MOSTLY DREARY

Jonah Goldberg provides a way to see societal morality that might sound foreign to some readers.  Here is his take:

What societies decide is right or wrong becomes what is right and wrong for most of the people who live in them.  But I think the lessons of history show that societies can choose poorly – and that this can be proved empirically through facts and reason.  Some cultures are better than others, not because of some gauzy metaphysical claim, but because they allow more people to live happy, prosperous, meaningful lives without harming other people in the processes.  Because this is true, it is incumbent upon all of us to fight for a better society, to defend the hard-learned lessons of human history, and to be grateful for what we have accomplished.[1]

This conservative author goes on to point out that what one would consider a normal life – approaching the material well-being one can find in advanced nations like the US – is a relatively modern development.  At best, according to Goldberg, one can only go back just over three hundred years before any humans began to appreciably improve their state of being.

          Civics educators don’t need to agree with Goldberg, but they are immeasurably helped by becoming knowledgeable of what Goldberg is getting at.  He proposes an argument that, if at all reasonable, should affect how a civics teacher sees his/her subject matter.  This blog wants to review his argument for this purpose – to encourage that sort of reflection on the part of those teachers.

          Goldberg first couches his view against the total history[2] of human existence.  One would think that such a context would take hundreds and hundreds of pages, but it does not.  Why?  Because most of that history – he claims homo sapiens have a history of over 250,000 years – can be viewed as a recurring story.  That is, humans have met with brutish conditions on an ongoing basis for just about all of that time.  “Semi-hairless, upright, nomadic apes foraging and fighting for food.  No change …”[3] over this extended period.  In other words, human existence – its natural state – was a Hobbesian one.

          And what is that?  He describes it as grinding poverty, horrific violence, and, for the individual, a short life.  The estimate is that average life span in pre civilized times was 35 years and that that brevity lasted way beyond the dawn of civilization.[4]  And he points out that such “advancements” such as agriculture did not improve things.  It, agriculture for example, limited diet choices and it introduced strenuous work regimens.  Yet today, things are different.  People live longer and work less strenuously to acquire significantly more enriching things, at least among people who luckily live in those advanced nations.  What happened?

          According to Goldberg, a “Miracle” happened.  The next posting will explain.

---

[1] Jonah Goldberg, Suicide of the West:  How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy (New York, NY:  Crown Forum, 2018), 5 (Kindle edition).

[2] The term history here is not limited to written history, but the whole past of human existence on the planet.

[3] Ibid., 6 (Kindle edition).

[4] “Medicine and Health,” Stratford Hall, n.d., accessed May 30, 2019, http://www.stratfordhall.org/educational-resources/teacher-resources/medicine-health/ .  Estimates vary, but one needs to remember the prevalence of disease.

AIMING TOWARD GOODNESS

In the last posting, this blog introduced the ideas of Jonah Goldberg.[1]  In a few words, that posting identified Goldberg’s initial arguments of a foundational construct; a construct that in his cited work reviews a rationale for a conservative view of politics.  Here, this posting is interested in datum, the description of reality he uses to build toward his conclusions.  This posting’s writer agrees with Goldberg’s view of what is without promoting his political prescriptions.

          To this point, this blog reported Goldberg’s criteria – in the form of a mental construct – for what a “good” society is: 

a practical, public construct allows for more people to live happy, prosperous, meaningful lives without harming others in their pursuits of these aims; and that the construct should call on the members of the community or collective to fulfill a duty, to be engaged in this pursuit.

This general aim does not call on a society to fulfill a religious or philosophic view of goodness or for it to live out some historically mandated development. 

Instead, it is a day-to-day perspective in which a people live by a practical moral sense of how humans, making up that society, muddle through challenges; how they make the best of life.  What this blog finds most agreeable is that Goldberg argues that this is not the sole responsibility of leaders – be they secular or sectarian – but the responsibility of the whole societal population.  And since, by lack of a mandate, there is no a priori authority to accomplish this basic responsibility, all citizens have a role, the role of an equal partner. 

          What this blog now demands from Goldberg – in order accept his view – is for him to provide a believable sense that this is possible.  Can human society, within itself, behave in such a way that meaningful advances can (and perhaps has) occurred in approaching that ideal.  Once people have discovered this practical view, have they acted, behaved, or conducted their affairs by learning from their experiences?

