Skepticism is a normal and healthy characteristic in a democracy, but in the quarter of a century since Watergate, distrust and cynicism have grown rather steadily to dominate the ways in which Americans view their political institutions, particularly legislatures. People no longer trust government to do the right thing, they are critical about elected public officials who are supposed to represent their interests, and they feel that the legislative system as it operates is wide open to special interests but not to the public. 

We contend that legislatures do not deserve the marks they get. Congress and state legislatures are not perfect, nor will they ever be. But neither are they broken, not according to the relevant research findings of congressional and state legislative scholars. The legislatures are better equipped, more open, more ethical, more engaged, and more responsive than in the past. They are also more burdened, more pressured, more partisan, and more political. These realities are by no means completely positive, but they belie the perceptions that prevail today.

The distrust and cynicism are not warranted, and the public is entitled to a perspective that is not only more positive but also more rooted in fact than in fiction. The public's negativism has serious consequences for the political system. We may have a self-fulfilling prophecy and may actually get what we think we have, if the decline in public support is not reversed.

In the current climate, talented and concerned people are discouraged from running for public office. Anecdotal evidence exists to suggest that many people, whom we might like to encourage to run for public office, reject the idea of becoming candidates. While they may be willing to sacrifice income and even family life for public office, they are not willing to risk their reputations in a highly accusatory environment.

The system of representative democracy also is in jeopardy. As Alan Rosenthal points out in The Decline of Representative Democracy, the traditional Madisonian framework is now being challenged by technology that makes direct democracy a real possibility. Moreover, term limits were enacted by referendum or popular demand in 21 states and are now in effect in 18. Such a change, which derives directly from public pique, has begun to have harmful effects on legislatures and lawmaking, as the dearth of long-term relationships weakens the fabric of the institution. Finally, consensus is less achievable, in part because trust is in such short supply.

It is little wonder that the public is so negative. Given the climate of cynicism since Watergate, it would be astonishing if many people had positive views of the political system. Most of what citizens see or hear is critical of elected public officials and governing institutions.

1. The media, as principal storyteller about politicians and political institutions, bear considerable responsibility. News traditionally tells us what's bad and wrong, not what's good and right. In recent years, competition within and among the print and electronic media has grown intense. This has put a premium on the sordid, sensational and scandalous, whether real or inferred. 

2. Politicians themselves must bear blame for the cynicism of citizens. The widespread use of government as a target in political campaigns undermines public trust. All too often, candidates - incumbents and challengers alike - run not only against one another, but against the political system and everybody in it. "I'm all right," they announce during the course of an election campaign, "but the system is broken." And they follow up with, "Elect me and I'll fix it." If both candidates trash the system, why should voters support it?

3. Interest groups also contribute to the problem. Because of the growing importance of grass roots activity (or its appearance), groups try to keep their members open to mobilization, which often requires militant language, exaggeration, and scapegoating. Groups are often convinced of the righteousness of their cause, so something must be wrong within the system (i.e., the legislature) if they do not prevail in the process to achieve their aims.

4. Add to all this the significant societal changes that have taken place and the culture wars that continue to rage. While expectations of what government can do have risen, notions about why and how government should perform have become more heterogeneous and conflicting. Ethnicity, race, gender, sexual preference, and attitudes toward the family, abortion, drugs, and immigration polarize opinions nowadays more than in the past. Political institutions are caught in the crossfire.

5. Legislators frequently have the same reactions to the process as interest groups. New legislators, in particular, come to the capitol with personal agendas. The more ambitious their agendas, the more difficult they are to achieve. When legislators fail to obtain much of what they want, they can become frustrated with the process and critical of the system. Only when members achieve majority-building roles on committees or within legislative parties, do they become general supporters of the system.

6. Legislative reform efforts also cast the system in a negative light. Take the hyperbolic discussion of campaign finance reforms, both in Washington, D.C., and in many states. The argument favoring reform describes the system, if not all the players, as "corrupt." People can infer from the discussion (and the media) that only one thing counts in politics - money.

