Roberts Rules and the Death of Civility

With little to do and plenty of time in which to do it, I serve as recoding secretary for several local groups. This shouldn't be interpreted as a big deal as I happen to have a always been a fairly proficient note taker and the concentration required prevents me from nodding off.  I also learned that if there's a board you wish to remain a member of, let them know you'll take this position; nobody will challenge you for it…and, if necessary, meetings will be planned around your schedule. 

But board meetings now differ significantly from those I was a member of years ago….and therein lies today's homily. If you have taken the time to watch any of the televised coverage of our representatives in session, you'll have noticed that each is given a specified period of time in which to make his point. The same holds true for hearings in which individuals are required to answer specific questions. 

If you've witnessed this, you may or may not have noticed several other features. First, members never address other members directly; rather, they will make the reference by saying. "My good friend from Alabama has stated…" or "the gentleman from Montana has overlooked…" The only direct contact between two individuals is when a member addresses the "Chair." 

"If it pleases the Chair, how much time do I have remaining?' "The gentleman from Kentucky has one minutes and 14 seconds remaining."

In formal floor debate, each side is given a pre-agreed time in which to make its case. Each leader may select as many or few advocates as he wishes, restricting each to a set time limit. Or he may choose to use all the time himself. There are many additional rules regarding "points of order," "yielding time back," "yielding for a question," etc. 

Obviously, this formality is essential so that members with other scheduled appointments may honor them. Similarly, the entire body has other business which must be addressed. But, more important, it gives the recording secretary ample time to transcribe every word spoken as precisely as possible. This is vital since this is what will be entered into the Congressional Record - and remain there forever. 

(Unfortunately, the scoundrels of both houses have made it possible for each member to edit and revise his utterances of that day so that any unfortunate slip of the tongue, or lurch into the truth, can be quickly expunged. Little wonder chroniclers have a difficult time accurately recounting the history of events that determine our future…or rewrite our past.)

So, many of these rules are written and adhered to for the convenience of the recorder and the sake of accuracy (little known fact: at the Constitutional Convention, except for Madison's private journal, minutes were specifically FORBIDDEN so that participants could speak their minds without fear of retribution).

When I joined my first board (a small credit union), these Roberts Rules prevailed but we addressed "Marty" rather than "the Chair" and Marty asked Jim (rather than the "gentleman from Circulation") how he felt about raising the dividend. The meetings ran well, all agenda items got covered, and we were generally through in the specified hour.

But the world has changed and many, even among the most carefully tutored, act as if board meetings, like The View, are open forums in which one might speak at any time on any subject without first appealing to anyone. Interruptions abound, one-on-one debates are common, courtesy is abandoned, and good will takes flight. All these pathologies can be grouped under a single heading: crosstalk. And it creates a nightmare situation for the recording secretary.

While much that occurs does so in anger or frustration, there's generally a cohort of cooler heads who group together and seek solutions. Unless the secretary is monitoring that group an important fact or an informal concession might be missed. Subsequently, the issue is reiterated (minus the contemporaneous input that shaped it) with some displeasure vented over the secretary's lack of attention.

But in my groups, we're not discussing events of monumental importance; nor do we make decisions that cannot be reconsidered and corrected with little effort in a minimum amount of time. And if things do get rowdy I can always pull out "the book" and ask that order be restored. 

Things are quite different on the national media stage, though, where major confrontations occur daily, many of them live or video recorded. Quite a few occur on those news channels with easily identified (though occasionally denied)  ideologies featuring well-known spokespeople agreeable to the prevailing ideology. However, since the audiences could be classified as a "home town crowd," and the moderators "home town umpires," there are few hard questions and little cross-examination. The result is a back-slapping "aren't we swell" sixty minutes of tripe.

On increasingly rare occasions, though, an enterprising program manager will bring together well prepared antagonists and let them go at it. Unfortunately, these mini-debates too often breakdown into serial interruptions by one or both parties - the situation is even worse if each side has more than one advocate. In the political area, each side has its credible and well mannered advocates; each also has a rich collection of well-versed, blood-thirsty cretins. 

