AGAIN

We have another tragedy on our hands – the shooting in Oregon.  I have visited Oregon.  It is a beautiful state with its majestic pine trees.  I will not get into the political question about what should be done concerning the recurrence of such shootings.  I have addressed the issue in the past when I tried to document the levels of criminality in our nation.  Should we limit the number of guns out there?  Should we do something about the mental illness factor that some have blamed for such attacks?  Should we distribute enough guns so that just about everyone is armed and able to defend him/herself?  Or should we do nothing?  Up to date, it’s been the fourth choice.  I am focusing on this because as unfortunate as the Oregon tragedy is, it does provide a context on which to address the need for change.  We need change in how we are addressing this recurring problem.  And it is not just a matter of these mass shootings, but the whole concern over deaths caused by the use of guns.  We are by far the most murderous advanced nation.  In 2013, there were over 30,000 deaths due to the use of guns (a third of them by homicide, two-thirds by suicide).  Compared to other advanced countries, we have the highest level of gun related deaths per 100,000 population.  We should institute change in our approach to this problem area if we want to have fewer deaths.  But considering it just a by-product of being a nation with a Second Amendment:  that doesn’t sit well.

But change is difficult, especially when we are talking about a national change in which there are strongly held biases that see such change as threatening and when the status quo financially helps a vested, national commercial interest.  This is when knowledge is power and, more specifically, when knowing about how planned change takes place or how successful change agents do their work is useful.  It is useful to at least understand what it takes to change whatever needs to change so that we have a different response to our “gun problem.”

I promised in the last posting that I would give you a short survey of change strategy types.  I feel that knowing about these strategies is a good first step in becoming knowledgeable about planned change.  Let me introduce this by pointing out that in the literature, there are quite a few surveys about existing change strategies.  This reflects the fact that there are many of these strategies out there in the literature and being applied by different organizations – businesses, governments, and non-government service organizations.  The survey I am sharing is very short but, before I share it, I will briefly mention a few other surveys – which are more extensive and more telling of the variety of strategies about which one can become informed.  Robert R. Blake and Jane Srygley Mouton review twenty-five different strategies in their article, “Strategies of Consultation” in the book, The Planning of Change, edited by Bennis, Benne, and Chin.  Another survey is provided by Kenneth D. Benne in his article, “The Current State of Planned Changing in Persons, Groups, Communities, and Societies;” it reviews a large array of approaches to change and is also in the book, The Planning of Change.  This book was published in 1985.  A more recent survey can be found in Andrianna J. Kezar’s monograph, Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21^st Century, in the chapter entitled, “Theories and Models of Organizational Change.”  This 2001 published survey reviews six categories.[1]  The one I am sharing has only three categories and, as one might expect, the categories are more general and encompassing.  While this is true, I think it works well to entice one to look further into the literature.

The three categories offered by Robert Chin and Kenneth D. Benne are empirical-rational strategies, normative-re-educative strategies, and power-coercive strategies.  Let me describe each briefly.  Empirical-rational approach relies on one basic assumption.  That is, human beings are rational and they will act in accordance with pursuing their rational self-interest.  The challenge to instituting change, therefore, is to devise options that will better meet the self-interests of the parties who are being asked to change and to inform them of those options and how they advance those interests.  In terms of normative-re-educative strategies, they do not deny the effects of rational and knowledgeable decision-making, but in addition attempt to account for “[s]ociological norms and by commitments on the part of individuals to these norms.”[2]  As for power-coercive strategies, the assumption is that people will respond to coercive power; that is, they will act in ways that are different from the ways in which they have been behaving in order to avoid punishment.

