FAKE NEWS

One of the problems this writer identified early in this blog is the lack of political knowledge among the citizenry.  At the time, he offered some studies that supported this general observation.  This most recent election cycle provides further evidence; no, not by who won, but by the role fake news played in the results.

          As the legitimate news services have pointed out, on-line “news” stories started out giving false information about outlandish events that never took place.  Apparently, there is an art involved.  The stories, to be effective, must pick up on certain commonly held beliefs and then be written in a certain style.  In short, they should mimic legitimate news offerings such as in Time or Newsweek magazines.  But their similarity is limited to style, not content.

          This whole business was being given secondary attention among the legitimate press, but this all changed recently.  When a man showed up at a Washington eatery and fired an assault weapon (not hurting anyone) because he wanted to find evidence of a child abduction ring that Hilary Clinton and John Podesta were operating out of the establishment, the existence of fake news took a serious turn.  Of course, no such evidence of abducted children was to be found since the entire story was false.

          The question of why such misinformation spreads – especially when such information leads to such incidents as this shooting or adds to the factors that determine elections – becomes important.  The most obvious reason is that social media provides the technological capacity to spread the misinformation, but why do people believe it, particularly in the case of more outlandish stories?

          This writer wants to suggest a factor, and this factor falls in line with one of this blog’s central claims.  When a nation, as this one has done, adopts a natural rights view of governance and politics, when it sees a citizen as autonomous to define its basic political and other values with little sense of what is legitimate or not, then one can expect a certain segment of the population to drift toward the bizarre and extreme.  This works on more than one front.

          A belief in one’s own autonomy does not necessarily equate such liberty to others.  Part of the credo of natural rights is to extend such rights to others, but this can be lost as it becomes a way of thinking among a general population in which varying levels of sophistication exist.  It is a short jump from “me” having a right to believe what I want to believe, to I want everyone believing the same thing.  And once this jump occurs, then it can manifest itself in many ways.

          For example, such a person is apt to believe conspiracies when he or she confronts a person who disagrees with his/her beliefs.  This, in turn, makes such a person predisposed to believe the most outrageous of stories as the abduction story described above.  There is a lack of fundamental beliefs in such a society – beliefs that place parameters on what one accepts as true or desirable in public policy.  Everyone is left to his/her own devices when formulating political beliefs.

          Not only is the problem that people believe such outlandish stories, but that they, in turn, have chosen to disbelieve legitimate sources of news, since such outlets provide a steady stream of information that counters their beliefs.  Now, one should not accept what one hears via legitimate sources without question; every source of information can get things wrong to varying degrees.  But there is, of course, a big difference between a source that honestly gets something wrong and one that is aiming to disseminate outrageous information.

It is also information that is bolstering a political position.  What has not been clear in the reporting of such fake news is how much of it bolsters conservative positions as opposed to liberal positions.  Is one side of our political spectrum more susceptible to fake news?  Also, to what degree did fake news affect how people voted? 

One can be sure that political scientists will consider these and other questions.  Whatever they find, one can see that what is taught in our civics classrooms and how successful such teaching is are important elements of maintaining our democracy.  Such concerns deserve our attention even when it comes to what is taught in the nation’s schools, for it is civics classes that are primarily charged with preparing students to meet the challenges of their political world.

WAS LINCOLN JUST AN IDEALIST?

A question any civics teacher should address with his/her students is:  what leads policy proposals to become policy?  For example, why does one legislative bill become a law and another does not?  In common parlance, this question is usually talked about in terms of how much do public wishes play; how much of what the people want leads to our laws; how much the public influences the acts of executive officials and affects judicial decisions?

          In terms of the national democratic bias, Americans tend to savor the Lincoln quote:  “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  This bias naturally assumes and/or counts on citizens having quite a say in what policy is thought of, developed, enacted, and implemented in our governance.  But what civics teachers should have their students investigate is whether this is true and if so, how often, and if not, how often does it not happen?

