A DUALIST JEFFERSON

One of the anecdotes about Nelson Mandela that I found particularly telling was that he invited his jailer to a front row seat at his inauguration for the presidency of South Africa. I repeat it to point out how “federalist” President Mandela was. The reason I characterize this gesture with this moniker is because central to federalist thinking is the principle that good governance is advanced by bringing into political play as many parties or interests as possible.

In the first of the Federalist Papers,¹ Alexander Hamilton divides all polities into three types: those based on force, those based on accident, and those based on choice. We associate different institutional structures with each type. Those based on force are noted for concentrated power in the fashion of a king or dictator. Those based on accident are noted for power of the elites – an aristocracy or plutocracy. And those based on choice are noted for power of varied interests that make up the political landscape of a nation. The last sees no limitation on the number of interests that should participate in the formulation of public policy. The implementation of this principle has further structural and procedural implications.

First, a polity of choice holds as most important its foundational constitution – the covenant or compact – that spells out the agreement by which those who have chosen to formulate the polity do so. The constitution sets out to form a structural grid of offices, levels of authority, agencies, and even, in some cases, divided sovereignty designations. Yes, it's complex. It is a structure that can lend itself to suffering through politicians who continuously defray responsibility, but it is also a structure that opens opportunities for more to become involved and also opportunities for citizens to find those government officials who are apt to be favorable to any given demand. As a citizen, if you don't like the response in office A, then you can go to office B or office C and so on. In principle, this approach to governance tends to avoid extremely hierarchical tendencies. As with any form of polity, there is a significant danger associated with its approach. That is, polities based on force are in danger of becoming tyrannies; polities based on accident are in danger of becoming cabals of oligarchs, and polities based on choice are in danger of becoming chaotic or anarchistic. When analyzing each of these types, a student is wise to keep the respective dangers in mind and expect that its development, at a fundamental level, fuels many of its more significant political issues.²

Of course, the US exemplifies a polity based on choice. For one, it is a federation which is a subtype of “choice” polities. The US has its matrix structure with bifurcated sovereignty, sovereignty that resides both with the central government and with the state governments. And I see that through its history, to varying degrees, that there has been a particular view of politics which has provided a source of instability. I can trace the manifestation of this challenge from its very beginning as a national polity. That is, the natural rights construct, with its emphasis on the individual and, to some, unrestrained liberty, has been the source for chaotic, anarchistic developments. And no founding “father” was more responsible for this construct's initial influence than the prime author of our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson. Yet, such a designation should not be made without some qualifying explanations. What makes his contribution along these lines so nebulous is that his association with natural rights thought was due more to isolated comments and written passages than to any well thought-out exposition of ideas. His natural rights assertions, I believe, were motivated by his admiration of John Locke. Locke wrote of individuals giving up a limited amount of liberty in order to form a polity. The British philosopher contextualized his comments with the devising of a fictional origin to societal arrangements – that they emerged from a state of nature. Humans formulated such arrangements by being willing to surrender only those liberties that made societal formation possible. This, to a generation of political thinkers who were fighting the overwhelming level of repression that was the product of a long history of elitist governance, sounded liberalizing. Between the king and the nobles, the history of British rule might have been leading the world into opening up political opportunities, but it still represented a stronghold as to what an individual could and could not do. To men like Jefferson, that history represented stifling horizons and they wanted to change this whole basic political arrangement. Natural rights ideas provided the theoretical arguments by which to attack this legacy. The Declaration is an excellent example of what this fight was all about. But how far down this theoretical path was Jefferson traveling?

To begin, Jefferson was not an abstract theoretician. His proclivities were more of a practical bent. According to Richard Hofstadter, Jefferson was more at home studying and sharing his wisdom about the practical concerns of agriculture. Yet, he was no slouch concerning political thought. And his thoughts did have their influence among Americans of the late 1700s and early 1800s, an influence that was substantial and long lasting. Yes, he did talk of how revolution was the useful “manure” for the tree of liberty, but these were populist assertions that were not backed by any mature thinking. Instead, he spoke more convincingly and importantly when he reacted to the work and efforts of his fellow founders. He supported the structural selection, by the founders, of a balanced constitution in which the several classes were represented. “It is not by the consolidation, or concentration of powers, but by their distribution that good government is effected.”³ That is why the Constitution creates the structural matrix our governmental system exemplifies. Structurally, according to federalist principles, government should not limit the number of interests that can participate. With these interests comes the diversity of opinions, principles, and passions that are present within the polity at any given time and that should be considered by policymakers. This holds a dual challenge: the inclusion of all interests and the safeguard of each (even of each individual) against the potential tyranny of the majority. Jefferson was sensitive to this danger: “One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one … As little will it avail us as that they are chosen by ourselves.”⁴ This is Jefferson's support, similar to that of James Madison, of an expanded republic. It is a view that expresses a version of federalist principles. So while one can trace an initial argument for natural rights from this founder, one would be wise to make this overall judgment with a healthy dose of restraint.

