SO YOU SAY YOU LIKE SOMETHING

One recurring message of this blog is the distinction between the natural rights view of liberty and that of the liberated federalism view. At the risk of sounding repetitive, I summarize the difference with the following comparison: the natural rights view states that liberty means a person has the right to choose his/her course of action as long as the choice does not hurt someone else or deprive someone else of the same prerogative. On the other hand, for the liberated federalist position, the view of liberty lies in the right of the person to do what the person believes he/she should do; that is, the right to be a moral person. Given that even the most selfish and self-centered person tends to believe he/she is not immoral, then what does it mean to believe in having the right to do what one should do? What, in practical terms, distinguishes what one wants to do from the right thing to do?

This is a more complicated question than it appears to be. To answer, one needs to delve into moral theory. To begin with, and this is a topic I have previously addressed, one assumes that individuals truly have the ability to make such choices – that we truly have free will. I will not address this prerequisite condition here, but assume that, yes, for practical purposes, we do have free will or enough of a free will to make our question over the right thing to do worth asking. I will begin addressing the “right thing to do” question here by reviewing some basic ideas associated with moral thinking.

Let us start with the connection between values and morals. While morals have to do with the good, what we value is simply those things we want in the form of things or conditions either now or in the future. We can judge prior conditions according to our values, but we can't change what has already happened. So, from the perspective of determining behavior – the “to do” part of our concern – we are interested in how values affect us in the present or in the future. Yes, we can value that which is immoral. Few, though, actually see what they value as immoral; we have the ability to rationalize our choices to convince others and ourselves that what we want is moral. But alas, just look around; what people rationalize as good is often not moral. So, given the possibility that our values are not moral, if we strive to be moral, we need to analyze our values in an objective fashion. It helps to garner the opinions of others, especially those who do not have an interest in what we are reviewing, and listen to what they think of our choices. That's why I like the ethics column in the New York Times Magazine – I recommend it. As for this posting, let's look at some basic ideas concerning values.

Maurice P. Hunt and Lawrence E. Metcalf¹ (later in Byron G. Massialas and Jack Zevin²), identify three types of value assertions. Let me present them in the following three statements:

• A person likes something (P likes X) because that something leads to or acquires something else or provides a state of being. This line of thinking is judged to be rational.
• P likes X because that something is entailed in something else, such as a philosophy, an ideology, or a religious belief. While one might question the rationality of the “something else,” the value in question, “X,” is also considered a rational choice.
• P likes X because P simply likes X. This is judged to be irrational.

Let me comment on each of these. Briefly, the first of these ways of valuing is considered utilitarian in nature. A person likes or does something because it will lead to a goal or object he/she cherishes. For example, this might take the form of a student valuing his/her attendance at college because the education the student is receiving will lead to a degree and, in time, to a better job, higher pay, higher levels of work satisfaction. At least, those are goals that education can facilitate. In the second statement, the person seeks, ultimately, an association between what is valued and, to some predetermined sense of goodness, an ideal or a set of ideals. These philosophic, ideological, or religious ideals are non-empirical in nature. For example, a person likes his/her neighbor because the person is a member of a religion that holds such sentiments as moral (or not having them as immoral) and, as such, an emotional state one should hold. Both the first and second statements are considered logical systems in that they relate to some consequence. Behaving in accordance with the resulting value position leads to something, something that is desired. But the third statement is something else.

The third statement is illogical for it has no reason for existence except for its implied bias. For example, why does a person favor vanilla ice cream? He/she does so for no particular reason; the person just does. For an educator who is trying to deal with some controversial issue in discussion, a student who utters such a value statement and can't provide a reason should not be uncontested when such a value leads to social conditions that affect others. For example, if the question arises of who should win the upcoming election and the student says Jones but cannot give a reason, that student should be further pushed to come up with a reason. After all, the winner of an elected position will have a role in determining public policy that will affect many other citizens. But if the assertion does not affect others, then the student's comment need not be challenged. We all have our irrational preferences. I do like vanilla ice cream – especially with a little Grand Marnier poured over it – but when it comes to Wendy's Frosties, I'll go for the chocolate.

But I digress. The thing is that different social studies theorists have favored one approach to valuing over the other. In my next posting, I will briefly review two of them. For this posting, I want a review of these approaches to valuing so that we might come to a better sense of what it means to “do what one should do.” There is no greater responsibility a civics teacher has than to get his/her students to seriously question their motives about their social actions. In choosing a liberated federalist view to guide a teacher's strategies in the classroom, the teacher is taking a more proactive approach than that encouraged by the natural rights view. By leaving it up to the individual to decide what is moral without at least some reflection, is simply unjustified and irresponsible. My contention is that under a natural rights regime, the effort to get this sort of reflection is simply too muddled and undirected. It leads to instruction that is too apt to be without any guidance whatsoever. To pursue such instruction is at best naïve and at worst abandoning one's responsibilities. On the other hand, liberated federalism has guidance baked into its elements – most notably, in its professed value hierarchy.³

1Hunt, M. P. and Metcalf, L. E. (1968). Teaching high school social studies: Problems in reflective thinking and social understanding. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers.

