THE MAGRUDER AND GLENCOE CASE, PART VII

[Note:  If the reader has taken up reading this blog with this posting, he/she is helped by knowing that this posting is the next one in a series of postings.  The series begins with the posting, “The Natural Rights’ View of Morality” (February 25, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-natural-rights-view-of-morality.html).  Overall, the series addresses how the study of political science has affected the civics curriculum of the nation’s secondary schools.  Part of that influence is how the discipline helps guide civics textbook writers.]

In the current effort this blog has pursued, to gather evidence of how the leading American government textbooks treat their subject matter, it will next examine how each text deals with a specific federal government program.  The basic question this review asks is whether the books reflect a guidance from a natural rights view or a federalist view.  This posting looks at how the textbooks describe and explain the Social Security program.

Since social capital[1] promotes qualities related to interpersonal interactions, it puts an emphasis on local governance and politics.  As mentioned earlier in this blog, it is at that level that individual citizens can get involved and make a difference with policy choices.  This writer chooses Social Security because he feels it is the most interpersonal program at the national level. 

But at the national level, the stakes are higher and draw the interest of more well-funded factions which put the average individual at a disadvantage.  Social Security is no exception to this general relationship, but the way it is structured makes it especially interpersonal in a certain way. 

To explain, especially in its retirement program, there is one segment of the population providing for another.  Those young enough to work pay their FICA[2] tax and that, in turn, is used to pay for the benefits targeted primarily to the older generation that is now retired.  When the young grow older and retire, they will get the benefit from those who are younger and are working. 

In other words, the program is an intergenerational compact and that structural provision binds the interests of all citizens closer together – a higher sense of partnership among all.  A problem exists in how many people view the program in this way.  Seemly, few understand this basic relationship.  Instead, one hears retired folks claim they are entitled to the benefit because they paid into it all their working years, as if those payments correspond to a forced savings program. 

Few understand that those who live a normal life span will probably receive more in benefits than not only what they paid into the program, but also more than what would be derived from normal interest returns on those amounts.  A healthier view of Social Security would be shared if people in general saw the program as a by-product of being partnered with each other that allows this program to enhance the common welfare. 

Social Security, for example, allows younger workers to go about their lives without being so concerned for the financial status of their parents.  And Social Security has almost eliminated what used to be a chronic problem:  poverty among the elderly.  The program has certain financial challenges on the horizon and the purpose here is not to discuss those.  The purpose is to highlight the program as an essentially interpersonal approach to a vexing problem:  how does one take care of those who can no longer work due to age?

What follows gives the reader a rundown of how Magruder’s (2019 edition)[3] and Glencoe (2010 edition)[4] inform the student of this very federalist program.

Magruder’s:

·       On pages 632-633, the program is explained through the taxing arrangement that collects the funds to finance its operation.  That explanation identifies a common term, payroll taxes, that is associated with this taxing program.  The text mentions the funding concerns in the future, but also adds that some economists claim that that problem is overstated.  It also mentions that the taxes, based on a fixed rate, is regressive (people of lower income pay a higher percentage of their income to meet their FICA obligation).

·       On page 636, the program is identified as an “entitlement” program – a program that is automatically legislated to be paid and does not depend on renewing legislation.  Along with this relatively independent funding, it is run by an independent agency – it is not housed under a cabinet level department.  The expenditures of the program in 2016 amounted to $916 billion, second largest expenditure amount of any federal government program.  The text does mention the concern over what is termed “uncontrolled spending.”  While this is a legitimate issue, it does reflect natural rights thinking.

Glencoe

·       On pages 590-592, the text identifies the program’s existence as an example of a Social Insurance program.  This account is situated under an accounting of the general consequences brought about by the Great Depression of the 1930s.  The eight-line description outlines the general parameters of the program.  Beyond that, under a subheading, “Changing the System,” the text relates the financial challenges the program has faced.  Included are possible solutions to those challenges, especially as one considers the heightened problems relating to the large “baby-boomer” generation retiring.  Quoting two opposing views, one by Peter G. Peterson and the other by Henry J. Aaron, the text attempts to give the student “both sides” of the issue concerning the financial health of the program.

·       On page 556, the text explains social insurance taxes, which include FICA.  This explanation describes not only Social Security’s retirement program but also its unemployment insurance component.  It does not mention the role state governments play in this latter program.  It also mentions anticipated financial challenges – not directly but by implication – and how the taxes to fund the program are regressive.

Neither account even hints at the federalist quality of the program but leaves the student with a very real sense the program might not survive. 

To be clear, Social Security is a socialist program, but one that can be justified under federalist moral thinking.[5]  And one point of clarification.  In describing the program as an entitlement program and run independently from renewing legislation that does not mean it cannot be changed or eliminated by Congress.  Congress can change the law and in turn, determine how much the program will pay in benefits or even if the program will continue. 

Of course, to end or significantly lower payouts would be highly unpopular and even suicidal – career wise – for any politician who attempted or promoted such a change – Social Security, as it stands, is that popular.  Another qualifier concerning the above reports should be added.  Apparently, thinking over the national debt has changed – it seems it is not considered to be so dire as it once was. 

