O'Reilly losing his audience?
Bill O'Reilly has run afoul of people like Laura Ingraham, who criticize his embrace of terms of the left. I lost interest in him between April and July. I think that he became more interested in his posture as an independent that the truth of his analysis. More than anything, O'Reilly is just a contrarian. Click the July link to an article by VDH on people who float along following the news day, or in O'Reilly's case, opposed to the news day.
Saturday, September 18, 2004
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
The International Community?
Two articles have something very good to say on this subject. One is in Slate, which does a nice job on the inherent reasons broad coallitions are not capable of routine responce as needed. Anyone who has read up on the Napoleonic Wars can recognize that even when there are only four important players, getting them all together at once is just too much to ask most of the time. Of the seven coallitions formed, only the 6th, and 7th included all of the major powers, Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia. (The first coallition probabaly didn't need the strength of Russia, but the early withdrawl of Prussia doomed it.) Some more needs to be done on why we seem to be so in thrall of the idea of a consensus among the international powers. Victor Davis Hanson is probabaly the go to source for that.
Second is a six week old piece by Robert Kagan on the Kerry line, we should "only go to war because we have to." Kagan demonstrates that this reveals a more profound unilateralism than the Bush administration. Bush and his team is an internationalist one willing to work with those able to work with us at a given time. Kerry is arguing for an isolationist withdrawl from the international community. He knows full well, as Lee Smith pointed out in the piece mentioned above, that expecting the international community to ever form consensus is so rare that it nearly amonts to a guarantee of inaction. So Kerry's multilateralism is really just a mask for Jeffersonian isolationism.
Two articles have something very good to say on this subject. One is in Slate, which does a nice job on the inherent reasons broad coallitions are not capable of routine responce as needed. Anyone who has read up on the Napoleonic Wars can recognize that even when there are only four important players, getting them all together at once is just too much to ask most of the time. Of the seven coallitions formed, only the 6th, and 7th included all of the major powers, Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia. (The first coallition probabaly didn't need the strength of Russia, but the early withdrawl of Prussia doomed it.) Some more needs to be done on why we seem to be so in thrall of the idea of a consensus among the international powers. Victor Davis Hanson is probabaly the go to source for that.
Second is a six week old piece by Robert Kagan on the Kerry line, we should "only go to war because we have to." Kagan demonstrates that this reveals a more profound unilateralism than the Bush administration. Bush and his team is an internationalist one willing to work with those able to work with us at a given time. Kerry is arguing for an isolationist withdrawl from the international community. He knows full well, as Lee Smith pointed out in the piece mentioned above, that expecting the international community to ever form consensus is so rare that it nearly amonts to a guarantee of inaction. So Kerry's multilateralism is really just a mask for Jeffersonian isolationism.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Brooks on Hawk vs. Hawk
In this space I pointed to this NYTimes column by David Brooks. He argues that Hawks break down into gradualists and the confrontationalists. The gradualists argue for constant pressure, but against confrontation, because its frequently conter-productive. The confrontationalists argue for clearing out the enemy when we know where he is.
I will say that talking like a gradualist and occasionally being a confrontationalist is walking softly and carrying a big stick. Its the best of all possible policies. People like Bill Bennett rightly complain that talking like a confrontationalist and acting like a gradualist makes us look weak.
For myself, I'd say that my instincts tend more toward confrontationalism and my intellect tends to favor gradualism. I have no problems with confrontationalism per se, but I do agree with the gradualists that these things are won over the long term. I also dislike talking like a confrontationalist and acting in any other fashion. I'd rather talk like a gradualist, expect and plan for a long term commitment, and occasionally, unexpectedly, confront our enemies forcefully.
In this space I pointed to this NYTimes column by David Brooks. He argues that Hawks break down into gradualists and the confrontationalists. The gradualists argue for constant pressure, but against confrontation, because its frequently conter-productive. The confrontationalists argue for clearing out the enemy when we know where he is.
I will say that talking like a gradualist and occasionally being a confrontationalist is walking softly and carrying a big stick. Its the best of all possible policies. People like Bill Bennett rightly complain that talking like a confrontationalist and acting like a gradualist makes us look weak.
For myself, I'd say that my instincts tend more toward confrontationalism and my intellect tends to favor gradualism. I have no problems with confrontationalism per se, but I do agree with the gradualists that these things are won over the long term. I also dislike talking like a confrontationalist and acting in any other fashion. I'd rather talk like a gradualist, expect and plan for a long term commitment, and occasionally, unexpectedly, confront our enemies forcefully.
Theory
Kerry's strategy was to A) establish his bone fides as a warfighter, in order to B) criticize the Iraq war and the while Bush foriegn policy without being tarred as a loopy peacenik. It worked once, when Kerry testified in the Senate in '71. The strategy is being derailed because this time around Kerry can't establish his bone fides. His '71 testimony, his other anti-Vietnam activities, his career in the Senate all undermine the notion that Kerry is who he says he is. Most recently his own waffling on Iraq prevents him from establishing his hawkish credentials. Perhaps he keeps trying to move on to phase B only to realize that he hadn't completed A.