Those three approaches to change reflect three different views on human behavior.  Without delving into the differences too far, one can see that the empirical-rational approach mirrors the behavioral school of psychology.  It is one way to implement “engineering” social processes – which I mentioned a couple of postings ago – to social problems.  Normative-re-educative strategies are more in line with “clinical” processes – also previously mentioned – and are concerned with feelings and emotionally based relationships.  Finally, power-coercive methodologies are based on authority – legitimate power positioning – and are mostly concerned with large systems such as nations or large corporations.  As with what I had to say with the use of coercive power, concerns over resentment are one potential cost, but are available when change is utterly essential and relentless factors, such as time, are in play.  There is more to share with each of these types, but I hope that this brief introduction entices you to want to know more about planned change.  Again, knowledge of such social dynamics is essential to meeting the challenges, such as our “gun” problem, which face us today.

---

[1] See http://aled.tamu.edu/440/READ%20-%20Change%20Theory%20Article.pdf .

[2] Chin, R. and Benne, K. D.  (1985).  General strategies for effecting changes in human systems.  In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, and R. Chin (Eds.), The Planning of Change (pp. 22-45).  New York, NY:  Holt, Rinehart, Winston.  Citation on p. 23.

OKAY, I’LL DO IT

Have you visited a school lately?  Have you walked into a classroom?  It’s a different place from the one you might have attended if you are approaching my age.  Technology has hit the schoolhouse; it’s wired nowadays.  So schools are no stranger to change, yet change can still be a daunting process.  This blog is dedicated to convince you, the reader, that change is needed.  My target is not a “thing” technology, but an idea.  It is how we view the content of our civics curriculum.  The challenge which I write about will prove to be more difficult to accomplish.  Such a curricular change hits at basic assumptions, biases, aesthetics, senses of loyalty, and even notions of self-worth.  For example, the change I am advocating questions how we view liberty, such a cherished, self-defining attribute that we, as a nation, hold.  Yet, as I pointed out in my last posting, there might be certain historical trends, currently making themselves felt, that would help, if not necessitate, a move toward what is being “pitched” in this blog.

Of course, the proposed change is to move our view of civics from one which holds the natural rights construct as the dominant view in determining the content of our civics lessons, to what I have termed the liberated federalism construct.  As a proposed change, any effort to accomplish it would benefit from understanding what is involved with planned change, change that is conscious and deliberate.  There is a literature, in the social sciences, that reflects the research that has been done in this field.  I want to visit a portion of that literature so that we can consider the overall challenge of what I am proposing.

Robert Chin and Kenneth D. Benne offer an overview of strategies that have evolved.  These strategies represent three different approaches to the efforts of change.  But before I review these three approaches (a topic of my next posting), I want to tie these strategy types to a basic political concept, power.  I have written earlier in the blog about power.  I have used Robert Dahl’s relatively simple definition of power:  a person has power over someone else if he/she can get another person to do what he/she would not do otherwise.[1]  Further, I have cited two scholars’ work that identifies different forms of power.  John R. P. French and Bertram H. Raven identified five motivational types based on why someone would be convinced to yield to the dictates of another; i. e., the mental states that would lead one to do something he or she would not do otherwise. They are perceptions of coercion, reward, legitimacy, expertise, or referential desire (known as coercive power, reward power, legitimacy power, expert power, and referent power,).[2]

Coercive power occurs when a person acts in accordance with the wishes of another in order to avoid punishment, either initial punishment or the continuation of punishment.  Punishment can take many forms from physical harm to financial losses.  It can also be psychological in the form of guilt, shame, love lost, embarrassment, fear, and the like.  If experienced, punishment, especially if it is viewed as unjustified, can and is likely to elicit a desire for revenge.  If the conditions are right, the exercise of coercive power can lead to a cycle of coercive activity as in violence begetting violence.  This should be a consideration one would be wise to calculate before using coercive power.  On the other hand, coercive power might be viewed as the only option to attain what is perceived as an essential state of being.

Reward power is doing the bidding of others in the anticipation of receiving what one wants to attain.  Usually, this is in the form of money, but it can be in the form of psychological benefits – affection, love, kinship, fame, respect, and the like – or some physical entity – a car, a diamond ring, a trophy, a favored parking space, etc.  Reward power does not spur negative consequences other than the costs of issuing them.  These costs, though, can be substantial.