2Massialas, B. G. and Zevin, J. (1967). Creative encounters in the classroom: Teaching and learning through discovery. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

3I have written extensively in this blog of a proposed moral code I developed. See, for example, posting, Implementing Federalist Moral Code in the Classroom, December 16, 2011. The proposed moral code is based on federalist ideas and ideals.

THE FACTOR OF NATIONALISM

In my posting, Grading the “End” (April 14), I gave my take on John Mueller's judgment of the Fukuyama Thesis which proclaims the “end of history.”¹ By the “end,” Francis Fukuyama was foreseeing a lack of major conflict – such as liberalism vs. communism – that has marked much of what has constituted our history on this planet. The philosopher Hegel's theory of history was based on such conflicts. Mueller's article was meant to evaluate Fukuyama's Thesis using the subsequent events within our nation and the world since the thesis was first published (1989). I promised in the prior posting that I would revisit this topic because what Mueller has to say relates to two forms of liberalism: the more pure form fostered by the mental construct, the natural rights view, and the approach supported by the liberated federalism construct – a view this blog has promoted.

While my prior posting addressed the expansion of liberalism at the expense of other ideologies, this posting looks at the “challenge of nationalism.” That is, does a rise in nationalism present a threat to ideological agreement among nations? Does extreme advocacy of national ambitions provide motivation to promote or heighten conflicts between nations or within nations made up of varied nationalities or ethnicity – such as we are currently seeing in east Ukraine? It is possible that conflicting ideological claims can be but a mask of sorts, a rationale for deep seated hatreds that have existed for centuries between nationalities or ethnic groups.

Let me, for those not so familiar with the terminology, review the meaning of nationalism. My first thought when I see or hear the term is the following adage: “my country, right or wrong, my country.” This saying encapsulates the feelings we associate with extreme nationalism. It is an irrational devotion to one's nation no matter what its leadership is about. Of course, infamous leaders in history counted on prevailing nationalism in their nations to garner support for their nefarious deeds. The twentieth century will probably go down as the century when nationalism ran amok. The more one studies, for example, the motivations that led to World War I, one can appreciate how destructive a force nationalism can be and how tragic. But, as I elaborate below, there are degrees of nationalism and it is helpful to investigate what varying levels of this emotion can mean for a nation and its people.

So, we have relatively recent history demonstrating the role nationalism has played in producing “history” as Fukuyama uses the term. What about now? Does the presence of nationalism threaten the ideological peace we have been experiencing since the fall of communism?

A turn of events that brought up the nationalism factor was the breakup of Yugoslavia. There, we saw nationalist groups go at it and shatter the domestic peace the communists were able to maintain while they held power under Marshal Tito. Once he died, nationalistic forces began their destructive activities. But were these conflicts what they appeared; were they initiated by ethnic groups who wanted to separate from the other ethnic and national groups? Was the villainous force nationalism? Mueller reports that the conflict in Yugoslavia was actually started by demagogic pols with ambitions. They, in order to stir up an unstable political environment, began stoking ancient hatreds among small bands of “opportunistic predators.” Mueller describes the predators as criminal and bandit gangs. Nationalism did have a role in the conflict getting out of hand, but not as a force advocating disunity. Instead, it was the lack of nationalism, particularly among Yugoslavia's army, that sealed the fate of this relatively young nation. The armed forces refused to fight and therefore there was no adequate force to quell the violence.

It was less a clash of civilizations [ideological traditions] than a challenge of thugs, in which ethnicity or nationalism became something of an ordering or sorting device that allowed people to determine which gangs were more or less on their side and which ones were out to get them.²

Mueller points out that if the clash of civilizations – that is, the clash of ideological traditions between the East and West – were the underlining foundation of the Yugoslavian civil war, then the cessation of violence in 1995 should have been short- lived since the area is right on the “fault line” between the civilizations. Yet this has not been the case; peace has prevailed and the area has flourished.

Mueller further points out that nationalism has been a force for advancement. He cites Germany and Poland as countries that needed national pride to encourage the sacrifices necessary in order to meet the challenges that the fall of communism presented. In Germany, the case with which we are more familiar, lives were significantly affected by the dismantling of communist rule in East Germany. By all reports, today Germany is leading Europe in terms of its economy and other social conditions. The BBC reports: “Germany rebounded to become the continent's economic giant, and a prime mover of European cooperation.”³ In no small measure, national pride, not to the degree of irrational obsession but to the degree that a healthy desire to work toward national advancement, is prevalent.

