I remain unconvinced that there is a growing crisis in civics. Ours schools may be woefully incompetent at educating students on the fundamentals of our nation’s government and history; there is no indication, however, that this problem at the present is any worse than it has been at any point in time. Likewise, it’s probably true that younger generations have little to no inclination of joining the musty old ranks of institutions such as the Rotary Club; it is equally likely that they have found berths in volunteer and community organizations far more suited to the Internet era. The demise of the behemoths that have dominated the social landscape for decades past should be no cause for alarm, so long as their niches are filled by successors.

Yet while a declinist view might be too eagerly pessimistic, many persistent problems in civics remain unsolved. In an era where faith in government is steadily waning, the spirit of volunteerism still thrives, but at the cost of an estrangement from the political structure. The problem is thus one of disenchantment with the idea of government as an agent of change. From this comes the perceived irrelevance of the state and the casual ignorance with which it is approached.

How then, to inspire confidence and recast the image of the government as force for social progress, especially among the young? One method is to make painfully obvious the ways in which policies have a direct impact on individual lives. I propose the creation of a webapp that, upon the entering of a user’s location, income, ethnicity, and other information, direct them to debates on current government actions that have a high possibility of affecting them directly. The app would ideally give a succinct outline on how the user would be affected, present arguments made on both sides, and ask the user for an initial, cursory vote, as well as a short summary of why they voted in that direction. With the user’s permission, it would then show Facebook friends that voted similarly and differently, and allow them to initiate conversations. Such a tool could be integrated into civic studies classes quite easily and would harness preexisting social connections to spark dialogue. Having been shown what is at risk, students would be incentivized to stay informed both for their own best interests and for the substantiation of any views that they might have supported and broadcast to their network of friends. The next logical step would be to suggest local organizations or other groups that are relevant to what they have discussed, with the hope that they would get involved.

This is all well and good, but it faces the challenge posed to any sort of tool on the Internet: how would we convince people to use it? Some solutions may be found within last week’s readings. It could be made a part of the classroom, or the freshman orientation process at universities. If designed well enough, it could be spread across social networks. The idea is to have it necessary for the average citizen to use it only once. Having been faced with the implications of certain policies, they would then be obliged to stay informed.