A couple of articles have caught my eye in the last few days, because they each, in different ways, deal with the nature of representation. First, there is David Brooks' column in the New York Times on June 8 entitled "Politicians Behaving Well". And second, there is a study in The Chronicle of Higher Education on June 12 asking "How Educated Are State Legislators?" Each comes at the question from different directions, but arguably each is about the meaning of representation and the role and responsibility of the voter in selecting representatives.
David Brooks quotes Edmund Burke (the 18th century statesman/author/philosopher), and it's worth reproducing part of the quote here. Burke described his notion of what Brooks calls "political excellence" this way: "...To be taught to respect one's self; to be habituated to the censorial inspection of the public eye; ...to have leisure to read, to reflect, to converse; to be enabled to draw the court and attention of the wise and learned, wherever they are to be found; ...to be led to a guarded and regulated conduct, from a sense that you are considered as an instructor of your fellow citizens in their highest concerns..."
The Chronicle article looks at state legislators and where/whether they went to college. Here's a link to an interactive map so that you can look up legislators in any state: Degrees in the Statehouse. What do you think? Should legislators look like the population in terms of education? In other words, does representation require that our lawmakers be what John Adams called miniature portraits of the people at large? If so, then most of our state lawmakers would not have a college degree, since only 28% of adults have a bachelor's degree in this country. On the other hand, as you'll see in The Chronicle article, in looking at our national lawmaking body, three out of four U.S. Senators have graduate degrees of some sort, and the same is true for 65% of members of the U.S. House. So was James Madison right when he said that our elected representatives should "refine and enlarge the public views" and exercise their wisdom to "best discern the true interest of their country"?
Add to this discussion the misbehavior of members of Congress, most recently exhibited by Rep. Weiner from New York. Does he exhibit what Burke called "a guarded and regulated conduct"? Certainly not with his use of his Twitter account!
So what is the role of the voter? Is it to vote blindly on the basis of a single issue? Or on the basis of a political party label? Or on the basis of an endorsement from a public figure or commentator? Is it to look for evidence of judgment and discernment and experience and maturity in candidates for office? Is it to look at college degrees for what they might say about learning and knowledge and possibly wisdom? What is the exemplary behavior (and profile) that we as voters should demand from our elected representatives?
Monday, June 13, 2011
Monday, November 1, 2010
Head Full of Doubt
Every time I hear the Avett Brothers sing "Head Full of Doubt, Road Full of Promise" on the radio, I am struck by this line: "your life doesn't change by the man that's elected". Since tomorrow is election day, and since many voters are likely to express their frustrations with what President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have done in the last two years, I am pondering this notion brought to life by the lyrics in this song.
Why do we think that our lives should change based on who is elected president (or governor, or senator)? What impact, really, does any president have on your life or mine? Certainly if you're a member of the armed forces, then the decision made by President Bush to go to war in Iraq had impact on you, and the decision made by President Obama to extend our commitment in Afghanistan had impact on you. But for most of us, if any elected officials have impact, it's officials at the local level (or in some areas of your life and mine, officials at the state level). Local officials affect the quality of streets you drive on, the libraries and parks that you visit, the recycling program you support, the public school superintendent who is hired to improve the local schools. State officials affect the quality of your college or university (and your public schools) through funding decisions, or decisions about end-of-course exams, or TEKS, or college readiness. And Texas officials affect the quality of your neighbor's life, if not yours, through decisions about funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or Medicaid, or environmental protection (read this Statesman article regarding Texas' refusal to regulate greenhouse gases). But does whoever is in the White House really affect your daily life?
Why, after less than two years in office, are voters so mad at (or disappointed in) Obama? Can a single individual turn the tide of forces that produced the Great Recession? The forces of an overheated housing market coupled with overly-complex investment strategies based on bundling sub-prime mortgages? The forces armed against government regulation of banks and financial firms in favor of the presumed equity and fairness of the market? The forces on the Republican side that decided in January 2009 to say "no" to anything the Democrats wanted to do rather than trying to find common ground? The Senate Republican Leader who recently said that his top priority is to make Obama a one-term president? Can a president create jobs? Can a president single-handedly get consumers to spend (since we are a consumer-based economy), get banks to lend (since many banks are apparently holding on to their resources rather than lending), get corporations to hire?
Elections matter, because they express the attitudes of those who turn out to vote (but not the attitudes of those who stay home). But in this year's mid-term elections, with our inability to be patient, our reluctance to recognize the complex forces that slow down policy-making, the failure of both parties to truly and sincerely call for compromise, the self-interest that seems to mean that no one is willing to be generous or to act for the greater good - what will be the message the voters are sending? We're impatient? We're worried? We want the government to create jobs (which requires the government to spend money) and we also want the government to quit spending money and adding to the deficit? What conclusions will we each draw after the voting ends on November 2? Will we once again think that our lives will be changed by those whom we elect?