Legitimacy power occurs when someone does something he/she will not do otherwise due to a sense of doing the right thing.  Usually involved is a sense of duty or obligation.  One can see that if the act is not done, guilt can be the result so there is, in such a case, an overlap with coercive power; the difference being that there is no inkling that the requested behavior is unjustified.  Therefore, if one can convince a person or population that certain behaviors or aversion to behaviors is legitimate, then compliance will not elicit any resentment.  If the necessary beliefs are not present, then the party wanting to exert legitimate power needs to instill such beliefs.  This can prove to be expensive and difficult.

Expert power occurs when someone does something he/she would not do otherwise because he/she is being told to do so by someone who knows what is the best (or better) course of action.  An example from everyday life that comes to mind is the power a doctor has over a patient when the doctor convinces the patient of a change in lifestyle choices – such as giving up smoking.  The key here is twofold:  convincing the subject that the power holder is expert enough and that the subject is disciplined enough to follow suit.

Referent power occurs when someone does something he/she would not do otherwise because he/she wants to be associated with some person, group, movement, or something such as an idea (ideology) or symbol.  It is a form of reward power, but association usually involves an ongoing connection into the future.  A sense of belonging is the “reward” and, as such, deserves to be distinguished from what is usually considered a reward.

Those are the types of power that French and Raven insightfully wrote about back in the 1950s.  This formulation, I believe, is still a powerful conceptualization.  It is particularly helpful for those who want to begin to learn what is needed in order to initiate change.  If we look at civics education, for example, the current view has been institutionalized for a fair amount of time.  So if one wants to work toward changing an important element of our national curriculum, one is taking on a difficult task.  There should be no doubt about that.  Elementary use of the above list of power types quickly points to the fact that most coercive resources, in the form of job security, and most reward resources, such as job advancement, are in the hands of those who hold the current curricular biases that support the natural rights construct.  This should be kept in mind as I review the types of strategies Chin and Benne offer.  As I stated above, I will review those strategy types in my next posting.

---

[1] Dahl, R. A.  (1957).  The concept of power.  See https://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/teaching/articles/Dahl_Power_1957.pdf .

[2]French, 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. 

CONTENTIOUS SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC THINKING

I wish I had a nickel for every time I have written in this blog, “sixty or so years ago.”  The phrase refers to the notion that about sixty or so years ago, the natural rights construct became the prominent mental construct among Americans as to how they thought and felt about government and politics.  That promotion was at the expense of the traditional federalist construct.  I have in this blog shared some of the history that traces the transfer.  I wrote about how since the times of the early republic, our political beliefs and feelings have slowly drifted from the puritanical origins of congregational unions.  That origin led the way to our governmental foundational bias of forming polities through the use of covenantal arrangements.  I will spare you a whole retelling of the story; let it suffice to say that this religiously inspired origin went through secularization and then a shift from a collectivist orientation to a stronger and stronger individualism. 

In the past century, we had the effects of the Great Depression and World War II.  These two tide-changing experiences proved to be the end of the dominance of the federalist – the construct reflecting our covenantal perspective – mindset and the beginning of the dominance of the natural rights mindset.  In my telling of this story, to date, I have left out the effect of the influence our reliance on science has had.  I alluded to it when early on I related how the growth of positivist scientism influenced our views of the social sciences and the reliance on systems theory.  Since this blog is about civics, I emphasized how this influence affected political science.  What I left out was that the adoption of a science bias was not without contentious claims and a bit of a conflict among those who favored a more scientific approach to studying social realities.  That conflict has had consequences and they are of such a nature that they need to be accounted for if we are serious about implementing a newer form of federalism.  Let me explain.