It is this latter degree of nationalism that liberated federalism strives to encourage. I prefer the term patriotism instead of nationalism when referring to this unifying function. It is a sense of partnership in a national endeavor, writ large, that a civics program should aim to approach, not through propaganda or coercion, but through appropriate investigations, discussions, and emulations. It is the function of liberated federalism to suggest the questions that lead students to consider those aspects of national concerns related to societal welfare. It is the assumption that if students are asked to investigate and reflect on appropriate questions, they will derive the appropriate sense of nationalism or good old levels of patriotism.

1Mueller, J. (2014). Did history end? Assessing the Fukuyama thesis. Political Science Quarterly, 129 (1), Spring, pp. 35-54.

2Ibid., p. 42.

3See http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17299607 .

THROW THE DICE

In case you missed my last posting – something easily rectified by hitting the archival option – I wrote about how the climate warming issue is bound to affect all of us before long. This state of affairs would seem to present sufficient motivation for a whole universe of interests to push the government to issue policy that would address the harm that the scientific community claims fossil fuels are causing our environment. Yet the policy has not, to date, been forthcoming. Why? Because there is not enough public demand, even from the monied interests that are already beginning to take on the costs associated with global warming. I mentioned the farming industry, homeowners, businesses in towns wracked by tornadoes, and those areas on our eastern seaboard, like South Florida, that have or are in danger of facing damages from rising ocean levels that are estimated to cost in the trillions of dollars. But the lack of political pressure is what it is. Therefore, Congress doesn't feel it necessary to act.

The Obama Administration has been trying to initiate legislative action to no avail. But it seems to have hit on a possible way to bypass Congress. Using a 1970's law, the Clean Air Act, the Administration promises to start a regulatory response to the rising levels of carbon dioxide – seen as the main culprit in causing climate warming. This will be announced in June; at least, that's what the media is reporting. In looking at this proposed course of action, we can put some numbers to the collective costs that inaction will accrue. This is because of the law's provisions.

The first thing to note is that when the law was passed, carbon dioxide was not recognized as particularly hazardous. The law's Section 111(d) has the ingenious language that protects us from unknown pollutants in the future. Well, today we are in the “future” and carbon dioxide has been found to be a pollutant when pumped into our environment in excess. As it is, our global economy is emitting 36 billion tons of carbon into the environment per year. This is a sufficient enough amount to motivate thirty countries to put into effect carbon-pricing laws. The use of the Clean Air Act has led to development of a cost estimating model so that we can put a price tag on the damage. This model is called the Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy model or DICE.

The use of the DICE model has placed the cost of carbon dioxide pollutants at $20 to $30 in economic damage per ton of carbon. Using the $20 figure, the yearly cost amounts to $720 billion a year. At the $30 figure, the total goes well over $1 trillion a year. Either way – and keeping our focus on economic damage which overlooks the other human costs associated with extreme weather – we can ill afford this kind of self- imposed cost.

Will the implementation of this old law solve the problem? That is an open question. One, the provisions of the new policy are not yet announced. There will probably be a carbon tax scheme of some sort to encourage lower levels of fossil fuel consumption. Two, the law was not written with the current conditions in mind. The law doesn't even mention carbon dioxide as a pollutant; conditions have changed since the '70s. Three, to date, the law has not been used in this way – the approach has been called the forty-year old virgin. And it will impose new costs. But are these costs greater or less than what inaction promises? “[O]ne way the E. P. A. will justify the new regulation [entailed with the Administration's plans] is with an analysis showing that the economic benefits of the climate change rule would outweigh the costs.”¹ And the basis of this effort will be the analysis experts will conduct using DICE.

If a civics teacher were to incorporate this information into his/her lessons so that students could look at the extreme weather issue, students could be asked such questions as: is the implementation of a law that is over forty years old – before we had knowledge of the factors affecting the problem – the prudent and legitimate way to address this issue? Is it a way for the executive branch to overstep its authority? Is the problem area so pressing that immediate action is justified and gives the President the legitimacy to act in this way? These are questions that get at the basic constitutional division of power and deserve serious consideration. Considering them in the context of a contemporary issue area that promises to affect all of us gives the resulting lessons an immediacy that could solicit the student's active participation in the national debate over what the government's response should be. If this is the result, then the clamor for new policy will be enhanced.

1Davenport, C. (2014). Brothers work different angles in taking on climate change. The New York Times, May 11, front page section, pp. 1 and 18. The quotation is on p. 18. Facts concerning the Clean Air Act and its implementation are derived from this article.