7. In a nation with 7,424 state legislators and 535 members of Congress, thousands of issues, and hundreds of thousands of transactions, something is bound to go wrong - to be illegal, unethical, unseemly. One can find rotten apples in every barrel, and people generalize from them to all the apples in all the barrels. They do not generalize from their own legislator, whom they tend to like and reelect, to all legislators; rather, they generalize from the legislator who gets into trouble to all of those who don't.

8. The system and the legislature are distant from the citizen. To most people, these entities are abstractions, not the flesh and blood of their own representatives. It is easier to displace negative feelings on things remote than on those things nearby and concrete. Still, those who get to see the legislature up close may be just as appalled as those who never get to see it at all. The legislative process is unruly, disorderly, even chaotic. It cannot make sense to the casual observer and almost has to be accepted as an article of faith, or at least with a degree of trust.

9. If Americans had the right kinds of civic experiences, distrust and cynicism might be less problematic. But as Robert D. Putnam demonstrates (in Bowling Alone, 45-46), not only has political participation decreased, but the more that one's activities depend on the actions of others, the greater the drop-off in participation. Thus, "cooperative" forms of behavior, like serving on committees, have declined more rapidly than "expressive" forms of behavior, like writing letters (or sending e-mails). Emphasis now is not on consensus building, but on the articulation of grievances.

No particular incident, specific charge, single newspaper story, or television portrayal makes a huge difference, but years of battering have eroded support for the political system. Younger generations are more affected, in that their social trust, as well as their political trust, has declined.

If the environment for politics were to change, politicians and political institutions might garner greater affection. But we cannot count on the environment changing, although it is worth trying to take on some of the more pernicious elements. It might be possible to get candidates - incumbents particularly - to pledge not to trash their institutions in order to enhance prospects of victory. Still, persuading the media to portray politics in a more favorable light seems almost out of the question. The incentives for the media's concentration on the negative, sensational, and scandalous are just too strong.

So, if the tide is to be reversed, a new initiative is necessary. Legislatures are the political institutions that suffer the most damage from an erosive climate; thus, these bodies must play a major role in providing civic education on representative democracy to the public. Indeed, responsibility for civic education is an important part of the legislature's representational function. The public should understand the nature of political institutions that have served the nation and the states well since the seventeenth century. If the public is to get an alternative perspective and a more balanced view, legislatures must become involved, and they run the risk of appearing to be self-serving. Representatives of the media, in particular, will not welcome legislative involvement, since they consider themselves the legitimate interpreters of politics for the public. But if legislators do not serve the interests of their institutions, it is unlikely that anyone else will. 

In fact, legislatures are not newcomers to civic education. While legislators have not regarded civic education as a central role, historically their institutions have been involved in the enterprise. They have welcomed groups and individuals to the capitol, orienting them to lawmaking. Recently, legislatures have reached out to people throughout the state, offering gavel-to-gavel coverage, videos on the process, information on bill status, and the like. Massachusetts, for example, has conducted Citizens' Legislative Seminars for almost 25 years for people from all walks of life. Held twice a year, these seminars meet for 18 hours over six weeks and foster discussions among 65 citizens and 30 to 40 legislators.

Legislatures cannot succeed in this enterprise without help. First, they require assistance from professional political scientists, who have a stake in providing a better understanding of representative democracy than currently exists. Second, legislatures also need the help of social studies teachers in middle and high schools, who play an important role in how youngsters view the political system. 

