JULY 5, 1776?

Here is a salutary bit of information.  It seems that to get a college degree in Florida, a student needs to exhibit the following:

… an understanding of the basic principles of American democracy and how they are applied in our republican form of government, an understanding of the United States Constitution, knowledge of the founding documents and how they have shaped the nature and functions of our institutions of self-governance, and an understanding of landmark supreme Court cases and their impact on law and society.[1]

Hooray!!  This is taken from a State of Florida statute passed in 2017.  But how does one exhibit or demonstrate these abilities.  This posting focuses on this requirement and what it says about the state of civics education.

          First concern:  shouldn’t high school students be able to do these things?  Of course, there is a bit of vagueness in what is being asked.  For example, understanding the United States Constitution can range from having to pass that portion of the bar exam that’s dedicated to constitutional law or merely stating the Constitution is the basic law of the land.  But a high school graduate should have a reasonable level of understanding and knowledge over the topics mentioned in the excerpt above.

          That graduate, for example, should be able to provide a statement that distinguishes what a “republican form of government” is from what a pure democracy form or an authoritarian form is.  He/she should be able to describe how Supreme Court decisions are used as precedents in subsequent cases.  These levels of knowledge seem reasonable for a high school graduate to have.

          Second concern:  how is one going to measure the level of proficiency sought?  In this, the law identifies those avenues by which the college graduate can exhibit the desired knowledge.  They are:

sign up and pass a college level survey course on American government; or, sign up and pass a college American survey history (since 1865) course; or sign up and pass an Advance Placement (AP) American government course (which this writer believes is a high school course – he taught back in the day); or sign up and pass an AP American history course (again thought to be a high school course); or passing the College Level Examination Program test; or – and here is the questionable way – pass by correctly answering six questions on a test made up of ten randomly chosen questions excerpted from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Naturalization Test.

All of these choices, except one, is demanding.  The one – the one identified as questionable – is not. 

The Immigration test is – perhaps reasonably since it is administered to all people striving to be citizens and who represent people from little to no formal education to highly educated people – has a different purpose than the one identified in the law.  The law is meant to assure that educated people know their government and the philosophy that undergirds it.  Ideally, every citizen should have this knowledge, but the law wants to insist that educated ones do.

Well, what’s wrong with the Immigration test?  Here is a sample of the questions:

What group of people was taken to America and sold as slaves?

When was the Declaration of Independence adopted?

Name one branch of the government.

Name one war fought by the United States in the 1900s.

Who is President of the United States?

Name two national holidays.[2]

If you find the toughness overwhelming, relax.  Although all of the 100 questions are equally challenging, one can find the answers online along with the complete listing of the 100 questions that makeup the test.

Oh, one might say, this is a different kind of thing.  Perhaps the lawmakers got confused and thought the requirement should be for graduates of the seventh grade?  Well, this obvious undermining of what the law was reasonably trying to secure drew a critical reaction.  Consequently, in the future – yet to be determined when – the test used on college graduates will be augmented with other questions (hopefully reasonable ones).  But, in the interim there is this legal bypass to meeting the demands of the law. 

Why is there this bypass?  Is it a lack of knowing what the Immigration test contains?  Or, is it a perceived need to address the lack of civic knowledge generally shared by college graduates?  If that’s the case, then this is but another indication of how deficient the nation’s civics education program is.

---

[1] As stated in Bob Holladay, “‘Civic Literacy’ Requirement Being Eroded by DOE Rules,” Tallahassee Democrat, March 27, 2018, 4A.

[2] Ibid.

WOW, WHAT A WEEKEND!

This past weekend is memorable!  Some high school teachers and schools are doing a great job at teaching civics.  At least, given the numbers of demonstrators who took the time and expense to “march for our lives,” the message, that democracy is about getting involved, has hit its mark.

Now one does not need to agree with their gun control position to find this level of participation gratifying.  It is surely a sign that democratic values are strong among the youth of the nation – at least among these young people.  They are engaged, and for those who are so engaged, because they experienced the shooting at the Parkland high school, one can readily understand why.

          Of course, one needs to be careful.  Nationally, most of the young people did not participate or perhaps care about the protest.  But those who did – and most of the tens of thousands who were out there – did not have that personal experience that the Florida kids had – readily went out and expressed their opinions. 

