I am in the midst of
reviewing a selection of inserts found in the American government textbook, Magruder’s American Government.[1] Because this text is the overwhelming choice
of government educators around the country and due to the reliance teachers
place on textbooks, a look at Magruder’s
is a good way to find out what content is being taught in those government
classes. To date, I have reviewed three
of those inserts: “letters to the
editor,” “political campaigns,” and “volunteering.” The series of inserts is meant to give
practical advice to students who might be interested in involving
themselves. In general, the tone of
these inserts cannot be interpreted as any hard sell on engaging in these
activities – there is mention in one of them of obligation to be engaged, but
that is as close to “selling” citizen participation as these inserts get. In the main, they take on the tone of addressing
a student who might already be inclined to an activity such as writing a letter
to an editor. I have indicated that
judged by federalist standards, the inserts fall far short of being adequate;
instead, they work quite nicely if one adheres to natural rights values.[2]
The remaining inserts I
have looked at are: “political roots and
attitudes,” “voting,” and “writing to public officials.” The most interesting of these is “political
roots and attitudes,” the most useful and practical is “writing to public
officials,” and the most disturbing is “voting.” None of them, with the exception of one, give
what I deem incorrect information, and they all are straightforward efforts to
convey information. None are an attempt
to encourage the activity highlighted.
I found the “political
roots” insert interesting in that it has students construct an opinion poll
questionnaire on one of three issues: national debt, environment, and the
economy. While not making any effort to
review what opinions are currently talked about concerning these issues, the
insert seems to assume the student has some previously held beliefs and
biases. The concern is more about how to
determine what classmates might feel about the chosen issue. The information does not include any list of
dos and don’ts concerning how to write an opinion questionnaire, other than to
be neutral, but perhaps a teacher using the inserts can “springboard” into
having students research the techniques that professionals use in such efforts.
The one disturbing bit
of “information” found in any of the three inserts is in the “voting”
insert. There, voting is described as a privilege,
not a right. While voting is not a
natural right, it is a civil right – a right created by law. When one considers the sacrifices
African-Americans and women and, in some countries, non-propertied workmen made
to get those laws allowing them to vote, referring to voting as a privilege is a bit
disheartening. Hopefully, there is no
sinister motive in using this language.
The insert dedicated
to writing to a public official is the most useful. It gives good advice about how to structure
any letter or email that a constituent might write so as to be more effective. In so doing, the tone immediately becomes
more encouraging. It even mentions how
politicians are more influenced by a voter, considering the effort such an
activity might entail. Given that a
voter is willing to go to that length, he or she is probably someone who is
willing to encourage others to hold similar opinions to those expressed in the
letter or email. Each of them, in turn,
might be persuaded to vote in a certain way and as a result, that might affect
the politician’s future success in keeping his/her job.
Overall, though, the
effects of these inserts mirror those previously reviewed. In terms of encouraging communal
participation or social capital – the societal quality characterized by having an active,
public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social
environment of trust and cooperation – the inserts are woefully lacking.
In my next posting, I will look at Magruder’s treatment of the Social Security program. Earlier, I identified the program as one that
is fundamentally based on federalist principles, at least as those principles
are defined in this blog. As such, a
text’s treatment of the program, I feel, would give good insight as to how the
material reflects either federalist or natural rights values and principles.
No comments:
Post a Comment