SOCIALIZATION, ATTITUDE THEORIES, DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT

(Week 10)

(Note: these are actual class notes, valuable to those having an excused class absence, or those wishing to review their class notes for the test. Double spaced notes reflect subjects that are so important that they are likely to be asked about on a test.)

Socialization can be defined as “the older generation teaching the younger generation its culture and values” (Erikson and Tedin, 2019, p. 122). We confine our study to American government and politics, which is a very important part of our nation’s culture and values. An important topic studied is attachment to our nation and its form of government. In the 1950s and 1960s when we had respected Presidents such as Eisenhower and Kennedy, young children personalized the government, focused on the President as the key leader and the policemen, and saw them as benevolent and wise, kind of like a parent. Our schools focused on praising American heroes, such as Washington and Lincoln. In late childhood, children became more politically sophisticated, and came to separate the President from his office, realizing that one should respect the office even if the officeholder was a flawed human being. The older child also started to learn about the importance of Congress, of voting, and how this “public” sector was different from the “private sector” (private businesses). In adolescence, the high schooler now learned about the complexity of ideology.

Question for the class- are Americans still attached to their nation and its form of government? Do the political protests of athletes threaten our national culture? The kneeling of the Bronze medalist American women’s soccer team at the Olympics was condemned by Trump, while I noticed that the vast majority of our athletes (especially African Americans) proudly displayed the American flag after their victories. About ten years ago about 10% of white Southerners still preferred a separate nation centered around the values of the Confederate flag, and I recently joked that if Trump had won re-election the West Coast might have tried to secede from the nation. We saw repeated lawsuits by Republican-led states against ObamaCare, numerous lawsuits by Democratic-led states against Trump’s immigration policies, and now numerous lawsuits by Republican-led states against Biden’s executive orders. Does this suggest a possible division of our country much like the old Czechoslovakia? Should we teach more of an attachment to common American values in our schools? Have we stressed demographic group identification too much in our colleges? Or are recent trends a much-needed corrective to our tendency to glorify the past, when America Was Great, and ignore the real injustices that the dominant social group committed against racial minorities such as African Americans and native Americans? What do you all think about all this??

Agents of socialization include: the family, which is most likely to transmit to children their party identification and their religious denomination; peer groups, important in transmitting relevant values such as support for the 18 year old vote during the Vietnam War; the school itself, which teaches the process of democracy thru school elections and partisan political organizations; college, which may have a liberalizing or broadening effect; one’s job, which may change one’s ideological beliefs; marriage itself, though recently people tend to marry those who have the same values as themselves; aging, which tends to make people more intensely partisan (Cable news programs have an older viewership, and look how emotional and loudly partisan those programs are.). The text on page 136 (with my correction) shows the growing liberal orientation of many college professors. In 1990, 42% were liberal and only 18% conservative (the rest were moderate); by 2014, 60% were liberal and 13% conservative. How have you been affected by any of these agents of socialization? Can you think of any specific examples?

Attitude Theories are fascinating. Drawn from the discipline of Psychology, they explain other reasons for why people hold the attitudes that they have. One reason is Functionalism- that attitudes serve an important function for people. For example, they may help you promote your own income, or serve the social function of helping you fit into a desirable group. Attitudes may serve as your self-identity, who you are. Or they may help to simplify a complex reality, such as a Republican not needing to understand a complex issue but would just learn that Biden favors it, so they will oppose him; Democrats seemed to do that to Trump- if Trump was for it, such as secure borders, they opposed those policies. Another harmful example of functionalism is to enhance your own sense of self-esteem by putting down other people or groups. Thus, historically many low-income whites would feel better about themselves by putting down ethnic or racial minorities. Some men would treat women this way. Another attitude theory is a Belief-Based model, which states that one’s beliefs affect one’s attitudes, so if you want to change attitudes you must change the person’s beliefs. One study found support for that model by showing that as white Americans over the middle years of the last century came to believe that African Americans were just as intelligent as whites, support by white Americans for racial integration steadily increased over the decades. Other studies found that one’s beliefs about the positive characteristics of political candidates and whether they agreed with one’s own views on political issues affected their vote choices. There is much discussion about politicians and the media lying about basic facts today, so that would suggest that such people endorse this model and hope to sway the public’s votes. So we live in a fantasy world where for some Trump actually won the last election, and for others there is no border crisis.

