AGREEMENT?

If I were in the classroom today, teaching government to seniors as I did for many years, I would probably hit on a certain theme often between now and the next presidential election.  I would use the level of income inequality as a way to approach many policy questions, because there seems to be at last a point of agreement between Democrats and Republicans.  Both parties have placed, at least as far as their current language indicates, the problem of income inequality on center stage.  The benefit of utilizing this theme is that not only is it a truly important issue and going to be a recurring topic of political discourse in the media, but it also blends nicely with the other course seniors take: economics.  As do most social studies programs across the country, south Florida offered American government for one semester of the senior year and economics the other.  So here is a theme that allows a teacher to carry it over the thirty-six weeks and a vehicle by which to reinforce lessons over that time.

Both parties are concerned with income inequality; they approach policy, though, from different perspectives.  By using this opportunity to look at inequality, students can research each perspective and determine which party comes closer to effectively addressing this serious problem.  It seems that this attention, on the surface anyway, is a significant shift for the Republican Party.  The last presidential election was noted with the party’s nominee being quoted as saying how Democrats could rely on 47% of the vote because it catered to the “takers,” those voters who receive government assistance of one form or another.  Republicans, by implication, are that party that represents the “doers,” people who work for their livelihood and depend on their own efforts to meet their needs and wants.   Until recently, the charge by Republicans is that Democrats engage in envy politics; that is, appeal to those who are envious of the success of those “doers.”

But now that we are in a new cycle – the last one being so unsuccessful – a new strategy seems to be emanating from many of the potential Republican candidates.  The message I am hearing is that the reason there is so much inequality is the economic policies of the current president.  This reveals a lot about how Republicans “see” the problem.  I write see in quotes because I feel the party senses that inequality is so rampant that denying it or blaming it on such large numbers of the electorate is counterproductive.  What they have been spouting feels as if their rhetoric is just a way to accommodate the practical political realities associated with the problem.  They have hit on this argument so as to talk about it and to promote policies they favor due to their constituency – the business class – and at the same time hopefully entice those who will buy into this message.  The message, in simple terms, is that President Obama’s policies have created disincentives to the business class – in terms of high taxes and over-regulation – so that they, businesspeople, are discouraged from creating those jobs that could provide the type of income that would address the levels of inequality.

Each party has worked around two visions of equality that have had a degree of popularity in our political tradition.  As I described them earlier in this blog, they are:

•         Equal Opportunity, Limited Rewards – General belief orientation which views persons who enjoy superior human assets (e. g., intelligence, physical dexterity, humor, etc.) due to their personal efforts are entitled to above normal considerations in society in the form of status, wealth, material possessions, etc.  These advantages, though, are limited only to areas associated with their earned accomplishments or contributions to society.  Any entitlements acquired as a result of employing these assets are time limited as a recipient must continue to demonstrate his or her worthiness.  Said rewards, other than status, must be purchased and are not distributed to beneficiaries due to membership in any class or family.  Monetary reward payoffs for an individual’s contribution or for his or her status must be within limits.  That is, they should not unreasonably exceed the person's contribution to the welfare of the society or provide such a level of financial standing so as to secure for him or her an ongoing, established source of benefits.

•         Equal Condition – General belief orientation which views persons who enjoy superior human assets (e. g., intelligence, physical dexterity, humor, etc.) due to their personal efforts are entitled to above normal considerations in society in the form of status, wealth, material possessions, etc.  There are no limits to that compensation other than as a result of the vagaries of the economic or political system.  In capitalist societies, that would be the market.  Other than status, all entitlements are to be purchased and monetary advantages do not entitle a person to unequal advantages under the law.  The orientation extends to prohibit any restrictions on monetary or other types of rewards as long as the rewards reflect labor compensations, dividends, rents, or profits.  Advantages are purchased and are not the product of membership in a family or class.  The labor value of any person is based on its market value.[1]

Democrats tend to adopt the first of these views – Equal Opportunity, Limited Rewards – and Republicans the second – Equal Condition.

Lessons that utilize the theme of inequality, I believe, should place the study in some historical context and this ongoing distinction of views – the ones described immediately above, is helpful in that endeavor.