          In an opinion piece published today, the writer offers the following:

Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, have a long agenda of unpopular policy changes they want to make, and they won't be impeded by the fact that the majority of the public doesn't actually want tax cuts for the wealthy, corporate giveaways, or restrictions on abortion. They're going to do them because it's what they believe in, even if the public might not approve.[1]

This pundit does not seem to place much faith in the power of public opinion.

Such a civics inquiry and subsequent discussion would benefit from several issues or facts.  To begin with:  most items of concern that government officials deal with are of little or no interest to Americans assuming the entailed function is being met – the police are protecting, the roads are paved, the fires are extinguished, etc.  For example, which highway builders should be contracted to build or refurbish a nearby highway is of little interest to Joe Q. Public.  Yes, some citizens might care, but by and large, most won’t.  The clear majority of policy questions are just about such details.

          Another related item is:  how much does policy reflect how affected groups lobby policy-makers to issue favorable decisions?  Those highway building businesses, for example, want specific decisions as to who will get that next contract.  And like that case, one can multiply such concerns across all those private interests that are affected by policies that usually mean monetary rewards or losses as in tax policies.  What one can note in terms of these lobbying efforts is that the sought-after policy is usually specific.

          One last issue or concern relating to factors concerning policy making and how democratic the process is is the “collective action problem.”  To quote an expert in this realm of research:

… organizations attempting to affect policy seek a collective good that will benefit every member.  Because everyone will benefit, whether or not they have done anything to win a collective good [such as a highway], it is rational for everyone to let others do the necessary work.  The result will be little or no collective action.  The same argument holds for individuals:  why try to influence policy when letting others do the work will produce the same benefit?  And if little effort is made to influence Congress, such efforts cannot very well have much impact.[2]

The effect of the collective action problem is that most citizen action tends to be  coming only from special interests and not from the general population.  Hence, any input from the citizenry is directed at specific concerns with specific aims and goals.

          In a civics class that adopts a goal of having students engaged in political participation – for example, one that relies on federation theory, as described and explained in this blog – the teacher of that class needs to ask about the above issues.  Such a class would not simply accept that students’ interests are elsewhere, but would call on those students to defend their apathy.

By framing this overall concern repeatedly, the aim is to at least have students reflect on the democratic level of the nation’s governance and politics and on their own engagement and their related values concerning governmental and political engagement.

---

[1] Paul Waldman, “Will Donald Trump's historic unpopularity hamstring his presidency?,” The Week, accessed December 16, 2016 from Windows 10 news service.

[2] Paul Burstein, American Public Opinion, Advocacy, and Policy in Congress:  What the Public Wants and What It Gets, (New York, NY:  Cambridge University Press, 2015), loc. 206-217 (in a Kindle reader).  The facts of this posting are derived from this source.

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT MAZE

With this posting, this writer wants to pick up on a theme he visits from time to time: how do you initiate change in one’s local school?  He has indicated that if the change is at all profound, one that calls on teachers and other personnel to change attitudes or even values, the task is quite complicated and difficult.  But he has also indicated that it is such a change that is needed to address the deficiencies in civics instruction which this blog has described and explained in the past.

          To date, he has outlined some of the issue areas that are involved.  For example, he described curricular philosophies and approaches which different educators might harbor that frame how any individual educator might view a proposed change.  In doing so, he hopes he indicated some of the complexities involved.  In this posting, he wants to draw the reader’s attention to the more practical concern of structure.  How is a school and, in turn, a particular class situated within a school district?

          While school districts around the country might vary a bit, they do follow a general model.  They can be summarily described by an organizational flowchart.  One can get a view of such a flowchart on the website http://www.rff.com/school_orgchart.htm .[1]  And for the purposes here, this account will describe this model by starting with a class and from there progressively point out how each level of such an organization is situated.

          Say a social studies class is housed within a department of the school, the social studies department.  That class is, of course, taught by a teacher who belongs to that department.  The department has a department head who usually does not have authority over the class or teacher, but serves more in a bureaucratic function to convey information from the administration to the teachers of the department and, at times, from those teachers to the administration depending on the issue involved.