This weekend has conjured up, for this writer, some thoughts about why this past weekend happened and why it seems to have been effective.  And, in this vein, what such events seem to highlight for civics teachers.

          The first thought was on the role of technology.  One of the speakers in Washington pointed out that with a smart phone, everyone has, at their fingertips, an easily accessible library of information.  This adds the potential for knowledgeable – well-informed – activism. 

Civics instruction at school should dedicate time to evaluating internet sites.  Yes, there is a lot of “fake” information – much of it intentionally put there for political purposes, but there is a lot that is legitimate.  Civics teachers should, first, become informed as to how to evaluate sites, and, two, instruct students to detect such sources.  They can also have appropriate assignments in which students are called upon to use those phones to garner reliable information and inquire into critical, civic issues.

          But there is another function that smart phone can serve.  This very weekend, MSNBC broadcasted an interesting documentary that, in part, was critical of how mainstream media covered the civil rights demonstrations of the 1950s and 60s.  Hope and Fury[1] looks at the role the media played in covering and interpreting the work of Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders (e.g., Stockley Carmichael).  The main point was that the media bolstered the potential of violence to draw higher viewership.

          In one segment, the point was made that in more recent coverage of “Black Lives Matter” demonstrations, protesting recent police shootings of blacks, smart phone videos illustrated the mostly peaceful actions of the demonstrators.  Citing a specific example, a conservative network made claims of how demonstrators were just wanting to loot and showed chemicals the demonstrators were allegedly using for incendiary devises.  The smart phone videos showed something else, that the protesters predominantly used legal tactics – marching and shouting their demands.

          And the smart phone is but one technological advancement – there’s social media, advancements in manufacturing, transportation, etc. – that promise to affect not just protesting, but all sorts of social engagements.  One writer who is reporting on these developments and their effects on the lives of regular citizens is John Hawthorne.[2]  Again, civic teachers should be knowledgeable and willing to share with their students these developments.

          The last thoughts about this weekend has to do with motivation.  This writer could not help but be reminded of his younger days and the Vietnam protests.  It occurs to him that there is an overlap.  In both cases, the fact that either the shootings at school sites or the possibility of getting shot in Vietnam seems to motivate citizens who are threatened in this manner to pound the pavement and express their concern.  Does this current version have a lasting effect?

          Time will tell, but many of those cohorts of prior days have led lives that has been affected by those earlier experiences.  Their demonstrations surely had an effect on American policy.  One, the disruptions led to the end of the draft; two, they helped eighteen-year-olds to get the vote; and, three, they, as a model, helped encourage military families to band together to fight for their mutual interests.[3]

Whether the weekend proves to be effective or not, it did demonstrate that Americans can still have a political discussion.  It will be interesting to see if the “pro-Second Amendment”[4] proponents will try something similar or revert to more standard forms of politicking.  To further frame this issue:  while there is about one gun or firearm for each American out there, only thirty to forty percent own one.[5]  Let the discussion continue.  Again, this is a treasure trove for civics teachers.  Unfortunately, it is one that has come about at such a high cost.

---

[1] Aired on MSNBC, March 25, 2018.

[2] See John Hawthorne, “Manufacturing Technology Trends That Will Change Your Life,” February 5, 2018, accessed March 26, 2018, http://www.iqsdirectory.com/blog/manufacturing-technology-trends-that-will-change-your-life/.

[3] Rudy de Leon, “5 Ways Vietnam War Changed America.” CNN, June 25, 2015, accessed March 26, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/opinions/deleon-vietnam-war-effects/index.html.

[4] In full disclosure, this writer does not believe the Second Amendment gives every individual the right to “bear” arms.  That amendment was meant to secure the right of states to maintain armed militias independent of the central government.

[5] Harry Enten, “There Is a Gun for Every American.  But Less Than a Third Owns One.”  CNN, February 18, 2018, accessed March 26, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/guns-dont-know-how-many-america/index.html.

A CATEGORY OF COMPLEX ISSUES

In the last posting a review of the free rider problem, relative to John Locke’s view of a social contract, was provided.  In a few words:  under Locke’s version of the social contract, it is rational for a people to abide by the provisions of the contract, but that at the individual level, it is also rational for a person to “cheat” on the contract.  He/she is, by so doing, a free rider.  The reader is invited to click on that posting.

