GRADING THE “END”

In a recent article,¹ the political scientist, John Mueller, gives us an update, of sorts, on the ideas contained in a provocative essay published in 1989. Francis Fukuyama claimed, those many years ago, “the end of history.” Of course, this pronouncement was meant to gain our attention – so he did, at least among the scholarly community. The article coincided with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall and the downfall of communism. Fukuyama was not arguing that that point in time marked the end of things happening – things we would consider history – but his claim was based on a Hegelian notion of history marching by the drum of ideological conflicts (thesis vs. antithesis: old organizing idea vs. new organizing idea). He saw that, with the fall of communism, our collective experience on the planet was at the point that such an advancement had come to an end. Mueller asks the question: was Fukuyama right?

With this posting, I want to begin presenting a number of pieces that will review this concern that Mueller presents, and comment. I will do this because in this blog I have been very critical of the dominance of the natural rights construct – the mental view associated with pure liberalism². I might have given the impression that my antagonism is deep seated in the sense that I find nothing meritorious with this view; this despite my effort early on to put my opinion in a more moderate context. The Mueller article provides an opportunity to further elucidate and more clearly express how I think a federalist should view the prevailing construct. Spoiler alert: the concern is more one of degree in my disfavor rather than one of profound rejection.

To further state Fukuyama's argument, he saw liberalism – belief in democracy/market capitalism – as the last ideology standing. He gives reasons for its longevity. In terms of democracy, the political component of liberalism, he points out that by 1945 the states run under democratic rule had been tested and revised to become a highly workable system. After 1975, it had spread to all of Western Europe with the conversion of fairly authoritarian states in Greece, Portugal, and Spain. With the fall of communism, Eastern Europe made a stunning move toward democracy, while in Africa many states moved in that direction, predominately South Africa, but others as well, e. g., Botswana. In the '90s, the largest Muslim nation became democratic, Indonesia. Mueller summarizes this development as follows:

Democracy is a governmental form, generally compatible with a vigorous and productive society, that functions rather well when people manage, on average, to be no better than they actually are or are ever likely to be: flawed, grasping, self-centered, prejudiced, and easily distracted. That is, democracy does not require a great deal from people; they do not need to be particularly good or noble, but merely to calculate their own best interests or, if so moved, to peacefully express them. There are, however, no guarantees that anyone will listen.³

Who knew? The secret to democracy is having a nation of unrequited complainers. According to Mueller, there is no need for exceptional cultural dispositions – “democratization” is not necessary. This goes in opposition to the “Third Wave” literature headed by Samuel Huntington. Mueller points out that democracy has spread without substantial economic growth or force. People merely have to be ready to accept a system that allows them to complain peacefully and elites to come around to the idea that democratic rule, in the public sector, is the best way to handle the issues of the political world.

As for capitalism, despite predictions from very insightful thinkers – from Marx to Schumpeter predicting some form of socialism to triumph – again, this mode of “doing business” seems to be the most viable, the most productive. Heilbroner is quoted as commenting: “... a market system of some kind will constitute their [socialist economists] principal means of coordination.”⁴ As with democracy, capitalist states vary and nowhere is there a pure form of the economic system. As such, there are ongoing controversies: perceived antagonism between growth and wealth distribution, need for and extent of regulation, role and rights of labor, etc. But these are “matters of degree” arguments. We see the attachment for the market model in times of crises. While changes are made, as after the most recent crisis, you don't see fundamental changes. We have come to the point that we don't consider trade restrictions, wage and price controls, confiscatory taxes on the rich, or nationalizing “too big to fail” corporations. And challenging movements, such as Occupy Wall Street, are mostly impotent. Our current state of affairs is that even in nations that are not so democratic, Russia and China, the capitalist mode of operating is very much in place. But when combined with some form of democracy – liberalism – we see it not only as prevailing globally, but also as the direction the world is moving toward in even greater numbers in the future.