          In terms of teachers, authority flows from the principal to the teacher.  In this, the principal is assisted by a small number of assistant principals (A Ps).  Each A P has an area of administration that he or she supervises.  These can include maintenance, discipline, counseling, etc.  Again, the level of authority can be highly limited and one who works at a school finds out that the person in charge is the principal.  Of course, some principals delegate authority to trusted A Ps, but in this writer’s experience, most principals are not so disposed when it comes to an issue of any consequence.

          Of course, principals answer to district administrators, but this can also be curtailed.  Most district wide policies can be and are shaped to adapt to the perceived needs of an individual school.  Again, based on this writer’s experience, a principal’s tenure at a school is approximately five years.  One reason a principal might not delegate much power to A Ps is that assistant principal assignments are not the province of principals, but the decision of district officials.  This prevents the principal, to any meaningful degree, from promoting a unified philosophy or approach in is his/her school.

          Principals mostly communicate with the office of an area superintendent.  This official usually supervises the workings of a number of schools in a sub- geographic area of the district.  This, of course, depends on the size of the district; some are quite small consisting of just one such area or maybe two.  Larger districts, for example Miami-Dade (a countywide district), might have three, four, or five sub-districts or regions.  There are also assistant or associate superintendents who supervise district wide functions such as maintenance or personnel.

          Of course, on top of the chart in terms of hired help is the superintendent.  He/she can be either appointed or elected.  This official does have the ability to steer the district in certain directions, but he or she, in districts of any size, is far removed from the realities of the classroom.  In all this writer’s years of teaching, he met only one superintendent and the meeting meant little to his doing his job.

          But there is still one more level of organization:  the school board.  This is a committee of elected officials who determine legal policy for the district and in many cases, hires the superintendent.  In large districts, these positions are highly susceptible to political forces.  Districts buy a lot of things and services from black (white) boards to internet services.  They probably maintain immense control over construction decisions.  As such, they are heavily lobbied by private vendors over the course of such decisions.

In other words, school districts are well established bureaucracies.  In large, urban areas, they match good sized corporations as to their structure, processes, functions, and the like.  How does change or policy change occur in such structures?  Michael A. Roberto provides a list of fundamental processes that he recommends should be followed to initiate what he calls transformative change.  They entail the following:

·        Establishing a compelling direction, a vision for the future, and the strategies for how to get there.

·        Aligning people, communicating the direction, building shared understanding, getting people to believe in the vision, and then persuading and influencing people to follow that vision.

·        Motivating and inspiring people to enact the kinds of changes and vision that you have articulated.[2]

In upcoming postings, this writer will further apply these processes to education and its bureaucratic realities.  I have left the relation of the school district to the state government for some future effort.  In terms of change though, the above description will suffice to account for the type of factors that change efforts need to address.

---

[1] Accessed on December 13, 2016.

[2] Michael A. Roberto, Transformational Leadership:  How Leaders Change Teams, Companies, and Organizations, (Chantilly, VA:  The Great Courses/The Teaching Company, 2011), 20.

EMOLUMENT ZONE

Right off the bat, the pending Trump presidency provides a not so often opportunity to civics teachers.  A teacher can have his/her students investigate the meaning, purpose, history of the emolument clause in the Constitution.  Looking at an account by Heidi M. Przybylia, in a USA Today article, one gets a taste of what is involved:

Two initial conflicts could land Trump in immediate violation of the “Emoluments Clause,” an anti-bribery provision that forbids the president from receiving gifts from foreign leaders and is derived from the Latin word “emolumentum,” meaning “profit” or “gain.”  It says political officials cannot “accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”[1]

          Part of its history traces back to the late 1700s and its application has been very strict.  This bit of civics can be an on-going source of material for teachers looking for something current to address.

          Trump has business dealings around the world.  Of course, in those 28 countries, there will probably be foreign state officials who will curry favor from the president of the most powerful nation on earth.  For example, the Bank of China has dealings with the Trump businesses in the form of leasing and lending.  Of course, the Bank of China has enormous ties to the Chinese government.  As in China, similar ties can be found in India, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, and many other nations.