In addition, lessons should describe and explain main factual information.  One fact is that the move toward such high levels of inequality was not developed overnight.  We can detect increasing levels from the 1980s and the Reagan administration.  Another fact is that the consensus among economists as to the causes of inequality are technological changes that have facilitated the exportation of higher paying jobs and the elimination of manual labor jobs, neutralization of labor union power, the rise of financial services, and trade policies that have lowered trade restrictions.  Little to no attribution has been extended to Obama policies.  Another point is that Obama, as president, enjoyed only two years with a cooperative Congress.  Since the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives and have enough votes in the Senate to block any of Obama’s efforts to address inequality.  By the same token, Republicans have been blocked by the fact that a Democrat has been in the White House.

As for the economic conditions that characterize this inequality, there are many.  For example, the ratio between Chief Operating Officers and the typical worker is 200 to 1.  This is at historic highs; it used be 30 to 1; as Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz comments, it is hard to believe that the productivity of these CEOs has increased so dramatically of late to justify such increases in this ratio.  By way of comparison, the ratio in Japan is 16 to one.[2]  And there is evidence that this is a particular US problem; not all modern economies are experiencing these levels of inequality and those nations which enjoy higher equality have not suffered as a result.  Between 2000 and 2010, high-taxing Sweden that has policies guaranteeing much higher levels of equality – such as universal healthcare – grew economically at a faster rate than the US.[3]

Lessons can teach such theoretical tools as the Gini coefficient.  This gives a numerical representation of how unequal income is distributed in a particular economy.  The coefficient gives an economy the score of zero if income is distributed equally among all of the population (perfectly equal) and a score of one if all the income goes to one person (or household, depending how the numbers are designated); this is perfect inequality.  All economies fall somewhere between these two end points of zero and one.  In this coefficient, “equal” societies have a .3 score, while unequal societies have a .5 or above; such high scores are seen in very underdeveloped economies such as in Africa.  Today the US is .47, up from .4 in 1980.[4]

Armed with such facts, students can study the policy proposals that are bound to be espoused in the upcoming election campaigns.  May the fun begin.

---

[1] These orientations should be viewed as ideal beliefs and, in real life, are subject to compromising behavior.  In a recent book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, French economist, Thomas Piketty, argues that due to the accumulation of capital there has developed an entrenched class who is benefiting from income based on that capital.  This mirrors the conditions of the Gilded Era and other times of skewed wealth and income to the top of the economic pyramid.

[2] Stiglitz, J. E.  (2012).  The price of inequality:  How today's divided society endangers our future.  New York, NY:  W. W. Norton and Company.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

MAGRUDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY

With this posting, I finish my review of Magruder’s American Government textbook.[1]  The effort has been to pass judgment on whether Magruder’s is more reflective of natural rights values and principles in its portrayal of governance and politics or whether it conveys more of a federalist bias.  This blog contends that the prevailing mental construct guiding the choice of content in our government and civics classrooms is the natural rights construct.  The blog promotes the federalist theory construct for that purpose.  I pick on Magruder’s because it is the overwhelming choice of American high schools as the text that teachers use in teaching American government.  As I have repeated often in this blog, one cannot overestimate how reliant teachers are on the textbook they use when determining the content of their courses.

In this final posting on this concern, I have chosen to focus on how Magruder’s treats Social Security.  Why?  I do so because I feel Social Security is the most federalist of programs at the national level.  Federalism, as I have described it, does put an emphasis on local governance and politics.  It is at that level that individual citizens can get involved and make a difference with policy choices.  But at the national level, the stakes are higher and draw the interest of more well-funded factions which renders the average individual at a prohibitive disadvantage.  Social Security is no exception to this general relationship.  But the way Social Security is structured makes it especially “federal.”  Let me explain.

Especially in its retirement program, we have 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 of 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 federated citizens closer together – a higher sense of partnership among us all.  My problem with how we view it is that few of us seem to understand this basic relationship.  Instead, we hear 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 they paid in but also more than what would be normal interest returns on those amounts.  A healthy view of Social Security is to view it as a by-product of ourselves being federated with each other and providing a program that enhances 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 but eliminated what used to be a chronic problem:  poverty among the elderly.  I know the program has certain financial challenges on the horizon and my purpose here is not to discuss that.  My only purpose is to highlight the program as an essentially federalist approach to a vexing problem:  how do you take care of those of us who can no longer work due to age?

