preciseNews Ticker

Monday, May 5, 2008

Political Campaigning in a Web 2.0 World: Facebook and the Youth Vote

At the risk of seeming like I only publishing tediously long academic pieces, I will post my paper for Advanced Campaigns and Elections for critique and suggestion, primarily as it has to with online data collection and this kind of thing is ripe for it anyway. I promise I will return to my previous format of random rants regarding Republican realities, but in due time. So now, without further ado, my paper on what I'll be doing during most of next semester in American University. Enjoy!

Political Campaigning in a Web 2.0 World: Facebook and the Youth Vote

Introduction

The greatest goal of democracy is to empower the citizenry to work with its government for the greatest overall good. Until recently, this goal had to be met through the necessary compromise of representative majority, where in many cases, a few would represent many, usually in a manner which was necessarily fitted towards a trustee role rather than a pure delegate format. At bare minimum, there were relatively few instances where the representatives could reliably communicate with their constituents; as with any proportional representation, input would only be as fast as the communication that was available during that time. But now, as with every other area of communication, the face of political communication is changing like never before.
The age of digital instant communication has changed much of our world already, and the time has come where it can begin to modify the processes and structures of democracy as well. By creating and utilizing interactive forums, policymakers can gain access into a great untapped reserve of previously unreachable constituencies in a way that is truly unprecedented. This separates itself from generalized public polling because this method allows politicians to get access to these voters in their native environment- engaging interest at the source. While this potential is still largely untapped by the mainstream political elite, there has been a rise in the political targeting of Web 2.0 platforms, which are basically interactive websites which allow user-driven content distribution through instantaneous communication. This demarcates a clear difference between dynamic websites, like social networks and Wikipedia-like pages, and static websites with set pages and no real interaction. These websites have been used heavily for election campaigning recently, specifically for the 2008 presidential election. Examples of these interactive websites targeted for campaigning are Facebook, MySpace and YouTube, where, while there is little evidence the candidates are making any significant changes due to the input of the content users, content is making headway into the consciousness of these core voters.
It remains to be seen whether these kinds of applications will have any sort of digital “second life” if the candidate they represent actually attains office, and whether they would have any purpose as such. Yet on their face, web campaign applications set a new kind of election precedent; now, more than ever in the history of our democracy, the grassroots support of individuals has a better opportunity to decide who does (and perhaps who does not) make it into the Oval Office.
Research of this nature can be very difficult as it deals with constantly evolving technology; therefore it is rather challenging to build from existing peer-reviewed research, as it would necessarily be outdated by its time of publication. More relevantly, effects of these applications will have to be determined based on measurable outputs, as in many cases there can be significant overlap in involvement by individuals who may even choose to be in online groups solely to antagonize those who agree with the stated purpose of the group. In order to see whether there is any effect of these online and consequently ethereal campaign applications, the involvement must correspond with some real-world variable, in this case, voter turnout. This may work well as an indicator as having an effective online presence may help a candidate capture the recent upward trend in young voters (The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement [CIRCLE], 2005). By capitalizing on this fledgling trend, candidates can ensure not only a greater visibility to a normally underrepresented and therefore ripe demographic, but also create a solid branding that will encourage the corresponding generation to increase civic engagement and also boost potential for future generations. In this light, the importance of studying the effects of online campaigning cannot be overstated.
By focusing on web applications and their importance to internet social networking in the 18-24 demographic, I can isolate a particular area candidates have campaigned in for the 2008 election and gauge their efficacy through a well-designed pre- and post-election survey. This paper will review literature on traditional and current turnout by this demographic, social networking as an effective campaigning medium, surveying techniques, and finally suggest a research design that will cover potentially instrumental variables in web applications.


Literature Review

In examining the background necessary for conducting research on the 2008 presidential election, it is crucial to understand how voter education can lead to voter participation, the importance of young voter participation, social networking, and historical internet campaigning.

The Importance of Voter Education in Young Voter Participation

When looking at young voter participation, it is important to look at the theories of political knowledge accumulation, specifically the economic theory of public opinion discussed in Glynn, Herbst, O’Keefe, Shapiro and Lindeman. This economic theory reduces demand for additional knowledge down to self-interest- at the equilibrium of personal demand and information “supply”; one may find the range of political knowledge. Using this interpretation, there is just enough political knowledge available for people to act within their rational self interest. Voters without enough information may not vote when the relative costs of participation- information acquisition and voting- are too high. In fact, there may be a free-rider effect, where less-educated citizens rely on better informed citizens to vote for them rather than taking in the knowledge as well (Glynn 2004). In fact, the concept that voter turnout may be increased through increased voter education is supported by the findings of Niemi and Weisberg in 2001, where it is shown that less educated citizens are more likely to feel disengaged than citizens with a higher level of educational background. Abramson, Aldrich and Rohde enforce this point by citing a study which showed the greatest decline in voter turnout coming from the two least educated groups while college graduates (which are at the upper end of the 18-24 age bracket) maintained a consistent turnout (2007). This also matches with what is already being shown in current political participation- as education increases, the possibility one will have watched presidential debates also rises (Pew 2008). Issue specialization leaves significant gaps in overall understanding of the political realm (Niemi and Weisberg, 101). Together with the findings of Glynn et al., there becomes a clear need for a generalized source for political knowledge. Currently, campaigns have left “holes” in issue connection through their campaign websites (iCrossing, 2007). This is crucial in understanding the importance of political knowledge as when voters are not fully informed, they make “significantly better [choices] than they would by chance, but significantly less well than they would with complete information” (Bartels,1996).