Gone are the days of feudalism, fascism, and communism. Today, we have a growing liberalism or some form of authoritarian rule, which is becoming more and more scarce. I consider liberated federalism a view ensconced within liberalism – a form of it. While the natural rights view is a more pure form of it, it places, for a federalist, too much emphasis on the individual. Liberated federalism does not abandon the notion of a strong individual, but defines the liberty of the single citizen more in line with the obligations of the compact, solidifying them to the whole, as more binding. It shifts emphasis from the ideal of being free to do whatever one wants as long as one does not hurt others, to a liberty more in line with the admonition of being free to do what one should do to advance societal welfare. As such, laws, under this view, should encourage this form of freedom – as the Affordable Care Act does and the other laws we have from the New Deal and Great Society legacies. Free to act as one should does not call for force to implement; it calls for persuasion and modeling. And when coercion of some form is needed, a conclusion arrived at reluctantly, then liberated federalism calls for gradualism – an easing into change. I know that these laws are often not initially popular. After all, we live in a time of natural rights thinking. But, if these programs are, in effect, good for the society, the majority of that society will benefit from their effects and, eventually, become popular – look at Social Security and Medicare.

Yes, I agree mostly with Mueller: Fukuyama was correct; history, as he defined it, might very well be over. The current concerns over Russia's moves in the Ukraine give us pause. But this is not a battle of ideologies as such; it is reflective of one of the challenges liberalism faces today, not from other ideologies, but from more practical ambitions of nationalism, as in Ukraine, and fundamentalism – in those areas of the world not yet converted to liberalism. These will be addressed in future postings.

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

2The term, liberalism, refers not to the position on the political spectrum we associate with progressives and the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Instead, it refers to the philosophic position which, as this posting will describe, is a belief in democratic principles and capitalism.

3Op cit. Mueller, p. 38.

4Ibid., p. 38.

JUST THE MEANS, MA'AM

A Family Affair is a 1937 film. It is the first of a series of films known as the Andy Hardy films with Mickey Rooney – whom we recently lost . This first edition also stars Lionel Barrymore and Spring Byington. The plot line concerns a judge, Barrymore, who holds up an aqueduct project that will in the long run be detrimental to the interests of local citizens, but which promises a host of short-term benefits. While the film's basic political conflict is relatively simple – moneyed interests versus the common good – it does demonstrate how political pressure on elected officials, the judge being one, can be strident and difficult to ignore. The film illustrates how decisions by officials, be they representatives or judges, can negatively affect a vast array of people who have at their disposal a wide range of political resources: money, emotional leverage, family ties, friendship, expertise, maybe even brass knuckles, and the like. When the stakes are high, you can count on them using these sources of power. What I want to focus on is the notion that technocratic projects, such as an aqueduct project, seem to have a certain level of inertia simply because they are technocratic.

Part of the natural rights' bias for positivist thinking is a prejudice toward favoring ways to control what is – both in our social and natural environments. This world we live in, for the pure technocrat, is one of objects. Our role, according to this view, is to control it. In order to control it, we need to know it. Hence, after an array of ways to accomplish this aim over the centuries, science has been developed – it has proven itself to be an awesome option to attain that knowledge. “Knowledge is power, and the aim of science is control and manipulation. Nature has no worth or meaning save as an inventory of natural resources.”¹ We, as a people, have drifted toward having an exploited relationship with nature. Nature has no use other than to provide those resources that are instrumental to the way of life we have developed. We have been exploiting nature to ever higher degrees of degradation and term it a good thing, as progress. And we seem very intent on enjoying the short term benefits such exploitation accrues and are oblivious to the long term consequences which promise to be ominous. But just don't blame it on science.

The growth of science in western nations, including the US, has happened in a transnational cultural tradition hospitable to the scientific-technocratic view with supportive religious beliefs. Judeo-Christian dogma is well-steeped in the biblical claim: man has domain over God's creation. The impetus for this posting comes from yesterday's 60 Minutes broadcast. One of its “articles” was about Pope Francis. The pontiff's namesake, St. Francis of Assisi, was known for his concern for the poor and other marginalized people. This present leader of the Roman Catholic church seems be following the saint's example. St. Francis was also associated with a view of nature as the object of his love, not as the target of his exploitation. He has been called the patron saint of ecology. He apparently saw nature as a venue in which to get to know God. Unfortunately, this saint's view of our natural surroundings did not have much of an effect on Christian thinking. Instead, what we seem to have, first, according to Philip Selznick, is a logic of dominance. The world, as stated above, is seen as made up of objects. We are free to pretty much control and manipulate these objects. Second, in our thinking about how to use this world, we treat ends, goals, aims, as given. Our emphasis is on processes to attain poorly conceived objectives. We spend scant interest on justifying these things we seek.² We want something and that seems to be reason enough.