Unfortunately, cretinism is at its zenith and audiences are more interested in heat than light. Their disinterest in constructive dialog is a result of never having been exposed to it (thank you, educators of America). Forty years of high school and college grads have been exposed to an ever diminishing amount of robust debate; instead they've been indoctrinated in ideologies determined by university headmasters who, chances are, were similarly indoctrinated.

Those multi-sided political confrontations you'll want to avoid will feature one or more of these noted personalities: one the right, take a pass on any confrontation that included Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Larry Kudlow, John McLaughlin, or Bill Kristol. On the left, ignore those with Jesse Jackson, James Carville, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, or Bill Maher. All share several aggravating traits: they cannot shut-up, they cannot listen, and they cannot accept the idea that, just perhaps, the other side might have some validity in their arguments.

Perhaps the most informative example of the type of debate I'm thinking of, and which were most enriching to me, were conducted on William F. Buckley, Jr.'s Firing Line. The one-on-one debates are very good. But the great debates were two-hour features with multiple well-versed advocates on each side and included opening statements, cross-examination, and closing statements. Sometime later, Buckley followed up the formal debates with two or more shows with many of the same participants, now unbound from the debate format and engaged in informal discussion.

Those were programs that presented the issues of the day in their most nuanced form. After watching, one should have come away knowing much more about the question at hand and realizing there was much more to it than the simplistic, formulaic answers that so frequently characterize today's debates. 

Finally, let's put an end to this never ceasing "why can't we just get along" whine that just never ends. As Madison emphasized in Federalist 10 (and elsewhere), the existence of "faction" was the key point in guaranteeing longevity for the ultimate document…every issue, but especially far reaching ones, were to be fought over fiercely and preferably from multiple angles. Only through multiply splintered parties (factions), could the Republic avoid a "tyranny of the majority."

Some fear we are approaching that moment…whether or not it's true would make for a great debate.

[Yes, I know. I use the masculine pronoun exclusively. Fifty-some years ago, Mrs. Ruth Rigsby told me it was perfectly alright; she was a great teacher, one of many, and never steered me wrong. And to quote that grand old fraud, Lillian Hellman: "I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashion."]

[It is frequently asked why minutes are not recorded and transcribed later. That has been attempted but recorders can, and do, breakdown or run out of tape. Frequently, especially with large groups, it is difficult to distinguish one voice from another. Thirdly, in meetings with extensive crosstalk, it can be near impossible to extract the salient information from the unimportant noise. Finally, it's not common, but on occasion, in the heat of the moment, a participant may make an unseemly statement or indelicate observation that is best left in the conference room and out of the minutes.]

Nancy Grace and the Running Man

For well over a year I've been growing increasingly aggravated over the farce that is Court TV (now truTV), as well as its imitators and enablers (that includes you, O'Reilly). What promotes itself as vitally important programming in the public interest, is little more than a parade of modern day Madame Dafarges delightfully waiting for the next head to fall.

Chief among the beneficiaries is the lamentable Nancy Grace. Controversial, opinionated, and hard-as-nails, there is no pretense in Grace as she appears to make no attempt to be an unbiased observer. She is and was, first and foremost, a prosecutor. On several occasions the Supreme Court of Georgia has criticized her prosecutorial conduct. In one case a three-judge panel "criticized Grace for not following her obligations to disclose to the defendant's lawyer information about other possible suspects."

The Supreme Court of Georgia, commenting on Grace's conduct as a prosecutor, concluded "the conduct of the prosecuting attorney in this case demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness, and was inexcusable." Additionally, the 11th Circuit "found it hard to believe that Grace did not knowingly use a detective's false testimony that there were no other suspects."

In a 1994 appeal the Georgia Supreme Court reversed one of her convictions because, in her zeal, she had "exceeded the wide latitude of closing argument" by introducing crimes that were not at issue. As a capper, two individuals (both young mothers suspected of inadequate child care) subjected to Grace's aggressive interviewing style, committed suicide shortly thereafter (Grace settled the latter case out of court).

Although more telegenic and less strident, Jane Velez-Mitchell regularly takes the prosecutorial side of the televised cases. However, unlike Grace, she accomplishes this in a low-key, apparently thoughtful manner - as a result she is frequently asked to make guest appearances on other programs to give her view on current cases. She has authored several books and received numerous honors (her biography, as outlined on Wikipedia, reveals that she is partially Hispanic, an animal rights advocate, a vegan, a recovering addict, and a lesbian).