The Apathy of Young Voters

The 18-24 year old voting block votes less frequently than the rest of the population. There is also a significant age correlation for political participation: those watching presidential debates- those aged 65+ watched the debates at a 22% higher rate than those in the 18-29 bracket (Pew Research Institute, 2008). This clearly points to an isolation of younger voters in more than just voting, but also in desire for involvement through traditional fields. More recently, there has been an upsurge in these new voters which has been attributed to the new web political presences. There has also been some skepticism about whether that reflects a new trend or whether it is a minor fluke (CIRCLE, 2005).
There have been many new kinds of voting efforts which have tried to reach out to younger voters in new ways, with varying degrees of success. What campaigns have found brings a moderate degree of success is having a separate campaign that specifically targets younger voters with a personal touch. In 2004, there were wide-scale campaigns targeting young voters with personal messages and other advertisements. These resulted in a net increase in turnout of 5%. Partisanship affected the campaigns positively, as did specific targeting. These results show that it is possible to make ground in the electorate, even if moderate, by targeting young voters (Friedrichs, Nickerson, Mervilde and York 2006). Therefore, the crucial ingredient missing is a medium through which voters in the 18-24 year bracket can get political information in a relevant way to their experience.

Involvement in Social Networking, and Potential for Younger Voters

The internet is an increasingly well-used tool in the 2008 election, and studies show that more people are using electronic media to form opinions on candidates than ever before. 42 percent of voters now look to the internet for information about candidates (iCrossing, 2007). Of that percentage, traditional news sources dominate at 88% of voters looking at internet for information, while the actual campaign websites for the candidates garnered only a paltry 30 percent (Ibid). 42 percent go to what this report calls “social media” sites (Ibid). As the age group gets lower, more people visit these social media sites. Specifically, 61 percent of 18-24 year olds and 55 percent of 25-34 year olds look for election information on user-driven content sites ranging from YouTube to Wikipedia and various blogs (Ibid). 75 percent of college students have a Facebook account and 82 percent had checked that account within 24 hours. (Institute of Politics, 2007). This trend suggests a specific focus for younger voters in greater numbers using social networking to find information about candidates. This fits with the data from the Pew Research Center- there has been a steady increase in use of the internet as a resource for political knowledge- the numbers for those who have “regularly learned something from” internet sources has grown from 9% in 2000 to 13% in 2004 to 24% in 2008 (2008). There is also a visible shift from TV and newspaper consumption to internet sources for the source with the “most election news”- between 2004 and 2007 internet jumped from 21 to 46 while TV and Newspaper dropped 15 and 6 points, respectively (Ibid). And while there was a downward trend in younger voters watching televised debates, there is a reverse trend in watching clips of candidates online- on average younger voters are more likely than older voters to have watched online campaign video.

Current and Previous Campaign Internet Involvement

This ongoing 2008 Presidential race represents the largest explosion of political use and popularity of internet applications. However there are some records of prior presidential elections where the internet has played a significant role- 2004 was the year when many fundamental aspects of internet campaigning first made their appearances- ironically through the Democratic candidate of Howard Dean. Cornfield points out 5 areas in which Dean’s campaign “revolutionized online campaigning”- News-based fundraising appeals, internet-arranged local meetings/meet-ups, blogging, internet referenda and group decision (Cornfield, n.d.). Specifically relating to younger voters is the social networking aspects of blogging and interactive content, which were significant in Dean’s campaign. While certainly not new, political blogs were taken to the next level when Dean’s “Blog for America” posted 2,910 entries and received 314,121 comments, one of which started a project resulting in 115,632 handwritten letters sent to Iowa and New Hampshire voters (Ibid). Targeting methods originating in Dean’s campaign were later used in the Bush and Kerry campaigns, where three out of four Kerry campaign emails contained action boxes for money and 78% of Bush campaign emails contained boxes for referring friends to the campaign (Ibid). This is all very ironic because it was the internet that some say brought his campaign to an end- after the now-infamous “Dean Scream”, which has become somewhat of a moniker for highly publicized political blunder spread over the internet, his whole campaign was “brought down with blinding speed” (CBS News, 2006). This is a political lesson which would have been very beneficial for Sen. George Allen to have learned in the 2008 election cycle- according to one source,
As badly as Dean was hurt by the constant… replay of his scream the night of the 2004 Iowa caucuses, it was nothing compared to what happened to… George Allen in his re-election campaign last year, when he was caught on video calling an Asian man "macaca," … a racial slur… The video of Allen went "viral" almost immediately and penetrated the political consciousness so deeply that Allen couldn't recover. (Pierce, 2007).
History’s lessons, it appears, even in the case of very recent history, if not learned, can come back with a vengeance. However, not all of the lessons were negative, and many positive things came from the 2004 elections which are still having influence today. Altogether, the online community represents an opportunity unlike any other in American history- not only because it represents a new avenue for political involvement, but it also increases overall involvement even in other areas of politics-
Each online audience has a larger potential for activism than its offline counterparts simply because it has more communications and persuasion tools to exploit… The more citizens use the internet, the more they might expect from campaigners and political journalists: rapid responses to information searches; a multiplicity of perspectives available on controversies; short and visually arresting promotional messages; drill-down capacities into referenced databases; more transparency from, and access to, institutions and players. Meanwhile, on the supply side of the political equation, candidates, groups, and parties now have models for how to use the internet to raise money, mobilize voters, and create public buzz. The new benchmarks established in 2004 could well be matched and surpassed in 2008. (Cornfield, n.d.).
This neatly represents the expectations for this paper- unfortunately there are no major scholarly peer-reviewed articles pertaining to this particular subject, yet the general consensus seems to be that this election year will surpass every other year.