We, as a culture, have adopted science so thoroughly that it is easy to believe that the influence of science has been around for centuries.  Not so.  The effects of science on our culture can be dated back only to the end of the nineteenth century.  The famous early social scientists had their “heydays” back in the late 1800s.  At that time, such pioneers as Vilfred Pareto, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber began using more scientific methodologies to study social realities.  There began to evolve a general belief that science could study any realm of reality and render such explanations and understandings so that someday one could predict how people would behave under given situations.  After all, the purpose of science is to be able to predict.  One strong spokesperson of this view was Lester F. Ward.  He wrote:

Man’s destiny is in his own hands.  Any law that he can comprehend he can control. … His power over nature is unlimited. … Human institutions are not exempt from this all-pervading spirit of improvement.  They, too, are artificial, conceived in the ingenious brain and wrought with mental skill born of inventive genius.  The passion for their improvement is of a piece with the impulse to improve the plow or the steam engine.[1]

That viewpoint only became stronger as the new century took hold.

Between 1900 and 1950, spurred on by the progressive forces of the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and then the challenges of World War II, there was a very strong bias that undermined the remnants of the federalist view.  That newer bias held that desired social change could be engineered with enough social scientific knowledge.  That change could not only be substantively formulated by the use of such knowledge, but its implementation could also be achieved by the appropriate experts and sufficient resources – usually meaning enough money.  Such efforts entailed large bureaucracies, high levels of central planning, and national efforts.  Of course, this flew in the face of federalist thinking that relied heavily on local community responses to social ills.  Part of the problem was that social problems themselves had become national in scope, mostly pushed by a more national and then international economic system.  Local realities were to ever greater degrees being affected by events farther and farther away.  The Great Depression and a world war brought these realities into sharp focus and could no longer be denied by objective observation.  But not everyone bought into this “engineering” approach.

One of the outspoken critics of this planned change approach was William Graham Summer.  While these critics did not turn their collective backs on the use of science, they did find the ambitious projects these social engineers were conducting as troublesome.  Not only did such critics view Ward’s view a folly – a naïve and presumptive form of arrogance – but sacrilegious:  we study social realities scientifically to gain insight, but “never in the world by reconstruction of society on the plan of some enthusiastic social architect.”[2]  Instead, Sumner saw such knowledge as merely an assistance as one goes about his/her business.  Society, under this view, will balance itself out if the natural human and physical forces are allowed to “do their thing.”  He argued for a laissez faire approach and saw Wardian engineering as meddlesome and even dangerous.  He called for such efforts as affronts and urged all these do-gooders to mind their own business.

Since those days, we have had a heavy dose of both approaches.  The engineers took an early advantage as the nation, as stated above, slogged through the Great Depression and then had to conduct the monumental effort of defeating the Axis Powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan.  But even though overall they met with successes, they were not unqualified successes.  It took an entire ten years to get out of the depression – not until preparation spending for the war did we get to full employment – and the war effort left us with a new enemy, the Soviet Union.  But what finally cost the engineers their favored position was the social upheavals associated with the Vietnam War – the engineers got us into that mistake – and finally the Great Inflation of the 1970s.  Taking its place was the old Sumner view of laissez faire under the guise of Reaganomics.  Of course, not all of the measures instituted by the engineers disappeared.  Remnants of the Progressive Era and the New Deal survived:  Social Security, FDIC, and the FED are examples.  And the older line of thinking also had later successes such as Medicare and Medicaid.  Economically, we, under the regime of the engineers, had an economic policy described as Keynesian from the 1930s to 1980 which relied heavily on expert economic planning.  This was replaced by the supply side economic regime introduced by Reagan’s administration.  With the financial crisis of 2008 and its aftermath, a lot of that economic construct has come under attack.  That’s where we are today.  Things are in flux; perhaps it’s time for a change.

