While our Republican friends are collectively losing their marbles, I thought I would conduct a little intellectual exercise that relates to our current political climate. My colleagues have tackled last night's speech and health care quite ably. So, as the education blogger I thought I would take you through an assignment I used to assign when I taught English and Philosophy. Since you are all adults I will let you read both of the works I will assign at your own leisure (or not at all).
We begin with Abraham Lincoln's speech to the Young Person's Lyceum. There are two things that are remarkable about that speech. First, Lincoln made it before he was even thirty years old. It just goes to show that even the young can show terrific insight and intelligence. Secondly, the events he described in the speech could happen today with some slight modern alterations. Below, I will give a brief summary for those that want the Cliff Notes version.
Essentially, he was reacting to what he saw as the weathering (geology term) of our political institutions (wow, sound familiar?). He saw mob rule as threatening the body politic and the lives of average Americans. He acknowledged that people had some legitimate beefs, but noted that people should go through proper channels. Moreover, his primary point and the one I honed in on was the desperate need for respect of the law. His belief was that even well-meaning protesting would eventually wear away our institutions and the respect that we have for those institutions. I will provide my own commentary after I introduce the next essay.
Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" is quite possibly the perfect antithesis to Lincoln's speech. Thoreau's essay would come about ten years later. The essay chronicles an experience he had in jail for failure to pay his taxes. He refused to pay his taxes because he objected to the actions of the government. It's also heavily quoted by our Republican brethren because of its adherence to the principles of limited government. The general idea in the essay is that if you disagree with a law you should not adhere to it and calmly and quietly accept the consequences handed down. In fact, Thoreau was quite angry when he learned that he had been bailed out of jail.
So, before I give my answer to the following question, let me frame that question in as simple a way as possible. One essay tells us to follow the law always even if we disagree with its premise. It also says we should work within the law to peaceably change it and not to question the government openly. The other tells us to follow our conscience always because our conscience is superior to that of the government. If that puts us in jail then we should accept that as a better alternative than obeying a bad law.
In the interest of full disclosure, I usually gave students a third essay (Dr. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail.") as a middle ground choice. However, if I remove King's speech it makes us take a very definite stand: do we stick up for what we think is right or do we put our faith and allegiance in the rule of law? It's a great philosophical quandary because both sound very good. Personally, I always sided with Lincoln. I think the last thirty to forty years of American politics bears out why. I believe the people of the 1960s and 1970s had many valid reasons to protest, but I believe those protests have had a negative side affect. They have slowly worn down the respect that people have for our institutions.
If I bring us out of the philosophical zone, I think we saw a great example of that last night during Obama's speech and we saw a lot of examples through the Congressional recess at the local townhalls. I don't know about you, but I think most of us would be extremely respectful if we met GWB or his dad. Yes, we may be Democrats and may have disagreed with most of what they did, but we would respect the office and those who held it. The Thoreau way has caused a growing number of people to disrespect the office and offices of those in government.
That disrespect has spread to other walks of life where some have had a traditional authority that was respected. There was a day when if a teacher said a kid did something it was not questioned. When I tell mom that junior did something in class I often get argued with. Their son or daughter would never do such a thing. When I even try to help them (as now is my job) by bringing them into meetings to help with their academic or personal development I am met with resistance. When my time comes, I'm not going to duck out of a meeting with my daughter's teacher. Even though I love my child, I also know that educators typically don't lie about what's going on in class.
Everyone from postal carriers to city workers are being dumped on because people no longer feel it necessary to respect those in those positions. I believe it all stems back to when people protested. However, this isn't to say that protesters were wrong. We are a better nation for their efforts, but this excercise does point out that even noble acts sometimes have negative consequences. The end result is a body politic that objects to every little thing under the sun. Now, the question is thrown to you: do you agree more with Lincoln or more with Thoreau?
Scott, you hit the nail on the head with who's afraid of who.
And the kids are afraid of nothing because they have never been taught that actions have consequences.