          So, what should those who support the social contract think of the free rider problem?  Here, the thinking of Thomas Hobbes plays a part.[1]  He was also a social contract philosopher who overall provided, one, a dire view of human nature, two, a dire view of human interactions, and, three, supported a strong governmental leadership – a leviathan.

          To begin, Hobbes points out that there are laws to prohibit the acts of a free rider.  Remember, a free rider is one who does not fulfill the provisions of the social contract.  He/she is not willing to give up those rights that the contract demands individuals relinquish.  For example, the contract calls on individuals to respect others’ property – a notion invented by the contract.  Well, a free rider, who benefits from this provision (he/she owns property), is not willing to pay the cost of respecting other people’s property and goes about stealing or damaging the property of others.

          How can the society, so organized, fight this problem?  The society establishes a system of laws that attempts to define the lines between the concerns of the society and the retained rights of the individual.  It, for example, defines private property, what constitutes stealing private property, and what sanctions will be enforced for anyone who offends people’s rights to own and enjoy their property.  Laws provide the suitable sanctions – penalties – that will befall anyone who breaks those laws.

          For the free rider, then, he/she, who is wanting to break the law, if rational, will consider the risk of breaking the law and getting caught.  Now, this works most of the time.  Research shows most people are risk averse and will avoid bets in which the chances are well in their favor to win.[2]  But “most” is not all.  There will be those who are willing to take on the risk and enjoy – or attempt to enjoy – the benefits of being a free rider.  And, unfortunately, crime does, at times, pay.

          One reaction to this condition is for the society to invest highly in policing services.  This affects the probabilities of catching free riders in their crimes.  But criminals can also invest in services and other assets to limit the probabilities of being caught and, if caught, to avoid prosecution, provide representation during any resulting prosecution, and/or minimize any punishments that such prosecution might implement. 

And, if the free rider happens to have wealth or high income (a possible result from prior free ridership), he/she can more readily hire such services in the form of legal and financial representation.  Of course, if there is a general and well-known number of such incidences – of people getting away with such offenses – then the risk factor can be generally seen as less risky and, in turn, encourage more people to take on the risks involved with being a free rider. 

If this becomes common, then the society begins to lose the benefits of the social contract – the functionality of the contract is only maintained if there is a general acceptance of it.  Too many free riders undermine the contract that makes the whole societal system possible.

Therefore, even Hobbes realizes that self-interest can not be the only basis for such a contract.  Yes, a strong leader – a Leviathan or sovereign – can help to insure law abiding behavior, but not guarantee it.  A social contract must depend on individuals to set aside this purely rational means of determining his/her behavior, “at least on occasion.”  Other considerations must be at play to solicit the appropriate, pro-contract, behaviors so that the contract can survive.

Those considerations are moral ones.  But on what basis are people to be moral?  Well, why are they psychologically prone to commit crimes; i.e., to be risk averse?  Perhaps if one understands this psychological perspective, those in authority can devise appropriate policies to meet the challenge.

Hobbes hits on the immorality of pride.  He points out that pride leads to beliefs that one is superior to others and undermines the original assumption of the social contract theory.  That is, natural rights view holds that in nature, all are equal, and that that equality is not sacrificed by the social contract.  But pride leads some, through a sense of superiority, to conclude that they are not subject to the provisions of the contract – they are too good for such concerns.

The origin of this arrogance is a notion that such a person has some intrinsic quality, some natural or God-given gift that places him/her above others.  This belief, as identified in this blog, has been given the name of genetic elitism.  With it is the likely sense that the person need not be restrained by the provisions of any social contract, especially those elements that pose a hostile effect against that person’s interests.  A sure recipe for a free rider bias.