          Then there are the straight up business arrangements such as selling US real estate to foreign officials or renting them space in one of many Trump owned or related properties.  One can see that in the upcoming years, the nation’s politics will be firmly entrenched in the emolument zone.  What the contours of that zone will be might be revealed on December 15 when the president-elect tells the press what arrangement he will put in place to avoid conflicts of interest.

There are no signs that that will include a divestiture of his properties.  Short of that form of separation, one cannot see how the president will be able to avoid concerns that he is receiving emoluments – the nation will see.

---

[1] Heidi M. Przybylia, “Trump’s Foreign Deals Risk Constitutional Clash, USA Today (December 9, 2016, 8A).

HEALTHY OR NOT SO HEALTHY

Since the November 11, 2016 posting, Why?, this writer has been reviewing some of the factors that influenced our last presidential election.  In doing so, he has relied on an article by George Packer[1] for the information on which these postings were based.  In general, the article and the postings placed a heavy emphasis on the disaffection of the white working class.  Their estrangement is mostly based on the loss of manufacturing jobs due to national and global labor markets that provide manufacturing firms cheap(er) labor options.  There is also automation.

          This segment of the electorate was considered, in years past, the base of the Democratic Party.  Their disaffection began with the Reagan presidency – reference to the Reagan Democrats.  With Donald Trump’s direct appeal to them and his promise of bringing back the jobs, Hillary Clinton lost a handful of “blue” states:  Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  In all, the difference, among these states, amounted to about 70,000 votes and enough electoral votes to give Trump the victory.  These “unconnected” voters cost her the win.

          Other related factors were explained:  Clinton’s ineffective messaging and, unfortunately, a racial element that was/is directed against immigrants and African-Americans.  To the extent this is true – this racism – is the extent to which the Democrats have a daunting challenge.  And it’s at this point that this writer must betray his intent.  The exercise to review the election was motivated by illustrating the need for federalist thinking among our citizenry and among our efforts in civics and government classes.

          In describing this concern, it should be pointed out that a healthy federal union should promote and support a healthy conservative-liberal debate.  Each of these ideological positions represents honest and legitimate interests that participating entities in the union bring to the political table.  Those who support individual liberty, economic, entrepreneurial interests, and traditional social dispositions need to be heard and listened to.  The same can be said for those who support egalitarian aims, workers’ interests, and diverse social-cultural dispositions.

          These are opposing political camps and a healthy political environment allows for its politics to withstand the give and take between these two segments of the electorate.  It’s what makes up honest political debate over the issues and policy questions of the day.  But when one or both sides begin to radicalize their arguments; when they begin to argue past each other; when they engage in obscure and dishonest practices – fake news for example – then the politics become unhealthy, un-federal, and dangerous.

          This blog has dedicated a great many words to describing and explaining the current problems facing civics education – those problems that relate to the content of the civics curriculum.  Generally, it has made the argument that such instruction has promoted a natural rights construct and, in turn, has enabled a shift toward an extreme individualistic social and political discourse and policy orientation.  This writer cannot escape the observation that the winner of the election, at least in style, catered to that extremism.

          He constantly reminded his audience that he represents the best in whatever topic the campaign brought up.  This blog has avoided expressing direct political preferences, but in this case, the facts are what they are and there is no way to avoid how thoroughly the president-elect demonstrates negatively the concerns of this blog.  Hopefully, all of that reflected on the part of his campaign an understanding of how individualistic the electorate has become and, in order to win, how necessary it was to reflect that style and disposition in the images and language that were used in the campaign.

          Irrespective of how one aligns in relation to the conservative-liberal debate, one has a challenge: to help the nation return to a healthier discourse.  Packer refers to the current discourse as reflecting a tribal mentality – oh, if it were so communal.  Trump’s nationalist rhetoric is not geared toward a nationalistic target.  It is geared to that displaced, disaffected, unconnected individual.  And what is needed is a way to re-federate the electorate.  Of course, this blog is dedicated to civics education’s role in this, but more is needed.

          Should Democrats cooperate with Trump when the soon to be president strives to create jobs through infrastructure investments or should they play the role that Republicans played during Obama’s years and oppose everything the administration proposed?  The former is the federated option; the latter is the natural rights, self-serving option.  The road to healthier politics is long and fraught with short-term sacrifices.  Hopefully, both parties can now see the consequences of short-term politics and choose the healthier path.