The third major player in these courtroom dramas is Vinnie Politan. Though more subdued than the others, Vinnie regularly sides with the prosecution. His background is not anywhere near as exciting or remarkable as those of Grace/Velez-Mitchell, and other than at one time being a lawyer and TV news personality, I can find nothing (other than his enthusiasm) that distinguishes him for his current role.

He does, however, present a wide variety of lawyer/guest commentators (unpaid?). Some, it has to be admitted, will occasionally make a case for the defense providing at least a modest nod toward even-handedness.

But what all three have in common was shown when the notorious Casey Anthony was found not guilty by a jury! (Can you imagine that? Twelve individuals, tried and true, disagreed with collective minds of the nation's self-appointed TV jurists.) The outrage they displayed that day, and which continues, was remarkable. And their audiences, by now convinced that Anthony was the devil-incarnate, were equally disturbed, angry, and vociferous. 

(This hate [and that IS the proper word] lingers as Anthony is regularly followed, filmed, critiqued, and denied a modicum of privacy - the things to which exonerated individuals are traditionally entitled.)

Shortly thereafter, insult was added to the collective injury when, after almost five grueling (and repetitive) months of examinations and cross-examinations, the penalty phase of Jodi Arias' case resulted in a hung jury. The most notable thing about that trial was the prosecuting attorney, a nasty little man who stormed up and down, yelled at every witness, and challenged every utterance; and, until the verdict was announced, became a minor rock star to a bevy of adoring middle aged women who, apparently with nothing better to do, traveled miles to witness his performances.

This post has been a longtime in the development stage and I'm brining it forward now because of the pro-defense drift taking place in the George Zimmerman trial in Florida. There has been a consistent insistence that this case should never have proceeded to trial; that it was butchered early by a seriously mis-edited 911 tape by NBC, followed by rallies and marches led by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and the presidential contribution "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon."

Regardless of the strengths or weaknesses of this case, a trial became inevitable…the media-generated beast had to be fed. Unfortunately, elements of the African-American community are not being shy in threatening repercussions should anything but a "guilty" verdict by reached. This may, of course, be a tactic aimed at influencing a verdict, but a group of local pastors is concerned enough to be working on post-trial efforts to maintain calm. These include, I understand, an appeal to members of the World Champion Miami Heat to make themselves available should it become necessary.

None of this is good. Neither side will "win." However, no one old enough to recall the case, can forget the aftermath of the Rodney King trial. That a repeat is even a remote possibility demonstrates that, despite advances in racial equality, there has been little progress in race relations. 

Sad to say, but speaking from a public safety perspective, a guilty verdict would, in the short run, be the better option…and everyone of those six jurors is well aware of this. A hung jury might seem appealing but might not the Trayvon partisans see this, too, as a miscarriage?

Perhaps we ought to adopt a system similar to that seen in the Schwarzenegger movie, "The Running Man." The arrested are just assumed guilty and, in a "trial by TV," the audience is asked to select an executioner. (The unarmed condemned does have an opportunity to survive, IF he can escape the onslaught of four sadistic killers). It would rid us of the Bread and Circuses/Nancy Grace contingent which adds nothing positive to the common good and, quite possibly, does irremediable harm.

How important are books?

"Reading books doesn't make one smart, it makes you a portable library. Information is not intelligence, it's not what you know that matters but how you use what you know, that is called wisdom. Intelligence without wisdom is dangerous."

Once upon a time, man, realizing his time here on earth was limited, but desirous of passing along the important lessons learned, developed the written word. Regardless of from where or how he sprang, his first and most important imperative was to relate the story of his creation. These narratives, again regardless of location and/or time, included insights into his Creator, the Creator's gifts to him, the Creator's demands on him, and the Creator's punishments when he (inevitably) committed some displeasing act. 

To alert succeeding generations of these pitfalls (and to demonstrate the power of his creator) a body of "dos and don'ts" was scrupulously compiled, recorded, and transmitted to the general population. This was accomplished most effectively through the written word but, more often (as illiteracy was the rule and not the exception), by word of mouth from traveling story tellers with great memories and the ability to tell a tale in metered verse. 