          Here is how Sinopoli phrases the point of contention:

The laws of nature themselves need no great act of reasoning to be discovered.  They are also the dictates of scripture and are summarized in the maxim “Do not that to another, which thou wouldest not have done to thyself.”  To abide by them, however, and thus to act in a just manner, requires a willingness “when weighing the actions of other men with his own,” to see that “his own passions and self-love, may add nothing to the weight.”[3]

That is, a person weighs the pluses or minuses without putting a thumb on the scale.  But that is not what the natural rights view is about; its about weighing one’s interests and being able – through the exercise of one’s rights – to maximize one’s interests and, perhaps, the interests of those one loves.  The construct lacks comprehensiveness,[4] it does not account for all relevant situations.

          Also, the above indicates that even with natural rights one needs to transcend its parameters and instill a sense of morality.  But what constitutes morality?  Here mere reference to a scriptural phrase does not address the potentially complex questions moral dilemmas pose.  Moral values, for example, often compete among themselves in determining what should be done in a given situation.

          Here’s an example:  should an employer favor a more talented candidate for a position or someone, who can do the job, and is in dire need of the job?  Which option is more just?  Or more to the issue of free ridership:  should all offenses against the social contract be equally acted upon or should other factors make a difference?  Are all laws just?  If not, can they be unjust even though there was not injustice involved in their enactment?  What about cases of law-breaking to advance a greater good; i.e., cases of civil disobedience? 

This can be quite complex; it demands a seriously thought out view of moral politics.  Daniel Elazar sees the study of politics as one of studying competitive behavior to seeking public allocation of values and the other of seeking a just way by which to arrange a polity’s public affairs.[5]  Both aims are equally important and should be based on a view of politics that comprehensively explains the complexity of political calculations and the complexity of what constitutes just allocation of values. 

It needs to be more proactive on the latter than what natural rights provides.  Federation theory provides such a view.  At least, as far as Hobbes’ account for these issues, the natural rights view does not.  In the future, this blog will revisit this concern and report on Locke’s position on moral calculations in a natural rights explanation.

---

[1] This posting relies on the account provided by Richard C. Sinopoli.  See Richard C. Sinopoli, The Foundations of American Citizenship:  Liberalism, the Constitution, and Civic Virtue.

[2] Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, (New York, NY:  Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2011).

   

[3] Richard C. Sinopoli, The Foundations of American Citizenship:  Liberalism, the Constitution, and Civic Virtue (New York, NY:  Oxford University Press, 1992).  Emphasis in the original.

[4] Comprehensiveness is one of eight criteria Eugene Meehan identifies to evaluate explanations.  See Eugene J. Meehan, Explanations in Social Science: A System Paradigm (Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press, 1969).

 [5] Daniel J. Elazar, “Federal Models of (Civil) Authority,” Journal of Church and State 33, Spring (1991):  233-234.

WHY PLAY FAIR?

Two recurring themes in this blog are to, one, claim that the nation has generally opted a natural rights perspective by which it views governance and politics and, two, by so doing has encouraged a self-centered view of civic responsibilities.  Consequently, the nation, since the years following World War II – when the natural rights view became dominant – has, to ever increasing levels, become a nation in which selfish, egotistic social behavior has become more common.  The blog reports polling evidence to support these claims.

          In short, the blog has been critical of this historical shift and trend.  In a series of four postings, posted between March 25 to April 5, 2016,[1] this writer addressed the pro-natural rights arguments of Richard C. Sinopoli.[2]  He, in short, provides, ironically, a pro-communal defense of natural rights view (he uses the terms “liberal” or “classical liberalism” to designate this construct).  The reader is invited to visit those prior postings – they provide the backdrop for this offering.

          This posting looks at the basic explanation of why the natural rights view is susceptible to the above charge.  Sinopoli, harkening back to the writings of Thomas Hobbes, highlights the proverbial problem of the “free rider.”  He also seems to rely on what this writer considers to be a crude take on John Locke’s original version of liberalism.

          That version takes the following form:  all humans are equal in a state of nature.  That is, a condition in which everyone exists, unconnected with others, and fighting for survival.  That is a precarious condition, full of dangerous hazards.  It occurs to these humans, at an individual level, to contract with each other an agreement for the common defense against those hazards.  They form a social contract which includes the creation of a governing body or structure.