Through three national organizations, legislatures have resolved to take on greater responsibility for civic education. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), the State Legislative Leaders Foundation (SLLF), and regional associations of the Council of State Governments (CSG) adopted resolutions urging improved education about representative democracy. NCSL established the Trust for Representative Democracy (www.ncsl.org/public/civiced.htm), an initiative designed to build public understanding and support for America's democratic institutions and to counter cynicism and distrust of the legislative process. A major element of the Trust for Representative Democracy is the New Public Perspective project, a joint effort by NCSL with two other groups - the American Political Science Association (APSA) and the Center for Civic Education (CCE) - to offer civic education on representative democracy to students and citizens of all ages. The combination of strengths in these organizations is impressive. NCSL is a bipartisan organization that serves the legislators and staffs of the nation's 50 states. APSA has a traditional commitment in this area, since education for civic engagement and responsive governance were founding objectives of the political science profession. CCE's mission is to promote informed, responsible participation in civic life by citizens committed to values and principles fundamental to American constitutional democracy.

Civic education may be approached in various ways: to increase civic knowledge; to promote civic engagement; and to shape a civic orientation. Emphasis in the United States tends to be on the first or second approach, with relatively little attention paid to the third.

Civic knowledge. The state of civic knowledge depends on whether one tends to see the glass as half full or half empty. The 1998 Civics Report Card, based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress found that two-thirds of the students at grades 4, 8, and 12 performed at a basic level, but that only one-quarter reached the level designated "proficient." Adults evidence little more knowledge than youngsters, as repeated surveys document. The civic educational objectives of the school system are designed mainly to increase civic knowledge. The question can be posed as to how successful public education has been in meeting this objective. Moreover, can we be sure that increased civic knowledge will serve to reduce public distrust and cynicism?

Much of the civic education conducted by legislatures emphasizes providing knowledge. Legislative public information offices seek to inform citizens of (1) how a bill becomes a law and (2) that there are three branches of government and two houses (except in the case of Nebraska) of the legislature. Such information may well come across as static, to adults and schoolchildren alike. Few consumers seek out the knowledge that legislatures produce. 

Civic engagement. This is the "hot" civic educational focus at present, as social studies teachers and schools promote participation - especially voting and advocacy. The North Carolina Civic Education Consortium (http://www.iog.unc.edu/programs/civiced) hopes to get middle and high school students to deliberate, negotiate, organize, persuade, listen, and advocate. Project Citizen (http://www.civiced.org/project_citizen.html), a middle school civic education program of the Center for Civic Education and NCSL, attempts to develop interest in public policy-making as well as the ability to participate competently and responsibly in state and local government. 

Civic education by state legislatures has also turned to the activation of citizens. For example, legislatures provide online access to information on bills and bill status. Increasingly, legislators are producing and distributing videos bearing the message that students ought to get involved. If they have an issue and address the legislature, their involvement can lead to a change in the law. In a 1997 video, the Idaho legislature focused on student actors lobbying a bill in the legislative process in order to encourage young people to become involved in policy advocacy.

If people participate, the civic engagement approach maintains, they will become more committed to and more positive about the political system. That may or may not be the case, however. Orientations and engagement can operate independently of one another, as the hypothetical diagram below suggests.
 

Cells (1) and (4) are straightforward. Supportive Participants, who are both positive and engaged, are few in number. Disaffected Dropouts, who are negative on both dimensions, are large in number. Cells (2) and (3) are of special interest. Accepting Citizens, who do not engage but nonetheless have some confidence in the system, have declined in numbers over recent decades. Twenty-five years ago people might have been skeptical, but they still were relatively trusting. Dissident Activists have grown in numbers. They are highly engaged, but negative. One can think of those who zealously espouse one case or another - abortion or not, guns or not, animals' rights or not - but who have little sympathy for the politicians or political institutions that never give them as much as they believe their cause merits.

Some evidence is already available to support the argument that engagement does not affect orientation, and further evidence would not be hard to develop. The research of John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, for example, shows no relationship between political involvement and approval of Congress and its members or favorable attitudes toward government. In a recent study of Philadelphia, the Pew Center found no relationship between local engagement and trust. 