Theory and Expectations

My primary purpose in this research is to find interesting trends in political Facebook applications. The ultimate goal is to find which methods of increasing participation actually affect turnout.
Candidate pages with more direct communication to the user will create more user engagement with the campaign. When the application gives the end-user the impression that they have inside knowledge about the campaign, the end-user will feel significantly more engaged with the campaign.
User-content driven application creates even more engagement. The chief benefit of having interactivity on any level of web design is that it allows the users to feel like they are a part of the process. This allows more issue-based connection with candidates- web applications have an incredible ability to cover issues left unaddressed by campaigns, and therefore may create more connection than the static webpage would (iCrossing, 2007).
Targeted messaging can be critical in addressing concerns new voters have in voting. Messages targeting the specific concerns about voting for the first time can significantly increase the chances the voter will turn out that day. Research suggests voters in this demographic are on the verge on many issues, and while they do not want a guarantee by the government, some calculated assistance can make the difference in ensuring young voters come out and vote (Graduate School of Political Management, 2004).
Users may avoid political association because they still support a former candidate. Subscription to a candidate profile may not translate into turnout, especially in the case of those who support candidates who are no longer in the race. A mediating factor will be whether the candidate in question has publically endorsed the party nominee to the satisfaction of the respondent, in which case there may be a mediating effect.
Users may avoid political association because of potential polarization. Facebook provides a lot of information about its users publically, which is simultaneously a good thing and a bad thing. Many people want to avoid politics, not because they are not interested, but because they do not want to potentially lose friends or make people angry about it. In some cases, there may be a negative stigma associated with being of a particular party or identification- some respondents may still turn out but avoid these applications or pages to avoid making public statements.

Research Design

To gauge the response of voters in the 18-24 year age bracket and particularly to gauge turnout, a survey will need to be conducted. This study will gauge the effect of 2008 presidential online campaigning through Facebook- both campaign pages, which are managed through the campaigns of the candidates, and applications, which are moderated through third parties, will be gauged. In this study, 18-24 year olds will be asked if they have active accounts through Facebook and prior questions about their involvement therein, particularly with political pages and applications, and then about their political involvement through voting behavior.
Facebook was chosen as the social network of choice as candidates have pages already set up and political applications well underway- while MySpace has applications, the organization and development is nowhere near where the point that Facebook is already. Applications are viewed less as a measure of campaigning, but as independent involvement on the part of online supporters. This will be compared against the data involved with the campaign pages. The applications will be gauged on their interaction with the survey respondent- whether the respondent actively sought the application or was invited, how often the respondent uses the application, whether that respondent then invited other people to use the application, basically what kind of impact it is having. The campaign websites will be based on user interaction and recollection of how much interaction the respondent has with the campaign website. As many candidates have kept their Facebook pages running well after their campaign is officially closed, I ask if they continued to remain supporters of the politicians after the election is over. I will also need to find out if there were any notifications sent out supporting the party by the candidates who did not attain the nomination.
As no poll I personally know of currently exists that is conducting this kind of research, I will need to formulate my own. The kind of survey that would be most conducive to this would be an online poll capable of taking data comparable to that of the NES election questionnaires (presumably through the http://www.surveymonkey.com login affiliated through Tulane) which could most directly target the demographic and ask questions about their behavior and interaction with election applications to determine the variables discussed in Appendix A. See Appendix B for the design- loosely modeled after the NES post-election survey, it goes through two main sections- Facebook usage (particularly application usage) and political involvement. From here, the data will be comparing political applications and their use as predictors of political involvement.
For the purposes of attracting users to take this survey, there will be targeted rewards and sweepstakes entries pending completion and as I have available supplies. With luck, I can get grants and scholarships for the sweepstakes- this remains to be seen, but it should not be too difficult. After much consideration, I will only be conducting this survey after the election instead of before and after the election. A pre-election survey would only provide information about whether the earlier intentions of the Facebook users carried out till the election- not as pertinent to the actual study as I had originally supposed. Also, complications from creating follow-up, increased incentive and trackback for the study, while manageable, would have a greater chance to introduce more error into the process.
The preliminary targets for sending the survey data will be drawn from a client list in the age bracket ranging from 18 to 24, presumably purchased from a source like http://www.nrgresearchgroup.com. This will be the primary base for where the population will come from. From here, the sample will be split between Facebook users and non-Facebook users. If this is not a feasible option, Facebook advertisements may substitute for invitations from a list, and then there would have to be adjustments made to the final results to reflect the population and demographics of Facebook application users.
The benefit of this research design is that it lends itself well to many different kinds of findings- here, the final dependent variable is turnout, but different combinations of independent variables serve to explain that turnout and can work together in creating different outcomes while maintaining the theory described earlier. When looking at Appendix A, several key models emerge. The primary findings from this study will be from the first two variables from the Independent variable category. The first is the most obvious- whether increased usage of applications or readership of candidate profile information leads to an increase in turnout. That will prove if a correlation between usage of internet campaigning methods and turnout exists. The second is also important for future study- finding out what aspects of Facebook applications and politician profiles are most attractive to application users will be significantly beneficial to future campaigns so that the most attractive side can be most heavily emphasized.
However, other important findings may be derived from this data set which can enhance the strength of these findings- for the applications section, this could produce data which helps determine whether outside influence or personal initiative determines turnout or involvement, where usage is the dependent variable and initiative vs. invitation is the independent variable. In this case, a non-correlation can be a very positive thing as it means that content drives usage more than individual initiative- essentially that regardless of the “free-rider” friend invitation effect, content is driving usage rather than the other way around.
In the context of the profile pages, understanding the background of a single supporter may provide more predictive context than even the support itself. Other candidates simultaneously supported by the respondent may indicate remaining bitterness about the turnout of the primaries. One thing I have personally noted is that Mike Huckabee, whose page I followed on Facebook, after losing his long-shot bid at the nomination, not only endorsed McCain over traditional media forms, but online and to his Facebook followers as well. This may serve as a predictor of last-minute turnout and may spell out a subtle difference between Republican and Democrat turnout- as the Republicans have had time to rally around McCain and at the publishing of this paper there is no unified Democratic nominee, there may be resounding resentment at the time of the election. These effects can be measured at this critical juncture by inquiring into whether there are other pages the respondent is currently subscribed to which reflect that sort of split background.
Of course, at that juncture it may largely depend on the degree to which other former candidates are willing to rally around their new nominee, which is why the other variable is in place- to determine whether the other groups are being offset by rallying effects. Here, if, say, a disgruntled democratic voter supported a candidate who was not the nominee and was involved to the degree where they would maintain that page out of solidarity with that candidate, were that candidate to give their vocal and undivided support to the party nominee, the disenfranchised democrat would be one of the first to find out through the politician profile. If the respondent does not find out about that endorsement or for some reason that vocal support does not make it onto the Facebook fan page, it would explain a corresponding disenfranchisement and drop in turnout. So here, solidarity and loyalty to the nominee are predictors of turnout, but additional campaign profiles endorsing the nominee can have a reinforcement effect.