From this perspective, the plot of A Family Affair has a more insightful angle. In its more “Hollywood” treatment, the film attempts to point out that this area of doing business is a dangerous source of short-sightedness. It is the same scientific community that is now beginning to warn us of how this short-sightedness is about to bite us if we don't change our ways. But then again, that is not what we have come to expect from that community. We have come to expect procedures from them, not aims: means not ends.

1Selznick, P. (1992). The moral commonwealth: Social theory and the promise of community. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, p. 54.

2Ibid.

ALL CHIEFS, ALL WORKERS

Authority is something with which we all have to deal: authority at home, at school, at work, and in the political/government world. Authority is a status or quality a person or group of people has to hold legitimate power. A parent has authority over sons and daughters, teachers have it over students, bosses have it over workers, and government officials have it over residents within a jurisdiction. There are laws, customs, and norms that determine who holds legitimate authority. These elements also define acceptable ways by which authority is administered. Basically, authority is justified by the need for leadership in the functioning of collective action. For example, how a family functions – where it will live, where the parents will work, how children will be nurtured and educated, and the like – needs someone to be empowered to make the necessary decisions that will determine the answers to these concerns. So if there is a parallel institutional element in two or more aspects of life – family, school, work, government – then the attitudes we develop as we relate to one element will affect our attitudes in relation to the other ones. A civics teacher who is concerned with the attitudes his or her students are developing in relation to government should be aware of these crossovers. If the teacher wants to develop positive dispositions toward democratic governance and a genuine interest in having those students become active, participating citizens, then reference to these other domains would probably be helpful if not necessary.

In light of this, the work of a group of cognitive psychologists is relevant. They look at subconscious or unconscious biases that people hold that affect how they judge their world or choose to act in related situations. How one looks at authority in the home will likely affect how one sees it at school, at work, or in the political world. A cognitive psychologist who looks into this is George Lakoff.¹

First, Lakoff points out that most people's views about these concerns are based on metaphors that simplify the complexity of each of these domains. What I want to focus on here is how Americans metaphorically view work according to Lakoff. He writes that there are two prominent views among Americans: work reward and work exchange. Chances are that at times a person might view work one way and the other way at other times – given the context of a situation or conversation – but overall, a person will have one of these ways be dominant and when the views conflict will support that one over the other. The view one favors seems as obvious and natural, and therefore the holder of the view will tend to project that particular view onto others. As a default bias, people decide how much they will act in accordance with the favored view and this decision takes on a moral tone. Compliance is considered moral; non-compliance is considered immoral or at least suspect in terms of being the right thing to do.

Here is how Lakoff summarizes the work reward view:

• The employer is a legitimate authority.
• The employee is subject to that authority.
• Work is obedience to the employer's commands.
• Pay is the reward the employee receives for obedience to the employer.²

If seen as principles, the above has implications in terms of the relationship between those in authority and those who are subject to that authority. Lakoff provides the following in terms of these implications:

• The employer has a right to give orders to the employee, and to punish the employee for not obeying those orders.
• Obedience is the condition of employment.
• The social relationship of employer to employee is one of superior to inferior.
• The employer knows best.
• The employee is moral if he obeys the employer.
• The employer is moral if he appropriately rewards the employee for obeying his orders.³

As for the other metaphor, work exchange, these are the principles that Lakoff uses to define its view of authority:

• Work is an object of value.
• The worker is the possessor of his work.
• The employer is the possessor of his money.
• Employment is the voluntary exchange of the worker's work for the employer's money.⁴

As with the work reward metaphor, these principles have implications. Lakoff doesn't give a list of implications, but his description harps on the freely arrived at agreement between the employer and employee. He emphasizes that the agreement signals an exchange of equally valued assets: labor for money. Such a view, as opposed to the work reward view, places the parties of the agreement on a much more equal basis. Obedience is not relevant to this relationship. If one is socialized to view work in this mode, one can safely speculate that such a view is supportive of a more democratic disposition toward other institutionalized relations such as in the family, at school, and in terms of the political/governmental domain, whereas the work reward view lends itself to more vertical or hierarchical orientation.