Perhaps, due to very low interest rates, debt in general does not have the urgency it once had.  In addition, the debt mushroomed under the leadership of the party that most complains about it.  That would be the Republican Party.  It caused the passage of the latest tax cut when it controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency.  As a result, the national debt kept growing at the pace the last presidential administration experienced[6] and, in turn, has undermined its stated concerns.

In sum, with all that describing and explaining Social Security, Magruder and Glencoe do not describe the interpersonal or intergenerational foundation of the program, much less explain it.  That is, little is done to inform and encourage a more partnered view of Social Security.  This, of course, enables in part the misunderstanding of the program alluded to above.

So, overall, these textbooks in their review of the Social Security program do little to promote social capital.  Instead, they promote a natural rights view.  One is encouraged to look at the textbook and see if the reader agrees.  The nearest high school is bound to have a copy of one of them to peruse.  The reader can go armed with a list of governmental departments or agencies in mind and thumb back to the index and look up how that part of the government is explained.  One can also do the same thing for a particular program such as Social Security or Medicare. 

So again, what this blog reports reflects how deficient the popular texts are when judged by federalist standards.  Is this an argument to get rid of these textbooks?  Definitely not.  They are a good reference books and that’s how they should function in the classroom.  Whether one uses an approach that attempts to bolster social capital, civic humanism, and/or civic virtue or not, these texts can be used as “go-to” sources for structural and procedural information about the government.  

But it should not be used to determine what the curricular content of a government course should be.  The next posting will summarize the writer’s review how each textbook describes and explains government and politics by reporting on a random selection of citations from each text.  Again, that review will utilize Magruder’s 2019 edition and Glencoe’s 2010 edition.  The writer analyzes the citations to determine the language the books use; is it a natural rights language or a federalist language?

---

[1] Reminder:  social capital, as a societal quality, is characterized by having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation.  See Robert D. Putnam, Bowling alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York, NY:  Simon & Schuster, 2000).

[2] FICA stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

[3] Daniel M. Shea, Magruder’s American Government (Boston, MA:  Prentice Hall/Pearson, 2019).

[4] Glencoe United States Government:  Democracy in Action (New York, NY:  McGraw-Hill/Glencoe, 2010).

[5] For a rationale, the reader might look at the writer’s book, Toward a Federated Nation, and its accounting of equality.  He based that argument on the work of Philip Selznick.  See Robert Gutierrez, Toward a Federated Nation:  Implementing National Civics Standards (Tallahassee, FL:  Gravitas/Civics Books, 2020) AND Philip Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth:  Social Theory and the Promise of Community (Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press, 1992).

[6] In 2016 the national debt was $19.9 trillion.  The national debt as of May 2020 is nearly $25 trillion.  The projection of the debt took a significant upturn to meet the challenges of the Great Recession that began in 2008.  By 2017 though, the health of the economy had greatly improved and federal expenditures to fight the recession resided.  Another point to consider is how wealthy is the American economy; can that economy sustain such high debt levels?  According to a Wikipedia report, the overall wealth of the country as of 2019 is estimated to be nearly $106 trillion – is that rich enough to afford a $25 trillion dollar debt by the nation’s government?  Of course, that doesn’t include private debt.  As of 2019, private debt (household plus business) is $31.2 trillion for a total debt of $52.4 trillion or 248% of GDP ($21 trillion).  See, among various articles, David F. Perkis, “Making Sense of Private Debt,” Economic Research/Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, March 2020, accessed June 4, 2020, https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2020/03/02/making-sense-of-private-debt .

THE MAGRUDER AND GLENCOE CASE, PART VI

[Note:  If the reader has taken up reading this blog with this posting, he/she is helped by knowing that this posting is the next one in a series of postings.  The series begins with the posting, “The Natural Rights’ View of Morality” (February 25, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-natural-rights-view-of-morality.html).  Overall, the series addresses how the study of political science has affected the civics curriculum of the nation’s secondary schools.  Part of that influence is how the discipline helps guide civics textbook writers.]

This posting picks up this blog’s look at a set of efforts by a prominent civics textbook, Magruder’s (2013 edition), to encourage students to become more engaged with the governance and politics in their local communities.  The last posting looked at two forms of engagement:  writing letters to the editor and volunteering.  This posting looks at other forms.  As a reminder, those efforts are presented as a series of inserts entitled Citizenship 101 which are situated as stand-alone entries at various points within the book. 

As such, these short entries lack prominence.  That includes the next described insert, working on political campaigns.  So, for example, that insert does not offer any motivational language.  In addition, the tone is light-hearted, but there is no description of what campaign workers experience.  One senses the author of the insert assumes that a student who reads it already wants to work on a campaign or any campaign. 

As with the other inserts, this one has a list of suggested steps one follows to be so engaged.  The first is to “Get to know the candidate.”  This step is taken before a student would give any consideration as to why he/she would want to work on a campaign in the first place.  Then, curiously enough, the second step is “Choose a Candidate.”  It is hard to see the logic of this progression. 