Kerry's strategy was to A) establish his bone fides as a warfighter, in order to B) criticize the Iraq war and the while Bush foriegn policy without being tarred as a loopy peacenik. It worked once, when Kerry testified in the Senate in '71. The strategy is being derailed because this time around Kerry can't establish his bone fides. His '71 testimony, his other anti-Vietnam activities, his career in the Senate all undermine the notion that Kerry is who he says he is. Most recently his own waffling on Iraq prevents him from establishing his hawkish credentials. Perhaps he keeps trying to move on to phase B only to realize that he hadn't completed A.
Monday, September 13, 2004
A Pattern Emerges
It seems there are a number of people who are reputed to have said one thing, then "recanted". I wonder. Recently, there is the case of Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor, and so well up the chain of command at the Texas National Guard for then Lt George Bush, now himself Commander-in-Chief. Originally CBS claimed Hodges as part of their authentication of the memos critcal of Bush's service. But, as ABC reports, "he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered." ABC also observes, "CBS responds: 'We believed Col. Hodges the first time we spoke with him. We believe the documents to be genuine. We stand by our story and will continue to report on it.'"
CBS is claiming that Hodges is changing his story, Hodges is claiming the press misled him. "According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were 'handwritten' and after CBS read him excerpts he said, 'well if he wrote them that's what he felt.'" ABC goes on to say, "His personal belief is that the documents have been 'computer generated' and are a 'fraud'."
So, did Hodges change his tune, as CBS claims, or did CBS lie to him to get him to say what they wanted? And how prevelent is it for these supposed recantations to be media misquotes or distortions? And how often does the press describe a correction of its own errors as a recantation by a source? "We didn't err, our source recanted." Or perhaps, more honestly, "Our source caught us lying about what they said, but that won't match our story, so we'll attempt to discredit them."
Also, check out Mark Steyn on this subject
It seems there are a number of people who are reputed to have said one thing, then "recanted". I wonder. Recently, there is the case of Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor, and so well up the chain of command at the Texas National Guard for then Lt George Bush, now himself Commander-in-Chief. Originally CBS claimed Hodges as part of their authentication of the memos critcal of Bush's service. But, as ABC reports, "he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered." ABC also observes, "CBS responds: 'We believed Col. Hodges the first time we spoke with him. We believe the documents to be genuine. We stand by our story and will continue to report on it.'"
CBS is claiming that Hodges is changing his story, Hodges is claiming the press misled him. "According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were 'handwritten' and after CBS read him excerpts he said, 'well if he wrote them that's what he felt.'" ABC goes on to say, "His personal belief is that the documents have been 'computer generated' and are a 'fraud'."
So, did Hodges change his tune, as CBS claims, or did CBS lie to him to get him to say what they wanted? And how prevelent is it for these supposed recantations to be media misquotes or distortions? And how often does the press describe a correction of its own errors as a recantation by a source? "We didn't err, our source recanted." Or perhaps, more honestly, "Our source caught us lying about what they said, but that won't match our story, so we'll attempt to discredit them."
Also, check out Mark Steyn on this subject
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Cheney v Edwards
This Monday, Kerry called Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" and said his goal was to withdraw U.S. troops in a first White House term. "I would not have done just one thing differently than the president on Iraq, I would have done everything differently than the president on Iraq," Kerry said. He called the president's talk about a coalition fighting alongside about 125,000 U.S. troops "the phoniest thing I've ever heard." Apparently, Kerry thinks that the war has consequences, and that there is a difference between doing it right and doing it wrong. Indeed, Kerry told a West Virginia rally the "W" in Bush's name stood for "wrong -- wrong choices, wrong judgment, wrong priorities, wrong direction for our country" on everything from jobs to Iraq.
It turns out that Dick Cheney also thinks the war has consequences and that there is a right way and a wrong way to prosecute the war. It therefore follows that if the two candidacies have such differing visions, the Kerry vision might well be consequencial and wrong. That adds up to dangerous. "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told supporters at a town-hall meeting.
Kerry claims he would do everything differently, including pulling out of Iraq and claiming to be able to internationalize the war. Kerry claims to be able to bring the troops home with honor and quickly, he claims to be able to bring in new international partners. To many of us this sounds like a combination of fantasy (there simply are no available troops to replace Americans) and cutting and running. Consequential and wrong: dangerous.
John Edwards replied, "Dick Cheney's scare tactics crossed the line today, showing once again that he and George Bush will do anything and say anything to save their jobs. Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it's an American issue and Dick Cheney and George Bush should know that. John Kerry and I will keep America safe, and we will not divide the American people to do it."
So, apparently, Kerry can suggest that Bush's policy is harmful, risky, and a distraction, which is to say that it risks harmful consequences, but heaven forbid the other guys say this about Kerry. To suggest that is an unAmerican scare tactic. Edwards may think that the Kerry/Edwards program would do that, but reasonable people might believe its harmful, risky, and dangerous. You simply can't call the other guy's policy bad without expecting him to call your plan bad.