So how does Magruder’s handle this program?  Here’s what it has to report:  on page 289, it informs students that Congressional members are covered by Social Security; on page 44, it explains that Social Security is designated as an independent agency and is not situated structurally under one of the “Cabinet” departments; on page 460, it defines the program as a social insurance program and  that it is funded by a social insurance tax; on page 461, it points out that the FICA tax is a regressive tax in that it is a “flat” tax – everyone pays at the same percentage of income rate; and on page 469, the text explains that expenditures of the program are “uncontrollable” in that they are entitlements and the monies are automatically issued.  This, of course, is not exactly true – a point the book makes – in that ultimately, expenditures can be controlled because Congress can change the law and, in turn, determine how much the program would pay in benefits.  Of course, this course of action would be highly unpopular and suicidal – career wise – for any politician who attempted or promoted such a change. 

In sum, in all that describing and explaining of Social Security, one does not have the federalist foundation of the program described, much less explained and, due to such instruction, little is done to inform and encourage a more federalist understanding of Social Security.  This, of course, enables in part the misunderstanding of the program alluded to above.

So, overall, Magruder’s does little to promote a federalist perspective.  I would argue that, instead, it promotes a natural rights view.  You are encouraged to look at the textbook yourselves and see if you agree.  If you get your hands on one, easily obtained at any public high school, have a list of governmental departments or agencies in mind; thumb back to the index and look up how that part of the government is explained.  You can do the same thing for a particular program such as Social Security or Medicare.  Am I advocating to get rid of Magruder’s?  Definitely not.  I believe the book to be a good reference book and that’s how it should function in the classroom.  Whether one uses a federalist theory approach or not, this text can be used as a “go-to” source for structural information about our government.  But it should not be used to determine what the content of a government course should be.

---

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

[2] FICA stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

MAGRUDER ON PRACTICAL CONCERNS OF CITIZENSHIP

I am in the midst of reviewing a selection of inserts found in the American government textbook, Magruder’s American Government.[1]  Because this text is the overwhelming choice of government educators around the country and due to the reliance teachers place on textbooks, a look at Magruder’s is a good way to find out what content is being taught in those government classes.  To date, I have reviewed three of those inserts:  “letters to the editor,” “political campaigns,” and “volunteering.”  The series of inserts is meant to give practical advice to students who might be interested in involving themselves.  In general, the tone of these inserts cannot be interpreted as any hard sell on engaging in these activities – there is mention in one of them of obligation to be engaged, but that is as close to “selling” citizen participation as these inserts get.  In the main, they take on the tone of addressing a student who might already be inclined to an activity such as writing a letter to an editor.  I have indicated that judged by federalist standards, the inserts fall far short of being adequate; instead, they work quite nicely if one adheres to natural rights values.[2]

The remaining inserts I have 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 and practical is “writing to public officials,” and the most disturbing is “voting.”  None of them, with the exception of one, give what I deem incorrect information, and they all are straightforward efforts to convey information.  None are an attempt to encourage the activity highlighted.

I found the “political roots” insert interesting in that it has students construct an opinion poll questionnaire on one of three issues: national debt, environment, and the economy.  While not making any effort to review what opinions are currently talked about concerning these issues, 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 concerning how to write an opinion questionnaire, other than to be neutral, but perhaps a teacher using the inserts can “springboard” into having students research the techniques that professionals use 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 and women and, in some countries, non-propertied workmen made to get those laws allowing them 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 any letter or email that a constituent might write so as to be more effective.  In so doing, the tone immediately becomes more encouraging.  It even mentions how politicians are more influenced by a voter, considering the effort such an activity might entail.  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 those expressed in the letter or email.  Each of them, in turn, might be persuaded to vote in a certain way and as a result, that might affect the politician’s future success in keeping his/her job.

Overall, though, the effects of these inserts mirror those previously reviewed.  In terms of encouraging communal participation or social capital – the societal quality characterized by having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation – the inserts are woefully lacking.

In my next posting, I will look at Magruder’s treatment of the Social Security program.  Earlier, I identified the program as one that is fundamentally based on federalist principles, at least as those principles are defined in this blog.  As such, a text’s treatment of the program, I feel, would give good insight as to how the material reflects either federalist or natural rights values and principles.

---

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

[2] For those of you who are new to this blog, the blog has dedicated a lot of space to explaining the difference between federalist values and natural rights values.