TRUMP THE OILY BIG GUYS

Despite the fact that I believe in holding political ideals, I do have a cynical side. I see politics, for the most part, as an arena in which the participants are trying to advance their selfish interests. They, especially the professionals, have to understand ideals if for no other reason as to be able to rationalize their activities in the language of ideals. Have you seen the ads that one of the energy associations is running bolstering the interests of fossil fuels by pointing out all the “good” things the use of these fuels accrues: good investments for your 401s, all the jobs they create and maintain, cheapening our energy costs, on and on. All of this is couched in the context of advancing the common good. And all of it is not spreading lies; fossil fuels have “fueled” our economic growth, but at a cost.

Science tells us that one of the costs has been the warming of our environment and that, in turn, has led to some very scary consequences. These include extreme weather and rising ocean levels that have been blamed for the flood damage we saw with Hurricane Sandy. Whether all of this is true or not, smarter folks than I will have to determine their validity. What I do know is that relative to my lifetime, I have not before seen the kind of weather events we have experienced in ever increasing occurrences in the last ten years. The rapidity of killer tornadoes, widespread droughts, hurricanes that are causing monumental damage, and stretches of inordinate high temperatures during the summer months are all taking place year after year. Something is going on and my money is on the explanations given to us by our scientific community.

Do you find yourself doubting these explanations? One question you might ask is: what moneyed interests are advanced by claiming the weather extremes are being caused by the use of fossil fuels? I can't think of any that represent much financial muscle. Oh, perhaps those companies that are trying to advance industries that run on alternative energy sources, but they don't hold a candle to the kinds of money the fossil fuel industries control. Surely, they don't have the types of grant money and propaganda facilities the gas and oil companies have. I've heard from the pro-fossil fuel side that a multi-billion dollar campaign is about promoting more expensive energy sources such as solar, wind, and thermal sources. Yet I haven't heard of names attached to such contributions, such as the Koch brothers on the other side. In terms of actual money sources we can identify, one can ask: how could they co-op the scientific community that is employed by institutions whose reputations are highly vulnerable to scandal, our American universities? They are in the business of finding truth and their success is highly contingent on maintaining high standards of scientific research.¹

And who is on the other side; who tends to support the researchers who produce the “studies” that counter the prevailing findings? I tried to find out, but all I found were industry supported researchers. My cynical side has a hard time accepting that kind of “science.”

Now let me digress a bit. I mostly don't like Donald Trump. His questioning of President Obama's birth certificate I found to be clownish and demeaning not just to the President, but to himself. So when I heard that he bought the Doral resort in Miami, I had mixed feelings. Why do I even care? I lived a large part of my life in the Miami area. The Doral golf tournament in Miami is, along with the Orange Bowl game, the occasional Super Bowl, and some other nationally televised events, the times that South Florida can “shine.” This past March the first golf tournament at Doral, since Trump redid the course, took place. Despite some problems – which I'm sure they learned from – the whole tournament was enjoyable to watch. So what does all this have to do with a warming environment and extreme weather?

According to the National Climate Assessment report issued this past Tuesday, South Florida is in danger of losses amounting to trillions of dollars due to rising ocean levels. It happens that the area's topography is flat and not much above sea level. The underground rock is limestone, a porous foundation. According to Broward County Commissioner Kristen Jacobs, “[i]t's remarkable. We get calls from people asking: 'It didn't rain, so why is my street underwater?' ”² Thirty percent of Broward County is 5 feet or less above sea level. The area has an old, in need of updating, water works which counts on gravity to work. Well, with rising ocean levels, the system is having problems and the result is water backup and salt water incursion. And one of the localities being seriously affected is Doral, Florida. Will Mr. Trump's party, the Republican Party, continue to lead the way in fighting public policy that will address the threats of global warming or will it take on the role of organizing the interests, like those of Mr. Trump, that are being threatened by extreme weather? Will they respond only to the interest that is directly rewarded by the status quo or will they take on the task of pointing out the dangers and solicit those business leaders who will find the coming years ever more expensive as they attempt to meet the challenges that weather conditions promise to bring?

At the time of Hurricane Andrew, we didn't make the connection between warming conditions and the destructive power of that storm. Since 1992, when South Florida was hit by Andrew, we can reasonably speculate that that storm was one of the first tangible examples of what we are seeing more frequently. I personally saw what such a storm can do: blocks after blocks of destroyed homes and untold tragedies to humans and animals. To use the word, inconveniences, to describe what followed doesn't do justice with what people had to endure. Since then we have had Katrina and Sandy. What's next?

And this is what I don't understand. Why is it that the Madisonian principle of varied interests does not come into play and check the single or lesser numbered factions whose interests are advanced but which negatively affect so many other interests – even monied interests? James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” and the other founding fathers did not trust the masses to produce good governance. They foresaw that if the system they created allowed for interests or factions to compete for favorable governmental policy, no one or only a few factions could control and get government to do what it or they wanted. Factions would check each other much like our three branches of government. But how bad does it need to get for the negatively affected factions to line up against a particular faction that is using its resources to advance those very conditions that are hurting all those other entities?