(Expected) Results

Respondents with no Facebook account are still asked for their political actions as a group to test against for political participation. The theory is that as this group has the least opportunity to take advantage of the social networking opportunities of Facebook and the corresponding political information which is especially well suited towards their age group, they will be the most politically disaffected of all the respondents, and will show the least amount of political participation. Even though they provide no perspective on effective elements of Facebook applications, their data serves as a baseline for political involvement against which all other data is judged. Independently interesting is the general percentage of 18-24 year olds with Facebook accounts. As this figure is continuously growing, getting a current number on the growth of this community should be independently important to future surveys and studies.
The next highest level of political participation will be expected from those who have a Facebook account, but neither adds political applications nor supports any presidential candidates. My theory is that their involvement will be necessarily higher as they will at least have the opportunity to pick up on political information through chance invitations by friends or through advertisements by groups or campaigns. In this case, almost every Facebook account-holder should have some awareness that the campaigns are available and the opportunity is there if they so choose- they are much more likely to come across random bits of political knowledge than those without accounts. Also, this political knowledge will be packaged in a much more digestible format than traditional political knowledge mediums allow, therefore the retention capability will be higher. Carrying that concept forward, the overall time spent on Facebook should be a general indicator of overall likelihood of political participation- even those without political applications or politician pages.
The level after that will be between the account-holding group which has the applications without the candidate support and the account-holding group with the candidate support but without political applications. It will be very interesting to see which will have higher turnout; based on the theory of campaign appeal through personalized message opportunity, I predict that those with candidate ties will generally be more likely to turn out for their candidate given that their candidate is the nominee, but those with political applications will be differentiated based on how often they use their applications. On average, the two may not be statistically different because they are so close together, but I expect those with the closer ties to the campaign to have generally higher turnout. What makes this so interesting is that the reasons for being involved with a campaign and not a political application or installing a political application but not supporting a candidate will probably be very disparate. In the case of the political application holder, he or she may not feel comfortable with a candidate, or may not want to display their support of a candidate publically, yet still want to have an area to publically discuss political issues or consume news about politics. This is why the question about appeal is so important- why applications are added may have a lot to do with what is done with the application. Then again, I may find that the content itself drives turnout rather than other influences.
Clearly, the highest turnout of all is expected of those account holders who have both the political applications and the candidate support pages. This is based on how relative exposure to campaigns should decrease voter apathy and increase the likelihood of turnout and opportunity for mobilization. Of course this will fluctuate based on application usage, candidate connection and nominee presence/endorsement, but overall this should represent the highest turnout as they are most significantly exposed to both the campaign and the opportunity for involvement.
Turnout will also be significant when looking at the second independent variables- the feature selection. This survey includes the following options for why people added the application: to get information about election; find other supporters; show public support for candidates; debate others online; whether friend invited; not sure. In this data, it will be interesting to identify trends of interest in politics and hopefully find some level of crossover between the applications and the pages. This may also help with identifying differences between applications and pages, where pages may be more indicative as they show more obvious visible support and those seeking to publically align themselves with the candidate. Again, this will be mediated by the effect of whether there are other former candidate pages still being subscribed to, but the most significant effect out of all of the data will be which trends identified can be linked with the highest turnout. If there is significant data pointing to a trend which seems to have a lot of related turnout, it can be helpful for future internet campaigning purposes- by emphasizing certain elements of applications or pages, and they can be properly advertised and most effectively utilized.
The opposite effect can also be addressed- those who did not add the application or page have an opportunity to explain why they did not want to add the page. The two are similar for the purposes of comparison, each with options for: I do not add Facebook applications/pages; privacy concerns- everyone can see my positions (which can also lead to the development of friend limit theory); time consuming (usage or reading updates); not interested in politics; not interested in particular candidate; do not know. For these cases a lot of potential reasons for non-involvement are addressed- these have been added due to personal observation- some people simply do not add applications because it messes with the aesthetics of their profile pages in some way, and it really does not mean altogether too much about their personal politics, it merely means they do not add extraneous information. Same goes for those with privacy concerns, although it has less to do with aesthetics, it has the same or more to do with public appearance. Of course if the person is very interested in politics, those considerations will probably not be as important, but then again these individuals are more likely to turn out regardless. The benefit of the application is that it provides reinforcement effects for those moderately interested in politics and increases their exposure to relevant information. However, here too campaigns can use this information to more effectively target users and minimize the off-putting effects.
Also important in finding out how these pieces fit together is finding out whether more people come because they wanted the application before finding it or because they were invited by friends. This is important because, as mentioned earlier, this data can show whether application involvement is determined by prior interest or by reaction to content (this will also be an important filter through which turnout can be seen) without prior interest. This will cancel out those with the original incentive to actually find the application on their own and the actual ability for the application or pages to increase the turnout of otherwise less politically motivated can be gauged.
Other indicators that may prove interesting are the “friends invited” variable and the amount of time spent on Facebook as a control for political involvement and overall exposure to general political factors respectively. If I get a significant number of people who have invited other friends, it may be interesting to see whether those people found the application themselves or if they were themselves invited- this may again be an indicator of content-driven or previous interest. While many already-interested people may have gotten their invitation from their interested friends, the most involved people should be the ones who personally found the application. This will be seen through the lens of the demographic information.
Finally, demographic information can be used as necessary- although admittedly not the point of the entire exercise, there may be some interesting findings from that, especially along political lines and whether there are significant trends among general Facebook users, especially political ones. Strong partisans should be more likely to turn out anyway, but there should be some reinforcement effects through the applications, pages and other political options through Facebook. Through the demographic backend questions, the other questions can be improved in scope- questions about personal involvement, turnout and usage all filter through these pre-existing preferences. This will add a lot of dimension to the final study and perhaps later research done through the corresponding data set.
In all cases, it is clear that while many of the variables may not result in anything statistically worth reporting on, there is a lot of opportunity to find some interesting information. Specifically in the case of whether content can drive turnout or if it all has to do with whether the recipient was active or passive in their support, the findings of this survey will be instrumental in deciding which approaches should be stressed in developing applications for future campaigns.


