Last Thursday, I delivered the following speech to a Kiwanis group in Northwest Indianapolis. Longtime readers of this blog will recognize the “theme”…It’s also considerably longer than my usual posts, so my apologies.
Over the past several years, we’ve seen America’s political debates become steadily less civil. Bigotries that were once more or less suppressed—at least, in polite company– are being publicly paraded. Partisanship has overwhelmed reasoned analysis. The death of newspapers and the ubiquity of social media and the Internet have encouraged people to choose their news (and increasingly, to inhabit their preferred realities).
I’m here today to suggest that an enormous amount of this contemporary rancor is a result of civic illiteracy—widespread ignorance of the historical foundations and basic premises of American government.
John asked me to talk a bit about this small book I wrote a couple of years ago–Talking Politics? What You Need To Know Before Opening Your Mouth.. I wrote it because I believe that civic ignorance is a huge, and hugely under-appreciated, element of America’s current dysfunctions.
Voters don’t need to be constitutional scholars, but a basic understanding of the history and structure of American government matters. A lot. Productive civic engagement requires an accurate understanding of the “rules of the game” — especially but not exclusively the Constitution and Bill of Rights– the documents that frame and constrain policy choices in the American system.
Most educated Americans know that our Constitution was a product of the Enlightenment, the 18th Century philosophical movement that gave us science, empirical inquiry, and the “natural rights” and “social contract” theories of government. What is less recognized is that the Enlightenment did something else: it changed the way people defined individual liberty.
We’re taught in school that the Puritans and Pilgrims who settled the New World came to America for religious liberty, and that’s true; what we aren’t generally taught, however, is how they defined that liberty. Puritans saw liberty as “freedom to do the right thing”—freedom to worship and obey the right God in the true church, and their right to use the power of government to make sure their neighbors did likewise.
The Enlightenment ushered in a dramatically different definition of liberty, sometimes called the Libertarian Construct. It’s a version of liberty that insists on the right of individuals to determine their own moral ends and life goals, and their right to pursue those goals free of government interference. People were supposed to be free to “do their own thing,” so long as they were not harming the person or property of others, and so long as they were willing to grant an equal measure of liberty to others.
The post-Enlightenment version of liberty begins with the belief that fundamental rights aren’t gifts from benevolent governments; instead, Enlightenment philosophers and America’s Founders believed that humans are entitled to certain rights just because we’re human– and that government has an obligation to respect and protect those inborn, inalienable human rights.
When we ask the question whether this or that behavior is protected by the Bill of Rights, it’s really important to recognize that the Founders didn’t conceive of the Amendments as grants of rights—they were commitments to protect our human, inborn rights from an overzealous government and what they referred to as the “passions of the majority.”
As I used to tell my students, the Bill of Rights is essentially a list of things that government is forbidden to do. Government cannot dictate our religious or political beliefs, search us without probable cause, or censor our communications, for example—and it can’t do those things even when popular majorities approve. The Founders focused on restraining the power of the state, because in their world, governments were the most powerful entities. That’s why we define civil liberties as freedom from government intrusions. It wasn’t until 1964 that the United States began to pass civil rights laws that prohibited discriminatory behavior by private-sector actors.
I’m constantly amazed by how many Americans don’t understand the difference between constitutional liberties and civil rights, or the anti-majoritarian operation of the Bill of Rights—or, as we are seeing during this pandemic—the legitimate limits of our individual liberties.
Governments create what lawyers call “rules of general application” to protect the common good. Public officials can properly and constitutionally establish speed limits, ban smoking in public places—even require us to cover our genitals when we’re out in public. As Justice Scalia wrote in Employment Division vs Smith, back in 1990, so long as these and hundreds of other laws are generally applicable—so long as they aren’t really sneaky efforts to unfairly target specific groups—they don’t violate the Constitution.
Here’s the thing: the U.S. Constitution as amended and construed over the years guarantees citizens an equal right to participate in democratic governance and to have our preferences count at the ballot box. Those guarantees are meaningless in the absence of sustained civic engagement by an informed, civically-literate citizenry. Let me say that a different way: Protection of our constitutional rights ultimately depends upon the existence of a civically-informed and engaged electorate.