The summer before last, American farmers were significantly hindered by droughts. The conditions still exist in certain parts of the country. I heard of a local community beginning to recycle “used” water in order to meet the challenges of the extended drought. If the science is true, this is just one set of factions' interests whose advantage is being advanced by the neglect of developing alternative forms of energy. This is a well-heeled set of factions, but a set that is outnumbered both in terms of numbers and accumulated resources. For example, we now hear of the pending consequences to South Florida. We have communities destroyed by tornadoes and we have homes in California and other western states destroyed by inordinate numbers of forest fires. We have drought stricken farms across the country. Eventually, tourist areas will be affected – look at the Jersey Shore – industrial areas will be affected. We will all be affected by extreme weather.

The political question in coming years will be: how many of these devastating events do we need to go through before the party that represents many of these monied interests starts acting like a political party and represents these affected factions' true interests? Come on Trump, get real; your bottom line might have to take a significant hit. The National Climate Assessment states we still have time before the real costs start accumulating, but the costs are already being experienced. Now is the time to organize and target those pending interests that are and will be, to increasing levels, negatively affected by climate change.

1I recently heard that the Koch brothers have “bought” the economics department at my alma mater, Florida State University. I can't help thinking that such a link will undermine the reputation of that program.

2Koch, W. and Rice, D. (2014). Miami: Ground zero for global warming. Tallahassee Democrat (a USA Today article), May 8, (Section B), pp. 1 and 3, quotation on p. 1. The facts shared in this posting regarding South Florida are derived from this article.

LEARNING FROM SETBACKS

On my posting, dated April 21, I reported on the research of Carol S. Dweck. Dweck has derived a set of findings that might seem counter intuitive. She presents these findings as challenges to generally held beliefs which her research undermines with counter evidence. The first of these challenges is “[t]he belief that students with high ability are more likely to display mastery-oriented qualities.”¹ Common sense would seem to tell us that those students who are gifted with higher, natural ability levels would exhibit behaviors and attitudes that would in effect say, “bring it on” when faced with a difficult or daunting problem. They, one supposes, would relish such situations and when faced with a setback, they would find a way to overcome it. What Dweck found was that many of them exhibit more worry over failure and are more apt to question the possibilities of them solving or overcoming the obstacles before them. This sort of reaction, in turn, disposes them to a self-defeating pattern. Her research has led to important findings concerning the attitudes, particularly motivations, involved with difficult school work.

As I stated in that previous posting, a lot of what goes on with students faced with challenging work has to do with the particular view of intelligence that students and, for that matter, a lot of people in general hold. Do they believe intelligence is a fixed quantity or is it malleable and something a person can cultivate? Dweck found that a large portion of these students – and the population – believes intelligence to be a fixed resource. I indicated that I would have further comment on Dweck's findings. In this posting, I want to address the first faulty assumption, described above, that is just not true but held among too many naturally advantaged students.

This research indicates that for these students' vulnerabilities, the opposite of mastery is not a function of skill level or even past experiences of success. A sense of vulnerability is felt as helplessness. That is, these bright students, who, upon being challenged with a vexing problem, lack a sense of mastery and find themselves feeling the challenge as something beyond their control. These students express the situation as being denigrating to their intelligence. Their expectations plummet and their motivation to pursue a solution disappears. This is not the case for all high skilled students, but, in terms of Dweck's subjects, the rate was 50 percent. Why do so many of these opt to be negative, to be easily defeated in their quest to solve difficult problems?

What seems to be most at work among these students is their disposition to blame their lack of intelligence and voice the notion that they don't have what it takes to be successful in the situation they are facing. This reaction to setbacks is quite different from those who do hold mastery-oriented perspectives – the other 50 percent. Dweck reports that the “helpless” students did not perform any worse than students who were mastery-oriented. They often withheld formulating their defeated belief until encountering a setback or mistake even after experiencing earlier successes in which they maintained a positive view during those successes. But once an obstacle or failure was experienced, these students turned from a positive disposition to a negative one almost instantly. As opposed to mastery-oriented students, they had little to no belief they could solve the problems in the future – a third of them informed the researchers they could not solve the same problems, even after they did solve them, again. They also expressed boredom with the tasks and tried to deflect the failure by alluding to other areas in which they had been previously successful.