An even more interesting set of theories is Cognitive Consistency and Balance Theory. Most people find it psychologically uncomfortable to be inconsistent, so they try to maintain consistency among their beliefs and attitudes. I found support for that theory in studying how public attitudes and beliefs towards President Ford changed from 1974 thru 1976 to become more consistent. Now, if you disagree with a candidate on a particular issue, you can change your attitude towards that candidate, and vote against them. But if you really like that candidate, you can also become consistent by misperceiving reality and believing that the candidate shares your opinion (when they don’t). So, one study in 1968 found that voters who liked Republican Nixon but opposed the Vietnam War actually believed that he was anti-war (He talked about Vietnamizing the war, training the South Vietnamese to do the fighting.). Voters who liked Democrat Humphrey but favored the war came to view Humphrey as pro-war (as he refused to call for a halt to the bombing of communist North Vietnam, at least until right before the election). So, it pays for candidates to take a muddled, middle of the road position, so that voters can see whatever they wish to in that candidate. Cognitive consistency theory can also be applied to elites and explain their own misperceptions of reality. President Trump did have some noteworthy accomplishments, and he even seriously asked the Republican governor of South Dakota how he could get his head put on Mount Rushmore (She at first thought he was joking!). Obviously, losing re-election caused tremendous cognitive inconsistency and psychological discomfort for him. The result is therefore for him to strongly believe that he did not lose the election, that it was stolen from him. It should also be noted that our leaders are increasingly old, Biden being 80 and Trump 77, and that may encourage a hardening of one’s opinions and beliefs. So Trump is cognitively consistent- he thinks he was a Great President, and he actually won re-election! If you find yourself in the situation of working for any leader who exhibits an effort to attain cognitive consistency by misperceiving reality, Good Luck! You get to be the bearer of Bad News. Interestingly enough, the vast majority of Trump administration officials (including V.P. Pence of the “Hang Mike Pence” saga) and Republican governors and Secretaries of State in disputed states did indeed give him the bad news (The Georgia Secretary of State even tape recorded his effort to change that state’s vote total, which is now part of a state grand jury investigation.). But as you can see with Trump’s continued Stop the Steal rallies, he hasn’t changed his mind. You can see the same kind of thing among left-wing Democrats, who despite an open border crisis and a developing debt crisis (The U.S. has a $32 trillion federal debt, making up about 129% of GDP.) persist in pushing President Biden in a leftward direction (a $3.5 trillion dollar social welfare infrastructure package, for example, plus proposed college student loan bailouts). So while most scholars have studied cognitive consistency among average voters, I think it will be fascinating to turn the study towards the political, media, and even educational leaders. Perhaps they are potentially doing the most harm to our nation in this area.

Support for democratic values (chapter 6 of text). Historically, our nation violated the rights of unpopular groups in times of crisis. Communists were arrested during the Red Scare during World War 1, and some Americans lost their jobs during the Joe McCarthy Communist witch hunts of the 1950s. Indeed, many Americans of Japanese ancestry were placed in internment (concentration) camps after Pearl Harbor started World War 2. Therefore, scholars were concerned that many average Americans were not willing in the 1950s to permit the unpopular groups of the time (Communists, socialists, atheists) to be able to make a public speech or to teach in college. Scholars did find a growth in tolerance towards these unpopular groups over the next sixty years. Scholars also found that the college educated and elected public officials were more tolerant of these groups than the average voter. Other scholars point out that many Americans are still intolerant towards unpopular groups, but that the new unpopular groups are racists and terrorist sympathizers (page 158 of text). Indeed, about two-third of Americans said that they didn’t think that the group they most disliked should even be able to hold a public rally (page 161 of text). During the Trump years, some Democratic mayors boasted of keeping white nationalist groups from rallying in their towns, and some Trump supporters were investigated by the FBI for just attending his rally on the day of the “insurrection.” We’ve also seen some conservatives (including former President Trump) being banned from some social media, or having their individual posts censored. What do you all think about this situation? Should we permit people to make racist, pro-terrorism, even factually inaccurate statements? Or should there be some kind of censorship board? Interesting that some societies police one’s speech, such as Germany outlawing Holocaust denial, and Russia providing up to two-weeks of prison for anyone denigrating any ethnic group (A comedian making fun of ethnic Russians just got a few days in jail two years ago.). Should we have such laws, or should we go back to the days of- “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Interesting that decades ago a male student in my class made a homophobic comment, and the net result was that the rest of the class became more supportive of LGBTQ rights (In a simulation of a congressional committee, they enacted an LGBTQ rights bill.). But going back to the Fishbein, belief-oriented model, permitting people to make repeated hateful comments may negatively affect attitudes towards the targeted minority. What do you all think about these issues? Do you ever fear to express your true opinions, fearing that you will be called a bigot? Where do we draw the line??

Many of these issues boil down to wanting people to have Political Trust in Government, so that the government can function effectively and fairly and help protect our people. Trust is often measured by a belief that government is run for the benefit of all and not just a few, that government does not waste a lot of tax dollars, and that overall one can trust the government all or most of the time. Trust was highest in 1956 during the Eisenhower presidency, and it has gone downhill since then (page 172 of text). It declined during the Vietnam War and Watergate, and hit a low in 1980 after Carter’s failed Presidency. Interestingly enough, it rebounded somewhat during the Reagan Presidency, as the economy boomed and Reagan was a gifted and charismatic speaker. It then hit another low in 1994 during Clinton’s first midterm election, when Republicans gained control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in forty years. Interestingly enough, once again it rebounded significantly after the 9-11 World Trade Center terrorist attack, as Bush became a wartime President. Since then, it has trended back down. So, what can be done to restore the kind of trust in government that Americans had under Eisenhower? Check out my Political Leadership class notes about Eisenhower. He made it clear to everyone, including his own staff members, that they would only do what was best for the country, and not seek any selfish political gains. After all, Ike (his nickname) had been the top Allied commander in Europe during World War 2, had overseen D-Day (our 1944 return to the European mainland by invading France), and he felt the great responsibility of all of those young military lives entrusted to him. Compare his philosophy to President Trump’s constant bragging about him having the highest job approval ratings among Republicans of any President (as if he was President of only half of the country), or President Biden’s early efforts to appease the Democratic Left on nearly every issue. So where do we as a country go from here?? How do you think you can improve the situation in your own career, and what career are you thinking of at this point?