There is more talk of what is known as clinical, as opposed to engineered, approaches to change.  This approach is more reliant on personal narratives, interactions with subjects, partnership building, collaboration, and shared decision-making.  It doesn’t disregard positivist/quantitative based knowledge, but sees such study as verification for what is learned from qualitative study.  It sees politics less as a zero-sum game and more of a win-win game.  Whether a new approach is developed where this more inclusive view becomes dominant, we will see.  There is one arena where this newer approach is being used and the critics are vociferous; that’s in the field of foreign relations.

President Obama has been trying to institute a foreign relations approach that relies more heavily on diplomacy.  His recently negotiated deal with the Iranians is an example.  I will not analyze the whole range of issues involved, but the President’s stance is one of seeking an arrangement with Iran in which both sides win.  The President’s critics accuse him of weakness that will be exploited by our adversaries.  I believe this illustrates the challenges that a more federalist approach will have to overcome.  We’ll see what the outcome will be.

In any event, the stage is set.  Will a newer form of federalism be able to take hold?  If so, will it mean that such a change will cause a ripple effect in other realms of our social life?  Can it affect, for example, what we teach in schools, in our civics classrooms?

---

[1] Quoted in Benne, K. D., Bennis, W. G., Chin, R.  (1985).  Planned change in America.  In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, and R. Chin (Eds.) Planning of Change (pp. 11-21).  New York, NY:  Holt, Rinehart and Winston.  Quotation on p. 15.

[2] Ibid., p. 15.

INTERVENING EFFECT OF LOWER INCOME

This blog has been dedicated to presenting a construct that can serve as a guide in choosing content for our civics curriculum.  I have argued that presently, that subject matter, along with all of the social studies, has been guided by a construct I have entitled natural rights.  I have further argued that the natural rights construct, while having beneficial aspects, has enabled and encouraged certain detrimental developments among our youth and the resulting adult population as those youth attain higher age.  I have listed those developments:  lower political knowledge, lower level of skills in attaining political knowledge, less disposition toward engaging in political and other civic activities, higher levels of incivility, and high levels of criminality.  If there is a portion of our educational curriculum meant to address political and governmental knowledge, skills, and dispositions that would lead to better citizenship, then that would be civics, in particular, and social studies, in general.  The results of those educational efforts inform us that we are not doing a very good job.  I have presented this argument over many postings, especially early on in the history of the blog.  Recently, I revisited this general description and provided more recent research findings to indicate that things have not gotten better.  But I feel I have been remiss in that I have left out a very important intervening variable that is relevant not only in describing the problem, but also in contextualizing any attempt to rectify the situation.

The factor I did not address is one that Robert D. Putnam looks at in a recently published book, Our Kids:  The American Dream in Crisis.[1]  He points out that one of the consequences of the recent shift of income our economy has experienced – a distribution away from those who were at the lower ends of income toward those who were at the upper levels – is that civic engagement among lower income adults and youth has fallen off dramatically.  The book reviews how the levels of voting and other active modes of participation are almost non-existent among lower income, less educated people.  In addition, within this population we are experiencing a higher incidence of criminality, drug abuse, poor school performance, poor parenting, and general irresponsible behavior.  One main reason has been that with the shift of income toward upper income groups and away from lower income groups has been a resulting pattern of segregation.  Lower income groups have less and less contact with upper income groups.  This has led to high degrees of social isolation as lower income groups have been literally left behind in high crime and otherwise degrading living environments.  A further consequence is that lower income groups of citizens are participating less in our political processes.

The essence of democracy is equal influence on public decisions.  A representative democracy requires at least widespread, if not universal, voting and grassroots civic engagement.  The more that other means of political influence, such as money, are powerful and unevenly distributed across citizens, the more important electoral and grassroots involvement becomes for ensuring some approximation to democracy.[2]

Instead, we have had the opposite, resulting in those groups who need more viable attention receiving less.  Putnam points out that political engagement has fallen off among all groups – as I have pointed out in previous postings – but the drop off has been a great deal more precipitous among impoverished, ill-educated citizens.  In short, while better civics education is sorely needed for all our youth, the need among lower income youth is much more critical.

