QUESTIONS TO ASK OF QUESTIONS

I once read somewhere the notion that while it is hard to find a needle in a haystack, it is infinitely more difficult to find that same needle in a stack of needles. In other words, for those who do not want to be found, it is useful to blend in. Taking this notion to consider another concern, what about a civics teacher who has to engage in discussing political issues: should he or she blend in with any prevailing beliefs that might exist in the community he or she serves or should he or she dare to go against the grain? There are schools that are situated in fairly homogeneously populated areas. Then, again, there are communities that are highly diverse. And, of course, there are those schools that serve communities of intermediate diversity. It is, if desired, easy to blend in in communities that are mostly in agreement over basic political ideals. One only needs to parrot those beliefs. Yet when one gets to know a community, no matter how homogenous it seems to be – given that it is made up of humans – one will find significant variance in what is considered politically optimal or what is considered prudent political behavior.

The more abstract a political belief is, the more apt one is to find agreement among individuals. For example, I am fairly sure that the agreement level with the proposition that citizens should have the right to elect their leaders is a position that enjoys nearly one hundred percent agreement – at least in the US. But as one gets more and more specific in trying to decide what a policy should be, it is more likely that citizens will find points with which they disagree. I heard today that a city up North is having a big fight over whether to build a new bridge connecting the city to Canada. In that city, given the expense of building a bridge, the taxes involved, the inconveniences construction will entail, and the potential, on-going expenses the bridge will accrue, local citizens will probably disagree to varying degrees with whether the bridge should be built or not. So, classroom discussions will probably be more likely to be heated if the controversy being considered is one that students can easily visualize – i. e., a topic that is concrete as opposed to abstract.

Let me be a bit more precise with the use of the word, “discussion.” A discussion is a classroom activity in which students, in response to a question or topic, will express their individual opinions, descriptions, and other information that gets at or progresses toward providing a position to the question or topic. A single position need not emerge from the discussion, but students, by expressing where they stand on the issue, get the opportunity to clarify how they think and feel. By doing so, they might reflect as to the wisdom of their own beliefs and, on rare occasions, might even change their minds. Of course, issues students find relevant will be more apt to be emotionally engaging and, therefore, lend themselves to soliciting discussion. I used to teach in Miami, Florida where most schools in the district allowed, at that time, students to wear shorts. My school didn't and this was a constant bone of contention with our students. Parenthetically, the school now has a uniform requirement but back in the day, shorts was the issue. As a civics or government teacher, I wanted my class time to be taken up with more important concerns – at least more important by my estimation.

So here we go: how should teachers choose those questions or issues that they will use for discussion in their classrooms? I will be up front: I wanted questions that would illicit heated discussions, but not so heated that they would cause students to shut down and not participate. By heated, I mean not only an issue that evoked an emotional response, but a response that was divided, resulting in students eagerly taking up both sides – or varied sides – of the argument. In the latter case, when emotions and division ran too high, students might stop discussing because opposing positions were seen as too extreme. Often this perceived extremism would preclude students from accepting the factual claims posed by their opposing classmates. What would such a position be like? As an example from history class, if I, in a discussion with you, argued that the US entered World War II to advance its imperialist interests, you might consider such a statement as so contrary to your understanding of the facts that you might conclude that further discussion would be futile. You might opt to say “whatever” and shut down your participation in the discussion we were having. As a teacher, someone who should understands not only his or her students, but the community from which they come, he or she should develop a sense as to what will work. But this whole area of concern is a bit more complex.

While a teacher might not bring up some questions for discussion, he or she will still need to bring up those issues that demand attention, even if discussion is not the best strategy in those cases. For example, if you work in a highly evangelical community, you can't totally ignore abortion as a legitimate area of contention. It is just too important in our national elections if not in the community's local elections. And a teacher's job is not to bolster the biased views of the community, but to get the students to, at least, understand pro-choice arguments and appreciate the logic that supports them. The same can be said of pro-life arguments in liberal communities. Short of that, students will not understand the arguments of those with whom they disagree. All good citizens should understand both the arguments of pro-choice and pro-life advocates in order to develop a responsible position of their own concerning the issue of abortion. Of course, the same can be said for all the contentious debates that reflect our current political environment.