And speaking of the rats in the sewer, I see that Dick Armey is still taking credit for much of the sewage the GOP is crawling through.
Including today's group of teabags protesting in Washington.
I fear the conservatives take to heart the adage of the rat race (in a sewer) and they're bound and determined the rats are gonna win.
cfreyja wrote: On the other hand, even after such events, many decades passed before my school reached a 50/50 gender split.
------------------
I see on the news that South African track runner, Saffron or something, has apparently the same thing. :-) Glad I'm not on the IOC BOD.
Excellent point. In writing my previous comment I didn't stop to consider that I might not have had the chance to attend law school without the civil disobedience of suffragettes and civil rights activists. On the other hand, even after such events, many decades passed before my school reached a 50/50 gender split.
You and I think alike. Let's wait and see what the uniforms look like before taking sides. Green makes me look fat. Blue brings out my eyes.
I included MLK in the essay because I think a middle ground is needed. The letter to a Birmingham jail outlined how one should change a law with civil disobedience being the last step. All three examples Desperado mentioned were iconic changes that needed to be made.
My problem is that people today start protesting minor stuff (like the plight of the dung beetle) without worrying about the collateral damage. Collateral damage should not be an issue when fighting the big issue of the day, but many think their little pet issue fits.
One of the interesting things I always made sure my students focused on was the notion of "self-purification" in MLK's model. The general public will not buy a protester that they don't trust. This is where the Republicans will increasingly get burned. When you are as dirty as a New York sewer and you protest everything (without negotiation) then your cause will die.
Good question. I tend to think I'd take a proportional response based on the level of perceived injustice coupled with my degree of belief that change could be effected via "the system".
Always been a Thoreau guy, myself. March to a different drummer and all that.
But seriously, three examples in American history of civil disobedience and the major societal changes it brought about; the abolitionist movement of the 18th and 19th centuries, the women’s suffrage movement of the early 20th century, and the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60’s. All resulted in changes that might otherwise not have happened, or at least not until much later, if what was the law at the time had been respected.
Thanks. You are wise beyond your years.....my little sister used to say "wise behind your ears"?.
I remember reading something that put it into perspective. I can't quote it exactly, but it basically goes like this:
1. Teachers are afraid of campus level administrators.
2. Campus level administrators are afraid of central office administrators
3. Central office administrators are afraid of the superintendant.
4. The superintendant is afraid of the school board.
5. The school board is afraid of parents.
6. Parents are afraid of their kids.
7. Kids are afraid of nothing.
So, who is really in charge?
If you want a short answer to the question then I would say the main thing is that we spend more time CYA then anything else. Back in the day (and I went to school in these days) they spent time teaching. You didn't have the state saying you should teach this TEK or that TEK. We trusted teachers to teach.
I'm sorry, I was supposed to vote for Lincoln or Thoreau, right?
Well, I kinda like Thoreau, but I'd rather NOT go to jail.
I think anyone who does not support Lincoln in such arguments may need his head examined.
So, I am "Present not voting"
Scott: I really enjoy reading your "take" on things. Many, many of my peers went into the education field. I have several, now, who are administrators (principals, AP, curriculum directors etc.) I think educators are THE MOST important people in ANY society. Next comes police.
What I ask many of them, and am now asking you is, I got a pretty good education in spite of myself. (Trust me, I put in very little effort. My teachers MADE SURE I learnt things real good)
What did we do to "change" things. So much of what I witnessed in my son's education (he's 32 now) was way "away" from what I experienced. Too little emphasis here, too much emphasis there. Comment???
arte wrote: I was there during those 60's and 70's protests. I'm not sure they wore down respect for our institutions. In fact, I think it was our institutions instead that were the problem. We were lied to by two presidents about Vietnam. And then there was Watergate, an enormous political crime perpetrated for the sole purpose of Nixon maintaining political power. Protesters weren't the cause, they were the effect. And I think our country is vastly better for our efforts.
------------
I too was there, I'm the skinny guy, behind arte, long hair. (ooops, I forgot, we were ALL skinny with long hair).