This Monday, Kerry called Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" and said his goal was to withdraw U.S. troops in a first White House term. "I would not have done just one thing differently than the president on Iraq, I would have done everything differently than the president on Iraq," Kerry said. He called the president's talk about a coalition fighting alongside about 125,000 U.S. troops "the phoniest thing I've ever heard." Apparently, Kerry thinks that the war has consequences, and that there is a difference between doing it right and doing it wrong. Indeed, Kerry told a West Virginia rally the "W" in Bush's name stood for "wrong -- wrong choices, wrong judgment, wrong priorities, wrong direction for our country" on everything from jobs to Iraq.
It turns out that Dick Cheney also thinks the war has consequences and that there is a right way and a wrong way to prosecute the war. It therefore follows that if the two candidacies have such differing visions, the Kerry vision might well be consequencial and wrong. That adds up to dangerous. "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told supporters at a town-hall meeting.
Kerry claims he would do everything differently, including pulling out of Iraq and claiming to be able to internationalize the war. Kerry claims to be able to bring the troops home with honor and quickly, he claims to be able to bring in new international partners. To many of us this sounds like a combination of fantasy (there simply are no available troops to replace Americans) and cutting and running. Consequential and wrong: dangerous.
John Edwards replied, "Dick Cheney's scare tactics crossed the line today, showing once again that he and George Bush will do anything and say anything to save their jobs. Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it's an American issue and Dick Cheney and George Bush should know that. John Kerry and I will keep America safe, and we will not divide the American people to do it."
So, apparently, Kerry can suggest that Bush's policy is harmful, risky, and a distraction, which is to say that it risks harmful consequences, but heaven forbid the other guys say this about Kerry. To suggest that is an unAmerican scare tactic. Edwards may think that the Kerry/Edwards program would do that, but reasonable people might believe its harmful, risky, and dangerous. You simply can't call the other guy's policy bad without expecting him to call your plan bad.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
EU President: Smooth Operator
The EU President, the Dutch Bernard Bot, put out a statement about the school siege in Beslan which said, "We would like to know from the Russian authorities how this tragedy could have happened." The Russians were not amused. According to EUObserver, the Russian Foriegn Minister replied, "In a situation when the whole world knew that the main priority was saving children, and that there would be no storming, to hear such words from a minister seems to us to be blasphemy." Bot promised to smooth things over with the Russian Foriegn Minister, but the Russians aren't in any apparent hurry to actually make contact with Bot. According to the Financial Times, "Bot's aides said Mr Lavrov was travelling in the Middle East and was hard to contact, shrugging off suggestions of a possible snub." Uh huh.
The EU President, the Dutch Bernard Bot, put out a statement about the school siege in Beslan which said, "We would like to know from the Russian authorities how this tragedy could have happened." The Russians were not amused. According to EUObserver, the Russian Foriegn Minister replied, "In a situation when the whole world knew that the main priority was saving children, and that there would be no storming, to hear such words from a minister seems to us to be blasphemy." Bot promised to smooth things over with the Russian Foriegn Minister, but the Russians aren't in any apparent hurry to actually make contact with Bot. According to the Financial Times, "Bot's aides said Mr Lavrov was travelling in the Middle East and was hard to contact, shrugging off suggestions of a possible snub." Uh huh.
Democrats for Bush
Google the phrase 'Democrats for Bush' and what you find is entirely based on terror, foriegn policy, and embrace of the Truman-Kennedy strength and committment to democracy. No one other than Zell Miller talks about how the President represents the values of the heartland. Zell is a dinosour and if he had much more of a public career ahead of him would end up switching parties. Democrats for Bush, or 9-11 Democrats are voting on the issue of foriegn policy.
Google the phrase 'Democrats for Bush' and what you find is entirely based on terror, foriegn policy, and embrace of the Truman-Kennedy strength and committment to democracy. No one other than Zell Miller talks about how the President represents the values of the heartland. Zell is a dinosour and if he had much more of a public career ahead of him would end up switching parties. Democrats for Bush, or 9-11 Democrats are voting on the issue of foriegn policy.
More and more Dems drink the Kool-Aid
The party of McGovern seems more and more unhinged. Loopy partisans are always out there in the wings, but they seem to be going mainstream, while the mainstream Dems go loopy. The Vince-Foster-was-murdered people never gained a central place in the party. As the American Spectator began to devote itself to Clinton conspiracy theories, it lost readership. The Left, starting with paranoid delusions of a "great right-wing conspiracy", through anguish at their failure to steal the election (a theft which they then projected on the Republicans) in Florida, through 9-11, Iraq, and Michael Moore have gone so far off the deep end, I think they are performing miracles of self-destruction.
I accept the conventional wisdom that the country was evenly divided and that the margin of undecideds was small. So my own explanation of the 11 point Bush lead is that Democratic frothing at the mouth is killing them. Some voters either vote Democratic or go fishing. More and more are staking out a spot by the lake. Some voters are undecided and are going for Bush. And non-voters may come out to support the President rather than see the party of madness and lunacy (I'm referring to Terry McAuliffe, Michael Moore, and most recently, and regrettably, Susan Estrich) gain control of the White House.