In this blog, I have argued that a problem we are facing is the increasing disparity in the income levels between employers of large corporations and their employees – check my last posting, for example. But there has been a recent development that might promise, albeit limited, an antidote to this increasingly deleterious state of affairs. And one can easily see that if we encourage, through civics and other socializing agents, a work exchange view, we might bolster the necessary attitudes that can convert our employment expectations. In turn, that might very well lead to alternative approaches that might address labor and income problems that current practices produce. An alternative in line with the work exchange view can address the income problem we are facing. Such an alternative is a new business model that is becoming, to a degree, recognized as a viable option; that is, a business owned by the workers, a cooperative.

Most people are familiar with consumer cooperatives – buyers of a product who come together and set up a business to provide that product, as in apartment buildings in New York City or credit unions. Those have been around for quite a while. But more recently, workers of a particular industry have set up businesses such as restaurants or building supply outlets. When I say “new” that isn't exactly true. Worker co-ops have been around, but recently, they have enjoyed renewed interest. Shaila Dewan of The New York Times reports that co-ops range in size and in the number of workers involved. She points to Cooperative Home Care Associates in the Bronx as one of the largest with a work force of 2,000 and judges that number as being the upper limit of such operations. Generally, it seems that this business model will work best with workers of lower tech skills which just so happens to be those workers who are most disadvantaged by current wage trends.

While this alternative might help some segments of the labor force, it does have its problems. What does the research have to say about worker co-ops? “Research findings about [worker co-ops] are rarely negative – they are either just as good as regular businesses, or they are more productive, less susceptible to failure, more attentive to quality and less likely to lay off workers in a downturn … .”⁵ But it's not all positive. These businesses lag in hiring new workers when business activity increases, have a general inability to hire people with high talent – that's why these businesses are not of the high tech variety – workers lack business expertise – fixable by buying such expertise – and have difficulty acquiring sufficient investment – banks are not used to dealing with co-ops. But many of these problems will prove temporary if the model becomes more prevalent. For this to happen, we need more in our work force to see the opportunities and be willing to take the plunge. They also need the disposition to be able to work and trust other workers in their industry to take such a risk. How kids are encouraged to see authority might be relevant to how many laborers of the future will be willing to join – to federate – with others and start and maintain worker co-op businesses. I, for one, would see such a development as a welcome change.

1See Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. The Lakoff analysis that is reported in this posting is derived from this book.

2Ibid., p. 54.

3Ibid.

4Ibid., p. 55.

5Dewan, S. (2014). Lose the boss. The New York Times Magazine, March 30, p. 21.

THE MAIN MARKER

What marks inequality, at least more so than any other factor? Some might say treatment before the law. Are the laws administered equally for everyone? Let me highlight an example. With the concerns over security we have today – it's been so long since 9/11 that our concerns in this area don't seem abnormal anymore – we all, upon entering the boarding areas of commercial airplanes, have to go through security scanners and whatnot. These are run by the government, the TSA. We, in an “equal before the law” regime, should all be treated the same. Yet the trend is to allow those with first class tickets or other pricier arrangements to short-circuit this requirement. Please read:

Air travel in the United States has never been a model of equality, but in the first years after the Sept. 11 attacks, there was at least a sense of shared sacrifice, as coach and first class passengers endured longer lines and heightened security together. The moment did not last, and today airport security is poised to become another front in America’s class war, a struggle between frequent fliers and not-so-frequent fliers.

We have all been there. While everyone who flies commercially is required to clear a TSA screening checkpoint before proceeding to the gate, first-class passengers and frequent fl[ers get a special queue, with expedited access to the screening process. Meanwhile, the rest of us wait in long lines – sometimes much longer lines – muttering discontentedly like so many budding Bolsheviks.¹

Now I can't personally vouch for this inequality. I haven't flown since '07 – our last trip was so disagreeable that my wife and I have not done it since then. But between this cited article and others I have read, apparently that source of inequality before the law has become more commonplace. But who is getting preferential treatment? Is it people who value the perks of first class so much that they are willing to fork over the extra dough? Or is it those for whom the value of the dollar is so low – due to the fact that they have so many of them – that they consider the extra cost as inconsequential? I believe the latter to be the case.