Why do we think that our lives should change based on who is elected president (or governor, or senator)? What impact, really, does any president have on your life or mine? Certainly if you're a member of the armed forces, then the decision made by President Bush to go to war in Iraq had impact on you, and the decision made by President Obama to extend our commitment in Afghanistan had impact on you. But for most of us, if any elected officials have impact, it's officials at the local level (or in some areas of your life and mine, officials at the state level). Local officials affect the quality of streets you drive on, the libraries and parks that you visit, the recycling program you support, the public school superintendent who is hired to improve the local schools. State officials affect the quality of your college or university (and your public schools) through funding decisions, or decisions about end-of-course exams, or TEKS, or college readiness. And Texas officials affect the quality of your neighbor's life, if not yours, through decisions about funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or Medicaid, or environmental protection (read this Statesman article regarding Texas' refusal to regulate greenhouse gases). But does whoever is in the White House really affect your daily life?
Why, after less than two years in office, are voters so mad at (or disappointed in) Obama? Can a single individual turn the tide of forces that produced the Great Recession? The forces of an overheated housing market coupled with overly-complex investment strategies based on bundling sub-prime mortgages? The forces armed against government regulation of banks and financial firms in favor of the presumed equity and fairness of the market? The forces on the Republican side that decided in January 2009 to say "no" to anything the Democrats wanted to do rather than trying to find common ground? The Senate Republican Leader who recently said that his top priority is to make Obama a one-term president? Can a president create jobs? Can a president single-handedly get consumers to spend (since we are a consumer-based economy), get banks to lend (since many banks are apparently holding on to their resources rather than lending), get corporations to hire?
Elections matter, because they express the attitudes of those who turn out to vote (but not the attitudes of those who stay home). But in this year's mid-term elections, with our inability to be patient, our reluctance to recognize the complex forces that slow down policy-making, the failure of both parties to truly and sincerely call for compromise, the self-interest that seems to mean that no one is willing to be generous or to act for the greater good - what will be the message the voters are sending? We're impatient? We're worried? We want the government to create jobs (which requires the government to spend money) and we also want the government to quit spending money and adding to the deficit? What conclusions will we each draw after the voting ends on November 2? Will we once again think that our lives will be changed by those whom we elect?
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Opinions require thought
"For too long, the American people have had the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." This quote is attributed to John F. Kennedy, and it perfectly crystallizes my goals for the blog assignments in GOVT 2305, U.S. Government. Ours is a political system based on divergent views, but those views need to reflect thoughtful attention to particulars and to supporting evidence. It's not enough to say that "Obama is harming the country", or "a good government takes care of its people", or "the government should restrict itself to its constitutional mandates". None of those statements has any meaning without evidence, examples, clarifications.
Let's take the first statement above: "Obama is harming the country". In what ways, and with what decisions or actions is Obama harming the country? What is the evidence of this harm and how is it manifested?
Let's take the second statement above: "A good government takes care of its people". What is meant by "taking care"? And who is meant by "its people"? Some would argue that a government takes care of its people with assistance and support (farm subsidies, Pell grants, regulation of the stock exchange, federal insurance on bank deposits). Others would argue that a government takes care of its people by withdrawing from such programs and letting "the market" take over. Some would argue that subsidies to farmers only help a small group of agribusinesses, not "the people", while others would argue that agricultural subsidies have beneficial effects in the grocery aisles for ordinary Americans. Broad statements need clarity of detail that reflects gathering of evidence and thoughtful analysis.
Let's take the third statement above: "The government should restrict itself to its constitutional mandates". What are the government's constitutional mandates, and are those limited grants of authority appropriate for a government of 308 million people today? What should the government quit doing in order to return to its constitutional roots? Should it abolish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the CIA, regulation of food and drugs? Did the Founders intend for the government that they created to be frozen in time, or did they intend for it to change and grow and adapt to the changing needs of the polity?
So as your blog posts this semester are drafted, edited, revised, and rewritten, please remember - opinions without thought are meaningless (and they won't get you full credit!).
Let's take the first statement above: "Obama is harming the country". In what ways, and with what decisions or actions is Obama harming the country? What is the evidence of this harm and how is it manifested?
Let's take the second statement above: "A good government takes care of its people". What is meant by "taking care"? And who is meant by "its people"? Some would argue that a government takes care of its people with assistance and support (farm subsidies, Pell grants, regulation of the stock exchange, federal insurance on bank deposits). Others would argue that a government takes care of its people by withdrawing from such programs and letting "the market" take over. Some would argue that subsidies to farmers only help a small group of agribusinesses, not "the people", while others would argue that agricultural subsidies have beneficial effects in the grocery aisles for ordinary Americans. Broad statements need clarity of detail that reflects gathering of evidence and thoughtful analysis.
