We the People:
Our Role in 21st Century American Politics
any people are concerned about the
current state of democracy in the
United States and we can no longer just
blame citizens for being apathetic or uneducated. The situation is much more complex. After all, there are good reasons to
feel powerless in the face of our politics.
While it is true that many studies cite the
decreasing voting numbers and trust in
government, concern as to whether participation even matters, increasing polarization, cynicism, and apathy among the populace, there is also much more to the story.
Many citizens, for instance, think their
choices for leaders are too limited and do
not see their values reflected in them. Also,
the media itself has become politicized, or
otherwise tends to focus on image, spectacle, and strategy with little resources dedicated to solid, investigative journalism.
With an emphasis on efficiency in our
American culture over more timeconsuming relationship-focused endeavors,
many of our people feel overworked and
stressed. Our work, broken families, and
increasing social technologies, make it so
that often we are isolated as individuals or
as families with few, supportive relationships. Of course, money now matters more
than a single vote. Additionally, our race
relations are fraught with mistrust, with racial
groups often either being pitted against each other or at odds with one another, which sometimes
leads to terrible acts of violence. Generational and
cultural differences continue to create a lack of
empathy in many people.
ent, and resourceful. I think if we take the problems with our political system seriously, it should
at least give us reason to, as a community, pause
and reflect about ourselves – our greatest resource.
As we move into the 21st century, we need to be
more thoughtful about what options we have for
ourselves in politics.
Indeed, there are countless reasons that we do
face a grim reality. But, another, more optimist
reality, is also true: people in the United States are For this deliberation, we consider what is our role
incredibly creative, hard-working, optimistic, resili- in creating our best democracy?
Overview of three possible options
we might take:
OPTION 1: MAKE CHANGE IN OUR COMMUNITIES
BY FOCUSING ON AREAS OF OUR LIVES WE KNOW
WE CAN CONTROL SUCH AS FAMILY AND OUR
JOBS.
People who support this option think the problems
are so big that they are unable to participate in our
system in a way that is productive or that makes a
difference. As such, proponents of this view think
the best way to improve our lives is to act where
they perceive they can make a difference, including
helping family and friends, paying taxes, following
laws, and focusing on career success in order to
contribute economically to society.
OPTION 2: MAKE CHANGE IN OUR POLITICS BY
ELECTING THE BEST LEADERS.
People who support this option think we need to
elect the best leaders who can best represent our
interests and make the needed changes for our political system. In this view, people look to leaders to
provide a vision for change and then they vote according to who they think will be the strongest.
Those who think this is the best role for citizens
think we need to emphasize the importance of
voting, staying informed, writing our representatives, and being involved in political campaigns.
OPTION 3: MAKE CHANGES IN OUR POLITICS BY
WORKING WITH OTHERS.
People who support this option think we need to
create opportunities for citizens to work with leaders and experts so that many people can be a part
of making the needed changes. For far too many
people, “politics” is something that happens in
Washington, D.C., not in their communities. Democracy requires people that are able to work together, particularly with those with whom they disagree - an ability currently severely lacking in our
society. The partisanship and polarization of our
current political system too, often hinders us from
addressing the problems we face. The need for
good schools, good jobs, less crime, and simply nice
places to live—are all issues that must be engaged
at multiple levels, which include but goes beyond
the governmental solutions of institutional politics.
Further, experts may be able to generate large
amounts of data, but they cannot ultimately decide
our values. As a result, citizens must be involved
with both community and institutional politics, as
problem-solvers as well as constituents.
People who support this option
think the problems are so big
that they are unable to participate in our system in a way that
is productive or that makes a
difference. As such, proponents
of this view think the best way
to improve our lives is to act
where they perceive they can
make a difference, including
helping family and friends, paying taxes, following laws, and
focusing on career success in
order to contribute economically to society.
>>MAKE CHANGE IN OUR COMMUNITIES BY FOCUSING
ON AREAS OF OUR LIVES WE KNOW WE CAN CONTROL
SUCH AS FAMILY AND OUR JOBS.
Supporters contend:
People have good reason to be worried that their
participation matters.
 People are trying to balance the numerous demands of life: work, school, and family, among
others, leaving little time for more. Juliet Schor,
in her best-selling book, The Overworked American, concludes that Americans are overworked
and overstressed, observed in increasing trends
of road rage and sky rocketing demand for day
cares and after-school programs. With these
types of trends, it’s hard for some to find the
energy and time for one more thing at the end
of the day.

