¶ … Low Civic Engagement? Move Civil Disobedience out of the Streets and Take it to the Polls and Pundits Before proposing a solution to the problem of low civic engagement in the U.S., it is necessary to understand why there is such a low level of engagement. As researchers note, not only is there disillusionment expressed at the polls by a lack of voter turnout but also there is disillusionment among college graduates, with "the unemployment rate for Americans with a baccalaureate degree" at 50% of "the national average" (Kanter 22). Such appalling statistics show that there is a substantial disconnect between what young people are taught about reality (i.e., going to school, getting a good degree, getting a good job, and living the American Dream) and the reality as it actually unfolds before their eyes -- as crony capitalism sees bankers and their buddies in the Treasury Department (like Henry Paulson and Timothy Geithner) bailing out busted banks at the expense of American taxpayers, and as the War Party bangs its drums in order to topple regimes in the Middle East, only to see blowback in the form of refugee crises in the EU, terror attacks in the U.S., and the racking up of more and more debt from under which future generations will never be able to get out. Add to this the bottomless pit of student loans that graduates are now forced to cope with as they take up the only work they get -- in the service sector (waiters and waitresses). If civic participation could prevent any of this, there likely would be more engagement -- but the Establishment is controlled from within by a "deep state" that is unelected and unaccountable; that maintains its authority one administration after another. The only solution to end its reign and re-establish a high degree of civic engagement is for a challenger to come along who voices the frustration of the average American citizen.

Has that time finally come? With the unexpected surge of popular support for the outspoken, brash and anti-PC/anti-Establishment Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, whose candidacy (along with that of Bernie Sanders) is seeing record turnout at primaries and caucuses, the claim could be made that all that was wanting for civic engagement to increase was a man who would stand up to the Establishment powers that have been allowing the nation to bleed its public dry. In fact, the solution appears to be more than evident in the rise of Trump: what Americans want is a leader who will unite them across the board (in spite of their smaller differences and divisions) and make an assault on the fundamental problems that have led to joblessness and a failure of academic promises to come true. The answer to boosting civic engagement in the U.S. has been there all along -- it just needed an entertainer to make it apparent and mainstream: the answer to boosting civic engagement is, pure and simple, civil disobedience in civic form.

What does this mean? It means that civics has for decades been controlled by a PC Establishment that has refused to allow a voice to individuals who seek to politely oppose the unfair practices of Establishment politicians that benefit their friends and business partners (aka sponsors and donors) and no one else. The Establishment has been happy enough to allow Civil Disobedience in the streets ala the Occupy Movement following the bailouts of the Too Big To Fails (such protests were easy enough to co-opt and control), but what it cannot tolerate is when such Civil Disobedience actually turns into a legitimate political movement that resists labeling and identification: its only main attribute is total dissatisfaction with the Establishment trying to keep its voice unheard. Such is why when Kanter asserts that the best way to promote civic engagement is to teach it in the schools and to ensure that "Americans today and tomorrow will have the opportunity -- and will be able to afford -- to go to college, earn their degrees and certificates, and contribute to our social, civic, and economic prosperity," (Kanter 22) one has to laugh: this is the same author who just said that half of college grads cannot get a job. Does she expect a magic job fairy to descend out the sky, wave a wand and somehow make everything better -- because the government has ordained it (by putting the next generation on the hook for the outrageous bill that is...

But when education does not even lead to a job anymore -- people ask: what is the point? The point is that education is primarily about control -- turning the young people into serfs, the new debt/wage slaves of the 21st century, and the Establishment, by promising them an education and even footing the bill for it (until they graduate, at which time the bill comes due with interest) is just ensuring that it will remain in charge because no debt/wage slave could possibly mount a campaign to stop it.
And this is why Trump makes everything so interesting -- and crystal clear to his followers: he has not been bought by the Establishment (though he has done his fair share of buying). What he represents is the movement of Civil Disobedience -- of the disenchanted, the disenfranchised and the disillusioned -- taken out of the streets from their useless Occupy chants and given a real chance at the polls to elect a leader who will stand up to the Establishment. At least, that is how it seems to his supporters. And the fact that so many people are indeed turning out to vote for Trump -- are, for perhaps the first time in a long time (or ever), being civically engaged -- just goes to show that all that has been wanting is a reason to become engaged, i.e., a leader who is not for, by and of the Establishment.

As Verba, Schlozman and Brady state, "the increasing role of contributions as a form of political activity ... has profound implications for political equality" (75). In other words, until today, no leader worth following (according to the disenfranchised) has been able to mount any sort of campaign because of his lack of financing: the Establishment is backed by billionaires who are at the heart of the problem of crony capitalism in the U.S. which has completely turned off average Americans from participating in civic engagement (75). With the arrival of the self-proclaiming self-funding Trump, these same disenfranchised citizens now, apparently, see someone who is not part of the Establishment -- someone they want to back. And this is leading to more voter turnout -- more phone calls being made by supporters, more enthusiasm among the lower classes and more distrust for the mainstream media (as a wing of the Establishment) than ever before.

What Trump has shown is that it does not take a lot to move people: they are already angry that their country is ruled by oligarchs. Some turn to Bernie Sanders because he promises them more free stuff (he will pay for education, just as Kanter wants, but admits he will raise taxes to do it -- and does not guarantee that any of the graduates will have jobs when they get out). Others turn to Trump because he actually contends that he will force American companies to restore American labor. Could he actually do it? That question does not matter so much to his supporters: they simply like that he is sticking up for them in such a grandiose way (he is, after all, an entertainer/business mogul). He reminds them that they matter and they feel that he could actually effect real change -- and they see that the Establishment is so annoyed/vexed/frustrated by him that they are willing to trot out old mainstays like Mitt Romney and John McCain to try to out-flank the Trump campaign.

But Trump's success points to the answer: to produce more civic engagement, the citizens need to embrace Trump's brand of Civil Disobedience -- not passive resistance in the streets, but rather aggressive action at the polls and in the face of the pundits. All the people have been waiting for is someone who will stand out in front of them and lead the way.

Dawn Reiss suggests that the answer is more "civic education" (58) in the classroom -- but unless that education translates into action and unless there is a voice who has enough power to be heard above the pundits and talking heads (paid lackeys of the Establishment which has disenfranchised so many), then all this talk about "civic education" is just that -- talk. What is needed is action.

Thus, in conclusion, the solution to the problem of a lack of civic engagement in today's nation is not more of the same -- education, "free" (nothing is ever free) college, and "political equality" (a nice sounding phrase for…