 

1One should remember this title in considering the content of that historically important collection of essays.

 

2Many of the ideas contained in this description are attributable to the insights of the late, eminent scholar, Daniel J. Elazar.

3Hofstadter, R. (1948). The American political tradition. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Quotation on p. 29.

4Ibid.

REALISTIC REASONS TO PLAY ALONG

I have a story line to share. It's fiction, but I think its ins and outs can be telling of our political system and its processes. Let us say the president is a woman – that a woman won the presidential sweepstakes back in 2008. She has a plan for a national healthcare program. It is one in which the national government copies a plan that already exists in one of the fifty states. That program calls on uninsured people to sign up for a health insurance plan by going online and seeing what private insurance programs have to offer. For people who can't afford any of the plans, there will be a subsidy provided by the federal government to help them pay their premiums. Adding to the appeal of this program is that it has been in effect for several years and works swimmingly well with the citizens of that state loving it. Also, the state plan was initially passed by a Democratically controlled legislature and signed into law by a Republican governor. That gives this program something very rare in our political environment: bipartisan backing. The fictional president, though, has several obstacles in nationalizing this state plan.

The first obstacle is from members of her own party. Her base support – that is, the support of her most committed backers – want a more government-controlled program. They want to extend, in effect, the existing national old age program (Medicare) so that it will be provided to the whole population. That is a program in which the government basically pays for all medical expenses (100% of hospital costs and 80% of doctors' fees) beyond minimal co-payments. It also mandates that all citizens must pay a healthcare tax that corresponds roughly to a modest insurance payment. This puts into the actuary pool people of all ages. By doing this, the pool will include people who are healthy, who happen to be the vast majority of the population. The resulting pool will, therefore, have enough money so that the expenses of the not so healthy can be covered. This is acceptable to the healthy because no one knows when one will change from being a healthy person to an ill person. By the way, this is the principle behind any health insurance program, private or public. This type of program relegates the middle men, the insurance companies, to a much reduced role and cuts back the fees they can charge. Therefore, for this and other reasons, healthcare becomes cheaper. The main objection to this program, though, is that this expands the intrusiveness of government in our healthcare system. At least, that is the concern of conservatives.

Short of this alternative is a mix between what the fictional president wants and what her base supporters want. That would be a program that mirrors the state program but offers, among the provided insurance choices, a “public option.” That is, the basic structure of the program is in line with what the president wants, but, in addition to all the private options, a person can choose a public option similar to the old age program. Again, this would probably be a program with fewer costs since it eliminates the private insurance companies when a person selects the public option. With fewer costs, the public option will have lower premiums and this would provide significant competition to the private options and, therefore, lower the overall costs of healthcare.

Up to now, this story sounds like what happened when Congress was considering healthcare a few years ago. At least, in its broad outline, it is what Representative Luis Gutierrez (D, IL) described the other day as being what was considered by President Obama.¹ But to return to my story line, there are three stated alternative approaches to reforming healthcare: private choices option (what the president wants and is aiming to have become law), the public option (what is a mix between what the president wants and what the president's party base wants), and single government payer option (what the president's party base wants). Our fictional president wants the private choice mainly because she knows there is a high degree of skepticism over the other two alternatives. The opposition party has been very successful in convincing people that any extensive role by government will have government determining what medical services will be available to people if either of these two options were to be put into effect. But beyond this obstacle, the president has another one. That is, she has an extremely hostile opposition party in Congress that, even though they don't have a majority in either chamber of Congress, they can still deny the president any ability to capture bipartisan support for any effort the president might attempt. Since this is such an important area of legislation, the president feels she must secure some opposition party votes in favor of any bill that would pass Congress.