 There is too much information for an average
citizen to reasonably process. When one looks at
the number of representatives a citizen must be
informed about when just voting for their own
representation, including presidential candidates, senators, federal representatives, state
representatives, judges, city council members,
mayors and more, it is a lot. On top of that,
there are an increasing number of critical issues
to understand, including the economy, education, health care, civil rights, fair labor, international politics, and many, many more. The demands to stay informed often seem impossible
in light of how little free time citizens have at the
end of their day.
There is simply a lack of transparent information
that we need to make good decisions. Media
outlets, the main source for much of our infor-
outlets, the main source for much of our
information, often focus more on entertainment than on substantial policy. And
there is too much outside influence, like
corporate donors, on our media outlets.
 People often report that they feel removed
from politics. In a large study conducted at the
UHD Center for Public Deliberation, we learned
that people often see politics as something
they are not a part of – rather they feel removed from what they see as something only
leaders or experts worry about.
 People think their choices for candidates are
often too limited and don’t see their views and
values reflected in their choices for candidates.
 Money has more weight than a single person
vote.
Examples of the role citizens play in our politics in
this option:
 Pay taxes
 Appropriately use the services provided to us
 Help friends and family
 Work hard to earn money for self and family

Schools should focus on the basics of reading,
writing and math and not use up time on civic
learning.
 Use social medias to keep in touch with loved
ones.
Trade-offs: If we accept this approach moving forward, we would need to accept trade-offs:
 Everyday people lose the ability to have a voice
or a hand in the issues that concern their communities.
 In this approach, we must accept the way thing
are.
 In this approach, we give up building strong
relationships with others not in our immediate
circle, something that happens when we work
productively with others for change.
Discussion question:
>What do you like or dislike about this
option?
>If you see yourself in this option, are you
willing to accept the trade-offs that come
with his approach if we were to adopt
People who support this option
think we need to elect the best
leaders who can best represent
our interests and make the
needed changes for our political
system.
>>MAKE CHANGE IN OUR POLITICS BY
ELECTING THE BEST LEADERS.
Supporters contend:
 Supporters say that this option offers the best
option for improvement of our political
system, as it builds on the current frame
work.
 Supporters of this option see good experts
and leaders as the people best suited for
making needed changes.
 While serious problems may exist, supporters
of this approach maintain that we need to
improve how we are represented by
voting, writing elected leaders and news
editors, and staying informed.
 Additionally, supporters see a focus on civic
education in school as important with an
emphasis on understanding how our
government leadership works (campaigns,
branches of government, etc.) and the
importance of understanding and valuing

voting.
While serious problems may exist, the best bet
for democracy is to focus on improving representative democracy, emphasizing people’s
need to vote, writing their elected leaders and
news editors, and staying informed.
Additionally, supporters of this approach
may put added economic pressure on leaders to
make good choices by “voting” with
their dollars.
Examples of the role citizens play in our politics in
this option:
 Citizens would prioritize voting in their lives.
 Citizens would educate themselves on the best
sources of information to learn what they
need to learn to make the best choices for
leaders.

Civic education would focus on helping students to be informed citizens.
 Citizens would write leaders to let them know
when they see a problem they think needs addressing.
 People might purchase products produced by
companies that embody good community values.
 Invest our money in initiatives that promote
voting.
 Use social media to help inform people about
leaders and to encourage voting.
 Citizens would attend town halls to learn information from elected leaders and to speak their
two minutes when asked to help improve their
representation.
 Citizens would pay dues to interest groups that
are designed to lobby the government on the
type of work our leaders need to do.
Trade-offs: If we accept this approach moving forward, we would need to accept trade-offs. Can
we accept the following?
 In this option, we may have to give up seeing
citizens as important change agents in our
communities (reducing the role of people to
“spectators” and people who “cheer for their
team.”)
 News media would have to be willing to let go
of profit earnings to invest more in rigorous
journalism so that we have good information
to select our leaders and most media outlets
may be unwilling to go this route.
 The current system has been corrupted by special interests, economic elites, party politics
and ideology. Polls have shown that politicians
are more polarized than the public that elects
them. If our system were truly representative,
politicians would be more responsive and
better reflect the public. In this approach, we
may have to accept that some leaders may re-