If you get the notion that trying to decide what issues and/or questions are prudent to include in classroom discussions is a bit difficult, I would say you are right. Any observation of our political environment must recognize that our debates run along ideological lines. What that means is that most of the contentious positions people take reflect an organized schemata of beliefs one can cast as a worldview. While at times the liberal-conservative arrangement of political beliefs can be an oversimplification, for most discussion topics, the continuum is useful in trying to organize the array of political beliefs and positions held by citizens. Each conglomerate of ideas can be cast as a worldview of political realities.

Cognitive scientists have some insights that are useful in this whole area of concern. For example, George Lakoff writes that in order to describe a worldview, let's say the conservative worldview, a cognitive scientist is wise to consider several concerns:

• One, a description of a worldview must categorize the array of positions making up that worldview, but which covers different issues, as a single, reasonable whole. For example, positions against gun control and for pro-life need to be described as related to each other under the logic of conservative thinking.
• Two, a description of a worldview must provide reasons for why opposing positions to the worldview are found to be puzzling by those who hold the worldview. This demands a description of the worldview that transcends the thinking of what is believed to be right and understands why what falls outside that view is not only rejected, but also found to be beyond the realm of understanding. It is this condition that poses such a challenge to teachers who are striving to get students to be reasonable when analyzing the positions of those with which they don't agree.
• And three, the description must make clear why the worldview chooses some options over others; specifically, why the worldview chooses the topics, words, and discourse forms it utilizes.¹

A civics teacher needs to become sufficiently familiar with cognitive construction of political beliefs and ideals so as to be able to make responsible decisions over which issues to bring up in class and to then decide which instructional strategies he or she will use in handling those issues.

Analyzing how students view political issues is something a civics teacher needs to address in determining what topics will make up his or her lessons. Often, students will reflect worldviews they bring from home. Sometimes, the worldview expressed in a home is amply supported by the political culture that prevails in the region or area in which the home is situated. And hence, the question of whether a teacher is to be the needle that distinguishes itself or merely blends in becomes an important one and one that might call for a good dose of courage to answer and to act upon productively.

The above is meant to suggest questions that civics teachers might ask of the content they are considering and of the students they teach. Looking beyond the students, the communities from which they come from is a source of information that will help the teachers analyze the students, the content, and the challenges which they confront.

1Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

DYSFUNCTIONAL LEVERAGE

Leverage here, leverage there, leverage everywhere; what's a federalist to do? Any sort of word count that tracked the verbiage of TV news the last month or so must put the word “leverage” right up there as one of the most used terms. While I am sure that just about everyone knows the meaning of leverage, it is useful to analyze its significance and try to measure the functionality of relying on leverage to meet the nation's challenges. In a civics class, a concern over leverage strikes at the central aims of its subject: to describe and explain the governance of this democracy.

Of course, leverage in political terms relies on a metaphor. Leverage in the physical world refers to the use of a stationary post to anchor a pole that, in turn, dislodges and moves a strongly resistant object. Leverage, therefore, is some form of advantage to get someone in the political realm to do something he or she would not do otherwise. That is, it is the exercise of power – what politics is all about. To have leverage means to be able to implement power over some interest which is negatively impacted by what is being considered. It is claimed that President Obama had leverage over the Republican right-wingers in Congress in avoiding the fiscal cliff because if the Republicans did not give in on raising tax rates on the rich, tax rates would go up on all taxpayers. In addition, the polls indicated that if the cliff were not avoided, the electorate would primarily blame the GOP. But now that the cliff has been avoided, some say that leverage has shifted toward the Republicans since now the challenge is to get Congress to agree to raise the debt limit that Congress imposes on itself. That is, since the federal government spends more than it takes in in taxes and other revenues, it has to borrow. Congress places a limit on the amount it can borrow, but what is odd is that it does so AFTER it borrows the money. So to limit the debt limit now is to say the government will not pay what it has already borrowed.

Since the federal government owes over 16 trillion dollars (that's with a “t”), defaulting on this debt would put the world's economy in a tailspin. This is so extraordinary that the bond/debt market does not take the threat seriously. If it did, interest rates across the world would be shooting through the proverbial roof. So while there are Republicans who have spouted their anticipated leverage in the upcoming debate over the debt limit, many believe, including former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, that the threat is baseless. If so, then the GOP has no such leverage. We will see if this is correct.

You need a scorecard to keep track. So let us look at leverage by analyzing it via its associated concept, power. In a previous posting, I reported that there are five sorts of political power: coercive, reward, referent, expert, and legitimate power.¹ Coercive power occurs when someone does something to avoid a punishment. Reward power occurs when someone does something to gain a reward or something wanted. Referent power occurs when someone does something in order to be associated with someone else or some thing. Expert power occurs when someone does something because he or she wants to follow the advice of someone who is thought to know some relevant thing. Legitimate power occurs when someone does something because it is felt that it is the right thing to do. In the right conditions, each of these bases of power can be effective and determinant.