So, and now we will vary from what actually happened; after consulting with her advisers, the president decides on the following strategy. The president will first, with much public fanfare, announce the administration's supposed healthcare position which is a single government payer plan. While this is not true – she is not aiming to get this plan through Congress – she makes the public argument for this option. She secures the support from key members of Congress who belong to the president's party. To some of these members, whom the president really trusts, she confides in them what the true strategy is and is about to be implemented. The president then calls a much publicized meeting which includes leaders from both parties to work out a national healthcare program. The opposition party members protest, but agree to attend. Since Americans want their government to address the fact that there are about 40 million Americans who can't afford health insurance and it is bad form to reject a presidential invitation, they agree to attend the meeting. There is also the added fact that everyone's health costs are being pushed higher than they should be since hospitals are passing on to other patients the costs of treatment for those who can't pay. These passed-on costs, on average, are costing the Americans an extra thousand dollars a year. In back rooms, the president's negotiators are able to talk a few key opposition members into supporting a plan that resembles the bipartisan program already existing in the one state mentioned above. They agree because the ideas for this program were initiated by conservatives and rely on private insurance companies competing for the uninsured people's business. But first, they are to propose and publicly insist that the administration adopt a set of provisions that are geared to lower health costs. One such provision would be to shift insurance markets from being organized at the state level to being organized at the national level. This would increase, they claim, more competition and lower insurance premiums.² When they do this, the administration balks, but states that instead of supporting the government payer plan, the president is willing to adopt the public option alternative. The opposition again publicly rejects that offer and holds that the administration should now adopt the existing state model in which private options are offered to people. All of these moves have been previously planned as public give and take between a few members of Congress from both parties and the president. The president agrees to this last offer and, in effect, gets what she initially wanted. While the president wins, she does so in such a way that everyone walks away with the ability to claim a victory. The nation has a national healthcare program, but it is a program that is based on ideas initially offered by conservative sources.

I hope you don't find the above story line as being too rambling a tale. The point is to illustrate an important aspect of our political processes and one that is probably part and parcel of any democratic system. That is, politics is made up of a lot of perceptions. I believe that one reason President Barack Obama has met with such opposition to his healthcare law has been the fact that it was passed with all Democratic votes in Congress. One can claim that the opposition, the Republicans, is mostly responsible for Democrats having to count on only their members to get a healthcare program. But from the Republican perspective, the President came up with the program and mostly jammed it down their throats. But if the President could have followed a scenario more in line with my storyline, then perhaps there could have been some Republican votes and those Republicans could have shared in some of the credit in passing legislation that finally provided healthcare to millions of Americans. Instead, Obama and the Democrats in Congress went it alone.

Some of you might be saying, he doesn't know what actually happened in the passing of healthcare – that there was a lot more involved with the actual events that led to the Affordable Care Act. Maybe I don't know all that went into that particular legislative process. After all, all negotiations do not happen in public. Perhaps what actually happened is the best we could have expected. I provide this story not so much to criticize the administration as to provide an alternative approach to policy making – one that illustrates potential give and take (even if staged) that can provide positive results for all involved. This might include some grandstanding, some staging, or some other manipulations to achieve what is politically possible. Is it an ideal scenario? Of course not, but it is a view that takes into account some less than ideal realities. As it is, while the Republicans ended up with a form of healthcare that reflected many of their stated principles, the way the law came about offered them few to no opportunities to claim credit. After all, they are in the business of selling themselves to the electorate as being worthy of credit and when that is deprived, they have no transactional reason to play along. And while it is common for people to expect a higher motivation on the part of their leaders, history tells us that on this account, they will probably be disappointed.

1The Representative gave this description during a meeting of the Judiciary Committee.

2It would also provide an incentive to all insurance companies to set up shop in the lowest regulated states.

INSTRUCTIONAL “MYTHS”

In this blog, I usually address content issues in the curricular field of civics. I find from time to time that content issues border on instructional concerns. That's the case with this posting. We have the President to thank for that. President Barack Obama gave civics teachers a good suggestion for a set of lessons during his speech this past Wednesday on the expanding gap in income and wealth distribution between the rich and the not so rich. In his speech, he identified what he called three myths regarding this issue. Let me paraphrase: one, low income is a problem of minority populations such as African-Americans, Hispanics, or some other ethnic groups; two, policies that are aimed at securing equality in income or wealth are detrimental to economic growth; and three, efforts by government to ameliorate or solve lower income or wealth rates do not accomplish their aims and, therefore, are not useful. What civics or other social studies teachers can do is look at these claimed myths as hypotheses and have students test them to see whether these claims are true or whether they are, in fact, myths.