So, income and/or wealth, as illustrated by this example, is the basis of inequality, at least as experienced in this country. Some have so much money or access to money that getting on a Delta or American Airlines flight is not something they do. They hop on private jets that bypass all of this queuing and patting and screening that all the rest of us have to put up with if we want to fly. In other words, there is no escaping how inequality in one area – how much money one has – and another area – political rights – can be segregated. One affects the other and this simple airline example merely illustrates it. Another example? How about a judge who gives a lighter sentence to a teenager because the magistrate finds the boy a victim of “affluenza” – a sense of entitlement because his parents raised him under conditions of extreme wealth. Oh, by the way, the young man's drunken driving which led him into slamming his car into a stalled car resulted in the deaths of four people and the paralysis of another. Isolated case? There are forms of this inequality every day. Can someone earn, inherit, or otherwise acquire too much money? Too much for their own good and the good of others?

Here's a related question: what does the historical character – usually depicted as a ruthless financial, monopolist – J. Pierpoint Morgan, have in common with novelist George Orwell, the darling of conservatives, and the business guru, Peter F. Drucker ? They all believed that the ratio of income between the highest paid executive of a company and the lowest paid employee should be 20 to 1 or less. Yet in 2012, the ratio between these two among the S & P 500 index companies was 354 to 1. In 2013, the top 10 paid executives in the US each made over $100 million dollars. The average income per household that same year was $51,017.² That kind of disparity can buy a lot of affluenza or inequality within the market and before the law. This form of inequality is getting to be out of hand. We need to address it in a meaningful way. Or, as stated in a recent book:

“For a country founded on the idea that rights are inalienable and inherent from birth,” Taibbi writes, “we've developed a high tolerance for conditional rights and conditional citizenship. And the one condition, it turns out, is money. If you have a lot of it, the legal road you get to travel is well lit and beautifully maintained. If you don't, it's a dark alley and most Americans would be shocked to find out what's at the end of it.”³

My point, exactly.

1Cohen, R. and Vasvari, R. (2012). Wait, who gets to skip airport security? Slate, July 12, see http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/07/airline_carriers_should_not_be_allowed_to_decide_who_gets_privileged_service_from_tsa_s_security_procedures_.html .

2Hargreaves, D. (2014). Can we close the pay gap? The New York Times, March 30, Sunday Review section, p. 3.

3Ulin, D. L. (2014). Matt Taibbi rips into America's growing income gap in 'The Divide.' The Los Angeles Times, Book Review, see http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-matt-taibbi-20140330,0,4516236.story#ixzz2yAa2VUyn . This review is of Matt Taibbi's recent book, Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap.

JUST SAY NO?

A short item in last Sunday's New York Times caught my interest. It seems that in the state of New York, students are awaiting, in short order, the administration of the state-wide assessment testing. This is a yearly event. That state's testing is based on the recently developed Common Core standards. These are standards developed not by New York, but by the federal Department of Education. The effort is to provide standards that are not based on rote memory requirements, but on more analytic and problem solving skills. At the national level, the concern seems to be prompted by the perceived need for our students to fare more competitively with students of other nations. A better standing among our students today promises a more competitive work force tomorrow. The article indicates that there is a group of parents in New York City who are opting to have their sons and daughters not take part in the state testing. The total number of students affected by these parental decisions amounts to 270 students – not many given the total numbers being tested. These parents are not against testing or assessment per se. They say that they are in favor of the accountability that testing aims to provide. In the past, these yearly tests in the several states have been used to not only indicate how well students are doing – determining, for example, which ones should be allowed to advance to higher grades or graduate from high school – but also to see how well schools are doing. Florida's testing determines what grade a school deserves, A through F. There has even been some talk of using the tests to “grade” teachers that could then be further instrumental in determining which teachers should be retained, promoted, if their students do well, or penalized in some form if their students do not perform well. These results have earned this type of assessment the title of “high stakes testing.” These rebelling parents claim they're all in favor of this type of accountability. Their beef is that the existing assessment instruments – even the newer versions spurred by Common Core standards – are too limited.