Putnam reminds us that highly reputable social commenters, such as Hannah Arendt and William Kornhauser, have written very convincingly that if we disregard the plight of lower income groups, we do so at our own peril.  As the numbers of those not being favored by the economic changes we are experiencing increase, this can become a highly dangerous situation.  Levels of crime, violence, disruption, prison costs, and other results mean a less favorable society.

What better civics content can there be than what Putnam emphasizes, a content that promotes collaborative and communal approaches to social problems and social arrangements?  That is what federalist theory highlights.  That approach goes beyond merely outlining a structure of government, but contains the content of an organic entity, our government.  And beyond its treatment of government and politics, if implemented as a way to run schools, the interactive mentoring that Putnam calls for becomes integral to the subject matter and to the view of school as a living and caring institution.

---

[1] Putnam, R. D.  (2015).  Our kids:  The American dream in crisis.  New York, NY:  Simon and Schuster.

[2] Ibid., p. 234.

A COAT THAT FITS

From time to time, a teacher knows he or she needs to cover some material that might not be the most scintillating subject.  Amending a constitution is one such subject, but it is fairly important.  One approach is to use a related issue as a takeoff that can lead to the other aspects of the subject matter.  In the case of amending a constitution, one such issue is how easy the process is to change the document by ratifying an amendment.  Why is this an issue?  Because a constitutional process that is too prone toward change is one that encourages people to lose sight of a very important constitutional quality; that is, the quality that holds the constitution as a fundamental law.  Let me explain.

What is a constitution?  In our system, one that follows the federal model, it is an agreement.  For readers of this blog, this will sound familiar.  The agreement is among the people of a society who have come together, usually through representation, to write the agreement that will be proposed to the people for their approval.  The agreement is one that establishes a government.  It more specifically identifies the purposes motivating the proposal, a list of general principles in the form of a bill of rights, a structural plan for the government, a list of special powers and/or limitations of powers (this includes provisions for those who do not live up to the agreement), and the signatures of the representatives who agree with the document.  By signing the document, the representative is pledging allegiance to the provisions of the document.  Usually, the requirement is that all the representatives sign the agreement.  In order to get that unanimous approval, many negotiations have to take place.  The process then calls for a ratification of the constitution.  This latter provision calls on the people to directly or through more localized representatives to vote in approval or disapproval.  If a super majority, say two-thirds or three-fourths, agrees with the constitution, it goes into effect at a given time.  This vote not only indicates whether the people agree with the document, but also is a pledge or promise to live by its provisions.  For those who vote against the document, they also are bound by the provisions if they choose to continue being a part of that society.  If the pledge calls on God as a witness, it is a covenant; if it doesn’t, it is a compact.  Our national constitution is a compact.

Now here is the issue.  Since the constitution is the fundamental law of the land, should it be easy to change?  Now the issue does not apply to our national constitution since it is very difficult to change, but state constitutions are something else.  The prime example of an amendment process that can be considered as too easy is that of California.  There are more ins and outs involved, but that state’s process includes a proposal phase in which a mere eight percent of the electorate sign a petition and the proposal is placed on an upcoming election ballot.  If a simple majority agree, the proposal becomes part of the constitution.  But that is only the most egregious example.  Other states not only have fairly open processes but also the substance of proposed amendments in many states falls far afield from the type of topics I outlined above.  For example, many states have constitutional provisions that govern economic policies, regulation policies, and cultural policies.  For example, here in Florida we recently voted on two amendment proposals, one that would allow the sale of marijuana for medical purposes and another providing funds for public land acquisition.  I know this is a matter of opinion, but to me these are policy questions that should be handled by regular statutes, not constitutional provisions.  I will add, though, that in order to be ratified, a proposal has to have a sixty percent approval rate in Florida.  What seems to be the biggest concern is that by being able to easily change the constitution or opening it up to more day to day issues, the constitution loses its lofted sense of importance; it loses the “sacred” aura that I believe it should inspire.  The constitution is the vehicle by which we commit ourselves to each other.

