19 94: Yahoo
19 95: eBay
19 94: Amazon
19 98: Google
19 99: Blogger
19 99: Napster
20 01: Wikipedia
20 02: LinkedIn
20 03: MySpace
20 03: Skype
20 04: Facebook
20 04: Flickr
20 04: Gmail
20 05: Reddit
20 05: YouTube
20 06: Twitter
20 07: Tumblr
20 07: iPhone
20 09: WhatsApp (bought by Facebook in 20 14)
20 10: Instagram (bought by Facebook 20 12)
20 11: Pinterest
20 11: Snapchat
Back to image
A bar graph depicting how individuals engage politically online. Moving from top to bottom:
“Like” or promote material related to politics or social issues that others have posted: 38 percent
Use a social networking site to encourage people to vote: 35 percent
Post one’s own comments on political or social issues: 34 percent
Repost content related to political or social issues that was originally posted by someone else: 33 percent
Encourage other people to take action on a political or social issue: 31 percent
Post links to political stories or articles for others to read: 28 percent
Follow elected officials and candidates for office: 20 percent
The real-world impact of online political engagement varies:
25 percent become more active in a political issue after discussing or reading about it online. 16 percent change their views about a political issue after discussing or reading about it online. And .09 percent become less involved in a political issue after encountering it online.
Back to Figure
The combinations of different ideological beliefs in the United States. Economic beliefs are shown on a horizontal spectrum of more to less governmental control, and political beliefs are shown on a similar vertical spectrum. The spectrums meet in the center. The top left quadrant represents “Economic Liberals,” or those who believe in an expanded government role in the economy but a limited role in the social order. Examples include welfare, national health care, maximum individual freedom, civil rights for immigrants, and the regulation of Wall Street. Most Americans who align with this ideology are moderate Democrats, although liberal Democrats and the Occupy Wall Street movement are also included. The bottom left quadrant represents “Social Liberals,” or those who believe in an expanded government role in both the economy and the social order. Examples include welfare, social programs, censorship of pornography, strict pollution controls, and affirmative action. The Green Party aligns with this ideology. The bottom right quadrant represents “Social Conservatives,” or those who believe in a limited government role in the economy but an expanded role in the social order. Examples include low taxes, prayer in schools, censorship of books that violate traditional values, anti-gay rights, tight restriction on immigration, and authoritarian values on the roles people play in society. The religious right aligns with this ideology. Anti-establishment conservatives fall in between the Social Conservative and Social Liberal ideologies. The top right quadrant represents “Economic Conservatives,” or those who believe in a limited government role in both the economy and the social order. Examples include low taxes, laissez-faire capitalism, maximum individual freedom, and the guest worker program. Most Americans who align with this ideology are moderate Republicans, although traditional Republicans and the Libertarian Party are also included.
Back to Figure
Two line graphs showing that an increasing number of young Americans feel empowered to influence politics, according to an A P N O R C Center and M T V poll. Over the span of three months, the percentage saying elected public officials care what people like them think grew from 25 percent to 34 percent. Additionally, the percentage saying people like them can affect what the government does also increased, from 37 percent to 46 percent, during the same three-month period. These percentages reflect those who answered “a moderate amount,” “a lot,” or “a great deal.”
Results are based on interviews with 939 U S residents ages 15 to 34. Margin of error is plus or minus 4.3 percentage points for the full sample, higher for sub groups.
Map illustrating the path of critical thinking. The path begins with the “comfort zone,” ends with the “goal,” and features five parts in between. The first part is “considering the source” in which you need to ask yourself: Where does this information come from? Who is the author? Who is he or she talking to? How do the source and the audience shape the author’s perspective? The second part is “lay out the argument” in which you need to ask yourself: What argument is the author asking you to accept? If you accept the argument, what values are you also buying? Does the argument hold together logically? The third part of the path is “uncover the evidence” in which you need to ask yourself: Did the author do research to back up the conclusions? Is there any evidence or data that is not provided that should be there? If there is no evidence provided, does there need to be? The third and fourth parts are joined by the “bridge to enlightenment.” The fourth part is “evaluate the conclusions” in which you need to ask yourself: What’s the punch line here? Did the author convince you that he or she is correct? Does accepting the conclusion to this argument require you to change any of your ideas about the world? The final part is “sort out the political significance” in which you need to ask yourself: What difference does this argument make to your understanding of the political world? How does it affect who gets what and how they get it? Was getting this information valuable to you or did it waste your time?
The path of critical thinking surrounds an “ocean of excuses” and a “sea of confusion,” which include common excuses and feelings of confusion when thinking critically. These include:
“I read it on the Internet. It must be true.”
“My parents always watch this TV station. Of course it’s reliable.”
“Arguments sound like conflict. I hate conflict.”
“Values are private. It’s rude to pry.”
“Logic gives me hives!”
“Data means numbers. Numbers freak me out.”
“What, do I look like some kind of detective?”
“I don’t like this person’s values. Why should I care about his or her conclusions?”
“These ideas make me really uncomfortable. They don’t click with anything I think I know. Time for a beer!”
“How would I know?”
“Ouch! Thinking is hard work. Wake me up when it’s over.”
“There is no way to know what conclusions are right.”
“Who cares? What do I need to know for the test?”
2 The Politics of the American Founding
Granger,