The consequences of living in a system you don’t understand aren’t just negative for the health and stability of America’s democratic institutions, but for individuals as well. There’s a Facebook meme going around to the effect that people who don’t understand how anything works are the people most likely to latch on to conspiracy theories. Whether that’s true or not, it is definitely the case that people who don’t know how government works are at a real disadvantage when they need to navigate the system. (Try taking your zoning problem to your Congressman.) Civic ignorance also impedes the ability to cast an informed vote. Especially at times like these—when official action or inaction can trigger massive protests– citizens need to know where actual responsibility resides.
Today, we are all seeing, in real time, the multiple ways in which civic ignorance harms the nation. As I indicated earlier, what we call “political culture” is the most toxic it has been in my lifetime. (And in case you didn’t notice, I’m really old.) There are lots of theories about how we got here—from partisan gerrymandering and residential sorting, to increasing tribalism, to fears generated by rapid social and technological change. But our current inability to engage in productive civic conversation is also an outgrowth of declining trust in our social and political institutions—primarily, although certainly not exclusively, government. Restoring that trust is critically important —but in order to trust government, we have to understand what it is and isn’t supposed to do. We have to understand how the people we elect are supposed to behave. We need a common understanding of what our Constitutional system requires.
Here’s an analogy: if I say this piece of furniture is a table, and you say no, it’s a chair, we aren’t going to have a very productive discussion about its use.
Now, let me be clear: there are plenty of gray areas in constitutional law—plenty of situations where informed people of good will can come to different conclusions about what the Constitution requires or prohibits. But by and large, those aren’t the things Americans are arguing about.
In my academic life, I studied how Constitutional values apply within an increasingly diverse culture, the ways in which America’s constitutional principles connect people with different backgrounds and beliefs and make us all Americans. That research convinced me that widespread civic literacy—by which I mean an accurate, basic understanding of America’s history and philosophy—is absolutely critical to our continued ability to talk to each other, build community and function as Americans, rather than as members of rival tribes competing for power and advantage. Unfortunately, the data shows civic knowledge is in very short supply.
Let me share an illustrative anecdote: When I taught Law and Public Policy, I began with what I like to call the “constitutional architecture,” a discussion of the ways America’s legal framework limits what laws we can pass, and what legal scholars mean when they refer to the importance of the Founders’ “original intent.”
I liked to ask students “What do you suppose James Madison thought about porn on the internet?” Usually, the student would laugh and then we’d discuss how the Founders’ beliefs about free expression should guide today’s courts when they are faced with efforts to censor media platforms the Founders could never have imagined. But a few years ago, when I asked a college junior that question, she looked at me blankly and asked “Who’s James Madison?”
It’s tempting to consider that student an outlier–but let me share with you just a tiny fraction of available research. The Annenberg Center conducts annual surveys measuring what the public knows about the Constitution. Two years ago, 37 percent couldn’t name a single one of the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment, and only 26 percent could identify the three branches of government. Fewer than half of 12th graders can define federalism. Only 35% of teenagers recognize “We the People” as the first three words of the Constitution. It goes on and on.
And it matters, because Constitutions address the most basic question of any society—how should people live together? What should the rules be, how should they be made, who should get to make them and how should they be enforced? In America, for the first time, citizenship wasn’t based upon geography, ethnicity or conquest, but on an Idea, a theory of social organization, what Enlightenment philosopher John Locke called a “social contract” and journalist Todd Gitlin has called a “covenant.” The most revolutionary element of the American Idea was that it based citizenship on behavior rather than identity—on how you act rather than who you are. Initially, as we know, the American Idea only applied to property-owning White guys, but—over a lot of resistance– we have steadily expanded it. (As the ubiquity of cellphone cameras keeps demonstrating, we’re still struggling with that expansion.)
History tells us that the Founders of this nation didn’t all speak with one voice, or embrace a single worldview. All of our governing documents were the result of passionate argument, negotiation and eventual compromise. And as remarkable as the Founders’ achievement was, we all recognize that the system they established was far from perfect. The great debates between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were about the proper role of government. We’re still having that debate. The overarching issue is where to strike the balance between government power and individual liberty.
The issue, in other words, is: who decides? Who decides what book you read, what prayer you say, who you marry, whether you procreate, how you use your property? Who decides when the state may justifiably deprive you of liberty—or tell you to wear a mask in public?