I didn't lose "respect" for our government or our leaders. But I did LEARN not to trust them. To check everything out and make an "informed" judgement. Goldie Hawn said it in the movie "Protocol"..."I'm gonna watch you guys LIKE A HAWK." And I think we, the people, have been doing a fair job of that. But our "faith" in OUR government took a real hit over the past 8 yeas. It's gonna take at least that long to restore it. Radio and TV motormouths who make a living out of spewing lies and innuendo are gonna make it a longer journey.
Good points all. Thanks to everyone for their comments. Keep em coming.
As for LD debates for all high school students, I would say that students would benefit if nothing more from the process of building a case rather than the actual act of debating. My answer would be no because I think a lot of the students I have taught would benefit a lot more from learning how to do research. I think some of our legal shows do us a disservice because it glorifies the courtroom without showing the work to get there.
If I were setting up English classes, I would set aside one full year for learning how to write (grammar, spelling, and punctuation) along with learning how to do research (what sources to look for) and how to cite that research. Then, the last three years would be split into American Lit, British Lit, and World Lit. The bonus would be that everyone would be able to write a research paper and those teachers could assign it without having to worry about whether those skills were taught.
I think the societal benefit from that would be a group of citizens that could do a better job discerning a good source from a bad one. I think that's the main problem we have now. People have access to information, but most of it isn't good information.
Today's Phrase:
"Integrative Complexity"
Please don't misunderstand me....I'm solidly pro-choice and always have been.
I admired Rev. King and Rosa Parks. Those two had courage that inspires all of us.
But I'm still going with Lincoln.
No of course you don't.
But the people who commit those acts *do* believe it.
I might be blind (kinda like justice) but I believe the 60s and 70s radicals were protesting authoritarianism which by definition is disrespectful of humanity, en toto. I continue to believe that the current trend of anti-political correctness is at the root of our civil demise. All rules of civil conduct were thrown out beginning with the Reagan political tacticians playing the 'race' card during their campaign. It worked and the right readily embraced an antipathy to not calling a spade a spade. It was disgusting then and it's disgusting now.
Scott - good post. I was there during those 60's and 70's protests. I'm not sure they wore down respect for our institutions. In fact, I think it was our institutions instead that were the problem. We were lied to by two presidents about Vietnam. And then there was Watergate, an enormous political crime perpetrated for the sole purpose of Nixon maintaining political power. Protesters weren't the cause, they were the effect. And I think our country is vastly better for our efforts.
Shortstuff, I do not believe that bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors falls under the title of civil disobedience. Violence is not a part of "do no harm". It is harmful.
The reason abortion is such an unresolvable topic is that "do no harm" can be answered with "to WHOM?" The fetus is obviously harmed, but mothers forced to carry babies they don't want, or using coat hangers and bleeding to death is ALSO harm.
I admire Lincoln. While in law school, I kept some quotes from his advice to young lawyers on my refrigerator, along with his famous law lecture notes. Every single sentence rings true today, and I could benefit from constantly re-reading that advice.
I admit my blog comments are often overheated and emotional. However, working in a courtroom requires a cooler temperament (it's often hard for me to have!). In court I treat its officers with respect. Without that basic courtesy and respect for the forum, cases would--and, on occasion, do--degenerate into nonproductive yelling matches. I may have solidly negative personal opinions about a ruling or a particular person, but the rules of court, codes and rules of procedure provide me with tools to bring about justice without the need for emotional displays of dissent.
Civil disobedience may be a viable remedy for those who are truly powerless, but I believe it is often exploited by people who just don't want to exert the physical or mental energy to cause political change or societal improvement with slower, long-term methods.
We frequently encounter blog comments expressing dissatisfaction with any number of government programs from writers who don't bother to express those opinions through channels that might be more productive. Instead I read support for yelling at the President, yelling at a woman in a wheelchair, and making threats against a political opponent's family or life.
I think most intelligent people find it impossible to be receptive to an argument or philosophy communicated this way.