Civic engagement does not tend to make people more positive, but it does encourage people to express their views, advocate, lobby, and increase the demands on the legislature. These demands are legitimate, but so are competing demands - and no legislature can satisfy everyone. What if, after encouragement to engage and after working at advocacy, the legislature does not respond favorably to people's demands, or not favorably enough? How will people feel then - more trustful and supportive or more cynical and critical?

Civic orientation. Currently the political system is loaded with demands from interest groups and interested individuals. If one pictures a balance scale, the demand side is far more heavily weighted than the support side. What the system needs is greater balance, which means more support, not more demands. Therefore, civic orientation - how people perceive representative democracy - has to be changed. What is needed is a more accurate view of politicians and political institutions. The perceptions of legislators and legislatures held by most Americans do not reflect the reality of actual practice and performance. Nor do they mesh with how the system ought to work.

The overly negative environment for politics represents a disservice to the nation's political system and a disservice to the nation's citizens as well. In a democracy, people have a right to an alternative to the perspective that prevails today.

The first task of the NCSL-APSA-CCE project was to figure out the message to be conveyed about how representative democracy ought to work and how it actually does work. Four political scientists - the authors of this piece and John Hibbing (University of Nebraska) and Burdett Loomis (University of Kansas) - formulated this message, labeled "A New Public Perspective on Representative Democracy," not because it is new (it is as old as Madison), but because it is almost completely ignored in the contemporary environment. The message is detailed in the authors' A New Public Perspective on Representative Democracy: A Guide for Legislative Interns (Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures, January 2000).

The New Public Perspective counters prevailing public perceptions thusly:
1. What makes legislators run?
The Prevailing Public Perception: Simply out for themselves, legislators lack integrity and act unethically.
The New Public Perspective: Despite some well-publicized exceptions, most legislators are out to promote the public welfare, as they and their constituencies see it. Moreover, they are generally ethical, although not everyone agrees on just what is and is not ethical in public life.

2. How are legislators linked to constituents?
The Prevailing Public Perception: Legislators do not care what common people think, but are servants of interest groups and those who contribute to their campaigns.
The New Public Perspective: Legislators care about what their constituents want and need more than perhaps anything else. No one is denied access or a hearing. But interests with sizeable memberships or lots of employees tend to have more influence than single individuals.

3. Where do people stand?
The Prevailing Public Perception: People agree on what is right and what is necessary. Thus, they see no good reason for legislators and the legislative system not to reflect such consensus.
The New Public Perspective: People in our diverse, pluralistic system agree on issues only at a general level. The legislature must resolve the clash of values, interests and claims.

4. How special are interests?
The Prevailing Public Perception: The values and interests of the average individual are not represented.
The New Public Perspective: Americans are represented directly or indirectly by interest groups as well as by legislators. Legislators depend on the groups' good will and support. Nearly eight out of every 10 Americans belong to an organized group, and many belong to several. In politics, numbers count, but those who are vocal and intense also have influence.

5. Why is the process contentious?
The Prevailing Public Perception: The legislative process is unworkable because of politics, unprincipled deal making and needless conflict. 
The New Public Perspective: The process is contentious because it encompasses different and competing values, interests, and constituencies, which are all making claims on government or one another. Some differences are fought out, but most are negotiated, compromised, and settled - at least to a degree and for a while.

6. What makes the system accountable?
The Prevailing Public Perception: The political system and politicians are unaccountable.
The New Public Perspective: Legislators who run every two or four years, who may be subject to recall, and whose every vote is on record are as accountable as anyone can be.

The New Public Perspective does not suggest that representative democracy in the states and nation operates perfectly. It always needs improvement. For example, our political institutions are trying to figure out how to finance campaigns so that candidates have enough money to get their messages to citizens, corruption is minimized, political parties retain a role in the process, citizens can know who is giving to whom, and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is observed. Achieving these objectives is no simple matter, so it is easy to be critical. But demonizing the political system is not the answer. Unfair campaigning, the intrusion of campaigns into the legislative process, and extreme partisanship are also problems that legislators must address. Moreover, a more profound problem is whether representative democracy will be able to adapt the new information technology to its purposes, or, instead, will technology overwhelm the deliberative capacity of our political system in the years ahead.