---

[1] George Packer, “The Unconnected,” The New Yorker 92, no. 35 (2016):  48-61.

WHO ARE THEY?

Perhaps what this writer has described in the last few postings might give the reader the impression that the typical Trump voter was, in this last election, a member of either the southern conservatives or of the white working class in the rustbelt states. 

This is not the case.  These identified groups merely represent those voters who made the difference, especially those who would have usually been turned off by Trump for religious reasons or because they are blue collar workers who traditionally have voted Democratic.

          The religious crowd, especially in the South, held their collective noses and voted for the perceived “sinner.”  As for the working class, Donald Trump just spoke to them with his promises of “draining the swamp” and bringing back all those jobs that have been lost to cheap labor markets or automation.  These people will see whether Trump can fulfill his promises.  But these are not the typical Trump voters.  So, the question remains:  who are they?

          George Packer reports on polling information that identifies them.  Here is what he writes:

In March, the Washington Post reported that Trump voters were both more economically hard-pressed and more racially biased than supporters of other Republican candidates.  But in September a Gallup-poll economist, Jonathan T. Rothwell, released survey results that complicated the picture.  Those voters with favorable views of Trump are not, by and large, the poorest Americans; nor are they personally affected by trade deals or cross-border immigration.  But they tend to be less educated, in poorer health, and less confident in their children’s prospects – and they’re often residents of nearly all-white neighborhoods.  They’re more deficient in social capital than in economic capital.  The Gallup poll doesn’t indicate how many Trump supporters are racists.  Of course, there’s no way to disentangle economic and cultural motives, to draw a clear map of the stresses and resentments that animate the psyches of tens of millions of people.[1]

          This description is not of a group of dyed in the wool racists or any other related characterization.  Circumstances for these people change and right now, conditions, for them, meant they supported Trump.  Again, Hillary Clinton’s message was not focused enough to draw their support along with all the other negative images her opposition was able to drum up against her.

          She also did not help herself, referring to them as deplorable.  Yes, she walked that back – as Romney tried to walk back the 47% comment four years ago – but a lot of the damage was done.  These people frame their politics nationally, if not locally.  They are not globalists even if the realities of their economic conditions are.  They feel, with good reason, that their monocultural world is disappearing and they don’t like it.

Yet, what will stop all that?  Trump and his “make America great again” language?  This writer does not believe so, but then he was wrong about the election.  As a matter of fact, there is good reason to believe that if Trump has his way – whatever that is – these people’s conditions will worsen, the gap in income and wealth will grow, and the political atmosphere will continue to be more divisive.

In the meantime, the citizenry would do well to remember these voters, as well as all of us, are partners in this federated union.

---

[1] George Packer, “The Unconnected,” The New Yorker 92, no. 35 (2016):  48-61, 60.

REPUBLICAN MOVES

In the last several postings, this writer has reviewed political developments prior to this last election that led to the results the citizenry faces today.  To date, this blog has described how the Democratic Party, if only rhetorically, turned its back on its traditional base, the white working class (WWC).  In this posting, the writer wants to briefly describe what has been taking place on the other side, that being the Republican efforts since the 1960s.

All of this is meant to aid civics teachers who want to make sense of the current political landscape.  The assumption is that while the most recent election does not spell a transformational change, it does promise to be quite unsettling to what Americans have come to expect of their political universe.  While they might have voted for change, what is in the offing might be a tad different from their expectations.

The variance of expectations is mostly due to how Republicans have sold themselves to frustrated whites.  The “make America great again” slogan can be read as code to recapturing a time in which public policy catered to the whims of the white population.

In the last posting, it was pointed out that this current disaffection reflects both economic and social complaints:  economic loss of jobs and minority claims for equality.  The goal:  recapture a time before there have been significant changes in both our economic conditions and in the civil rights status of many minority citizens. 

These changes are judged by many to be the causes of their problems.  The common wisdom among the unconnected[1] is that such programs as welfare exist only to get minority votes at their expense.  This whole area of concern has a strong racial component.

