Why people bother to go out to the polls (when clearly their one vote counts so little) is a question that's been dogging political scientists for years. There are countless explanations for this quaint act of civic participation, many of which probably contribute to the full, true, picture. A big part of that picture is habit. Those of us who vote in our 30s, usually keep voting for the rest of our lives. But how does that habit start?
Anger is partly to blame (or credit, I suppose), according to a paper by Nicholas Valentino. Like fear, anger is a common response to perceived threats - aka Democrats who are going to turn America into a socialist state or Republicans who are conversely gunning for Fascism. Unlike fear, however, anger gets you into action; fear will instead keep you quaking in your boots (and staying home on election day).
Whether your response to political threats is anger or fear depends upon your sense of "internal efficacy" - that is, how "competent and influential" you think you are in the political sphere. Just as when someone pushes into you on the subway platform, depending upon their size and appearance - and thus your "competence" to deck them - will determine whether your response is anger or fear. (Yes, the question of makes one high or low on the "internal efficacy" continuum is not answered -but, really, we can only deal with one quandary at a time.)
In young people the effect of inciting anger can be quite effective - boosting political participation as much as 10%. Given that voting becomes a habit, getting young angry citizens to the polls can reap long-term benefits (like advertising Coke to 5 year olds).
That's bad news if, like me, you want to tamp down on angry rhetoric in politics. The small silver lining, however, is that inciting fear does not have similar results. Right now I need all the silver linings I can get.
No comments:
Post a Comment