Responsible Democrats have two choices. One, they can opt for the approach taken by Randy Kelly, Ron Silver, or Ed Koch, and support the President on the issues of terror and democracy abroad while opposing him on issues like abortion or stem cell research. Two, they can lament the hate so many in their party have towards so many Republicans, and hope that once in power their leaders will be forced to adopt a more responsible policy and tone. Voting Democratic implies that you either agree with the rhetoric of the Democratic Party, or believe that they will come to their senses once they win.
I strongly believe that once a politician goes over the deep end, they are broken and cannot be put back together. Some of these people, say Gore, are so damaged by the contested election of 2000 that they can never be let near to the levers of power again. This is the central lesson of Nixon. Others were never on an even keel, and should never have been let in in the first place. These wackos are generally not politicians but activists and propagandists.
As more and more Dems cut loose their ties to responsible politics and give in to hate and venom, the party faces a longer and more profound wander in the woods. This may well be neccesary to purge the party of its madness and help the party re-invent itself. The Democrats chose not to embrace the Clintonian Third Way without Clinton. So, some new approach will have to be discovered.
The party of McGovern seems more and more unhinged. Loopy partisans are always out there in the wings, but they seem to be going mainstream, while the mainstream Dems go loopy. The Vince-Foster-was-murdered people never gained a central place in the party. As the American Spectator began to devote itself to Clinton conspiracy theories, it lost readership. The Left, starting with paranoid delusions of a "great right-wing conspiracy", through anguish at their failure to steal the election (a theft which they then projected on the Republicans) in Florida, through 9-11, Iraq, and Michael Moore have gone so far off the deep end, I think they are performing miracles of self-destruction.
I accept the conventional wisdom that the country was evenly divided and that the margin of undecideds was small. So my own explanation of the 11 point Bush lead is that Democratic frothing at the mouth is killing them. Some voters either vote Democratic or go fishing. More and more are staking out a spot by the lake. Some voters are undecided and are going for Bush. And non-voters may come out to support the President rather than see the party of madness and lunacy (I'm referring to Terry McAuliffe, Michael Moore, and most recently, and regrettably, Susan Estrich) gain control of the White House.
Responsible Democrats have two choices. One, they can opt for the approach taken by Randy Kelly, Ron Silver, or Ed Koch, and support the President on the issues of terror and democracy abroad while opposing him on issues like abortion or stem cell research. Two, they can lament the hate so many in their party have towards so many Republicans, and hope that once in power their leaders will be forced to adopt a more responsible policy and tone. Voting Democratic implies that you either agree with the rhetoric of the Democratic Party, or believe that they will come to their senses once they win.
I strongly believe that once a politician goes over the deep end, they are broken and cannot be put back together. Some of these people, say Gore, are so damaged by the contested election of 2000 that they can never be let near to the levers of power again. This is the central lesson of Nixon. Others were never on an even keel, and should never have been let in in the first place. These wackos are generally not politicians but activists and propagandists.
As more and more Dems cut loose their ties to responsible politics and give in to hate and venom, the party faces a longer and more profound wander in the woods. This may well be neccesary to purge the party of its madness and help the party re-invent itself. The Democrats chose not to embrace the Clintonian Third Way without Clinton. So, some new approach will have to be discovered.
Monday, September 06, 2004
Mark Steyn
Somehow he manages to write about the Beslan school business rather than the hurricane. As usual he's right on.
Somehow he manages to write about the Beslan school business rather than the hurricane. As usual he's right on.
All Hurricane All the Time
Who is this constant hurricane coverage for? What about the school takeover in Beslan? The downed Russian planes? The Kerry campaign shakeup? The campiagning in the Ohio Valley by both candidates? The new polls showing Bush up by 11 points? An election in Mexico? The Sudan genocide? And there are other natural disasters, a flood in China and an earthquake in Japan. Hello? Is there more to news than pictures of Florida hurricanes?
Who is this constant hurricane coverage for? What about the school takeover in Beslan? The downed Russian planes? The Kerry campaign shakeup? The campiagning in the Ohio Valley by both candidates? The new polls showing Bush up by 11 points? An election in Mexico? The Sudan genocide? And there are other natural disasters, a flood in China and an earthquake in Japan. Hello? Is there more to news than pictures of Florida hurricanes?
Monday, August 30, 2004
Posner on the 9-11 Commisison Report
Its in the NYTimes and its quite perceptive.
Most interesting to me was his description of the FBI's limitations, especially in the area of counter-terrorism. "The F.B.I. is an excellent police department, but that is all it is."
Its in the NYTimes and its quite perceptive.
Most interesting to me was his description of the FBI's limitations, especially in the area of counter-terrorism. "The F.B.I. is an excellent police department, but that is all it is."
More on the committed voter
Most voters are committed, and a plurality are probabaly strongly committed. The truely undecided are smallish, probabaly less than 10%. As a result, when network execs and print editors consider whether to cover the issues or the horserace, they opt for the horserace, because the audience is bigger. If 50% is strongly committed, 40% is weakly committed, and 10% is undecided, I would expect 75% of the coverage to be horserace, and 25% to be a mixture of serious and attractive issues. Attractive issues, those which attract viewers but don't really have any bearing on the capacity to govern, are neccesary for ratings. Serious issues are complex and require sustained attention. People who pay close attention to issues and read the kinds of sustained issue oriented pieces tend to be the cmmitted voters, strongly or weakly. The true undecided often is either not paying attention until the last minute or is only paying a scant bit of attention.