          This contract has the following provision:  the individual sacrifices a number of his/her unlimited rights in order to form the collective, but only those rights that are necessary for the sake of this mutual defense.  The individual retains all other rights to do what he/she wishes to do.  Stated another way, the individual maintains his/her rights to do what he/she wants to do as long as he/she does not interfere with others being able to exercise their rights in like manner. [3]

          Sinopoli addresses three criticisms that critics of this view have leveled against this natural rights view.  That is the topic of the above cited series of postings.  Here the concern is:  why would anyone who is a part of such a contract offend its provisions?  That is, why would anyone offend others’ rights?

          To begin, Sinopoli points out that it is rational, once the individual joins the collective, to behave to advance the common good if, and only if, by doing so his/her interests are advanced more so than by not doing so.  A general disregard for the common good renders the reasons for the contract as superfluous.  This writer would add, this is the case if those interests are defined in the long term – a perspective, by the way, the natural rights view avoids.

          Here is how Sinopoli expresses this:

Under liberal contractarian assumptions, all are better off by cooperating since only through a publicly enforced legal framework are their security and independence assured.  These two aspects – consent and benefit – form the liberal theory of political obligation:  one ought to contribute to the maintenance of the public order if one has agreed to receive the benefits provided by it.[4]

One should note how the common good is perceived; it is very limited to issues of common liberty and public order.  Very little room is given for “activist” governance.  Hence, such a view would have little tolerance for such programs as Social Security.[5]  It seems to have a blind eye for the realities of differentiation that can be attributable to such factors as class and racial prejudices.

          This account goes on; it points out that this ideal rendition has a practical problem in soliciting this minimal level of cooperation or fulfilling these minimal obligations of obeying the law – laws designed to insure the collective’s benefits and its provision for public order.  Summarily, the dysfunctional condition is labelled the “free rider” problem.

          It is a condition common to any collective effort.  Why help the collective – and absorb a cost – when others are fulfilling the necessary roles in providing the benefits and public order the collective makes possible?  It is rational for the individual to take that “free ride” and enjoy the benefits without incurring any costs.  This situation spurs one to consider justice.  Is it just to be a free rider?

          The intuitive answer is no as Locke indicates.  But is a concern for justice enough of a motivator to lead people to abide by the laws of the collective?  Plainly, since any society must deal with crime, that answer is no, at least, it is not enough for all or for a significant number of the contracted agents.  As a matter of fact, Sinopoli admits that while intuitive, this sense of justice does not erupt spontaneously.  The commitment to act according to the contract must be “taught.” 

And here a distinction is made.  Yes, justice is rational and subject to intuitive revelation, but that does not constitute the motivation to abide by it.  And, adding to this, the reality of scarcity provides enough of a motivating force to encourage many to engage in unjust activities – to become free riders.  After all, these realities render the promise to be able to do what one wants to be highly restricted by the fact there is not enough to go around and fulfill every desire.

In complex societies, how are these uncooperative forces handled?  With a bit of imagination, one can sense a competitive structure evolving.  Pit the interests of one against the interests of others.  For example, a free market provides a framework for such competition.  But a market also has rules and laws undergirding its competitive environment and why should those rules and laws be treated differently?  They are apt to be equally broken by free riders.  This is the problem in a natural rights world.

The next posting will pick up on this problem and comment on this immanent condition.  Spoiler alert:  federation theory is further promoted by this review of the free rider problem.  Can the reader predict the elements of that argument?

---

[1] The postings are:  “They’re Not Lockean,”  March 25, 2016, “Not Always a Case of Morals,” March 29, 2016, “I Can’t Do What?,” April 1, 2016, “Step Right Up,” April 5, 2916.

[2] Richard C. Sinopoli, The Foundations of American Citizenship:  Liberalism, the Constitution, and Civic Virtue (New York, NY:  Oxford University Press, 1992).

[3] A qualifier:  this writer is not a Lockean scholar.  He has taught the basic ideas of Locke and, in his research of federalism, has read a bit of commentary on Locke by various scholars – some cited in this blog.  My understanding is that Sinopoli is a Lockean scholar.  Part of my defense is to point out that the ideas Sinopoli presents is not in accordance with what other scholars have expressed.

[4] Richard C. Sinopoli, The Foundations of American Citizenship:  Liberalism, the Constitution, and Civic Virtue, 34.

