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!).

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.

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.