So its natural that television coverage and a good deal of the daily press will cover the horserace and will not do a good job with the issues. There just isn't an audience for it. The political press, be it The New Republic, the Weekly Standard, or whatnot, is being read by active political people, not undecideds.
Most voters are committed, and a plurality are probabaly strongly committed. The truely undecided are smallish, probabaly less than 10%. As a result, when network execs and print editors consider whether to cover the issues or the horserace, they opt for the horserace, because the audience is bigger. If 50% is strongly committed, 40% is weakly committed, and 10% is undecided, I would expect 75% of the coverage to be horserace, and 25% to be a mixture of serious and attractive issues. Attractive issues, those which attract viewers but don't really have any bearing on the capacity to govern, are neccesary for ratings. Serious issues are complex and require sustained attention. People who pay close attention to issues and read the kinds of sustained issue oriented pieces tend to be the cmmitted voters, strongly or weakly. The true undecided often is either not paying attention until the last minute or is only paying a scant bit of attention.
So its natural that television coverage and a good deal of the daily press will cover the horserace and will not do a good job with the issues. There just isn't an audience for it. The political press, be it The New Republic, the Weekly Standard, or whatnot, is being read by active political people, not undecideds.
Conventions and their Moderate Speakers
People said that the Democratic delegates were far more liberal than the Convention presented. They shifted toward the center. Now the same is being said about the Republicans, especially in terms of their speakers. I would think this is obvious, but it seems to confound many observers. The activists of both parties will by necessity be less centrist than the country. For one thing, the parties are more ideological, as Jim jeopardize and Zell Miller illustrate. This is a problem for the two-party system, but parties don't represent ideological diversity any more. So who will take the time and trouble to participate in political campaigns? Who will go to conventions? The ideologically committed. Ideologically committed centrist don't have a party. They cross back and forth, they are swing voters. So the parties, with a base on the left and right then reach out to the center to win them over to their side for this or that election. So of course parties will put on a more moderate face as they reach out to the center. How else could it be? Any discussion that fails to recognize this seems to me to be fundamentally confused.
People said that the Democratic delegates were far more liberal than the Convention presented. They shifted toward the center. Now the same is being said about the Republicans, especially in terms of their speakers. I would think this is obvious, but it seems to confound many observers. The activists of both parties will by necessity be less centrist than the country. For one thing, the parties are more ideological, as Jim jeopardize and Zell Miller illustrate. This is a problem for the two-party system, but parties don't represent ideological diversity any more. So who will take the time and trouble to participate in political campaigns? Who will go to conventions? The ideologically committed. Ideologically committed centrist don't have a party. They cross back and forth, they are swing voters. So the parties, with a base on the left and right then reach out to the center to win them over to their side for this or that election. So of course parties will put on a more moderate face as they reach out to the center. How else could it be? Any discussion that fails to recognize this seems to me to be fundamentally confused.
Kerry's worldview formed by Vietnam
The Belgravia Dispatch has a nice piece on this subject. If I haven't said it before, Kerry is the worst case I've ever seen of wanting to fight the last war. Of course what makes it worse is that he's actually several wars in the hole.
The Belgravia Dispatch has a nice piece on this subject. If I haven't said it before, Kerry is the worst case I've ever seen of wanting to fight the last war. Of course what makes it worse is that he's actually several wars in the hole.
Monday, August 23, 2004
Social Studies gone soft on Civics
PS, the journal of the American Political Science Association had an article this April on the decline of civics education in the public schools. Hat Tip to Wilson Quarterly, which does a nice round up of interesting pieces. I'll focus on a part of the problem which is often featured here, contentious ideological conflict by those setting the agenda. When Social Reconstructionists want to present a radical critique of American political and social institutions, traditionalists recoil and want it stopped. When Perennialists want to explain and defend the establishment, the left cries foul and tries to push the kind of unpopular critique that I have mentioned. The end result is no civics education. There are two issues here, academic inquiry and parental control of the message presented to their kids.
Intellectual honesty requires that that teachers teach all substantive arguments, not just the ones they like or that are popular in the community. Teacher's don't need to teach them all equally, they just need to give them a fair hearing. Parents, the administration, and others in the community have greater tolerance for a teacher who is fair, even if some material is not their cup of tea. When things get ugly is when the teacher is both out of step and unfair.
In a public school system, parents are also voters and taxpayers, so ultimately they govern. Thumb your nose at them and they may well come back hard with cuts in funding, targeted funding, or regulations and legislation. They are the consumers acting for their children. If teachers and schools attempt to usurp that authority they risk confronting the parent's much greater political power.
The solution is a civics program that is based on the wants and desires of the parents and community with substantial consideration of alternative views. Consideration needs to be limited by good method and respect for evidence. Students who know how to apply good social science methods and have a respect for evidence will have a robust commitment to good ideas and a resistance to bad ones.