References

Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John H., Rohde, David W. “Change and Continuity in the 2004 and 2006 Elections.” Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2007. 96.

Bartels, Larry M. “Uninformed votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections.” American Journal of Political Science: 40 (1996). 217.

CBS News “YouTube Making Politicians Sweat- Gaffes Caught On Tape, Posted On Popular Web Site Impacting Races” CBS Broadcasting Inc. 2006. Accessed 30 April 2008. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/26/earlyshow/main2039588.shtml

The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement. 2005. “Youth Voter Turnout 1992 to 2004: Estimates from Exit Polls.” Accessed 30 April 2008.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Youth_voting/CIRCLE_Paper35.pdf

Cornfield, Michael. “THE INTERNET AND CAMPAIGN 2004: A Look Back at the Campaigners.” Pew Research Center. Accessed 30 April 2008. 1-3.
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/Cornfield_commentary.pdf

Friedrichs, Ryan, Nickerson, David, Mervilde, Laura, and York, Tegan. 2006. “Young Voter Mobilization in 2004- Analysis of Outreach, Persuasion and Turnout of 18-29 Year Old Progressive Voters” Accessed 30 April 2008. http://www.skylinepublicworks.com/downloads/Young%20Voter%202004%20Analysis.pdf

Glynn, Carroll J., Herbst, Susan, O’Keefe, Garrett J., Shapiro, Robert Y. & Lindeman, Mark. “Public Opinion.” 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press. 2004.

Graduate School of Political Management. 2004. “New Voters Brief.” George Washington University Accessed 30 April 2008. http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Youth_voting/new_voters_brief_0504.pdf

iCrossing. 2007. “How America Searches: Election '08.” iCrossing Digital Marketing Company Accessed 30 April 2008. http://www.icrossing.com/articles/how_america_searches_election_2008.pdf

Institute of Politics. 2007. “The 12th Biannual Youth Survey on Politics and Public Service.”Harvard University Accessed 30 April 2008. http://www.youngvoterstrategies.org/index.php?tg=fileman&idx=get&id=1&gr=Y&path=Research&file=Harvard+IOP+Spring+2007+Executive+Summary.pdf

The Pew Research Center. “Internet's Broader Role in Campaign 2008 - Social Networking and Online Videos Take Off.” 2008. Accessed 30 April 2008. http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/384.pdf

Pierce, Charles P. (17 June 2007). “Mud in the digital age.” Boston Globe, Third Edition, 36.

Niemi, Richard G., and Herbert F. Weisberg. “Controversies in Voting Behavior.” 4th Ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2001.

Thursday, May 1, 2008

The United States as a Christian Nation

In keeping with my trend of writing exponentially long papers about highly controversial subjects, I've decided that this blog will detail a paper I've written largely under the guidance of recent comments about my posts and remarks that they might lack some degree of verifiability. Fortunately, I have a class that concerns this very matter, and a corresponding term paper I would love to see comments on. So, whether you feel this is good or bad, or if you have some sort of remark of any nature, I wold love to see comments. Hopefully I can one day use this as a writing sample. Enjoy!

Religion in American Politics -The Case for a Christian Nation


“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity" (Kettler, 610). This quote from John Quincy Adams, the sixth president of the United States, clearly demonstrates an association often seen by many modern commentators as paradoxical at best and detrimental at worst. However it is the relationship between the church and the state, specifically Christianity and the federal government, which underlies the basis of many historical, foundational aspects of our nation. While it is clear to all that Christianity neither is or was an established national religion in America, the case can be made that Christianity is the common law moral foundation of the nation. This can still be seen in the underlying basis of the foundational institutions and policies of our country as well as the legacies left by our founding fathers. In examining the founding era for America- highlighting critical events from the Mayflower Compact to the treaty of Tripoli- it is most important to examine the impact of both nominal statements of founding fathers and the corresponding policies that went with those statements. In each area, the claims for and against the concept of a religiously founded nation will be judged in terms of basis, purpose and context.