How would the conversations we are having about vaccination mandates and masks change, if parties to those conversations all understood how our Constitution approaches both the rights of individuals and the duties of government?
In our Constitutional system, individuals have the right to make their own political and moral decisions, even when lots of other people believe those decisions are wrong. What they don’t have is the right to harm or endanger others, or the right to deny an equal liberty to people with whom they disagree. Drawing those lines can be difficult; it’s impossible when citizens don’t understand what government has the right to demand. We can—and do—argue about what constitutes harm, and when that harm is sufficient to justify government intervention in personal decision-making.
When people don’t understand when government can properly impose rules and when it can’t, when they don’t understand the most basic premises of our legal system, our public discourse is impoverished and ultimately unproductive. We’re back to arguing whether a piece of furniture is a table or a chair.
Like all human enterprises, Governments have their ups and downs. I think most of us will agree that we are in a very “down” period right now. Unfortunately, in the United States, the consequences of “down” periods are potentially more serious than in more homogeneous nations, precisely because this is a country based upon an Idea. Americans do not share a single ethnicity, religion or race. Culture warriors to the contrary, we never have. We don’t share a comprehensive worldview. What we do share—at least theoretically– is a set of constitutional values, a set of democratic institutions and cultural norms, a legal system that emphasizes the importance of fair processes–and when we don’t trust that our elected officials are obeying those norms, when we suspect that they are distorting and undermining the underlying mechanics of democratic decision-making, our democracy can’t function properly.
There will always be disagreements over what government should and shouldn’t do. But there are different kinds of discord, and different kinds of power struggles, and they aren’t all equal. When we argue from within a common understanding of what I call the constitutional culture—when we argue about the proper application of the American Idea to new situations or to previously marginalized populations—we strengthen our bonds, and learn how to bridge our differences. When widespread civic ignorance allows dishonest partisans to rewrite our history, pervert our basic institutions, and ignore the rule of law, we not only undermine the Constitution and the American Idea, we erode the trust needed to make democratic institutions work. Ultimately, that’s why civic ignorance matters, and why I wrote that little book.
It’s a very little drop in a very big ocean…but we can only do what we can do.
I know I rant. Thanks for indulging me.
16 thoughts on “But I Repeat Myself…”
Way too many points to discuss, but let me quote this one that popped out:
“Those guarantees are meaningless in the absence of sustained civic engagement by an informed, civically-literate citizenry.”
And that’s where I stopped reading. Why?
In 1949, the most brilliant man on earth, Albert Einstein, penned these words after analyzing our problems from a scientific method of inquiry – as Prof. Kennedy uses at the university. He concluded this in 1949 which was confirmed by Princeton in 2014:
“Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.”
Vote all you want but guess what? 😉
You do so much, Sheila. I really appreciate you.
“Over the past several years, we’ve seen America’s political debates become steadily less civil.”
I can deal with “less civil” during these times of our patience being worn down to our last nerve, making it difficult for the most civil of our leaders who loosen their tongues from time to time. It is the lack of honesty and truth in debates and rallies which currently rile and incite the public to violence rather than lift their spirit of Americanism and pride in this nation.
Trump just provided another dog whistle encouraging lies from his supporters. After being booed for announcing he received a Covid booster he told his supporters to “take credit” for vaccines. He did NOT tell them to get vaccinated but to “take credit” for vaccines. IS THAT WHAT HE DID BY CLAIMING HE RECEIVED A COVID BOOSTER?
These are different times, calling for different responses; the mood of the entire country is less civil in response to the total lack of civility and truth from the GOP who maintain control from their minority position.
“I know I rant. Thanks for indulging me.” Rant on, Sheila, rant on!
Kudos from the choir!
From Jeffrey Sachs:
“When Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, he reinforced the Supreme Court’s assault on the general welfare by cutting taxes for the rich, waging an assault on organized labor, and rolling back environmental protections. That trajectory has still not been reversed.
As a result, the US has diverged from Europe in basic economic decency, well-being, and environmental control. Whereas Europe generally continued on the path of social democracy and sustainable development, the US charged ahead on a path marked by political corruption, oligarchy, an ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor, disdain for the environment, and a refusal to limit human-induced climate change.”