The oldest recorded tale we have is the Epic of Gilgamesh. Like the Old Testament, the Gilgamesh epic includes the creation of the firmament, the dry land, man, and the beasts. It also chronicles a female seductress compromising our heroic male, a Great Flood (following a divine "heads-up"), land rediscovered by our winged friends, a duplicitous serpent, and the creator's subsequent forgiveness, followed by man's grudging acceptance that he will indeed not make it out of this world alive.  

The Old Testament, as noted, is a remarkably similar tale except that the Hebrew story dispenses with the multiplicity of competing gods in place of one, all powerful being. His initial humans are given everything with but one prohibition - which proves that one can be "one too many," and the initial pair are "cast out" to live out their lives in pain and toil…but not before receiving a promise that a "seed" of the woman would conquer the serpent. 

Subsequent generations created several Books of law, designed to instruct the faithful, directing them to avoid those transgressions most offensive to the Almighty (in numerous instances, the lessons were outlined in allegories, featuring noted personalities, their transgressions, and eventual punishments). 

Nevertheless, the laws were broken with stunning regularity, resulting in setbacks of various magnitudes and durations; but the Almighty (sometimes immediately, sometimes lingeringly) forgave His people and instructed them to carry on. Some 6000 years later, having endured repeated purges, wars, and oppressions, remnants still carry on and still appeal to those ancient laws (as well as ten additional stone engraved proscriptions) for support and guidance.

The ancient Greeks had numerous gods and goddesses who differed from humans only in their immortality. In every other way they were just as capricious, unpredictable, and morally lax as any human. Hardly the stuff of heroic stature. But along came Homer and with him, Achilles. In the Iliad, Homer presents a man with all the strengths and weaknesses, loves and hates, confidences and doubts we all possess. 

However, like our other storied heroes, Achilles cannot tolerate betrayal; dissimilarly, he has a history of flying into a rage when he is victimized and seeks immediately to address the injustice. This compunction drives him into a situation where, should he let the transgression pass, he can expect a long, comfortable life at home; if he insists on righting the wrong, he will die (a prophecy given to his mother at birth). 

Achilles achieves his heroic stature by insisting on "doing the right thing," regardless of the consequences. He fulfills the Greek ideals of self-knowledge. "Know thyself" and "realize thyself though the cost be death." "No man is greater than his soul." Despite its age, the Iliad remains the first of Mortimer Adler's  Great Books - and, most likely, among the least read (which may go some way in explaining Greece's debt problem - or maybe not).

Ancient Rome lacked a classic. But upon the conquest of the Greeks, they developed one through Virgil and his Aeneid (it should be mentioned that Cicero and Terence were also significant in creating a "Roman story'). Virgil kicks off the Aeneid with the oft repeated question: "why do good individuals suffer misfortunes?" Sure enough, Aeneas winds up shipwrecked upon the shore of Carthage, where he meets the lovely Dido who falls in love with him. But, like Achilles, he is driven to accomplish what he set out to do and, leaving Dido, sails on to Italy.

Upon arrival, and armed with the Golden Bough, he enters the "land of shades" where he learns of Rome's great mission: "…Oh, Roman remember to rule the peoples; that will be thy art; and to impose the law of peace, to spare the submissive and bring down the proud." Armed with this insight, Aeneas proceeds to conquer King Latinus and oversees the initial days of the Roman Empire. Like Homer, Virgil gives his hero an admonition:  "Do thy duty; let neither danger nor woman keep thee from it."

In Christian theology, Christ is the One promised back in Genesis, the Messiah, the Son of God. His message, almost always delivered as stories (parables), are chronicled in the New Testament. Although Christians differ over the meanings of certain scriptures and the authority to interpret it (sola scripture vs. the Magisterium), all Christians are urged to refer to it regularly (e.g., 2 Chr. 17:9, 2 Tim. 3:16-17, Rom. 1:20, Eph. 6:4, and John 1:17).  

Jew, Christian, Muslim: all identify themselves as "People of the Book." All regard their books as sacred, providing insights into the plan, will, and proscriptions of the Almighty. And each finds itself under varying degrees of attack from a world that has become increasingly secular. Religiously denominated schools are becoming fewer and the public school system actively mitigates against on-campus religious discussion. 