Let's take the third statement above: "The government should restrict itself to its constitutional mandates". What are the government's constitutional mandates, and are those limited grants of authority appropriate for a government of 308 million people today? What should the government quit doing in order to return to its constitutional roots? Should it abolish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the CIA, regulation of food and drugs? Did the Founders intend for the government that they created to be frozen in time, or did they intend for it to change and grow and adapt to the changing needs of the polity?
So as your blog posts this semester are drafted, edited, revised, and rewritten, please remember - opinions without thought are meaningless (and they won't get you full credit!).
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
The age-old question: Should I skip class today?
Here's an interesting commentary on college students in the 21st century, a "should I skip class?" Web-based calculator! It's an age-old question, especially when you stayed out late . . . or it's raining . . . or it's snowing . . . or the sun is shining . . . or you're hungry . . . or your boyfriend/girlfriend just broke up with you. Should I skip class today? What are the consequences if I miss today's class?
Now there's a web site and a calculator to help you decide!
It asks questions such as "how many times a week does the class meet?", "how long is the semester?", "how many classes have you already missed?", "will you miss a quiz or assignment?", "when is the next test?" and so forth. Type in your answers and the algorithms do their work for you and tell you whether or not you should go to class.
I find myself struggling to decide what to say about this. As a college professor, I believe in the value-added of the classroom and the learning that takes place there. As an online instructor, I appreciate the value of (some) information that can be found on the Web. As a former college student (back in the 20th century), I understand the need to occasionally miss a class/take a personal day.
Does this Web site say something larger about who we are today? Is it right in line with students who cannot, no matter how often they're asked, quit text-messaging for an hour and 20 minutes twice a week while they're sitting in their History classroom? Students who come to class on the first day without a pen or paper? Students who sign up for an online course and then tell the professor that they're not very comfortable with the Web and email? Are we engaging in a bit of self-delusion regarding our college-going culture?
What about a "should I skip work today?" calculator? The same questions might apply - who are we (both individually and as a civil society) and what do we value? If we value learning, then we should go to class (with pen and paper - or laptop - in hand), we should have enough respect for learning (and for the professor) to put our phones away while we're there, and we should give our best effort (whatever "best" might be on any given day). Instead of looking for reasons to avoid learning, we should celebrate the blessings and benefits of learning, whether it's in a classroom, with a book, from a Web site, or through a friend or mentor.
It asks questions such as "how many times a week does the class meet?", "how long is the semester?", "how many classes have you already missed?", "will you miss a quiz or assignment?", "when is the next test?" and so forth. Type in your answers and the algorithms do their work for you and tell you whether or not you should go to class.
I find myself struggling to decide what to say about this. As a college professor, I believe in the value-added of the classroom and the learning that takes place there. As an online instructor, I appreciate the value of (some) information that can be found on the Web. As a former college student (back in the 20th century), I understand the need to occasionally miss a class/take a personal day.
Does this Web site say something larger about who we are today? Is it right in line with students who cannot, no matter how often they're asked, quit text-messaging for an hour and 20 minutes twice a week while they're sitting in their History classroom? Students who come to class on the first day without a pen or paper? Students who sign up for an online course and then tell the professor that they're not very comfortable with the Web and email? Are we engaging in a bit of self-delusion regarding our college-going culture?
What about a "should I skip work today?" calculator? The same questions might apply - who are we (both individually and as a civil society) and what do we value? If we value learning, then we should go to class (with pen and paper - or laptop - in hand), we should have enough respect for learning (and for the professor) to put our phones away while we're there, and we should give our best effort (whatever "best" might be on any given day). Instead of looking for reasons to avoid learning, we should celebrate the blessings and benefits of learning, whether it's in a classroom, with a book, from a Web site, or through a friend or mentor.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Is it the Democratic Party, or the Democrat Party?
Have you noticed in the last few years that the members and supporters of the Republican Party refer to their opponents as being members of the Democrat Party rather than the DemocratIC Party? Ever since I have paid any attention to politics (and we won't say how long that's been!), they have always been the Democratic Party, but in recent years the opposition (including radio talk-show hosts, bloggers, partisan media, as well as elected Republicans) has taken to using the term Democrat Party. Clearly a memo went out to all loyal Republicans and they were told to change their language, because this is a systematic and systemic change - but why?
What do you think? Do Republicans want to make sure that voters don't think of Democrats as being somehow more loyal to or supportive of democratic principles? And to insure this, they refuse to refer to them as the DemocratIC party? Somehow if you call them the DemocratIC party, you are enhancing their standing as believers in democracy? Or is it just the ugliness of the phrase that matters? Democrat Party is a much uglier phrase than Democratic Party, isn't it? Is it a slight or a slur or a slam? What is being accomplished by using a noun as an adjective in this instance?