On the other hand, can the process be too severe?  In the case of our national amendment process, has it proven to be too burdensome?  Some ask whether, by making it as difficult as it is, we have made it near impossible to meet the challenges of a changing society.  About this, Thomas Jefferson, during the later years of his life, wrote:

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and institutions. . . . But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.  As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.  We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regime of their barbarous ancestors.[1]

Yes, times change and even our basic notions about life, in general, and all of its aspects, including how we govern ourselves, need to keep up with those changes if we wish to prosper and even survive as a viable society.  Today is no different.  For example, our inability to control the amount of money that influences our politics has made our system less democratic, less respectful of our commitment to equality.  Yet any talk of proposing and having a constitutional amendment ratified is readily dismissed given how difficult it is.  Another legitimate constitutional problem that needs addressing is how we draw up congressional districts and the associated problem of gerrymandering.  Again, this is a problem that can be solved only through changing our constitution and is therefore seen as being beyond solving.

Once students understand the function of constitutions, the process by which constitutions are amended, and the issue of how easy or difficult that process should be, students could be assigned to address the issue described above; that is, they can come up with a constitutional provision that would hit upon the right balance between a process that is too easy or too hard.

So, I know you’re just dying to see what my solution happens to be.  Here it goes:  first, adopt a process that is as difficult as our national constitution calls for, but add the following.  Institute a modified constitutional convention provision in which a convention of representatives – voted on for this specific purpose – convenes every twenty years.  The convention is to propose a new constitution.  The document they propose can be just a copy of the constitution already in effect or it can have a few or many changes or it can be a whole new document.  After the document is issued, the people get to voice their acceptance or rejection.  A sixty percent approval rate sounds about right.  If the proposed constitution is just an exact copy of what is in effect, then the vote would be a simple expression of allegiance as the constitution is already assured to continue.  I believe that an active statement of approval is important; it reminds us of the centrality of a constitution.  This process, if adopted at either the national or state level, I think, would meet that balance between a too difficult or too easy a process.  Also, since highlighting the process with a convention would bring added attention among the populace, the process might discourage some of the more “unconstitutional” type of proposals from being brought up – this could be further enhanced if some instructional programming on TV or social media accompany the calling of the constitutional convention.  For, after all, as Jefferson so aptly put it, we need a constitution that fits our current realities, but maintains the dignity of a true constitution.

---

[1] As quoted in Hofstadter, R.  (1948).  The American political tradition.  New York, NY:  Vintage Books.  Citation on p. 44.  One can interpret Jefferson’s use of the term “institutions” as including constitutional provisions.

DOG WHISTLE

Just when you think we’re done with the stupidity of the birthers, we’re all dragged back in.  If you haven’t seen the tape, a participant at a Donald Trump rally pointed out that we all have a big problem:  Muslims.  And of course, our president is one of them.  By the way, according to this guy, Muslims have training camps in which they are trained to do us harm.  As one of the pundits on TV pointed out, there are camps teaching Muslims to inflict harm; they’re known as US military training camps where they are volunteers who go through basic training.  Apparently, there are about 3,500 members of our armed forces who profess the Muslim religion.

In the last few postings, I have revisited the case I made early on in the history of this blog.  That is, that due to some quantifiable indicators, we can conclude that our civics instruction in this country needs some changing; we’re not doing a good enough job.  One such indicator was the level of political knowledge.  At the time, I used the incidence of birthers, the belief among a significant number of Americans who believed that President Obama is, one, a Muslim and, two, born in some foreign country (Nigeria being the most common location cited).  I also mentioned that there were – and probably still are – a significant number of people who believe President Bush had something to do with the 9/11 attack so that he could take us to war in Iraq.  In either instance, the level of delusion is worth considering.  When one ponders the amount of collusion such realities demand and the absence of reasonable evidence to support either contention, one is hard pressed to understand why anyone is so taken in by such outlandish claims.