          Do they, in other words, find it natural to reflect from what they experience, draw reasonable lessons from those experiences, and be able to sufficiently keep in check counterproductive emotions that can block one from seeing objective reality.  This, in turn, begs the question:  can humans, by the limitations of their nature, learn what they need to learn in order to promote a population that meets the above, Goldberg criteria? 

Not only is this blog interested in this question for general purposes – what is human nature? – but the true answer goes a long way in determining what civics education should be about.  Earlier in this blog, the topic of human nature was addressed.  A posting cited the work of Gary Wills and his analysis of how the term unalienable – or inalienable as stated in the Declaration of Independence – is used by the founding generation.  That usage is relevant to this current concern.

The founders believed that if a trait was part of one’s nature, it could not be taken away.  It was, therefore, unalienable.  And what, according to them, marked or described that nature?  Here is what that earlier posting shared of Wills’ writing about the inalienable rights of life and liberty:

[Francis] Hutcheson [Scottish political writer of the 1700s] then divides rights into perfect and imperfect.  The perfect, as essential to the public good, can be defended even with private force.  The first example he gives is the right to life.  The basis of the societal bond is benevolence, and no society can undermine its own fundamental value.  Yet security in the possession of life is not only the basis for all goods one can bestow on others; it is, more important, the necessary precondition for doing good – no man can be benevolent unless he is first alive…

          He asserts the right of liberty on similar grounds:  “As nature has implanted in each man a desire of his own happiness and many tender affections toward others in some nearer relations of life, and granted to each one some understanding and active powers, with a natural right exercise them for the purpose of these natural affections, it is plain each one has a natural right to exert his powers, according to his own judgment and inclination, for these purposes, in all such industry, labor, or amusements as are not hurtful to others in their persons or goods, while no more public interests necessarily require his labors or require that his actions should be under the direction of others.  This right we call natural liberty.[2]

The message, then, is humans are naturally capable of being benevolent, at least according to this strain of thought.  In addition, societies must afford this natural tendency an outlet in order to allow its citizens the necessary mechanism by which to progress.  As such, it cannot be given or taken away; i.e., it is inalienable.

Is that true?  If so, Goldberg’s aim should not be difficult to achieve.  Yet, history has ample examples that benevolence does not seem to be the fallback mode of most people’s behavior.  Ask any parent and he/she will attest that teaching their children to exhibit “good,” benevolent behavior is a challenge in and of itself.

          So, what follows will be reviewing Goldberg’s answer to this question.  Despite his initial tone of positivity, what will follow brings to question Hutchinson’s positive take on how humans want to behave in their natural state.

---

[1] Jonah Goldberg, Suicide of the West:  How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy (New York, NY:  Crown Forum, 2018).

[2] Gary Wills, Inventing America:  Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (New York, NY:  Vintage Books, 1978/2018), 216-217.  Emphasis in the original.

THE PRACTICAL

This blog, at its core, argues for a moral approach toward civics education.  In that respect, it has identified two social qualities that facilitate the moral sense the blog favors; that is, social capital and civic humanism.  In summary, these qualities are related to citizens engaging with their fellow citizens to design and implement public policies aimed at achieving the common good.  They call for a commitment from citizens to place their personal interests in line with the common good or, at least, not to be aligned against it.

          As such, these are qualities focus on how good citizens should conduct their individual affairs or their individual behaviors, at least as they pertain to civic related interactions with others.  But how about what is moral at the societal level?  This writer has been in search of an overarching answer to this question.  Surely there are numerous views on this and they, in turn, reflect philosophic/religious constructs.  Also, they can be aligned according to political ideologies.

          From the middle ages through the 1600s, the Western world chose religion to define moral questions – including those societal concerns such as a people’s governance, their economics, and their social institutions such as marriage.  This proved unsustainable.  With the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, religion proved too divisive for a nation to maintain essential domestic and international harmony and peace.  Spain, for example, went bankrupt fighting religious battles against Protestant forces.

          One sees the eventual acceptance of a secular moral approach with various developments, not the least being the US Constitution.  That document only mentions religion in the first amendment prohibiting the establishment of a religion by the public authorities or public policy prohibiting religious practices.  As with other rights in the document, these are not unlimited rights, but subject to reasonable restrictions.[1]  Ultimately, what is considered reasonable will be based on secular arguments, not religious ones.