The United States is a democratic republic; that is, we have free elections in which the people choose their decision-makers. You can have non-democratic republics (e.g., the Soviet Union, where Communist Party members both elected and ruled), but we have a representative democracy. So one major party takes its name from the republican part of the equation, and one major party takes its name from the democratic part of the equation. But the larger point is that language matters, and by-and-large the Republican Party is more intentional and more effective in its use of language. The "Democrat Party" is only one obvious and ongoing example.
What do you think? Do Republicans want to make sure that voters don't think of Democrats as being somehow more loyal to or supportive of democratic principles? And to insure this, they refuse to refer to them as the DemocratIC party? Somehow if you call them the DemocratIC party, you are enhancing their standing as believers in democracy? Or is it just the ugliness of the phrase that matters? Democrat Party is a much uglier phrase than Democratic Party, isn't it? Is it a slight or a slur or a slam? What is being accomplished by using a noun as an adjective in this instance?
The United States is a democratic republic; that is, we have free elections in which the people choose their decision-makers. You can have non-democratic republics (e.g., the Soviet Union, where Communist Party members both elected and ruled), but we have a representative democracy. So one major party takes its name from the republican part of the equation, and one major party takes its name from the democratic part of the equation. But the larger point is that language matters, and by-and-large the Republican Party is more intentional and more effective in its use of language. The "Democrat Party" is only one obvious and ongoing example.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Representation - What does it mean?
I was reading this article in the Los Angeles Times (Women at Risk) and it reminded me of the age-old debate over the meaning of representation.
Is someone representative by definition? In other words, because the voters choose a candidate as their "representative", does that mean that the chosen individual will automatically be representative of them? Or is it also important to expect that our legislative bodies look like us? Does it matter that women now hold 90 seats in Congress, which is nowhere close to the proportion of women in the population? Does it matter that women may hold even fewer seats after the November elections?
What does it mean to say that our legislative bodies should be representative of us? We are a republic, after all, and decision-makers are expected to represent us in their decisions. Would it make a difference if our Congress were made up of 250 women rather than 90 women? How would Congress be different? In its rules? Its demeanor? Its decision-making processes? Or would the culture of Congress take over any gender-based (and well-documented) sociological tendencies?
This article mentions Jeannette Rankin, a woman whom I've long found to be a fascinating story. She was elected to Congress as a Republican from Montana BEFORE the 19th amendment was added to the Constitution giving all women the right to vote. And she is also noteworthy for having voted against U.S. entry into the Great War (World War I) as well as U.S. entry into the Good War (World War II). Here's some information about Jeannette Rankin (Women's History) and here's one of her most famous quotes: "You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."
Is someone representative by definition? In other words, because the voters choose a candidate as their "representative", does that mean that the chosen individual will automatically be representative of them? Or is it also important to expect that our legislative bodies look like us? Does it matter that women now hold 90 seats in Congress, which is nowhere close to the proportion of women in the population? Does it matter that women may hold even fewer seats after the November elections?
What does it mean to say that our legislative bodies should be representative of us? We are a republic, after all, and decision-makers are expected to represent us in their decisions. Would it make a difference if our Congress were made up of 250 women rather than 90 women? How would Congress be different? In its rules? Its demeanor? Its decision-making processes? Or would the culture of Congress take over any gender-based (and well-documented) sociological tendencies?
This article mentions Jeannette Rankin, a woman whom I've long found to be a fascinating story. She was elected to Congress as a Republican from Montana BEFORE the 19th amendment was added to the Constitution giving all women the right to vote. And she is also noteworthy for having voted against U.S. entry into the Great War (World War I) as well as U.S. entry into the Good War (World War II). Here's some information about Jeannette Rankin (Women's History) and here's one of her most famous quotes: "You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."
Thursday, August 26, 2010
How to create a "links list" in Blogger
Here's my pass at describing how to create a link list in Blogger. I've also included a link to a colleague's video posted on YouTube that illustrates the process.
How to create a link list in Blogger
How to create a link list in Blogger
- Log in to your Blogger account
- View your blog
- Select Design (upper right corner)
- Select the Design tab (upper left)
- Select Page Elements (beneath the Design tab)
- Select Add a Gadget (right hand side of template)
- Select Link List
- Title the Link List (for instance, Mainstream Newspapers)
- Sort as you see fit (Alphabetically or Reverse Alphabetically)
- Copy and paste (or enter manually VERY carefully) the URL for the first link in New Site URL
- Add the proper name for New Site Name
- Select Add Link
- Repeat until all links are added. When you are done, select Save Changes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)