Thank you Sheila! Please don’t stop educating😊
One of your best, dear friend Sheila….to continue the dialogue…why has civic education gone down the drain? Yes, I know there has been an emphasis on standardized tests and STEM, but that doesn’t explain it all…
I often find that I am confronted here with a choice between Sheila’s hopefulness and Todd’s nihilism. Most often I choose the problem solving perspective of hope. I doubt that’s a reasoned choice but why live in despair? History is full of dark times but “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
Pete – the question is not whether it bends, but whether the bend breaks before justice comes….
When I was in high school(1966-1970), everyone was required to take a government course. We were given a basic education in Civics. We all had to take a course in American history. And yes, I was taught a white washed version of American history.
I wonder if anyone has rapped information about the Constitution or our government, both state and federal. That might grab some of our youth’s attention and help them learn it. Of course, the Broadway musical “Hamilton” is a big hit.
You speak of an engaged, educated citizenry. And how do we get our citizens engaged and educated? What will inspire people to learn more about how our government works? I am certain that “boring” lectures will not work with much of the population.
I was the project director for “The Mock Trial of Susan B Anthony”. It was one of the educational presentations for the “Spirit and Place” program. The audience was chosen to be the cast for a reenactment. We had a state supreme court room for the Venue. Indiana’s Supreme Court has funds for educating people about how the courts work. In this case, what was presented was a miscarriage of justice because Ms. Anthony was not allowed to speak in the court, and the jury was all male. Many of the kids in the court room for this presentation were home schooled. I am happy to say there was a great deal of diversity in the audience. The court room over flowed due to the excellent marketing by tour guides of the state capital.
Not only do we need to educate our citizens but we need to advertise more about where citizens can get this education. Theatric presentations and music are 2 ways to get people engaged in the learning process.
Robin – super ideas, also more debate teams….
Didn’t the Puritans version of religious freedom only meant religious freedom for them? I think the Pilgrims were a little different on that score.
When I graduated high school in ‘78, I had plans to attend IU Bloomington but I didn’t get enough money for room and board. My dear mother refused to pay for my schooling so I had to pay for it myself. She said she wasn’t going to pay for my Mrs. degree. I finished my degree in 2005 but only had one semester at IUSB. I would have loved to take your class. My Mother was the only family member to attend my graduation and she was so proud.
I heard the song yesterday, “Schools Out, forever” and remembered that back then in the 70s you could find a decent job without a college degree. Unfortunately, most of my generation now are trumpers because they don’t remember any of their high school civics because school is out forever! They haven’t picked up a book since.
Robin’s idea is great!
According to today’s Thom Hartmann newsletter, the days of Reagan powered NeoLiberalism are coming to an end, none too soon:
But, he, and it cost us, and the world, an awful lot!
Manchin, Sinema, and the oligarchs that control them will do what they can to defend their rancid world view, however, and vulture
capitalism will not go quietly.
But, if people continue uneducated, if Political Science programs get shut down, and the GQP gets its wish to quash general education,
things will continue poorly.
Keep ranting Sheila. It’s the season for gifts, and you’re the gift that gives all year long. Have a lovely holiday and new year.
When the constitution was written, there was government (instead of a monarchy), small businesses that were economic extensions of individuals, and citizens, some who owned businesses and some who worked for those who owned businesses. No one, then, could fathom the notion of a single business being more powerful than the government. The fear was that governement might become as powerful as monarchies had once been, if we weren’t careful, and we, the citizens, would then be back to square one with no power over a new “monarchy,” a new rich and powerful oppressor, the government. This fear was the foundation of conservatism, a notion that less is more, less government is better than more government.
The second amendment guaranteed that everyone could own a musket. There were no submachine guns. So, we need to enforce that. Everyone should be allowed to have a musket. Let’s stick to the original intent of the constitution.
But the potential ogre is no longer government, it is businesses, the new monarchs that have bought, paid for, and now own our government. We need to take the government back from the new monarchs so we can have a large enough, strong enough entity of our own, one in our control as citizens, to neutralize the power of the new monarchs.
Those who claim to be conservatives these days, those in favor less government, are living in a long lost past. A strong government that represents people, not corporations is the only hope of neutralizing the power of the new monarchs, aka the large corporations that control the current fascist government that has no intention of representing the people. That government represents those who are funding them. We must kill citizens united. It is a misnomer, of course. It should be renamed corporations united.
Mr. Smekens nailed it, or Al Einstein did.
Comments are closed.