          In this writer’s search, he has hit upon the arguments of a conservative writer, Jonah Goldberg.[2]  While this blog has avoided taking sides on domestic politics, Goldberg’s arguments do have various angles to them.  He offers positions that can be both acceptable to liberals and conservatives. 

In so far as this is true, this blog will begin a review Goldberg’s foundational argument.  It will first present a portion of his take on human nature and follow that up with a critique as to what this conservative proposes.  This short posting offers his first observational comments – the beginning of his datum statements or “where as …” statements.

          He begins by reporting, as demonstrated above with the religious reference, that history indicates there are no metaphysical basis for the good that, in turn, can be used to form and maintain a moral sense of the good.  Instead, a notion of the good, to be proficient, is the product of practical choices.  They are practical in that people or societies derive them by their experiences – pretty much as the decision to drop religion as the source of such decisions.

          In so deciding, then, logic calls for a people to first determine a standard for determining the good.  In this, Goldberg is forced to take a minimal philosophic position.  That is, he imposes the following criteria:  a practical, public construct allows for more people to live happy, prosperous, meaningful lives without harming others in their pursuits of these aims; and that the construct should call on the members of the community or collective to fulfill a duty, to be engaged in this pursuit (similar to the aims of social capital and civic humanism).

          So, this is a view that does not seek to satisfy or placate a deity, fulfill a historical projection, or any other metaphysical mandate.  It merely aims at defining the good as those societal policies, actions, goals that advance this – what one might call – the common good. 

And the chief source for the needed information to pursue these aims is history.  Historical experiences become the main body of information a people use to determine what is prudent.  Yes, other sources – such as scientific information or philosophic analyses – can supplement significantly, but history gives one the overall sense of what works.

          And to round off this initial report, Goldberg points out that some societies have been better at these pursuits than others.  And that ends this first segment of what Goldberg is arguing.  The next posting will not only argue in agreement with him but also offer some other ideas to this basic view.

---

[1] For example, there have been attempts in South Florida to restrict or eliminate animal sacrifices – rites associated with Santeria.  Overall, they are allowed, but the legal question made it to the Supreme Court.  Obviously or perhaps surely, if the rite of a religion called on human sacrifice, that would not be allowed and, therefore, such a prohibition restricts this right.

[2] Jonah Goldberg, Suicide of the West:  How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy (New York, NY:  Crown Forum, 2018).

AND THEN THERE IS LAW-ABIDING BEHAVIOR, PART II

[Note:  this posting marks an end of a series of posting in which the writer provided updated information relating to the question of how effective civics education has been in the US.]

The last posting looked at the last of the elements this blog has identified as being those social characteristics composing what one can call good citizenship.  Those characteristics include being civically literate, politically engaged, being disposed toward engagement, becoming skillful in that engagement, civility, and, the last one, being disposed and exemplifying law-abiding behavior.  In terms of the last element, the previous posting pointed out that while overall crime rates have dramatically decreased in the last several decades, not all is well in this regard.

That is, while overall crime rates have been reduced, the US is still the leading nation in terms of incarcerated citizens and residents and has the highest crime rates when compared to other countries (the reader is invited to look up that posting to see the evidence for these claims). 

To continue this account, this posting begins by pointing out that there has also sprung up criminal activity in certain areas since the nineties.  One such area, for example, is the institution of dispersion and selling systems of heroin to many Americans addicted to opioids.  A good deal of this activity has been initiated by Mexican drug dealers but took advantage of demand that already existed among many Americans. 

They – the Mexicans – devised effective, on-demand distribution arrangements in numerous communities around the US.  Their customers are not inner-city junkies, as the heroin trade of old was and found in major urban centers, but among, in many cases, middle class whites who have gotten themselves hooked on opioids.

Oftentimes, these middle-class customers became addicted after they were exposed to some chronic pain management protocol under the supervision of legitimate doctors.  A lot of this, in turn, was based on an underestimation of the addictive quality of the drugs prescribed and aggressive drug company strategies in marketing opiates.  Once hooked, these people became desperate to find cheaper and unlimited supplies of a substitute drug – heroin, a type of opioid – to satisfy their cravings.[1] 

While this account finds the plight of these people highly regrettable, it nonetheless judges their behavior and many others who are involved as illegal.  The growth of this legal problem reflects the lack of support current American society offers to such unfortunate individuals.

