While those disinterested masses of any nation or era will always have little concern with, and so influence over, civic-political affairs,As opposed to being demographically relevant, which of course they would be.

That demographic relevance could have civic-political implications in terms of mass voting trends and results.

However, here our definition of relevance is impact that is qualitative; i.e., an ability to know, understand, penetrate and influence. we can see another striking paradox with their opposite number in the United States; Americas engaged citizenry. This is an audience more immersed than ever in issues of public interest bringing with with them ever-proliferating amounts of "democratic expression". At the heart of these dynamics of course is the internet and the universe of messages its many mediums deliver. At its early stages there was the promise of a digital “revolution”- emerging new media forms capable of transforming our long-sagging politics. And, through these years, knowledge has indeed increased allowing people the ability to see the bad more clearly; which is good. However, and in direct contradiction to the promise, there has instead developed a superseding effect where all things media have come to saturate our body politic dulling rational citizenship and critical analysis; which is bad. Consequently, instead of the potential for revitalized, citizen-based democratic engagement being realized, we have seen poor national results fuel surging, erratic fixations that have deepened distrust in our civic and political methods; and in each other. The erraticism, fostered by this saturation media, manifests an obsessive focus on many nebulous offenders and so-called solutions: All this has led to an inevitable futility that, being excellent fertilizer, is generously breeding the contempt expressed by Congressman X amongst the public. This is a population that is characterized as an apathetic, house divided. The implication and context of that charge is ideological - that the nation’s populace is divided along party lines; red and blue, conservative and liberal etc. However, this indictment is made right alongside charges that the American public doesn’t know very much about their politics; a confusing contrast. To the extent ideological divides do exist, they certainly center on major – and typically polarizing - figures (one office and officeholder in particular) and the most superficial and amorphous of concepts; things like big government vs. small. The injection of personal identity - identity politics – into civic affairs is another important contributor to a dubious claim; a hot button element that can effectively, and explosively, shape the narrative of a divided people. Using ambiguity and unchallenged contradictions to level and promote a serious charge, it gains acceptance. All while the promoters and believers consistently ignore the political-social science
What culture wars?

https://web.archive.org/web/20100619075920/http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6699

Disciplined environments are the difference

http://scienceofvirtues.org/forums/t/807.aspx#

Don't confuse nuance with being divided

https://medium.com/@SNovi/the-curious-yale-study-on-conservatives-and-liberals-explains-a-lot-about-trumptrolls-6d8dbe9b1008 and civic achievements
Citizen assemblies

http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/index.php?page=1977

that refute their claim- and the unnecessary public absence that feeds the poor performance that makes it seem plausible. Given the potential for dramatic exploitation, it would only be sensible to create the means to review such charges on a priority basis. Only organized public mindfulness and empirically based discernment will be able to end strategic manipulations since “divisions” and whatever’s next (civil war?) are so easy to impose

Astrourf: Fake grassroots groups and efforts

https://scholars.org/brief/how-grassroots-lobbying-consultants-are-reshaping-public-participation-policy-battles

Operation sock puppet: Systemic trolling of on-line discussions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)

https://boingboing.net/2011/03/17/us-military-launches.html through the many mediums and technology the Internet supports. But, to do that, we must first be able to strategically qualify and expose them. With that, the critical citizen can clearly see and strongly reject emotion infused, ill-defined, social or private issues that don’t genuinely belong in the public arena. Where they are clearly found to be part of an agenda-driven narrative, they can be arrested using new media forms transmitted via the internet and beyond. This must be the goal. Not only because this is chiefly where the imposing gets done, but, because it’s also the only place where solutions can be tested, agreed upon and implemented by a capable citizenry.

• The purchase and use of broadcast spectrum by the public is not possible.
• The domination of media and minds by the five corporations is well known.

So, whether one learns from blogs or books, watches nightly news or you-tube truth, reads newspapers and magazines or prefers to be fed from their social media news feeds – everyone must understand modern forms of alternative media and the forces it can create and unleash. With that, it will be a simple matter to qualify and halt unseemly influences and coherently challenge potential contrivances like "divisions".