The patterns exhibited by mastery-oriented students were quite different. These students did not blame their intelligence for any failures – as a matter of fact, they didn't blame anything. Instead, they seemed to own the problem, engaging in self-instruction and self-incremental evaluations. Both of these activities were aimed at improving their performance. Setbacks were not disdained, but instead were often welcomed – they seemed to relish the challenge mistakes offered. This, in turn, led many to develop newer, more sophisticated strategies to attack the problem. Whereas the “helpless” students expressed failure as a reflection of their own lack of self-worth, mastery-oriented students did not talk this way. The self-defeated students saw failure in terms of risk, as a source for others considering them less worthy. Mastery-oriented students did not attach risk to their task or to the results of their efforts – they remained positive about themselves and their challenge. And one more thing: mastery-oriented students seemed to know more reasonably when to quit a problem either because they lacked the necessary sophistication or the problem was out of their league. Helpless students, the few who did not quit early, were more apt to stick to the problem beyond rational limits of time.

What does all of this work with bright students mean to the general population of students? One needs to remember that brighter students generally are faced with easy – for them – schoolwork most of the time. They go through the school day meeting one success after another. But what if they do face “difficult” work that, no matter how bright they are, will result in mistakes or failures? For example, what happens when these students face mathematics problems when they are confronted with new concepts or processes? By being able to focus on these encounters – and analyzing these students' reactions – researchers can gain insights about what other, less advantaged students might face on a more recurring basis. By being able to categorize two prevailing patterns – helpless and mastery – we can describe the patterns and begin to understand why a given student will follow one pattern as opposed to the other. One thing was clear from the research: a helpless response does lead to poorer performance and lower levels of productive results. The point is that helpless students adopt an unreasonable view of themselves in relation to the problem or task before them:

Students prone to the helpless pattern may easily react with self-doubt and disruption, deciding prematurely that they aren't any good in the subject. This would put them at a real disadvantage as school progresses, especially in areas of math and science that really ask the student to enter a new conceptual world.

This study showed that a helpless response could hamper learning of new material in a classroom setting, and made it even more important for us to understand the underlying causes of the helpless and mastery-oriented responses.²

My takeaway is to ask: if bright students become so disheartened and unreasonable, given a perceived challenge, what can we expect of lesser advantaged students? We need to work on conveying the true nature of learning and of academic content to all students. We need to have students see learning, given a particular content, not as something you can or cannot do, but as something you can work on and think about and try different approaches and angles, and enjoy working on. No matter how bright a student is, he or she will meet bewildering challenges eventually and he or she will make mistakes in trying to solve these challenges. What will the reaction be when this eventuality confronts the student? I am aware of an anecdotal case in which a young lady whizzed through her schooling – K through 12 and then four years of college – with practically straight As. She decided to enter a doctoral degree program in clinical psychology. There, she met her match and found herself unable to adjust to the new demands. Her “Waterloo” proved fatal to her academic career. While I don't know all the ins and outs of the case, I can't help believing that she fell into this helpless response mode – she voiced her inability to work in a more problem solving environment. For a more positive result, the student needs to understand that each of us has potential to improve. And also that even if at the moment the solution is not readily achievable – for appropriately gauged material – a student should be able to work it out and, by so doing, improve on his or her intelligence and opportunities.

1Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press, p. 1.

2Ibid., p. 12.

SIX CHANGES TO CONSIDER

Not so long ago I recommended, as a useful pastime, the creative exercise of devising amendments to our constitution. I “proposed” two amendments as the kind of thing I was suggesting. I even tried to write them as they would appear in their final form. I must admit the selection of the appropriate language is harder than coming up with the idea for one in the first place. Well, a far more influential voice than mine did exactly what I suggested although I am sure he came up with the idea all on his own. In a recently published book, former Supreme Court justice, John Paul Stevens, proposes six amendments. I have read the language the justice uses and it's a pleasure to see the work of a true professional. My intent here is to share these proposed changes to our basic law, as reported in a news account, but I want to first offer a short argument as to the timing of Justice Steven's efforts. Each of these proposed amendments deserves a response by each of us and I will offer mine in future postings.

As I have written often in this blog, changing the constitution is difficult. It's so difficult that any single attempt should be looked at as being highly unlikely to succeed – if you are a betting person, the rational choice is to bet against it being eventually ratified. But historically, if we look at a time in history when such efforts were successful – outside of the ratification of the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, and successful a multitude of times, two time periods come to the fore. First is the time period immediately after the Civil War. Then the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments were ratified. When a nation goes through an experience that caused the death of about 750,000 – both in combat and from other causes – then it seems that the nation would be in the mood to see what needs changing so that such a catastrophe does not happen again. Of course, many would argue that the changes entailed with these amendments were forced down the collective throat of the South. Be that as it may, they were ratified within a relatively short amount of time – five years. The second period that comes to mind is during what is considered the Progressive Era. Four amendments were added during that time: Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments. All four were ratified in the years from 1913 to 1919. Not all of them can be attributed to the national consensus over progressive ideals. The Eighteenth, empowering the federal government to establish prohibition, was not, in my judgment, a product of progressivism, but the other amendments seem to be directly a result of the progressive political forces striving to achieve a more democratic polity. Consider the substantive issues: Sixteenth, establishment of the federal income tax, Seventeenth, direct elections of senators, and Nineteenth, extending the franchise to women. And nothing motivated that drive more than concerns over the concentration of wealth that was occurring during the years leading up to the end of the 19^th Century. That sort of thing should sound familiar to us living in the beginning of the 21^st Century. We are again facing a distribution of income and wealth skewed, to an unsavory degree, to the “one percenters.”