A telling incident is described by the journalist Sam Quinones when the number of such addicted individuals came to light in a New Mexican region called Chimayo.  He writes:

That night, Kuydendall [a federal DEA agent] walked into the Rancho de Chimayo restaurant, and was startled to see congressmen, judges, the head of the New Mexico State Police, and city councilman, along with Bruce Richardson, the board of the Chimayo crime prevention group.

          “You have done nothing,” Richardson told the officials that night.

          He brought forward a large pickle jar filled with used syringes.  The public officials gave the what Kuykendall considered elected-officials responses, appeasing no one.

          He drove home to Albuquerque that night.  The politicians’ presence told him that they knew things were bad.  He had always told younger agents to focus on the biggest dealer wherever they were stationed.  That dealer may not be Pablo Escobar, he would say, but the biggest dealer in a small town is still a problem in that town.[2]

The sense this writer gathers from this short excerpt is that the problem of heroin consumption had time to start and get started before this reaction took place.  Also, that the citizens described took on a consumer of government services orientation toward the elected officials – how are they, the politicians, going to fix the problem, with little to no expression of how “we” will fix the problem.

All of this developed under the purview of these effected communities, but they were slow to respond to the tragedy these cases represented.  More interactive communities, it is believed here, would have been more apt to discover and find solutions or ameliorations to the resulting opioid crisis.  But that full story is for another venue.

As for the bigger picture, one can see criminality as a degree of incivility.  This account has identified the lack of civility in American society as a definite social problem.  It is hard to determine whether, by historical standards, it is more acute today.  It could be that today's civics educators have not done any worse on this score than those of past years and, of course, this blog does not place total blame for these conditions on civics educators.  But, irrespective of how relatively severe the problem is today, the nation’s civics educators should address it.

And that effort should not address it as merely one other topic, but as a concern central to the mission of civics education. 

One can make a further point to those who do not see this issue as being serious as depicted here.  Those who cite, in order to down grade the issue, that a lot the problem is due to over-zealous policy of adjudicating minor drug sellers, one should know other crimes are downplayed.  Oftentimes, what has been dismissed as just cultural proclivities – yet harmful to some population of victims – are best handled in some informal ways.

In recent years, news services have told the nation, for example, of how many under reported and under addressed cases of sexual abuse there have been.  In many instances, those in authority ignore or do not suitably address such abuse against predominantly women in the military, college campuses, and in some industries such as in show business.  Such incidents have sparked the “Me Too” movement among feminist groups.

This account does not make a claim as to whether such under or non-reporting of such crimes outnumber cases of long prison sentences for drug crimes.  But it does recognize that people in the nation are not readily going to jail and prison for legal behaviors – those behind bars in the overwhelming number of cases did break the law. 

Before leaving this issue of criminality and incivility, one should acknowledge the degree to which one sees unreported incidents of racism and anti-Semitism.  They also are being under reported whether the incidents are within or outside the law.  These two examples of less than ideal attitudes or lack of respect for fellow citizens have an ugly history in the nation.  They deserve more comment than what is being given here.

The nation has made significant advances in eliminating these dispositions, but – and this particularly refers to racism – there are still incidents of their occurrence that lead to tragic results.  Since roughly 2015, the nation has become conscious of unspeakable incidents in which unarmed, African American suspects have been seriously injured or killed by those in authority under highly questionable circumstances. 

Other types of examples frequently make the headlines.  There have been mass killings in churches, synagogues, and schools where multiple victims were senselessly shot and even killed.  While naturally most Americans do not engage in such behaviors and most overt racist or otherwise motivated deranged acts do not occur in everyday life, the level of occurrence and their antisocial quality indicate that below the surface, many Americans do harbor racist beliefs and values. 

A more recent event was the hate inspired demonstrations in Charlottesville, Virginia that resulted in the death of a young woman as a white supremacist – as shown on the news tape – drove his car into a group of counter demonstrators.  Yes, such cases are complex and controversial, but the number of cases cannot avoid being a source of supportive evidence for the conclusion that there do exist racist or other prejudicial attitudes among the populous to significant degrees. 

This needs to be addressed in civics classrooms.  But isn’t the current youth population that is made up of millennials exhibiting more positive behaviors, more positive attitudes and values?  Recently a USA Today article questioned this recent, popular notion; i.e., that today’s youth are more communally oriented and civic minded.  The article debunks this and reports they are not.

