest of the collective good. It also goes without saying that broader participation by the electorate increases the legitimacy of government while placing limitation on the influence of interest groups and public elected officials. According to Carpini and Keeter, an informed citizenry is necessary for a flourishing—or at least stable—democracy because political knoweldge promotes support for democractic values. Undoubtably, tensions and disagreements will continue to exist, however, a society that accepts democratic values is much more likely to be tolerant of other groups (Carpini and Keeter, 220). In addition to citing survey data of political knowledge and levels of acceptance, Carpini and Keeter also show a significant correlation between increased political tolerance and knowledge of civil rights and liberties. In further developing their argument that political knoweldge promotes other democratic norms, Carpini and Keeter postulate that knowledgeable citizens are much more likely to participate in politics because such knowledge reinforces the notion that politics and civic engagement are relevant (Carpini and Keeter, 224).
Taken together, the literature and research serve as powerful evidence that a rational informed public is not only necessary for a successful American political system, but that it is also quite realistic.

Delli, Carpini, Michael and Scott Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and why it Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Prior, Markus. 2005. “News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 49(3): 577-592.