ceive pressures not take into account the voices of everyday people.
This option doesn’t leave much room to understand that issues also need to be addressed at
multiple levels – not just at the leader or policy
level. For example, if we are going to improve
our education system, we need the resources
of everyone in our community – not just the
resources of our government and leaders
(parents, teachers, students, nonprofits, business owners, etc.)
Because students are being primarily educated
on how to advocate and on how the way that
the government works, there would be less
emphasis on the much-needed skills and abilities to address tough issues with diverse people and interests.
Also, students would not get as much exposure
to the idea that they have resources themselves to be active agents in creating the type
of community they want. Instead they would
learn that change happens by our leaders and
our policies.
This option might alienate members of our
communities that may be guests or permanent
residents, but who do not have the right to
vote because they have not secured full citizenship. As such, we leave behind important
change agents that could be investing their
times, strengths and gifts to strengthen our
communities.
Discussion questions:
>What do you like or dislike about this
option?
>If you see yourself in this option, are you
willing to accept the trade-offs that come
with this option if we were to adopt this
view in our 21st century?
People should work together and with leaders
productively to address
issues and improve our
communities for the
better.
>>MAKE CHANGES IN OUR POLITICS BY WORKING
WITH OTHERS.
Supporters contend:
 Proponents believe that more must be expected of citizens for democracy to function. 
They maintain that we must tap into broader
audiences, rather than relying only on government solutions to solve problems.
 In this option, supporters say that this type of
politic will work against the polarization, apa- 
thy, and cynicism so evident in our current
system because there would be spaces in our
communities for people to work across
difference and attempt to find areas of common ground.
 In this option, supporters say we should support citizens who work to build communities
with other citizens and leaders in alternative 
ways, such as using art and music.
 Supporters of this option would see K-20 education focused on building civic skills in students, such as decision-making across differ-
ence, collaboration and community problemsolving.
Supporters of this option would see media’s
role to be providing citizens with the tools
necessary to become problem solvers in their
communities by framing issues more productively and focusing less on political strategy.
Political reform would be understood as
something that affects every level of society,
instead of just something that is accomplished through policy. As such, we would
have more mechanisms to organize support
at the citizen-level instead of only the political-elite level or the expert-level. Such changes would build public will and engagement.
More people would vote and get informed as
people are more likely to vote and inform
themselves when they are personally engaged in community change and see themselves as part of the solution.

The role of legislators might shift some from
decision-makers to conveners, involving the
public more and increasing the representative
of our democracy. Such a role for legislators
might also improve the public’s trust of politicians.
 Because citizens would need good information,
efforts for transparency would need to become
a priority for political reform.
Examples of the role citizens play in our politics in
this option:
 Design deliberative forums that host diverse
groups of people to come together for the purposes of coming to understanding across
difference, working through issues and moving
toward action.
 Citizens join mediating organizations who design non-partisan spaces to work across differences, prioritize issues, and move to public action.
 Citizens would create artistic forms of expression in order to promote dialogue.
Use social media for the purposes of fostering
community and collaborative action.
Invest our dollars in initiatives that promote citizen participation.
 Include forums in educational settings so that
students can learn critical 21st century skills like
critical thinking, problem solving, collaboration
and teamwork.
 Citizens would invite leaders to engage in dialogue and problem solving and leaders would
invite citizens to do the same.
 Citizens would join public interest groups that
are made up of citizens doing work to make
changes.
Trade-offs: If we accept this approach moving forward, we would need to accept trade-offs. Can
we accept the following?
 The average citizen leads a hectic life, and this
approach may mean we have to give up time
and energy that is hard to find.
 Working with others can take a lot of time and
community resources.

If the community organizing is not done well
or its leadership is homogenous, the groups
working together could end up not appropriately diverse – possibly leading to more polarization.
 In K – 20 education, more time could possibly
be taken away from other important subjects,
like institutional politics, reading, math and science.
 Various media outlets may lose profits from
not using a strategy or conflict lens to cover
politics as these “fighting” frames are much
more exciting and sell more stories.
 Because citizens are busy and uninformed, we
would spend too many resources on including
citizens for very little return.
 If communities did not work together to prioritize and integrate efforts into our lives, people
could be pulled in too many directions.
Discussion questions:
>What do you like or dislike about this option?
>If you see yourself in this option, are you
willing to accept the trade-offs that come with
this option if we were to adopt this view in
our 21st century?
Source: This issue guide is a collaboration between the Colorado State University Center for
Public Deliberation, the University of Houston – Downtown (UHD) Center for Public Deliberation and the UHD Student Government Association.