This sentiment is a bit ironic in that the Common Core standards were developed to meet some of the criticism. The newer testing is not based on rote memory skills, but the parents still think that the testing is short on evaluating a variety of student products and short on testing critical thinking based activities. The following captures the concern:

As Rosa Perez-Rivera, a mother in the Bronx who is opting out, explained it, her daughter was thrilled by school last year, when work around oceans sparked a love of science. This year, in third grade, as the focus has moved to test preparation … her confidence and enthusiasm have lagged.¹

The often reported effect of state-wide testing is that is takes over a school's curriculum and students find themselves almost exclusively involved in lessons and activities dedicated toward preparing them to do well on the test to the exclusion of other worthwhile endeavors. Social studies and civics seem to be one of those other worthwhile areas that are being “cheated.” According to the Common Core website, reading standards call for the use of history materials, such as foundational documents, in the design of the test questions. But is this enough?

I have concerns about any single testing system for evaluating students. Space here does not allow me to go over all my concerns and what I think should be done with assessment. But I can say that evaluating students, evaluating schools, and evaluating teachers are three different challenges and each needs its own system of evaluation. The strategy for each should be very different. For example, one test regimen cannot be used to see how well teachers are doing when the range of student preparation and level of support students get, such as at home, is so varied. And with modern technology, different strategies can be developed and implemented for a relatively inexpensive investment that could address the varying assessment challenges that educators face. For example, the installation of video cameras in classrooms can be used to randomly review teacher performances. These recordings could then be used to not only judge teacher techniques, but also to improve them. Of course, any new evaluation strategies should include teachers in their development.

As for the specific complaint of these parents, assessment should be more open-ended and test for more creative and critical thinking skills. This is not easy, but I believe it can be done and should be done.

1Bellafante, G. (2014). Refusing to submit to testing and the burdens it imposes. The New York Times, March 30, p. 22 (front page section).

THE PROBLEM WITH DRAWING UP TO THE WRONG COUNTER

How should a national history course, particularly one for secondary students, present the history of the nation? Is the common way our history is taught today a version or a narrative that uncritically views that history by glorifying its people's accomplishments while ignoring or rationalizing instances of injustice or other shortcomings? There is an approach to history, the celebratory approach, that takes on this positive posture. But, of course, the critique is that it presents an unrealistic view of a national history or worse, it serves as a form of indoctrination. A history that looks just at what is good about our past deprives students of a means to learn from policies and practices that led to unfortunate results and usually costly consequences. That's not what we say we want history to be or, for that matter, what the purpose of teaching social studies is and having it as part of our required curriculum. As it pertains to American history, such an approach will skimp in describing and explaining such developments as slavery and dispossession of native American lands. These less savory events are “covered” but in a perfunctory manner without delving into the moral and vacuous implications that such events, practices, and institutions caused in the maturation of our nation.

There is what I deem to be an overcompensation for celebratory tendencies in our curricular choices, an approach to history known as the reconstructionist history. It is supported by the critical theory mental construct. I have become aware of a particular suggested strategy whose aim is to address the above distorted view. This awareness is the result of information contained in a book review¹ which reviews a new book by Meira Levinson. My understanding is that this author introduces an approach that presents to students “counter narratives” of history in which particular versions of our past are presented. These narratives are designed for different ethnic and racial groups. Since I have not had the opportunity to read the book, my comments here are a reaction not to the book, but of an idea of how to present history to disadvantaged groups in our student population. That is, a different story is designed for each group with the purpose of offering students materials prepared to address specific areas of exploitation or injustice that have been visited upon the particular group in question. According to a review of the book, Levinson is making the proposal in order to encourage a particular racial or ethnic group consciousness and to promote civic engagement within that group. After all, public schools are meant to create an informed and active citizenry. But is this a good way to do it?

I would judge, based on limited knowledge, that Levinson is what is considered a critical theorist educator. I have described critical theory in past postings. In short, this construct views deep seated exploitative relations based on class, race, gender, and age. Many of the scholars who ascribe to this view engage in research that unearths evidence proving the existence of these exploitative relations and how they are manifested. My categorizing Levinson this way is a product of reviewing her argument – as presented in the book review – and looking over her curriculum vitae. In the case of the argument – as I deem it to be – by presenting these histories, as I just described, members of racial and ethnic groups can critically study the evidence of exploitative polices and practices and appreciate their victimization.