• Petty animosities are destructive and legitimate grievances left unresolved will fester. But these are problems that can be dealt with given a proper, powerful and disciplined environment; which our current engagement mechanisms certainly do not provide.
  They can, and must be distinguished from the many clearly invented divisions being injected into a media fueled story of a divided country. Allowing bad behavior to be anonymously carried out in a purposefully unruly and provocative environment
  

  See my side bias and social media:

  
  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/clear-organized-and-motivated/201707/why-do-your-facebook-friends-have-so-much-political-bias
  
  and labeled "division" mischaracterizes, and discourages careful analysis; making the idea of a divided people easy to sell.


• There are the disinterested masses and the heatedly engaged many. The disinterested masses are clearly not going to be relevant to any civic solution - or resolution – and should not be of concern to those intensely involved, which should be obvious. However, the breeding contempt is often - and erratically - directed at those multitudes, by those engaged - with no consideration given to historic norms.


• This simultaneously – and unhelpfully - allows these people to absolve themselves of responsibility, confirm a bias in favor of their further victimization, and use such narratives (rigged system, sleeping sheeple etc.) to “prove” they are powerless; an excuse to neither seek or act.


• It should be acknowledged that it is wrong, or disingenuous, to not sort these two units carefully. Lumping together two such very different populations and classifying them a divided people makes hasty and harsh judgments easy. However, being identical in their ineptitude makes it simple for society to do that lumping and so perceive the two groups as one. After all, a useless fixation on a major politician, or events beyond ones influence, is as much a useless fixation as a focus on a celebrity beyond ones social sphere.

So, while it is very important to expose divisions that are provably socially engineered; false and imposed, distinctions of mindset and motivation also must be drawn. Without that clarity we will not be able to encourage the assemblage of engaged capable people necessary to oppose the model of a helpless, failing society; which can only leave our incendiary media and social media constructs to brand this simmering stew a “broken system”. That of course will lead, and has already led, to the ultimate expression of that system, elections and voting being discredited. With no alternative outlet or remedy recognized, or possible to formulate, the strain of cascading, stormy democratic expression takes on explosive potential. A rational analysis would also clarify another ruinous muddle; the distinction between democratic expression and democratic action. While mutually reinforcing, these two things are crucially different. Though their differences – essentially those of talk and action - may seem obvious, the ability of people to discern them is now a very important and legitimate question. This critical dissonance is exemplified by this statement offered by a very serious, intelligent, and successful video blogger (vlogger). The recent and important event he refers to is not at issue here; the problem demonstrated by the comment is: This is a pervasive attitude that consistently focuses on elusive, fragmentary concepts like being informed, voice, sharing and critical mass; suggesting transformational outcomes that will not be possible to get on the basis of such vagaries. Never is there mention of a need to analyze, plan or organize; nor is there an offer to facilitate those things despite the emergency he is obviously citing. Confirming the disassociation is that just some three months after these comments and related video were published; this content producer began to speak in even more ominous terms. In the midst of blatant censorship on the part of YouTube, and fearing soon all will be lost, he lamented that “no one is/has stepped up to do anything”. So, voice, sharing, waking up and critical mass didn’t work; really? Whether it is the activist, media-content personality/producer or, the consuming, concerned citizen this incoherence is no exception; it’s the rule. A phenomenon – of magical thinking perhaps - that represents what is really broken and must be understood but, is little considered. The 2010 New Yorker article, "Small Change" by Malcolm Gladwell, remains an important exception and contribution. Democratic expression is many things in our system. The intellectual freedom to search for the truth that would inform free speech and a free press join many other decisive liberties that comprise the machinery necessary for a citizenry to be informed. But, these essentials of expression do not themselves constitute action, eternal vigilance. Eternal vigilance is comprised of complex, interconnected activities: the assembling of a coherent people, deliberatively determining its will, and then enforcing it through the ongoing, yet culminating, act of applying what has been learned. For the people of the United States, the only mechanism capable of doing that - channeling the multifaceted requirements of genuine eternal vigilance - is voting. Elections conducted within a multifaceted electoral system; the richest ever conceived. To blithely dismiss its importance without understanding that richness - its true potential - or examining our failures in its use, it is a strategic error of tragic proportions. Doing so only confirms Congressman X’s judgment; a harsh assessment that nevertheless transmits a crucial signal. That vocal contempt, aimed at the people’s ignorance of the very system that rules them - a system they instead should be ruling - is a signal that with correct knowledge, the circumstances that prevail can be reversed.