Here is an aim for public education:  get the number of people so disposed to only an insignificant number – say under five percent of the population.  That would be refreshing.  Our media’s reaction to the incident at the Trump rally is to question why the candidate did not correct the misinformed supporter.  We are reminded how John McCain, under a similar situation, did just that.  But look at this from the Donald’s position:  how much support would he lose if he did correct the audience member?  After all, the bulk of his support is from this type of mentality, this type of misinformation.  Why don’t his numbers go down as he commits one gaffe after another?  Because his base is this population.  Trump has, I believe, garnered a whole lot of participation from people who usually are either not interested or so cynical they don’t bother.  In the main, this is his crowd.  Now, let me add that this is not his entire crowd; I am sure there are a lot of responsible people caught up with this unorthodox politician.  These people have responsible complaints, but there is the other portion. 

The other portion find Trump saying the right (no, at times, extreme right) things.  It is almost like a dog whistle going off.  It is that citizen who has been mis-served by our efforts in our civics classrooms.  And with that, I end this review of why we need to change civics and government instruction.

NUMBER ONE?

One of the factors I addressed some years ago in this blog was that our crime rates, as measured by incarceration numbers, indicated we need to do a better job in our civics classrooms.  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.[1]  Yet before we celebrate, 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)[2]

Whether one is looking at total numbers or rate numbers, the US does not fare well when compared to other countries.  I will point out that the above list of countries varies 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. 

The closest country in terms of rate is Chile.  Chile is a Latin country and an example of a nation that has a culture, described by Daniel Elazar, as one that harbors an anarchistic individualism.  This blog has argued that we, 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... .”[3]  This blog has also argued that our nation, 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.

Criminality can be seen as a higher degree of incivility.  I reported earlier that a low level of civility is a definite social problem.  By historical standards, it is difficult to determine whether incivility is more or less acute today.  But numbers like these on criminality and other numbers I have reported in this blog indicate that a general lack of civility has been an ongoing concern among certain journalistic and academic sources.  Summarily, one can describe this concern as follows:

Civility in America continues to erode and rude behavior is becoming our “new normal,” according to the fourth annual study on Civility in America:  A Nationwide Survey, conducted by global public relations firm Weber Shandwick and public affairs firm Powell Tate in partnership with KRC Research.[4]

Irrespective of how relatively severe the problem of incivility or, in its more severe manifestation, criminality, is today, it is definitely a problem that should be addressed in our schools, not only as one other topic, but as a concern central to the mission of civics education.  And as for over-zealous policy in terms of drugs – we Americans have laws against drugs that are unreasonable and ruining lives – we know other crimes are downplayed.  As I write these words, the nation is being told that there are under-reported cases and under-addressed cases of ignored, sexual abuse cases against women in the military and on college campuses.  Whether such meager attention outnumbers cases of long prison sentences for drug crimes, I don't know.  But I do know that no one is claiming that people are readily going to jail and prison for legal behaviors and, as I reported before in this blog, America’s prison population outnumbers that of any other country by far.  This indicates that whether our laws are overly zealous or not, one can safely believe we can do a better job when it comes to educating our youth in terms of the law and in having respect for the law, not to mention behaving with more civility.

---

[1] 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.  See 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 .

[2] Maps of the World, see www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html .

[3] Elazar, D. J.  (1994).  How federal is the Constitution? Thoroughly.  In a booklet of readings, Readings for classes taught by Professor Elazar, (pp. 1-30) prepared for a National Endowment for the Humanities Institute. Conducted in Steamboat Springs, Colorado.  Quotation from pp. 10-11.

[4]See http://www.webershandwick.com/news/article/civility-in-america-2013-incivility-has-reached-crisis-levels.  A 2014 report further supports the findings of this account; see https://www.webershandwick.com/news/article/civility-in-america-2014-forecast-bleak-but-with-hope-for-millennials .