The first of these “myths” seems fairly easy to test. One can readily gather demographic information that identifies those portions of the population that earn near or below poverty rates and then see what percentage of those people are non-Hispanic whites, blacks, Latinos/as, Asians, or any other nationality or ethnic grouping the teacher would want to identify for the lesson. For example, CBS news reports that “[f]our out of 5 U. S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream.”¹ While non-whites are becoming a majority in the population, one can mathematically determine that if the four out of 5 figure is correct, many of those who make up disadvantaged segments of the population are non-Hispanic whites. As a matter of fact, survey results show that “[p]essimism among that racial group [non-Hispanic whites] about their families' economic futures has climbed to the highest point since at least 1987. In the most recent AP-GfK poll, 63 percent of whites called the economy 'poor.'"² This type of information is readily available from what are considered objective sources. US Census and IRS information sources can be highly helpful.

In terms of the second “myth,” policy aimed at promoting equality counteracts economic growth, one can view historical efforts historians consider serious efforts at promoting equality. I would include in that list the Progressive efforts of the early twentieth century, the New Deal initiative of the 1930s, and the War on Poverty/Great Society programs of the 1960s. One can see what the resultant economic indicators show governmental efforts had on income and wealth distribution as well as the overall economy. One can also look at efforts to undo those “progressive” initiatives such as during the 1920s during the administrations of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover and of that of Ronald Reagan's administration and see what resulted from those efforts. Did income and wealth distribution gaps increase, decrease, or stay the same? I believe the most telling statistic that gives a quick view on how evenly distributed income is is the median wage; that is, the wage level at which half of the incomes of households fall below that mark and half fall above that mark. If the median wage increases during a segment of time when the GDP is growing, one can say that the economy is growing and that that growth is somewhat more evenly distributed than is the case if the median wage were going down. Another telling statistic is the percentage of the population living below the poverty rate. Of course, if the poverty rate is going up, one can say, unless there is a drastic lowering of GDP, that the lower classes are not benefiting from economic growth. A more sophisticated study can trace income levels of the five quintile³ groups – the division of the workforce according to twenty percent groupings of the population from the lowest income earning group to the highest – over time. These income levels or poverty rates can be matched to prevailing economic policies, particularly those that are aimed at shrinking the distribution gap. A warning needs to be stated: this type of analysis can be misleading in that it is difficult to determine when policies take effect and have any meaningful influence on economic conditions. But what one can easily determine is whether policies that are aimed at equality have a meaningful, negative effect on economic growth. Does one see, for example, a drastic downturn in the GDP or in the median income in the years during and immediately after the onset of the Great Society programs? Students can do such calculations.

Closely related to myth number two is myth number three. To study this hypothesis, that government cannot help conditions of inequality, a teacher can have students do case studies of particular government programs that were designed to ease or solve some condition of inequality. For example, did Medicare solve the problem of the elderly not being able to afford healthcare? Or, does raising the minimum wage assist lower income people in securing living wage employment? In this type of instruction, the teacher should take care as to how he or she poses the question to be studied. So, in the case of the minimum wage issue, asking whether raising it results in higher income, the question misses an important element in the debate over the minimum wage. Many argue that raising the minimum wage will result in fewer jobs since employers will cut back on this factor of production due to its higher cost. By asking about the policy change in terms of securing employment, as I suggest above, the number of jobs employers are willing to offer is taken into account. Well-stated questions can have students test how effective government programs can be.

These three “myths” or hypotheses reflect important issues. The American people usually indicate that their most important issue at any given time is the economy, at least according to their responses on surveys. As such, politicians of all stripes manipulate their language to advance their economically related positions in order to make what they say more amenable to interested voters. I heard a politician today say that the minimum wage should not be raised because this would discourage businesses to hire teenagers, even though vast majority of the jobs in question are held by people 20 years and older. This type of manipulation can be combated by students doing the type of studies I reviewed above. And civics teachers, if they choose to take advantage of the recent help provided by the President, should offer, if only under their breath, a “thanks” to – what should we call him? – Instructor-in-Chief.

1See http://www.cbsnews.com/news/80-percent-of-us-adults-face-near-poverty-unemployment-survey-finds/ .

2Ibid.

3According to the Free Dictionary, “[s]tatistics the portion of a frequency distribution containing one fifth of the total sample.”