MAGRUDER ON WORKING ON AN ELECTION CAMPAIGN

Note:  In case you missed my last two postings, let me inform you that I am posting on Tuesdays, as opposed to my previous posting day, Mondays, and Fridays.

The last few postings have been about taking a look at the most widely used American government textbook and seeing how it treats certain concerns.  Specifically, I have been seeing if the textbook has a natural rights perspective with a heavy self-centered approach or, instead, a more communal approach – one reflecting a federalist bias.  This blog has been dedicated in part to promoting a federalist view and it has claimed that this is not what the prevailing approach has been in civics instruction.  In order to back up this claim, I decided that a closer look at the most widely used textbook would give us good evidence as to whether I am correct in this assessment.  Overall, for most teachers, the textbook determines the content of what he/she teaches.  Magruder’s American Government[1] is by far the most frequently chosen text for American government classes across the US. 

Due to limited space, I have in this review of Magruder’s tried to narrow in on key questions.  I have asked:  (1) What is the assumed motivation of a student that would encourage him/her to read the material? (2)  Does the material bolster/promote participation in pursuing collective goals or does the text encourage a more individualistic/self-interest posture? (3) Does the material advance social capital,[2] especially among high school students?  Most of the text – the overwhelming amount – is taken up with “slice and dice” descriptions of the different elements of the political system.  Earlier, I stated it takes on a scientific bias of assuming that by reducing elements of reality, looking at smaller and smaller elements, one can reach clear explanations of why things are the way they are – in this case, in terms of government and politics.  All one has to do is add up the different explanations of the varied elements and have a picture of the whole.  But as I previously pointed out, while this approach might lead to some level of explanation, it usually does not lead to understanding.  Most social reality, it turns out, is greater than the sum of its parts. 

Interspersed throughout the book are eleven inserts, collectively entitled “Citizenship 101.”  These inserts seem to come closest to addressing the federalist concerns I mentioned above.  To date, I reviewed the inserts “Writing Letters to the Editor” and “Volunteering.”  My judgment of these two is that both fail to inspire much that would be supportive of social capital or communal interests.  They make attempts to address what a citizen might do to get more involved with government and politics, but, at best, the attempts are judged to be lukewarm both in terms of information and tone.  With this posting, I want to review the book’s treatment of “Working on a Political Campaign.”[3]

In this insert, it is hard to determine what motivation is assumed on the part of the student.  The tone is light-hearted, but there is no describing what campaign workers experience.  I sense the author of the insert assumes a student who would read it is already wanting to work on a campaign – any campaign.  I write any campaign because in the steps the insert lists, the first step is “Get to know the candidate.”  This is before any consideration is given as to why one would work on a campaign.  Then, curiously enough, the second step is “Choose a Candidate.”  I fail 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 over what type of activity the steps entail.  Let me share the text for “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.[4]

Don’t you feel yourself wanting to run out and get involved?  Don’t you get a good sense of what it means to work on a campaign?  Don’t you just feel tingly over the possibility of doing something so exciting as working to get someone elected, someone you believe will help lead us to make a better community, city, state, nation?  Sorry; 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 be life-long friends.  As with the book’s treatment of volunteering, couldn’t there be some case studies of young people working on a campaign or quotes from campaign professionals about what all is analyzed during a campaign?  To be honest, the text does have in its regular text information 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.  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?”  Magruder’s claims these are critical thinking questions.  How about using the text information and ask:  From what you know about why people don’t vote, how can a political campaign encourage reluctant people to vote?  Which political party would be more inclined to encourage high voter turnout?   This last question would have students look up and analyze: who votes, which party is likely to win low turnout elections; which party is likely to win high turnout elections?  Let me add another question:  Is it good for us to have high turnout elections?  Why/why not?  This is critical thinking. 

As with the other inserts already reviewed, I believe Magruder’s could do a lot more with the topics it has highlighted in these inserts.  In terms of motivation, the text basically takes the posture that students either have the motivation to work on a campaign or they don’t.  By using only minimal language of encouragement to get involved or to promote social capital, one is left with not much motivation or excitement emanating from Magruder’s.

---

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

[2] 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.

[3] Op cit,, McClenaghan, p. 141.

[4] Ibid.

MAGRUDER ON VOLUNTEERING

Note:  With this posting, I begin a schedule that has me posting on Tuesdays (as opposed to Mondays) and Fridays.  Oh yes; the Perry referred to in my last posting is, of course, Perry Como.