I find this suggested strategy as not only novel, but also dangerous. If this summarizes the argument correctly, I don't question the motivation; I'm sure that only the best interests of these students are what is on Levinson's mind. But the notion of setting out our mutual history by drawing up tailor made narratives that are meant to highlight those incidents of injustice in lieu of an overall narrative that visits these same developments is unnecessarily divisive and counter to promoting an appreciation of our compacted unity. Yes; cover these instances of injustice in our history courses but among the cases of rectifying injustice and the accompanying courage and sacrifice that many Americans endured. Cover them in the context of our overall history and highlight those cases of righting the wrongs as well and understand that they originate from all the varied groups that make up our nation.

Let me offer another approach. The injustices that occurred in the US – and in some cases continue to occur – are not unique to our nation. I am in no way diminishing the hideousness of their occurrences here or in any other place. For example, I have heard the argument that our form of slavery was one of the more, if not the most, egregious example in all of history. Our slavery continuously degraded its victims; it regularly split families; it administered brutal physical punishment, sometimes gratuitously so, and set the stage for generations of African-Americans dealing with the legacy of its deleterious effects. It was cruel, unusual, at times fatal, and long lasting. Any responsible rendering of our past must convey these facts. But it also must convey the heroism of those who sacrificed a great deal, even their lives, to bring this institution and other injustices to an end. Some of these heroes were African-American; some were not. But all of this needs to be put within the context that any of these distasteful activities are examples of human behavior motivated by human aims and goals and that all of this is the product of culture, past experiences, and physiological “wiring” of those involved. Our sense of justice and the actions of some to promote it is not the product of natural tendencies.

Actually, a lot of it is counter-intuitive. It is more a product of well thought out thinking and reflection to combat tribal biases – that I feel are inherent in our physiological make-up – and bolstered by traditional customs. Our national compact – the US Constitution – is the product of reflection over what had been learned from the experiences of past societies. It laid the theoretical foundation that we have had through our history. It is a plan of governance based on our cherished beliefs wrenched from the lessons of immoral practices. Our history is one of striving to fulfill that agreement's promise. This is mutual; it is holistic of all of our experience. It is not the product of “counter narratives.” Let us be true to this foundation and not succumb to the temptations of going down the path of separate languages and stories that might offer short term and limited advantages in summoning divisive motivations. Hopefully, I am overstating Levinson's argument, but given my experience with critical theory and its adherents, I fear that I am not.

1Marri, A. R. (2013-14). No child left behind by Meira Levinson. Political Science Quarterly, Book Review section, 128 (4), pp. 776-777.

FIRST CLASS CITIZEN

At some point, Florida's former governor and U.S. Senator, Bob Graham, stated on the Senate floor that he was a Jeffersonian Democrat. What does that mean? It means he believes in republicanism. As such, it promotes the idea that citizens behave in accordance with their civic duty, which includes participation in the political processes of their communities, especially, and in the affairs of their state and nation. This includes, at some minimum level, the duty to vote. Government should encourage citizens to vote. Jeffersonian democracy is in favor of obliterating aristocracy and generally representing the interests of the common man and woman, especially that of the yeoman farmer. A yeoman farmer is a farmer who cultivates his/her own farm and is generally considered a relatively small farm farmer. In Jefferson's time, yeoman farmers were common in New England. He found these people to be honest, diligent, and socially connected to their local affairs. When Jefferson was alive, these ideas and ideals made up the platform for the political party Jefferson founded, the Democratic-Republican Party. It was one of two parties at the time – late eighteenth century, early nineteenth century – the other being the Federalist Party started by Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. Don't be misled by the names of these parties; their names were chosen because of the historical prelude to their origins and were not a true reflection of the terms' meanings.¹

But I digress. My main point here is to convey my admiration for Bob Graham. Jeffersonian democracy is a view of governance and politics akin to federalism, but with some deviation. But to the degree the two constructs overlap and to the degree Governor Graham abides by these jointly held beliefs, I find him to be a man deserving of respect and admiration. Let me share an anecdote that I believe reflects the kind of public servant he was.