PS, the journal of the American Political Science Association had an article this April on the decline of civics education in the public schools. Hat Tip to Wilson Quarterly, which does a nice round up of interesting pieces. I'll focus on a part of the problem which is often featured here, contentious ideological conflict by those setting the agenda. When Social Reconstructionists want to present a radical critique of American political and social institutions, traditionalists recoil and want it stopped. When Perennialists want to explain and defend the establishment, the left cries foul and tries to push the kind of unpopular critique that I have mentioned. The end result is no civics education. There are two issues here, academic inquiry and parental control of the message presented to their kids.
Intellectual honesty requires that that teachers teach all substantive arguments, not just the ones they like or that are popular in the community. Teacher's don't need to teach them all equally, they just need to give them a fair hearing. Parents, the administration, and others in the community have greater tolerance for a teacher who is fair, even if some material is not their cup of tea. When things get ugly is when the teacher is both out of step and unfair.
In a public school system, parents are also voters and taxpayers, so ultimately they govern. Thumb your nose at them and they may well come back hard with cuts in funding, targeted funding, or regulations and legislation. They are the consumers acting for their children. If teachers and schools attempt to usurp that authority they risk confronting the parent's much greater political power.
The solution is a civics program that is based on the wants and desires of the parents and community with substantial consideration of alternative views. Consideration needs to be limited by good method and respect for evidence. Students who know how to apply good social science methods and have a respect for evidence will have a robust commitment to good ideas and a resistance to bad ones.
Saudization
Good news from the oil kingdom. Saudization is a program to replace departing westerners with Saudi workers. As the war on terror continues, many westerners leave the kingdom. The Saudi's in the past filled many of their labor needs with foriegn workers, westerners for the high skilled jobs, mideasterners for the unskilled work. Saudis themselves would sit back fat and happy on oil revenues, so it was thought. The shift from an oil-funded idleness, which has proved so ammenable to radical Islam and terrorism, to a bourgious society of skilled workers will inevitably bring liberalism.
Some commontators, notably Dennis Prager, miss this point. They reject the Friedman thesis because the 9-11 terrorists were not unemployed in the way Americans think about unemployment. In America, unemployment means poverty and is closely associated in its long term forms with low educational attainment. But in other parts of the world where industrial or commodity social welfare provide education and comfortable living standards without labor, its possible to be frustrated by a lack of opportunity without living under an overpass. Conservatives recognize the argument that dependence breeds resentment, which is why Americans are so cool towards generous social welfare policies, but by the same token, we should recognize that where the welfare is abundant, dependence will still be a source of frustration. Sitting around with nothing to do funded by oil wealth is not a recipie for the development of a liberal society. Let's flip that around, Prager and others will recognize that an ethic of work produces classical liberalism. Put Saudi's to work producing goods and services for decent incomes and liberalization and modernity will follow. We have seen it all over the globe. A middle class based on professional and commercial activity produces a middle class with the kinds of values that are a rocky soil to the seeds of fanaticism.
Good news from the oil kingdom. Saudization is a program to replace departing westerners with Saudi workers. As the war on terror continues, many westerners leave the kingdom. The Saudi's in the past filled many of their labor needs with foriegn workers, westerners for the high skilled jobs, mideasterners for the unskilled work. Saudis themselves would sit back fat and happy on oil revenues, so it was thought. The shift from an oil-funded idleness, which has proved so ammenable to radical Islam and terrorism, to a bourgious society of skilled workers will inevitably bring liberalism.
Some commontators, notably Dennis Prager, miss this point. They reject the Friedman thesis because the 9-11 terrorists were not unemployed in the way Americans think about unemployment. In America, unemployment means poverty and is closely associated in its long term forms with low educational attainment. But in other parts of the world where industrial or commodity social welfare provide education and comfortable living standards without labor, its possible to be frustrated by a lack of opportunity without living under an overpass. Conservatives recognize the argument that dependence breeds resentment, which is why Americans are so cool towards generous social welfare policies, but by the same token, we should recognize that where the welfare is abundant, dependence will still be a source of frustration. Sitting around with nothing to do funded by oil wealth is not a recipie for the development of a liberal society. Let's flip that around, Prager and others will recognize that an ethic of work produces classical liberalism. Put Saudi's to work producing goods and services for decent incomes and liberalization and modernity will follow. We have seen it all over the globe. A middle class based on professional and commercial activity produces a middle class with the kinds of values that are a rocky soil to the seeds of fanaticism.
Saturday, August 21, 2004
How to use the Show-Me Standards 1.1
This will be a continuing description of how to use the Show-Me standards. It will proceed in order of the four goals and the forty-three sub-goals. This is part 1 of Goal 1.
Goal 1: Students in Missouri public schools will acquire the knowledge and skills to gather, analyze and apply information and ideas.
part 1: Students will demonstrate within and integrate across all content areas the ability to
develop questions and ideas to initiate and refine research
The heart of this subject is question framing. (Useful pieces on question framing are here and here.) We all know the familiar list of question to ask, who, where, when, how, what, and why. But which are the important questions to ask to support research?
Who, where, and when are fact based questions, so they will not sustain inquiry (except in some sophisticated questions, see below) and will not challenge the researcher. Often they can be answered conclusively by recourse to one authority. If I can look up the answer in a reference book, its not a good question.