The first and most obvious nominal statement to judge is the quote by Thomas Jefferson that there was “a wall of separation between Church and State” in relation to the establishment clause and protection of natural rights. However, I find that this is often left without the context that this was primarily a letter between a state official and a church body- not regarding religious impact on federal decisions but regarding federal impact on religious decisions. Specifically, the Danbury Baptist Association was upset because the leaders felt that going through a government-sanctioned process to avoid paying church taxes was a violation of their freedom (Boston). This is specifically regarding the intervention of the Federal government on the actions of individual believers, not vice versa. Also ignored is the fact that Jefferson’s letter goes on to say:

“I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.” (Jefferson)

While this maintains the respect for the establishment clause, it still recognizes, in similar nominal form, the common backgrounds of faith shared by both the state official and the church association. It also leaves room for states to choose for themselves how or whether they want their own While many have interpreted the “wall of separation” to mean that there may be no involvement of either church or state in the other's realm, here, it is in response to concerns by the Danbury Baptist Association that

“...what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen.” (Dodge)

The clear concern was that, as a part of the state, the association wanted to ensure that their religious privileges would be permanent and not just a function of the legislation of the government. The wall then would be the non-interference of government in free exercise, and the recognition of religious exercise by the government should be kept as an inalienable right. More context also exists which is often ignored- there was an earlier draft of the piece that Jefferson wrote which was edited in the final version for political expedience. According to a bulletin in the Library of Congress,

The unedited draft of the Danbury Baptist letter makes it clear why Jefferson drafted it: He wanted his political partisans to know that he opposed proclaiming fasts and thanksgivings, not because he was irreligious, but because he refused to continue a British practice that was an offense to republicanism. To emphasize his resolve in this matter, Jefferson inserted two phrases …: "wall of eternal separation between church and state" and "the duties of my station, which are merely temporal." These last words -- "merely temporal" -- revealed Jefferson's preoccupation with British practice. Temporal, a strong word meaning secular, was a British appellation for the lay members of the House of Lords, the Lords Temporal, as opposed to the ecclesiastical members, the Lords Spiritual. "Eternal separation" and "merely temporal" -- here was language as plain as Jefferson could make it to assure the Republican faithful that their "religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine." (Hutson)

Jefferson had been opposed to religious celebrations by the new American republic as it would give the impression that the government was showing partiality to one sort of Christian tradition over another, not that he was avoiding religion altogether. The editing process shows that religion was such a matter of significance in that time that, regardless of whether there was a true “wall of separation” in place or not, religion was definitely having an impact on how at least Thomas Jefferson was acting and what he chose to say. This proves that while he was advocating non-involvement by government in religion, religion was having an effect on government. In fact, this article goes on to say:

Jefferson's public support for religion appears, however, to have been more than a cynical political gesture… in the 1790s Jefferson developed a more favorable view of Christianity that led him to endorse the position of his fellow Founders that religion was necessary for the welfare of a republican government, that it was… indispensable for the happiness and prosperity of the people. Jefferson had, in fact, said as much in his First Inaugural Address. His attendance at church services in the House was, then, his way of offering symbolic support for religious faith and for its beneficent role in republican government. (Ibid)

So, in fact, there was an effect of religion on even Thomas Jefferson. This context shows a different implication than mere separatism- that while the church should be free of interference, the government should also be free to recognize (rather than from recognizing) the importance religion, particularly Christianity, has in governing the lives of the citizens. This recognition is crucial as it shows that ignorance by the government about the role of the church will be to the detriment of the rights of the citizens as a whole, and to itself. As even Jefferson himself came to recognize, religion is not only necessary for the people of the United States, but it is also necessary for the welfare of the government of the United States. This recognition is crucial to understanding the other arguments involved in nominal recognition of Christianity as a common law basis for the nation as it is shared by many other founding fathers.

And yet the claim can clearly be made that these nominal statements have no effect on actual policy, that they amount to mere words and have no effect on lasting policy of the country. In point of fact, when looking to the area of policy, we can clearly see that the nominal statements are actually rather poignant, and are influential in shaping the direction of the policies. James Madison, fourth president of the United States and widely considered “Father of the Constitution”, objected to slavery using religious principles, stating

"It is a great evil and under the providence of God, I look forward to some scheme of emancipation which shall free us from it. Do not, therefore, let us appear as if we regarded it perpetual, by using in our free Constitution an odious word opposed to every sentiment of liberty." (Morris, 177)

The underlying argument here is derived from a religious perspective, and prevented precedent from being set which would have caused even more lasting divisions in the Civil War era.

Even before the founding of the nation as separate from Britain, the Mayflower compact, established a legal precedent of recognition of Christianity:

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia... (Bradford)

This recognition is even seen in the form of a covenant between God and Man, particularly those who were coming to create their own new traditions in the new nation, largely escaping the religious persecution of their former European states and creating a place to worship God in their own fashion. Moreover, this is a direct declaration that their foundational act of planting a colony was for the Glory of God and to advance Christianity.

Recognition of the role of the Christian Church and the role thereof comes more directly from the pre-constitution Massachusetts Body of Liberties, which states specifically in the introduction that the commonwealth and the church are both necessary for a proper society:

The free fruition of such liberties, immunities, and privileges as humanity, civility, and Christianity call for as due to every man in his place and proportion without impeachment and infringement hath ever been and ever will be the tranquility and stability of churches and commonwealths. And the denial or deprival thereof, the disturbance if not the ruin of both. (Massachusetts Body of Liberties)

This clearly shows a positive relationship between natural rights, like civility and liberty, and Christianity. Indeed, it shows that both rely on each other for their very existence. This document furthermore has an entire section titled “A DECLARATION OF THE LIBERTIES THE LORD JESUS HATH GIVEN TO THE CHURCHES”, the first provision of which states that

“All the people of God within this jurisdiction who are not in a church way, and be orthodox in judgment, and not scandalous in life, shall have full liberty to gather themselves into a church estate. Provided they do it in a Christian way, with due observation of the rules of Christ revealed in his Word,” (Massachusetts Body of Liberties)

While not recognizing a specific church and allowing for those outside any specific church, there was a specific precedent for the free exercise clause later made in the constitution, but with specific parameters not mentioned in the final form of the constitution. However, the precedent is in place and demarcates a clear requirement for (particularly Christian) churches to be established.

