Civics

[Econoline]

civics

noun plural but singular or plural in construction | civ·ics | \'si-viks\

: the study of the rights and duties of citizens and of how government works

Back when I was in school, this was a mandatory course that everyone had to take in 8th grade and again in 12th grade. Here's an excellent essay on why we need to start teaching it again.

• Why We Need To Teach Civics
  
  OCTOBER 10, 2016 / MARK TIEDEMANN
  
  Listening to the debates, not between the candidates but among the potential voters, it becomes clear that for many the workings of our government are a thing of deep mystery and frustratingly obscure. Donald hammered on Hillary repeatedly that in 30 plus years in office she had an opportunity to “do something” about certain issues and she did nothing.
  
  She was a senator and then she was secretary of state.
  
  Neither position affords anyone the power to just “do something” about any damn thing they want.
  
  While morality may not be relative, politics is entirely so. The problem is this: you have a hundred people in a room who have been given a problem to solve. There’s perhaps a right way to solve it, there are certainly wrong ways, and then there’s what each individual wants.
  
  How do you simply “do something” in that situation?
  
  Let’s compound it. Each of those hundred people is working with another set of probable conflicts. There is what he or she believes ought to be done, then there is what the people they represent want done, and then there is what she or he feels can be done. Each one brings this bag of writhing conflict to the room and the task is to work with the other ninety-nine, each of whom has the same set of problems, to find a solution to the problem.
  
  This is the fundamental nature of representative democracy.
  
  In a word, it is impossible. It is the human equivalent of asking the centipede how it manages to walk.
  
  And yet.
  
  Add to this the frustration of the constituency, each individual and group of individuals has a different set of desires. They harangue their representatives to “do something” and get angry when nothing or, worse, the “wrong” thing gets done. Now yet another concern is heaped on top of all the others for the people in that room—keeping their job.
  
  It’s amazing anything happens at all.
  
  And despite what they may tell you, this happens in business, too. All those moving parts have to be coordinated and, often—because they’re attached to people—assuaged. So no, a Ross Perrot, a Mitt Romney, or a Donald Trump cannot magically step into this with their “business experience” and suddenly end the deadlocks and solve the problems. Their “experience” ought to tell them this. For one, they can’t actually fire the people they have to work with in congress.
  
  If Trump’s accusations that Hillary “did nothing” when she had the chance have any resonance with voters it is because, I suspect, too many voters don’t understand the nature of the country in which we live. Hillary tried to explain that she worked on several of those things, but if she can’t get people—many of whom in the last several years have publicly committed themselves to blocking any proposal that comes out of either the Obama White House or the Democratic side of the aisle—to go along with her proposals, just what do people think she could do?
  
  That she has accomplished what she has is a minor miracle.
  
  I received civics in grade school. We had to sit through it. It was boring. It used to be what was called social studies, which later seemed to morph into some kind of social psychology joined to history tracks instead of a study of how government is organized. Probably it is taught in some schools still, but it seems not to be as a matter of course.
  
  It’s why so many people are afraid a sitting president can take guns away from people or remove the Second Amendment. A president can’t do that. Just can’t.
  
  But worse, it’s why so many people seem to not understand why their personal prejudice can’t be made law.
  
  Frustration can be a driving force for a solution, though. It seems that public frustration with the intractability we’ve endured in our politics is reaching a zenith and we may be about to witness an historic turn-over.
  
  Ever since Reagan named government as the biggest problem we have there has been a tumor growing in the belly of our civil systems. He was flat wrong. Perhaps he was speaking in metaphor—he was an actor, after all, psychodrama depends on metaphor—but if so he delivered it with a straight face that appealed to the impatience everyone feels from time to time at the squabble in that room. With the benefit of the doubt, I believe he would be appalled at the consequences of his rhetoric. We built the strongest nation in history through government, for good or ill, so just how much of a problem was it? Depends on where you stand when you ask that question.
  
  Because politics is relative. Compromise is essential.
  
  But I suspect a lot of people don’t actually know what compromise is. You can’t tear down the bridge and then blame the other guy for not crossing the divide.
  
  It might be useful to remember that the work in question is never “done” but is an ongoing, daily struggle. Out of it we find a way. But you can’t circumvent the process just because you think you’re right. If you are, that will become evident over time.
  
  We might want to remember that. Civics. The earlier the better.

[dales]

It was called "US Government" when I was indoctrinated in 8th and 12th grades

[oldr_n_wsr]

We called it social studies.

If they want to bring back "civics" fine, but they should add a coarse in "civility" with it.

[Big RR]

My kids had it as part of US history, but I don't think the teachers knew that part of the material all that well.

[BoSoxGal]

I studied it as Civics in middle school, as US history in high school.

The inconsistency of such education in our public schools means most newly minted citizens understand US government far better than the native born.

[Long Run]

We had Civics as a separate course from U.S. History. Civics focused on the various forms of government in the country. They must not teach it any more because, to the larger point made in the article, it is common to see candidates for different offices being slammed for policy positions that have no bearing on the office being sought.

[Guinevere]

We had US history and government (all under the category of "Social Studies") when I was in Junior High and High school. Every Senior also had to take and pass a half-year course called "Citizenship, the Constitution, and Public Issues" (CCPI), which included reading newspapers every morning and writing a big term paper.

Of course, I wrote the term paper that got the highest grade in the senior class, and at graduation received the award for the highest GPA i(over all 4 years) in Social Studies.

[Econoline]

Regardless of what it's called--though it does seem like some standard nomenclature would be desirable, so that everyone would know what's being referred to--it ought to be required in all public and private high schools (and GED courses too), for all the reasons enumerated in the above essay. (There should also be free remedial courses available to adults of all ages.) Our current political system and form of government cannot survive if such a large proportion of the people who are tasked with making it work simply don't understand how it works.