As a result, scriptural study becomes more important; where it has not been deemed important (e.g., Europe), adherence to any of the three has diminished noticeably (while a number of countries have experienced a growth in Islam, that has largely been accomplished through immigration and higher-than-average birth rates).

Finally, atheism/agnosticism has gained significant traction and boasts a number of well known spokesmen. Additionally, groups of believers, housed under the umbrella description of "the emerging church," pose additional challenges to traditional Christianity. They, too, have a number of very literate, very telegenic personalities who have been described as Relevants, Re-constructionists and Revisionists. Generally speaking they believe the "old time religion" is irrelevant in a post-modern society. And they've published scores of books outlining their positions.

I could go on to draw parallels with Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam, but I believe the point has been sufficiently made: history's longest enduring belief systems share many foundational similarities. But their conclusions, modes of worship, acceptance of others, codes of law, and world views can differ dramatically. To discover why can be found only in learning from their books. They most certainly have studied ours and have used them quite adeptly in arguing their case. This was embarrassingly evident in a number of debates when Christopher Hitchens demonstrated a greater knowledge of Christian teachings than his clerical interlocutor. 

The Jesuits addressed this problem in the early 1700s at the College de Louis-le-Grand where only the brightest young men were admitted. Not only were students given an intensive education is rhetoric and disputation, but were also encouraged to raise objections to what they were being taught. To accomplish this they were encouraged to read contradictory accounts. (Imagine, a university that promoted learning both sides of an issue!!!)

The results weren't always as desired as both Voltaire and Victor Hugo not only strayed from the faith, but also became ardent anti-clerics. But faith is a not-easily-acquired gift and if neither man desired it, they were availing themselves of one of Christianity's greatest attributes: free will.

If you don't believe it - it's in the Book.

And, lest you believe the age of heroes has passed (along with our will to believe in the outrageous), let me quote Stan Lee:

"My theory about why people like superheroes is that when we were kids, we all loved to read fairy tales… Fairy tales are all about things bigger than life… Then you get a little bit older and you stop reading fairy tales, but you don’t ever outgrow your love of them. Superhero movies are like fairy tales for older people."

If one can find a superhero lurking in the person of Robert Downey, Jr., one can believe in almost anything...but probably doesn't.

I have met the enemy and he is Pogo

(originally posted 6/18/13)

Although it may be just a faint memory for some and totally unheard of to many, the comic strip Pogo was once one of America's "national treasures." Creator Walt Kelly, employing elaborate landscape art, a cast of apparently benign swamp creatures, and a sometimes-subtle-sometimes-blunt sense of humor, generated daily doses of political and social commentary. By far the most memorable piece Kelly ever produced, and featured on 1970 Earth Day poster, has Pogo (a possum) glancing sadly at his beloved swamp, beneath a polluted sky, and awash with tin cans, garbage, and all the detritus of modern civilization. His take:

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

Its effect was immediate, powerful, and enduring. While it was initially considered the rallying cry of the environmental movement, it was gradually co-opted by other groups. All had one thing in common: each felt that its sacred (profane?) ideas/goals had been thwarted or delayed by an American public incapable of grasping the importance of their agendas. In short, we American were, and continue to be, a benighted agglomeration of mental midgets "standing athwart history yelling 'stop!'"

I just finished a Google search on Pogo's famous phrase and found it used recently to illustrate our failure to appreciate each of the following: degree-based education, the nuances of venture capital investing, the clean-up problems facing professional bass fishermen, the elements of pharmacy practice in Canada,5 and the exaggerated threat of the Muslim world to Europe.

There were many, many more and demonstrate, as Victor Niederhoffer is fond of despising, "an idea that has the world in its grip." Astoundingly, Americans have become accustomed to accepting, without argument, accusations of possessing a national character that is both morally and historically weak and corrupt . But why are Americans so willing to meekly accept blame for ancient crimes (e.g., the institutionalizing of slavery) as well as more modern ones (e.g,, despoiling the environment)?

Try this experiment: go to a very popular social media website and claim credit for the invention of the internet, or the development of Velcro, or postulating the concept of string theory. Those who bother to respond will flame you unmercifully, claim your crazy, or suggest that your posting privileges be rescinded. At the very least they will view you as a nut unworthy of additional consideration and strike you from their list.