I, as a classroom teacher, was sent, from time to time, invitations to participate in varied in-service educational events. One such invitation was sent to me by the U. S. State Department. The event was scheduled to take place at State's headquarters in Washington, D. C. I accepted. When I arrived, I found that there were teachers from all over the country – about several hundred of us. And the event was scheduled over two days; I think a Thursday and Friday. It was very informative, well organized and I was delighted to be there – they really made the effort to make us all feel important and the information they shared about several international issues and conditions about varied nations around the world was well presented. A lot of discussion ensued. It was a trip well taken. The man mostly organizing our activities, at least as the emcee of the activities, was Lawrence Eagleburger, who at the time was second in command at State. The Secretary of State was James Baker under the administration of George H. W. Bush. The last scheduled event was to be a reception for all of the teachers, including a presentation by Secretary Baker. Unfortunately, I couldn't attend because I needed to get to the airport for my flight back to Miami. I was disappointed. But what I didn't know at the time was that Eagleburger would succeed Baker in the post of Secretary of State – a fact I would appreciate in future years.

Anyway, I arrived at my gate at the airport and among my fellow travelers was a group of people surrounding someone. At first I couldn't make out who the person in the middle of this group was. Eventually, I saw it was my senator, Bob Graham. We all waited for our plane to arrive, an Eastern shuttle from New York or Boston. Finally, it pulled up to the gate and we still had to wait for the passengers to deplane and then we all started boarding. They first called the first class passengers. I expected Senator Graham to board. He didn't. I thought, smart politician; he doesn't want to be sitting in first class while the rest of us board and see him there as we shuffle back to coach. Then it was time for the coach passengers to board. It happens that when they called for my section of seats to board, Senator Graham was one of us. It turned out he was flying coach and his eventual seat happened to be a couple of rows behind mine. The flight took off and we made our way down to Florida. As I worked my way out to leave the plane, the Senator was right behind me. I didn't maneuver this; it just worked out that way. Anyway, as we got to the concourse, I looked over my shoulder and simply extended a positive word, saying, “I'm a fan” and intended to go about my business. Well, he engaged me in conversation which was good and bad. The good was he expressed a genuine interest in my trip, in the program I attended, and my career as a teacher in general. For those who are not Floridians who might be reading this, I will inform you that Graham was somewhat famous for his work days when he would spend a whole day doing different jobs while governor and he continued the practice after that time. He has indicated that the work days were a good way to learn what was on people's minds. As we made our way down the concourse, which was a fairly long way, our conversation was lively and interesting, at least to me. The bad part of the walk was that I had to keep up with him. He was simply walking at what seemed to be his normal gait, but I had to hustle to stay even with him in order to keep the conversation going. As we got to the lobby area of the airport, I noticed a group waiting for him. I let him walk ahead so that he could mingle with his welcoming entourage. He did go ahead, but after a second he looked around and wanted me to join the group. He handed me a little black book and asked me to write down my name and address. Unfortunately, after holding my bag for the time it took to walk the long concourse, my arm and hand muscles didn't want to cooperate and my penmanship, which I think is usually pretty good, was awful. I scratched the information down and if I didn't know what I had attempted to write, I wouldn't have been able to read it. Oh well, c'est la vie. I parted with a warm goodbye and off I went.

Today, Governor Graham is heavily involved with a variety of issues, one being civics education. He and former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor have somewhat joined forces and have backed the promotion of civics curriculum projects across the country. Let me quote him:

We're developing curriculum … which will say if a child is learning the basic skills of how to read, why can't they be reading about something important like the history of our state or our nation or people who have shaped it and some of the principles that make us the unique democracy that we are … .²

His qualified description of efforts to enhance civics in our classrooms reflects the current emphasis on basic skills at the expense of other curricular concerns such as civics. Governor Graham shared, in a recent visit to the state capital, that when he graduated from Miami Senior High School he had had three courses in civics. This is a far cry from what students receive now. The Governor is working to find ways to ameliorate this deficiency. Thank you, Governor Graham, for your service, for your interest in civics education, and for a wonderful memory.

1For example, the Federalist Party favored a strong central government which is in dire contrast to traditional federal ideals. The Democratic-Republican Party was not so democratic as we use the term today.

2Burlew, J. (2014). Graham calls for more civic engagement. The Tallahassee Democrat, March 19, p. 3 A.