We quizzed New Jerseyans about history and civics. Here’s what we’ve learned | Opinion
Photo by Unsplash
This op-ed was published May 23, 2024 on NJ.com.
Trustees from CivicStory, a nonprofit news site that encourages citizens to transform their communities, recently laid out the aims of our 10-question survey on history and civics. The goal was to inspire thinking about essential civics concepts in a way that’s fun, informative, and quick.
Remarkably, online survey responses jumped 82% (from 200 to 364) the day that our op-ed appeared in print in the Star-Ledger, as well as on NJ.com and CivicStory.org. The three-minute “yes/no” quiz touched on topics such as the U.S. Constitution, presidential tasks, desired qualities of political leaders, citizens’ authority relative to political parties, and facts concerning the afternoon of Jan. 6, 2021.
What we learned from the 364 responses was encouraging, as it confirms that New Jersey news readers -- or this particular subset -- are remarkably well-informed and aligned on civics concepts.
Even if the respondents were a self-selecting group of history and civics buffs, it’s impressive that six questions received 89% or more correct responses. Most notably, two items relating to the presidential Oath of Office and the authority of U.S. political parties received an overwhelming 98% alignment.
Here are the two questions that elicited near-unanimous agreement:
“Before taking office, newly elected U.S. presidents are administered an Oath to: faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States; and to the best of their ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” A full 355 of the 364 respondents answered yes.
“In the U.S., political parties have authority over the American people.” Once again, 355 got it right by responding no.
While familiarity with the Presidential Oath would be expected, we were struck by the unequivocal repudiation of the idea that political parties have authority over the people. That response raises a question: If news readers know that political parties have no authority over citizens, then why are party politics and partisanship so prominent in daily news?
And what if the tone and tenor of political reporting were to change? Imagine if a nightly TV newscast began with this disclaimer: In the U.S., political parties are not Constitutionally sanctioned. The people themselves retain ultimate authority.
Would greater numbers of citizens -- especially young people -- participate in elections if they understood that they are in charge and can use their voices and votes to change policies?
Two other high-agreement questions pertained to the qualities people desire in their elected leaders and the Preamble to the Constitution:
“Our elected representatives should: exemplify patriotism and a love of justice; possess wisdom to discern the true interests of the country; be guardians of the people’s well-being.” Result: 95% agreed.
“Four goals mentioned in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution are to: form a more perfect union; establish justice; ensure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense.” Result: 90% said yes.
The 364 respondents also aligned on the tragic facts concerning the afternoon of Jan. 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol. About 90% agreed that more than 140 police officers were injured and two people died after a joint session of Congress was convened. (Coroners’ reports later confirmed that four people lost their lives during the riot.)
As the summer conventions approach, news outlets could do more to foster civic knowledge and clarify the non-authoritative role of political parties. Specifically, parties have a facilitating role in advancing candidates and policies, but no Constitutional role. New Jersey’s recent end to party-controlled placement of candidates’ names on ballots shows that positive change is possible.
Once the paradigm of “controlling parties” shifts, people will more easily envision alternate scenarios and outcomes for the national conventions in July and August. For example, convention delegates who are currently “bound” to a particular candidate could be unbound by convention votes, if changes in public sentiment or other factors made that desirable. Convention surprises, too, are possible.
Ultimately, for democracy to work, we know the American people need a choice of law-abiding candidates who are supported by ethically functioning major parties. When these basic conditions are met and high voter participation is incentivized, we can well imagine successful and broadly accepted election outcomes in 2024.
Susan Haig, Radhika Iyengar, and Marian Glenn serve on the board at CivicStory. Emily Quaye is a retired nurse from Orange.