The Constitution of the United States is sometimes referred to as “the Godless constitution”, in reference to the fact that there was no mention of God or a Creator, except the Establishment clause does state that there would be no established religion. In fact, on all of these matters, the federalists framing the Constitution were avoiding controversy and deferring these matters to the state. The Library of Congress, in its exhibition on Religion and the Founding of the American Republic states specifically:

That religion was not otherwise addressed in the Constitution did not make it an "irreligious" document any more than the Articles of Confederation was an "irreligious" document. The Constitution dealt with the church precisely as the Articles had, thereby maintaining, at the national level, the religious status quo. In neither document did the people yield any explicit power to act in the field of religion. But the absence of expressed powers did not prevent either the Continental-Confederation Congress or the Congress under the Constitution from sponsoring a program to support general, nonsectarian religion. (Library of Congress)

Therefore this lack of inclusion demonstrates that the matters of specific sectarian religion would not be impinged upon by the state rather than the federal government, not that the federal government would not be affected by the religion or morals of those state governments, but that the federal government itself would not tell state governments which sect to choose.

A document which has also been long held as evidence of foundational separatism is the Treaty of Tripoli, which states the following in article 11-

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (The Avalon Project at Yale Law School)

Here again, we see a quotation without context, but see that there is a mention of the “Christian Religion”, and that in a ratified document, the United States took the position that the United States was not founded upon it. However, a crucial point is missing here- in that time, there was no similar democratic government to look to, only the governments of European states, which were founded specifically on one religion or another. In fact, at the time, Americans such as Noah Webster, founder of Webster’s Dictionary, wrote that “The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it” (Webster, 339). Here, the authors of this document are stating that they are separate from the governments of Europe. Note also that there is still a mention of God even within the document- “Praise be to God” and “(Signed) JUSSUF BASHAW-Bey whom God Exalt” are both found with the document (The Avalon Project at Yale Law School). This doesn’t seem to work with the concept of separatism- in fact it seems to point to either confused contradiction or political understatement. To determine this, it is important to note that this entire treaty was created to deal with the fact that this treaty would end America’s first war as an independent nation (Tucker, 127). In fact, this conflict was justified to the Muslims because of the injuries incurred as a result of Crusades and in retaliation of Ferdinand and Isabella's expulsion of Muslims from Granada (Ibid, 50) - again a response to a perception of Christianity as it pertained to European Christian nations which needed to be responded to. In correspondence with Thomas Jefferson about the conflict, John Adams, the sitting president at the time of the treaty, stated:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. (Adams, 45-46)

It appears that there was real distinction being made at the time of the treaty between the American Federal government and the European governments of the time. This is summarized clearly in the frustration of General Eaton in his personal account of the conflict:

April 8th. We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen. We have a difficult undertaking! (Prentiss, 325)

It would be a harder undertaking to prove that this single article, with all of its justifications and limitations, expressed the will of the founding fathers more clearly than all the publicly recorded statements of the elected officials ratifying the document. It is also worth mentioning that the in the Arabic version, each section was preceded by the phrase “Praise be to God!” and that, about the eleventh article, on which this entire argument lies, the translator wrote the following-

The eleventh article of the Barlow translation has no equivalent whatever in the Arabic. The Arabic text opposite that article is a letter from Hassan Pasha of Algiers to Yussuf Pasha of Tripoli. The letter gives notice of the treaty of peace concluded with the Americans and recommends its observation. Three fourths of the letter consists of an introduction, drawn up by a stupid secretary who just knew a certain number of bombastic words and expressions occurring in solemn documents, but entirely failed to catch their real meaning. (The Avalon Project at Yale Law School)

Interestingly enough, the eleventh article as translated makes no mention of America not being a country founded on Christian principles.

Noah Webster wrote in the preface to the 1828 version of the American Dictionary:

In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. (Webster, Preface)

This summarizes the clear opinion of many founding fathers as expressed in their previously quoted statements and actions- that the basis of American government was Christianity. Although inherently separate from the otherwise religiously controlled governments of Europe, there was a definite Christian basis for the foundation of the nation. This moral foundation underlies the precepts of our law today, just as it did at its inception. When examining the basis, purpose and context of important quotes and corresponding policies of the founding fathers, it becomes clear that the morality inherent in Christianity was critical to the creation of the freedoms we enjoy today. Even when examining more controversial documents and quotes, it becomes clear that they only serve to enforce the claim that while there was no established sect, Christianity as a general, non-sectarian religion, was the foundation America was built on, and the basis on which she was founded.

Bibliography

Adams, John. Works. Vol. X, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.

The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. The Avalon Project: The Barbary Treaties 1786-
1816. New Haven, Connecticut: The Lillian Goldman Law Library in Memory of
Sol Goldman, 2007. 6 Apr 2008.
<http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/>

Boston, Rob. Priority Mail- Why President Jefferson's Letter To The Danbury Baptists Is
Still Being Read By Americans After 200 Years. 2002. Americans United. <http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=cs_&id=5609&news_iv_ctrl=1046&page=NewsArticle&security=1001>

Bradford, William. U.S. GOVERNMENT > Introduction to the U.S. System > Guiding
Principles > Basic Readings in U.S. Democracy. InfoUSA. 1952. Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP), U.S. Department of State. 6 Apr 2008 <http://usinfo.state.gov/infousa/government/overview/2.html>.

Brewer, David J. The United States a Christian Nation. Philadelphia, PA: John C.
Winston Company, 1905

Dodge, Nash. Danbury Baptist Association, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1801. The
Unofficial Stephen Jay Gould Archive. 07 Oct 1801. Library of Congress. 5 Apr 2008 <http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/dba_jefferson.html>.

Hutson, James. 'A Wall of Separation' - FBI Helps Restore Jefferson's Obliterated Draft.
June 1998. Library of Congress. 5 Apr 2008
<http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html>.

Jefferson, Thomas. "Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998)." Library of
Congress. June 1998. Library of Congress. 5 Apr 2008
<http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html>.