Of course, alternatives to representative democracy exist, if citizens prefer a different system. One alternative is to leave lawmaking to the governor and the executive branch. Another is democracy by plebiscite, whereby people themselves would vote on all issues, making the legislature virtually unnecessary. The hope of those sponsoring this project is that if citizens are informed, they will appreciate the role of the legislature. But, first, they will have to acquire a better sense of what they presently do have. Even if there are objections to the perspective offered here, we believe that an alternative perspective to the dominant cynicism is necessary.

The best way to affect perceptions of legislators and the legislative process is to bring individuals and the process closer together. As long as legislators and legislatures are remote and abstract, it will be easy for people to be distrustful and cynical. But if people see legislators at work and get a sense of the process and why it is the way it is, they may well gain more understanding. The operating principle here is that familiarity can breed empathy, not contempt. The strategy, then, is to communicate the New Public Perspective by means of face-to-face encounters, videos, simulations, computer games, and new curricular materials to be used in middle and secondary schools and colleges.

Testing the perspective. The 44-page A New Public Perspective on Representative Democracy: A Guide for Legislative Interns was distributed to legislative intern programs in twelve states: California, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Utah, and Washington. We decided to test the New Public Perspective with interns for several reasons. 

1. Despite their opportunities for involvement and close observation, if interns start out with a negative orientation, they may end up having it confirmed, not refuted. The legislative process is complicated and subtle to the point that observation can support either a negative or a positive interpretation. 

2. Interns have relatively easy access to legislators and the legislative process, so it is possible to develop exercises in the guide that rely on interviews and observation.

3. Focusing on legislative interns enables the project to get legislators involved in civic education on representative democracy. 

4. Application to interns also enables the project to work with political scientists who are teaching and/or supervising the academic work of interns.

The guide for legislative interns has been used differently in the twelve states. Although intern coordinators in each state passed it out, only a few programs - Delaware, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Georgia - used it in a rigorous way, with interns assigned most of the exercises. In Maryland and Minnesota political scientists used it in the internship classes they taught on campus. In other legislatures, only a session or two was devoted to the guide (usually when Rosenthal, Kurtz, or Loomis visited the legislature and helped lead the discussion).

Given the variation in usage, a full-scale evaluation across states would be impossible. However, the Donahue Institute at the University of Massachusetts will be doing pre- and post- tests with legislative interns who use the guide and, as a control, those who do not. Otherwise, softer evaluations and anecdotal evidence are being collected on the guide's effects.

We plan to publish a revised edition of A New Public Perspective on Representative Democracy that applies not only to legislative interns but also to a broader adult market. The revision will incorporate feedback that we have received from the legislative interns' guide. It will also expand from its primary focus on state legislatures to include more data, lessons, and examples from Congress. The Center for Congress at the University of Indiana will join as a fourth sponsor of the project.

Mobilizing legislatures. The objective of the project is to strengthen the civic education activities of the 50 legislatures and to focus them on the New Public Perspective. As a condition of participation, each legislative leader signed off on the project and designated several legislators and a staff member as their chamber's representatives. These legislators will serve as a core for civic education.

Another program of NCSL's Trust for Representative Democracy, America's Legislators Back to School Day serves as the major vehicle for legislator mobilization. Begun in 1999 as a pilot in Arizona, California, Iowa, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Nevada, "Back to School Day" is scheduled for legislators in all 50 states on September 15, 2000. On this day, all 7,424 of the nation's legislators are being asked to visit schools and classrooms in their districts to promote the New Public Perspective with students, teachers, and administrators.