As an educator, what do you think about requiring Lincoln Douglas debates in public schools?
Scott - This particular blog struck me as being poignant to yours.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-myss/america-at-the-crossroads_b_282642.html
Enjoy!
thanks all. You are right wilma, I was not there. I do agree the protesting of which you spoke was righteous and positive, but I think all protesting have negative side effects in the longterm. This is where intelligent and thinking people have to weigh the percieved positive benefit of their protesting with the longterm negatives.
Good points, Wilma. Obviously. And I do agree with so much of that. On the other hand (I'm a Libra; there is always another hand), people who do things we find objectionable like bombing abortion clinics or murdering doctors who perform abortions think that they are doing the right thing and using "civil disobedience" to achieve their goals. Are they? Of course not.
I am fully for standing up for what is right; but there is something inside of me that says that's how mobs become aggressive. (Note: see town halls and whackjobs who bring guns to same).
As for that idiot last night, how much more persuasive could he have been if he had behaved like a civilized person, and decided to discuss his opposition reasonably, at a more appropriate moment? He's got his tail tucked between his legs now and for what? For a split second of opening his mouth without turning on his brain first.
His actions did not help his cause one bit (except for the wingers who would support him no matter what).
The eroding of our institutions is not solely due to the decent, they have worn away at their own credibility. At nearly every turn they have allowed themselves to be undermined by their culpability and graft.
How many times in the past year and a half have we heard of some sex scandal or fraudulent scam coming from the highest levels of government. Don't get me wrong, I am all for working within a system to change it. If that system of course allows itself to be altered for the better.
One thing is for sure if our current crop of politicians were anywhere near the caliber of Lincoln, working within the system to change it would be something more than just empty platitudes. Instead we have a group of whores willing to sell their souls for money and power.
So are the politicians of today any different than a hundred years ago? On some levels I would say no, but on others coupled with technology and advances in systems of organization... yes. The politician of today is far more dangerous by comparison. And they don't deserve a moments rest.
Now should that idiot have kept his mouth shut and made a motion in the proper venue? Of course. What in the hell was he thinking?
I forgot to mention: It takes a Thoreau to create a Lincoln...
I believe in both. The rule of law was broken with the implementation of torture. Breaking that law was harmful to not just the persons tortured, but to our country's reputation, and more so, to the higher law of "Do no harm".
"Do no harm" is the way I practice my profession. It also can be a reason FOR civil disobedience. When I worked for a Methodist Reconciling Congregation, we held a same sex marriage ceremony in the street, off of church property. It was performed by a minister whose diocese supported equality, and there were at least 40 ordained ministers from around the country on the church steps. This didn't break any government laws, but it was an act of "do no harm". Ministers in many denominations have performed ceremonies breaking church law, and have been put on trial, some being defrocked. They didn't break a federal or state law, but the laws of the church as a personal moral imperative.
Scott, I surmise that you were not around to protest the Vietnam war, but those sit-ins and peaceful gatherings that resulted in arrests were based on the moral imperative of "do no harm". It took awhile, and the death toll was enormous, but those protests DID play a part in ending that war sooner and saving lives.
When mixed marriages were against the law, but a mixed race couple was in love and wanted to marry, was it RIGHT to not perform that marriage rite? And lastly, should Rosa Parks NOT have sat down in the front of that bus?
I'll have to lean toward Thoreau, simply because as you indicated there is a basic malaise in the system at present, and there must occur a cleansing every great once and a while that sets things straight again. The American Revolution was born out of such thought, as was the Civil War. It is an unfortunate consequence of political systems becoming strained to the breaking point, and the subsequent renewal is a foregone conclusion. Hopefully, we will not live to see such a violent upheaval of the body politic, but the signs are indeed disturbing.
I'm voting for Lincoln.
I believe that not only have we lost respect for institutions, but for others. And in the end, ourselves.
You can't have much self-respect if you insist on acting like a blithering idiot.
Last night just demonstrated that clearly.
You might not like a certain law, but there are ways to work to change those laws. The end does not always justify the means.