[5] Social Security relies on positive laws that insist on workers paying a tax to fund the program so that current workers can enjoy its benefits.  They in turn will depend on future workers to pay the tax so they can enjoy the program’s benefits.  It is an intergenerational compact far removed from a natural rights rationale.

SHORT OF A BEDROOM TOUR

In a previous posting (“He Said, She Said,” June 24, 2016), this blog reported on research that zeroed in on a factor that proves to be detrimental to marital survival.  Using research by John Gottman,[1] it turns out that a predictor of marriage dissolution is contempt – usually expressed in the communication patterns between the spouses.  This contempt tends to be peppered with foul language.

Recorded interchanges between married people were coded as to their content and through the history of the research, it did not take much sampling of these conversations to predict which couples were going to end up in divorce.  Contempt proved far more predictive than other forms of negative messaging.

          Such insight is useful in developing organizational theory and that extends to change theory.  As a matter of fact, any understanding concerning how people can know each other further helps in developing personnel policy.  If one is about working toward changing an organization, especially what has been called transformative change, these issues are important.  Consequently, a change agent is well served if he/she can have a process by which the agent can “know” the subjects of the organization and this extends to school sites.

          So, in this light, it would be useful for a change agent to have a set of questions he/she could ask or be concerned about to grasp what kind of person each of the staff is like.  Here, it turns out, one can better get a sense of who another person is if he/she could have about fifteen minutes to investigate what the subject’s bedroom looks like.  Such an investigation gives one more accurate insight along most dimensions of a person’s personality than would a lifelong friendship.

          That’s the conclusion Samuel Gosling[2] discovered using a five-dimension set of questions.  It’s called the “Big Five Inventory.”  It is summarized as follows:

1.     Extroversion.  Are you sociable or retiring?  Fun-loving or reserved? 

2.     Agreeableness.  Are you trusting or suspicious?  Helpful or uncooperative?

3.     Conscientiousness.  Are you organized or disorganized?  Self-disciplined or weak willed?

4.     Emotional stability.  Are you worried or calm?  Insecure or secure?

5.     Openness to new experiences.  Are you imaginative or down-to-earth?  Independent or conforming?[3]

For the most part, a person who can have access to another person’s bedroom – allowing an inspection of said room – can better detect how that other person’s personality is – e.g., how items are arranged or if there are dirty clothes all about – than someone who has had extensive friendship with that other person.  Personality is being defined here as the product of the above, questioned concerns.

          Of interest to this blog is the questions.  A change agent is not going to have access to a subject’s bedroom, nor is he/she likely to have had a long-established relationship with a subject.  But he/she can, with a short list of questions, go about having interactions that are aimed at answering those above listed questions. 

And, as the Gosling research utilized, indirect questions can be used.  For example, in conducting a conversation over the subject’s last vacation, well-directed inquiries can get at many of these concerns – did the subject go for that zip line option or be content with lounging by the pool?  Answers to that type of question can give insight as to the dimensions:  extroversion and openness.  Similarly, other conversations can get at the other dimensions.

  This need not be devious, early on a change agent can let it be known that in doing his/her work, knowing the subjects – their personalities – is essential in doing an effective job.  The more the agent understands the subjects, the more the agent can plan the change effort along the parameters the school’s social landscape provides.

---

[1] As reported in Malcolm Gladwell, Blink:  The Power of Thinking without Thinking (New York, NY:  Bay Back Books, 2005).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 35.

THE RELUCTANCE TO ADMIT A MISTAKE

In the last posting, this blog presented a game.  It’s called the dollar auction in which literally a dollar goes up for auction.  The scholar who introduced this game, Martin Shubik, reports that he made, on average, $3.40 playing the game and acting as the auctioneer.  He even reports making up to $20 in one playing of the game.  The auction is conducted as any auction with one difference:  not only does the highest bidder pay his/her bid, but the next highest bidder must pay what he/she bid while walking away with nothing.

          The reader is invited to look up that posting if he/she missed it.  It’s entitled, “In for a Pound.”  It leaves the reader with a preview of this posting and suggesting the dollar auction has something to say about the nightmare the Vietnam War proved to be.  It also gives insight into the financially disastrous experience the initial Concorde supersonic passenger aviation program was.[1]

          In terms of Vietnam, Laszlo Mero[2] points out that President Johnson’s early speeches on the war were full of idealistic, but rational messages.  The emphasis was protecting democracy, advancing freedom, and promoting liberty.  A war that advances these ideals can be rational if the costs are reasonable. 