Online, this writer looked up the academic review study upon which the USA Today article is based.  He found an abstract for that study; it is reported in an article published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.[3]  The article reviews three studies in which three generations of citizens were analyzed regarding their reported goals.

Specifically, the goals related to “extrinsic” values such as money and image, “intrinsic” values such as self-acceptance and community, concern for others such as expressed through empathy and charitable donations, civic orientation such as interest in social problems, political participation, and community service. 

Other than community service, which has become a graduation requirement in many secondary high school programs, the Gen X generation (born 1962-1981) and the Millennials (born after 1982) demonstrated declines in these characteristics as compared to Baby Boomers (born 1946-1961). 

This further provides evidence that among the nation’s youth there is a serious lack of social capital as defined by Robert Putnam.  To remind the reader, 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.[4]  Central to this blog’s argument advocating a change in the ongoing approach to civics education are the lack of communal attitudes and behaviors among the American young. 

In summary, therefore, the belief in a need for changes in civics classrooms is highly warranted.  The current efforts in civics education are judged here as deficient in terms of imparting civic knowledge or civic literacy, skills in attaining knowledge, skills in political engagement, dispositions supporting political engagement, dispositions toward formulating reasonable and defensible positions concerning governmental issues, and adequate levels of desire toward maintaining civility and law-abiding behavior. 

As an educational institution, schools are woefully deficient as far as these important areas of social interactions are concerned; that is, they are not doing sufficiently well in civics education.  And with that this review and updating of how effective American schools perform the responsibilities regarding civics comes to an end.

---

[1] Sam Quinones, Dreamland:  The True Tale of America’s Opiate Epidemic (New York, NY:  Bloomsburt Publishing, 2015).

[2] Ibid., 150-151 (Kindle edition).

[3] Jean M. Twenge, W. Keith Campbell, and Elise C. Freeman, “Generational Differences in Young Adults' Life Goals, Concern for Others, and Civic Orientation, 1966-2009,” Originally in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, March 5, 2012, accessed on PDF cite, May 16, 2019, https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-102-5-1045.pdf .

[4] Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000).

AND THEN THERE IS LAW-ABIDING BEHAVIOR

[Note:  This posting, the previous several postings, and at least the one to follow are a restatement of what has been addressed previously in this blog.  Some of the sentences to come have been provided before but the concern is that other information has been discovered and an update seems appropriate.  The blog has not changed the overall message – that civics education is seriously deficient – but some of the evidence supporting that message needs updating.]

In this review, reporting on the effectiveness of civics education in American classrooms, there is one last measure to consider:  rates of criminality.  Civics education, if successful, should lead to a populace that is noted for its law-abiding behavior.  One of this nation’s chief constitutional principles is justice under the rule of law.  Civics should promote obeying the law.

Yes, one should engage in determining what laws should be passed by our legislatures but, once passed, the laws should be obeyed.  One can cite instances when it is good and just to engage in civil disobedience on rare occasions but even then, such acts need to be justified and the participants need to be willing to accept the consequences of those acts including jail time.

The last posting addressed this issue in its description of extreme politics.  This blog argues that when injustices are the issue, then citizens are addressing the basic condition under which the partnership agreement, the Constitution, is being abused or threatened.  Then, and only then, are extreme politics in order.  But other than that, one should seek compromise and understand that being in a partnership, within the bounds of the foundational agreement, consists of give and take.  And that process should obey the ground rules; i.e., the law. 

Why anyone would disobey the law can be complicated.  Reasons can range from the level of severity of the offense – e.g., speeding a bit over the limit on an expressway might not be considered criminal behavior – to the economic realities in which an offender might find him/herself – being deprived of necessities can be a strong motivator.  Some might see these types of conditions as excuses; others see them as explanations.  Yet others might argue that citing these conditions are only rationalizations. 

Regardless, the point here is that by and large, one should obey the law.  But with any kind of factor one might think acceptable in justifying the breaking of the law, one should remember that these conditions generally exist everywhere.  Poverty, in many places much more extreme than here, exists everywhere.  Mental illness exists everywhere.  Dysfunctional families exist everywhere, and so on ...

Therefore, if one looks at comparative statistics about lawlessness among countries, the information should give one at least a sense of how well this nation lives by the axiom:  one should obey the law.  In turn, the information should also give one a sense of how well the nation’s schools are educating its populace in civics and civic behavior as they relate to this concern.