“CONSTITUTIVE CONCEPTION”

What can we expect of an individual who claims to be part of an association – a federal union? What seems reasonable, even if we are asking in terms of an ideal? One can start such an inquiry by considering a person who has normal ambitions in life. There is a line in the HBO series, Boardwalk Empire, that goes something like this: all of a man's [woman's] problems stems from his [her] inability to live contently sitting in his [her] room. We all want more out of life. So we go about dreaming, planning, training, sacrificing, risking, sometimes conniving to achieve the “better” life. Yet none of this can be accomplished alone. We are all dependent on others so that those kinds of activities can take place. I just heard of a study that links the incidence of lower crime rates to the prevalence of abortions. It seems that lower incidence of unwanted children being born has eventually resulted in fewer people wanting to commit crimes. I don't offer this relationship as an argument or a justification for abortions – many unintended positive consequences begin from either immoral acts or, at least, less than desirable acts – but it does hint at the importance of a nurturing home. A good and loving family, a caring community, good schools, and enriching environments in general all increase the probability that children will grow up to be productive, law abiding, and, at a minimum, contented citizens. And yet, this whole amalgamation of factors is provided by others: parents, teachers, neighbors, priests or ministers, relatives, and public officials.

So, a civics curriculum, I believe, should address this reality. It should take on what Michael Sandel calls a strong view of community. What is that? Let me attempt to describe a “strong” view by first reviewing what a “weak” view is. A weak view sees community or a sense of community as either being instrumental – a view of community as a field of opportunity to advance one's interests – or being sentimental – a view of community as one composed of a compilation of people who have shared, final ends. Instead, a strong view is one that has other characteristics. One, the community is seen and felt as being a part of who one is. “It is a part of me.” Two, as such, the community or a sense of a community is not something one chooses – as is the case when one sees community instrumentally or attaches oneself to it to seek mutual ends with others – but instead is something one discovers as one understands who one is. It is one of an array of items that helps determine the essence of one's identity, but is not so obvious as other essential characteristics such as religion or nationality. Sandel refers to this view of community as part of a person's “constitutive conception” of community.¹

Here is what Sandel means. He believes that community ideally should become a part of a person and, as such, is not dependent on a person having a sense of obligation or seeing community in terms of gains or losses, advantages or disadvantages. This is a view that is dependent on a higher degree of self-knowledge or understanding. It takes the dependency I describe above – of family, neighbors, etc. – and internalizes it within a person who can appreciate how constitutive of his or her being that reality is. If a person doesn't appreciate the constitutive role that community plays in whom he or she is, perhaps he or she can feel it when considering his/her family. Or perhaps a person can transcend the community and extend such a view to the region or even the nation within which he/she lives, because a lot of what a community can do is, in turn, dependent on the factors that exist in its environment.

A telling response which indicates whether a person has such a constitutive conception would be his/her answer to the question: what keeps you from breaking the law or keeps your behavior within the boundaries of legitimate social norms? Is it fear of detection, being arrested, being beaten up, or being ostracized? Or is it a logical choice in which you see your interests served by supporting a system of rewards that is dependent on some minimum level of cooperation? The first reason is one that is based on coercion and the second is one based on predictable and reliable rewards. The first reason, if universally or extensively held, is expensive for a society and the second is too dependent on many whimsical factors. In either case, the health of the society is not well-served if these are the bases for the prominent motivations in citizens obeying the law or otherwise cooperating with essential social activities. Where there exists a close psychological relationship, however, between what one wants and what a community is trying to achieve, there is no need for excessive coercive measures or an unrealistic reward system that is unsustainable.

So how does one see his or her community, state, or nation with a strong view of community? He or she, in simple terms, strives to see other citizens as partners. He or she understands that his or her interests, if not in immediate terms, then in long range terms, are linked. Therefore, he or she should conduct his/her business in such a way that any resulting advancement should be for all. This idea begins with one understanding how dependent one's self reality is unalterably linked to one's community and to the efforts exerted by the community on one's behalf. And even in our competitive environment, which is a product of our capitalist system, this idea or view can be sustained. If I produce and bring to market a useful product and do all I can to lower my costs, yet treat my employees fairly – which does not mean extravagantly – and treat my customers honestly and fairly, then I am helping everyone's interests, including my competitors', not just my own. As Robert Reich says on TV, while promoting his recent documentary film, if businesses pay their workers a fair wage and treat their workers fairly, everyone will do better than if they don't. He applies this principle by comparing Walmart to Henry Ford² and also by his analysis of the effects of the Affordable Care Act:

[As a result of the ACA] everyone does come out ahead in the long term: Even the best-off will gain from a healthier and more productive workforce, and will save money from preventive care that reduces the number of destitute people using emergency rooms when they become seriously ill.³

But such an analysis, while helpful in promoting positive images of community, gets us back to seeing community and society as a transactional arena and offering our allegiances for instrumental reasons instead of reasons based on a constitutive conception that Sandel would like us to adopt when viewing our community. Perhaps encouraging a transactional view is a good place to start with students. When this reality is well understood and accepted, then students can start inquiring into how integral community and society are in determining who we are.