How is a very profound question (except in science, where its often technical) that is often far beyond most students capacity. Unless a student is capable of collecting a lot of smaller questions under one large how, thinking profoundly about what it all means, and managing the length, a how question should be re-phrased to turn it into a what or why question. How questions presuppose a knowledge of what and why questions or a capacity to provide what and why answers en route to a how.
The best questions for most students are what and why questions. A what question explains the nature of a thing by assembling its characteristics in a meaningful way. Every student is capable of a what question, although the best students will provide much more interesting and abstract answers to a what than will the struggling student. A barely satisfactory what answer is little more than a collection of descriptions of characteristics, including who, where, and when that is comprehensive and coherent. A proficient what answer will not only be factually accurate (which the the basic minimum requried, without which, no answer is passing) but will be meaningful as well.
Its good that a student can tell me who fought the American Civil War, when it happened, where important events took place, and organize other information of a factual nature about the Civil War. Its better what a student can do all of that and tell me what it means. There are no right answers to the meaning part of this question, but teachers must remember that there are wrong answers. The American Civil War is not a Marxist uprising of a working class against a capitalist class. Too often teachers will slide too far to either looking for one right answer (their own) or accepting any nonsense that comes along. Critical thinking, sound analysis, and solid research require that any thesis be based on the best explanation of the facts presented, while dealing substantively with facts that don't support the thesis.
A why question implies a firm grasp of what. If a student argues that the American Civil War was an economic struggle emphizing the tariff, its pretty easy to see how that student could begin to answer the question why did the American Civil War happen? To the student who has no answer to what, why will remain a mystery. Often, as in my example, a what will lead quickly to a why, but it is important to remember that while the direction of the thesis is clear, a why question requires more reserach, more interpretation of factual data (compared to description), and more experience handling ideas. A why is more advanced than a what, but not beyond a properly prepared student with adequate time.
Note that even though I am giving examples from older students, the same applies to younger students. If the issue at hand is animal locomotion, a middle elementary science subject, every student should be able to tell me what flying is an how a bird uses it. (eg, To escape predetors and to exploit resources unavilable to walkers and swimmers.) This would also be a reasonable answer to a why question, although a good why answer will also deal with the costs of flying, thereby explaining flightless birds, like penguins. A good why always takes more account of unsupportive facts than a what, because its more interpretive.
Finally, some students will demonstrate that they are capable of sophisticated question framing. If you find them attempting to cram a good when question into a what or why, free them up to ask the when question. A good when question is a question of periodization. Like a why, its assumes a clear what answer. For example, when does the Civil War become inevitable? This is a good question. It does have one weakness, it implies that it was inevitable. I'd rather weaken the word inevitable, rather than attach a qualifier, such as "if ever". If a student was willing to consider that the evidence might support the answer, "it wasn't," I wouldn't object too much to this title.
Who were the Populists? If the answer is at least as solid as I suggested for a what question, there is no need to rephrase the question to be "what is a Populist." A good who question is a description of a movement or group as compelling as a what, and should be an obvious springboard to more advanced work.
Where questions that fit this catagory also involve some interpretation of place. Attempting to identify regions in the five themes of geography is properly this kind of question. A good where question isn't based on one data-set. Where are the tropical rain forests is a good question of students are predicting their location based on a variety of climate factors, its not a good question if they are consulting a map. Some where questions can be parallel to why questions. Where are the rain forests threatened, presupposes an answer to why are rainforests threatened. This question takes the why version and locates it geographically. That may raise interesting questions when conditions vary on the basis of some new ingredient.
All students should be able to answer proper what questions, most students should be able to move on to why questions, and a few students will always ask interesting questions no matter what words they use.
This will be a continuing description of how to use the Show-Me standards. It will proceed in order of the four goals and the forty-three sub-goals. This is part 1 of Goal 1.
Goal 1: Students in Missouri public schools will acquire the knowledge and skills to gather, analyze and apply information and ideas.
part 1: Students will demonstrate within and integrate across all content areas the ability to
develop questions and ideas to initiate and refine research
The heart of this subject is question framing. (Useful pieces on question framing are here and here.) We all know the familiar list of question to ask, who, where, when, how, what, and why. But which are the important questions to ask to support research?
Who, where, and when are fact based questions, so they will not sustain inquiry (except in some sophisticated questions, see below) and will not challenge the researcher. Often they can be answered conclusively by recourse to one authority. If I can look up the answer in a reference book, its not a good question.
How is a very profound question (except in science, where its often technical) that is often far beyond most students capacity. Unless a student is capable of collecting a lot of smaller questions under one large how, thinking profoundly about what it all means, and managing the length, a how question should be re-phrased to turn it into a what or why question. How questions presuppose a knowledge of what and why questions or a capacity to provide what and why answers en route to a how.
The best questions for most students are what and why questions. A what question explains the nature of a thing by assembling its characteristics in a meaningful way. Every student is capable of a what question, although the best students will provide much more interesting and abstract answers to a what than will the struggling student. A barely satisfactory what answer is little more than a collection of descriptions of characteristics, including who, where, and when that is comprehensive and coherent. A proficient what answer will not only be factually accurate (which the the basic minimum requried, without which, no answer is passing) but will be meaningful as well.