To start, the US has over 7.3 million people in prisons.  It has 5% of the world's population but has 25% of the world's prison population.[1]  Comparing the US to a nation with which it shares many cultural values, the United Kingdom has 150 out of 100,000 people in prison.  The US has 686 out of 100,000 people detained.[2]  

While many factors contribute to any comparison, such as a government's ability to prosecute its laws, its levels of contributing factors, such as poverty, or over prosecution and punishment for minor crimes – e.g., drug related prosecution – the US does not fare well in comparisons regarding criminality.  But one might point out, as the media has recently, that a lot of this incarceration is the result of over-zealous laws concerning drugs. 

One good bit of information on this front is a lowering crime rate.  For example, the rate of victims per 1,000 population has dropped in the US from 51.7 in 1979 to 15 in 2010.[3]  Yet before one celebrates, there are other relevant numbers. 

Another statistical site offers the following:  Total persons brought into formal contact with the police and/or criminal justice system, all crimes in 2011 (top ten nations)

United States         12,408,899 with a population of 322 million (38.58 per 1,000)

Germany     2,112,843 with a population of 81 million (26.08 per 1,000)

France                   1,172,547 with a population of 67 million (17.5 per 1,000)

Russian Fed.         1,041,340 with a population of 147 million (7.08 per 1,000)

Italy            900,870 with a population of 61 million (14.77 per 1,000)

Canada                 688,920 with a population of 36 million (19.14 per 1,000)

Chile           611,322 with a population of 18 million (33.96 per 1,000)

Poland                  521,942 with a population of 38 million (13.74 per 1,000)

Spain          377,965 with a population of 46 million (8.22 per 1,000)

Netherlands 372,305 with a population of 17 million (21.9 per 1,000)[4]

Whether one is looking at total numbers or rates, the US does not fare well when compared to other countries.  There is no reason to believe the intervening years – since 2011 – have meaningfully altered this listing.

One should keep in mind that the above listed countries vary in terms of reported freedom as opposed to repression.  Whether a nation is ruled by a liberal regime as opposed to an authoritarian regime is relevant to how levels of criminality are measured, and policing is administered.  So, while these other countries might or might not have as extensive a list of drug laws, the US beats them all in terms of its crime rate.

The closest country in terms of rate is Chile.  Chile, a Latin-American country, exemplifies what Daniel Elazar describes as having a culture that harbors an anarchistic individualism.[5] This account can only speculate as to the explanatory value of such an observation.  This blog argues that the US started out with a more federalist sense of individualism, one that “recognized the subtle bonds of partnership linking individuals even as they preserve their individual integrities...”[6] 

It also argues that the US, especially since World War II, has abandoned a federalist view, at least as a prominent perspective of governance and politics, and has shifted to a natural rights view.  This latter construct is noted for its individualism.  These numbers are but one indicator of how far that shift has made itself known.

The next posting will end this updating series of postings on the effectiveness of the nation's current efforts in civics education.

---

[1] “Study:  7.3 Million in U. S. Prison System in ’07,” CNN news, March 2, 2009, accessed May 15, 2019, http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/02/record.prison.population/.

[2] Roy Walmsley, “World Prison List,” World Prison Brief, n. d., accessed May 16, 2019, http://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/world_prison_population_list_11th_edition_0.pdf .

[3] “Crime Rates in US over Time,” Google Search, n. d., accessed May 16, 2019, https://www.google.com/search?q=crime+rates+in+US+over+time&espv=2&biw=1093&bih=514&tbm=isch&imgil=P4g2P-obB-jlRM%253A%253BcPni19546Kal8M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.gallup.com%25252Fpoll%25252F150464%25252Famericans-believe-crime-worsening.aspx&source=iu&pf=m&fir=P4g2P-obB-jlRM%253A%252CcPni19546Kal8M%252C_&usg=__zxIEm18APlIHiED8D3gsYadxZL4%3D&ved=0CCcQyjdqFQoTCJeJut67-ccCFcY8PgodmAwJGA&ei=NUj4VdeaD8b5-AGYmaTAAQ#imgrc=P4g2P-obB-jlRM%3A&usg=__zxIEm18APlIHiED8D3gsYadxZL4%3D .  Of course, this reflects reported crime events.  Whether people in general are more prone to report crime is an interesting question.  I do not know the answer to that question.  There is an array of statistical information readily available supporting this overall picture of a falling crime rate.  Such information in form of charts and other statistical information can be seen by accessing Google Search, crime, charts and statistics.