Kettler, Steven C. Biblical Counsel: Resources for Renewal : An Annotated Topical
Bibliography. Keezletown, VA: Lettermen Associates, 1993

Library of Congress. Religion and the Founding of the American Republic: Religion and
the Federal Government. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html
Machine, J. Gresham. Christianity and Liberalism. NY: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1923.

"Massachusetts Body of Liberties," The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts, ed. W. H.
Whitmore. Boston, MA: 1890

Morris, Benjamin Franklin. Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the
United States Developed in the Official and Historical Annals of the Republic. Philippians, PA: George W. Childs, 1864.

Prentiss, Charles. The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton: Several Years an Officer in
the United States' Army Consul at the Regency of Tunis on the Coast of Barbary,
and Commander of the Christian and Other Forces that Marched from Egypt
Through the Desert of Barca, in 1805, and Conquered the City of Derne, Which
Led to the Treaty of Peace Between the United States and the Regency of Tripoli.
Brookfield, CT: Merriam & Company, 1813.

Tucker, Glen. Dawn Like Thunder: The Barbary Wars and the Birth of the U. S. Navy.
Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1963.


Webster, Noah. History of the United States. New Haven, CT: Durrie & Peck, 1832.

Webster, Noah. An American Dictionary of the English Language…in two
volumes. New York, 1828.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Bittergate, part 1

I definitely have a backlog of things to blog about, I beg patience and understanding with the whole collegiate finals situation. I did, however, find a way to make the two work together in a paper I recently wrote on the whole Obama-Wright situation, especially in light of the recent fallout due to Bittergate. I shall write more on that later (trust me, I have a lot to say), but for now, I will leave you all with a recent excerpt from one of my class papers. Enjoy!

American Political Thought

Bitterness- To Be or Not To Be?

Over 100 years after the original publication of Up from Slavery, race still figures prominently in the national conscience. The term “bitterness” figures very strongly in the headlines, albeit probably for reasons beyond the scope of those living in 1901. And while “bitterness” has a lot to do with race and the nation's first African American Presidential nominee, Barack Obama, it extends beyond his now-famous comments about small-town conservatives and concerns Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who has also figured prominently in the news. The issue concerns recorded statements Rev. Wright made from the pulpit while Obama was a member, statements which condemn America for its treatment of black citizens. About black people, Wright has famously stated “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people, God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human.”[1] Obama stated that Wright's perspective comes from a “lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family... the reality in which Rev. Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up.” Ironically, Rev. Wright's background is a far cry from what one would expect for someone with such bitterness. Wright lived in a middle class neighborhood and attended an “elite” high school characterized as having “no racial friction”. Wright now lives in a house worth $1.6 million, with 10,340 square feet on the corner of a golf course of a country club [2]. Clearly, this bitterness is not directly a response to any socioeconomic opportunity, but rather a perceived condition which is not a reality to Wright. This begs the question- what is bitterness and why does it matter politically? How is it related to anger, and what kinds of actions does it motivate? ...

Clearly, the first place to begin with the concept of bitterness is at the origin- the original comments by Booker T. Washington. In Up from Slavery, Washington states:

I have long since ceased to cherish any spirit of bitterness against the Southern white people on account of the enslavement of my race. No one section of our country was wholly responsible for its introduction... Having once got its tentacles fastened on to the economic and social life of the Republic, it was no easy matter for the country to relieve itself of the institution. Then, when we rid ourselves of prejudice, or racial feeling, and look facts in the face, we must acknowledge that, notwithstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery, the ten million Negroes inhabiting this country... are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe. [3]

Here, several important points are made- bitterness against any section of the country is altogether unproductive and unrepresentative. Washington starts with recognition that to characterize an entire section of people in a negative way is not realistic. Then he does something very interesting- he looks at the situation from the perspective of the former slave owners. This is an important technique for dealing fairly with any situation, and especially in a situation where hard feelings would be expected, it can help people come together and put aside their differences, racial feelings or prejudices, all of which Washington clearly sees as negative deterrents. Essentially, racial tension on the part of African Americans is seen as a hindrance to fair assessment of reality, as well as reconciliation. This is borne out in the later quote that when the slaves were originally emancipated,

there was no feeling of bitterness. In fact, there was pity among the slaves for our former owners. The wild rejoicing on the part of the emancipated coloured people lasted but for a brief period, for I noticed that by the time they returned to their cabins there was a change in their feelings. The great responsibility of being free, of having charge of themselves, of having to think and plan for themselves and their children, seemed to take possession of them... [4]

There is an inherent implication that the manifestation of bitterness would not only hinder the newly freed former slaves, but would keep them from their greatest purpose- being free. These passages suggest that on the part of the whole African American community, Washington feels that bitterness is counterproductive and works against the purposes of the community- self determination and advancement. In fact a significant point from the passage is that those who were former slaves actually felt pity for their former masters- another example of looking at a situation through the perspective of those on the other side and understanding their feelings so there could be healing and reconciliation.
...

The race and bitterness issue will never be solved or irreparably broken purely through the efforts of one person, much less one paper or book. In the last 100 years, there have been many obvious improvements in race relations. However what I think has been the most significant problem with race relations over that time has been the efforts of demagogues and opinion leaders who stand to gain from division. Those who use politically divisive language and who constantly use the past as a wedge can undo the work of countless others. History has shown us that leaders have either used their words to bring people together in reconciliation or drive them apart to separation. Hopefully, our future leaders will be more of the former and less of the latter.



[1] Ross, Brian, and Rehab El-Buri. "Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11." ABC News, March 13, 2008, http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1

[2] Kessler, Ronald. “Obama's Rev. Wright Mythology.” Newsmax April 13, 2008 http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_wright_pastor/2008/04/13/87617.html

[3] Washington, Booker T. “Up From Slavery: An Autobiography.” Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1901: 16.

[4] Ibid, 21