Let me continue my current focus in this blog; that is, taking a closer look at the content of the most popular government textbook, Magruder’s American Government,[1] and see if that material either leans toward advancing a disposition to self-interests or communal interests.  Does it present government as a social institution established to protect and advance individuals, much like the individual student, or does it present government as that organized effort to protect and advance the common good, the common welfare?  Of course, this is not an either/or question.  The textbook can advance both the individual and the community, but can we detect a bias since oftentimes the interests of the community are at odds with the interests of the individual and vice-versa?  In the last posting, I looked at one of eleven sporadically placed inserts.  Its title was “Writing a Letter to the Editor.”  With this posting, I will look at what might be considered a more directly related topic to community welfare or, as I called it in the last posting, advancing social capital.[2]  That is “Volunteering.”[3]

Again, the context of these inserts is that they take up a page each, though the actual amount of written information is less than the amount of information the text provides in its regular pages.  This one, dedicated to volunteering, begins with a call to volunteer by President George W. Bush.  A few organizations are mentioned as well as federal government’s efforts to facilitate volunteering such as USA Freedom Corps – the organization acts as an information distribution service and as a connector between non-governmental organizations and citizens interested in volunteering.  The insert informs the reader that while 20% of young people engage in some sort of volunteering, the overall number of people volunteering has dropped off.  The description does mention several sorts of activities that volunteers perform such as tutoring and maintaining hiking trails.  All of this information is presented in a matter of fact tone without any real effort to sell this “obligation” to the reader.  The information includes – following its usual format in these inserts – a list of steps that an interested party should follow in order to hook up with some volunteering effort.  They are:  make a list of interested activities, seek out opportunities of potential organizations that might put to work those interests, and make contact by emailing or calling.  As for seeking out opportunities, apparently teachers are a source of information to help a student find an appropriate organization or a student can research using the Internet to find that opportunity.  In making contact, the student is warned that he/she might need a resume or have references.

Of course, any reaction I might have as to the efficacy of this insert is purely an opinion.  But the insert could have done a lot more in selling this “opportunity.”  It could have presented case studies of actual volunteers.  It definitely is a topic that should have been given a lot more space.  Part of the information mentions how the system depends on volunteers to provide services that are important, but are not mandated by law or covered by a government program.  Perhaps a discussion on whether government should or should not provide some of these services might have been suggested or called for.  In any event, the whole topic, in my opinion, was treated as something quite inconsequential.  While the text benefits from having something about volunteering, it does not warrant the judgment, “well done.”  As a promotor of federalist values, I believe Magruder’s effort on this topic does not reach even the level of adequate.

---

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

[2] 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.

[3] Op cit., McClenaghan.  The insert, “Volunteering,” can be found on page 19.

“WE GET LETTERS”

I want to look more closely at those elements of content in the Magruder’s American Government textbook that I judged to address social capital.  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.[1]  A civics curriculum (and that includes government classes) which is guided by the federalist theory in its content choices should strive to support, promote, and enable social capital generally, but specifically among high school students.  In my last posting, I made the claim that one content topic that a federalist theory-minded course should include is material regarding community development.  On that score, Magruder’s falls short.  I did mention that one potentially saving element in the text is sporadic inserts that, if treated appropriately, could support social capital.  I indicated that with this posting I would begin to take a closer look.  I want to begin with the insert topic of “Writing a Letter to the Editor.”  The institutionalized practice of local newspapers to dedicate space, usually on their editorial pages, to letters from their readership is a way to encourage and promote average citizens to voice their opinions, knowledge, and beliefs about current public issues.  It promotes active, public-spirited citizenry.

So, how does Magruder’s treat this topic?  My concern here is to detect a bias toward a communal orientation versus a self-interest orientation.  The insert begins with a sample letter to an editor. Let me reproduce the letter here:

Editor:

Regarding the article on additional budget cuts to public education (“Government Proposes Slashing School Funding,” May 9), I believe that every penny spent is a necessary investment in the future of this community.  As a junior at Westfield High School, I know that these cuts would place students’ futures in greater jeopardy.  Last year 15 percent of the teaching staff and 10 percent of all elective courses were eliminated due to severe reductions in funding.  These cuts ultimately impacted the quality of our education, and that is a sacrifice this town should not be willing to make again.