[4] “Top Ten Countries with Highest Reported Crime Rates,” Maps of the World, n. d., accessed May 16, 2019, www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html .

[5] Daniel J. Elazar, “How Federal Is the Constitution? Thoroughly,” in a booklet of readings, Readings for Classes Taught by Professor Elazar, prepared for a National Endowment for the Humanities Institute (conducted in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, 1994), 1-30.

[6] Ibid., 10-11.

POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE AND CIVIC CIVILITY

[Note:  This posting, the previous several postings, and at least the one to follow are a restatement of what has been addressed previously in this blog.  Some of the sentences to come have been provided before but the concern is that other information has been discovered and an update seems appropriate.  The blog has not changed the overall message – that civics education is seriously deficient – but some of the evidence supporting that message needs updating.]

With the speculative wandering of the last posting stated, next a more targeted view is offered.  This posting combines two measures of how effective our civics instruction is.  The two are levels of political knowledge and social capital.  This blog finds it useful to again revisit this factor, political knowledge. 

Earlier, this blog reported on the findings of the National Association of Secretaries of State and its conclusion that young people “lack any real understanding of citizenship…information and understanding about the democratic process…and information about candidates and political parties.”[1]  But there are different spins among academic findings regarding the level of knowledge and engagement that American citizens, including the young, have.  One finds a good dose of nuance in what is reported.

For example, Robert D. Putnam found in his review of relevant research that except for voting, American rates of political engagement are high compared to other democracies.[2]  Even in terms of how much people know about politics, both in terms of information and skills, the National Center of Educational Statistics – the IEA study – found US levels among adolescents were high when compared to twenty-seven other nations.[3]

Globally, Ronald Inglehart found increased levels of participation in political activities by those who live in industrial and post-industrial societies.[4]  While earlier cited research studies are more recent – these studies offering this nuance spin have some age to them – one should keep their message in mind.  For one thing, the nature of involvement changes as is the case with the use of social media.  Also, political ideologies around the world view engagement very differently and many do not even hold it up as desirable.

It has also changed from those type of activities this writer was taught when he was in civics and government classes at school.  For example, the earlier cited writer, Charles Euchner, argues that American participation in politics has become, in many instances, unconventional.  Reminding the reader, he names this form of participation as “extraordinary politics.”

Euchner posits that traditional forms of political involvement, such as discussing politics with one’s neighbor, are disappearing.  Again, extraordinary politics are acts such as civil disobedience, demonstrations, boycotts, and creating or exhibiting subversive art and literature.  These activities can be very disruptive, and one can see the logical connection between extraordinary politics and civic incivility. 

An example was demonstrated by Cuban-Americans in Miami, Florida, back in the 1980s.  They mounted an organized car and truck caravan strategy in which they drove on the expressway at twenty miles an hour or slower to block traffic.  Their aim was to protest some government policy. 

These types of activities can be very divisive for a community.  In more recent years there have been “tea party” demonstrations and demonstrations over grand juries not indicting policeman for killing unarmed African-American men.  Many of these demonstrations were conducted in legitimate forms, yet some of them verged on disruptive behavior that at times promoted violence.  In the more extreme, they fall within what one can see as cases of civic incivility.  Why?  Because they tear at any likelihood of enhancing social capital.

One, of course, needs to be careful here.  Surely, many of the activities back in the 1960s and 1970s making up what later was considered the civil rights movement could easily be seen as falling under this rubric of extraordinary politics, yet, in retrospect, they were essential in the fight against bigotry, Jim Crow laws, and other practices of discrimination.  As such, they were legitimate and useful to advance federalist values.  Falling short of passing judgement on any specific protest, the concern here is that there is a propensity to readily employ disruptive tactics.

On the other hand, Putnam also reports that a lot of political “involvement” has become a matter of writing checks – “checkbook” engagement.  A person shows his or her support by making donations to a political party or a lobbying group.  For example, many older Americans write checks to the American Association for Retired Persons.  The problem is that such engagement substitutes donations for the person-to-person quality of more traditional forms of participation. 