The project's objectives are to develop and institutionalize legislator participation in civic education. A first step was the appointment of legislative contacts in each chamber. The next step is much more ambitious. We would like to have a special committee or task force established in each chamber, with at least one majority and one minority legislator and perhaps one citizen member as well. The special committee idea is being considered in Maryland and New Jersey, and it will be promoted in other states as preparations for "Back to School Day" proceed

Reaching teachers and schools. The legislative intern guide has been adapted for use in high schools by social science teachers. In this endeavor we are recruiting colleagues in a number of states to co-author (with Rosenthal and Michael Fischer of CCE) and distribute a version of the New Public Perspective tailored to each state's civic education standards. In New Jersey the guide will be published in the September issue of the education association's review, and colleagues in California, Delaware, Georgia, Ohio, and Texas are planning its dissemination. We will also be working with the National Council for the Social Studies and its state affiliates.

To the extent possible, the adaptation will be distributed to teachers and schools in connection with America's Legislators Back to School Day. This will offer teachers a context and materials in which to place the legislators' visits. Other materials include:

1. A brief video produced by NCSL that teaches the lessons of the New Public Perspective. Aimed at high school and middle school students, it will use humor and drama to draw analogies between teenagers' personal relationships with friends and family and the legislative process. The Ohio Legislature is producing its own video to support America's Legislators Back to School Day.

2. An illustrated brochure that supports the video and includes the principal points of A New Public Perspective on Representative Democracy.

3. Suggestions for activities that legislators can conduct in class. One simulation would require groups of students to play the role of representatives and decide on an issue, with students assigned positions on the issue and varying distributions of constituency opinion.

During the summer of 2000 we will help train teachers in the rationale for and the use of the adapted guide. CCE will arrange for these sessions at their regional teachers' institutes for "We the People. . .The Citizen and the Constitution" and the national "Project Citizen" teachers' institute. On the basis of these institutes and other critical readings by social studies teachers, we will prepare a high school and middle school student text and teacher guide. They will be designed for use with "We the People. . .The Citizen and the Constitution" and the "Project Citizen" curricular materials, but they will also be able to stand alone.

Adult education. Reaching people who are no longer in school is another project objective. We are collaborating with the two national organizations - the State Government Affairs Council and the Public Affairs Council - in a campaign to have corporations and associations use New Public Perspective materials in education programs for members, employees, and grassroots personnel. We will be approaching labor organizations as well and also encouraging such programs state by state.

We are planning a computer simulation that demonstrates the key points of the New Public Perspective. The simulation will have broad applicability to members of civic, trade, and professional associations and college students. One idea for such a simulation would be to communicate the nature of political participation (civic engagement), the lack of consensus on what ought to be done (political tolerance), and the role of the legislature in trying to work through conflict (consensus building). Minnesota's Office of Senate Media Services is also working on a multimedia project that incorporates the New Public Perspective.

Finally, an issue campaign on representative democracy is under consideration. We are exploring the possibility of public service advertisements along with paid television, cable, and radio ads that focus on principal points of the New Public Perspective.

Congressional and state legislative scholars should have special interest in this project, in that The New Public Perspective offers a useful framework for examining and assessing the workings of representative democracy in the states and in the nation. We see this as useful both for teaching and for organizing research. What does the congressional and legislative research literature show about the performance of legislators and legislatures? What specific evidence exists in support of (or opposed to) the various points of the New Public Perspective? What new evidence can be produced? How, and how well, do legislators do their jobs? How, and how well, does the system work? All of these questions are critical to an assessment of representative democracy, as it actually functions. Questions like these have received too little attention; they merit thorough examination. We would welcome the efforts of colleagues to further explore and cast additional light on the working of representative democracy in the nation and the states.

Karl T. Kurtz directs the National Conference of State Legislatures' civic education initiative, The Trust for Representative Democracy. He is co-author of A New Public Perspective on Representative Democracy. His email address is karl.kurtz@ncsl.org.