Is disengagement really a problem?

We first asked the question: Is

disengagement a problem?

Are people actually disengaged? And if so, does this necessarily mean there's a problem?

Lots of people get up in the morning and go to work, obey the traffic laws (mostly), get the kids to school, and vote (sometimes). Do we need more? Should we expect more? People say we worry more about our rights than our responsibilities. Is that true? Is it a problem?

We agreed: Yeah, it's a problem.

A lot of our concerns revolved around what it means to be a participant - an effective participant - in democracy. A lot of the discussion focused on the media (new and old, institutional and personal).

Some of the issues we identified were:

Participation vs. influence. You could argue that people are participating more than ever. There's no question that the Internet - and in particular social media - has provided a way for more people to participate. But does participation mean involvement? Does having a voice mean having an impact? Sometimes, leaving a comment can have a real effect, as with the 4 million comments that helped spur the FCC to support 'net neutrality.” But if you leave a 'Like” for The Cure, are you making a difference?

Community, or gated communities? The Internet gives groups a way to connect. The LGBT community is a great example, creating connections and safe places for discussion, and in the process surely saving some lives. Minorities, those with social phobias, and anyone who is a better writer than speaker can appreciate what's been gained.

On the other hand, these like-minded communities allow you to avoid anyone who is not like-minded. An Asian-American, Fox News-watching Cubs fan doesn't ever have to interact with a gay, vaccine-denying Trekkie (unless they want to). By curating your own content, you don't have to be exposed to pesky opposing views.

Discourse is division. When we do participate, it too often leads straight to division. Online discussions frequently devolve into name-calling, bullying and abuse.

Anonymity allows someone with a real need to speak up for the first time. Anonymity also allows 'trolls” to run wild, spewing such venom that it drives others off the Internet altogether.

Back in the real world, people don't discuss real issues with co-workers, friends, or relatives because they're afraid no one can discuss them civilly.

Perception vs. reality. 'Reality” and 'perception” overlap, but they are not the same thing. Both the old and new media contribute to perception problems, by falling into old traps: an emphasis on conflict, ignoring of issues that have bipartisan support, focusing on the winners and losers, suggesting disagreement when there really is none ('false balance”).

Vote counting. Does your vote count? Which votes count most? The highest turnouts are in presidential elections. But arguably, you'll have more impact if you vote in a school board or city election with much lower turnout. You may have even more influence voting in a party primary, where turnout can be extremely low. But do money and the political party system exclude other candidates you'd really like to vote for - or keep you from running yourself?

Gaining access (physical, logistical, financial, organizational). Although things are improving all the time, we still too often see the same pool of participants, which tend to be older, whiter, male. If we don't fit that mold, we may hesitate to try, in which case the mold never changes.

We may want to get involved, but our economic or family situation may prevent us. What about child care? What if the buses don't run on Sunday?

Even when we do show up, participation doesn't guarantee results. Often it seems the decision has been made before we're even aware of the issue. The recent fight over the historic designation of several Iowa City cottages is an example. Who is making the decisions - and how do we get in on the discussion?

Some reforms have made it into law: open meetings laws, gift laws, eliminating earmarks. But are they always an improvement? In the 'bad old days,” the process wasn't transparent, but in many ways it was more effective. If lunch with your legislator turns into an accounting exercise, why bother?

It's not all bad news. The Corridor communities have certain advantages. The rebuilding in downtown Cedar Rapids has brought with it some great public spaces (the new library, the NewBo City Market), if we decide to use them. Iowa City and other Corridor communities have similar great public spaces. The local colleges and universities supply a wealth of resources for anyone interested in gathering facts before hitting 'send.”

The tough thing will be to change the nature of public discourse and to help individuals become more effective in that discourse. How do we get out of our comfort zones, our enclaves, and engage with others we may not agree with? And when we do, how do we ensure the conversation remains civil?

We didn't come up with any solutions (yet), but identifying the problems tells us where to start looking.

' This is one of the inaugural columns written by members of The Gazette Writers Circle, which is a diverse, select group of community members who explore and discuss local issues. Circle member Alan Lewis led a team comprised of Laurie Haag, Robert Mershon, Renee Schulte and John Swanson in this specific discussion, which was a sub-section of learning why more Eastern Iowans aren't involved in the public decision-making process. Comments: (319) 398-8469; editorial@thegazette.com