The last two steps are straightforward:  “Find out about volunteer opportunities” and “Choose a task.”  The steps, though, are perfunctory with little information or enthusiasm for what type of activities the steps entail.  For example, here is a portion of the text describing an activity, “Find out about volunteer opportunities”:

Political campaigns offer a wide range of volunteer opportunities.  A candidate may be looking for people to go door-to-door to seek support.  The campaign may need people to host or even just attend events.  Most campaigns need people to make phone calls or send out mailings of campaign literature.  Campaigns also appreciate financial contributions.[1]

 Perhaps cynically, one might ask:  After reading this information, would a student just want to run out and get involved?  Would that student just get tingly all over with the possibility of doing something as exciting as working to get someone elected, someone he/she believes will help lead to make a better community, city, state, nation?  Not exactly?  More seriously, would a student get a good sense of what it means to work on a campaign? 

Sorry for the cynicism but it’s just that campaign work is a chance to learn some important lessons about politics and an opportunity to work with like-minded people who might turn out to become lifelong friends.  As with the book’s treatment of volunteering, described in the last posting, couldn’t there also be some case studies of young people working on campaigns.  Or, could there be quotes from campaign professionals about what all is analyzed during a campaign and the importance of campaign workers? 

To be honest, the text does have more insightful information in its main text about voters and voter behavior.  There is a section dedicated to explaining why people don’t vote.  All of this can be useful in campaign work, but the tie-in is not built into the explanations.  And an inexperienced young person would likely need such descriptions not only to get excited, but to just get a handle on what it means to work on a campaign. 

There is a question in a section review (page 178) that asks:  “How do factors such as income and level of education impact rates of voter participation? … Why do you think this is the case?”[2]  Magruder’s claims these are critical thinking questions.  This writer is underwhelmed.  How about using the text to ask:  From what you know about why people don’t vote, how can a political campaign encourage reluctant people to vote?  And/or, which political party would be more inclined to encourage high voter turnout?  Why?  

This last question would have students look up and analyze the following:  which voters are likely to vote; which party is likely to win low turnout elections; which party is likely to win high turnout elections?  Is it good for society to have high turnout elections?  Why/why not?  These questions, as opposed to what Magruder’s offers, demonstrate what it means to solicit critical thinking among students. 

As with the other inserts already reviewed, the judgement here is that Magruder’s could do a lot more with this insert on volunteering in political campaigns.  In terms of motivation, the text basically takes the view that students either have the motivation to work on a campaign or they don’t.  By using only minimal language of encouragement to get students involved or to promote social capital,[3] one is left with language not being very motivational or exciting.

The remaining inserts this review looked at are:  “political roots and attitudes,” “voting,” and “writing to public officials.”  The most interesting of these is “political roots and attitudes,” the most useful is “writing to public officials,” and the most disturbing is “voting.”  None of them, with the exception of one, give what this writer deems to be incorrect information, and they all are straightforward efforts to convey information.  None of them attempt to encourage the activity highlighted.

The “political roots” insert was found to be interesting because it has students construct an opinion poll questionnaire on one of three issues: national debt, environment, or the economy.  While not making any effort to review what opinions are currently voiced by citizens or pundits concerning these issues or by localizing the issue, the insert seems to assume the student has some previously held beliefs and biases.  The concern is more about how to determine what classmates might feel about the chosen issue. 

The information does not include any list of dos and don’ts about how to write an opinion questionnaire, other than to use neutral language.  Perhaps a teacher using the insert can “springboard” to having students research the techniques that professionals use and find effective in such efforts.

The one disturbing bit of “information” found in any of the three inserts is in the “voting” insert.  There, voting is described as a privilege, not a right.  While voting is not a natural right, it is a civil right – a right created by law.  When one considers the sacrifices African Americans, women, and, in some countries, non-propertied workpeople made to be allowed to vote, referring to voting as a privilege is a bit disheartening.  Hopefully, there is no sinister motive in using this language.

The insert dedicated to writing to a public official is the most useful.  It gives good advice about how to structure a letter or email that a constituent might write to be effective.  In so doing, the tone immediately becomes more encouraging.  It even mentions how politicians are more influenced by a voter who writes, considering the effort such an activity entails, than other forms of communication. 

That is, given that a voter is willing to go to that length, he or she is probably someone who is willing to encourage others to hold similar opinions to his or hers.  That possibility translates into a group of voters, who, in turn, might be persuaded to vote in a certain way in the next election.  Result:  the politician’s future success in keeping his/her job might be affected by such letter writers.

Overall, though, the effects of these inserts mirror those previously reviewed.  In terms of encouraging communal participation or social capital, the inserts are woefully lacking.  With those inserts covered, this blog’s review will next look at how Magruder’s and Glencoe’s describe and explain a governmental program, Social Security.

[Note:  This entry is being posted while serious disruptions are occurring in a good number of the nation’s cities.  This writer wants to express his concerns both for the family of George Floyd and for the legitimate protesters being caught up in the trying events their protest has encountered.]

---

[1] William McClenaghan, Magruder’s American Government (Florida Teacher’s Edition) (Boston, MA:  Prentice Hall/Pearson, 2013), 141.

[2] Ibid., 178.

[3] Reminder, social capital is a societal quality characterized by having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation.  See Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000).