Its good that a student can tell me who fought the American Civil War, when it happened, where important events took place, and organize other information of a factual nature about the Civil War. Its better what a student can do all of that and tell me what it means. There are no right answers to the meaning part of this question, but teachers must remember that there are wrong answers. The American Civil War is not a Marxist uprising of a working class against a capitalist class. Too often teachers will slide too far to either looking for one right answer (their own) or accepting any nonsense that comes along. Critical thinking, sound analysis, and solid research require that any thesis be based on the best explanation of the facts presented, while dealing substantively with facts that don't support the thesis.
A why question implies a firm grasp of what. If a student argues that the American Civil War was an economic struggle emphizing the tariff, its pretty easy to see how that student could begin to answer the question why did the American Civil War happen? To the student who has no answer to what, why will remain a mystery. Often, as in my example, a what will lead quickly to a why, but it is important to remember that while the direction of the thesis is clear, a why question requires more reserach, more interpretation of factual data (compared to description), and more experience handling ideas. A why is more advanced than a what, but not beyond a properly prepared student with adequate time.
Note that even though I am giving examples from older students, the same applies to younger students. If the issue at hand is animal locomotion, a middle elementary science subject, every student should be able to tell me what flying is an how a bird uses it. (eg, To escape predetors and to exploit resources unavilable to walkers and swimmers.) This would also be a reasonable answer to a why question, although a good why answer will also deal with the costs of flying, thereby explaining flightless birds, like penguins. A good why always takes more account of unsupportive facts than a what, because its more interpretive.
Finally, some students will demonstrate that they are capable of sophisticated question framing. If you find them attempting to cram a good when question into a what or why, free them up to ask the when question. A good when question is a question of periodization. Like a why, its assumes a clear what answer. For example, when does the Civil War become inevitable? This is a good question. It does have one weakness, it implies that it was inevitable. I'd rather weaken the word inevitable, rather than attach a qualifier, such as "if ever". If a student was willing to consider that the evidence might support the answer, "it wasn't," I wouldn't object too much to this title.
Who were the Populists? If the answer is at least as solid as I suggested for a what question, there is no need to rephrase the question to be "what is a Populist." A good who question is a description of a movement or group as compelling as a what, and should be an obvious springboard to more advanced work.
Where questions that fit this catagory also involve some interpretation of place. Attempting to identify regions in the five themes of geography is properly this kind of question. A good where question isn't based on one data-set. Where are the tropical rain forests is a good question of students are predicting their location based on a variety of climate factors, its not a good question if they are consulting a map. Some where questions can be parallel to why questions. Where are the rain forests threatened, presupposes an answer to why are rainforests threatened. This question takes the why version and locates it geographically. That may raise interesting questions when conditions vary on the basis of some new ingredient.
All students should be able to answer proper what questions, most students should be able to move on to why questions, and a few students will always ask interesting questions no matter what words they use.
Parents: bar the doors and hide the kids!
The school year is starting and the Leftists want your child. The most recent posting on the listserv for the National Council for Social Studies is one for the Education for Sustainable Development Teacher Project. If this doesn't reek of Social Reconstructionism to you, you just aren't following education. I looked over their materials and took their survey, and sure enough, its the same anti-capitalist, technocratic experts will ban plastic bags for you, anti-globo, socialist claptrap we've come to expect from the Social Reconstructionists, whose goal it is to reconstruct society into a Leftist utoptia.
This is why we have high stakes testing. Parents with a clue see this stuff and they demand a return to education, as opposed to indoctrination. When their (and their political proxies') demands are ignored, they pull out the sledge-hammer.
This is why we have home schooling. Parents with a real aversion to this kind of indoctrination give up on the re-education camps and being the kids back home for real eduation.
This is why we have vouchers and charter schools. Parents see this kind of nonsense and want there kids somewhere else.
Teachers who don't get this are part of the problem. Teachers who push this kind of curriculum against parent, community, and administration desires, are the enemy of the public schools.
The school year is starting and the Leftists want your child. The most recent posting on the listserv for the National Council for Social Studies is one for the Education for Sustainable Development Teacher Project. If this doesn't reek of Social Reconstructionism to you, you just aren't following education. I looked over their materials and took their survey, and sure enough, its the same anti-capitalist, technocratic experts will ban plastic bags for you, anti-globo, socialist claptrap we've come to expect from the Social Reconstructionists, whose goal it is to reconstruct society into a Leftist utoptia.
This is why we have high stakes testing. Parents with a clue see this stuff and they demand a return to education, as opposed to indoctrination. When their (and their political proxies') demands are ignored, they pull out the sledge-hammer.
This is why we have home schooling. Parents with a real aversion to this kind of indoctrination give up on the re-education camps and being the kids back home for real eduation.
This is why we have vouchers and charter schools. Parents see this kind of nonsense and want there kids somewhere else.
Teachers who don't get this are part of the problem. Teachers who push this kind of curriculum against parent, community, and administration desires, are the enemy of the public schools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)