In addition, it hands over to professionals the actual planning and implementation of political action.  Putnam reports that between 1973-74 and 1993-94, there was a 25% decrease in traditional activities such as volunteer work for a political party, community involvement activities, petition signing, running for office, attending local meetings, serving local organizations, writing articles, serving as a club officer, membership in improving government groups, etc.[5]  This more closely mirrors findings reported earlier in this blog.

As alluded to earlier in this blog, participation relies on knowledge and, in turn, adds to knowledge; that is, there is a mutually enhancing link between political participation and political knowledge.  The two have a reciprocal relationship, each strengthening the other.  Therefore, there is an obvious educational result from people gaining the knowledge that accrues from the experiences of actual political work. 

One is engaged in a dicey exercise when gauging how knowledgeable US students are or how knowledgeable their adult counterparts are.  One can give knowledge tests, but one might shortchange what political knowledge a person has by “missing” that knowledge in the questions one asks. 

This can particularly apply to knowledge gained from political participation.  Therefore, any generalization over what Americans know or do not know is speculative, at best.  What often goes unreported are the types of knowledge that stem from more day to day experiences:  the type of knowledge obtained on the streets.

A meaningful look that attempts to see how much Americans know about current conditions was conducted in another Pew Research Center study in 2014.[6] It found the following:

(Each entry below includes:  paraphrased versions of the survey questions, the percent of respondents getting the questions correct, and the correct answer)

·        What is the federal minimum wage?  73% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer in 2014:  $7.25.

·        In what nation does ISIS control territory?  67% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer in 2014:  Syria.

·        Ukraine was a part of what political entity?  60% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer:  USSR.

·        What is Common Core?  49% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer:  national educational standards.

·        What is the source of North Dakota’s economic boom?  46% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer:  oil.

·        In what country is there an outbreak of Ebola?  46% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer in 2014:  Liberia.

·        What is the name of Israel’s prime minister?  38% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer in 2014:  Netanyahu.

·        What is the current unemployment rate?  33% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer in 2014:  circa 6%.

·        In which country do Shiites outnumber Sunnis?  29% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer:  Iran.

·        Who is the chairperson of the Federal Reserve (FED)?  24% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer in 2014:  Yellen.

·        In which budget line item does the federal government spend most funds?  20% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer:  Social Security.

·        What portion of the US population is below the poverty line?  20% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer in 2014:  15%.

Is this a good or not so good level of political knowledge?  Are the questions reflective of useful political knowledge or are they random concerns that a person engaged or interested in politics and government might know or not know?  Whether these are useful questions about the political world one can only speculate.  One can ascertain that the state of our current politics and how general political issues are discussed and argued about, these questions seem to be relevant, at least in how the media portray contemporary issues. 

The above numbers are interesting.  Particularly distressful are the results on the questions concerning the unemployment rate, FED chairperson, government spending, and poverty line.  These questions reflect or are related to how well the nation is/was doing.  One would suppose that such questions would have higher correct rates in a nation where it was common to be involved in the political environment of the day. 

Again, one can therefore cite, in summary, several indicators on how well our civics education is doing; that is, indicators reflecting lower levels of social capital among Americans, including higher rates of incivility, low levels of political knowledge, and higher political participation in disruptive and divisive activities as in extraordinary politics. 

The evidence seems to indicate, especially when compared with American historical levels, that those who are responsible for imparting instruction in the field of civics education should heed these conditions as a challenge.  Let this account be clear:  the nation needs to do a better job with civics education. 

But there is one more area that is related to civics education but seldom considered.  That are the levels of law-abiding behavior.  Here, this account focuses on actual criminal behaviors and behaviors that enable crime.  The next posting begins reporting on this last element of citizenship.

---

[1] Americans’ Knowledge of Political System,” National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), 1999, http://www.nass.org/  (since originally accessed, the report has been taken down).

[2] Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000).

[3] “What Democracy Means to Ninth-Graders: U.S. Results from the International IEA Civic Education Study,” National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 2001.

[4] Ronald Inglehart, Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997).

[5] A more recent work by Putnam is his edited book, Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society, (2002), in which he brings together scholars that report lower levels of participation in social institutions such as unions, churches, and political parties in advanced democracies. Noted exception was Sweden.  See Robert D. Putnam (editor), Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society (New York, NY:  Oxford University Press, 2002).

[6] “Pew Research: Political Polarization in the American Public,” The Pew Research Center, June 6, 2014, http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/.