[dales]

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people ... "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was .... than it would have done in their correction by a good education.

~ Thomas Jefferson (another dead white guy and slaveholder to boot!)

[Econoline]

Here's a good example of why we need to start teaching--REQUIRING--Civics (as defined in the opening post) again.

(I wonder if the guys who wrote the Constitution knew they were being unconstitutional?)

[Sue U]

Never gets old:

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be


Kyle Mortensen would gladly give his life to protect what he says is the Constitution's very clear stance against birth control.

NEWS
November 14, 2009
Vol 46 Issue 26 Small Towns

ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.

"Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are."

According to Mortensen—an otherwise mild-mannered husband, father, and small-business owner—the most serious threat to his fanciful version of the 222-year-old Constitution is the attempt by far-left "traitors" to strip it of its religious foundation.

"Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: 'one nation under God,'" said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. "Well, there's a reason they put that right at the top."

"Men like Madison and Jefferson were moved by the ideals of Christianity, and wanted the United States to reflect those values as a Christian nation," continued Mortensen, referring to the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, considered by many historians to be an atheist, and Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment-era thinker who rejected the divinity of Christ and was in France at the time the document was written. "The words on the page speak for themselves."

According to sources who have read the nation's charter, the U.S. Constitution and its 27 amendments do not contain the word "God" or "Christ."

Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Constitution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance "since the Ten Commandments."

"And let's not forget that when the Constitution was ratified it brought freedom to every single American," Mortensen said.
Content continues below advertisement

Mortensen's passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Constitution resides is greatly respected by his likeminded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered. Still, some friends and family members remain critical.

"Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care."

Mortensen told reporters that he'll fight until the bitter end for what he roughly supposes the Constitution to be. He acknowledged, however, that it might already be too late to win the battle.

"The freedoms our Founding Fathers spilled their blood for are vanishing before our eyes," Mortensen said. "In under a year, a fascist, socialist regime has turned a proud democracy into a totalitarian state that will soon control every facet of American life."

"Don't just take my word for it," Mortensen added. "Try reading a newspaper or watching the news sometime."

Source.

[Jarlaxle]

Never heard one single word about civics class in high school, don't think it was offered.

[Econoline]

(...biting my tongue...biting my tongue...biting my tongue...biting my tongue...)

[Bicycle Bill]

Found this on another website that had an article about "Scarfolk", a fictional British town created by the talents of Richard Littler, a satirist who has been using his skills as a graphic artist and a blogger and his penchant for black humor to create the chronicles of said mythical town:

Scarfolk is a town in North West England that did not progress beyond 1979.  Instead, the entire decade of the 1970s loops ad infinitum (well, at least they never will get to 1984 ... -"BB"-).  Here in Scarfolk, pagan rituals blend seamlessly with science; hauntology is a compulsory subject at school, and everyone must be in bed by 8pm because they are perpetually running a slight fever.

Scarfolk's creative creepiness didn't come out of nowhere.  Littler grew up in suburban Manchester in the 1970s, where he remembers being "always scared, always frightened of what I was faced with."  Everywhere he turned, he recalls, was more evidence that the world was terrifying.  Flip on the TV, and you might be treated to a popular public service announcement, in which children playing on train tracks are run over, one by one.  Open a newspaper, and you'd be informed about botched surgeries and vengeful ghosts.

So, when the time came, he decided to poke fun at it.

"As you know, gravity is supplied to you not unlike like gas, electricity or water.  Creating, maintaining, and distributing the forces of physics is an expensive national undertaking and the cost of running the Gravity Generator Plant in Scarfolk costs millions of pounds annually.  Sustaining the right balance of gravity isn't easy and even the smallest error in calculation could leave many people at risk of floating away, perhaps irretrievably.  This is why it's important that you pay your Physics Tax on time (including any surcharges), as well as report any illegal immigrants who destabilise the finely-tuned distribution of gravity."

Though countless immigrants (and citizens who made friends with immigrants) were allegedly deported between 1975 and 1979, the sudden disappearance of more than 1200 registered citizens was blamed on their failure to pay the Physics Tax.  Without the appropriate levels of gravity to keep them earthbound, they had, according to the government, probably been sucked into outer space.  However, by the end of the decade, it became clear that the state had lied about its capability to supply citizens with the forces of physics.  Scarfolk's Gravity Generator Plant was revealed to be a facility built specifically for processing political undesirables, immigrants or otherwise, into cheap snacks for visiting tourists.

-"BB"-

[Guinevere]

Here's a good example of why we need to start teaching--REQUIRING--Civics (as defined in the opening post) again.

(I wonder if the guys who wrote the Constitution knew they were being unconstitutional?)

I think most folks who don't have a basic grounding in civics have no idea about the fact that the Constitution is the articles *and* the amendments. Not sure they even understand what "amend" means, as most seem to have no clue what the articles say.

[dales]

Never heard one single word about civics class in high school, don't think it was offered.

No, you were probably asleep.

[Econoline]

Here's an amazing (and frighteningly prescient) clip--from 4 years ago--of former Supreme Court Justice David Souter speaking about the decline of civic knowledge in America and the effect of that decline on the state of our democracy.



(Link to the full segment that contained the clip: http://on.msnbc.com/2dEJrrz)

[RayThom]

Here's an amazing (and frighteningly prescient) clip--from 4 years ago--of former Supreme Court Justice David Souter speaking about the decline of civic knowledge in America and the effect of that decline on the state of our democracy.

As a Republican I wonder who his presidential candidate choice might be. As a liberal jurist I can only hope it will not be Drumpf.