Return the next day and confess to feelings of guilt over slavery, the withholding of women's rights, your opposition to birth control, the continuing debasement of the Native American, and your opposition to tax increases. Your audience will respond with enthusiasm. Some will cheer your long-awaited epiphany and subsequent mea culpa. Others will feel it's "too little, too late" and suggest that sizable donations to various righteous organizations might allay their lengthy suffering. A third group will think you're a total sell-out, but not comment. A fourth group (the Remnant), will feel exactly as the third but will courageously post their objections - and risk the collective outrage of the collective mind.

The situation would be bad enough if the situations were limited to accepting unmerited approbation - viewed by some as heeding the scriptural injunction to turn the other cheek. But, in many cases, it has gone well beyond that; confession is not enough; repentance must be demonstrated. Generally, this is expected to come from someone of national prominence and in a very contrite manner. (There are some [Pogo?] who would prefer a re-enactment of the whipping Henry II received from the monks after the slaying of Becket.)   

Strangely enough, this method of instilling an inescapable sense of national guilt can only work in those countries with a strong Judeo-Christian heritage... yet among the strongest purveyors of this guilt are philosophers, academics, and sociologists who, in many cases, are atheists or agnostics. The success of these strategies is pathetic enough, but they are not the end. No, it is expected that the culprit, in this case, America, (and the entire Western bloc in other cases) is pretty much expected to withhold judgement, military action, and critical cartoons.

Our past sins have pretty much made us persona non grata in a world that not long ago welcomed us as conquering heroes. And so it remains - until some minor despot, in a "strategic" location, is threatened from within or without. Then we get the call. It most certainly won't go to Euroland which is incapable of fighting off the verbal attacks of Nigel Farage, nor to the British (whose entire Army can fit in Wembley Stadium), nor to Russia or China (who would most likely not leave or exact a heavy "exit fee"). 

Inevitably, the residents of Pogo's pissoir get the call - without a hint of forgiveness or a courtly request - but as a strident demand. It seems that, after all, our sins are irremissible, and the calls will never cease "for we are the movers and shakers of the world forever, it seems." 

Giddy over a permanent majority

Sometime Friday afternoon (5/31/13) CNBC's Eamon Javers was asked how Congress was reacting to the President's proposal to cap interest rates on the $1 trillion in outstanding student loans. Javers responded that the Democrats, viewing the Republican plan as more expensive, were "giddy" over the potential of establishing a "permanent Democratic majority."

If the proposal fails, interest charged will go from 3.4% to 6.8%. The GOP proposal would tie the rate to that of 10 year treasury plus 2.5%, which figures out to 4.66% at the timed of this writing. Under the President's proposal, the 10 year Treasury rate would also be used but the initial rate would last for the life of the loan - no annual reset…under the Senate plan the initial rate rate would be locked in for the life of the loan - regardless of how high interest rates might go.

Should the GOP stymie the plan or should the Democrats prevail, the belief is that these student debtors will become a permanent constituency of the Democrats. An important piece of political theatre took place in the recent Presidential election. It was the taping and replaying of Romney's "47% speech." Romney characterized the 47% as individuals who "…are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it…" 

There is a contention, to which I lend a limited amount of credence, that among this 47% there are those who are legitimately needy. Subtract those and there is still a very large voting percentage receiving monthly assistance. Add to this remainder millions of 20 and 30-something non-graduates (and graduates) who feel freshly rebuffed, and the new, "permanent majority" exists.

What's really interesting is that the original program, the Higher Education Act of 1965, was another ornament on LBJ's Great Society Christmas tree. Pushed through by huge Democrat pluralities in both houses, it is one of a number of still existent "social programs" that never stop growing. However, the legislative excesses of LBJ's term were not unlike those from FDR's New Deal days when he, too, had huge Democrat pluralities in Congress. Obama's "new" New Deal also had a filibuster-proof edge in the Senate and a majority in the House, and Obamacare, the costs of which continue to grow even while the regulations are still being written, is set for a New Year's delivery.

During those first two years he could have legislatively accomplished almost anything. Instead, he frittered it away attempting to overhaul (hijack?) the health industry. Those things he whines about currently, could have been obtained easily then. Now he faces a limited amount of opposition from a party which, fortunately for him, has of yet to determine an agenda, a direction, or a leadership. So he satisfies his base by carping about "obstructionism."