A couple of other concepts are useful in analyzing power. There is the power player, one engaged in trying to exert power or who is targeted as the subject of being powered into doing something he or she does not want to do. Power play is the set of activities that consist of an attempted exertion of power. There is the power place which is both the physical locality(ies) in which the power play takes place and/or issues over which the power play is exercised.

These, I believe, are useful political concepts no matter what construct one aligns him/herself with in looking at governance or politics. That is to say that they are so central to viewing politics that one cannot discount them when looking at the political world. But for a federalist, some of these power types or bases are seen as being more dysfunctional to the operations of a healthy political arrangement. And we can see this in what is going on in Washington today.

Basically, what extremist politics relies on is coercive power almost to the exclusion of any other power base. Many pundits and even some scholars are describing what is going on in our national political arena as extremist politics. The political players who initiate such political plays might rhetorically justify their claims on legitimate power. But in actuality, since their opposition does not share in the initiators' view of what is good or right, their only reason to abide with what is being demanded by the initiators is to avoid punishment.

In the present exchange between the right-wingers in Congress and the President, the threat is if the President does not capitulate to reduced spending, “his” economy will be plunged into a possible depression as a result of failing to raise the debt ceiling. For a federalist, this undermines the entire legitimate foundation of the system. While all power players are claiming they want the betterment of our nation, such threats go down hard no matter how things turn out. Consequently, the electorate loses respect – its sense of legitimacy – for the political system. Look at the low level of esteem in which people report they hold Congress and the government in general. For federalists, these are sad times as we see the ideal being hammered relentlessly.

But coercive power is not the only type that falls into disfavor. There are times that reward power can be almost as odious as coercive power. Take the case of voting in Congress for aid to assist the victims of the hurricane Sandy. In this case, there is the representative or senator from some other part of the country who is courted for his or her vote to get the needed legislation. That politician indicates his/her vote can be had if some “pork” (some moneyed project or financial assistance) is aimed at his or her district or state. Of course, such exercises of reward power add to the total amount requested for the aid that was to be spent on Sandy's victims. When found out, such moves undermine the whole legitimacy of the initial request and can hold up the needed aid or justify the reluctance of other politicians to vote for such aid.

I saw the musical Camelot (the film) the other day. The central theme of the story is how federalist values (cleverly symbolized by King Arthur's roundtable) led to good governance. But undermining federalist values are the self-centered aims of some who use what Machiavelli called fortuna (random unpreventable events) to advance selfish interests. In the story, there were short-sighted players who, in seeking selfish ends, were able to undo the realm of King Arthur. This is fantasy, but the message is repeated in the real world efforts of those who would seek to impose inequality and, as a consequence, subordination of some kind – in other words, diminishing the quality of liberty that a particular nation enjoys. What such stories fail to do is to convey the limited life of autocratic or corrupted rule. While such rule can cause untold misery, it sows the seeds of its own destruction.

And so the beat goes on. Power is useful and important to understand. It can be used for good or evil. A purely “realistic” view, one that only sees players capable of seeking selfish ends, implicitly communicates that political arrangements will only waste their resources in trying to create a functional Camelot. Whether or not a polity can run on solely federalist values, a polity run by leaders that radicalizes them is a question that misses the point of liberated federalism. Liberated federalism starts with the sense that goodness has to be demonstrated on a sustained basis before players assume such commitment for what is moral. Short of that, federalist values act as ideals to be sought. The practical function of ideals is not to necessarily determine day-to-day policy decisions, but to set a pervasive tone or mood or standard by which policy is judged or guided. What we cannot lose is the ideal – i. e., power players seeking legitimacy based on federalist values of equality and liberty – and if we lose such a tone or mood or standard, we are left with a politics of constant distaste. Are we there now; do we have a politics that sticks in our craw? Perhaps, but we are not far from being otherwise. Let us start by holding our politicians to a more strenuous standard. Needed: a genuine effort at encouraging those attitudes, among our civics students, for a more ideal-driven politics and governance.

1French, J. R. P. and Raven, B. H. (1967). The bases of power. In E. P. Hollander and R. G. Hunt (Eds.) Current perspectives in social psychology (504-512). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.