This spelled opportunity for Republicans.  Beginning with the sixties and President Johnson signing the civil rights laws of that time, the GOP captured the southern states from the Democrats.  Whereas it used to be the solid South for the Dems, they have ever since been solid red states.

But then there came opportunities in the previously strong manufacturing states of the Midwest, commonly referred to as the “rust belt.”  There, jobs began to be either transported to cheaper labor sites in the South or foreign countries, or eliminated by automation.  In response, the GOP was in the position to promise better job creation with business-friendly policies.

Their spiel was:  workers could get back their jobs if they lowered taxes for corporate America and the rich – this would free up money for investment – and get rid of regulations.  If implemented, jobs would pour back to these areas.  They cite Ronald Reagan’s “trickle down” policy and the eventual boom to the economy during his administration.

What is not mentioned is the stimulus effect that federal defense spending had on the economy.  What is also glossed over is what happened to the national debt.  It mushroomed under Reagan and it also shot up because of George W. Bush’s version of Reaganomics.

Bush’s efforts did not have the job creation of the Reagan years and ended – due to regulation easing – in a ruined economy.  The Trump plans also promise the same with a promised explosion in defense spending, infrastructure spending, and a lowering of taxes and elimination of regulations.  What can go wrong?

Well, this may be a question civics teachers might ask their students.  Perhaps this time, the nation will experience the promise of supply-side economics and there will be a significant uptick in jobs – hopefully so.  Defense and infrastructure spending might do the “job.”  But there are other concerns.

Now that the GOP is in full control – the only check on conservatives is that they do not have a filibuster proof Senate – there is little to stand in their way of fulfilling their wish list.  What is included in that list?  An overall word that describes what they want is “privatization.”

They want to privatize just about all government services so that their true constituents – the business class – can reap a potential profit windfall.  At the state level, with Republicans gaining control of most statehouses, there has been a rush to privatize, for example, prison systems.

This has resulted in significant incidents of reported prisoner abuse.[2]  Most citizens are unaware of this problem.  What is promised at the national or federal level will affect the welfare of many citizens and will be experienced not behind hidden places, like prisons, but in broad daylight.

Take plans to privatize Medicare.  There, if Speaker of the House Paul Ryan’s plan is adopted, beneficiaries will be given a voucher and then individually deal with insurance companies and medical facilities.  The plan is seen by commentators as part of replacing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).[3]

Given that among the elderly, in the upcoming years, there will be the last of those who benefitted from dependable pensions programs – and instead will be on undependable 401 plans – the future for the elderly seems precarious.  But that is not all the GOP might affect.

Of course, the Republicans will continue to be against upping the minimum wage and still be against policies that protect and advance organized labor.  While their leader, Mr. Trump, has come out against open trade – he promised to negotiate better deals (whatever that means) – his party is firmly in favor of continuing current trade policies.  This, if Trump is serious about his promises, will probably be a bitter fight within the Republican ranks.

The bottom line is that in two years, the WWC will probably not be any happier than it is today.  In addition, because it is usual that a sitting president’s party loses support in Congress in off-year elections, the Democrats can situate themselves to begin their comeback in 2018.

One will see.  In the Senate, many Democratic seats will need to be defended – not a good sign for them.  But if things don’t get better for the WWC, given the promises of this election, who knows what will happen?

But as important as 2018 will be, 2020 – a census year – election will be more so.  If the Democrats can gain control of statehouses and with the result of the census, they will draw the new legislative and Congressional boundary lines.  This current control is what has given the Republican Party such an advantage in the 2010s.  One can be sure that the pros of both parties are well-aware of this potential gain or loss and will strategize accordingly.

---

[1] A moniker used by George Packer.  See George Packer, “The Unconnected,” The New Yorker 92, no. 35 (2016):  48-61.

[2] See, for example, http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/09/12255/violence-abuse-and-death-profit-prisons-geo-group-rap-sheet , accessed November 29, 2016.

[3] See, for example, http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/26/503158039/paul-ryans-plan-to-change-medicare-looks-a-lot-like-obamacare , accessed November 29, 2016.