So, what are these amendments being offered by Justice Stevens? As reported by USA Today, they are: 1. “Changing the Second Amendment to make clear that only a state's militia has a constitutional right to bear arms;” 2. “Changing the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against 'cruel and unusual punishments' by including the death penalty;” 3. “Removing from First Amendment protection any 'reasonable limits' on campaign spending enacted by Congress or the states;” 4. “Requiring that congressional and state legislative districts be 'compact and composed of contiguous territory' to promote fair competition;” 5. “Eliminating states' sovereign immunity from liability for violating the Constitution or an act of Congress, which he calls a 'manifest injustice';” and 6. “Allowing Congress to require states to perform federal duties in emergencies.”¹ I know, just as with the case of prohibition, not all of these amendments address the concentration of wealth issue, but I just feel the issue can serve to put us in the mood for change.

I see that Justice Steven addresses one of my concerns that I expressed with my proposed amendments: the concern for reform in our election processes and structures. This does relate to wealth in that current law and political conditions serve the monied interests. Congressional districts as drawn do favor one party over the other and led to the fact that even though the Democrats received over a million more votes nationally in 2012 House elections, they still were not able to gain control. Given how the rich spent their campaign contributions, I judge the outcome to have been in their favor. Justice Stevens addresses election reform from the perspective of Congressional districts – in number 4. While the justice attacked one aspect of the problem, my approach takes on a more comprehensive view by setting up a commission. As I stated in the previous posting:

Proposed amendment two:

1 - The power to administer national elections is vested in a national election commission. The commission is comprised of seven members. The commission is to:

administer federal government's duties related to the election determining the members of the Congress, the President, and the Vice President;

determine the boundaries of the Congressional districts;

administer a non-partisan informational and promotional program to encourage active participation on the part of the citizenry.

2 - The electoral commission is comprised of members who serve seven year terms and will serve as long as they maintain lawful status. The terms of members will be established as staggered with one new member selected every year. Each member is selected by one of various bodies consisting of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the President, the Supreme Court, the chief officer of the Department of State, the chief officer of the Department of Justice, and the active members of the sitting electoral commission.

3 - Members of the election commission are limited to one full term of seven years. Those initial members whose terms are fewer than seven years can be reappointed for one full term.

4 - Congress shall pass necessary legislation to administer this provision.²

Whether or not this effort is worth considering, the attempt, I believe, shows what all an amendment must address. As I mentioned above, the language is tricky. I can hear you: don't give up my day job. Luckily, I'm retired.

Given the stature of Justice Stevens, we should give his proposals our attention and I look forward to seeing if they are given the attention they deserve. Perhaps his timing is timely.

1Wolf, R. (2014). Former justice Stevens wants to change the Constitution. The Tallahassee Democrat, April 22, Section B, pp. 1-2, citations for all the amendments on p. 2B.

2This proposed amendment was included in my posting for February 3, 2014, entitled A Better Way?

BETTER TOGETHER?

With the idea of secession popping up from time to time, a civics teacher might want to address this issue straight on. Not only is it something that is mentioned on the news, as when Governor Rick Perry who back in 2009 stated that his state, Texas, might secede from the union, but it is a topic that reflects the very reasons that smaller governmental entities join together – when they become federated. Of course, we fought a Civil War over this issue when southern states attempted to cut their political ties with Washington back in 1861. But it also brings to the fore the basic set of issues that a relatively small jurisdiction takes into account when the question is: should we join (or stay part of) a larger jurisdiction? When a civics teacher entertains this issue in class, it is the next best thing to having his/her students be able to attend the Constitutional Convention or the ratifying conventions of the late eighteenth century that resulted in our constitution. Further, to aid such a study would be a look at a contemporary example and there just so happens to be one.¹

The people of Scotland have an upcoming election. There is one dominant question on the ballot: should Scotland remain part of Great Britain? Scotland became part of Great Britain as a result of a messy process that took about 100 years and ended in 1707. In that year, the Acts of Union were finalized and Scotland formally joined England, Wales, and Ireland to form what we now call Great Britain – of course, most of Ireland has since broken away leaving only Northern Ireland remaining in the British union. The Scots have had a healthy segment of their population maintaining a desire to regain independence. But a desire for separation is not unanimous among the Scots. The upcoming vote has already proved to be contentious with vigorous debate, name calling, and active campaigns by both sides. The current momentum seems to be heading in the direction toward independence. But there is sufficient time for either side to win.