1See Dagger, R. (1997). Civic virtue: Rights, citizenship, and republican liberalism. New York, NY: Oxford, pages 48-50. The reference to Sandel can be found in Sandel, M. J. (1992). Liberalism and the limits of justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

2Henry Ford is historically remembered for his business philosophy which held that businesses should pay their workers well so that they in turn can be good consumers of his products.

3See http://robertreich.org/ .

HAIR'S BREADTH

Being able to buy public policy affects a polity in many ways. It tends to make policy reflect the short term interests of those who can make the purchase at the expense of others. It affects trust levels since even if the policy is aimed at the common good, the citizenry will suspect the motives behind the decisions that generate any policy. Once the belief that policy choices are up for bidding, then the job of governance by those in positions of power will be that more difficult, and reliance on coercive means will tend to become more the mode of ruling. So, with this in mind: What constitutes bribery? And is bribery different from political donations? Some claim the difference is miniscule – a hair's breadth of difference. I want to address this difference in upcoming postings. I want to describe how such a small difference has allowed people of means to have what some describe as undue influence over those who determine public policy. And while there is influence directed by those with money over those with political authority, those who have political authority also engage in practices that at times can exert undue influence over those who make political donations. Here, in this posting, I want to more or less introduce this topic.

Let me begin by stating what to many has become obvious: money, always the lubricant of politics, has become even more of an issue as the gap between the rich and the not so rich has grown over the last several decades or so. Dave Meslin, in a Ted Talks production,¹ addresses the belief that citizens of prosperous democracies tend to become selfish, stupid, and lazy. He rejects this belief and points out that the reason many citizens choose to be uninvolved in the political processes of the nation or even of the locality in which they live is because prevailing practices by governments or other political entities set up obstacles to such involvement. He lists seven obstacles and explains them. I want to focus on the second one he mentions and labels “public space.” Here, the point is that in order to be able to engage in meaningful political speech, speech that can compete with speech of those who can purchase large quantities of public space, in the form, for example, of advertising space, one needs a significant number of financial resources. In addition, this obstacle takes the form of having direct access to political decision-makers, in the form of lobbying efforts, which also call for enormous amounts of money. This, in effect, results in regular folks, as they attempt to compete against monied interests, having almost insurmountable disadvantages systemically placed against them.

So, due to this imbalance, a system has evolved in our nation, not by necessarily evil people, but by engaged people who have definite political goals and who also have the use of big bankrolls to pursue those goals. This system entails a definite process, not one of “bribing” public officials, per se, but of well-heeled political participants making political donations to those politicians or political parties that “see” things as they do.

Again, none of this is new. Probably the most famous effort to overcome this obstacle occurred during the Progressive period. During the beginning of the twentieth century, due to the enormous wealth of industrial corporations, public policy developed not to advance the interests of the people, but to almost solely advance that of the monied class – the industrialists. The citizenry became so disgusted that it began electing into office, from local to national, politicians that became known as Progressives. Probably the most famous was the Republican, Theodore Roosevelt, although the Progressives came from both major parties – Democrat Woodrow Wilson was also a Progressive – and from a variety of interest groups. “Yet,” as Lawrence Lessig writes of that time, “one common thread that united these different strands of reform was the recognition that democratic government in America had been captured.”² Today, as if on cue with the conditions of almost exactly a century ago, we again face the challenge of tackling a form of widespread corruption – a corruption born of a mutual, reciprocating relationship between those with money or access to money and policymakers.

There are differences today. To begin with, the nature of the public space has changed. That change has been the product of technology, as in the case of mass media and social media. As a result, monied interests have far reaching means to get their speech out there. They have the resources to make sure their speech is professionally produced and, as a result, more convincing and effective. And, in addition, we have a degree of banality on two levels: one, a certain enabling by the citizenry that has allowed an economy of dependency between the monied and the politicians to form – perhaps as a result of the changes during the last century – and, two, the nature of the goals many of the monied players seek. That is, they seek to have policy that gives them increased income they cannot attain under market conditions – for example, as in the case of special tax loopholes or subsidies. We call these attempts “seeking rents.”