-Thomas Grey, St. Clairsville[2]

This letter couldn’t be a better example of lobbying.  Take a public policy that negatively affects your interests, manipulate the pitch so as to provide a general welfare angle, and use language that denotes a concern for the community.  Interesting, I think, is the fact that textbook funds come out of the same pot of money as those affecting the budget cuts referred to in the letter.  Couldn’t another example be thought of?  Anyway, I believe this example to be well within the guidance of the natural rights construct – a construct that promotes self-interest.

And here, following this sample letter, is the introduction:  when writing a letter to the editor choose a topic that affects you and your community.  The rest of the insert lists steps you should take in writing your letter:  briefly summarize the issue, explain your position, make a suggestion, and identify yourself.  Given this advice, there would never be letters from middle class citizens about the plight of the poor or what we should do about undocumented citizens or the space program.  These issues are too far removed from a typical individual or community.  In short, in terms of writing to the editor, I believe Magruder’s is far less than a promoter of community development and basically presents the topic as just another way to help students get what individually advances their self-interests.

Note:  Since the inception of this blog, my postings have been on Mondays and Fridays.  Starting with my next postings, due to other activities, my posting days will be Tuesdays and Fridays.

---

[1] Putnam, Robert D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

[2] McClenaghan, W. A.  (2013).  Magruder’s American Government (Florida Teacher’s Edition).  Boston, MA:  Prentice Hall/Pearson, p. 631.

MAGRUDER ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

If you have been following this blog over the last two postings, you know I am reviewing the senior high school textbook, Magruder’s American Government.[1]  The purpose is to see how much the content of the book enables or encourages those attitudes and skills supportive of social capital.  The term social capital I derive from Robert Putnam’s writings.  He uses the term to mean a societal quality characterized by having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation.[2]  In the last posting, I shared the textbook’s table of contents.  From that listing, we can judge the book to be heavy on conveying the structure of the central government, who and what  influences Washington – factions, political parties, etc. – and how influence upon that government takes place.  From the table of contents, we did not denote any emphasis on how individuals or local groups can be successful or viable to any degree in bolstering communal interests.  But this only begs a closer look.  I therefore will begin with this posting looking at whether the text in its finer points addresses these more public-spirited topics.

I will look at whether the book has anything to say about communities, community development, neighborhoods, charities, or non-profit organizations.  I feel that these are the types of topics one would associate with social capital.  Using the index of the book, this is what I found.  There is no listing for community(ies), community development, neighborhood(s), or charity(ies).  There is no listing for non-profit organization(s), but there is one for non-governmental organizations (NGOs).  When I looked up NGOs, the text mentions that the United Nations works with NGOs in administrating a number of its programs around the world.  While commendable, this type of information is not what bolsters social capital among your average high school student population.  In short, in terms of community, Magruder’s has little to nothing to say.

But what the text does have are inserts sporadically placed throughout the book which are entitled Citizenship 101.  Each insert is dedicated to a different topic; they are:  debates, evaluating leadership, juries, letters to the editor, political campaigns, political roots and attitudes, polls, television news programs, using the internet, volunteering, and writing to public officials.  Each insert takes up about half a page (the entry might take up the entire page, but a lot of the space is taken up with a photo or words, leaving a good deal of empty space).  Given the font size and spacing of its usual text material, the information in these inserts would take up a good deal less than half a page if it were presented as part of the usual text.  The format is the same for all of them.  It begins with a quote, then an introduction to the topic, a list of things to do in order to perform some action in relation to the topic follows.  For example, the list for evaluating leadership has three steps:  “decide what factors are most important to you;” “match the skills to the job;” “compare their qualifications.”  For each step, there is a short “how to” explanation to help the student accomplish the step.  I am disappointed that these entries are given such small emphasis, but some of the topics I do believe are related to social capital.  They are:  letters to the editor, political campaigns, political roots and attitudes, volunteering, voting, and writing to public officials.

Is the treatment of these topics really written in such a way as to bolster or enable social capital – a federalist theory aim – or are they written to promote self-interest agendas as those would be more in line with a natural rights perspective?  My next posting begins to take a closer look at the six topics I have highlighted.  Before I do this let me point out that no matter what we find, these entries are a very small part of this book.  That by itself conveys the notion that what is contained is not that important.

---

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

[2] Putnam, Robert D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.