The side that is working to keep Scotland in the union seems to be stressing economic arguments. An independent Scotland faces many uncertainties. Will it be able to use the pound as its currency? If not, will Scotland adopt the euro – assuming the European Union will allow this? Will it be able to establish and maintain public pensions and public assistance programs? How about its very popular national health care? Will Great Britain maintain common market relations with the new nation or will it set up tariffs and other hindrances to trade between the two nations? If there are hindrances, what will that do to what promises to be – at least for the initial period – a fragile economy?

And what of the new nation's political standing? Domestically, will the smaller polity fall victim to single or limited faction politics about which James Madison warned us? That is, if the jurisdiction is small, it is very likely to contain one or two relatively large factions that will be able to control its politics for the benefits of the limited interests factions. Or, stated another way, the politics of that state will be highly undemocratic.

Internationally, a new nation faces challenges. Yes, I believe Scotland will readily get recognition from all European nations and from the US. And I don't think anyone sees any problems with it being allowed into the United Nations. But how about NATO? How about the European Union – what if the Scots want membership? Apparently, one of the issues driving the Scots toward separation is a desire to escape the more conservative government of the British and get politically closer to more liberal Europe. If so, how will London respond to this potential drift? No, I don't see any danger of armed conflict or anything like that, but a new nation needs active support from its historical neighbors and partners in order to meet the daunting challenges of establishing a new independent state.

But voting citizens might not take all of these concerns into account, because I believe the final decision will be more reflective of emotions than reason. If you are a Scot, the pride in establishing your own independence is a heady proposition. You will be part of the founding generation. So what adds enough emotional impetus for such a move? Do the majority of Scot voters feel sufficiently that they are a different people than the rest of the population making up the British union? Has the discussion over whether to break from London maintained a rational language or has the debate reached the point where an aura has developed and whatever is said both sides will manipulate it to mean what they see as being favorable for their position? For example: “[The] 'no' [pro independence] campaign emphasizes the negative, and the sense that the English are patronizing the Scots as ineffectual and incompetent also feeds the independence campaign, stirring indignation.”² When the debate reflects this type of interpretation, then added discussion just further solidifies and even intensifies whatever leanings a particular person might initially have.

Just to let you know, the vote is scheduled for September 18. There is still time for either side to launch a winning argument. But this debate symbolizes what is at stake when the question of whether a small jurisdiction should join or remain within a larger jurisdiction occurs. Seeing what is happening in Scotland is probably highly similar to what happened in our original states as each had its ratifying convention and debated over whether to join the proposed federal union of the United States. As in Scotland, those concerns were varied and included: by joining, how much of a people's way of life is in danger of being compromised or eliminated? What are the benefits in terms of that smaller entity's economy – more stable economic institutions and a larger unobstructed market? Or is the political union between a larger entity and a smaller one a way for certain vested interests to exploit the business interests or labor groups of the smaller jurisdiction? Why would the smaller entity join such a union if the aim is exploitation? The “marriage” could be pulled off by bought out interests who have inordinate influence and are in the position to secure or maintain the union. That is one of the claims that pro independence advocates say happened in Scotland and London back in 1707.

One way to approach this study is for students to compare and contrast two histories: one, that of the union between Texas – since its governor suggested secession and there was a previous attempt to secede – and the United States government and, two, the union between Scotland and the government of Great Britain. Of course, such a study could take all year, so teachers, so inclined, need to prepare enough material for students to review and also prepare targeted questions that will guide students to the concerns I have outlined above.

In such a study, certain concepts should be highlighted. I would emphasize that any future proposed breakaways need not lead to war or violent confrontation. Apparently, Britain has developed a peaceful means of deciding whether Scotland will remain in the United Kingdom – they're voting on the question. In the US, there also exists a peaceful way. If Texas or any other state wishes to leave us, it would call for a constitutional amendment. This is not an easy process and is one that is most likely to fail – but that is the way it should be. If the process were to be easy and states would begin to peel off, then the concerns of Abraham Lincoln should be considered. For example, if the South were to have been allowed to unilaterally decide and actually secede from the Union back in 1861, then the future of our democratic experiment would come under serious jeopardy. There is strength in numbers to accomplish all sorts of things and that includes democracy and republican based governance.

1The facts reported in this posting regarding the example in question, that of Scotland, were derived from: Erlander, S. and Bennhold, K. (2014). Scots ponder: Should they stay or should they go? The New York Times, April 27, Front Page/International section, p. 6.

2Ibid.