This corruption – and it is a form of corruption – is mostly legal.³ There is no, for the most part, concrete quid pro quo: something, money, for something else, favorable votes in a legislature, for example. Instead, the system at work operates from understandings between the givers and the receivers. These understandings take the form of, to various degrees, vague expectations and tend to be created, nurtured, and maintained over time. It is a gift economy that has evolved. It is made up of no specific demands, but a relational understanding that is dependent on continued support by policy decisions that are favorable to those who furnish the resources.

All this is usually quite legal. Yes, it is a hair's breadth of difference between this practice and out and out bribery, but it is a difference nonetheless – of significant importance.

1See the Internet site: http://www.ted.com/talks/dave_meslin_the_antidote_to_apathy.html .

2Lessig, L. (2011). Republic lost: How money corrupts Congress – and a plan to stop it. New York, NY: Twelve, Hatchette Book Group. Quotation on p. 5. Many of the ideas in this posting originate with Lessig's work.

3Sometimes it is illegal as some participants have crossed the line. People have gone to prison.

CONVOLUTED DIVISION

As I reviewed the state of civics education and of social studies education earlier in this blog, I mentioned the internal debate within this professional area. That is, there has been a debate in which some practitioners have promoted a curricular position known as critical theory and another one promoting the curricular position I have called natural rights construct. In addition, there are other views. In some states, for instance, there has been a renewed interest in what educators call social reproduction. This third position has been ostensibly incorporated by the natural rights proponents, but really is more of a traditional position. This latter curricular construct champions a social studies' role that encourages patriotism and loyalty toward our political system. Following this curricular thought, social studies content would include celebratory material of our political history. It emphasizes those stories that reflect the glorious events in which Americans, both the leaders and exceptional citizens, have demonstrated heroic efforts to advance a democratic agenda. The aim is to instill those aspects of our cultural heritage that are seen as worthy of being incorporated by our young students and necessary in order to maintain or even increase levels of patriotism among our citizens. The goal is to encourage the development of good citizenship through some form of admiration, if not worship, of the sacrifices and other heroic actions of those who have come before us. In general, the reproductive approach, in its more extreme form, is akin to nationalism – a belief that can be summed up by the cry, “My country, right or wrong, my country.”¹

I write that this perspective has been somewhat accepted by natural rights advocates but, let me add, I believe that that acceptance is more out of convenience. In theory, natural rights advocates should be antagonistic to this more traditional view because those who want to instill an unquestioning devotion for the American system, as the traditionalists favor, are arguing for instilling values. As such, natural rights advocates should see such efforts as trying to deny or circumvent the process by which students would develop their own value orientation. In the extreme, traditional approach would deny students their liberty to choose their beliefs by having them be subject to a type of indoctrination. If this is true, why would natural rights advocates be amenable to accepting this approach? They are because, at a time when reform is in the air, the alternative source for reform would be those promoted by critical theorists. Quite frankly, reforms offered by traditionalists are a far better option to prevailing, in-field educators than those offered by educators who are, to varying degrees, influenced by Marxist ideals. And, due to the language that is used by traditionalists, it is easier for the natural rights advocates to manipulate the efforts of the traditionalists than it would be of the critical theorists. Let me give you an example.

Early in my teaching career in Florida, I was mandated to teach, by state law, a course called “Americanism vs. Communism.” This course was conceived in the mode of traditional thought. To quote the 1961 law: “The course shall lay particular emphasis upon the dangers of communism, the ways to fight communism, the evils of communism, the fallacies of communism, and the false doctrines of communism.” The law went on to state that instruction should emphasize “the free enterprise – competitive economy of the United States of America as the one which produces higher wages, higher standards of living, greater personal freedom and liberty than any other system of the economies on earth.” And yet, because of the way the course was taught, it fell far short of the aims held by the authors of the law. In my school, we used a text produced by Time-Life corporation which gave a fairly honest and well-balanced explanation of Marxism. This ideology was not presented as some sinister theory that aimed at depriving freedom from people, but as a view that reacted to conditions that existed in industrial economies in the late 1800s before the more tempering public policies, such as programs like the New Deal, had taken effect. Students, by and large, were encouraged to view socialism as perhaps an extreme answer to very real problems and that the true enemies of liberty and democracies were the totalitarian policies of such leaders as Stalin and the other leaders in the Kremlin. The material gave ample legitimate, historical evidence to back up its claims. I am not saying that the material promoted socialism, far from it, but it did encourage a more balanced view than the indoctrinating effort I believe the law envisioned when it was written.