But as time passed, the American public became more informed as to what the politics of South Vietnam were – corrupt and lacking in these idealistic attributes – and the costs became evermore significant.  The idealistic calculation to most Americans became skewed toward withdrawal.  Consequently, Johnson’s rhetoric became “in for the pound” sort of argument.  He said withdrawal would damage the national honor, would be a step away from halting Communism, and/or it would project weakness.  In short, as in the dollar auction, the nation, in the estimation of the policy makers, had invested too much to walk away.

This reminds one of marginal analysis which this blog has described at various times.  Should one do X (continue the war)?  Rational thought calls for a marginal analysis.  One is reasonable in continuing – or even starting – something if one anticipates that the extra benefit from doing it exceeds the extra cost involved.  How much more will it cost to continue the war?  What can one expect will be the reward in doing so? 

The first of these questions is relatively easy to determine.  War expenses are well understood – heaven knows, unfortunately, the nation has had sufficient experience to have such an understanding.  But how about the second question?  What was known at the time that assisted policy makers to answer that question?

The recent film, The Post, dramatizes the fact that it became known among policy makers that the US could not win the war – either in terms of an outright capitulation of the enemy or a withdrawal due to attrition of their resources.  That was the central message contained in the Pentagon Papers.

Ergo, it was irrational to continue the war, much less escalate it.  Yet, escalation was the policy of the Johnson administration.  The “in for the pound” arguments prevailed much to the tragic results in terms of human life and national – both to Vietnam and the US – resources.  Since then, it is amazing to this writer how much the relationship between the two countries has become as positive as it has.  Perhaps a rash of rational thought has broken out.

As for the Concorde example – a cooperative venture between France and Britain – it was to develop and institute intercontinental passenger service using a supersonic jet – it traveled twice the speed of sound.  Here, another aspect of these calculations comes into play.  It is rational for the developers of the program (functioning as an auctioneer in this example) to provide estimates of future costs as being lower than is the case.  Lower initial costs lures consumers – France and Britain – into the program, but as the project evolves, the costs first become more realistic and then become exorbitant.

Mero writes of how TV programmers are aware of this phenomenon and front-load programs with few commercials (low costs to the viewer) and then, as the viewer invests his/her time and interest into the program, loads those commercials toward the end of the program.  By that time, the viewer is so invested that he/she is very unlikely to leave the program due to any annoyance the commercials provide.

Likewise, as France and Britain sank their investment dollars (pounds or francs), they fell victims to “in for a pound” thinking.  Withdrawal was tantamount to admitting foolishness with the nation’s treasure.  That is not a formula for success in the political thicket of democracies which both France and Britain were and are.  Therefore, before the Concorde was abandoned (the service lasted from 1969 to 2003), a lot was lost down that rathole.  One can figure the project was abandoned as more and more of the initial politicians departed the scene.[3]

This notion of the dollar auction can be presented in civics and history classes.  The game can add insight into what otherwise can be quizzical.  Vietnam is one example, but this dynamic reoccurs often both at the national level or at the individual level and all levels in between.  Secondary students are old enough to note their own folly along these lines or of that of their parents, relatives, or school officials. 

“In for the pound” thinking happens all the time.  As Mero writes:  “The principle of the dollar auction keeps many people in unsatisfying jobs and unhappy marriages.  Every fight is basically a dollar auction; if it isn’t, it is not a fight but a thrashing.”[4]  Surely, by secondary school years, a student has had first-hand knowledge of a fight or two, perhaps even a thrashing.  Hopefully, these are not physical (they usually aren’t), but, surely, they are always emotional.

---

[1] There is currently talk of reviving the Concorde.

[2] Laszlo Mero, Moral Calculations:  Game Theory, Logic, and Human Frailty (Springer-Verlag, NY:  Copernicus, 1998).

[3] Of course, the Concorde crash in the year 2000 seemed to hasten the program’s demise.

[4] Laszlo Mero, Moral Calculations:  Game Theory, Logic, and Human Frailty, 10.