Basically, the educators who were called on to put this law into effect were influenced by natural rights beliefs. The reason natural rights educators could pull off this switch is because the language that traditionalists used had been somewhat vague. Face it: while the law is fairly straightforward as to its aim, it has to use the language of democracy. After all, the danger the law claimed to address was the threat communism posed to democratic governance. So that language opens the door to an approach in which one can claim democratic approaches call for entertaining all points of view and that includes the views of the extreme left. So, a course that in effect puts the language of the law into operation can very easily follow a strategy that has students investigate, from a more open process, the tenets of Marxism, the history of its development, its turn toward totalitarianism, and the course of the Cold War. In such an approach, the course of study can be far from an indoctrination and actually be a course that is interesting and fun to teach and to take.

On the other hand, critical theorists push for a curriculum that is open-ended to begin with, but they push their aims not by spelling out a set of content, as in the case described above. Instead, they concentrate on questions that would guide what they want students to consider and investigate. These questions are aimed at having students look into those aspects of our polity, society, and economy that “exploit” the lower classes. I write the word, exploit, in quotes because exploitation is defined by them in Marxian terms; that is, exploitation occurs when economic results have the wealth and income of upper classes grow faster than those of other classes. Those who are on the short end of such a comparison, according to this view, are being exploited. Critical theorists, who see class conditions in this way, are fairly clear in their bias and they easily see that the questions that should be addressed are those that almost exclusively identify, investigate, and explain those incidences of exploitation.

Where do teachers fall in this divide? Let me refine what constitutes the divide. The divide, when seen as that between traditionalists, those who favor social reproduction and cultural heritage, and critical theorists, those who favor social reconstruction, have teachers expressing a definite view. They express overwhelmingly consistent antagonism for the critical position. Kathleen Hall Jamieson reports the following:

Evidence from a 2010 survey of social studies teachers … a random sample of 866 public high school teachers and an oversample of 245 Catholic and private high school instructors, 83 percent viewed the United States “as a unique country that stands for something special in the world”; 82 percent thought pupils should be taught to “respect and appreciate their country but know its shortcomings”; and only 1 percent wanted students to learn “that the U.S. is a fundamentally flawed country”.²

They overwhelmingly see the US as basically a good place but are not shy in having students question the extent of that goodness. They entertain such events and conditions that demonstrate the flaws the nations should address. And they see that fundamentally, as opposed to Marxist, the nation is not a flawed country. I believe these findings are a justification for a claim I made early on in this blog. That is, teachers by and large are advocates of the natural rights position. This is not for many of them a reflected choice, but one in which they adopt the biases of the prevailing political culture of the US and of the institutional culture of most schools. It is this background or context that make manipulation of traditional language possible and likely to continue. Also, there is no “danger” of critical theorists having much influence over what is taught in our schools.

1Perhaps this is an overstatement, but there those believers in nationalism who would advance a curricular position that I am describing as traditionalist.

2Jamieson, K. H. (2013). The challenges facing civic education. Daedalus: Journal of the American academy of arts and sciences, 142 (2), Spring, p.70. Emphasis added. The research referred to in the quote was published in 2010 and conducted by Hess,Schmidt, Miller, and Schuette in a publication published by American Enterprise Institute.

RIDERLESS HORSE

I was in Brother Malachy's English class at La Salle High School in Miami. Some time after lunch, I was probably thinking of the upcoming weekend when the first word came. That weekend would start a bit earlier as my school let us go home upon hearing of President Kennedy's death. So began that weekend that extended through Monday as my school somehow obtained enough TVs so that we could all see and hear the events of the funeral that culminated at Arlington Cemetery. And with that, we were focused on one presidential role that is often glossed over or downright ignored. That is the role of head of state – our ceremonial representative who personifies us as a people. When our head of state dies, probably more so when he is willfully killed, we all become somehow less; we all grieve over our loss.

There were many issues that vied for this space today. Probably the change in the Senate's rule concerning the filibuster would have won out. But I could not let this posting pass without commenting on the 50^th anniversary of the assassination. That is all you need to say, the assassination, to know the reference even though there have been others of notable importance since then. Perhaps its importance lies in the fact that our lives as Americans seem to have begun to so drastically change since then. I will not go on about it – who am I? For all of you who were alive back on that fall day in 1963, I'm sure you have your own memories and emotions as valid as any expressed in any media. I have nothing to add of note. But one cannot just go through today as if that day, this date, is like any other – it's not. So a moment of reflection, of recollection, of respect, is well in order. As you go about your business today, look around at your fellow citizens and know that today is one of those days for collective recognition of our common fate. We are a people, after all.