And this, in turn has created the unceasing "why can't they get along?" argument. One is left with the impression that good fellowship across the aisle has been the hallmark of our legislative history. It has not. In fact, the existence of "factions" was one of Madison's key arguments why the government he proposed would never devolve into a democracy - a tyranny of the majority.

Unfortunately, we no longer expose our students to the Federalist or Anti-Federalist papers - nor Madison's notes on the Convention. I will confess they are not an easy read. Men of that time spoke in compound-complex sentences with allusions to ancient philosophers, the occasional use of a Latin or Greek phrase, and carefully selected references to Scripture. 

At any rate, it's questionable whether our current crop of secondary school scholars is up to the challenge. Further, the current "debates" that take place in Congress consist of brief "speeches" that are little more than scripted slogans, market-tested for their likelihood to be picked up on the evening news or You Tube. All they lack is substance.

Speaking of substance, over the initial forty years (1965-2005) of the federal student loan program, college enrollment increased by almost 300% - the number of 18-24 year-olds who we expect to be eligible for college increased by only 44%. The early years of easier/cheaper admission witnessed a huge explosion in student enrollment, student demonstrations, and student demands. In 1970 the City University of New York decided to allow ALL high school graduates (regardless of ability) to enroll. This "open admission" policy was picked up by many junior colleges.

Despite an obvious influx of ill-prepared, ill-equipped, and unqualified applicants, the Act was reauthorized in 1968, 1971, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1986, 1992, 1998, and 2008. It is currently due for another reauthorization by the end of this year. The amount students (past and present) owe exceeds the nation's credit card debt. Unlike credit card debt, it cannot be discharged through bankruptcy. Many who carry it will never be able to pay it off - they will spend their lives making interest payments. Which might be one of the more ingenious aspects of the situation.

Many of these same individuals (those fortunate enough to get jobs) will spend their lives making too little to require paying income taxes. However, the beast that is the federal government must be continually fed. And if the average student debt is $25,000, millions of marginally employed persons will pay $850 to $1700 a year (3.4% to 6.8% APR) to Uncle Sam. Any way you cut it, that adds up to a substantial revenue stream for forty or fifty years. Dickens at this worst couldn't fashion a grimmer scenario.

Don't expect a "forgiveness" of these loans - the feds are on the hook to pay them off and big financial institutions, knowing a good thing when they see it, hold the paper. Ironically, an act that was supposed to be such a boon to the poor will have succeeded in creating several generations of debt slaves.

Such apparently beneficent, but unsound, proposals can only come into existence through a "tyranny of the majority" - the one terrible thing the Founders wanted to avoid - and why they rejected a democratic form of government…that we have evolved into one isn't a cause for celebration.

Common Core Uproar

The latest round in the fight for education reform involves the imminent introduction of the "Common Core" curriculum in at least 46 of these United States. Not unsurprisingly, many of the brickbats come from educators; any changes which do not include more money and/or smaller class sizes, are generally viewed as regressive. 

But what is surprising (at least to me), is the complaints from the Republican National Committee, theTea Party, and other conservative groups who have traditionally looked upon the education establishment as the womb of leftist ideology. Their complaint, generally speaking, is that the curriculum is a Gates-sponsored initiative and "that states were pressured (or bribed) by the Obama administration to sign on to the Common Core through the billions of dollars handed out by the administration's Race to The Top competition." 

Perhaps the most noted (and respected) critic of the program is Diane Ravitch, who, after considering the program for two years, opted against it because she had "…come to the conclusion that I can’t wait five or ten years to find out whether test scores go up or down, whether or not schools improve, and whether the kids now far behind are worse off than they are today."  In fact, most who oppose Common Core use her "fundamentally flawed" argument.

On the other hand, there is E.D. Hirsch, who enthusiastically endorses the program. In 1987 Hirsch wrote an essay entitled "Cultural Literacy." The same Diane Ravitch read the essay and "urged him to get a book out fast and to call it Cultural Literacy as well."  Not only did he write that book but from it, developed his own proprietary "Core Knowledge" program. 

In 1993, Massachusetts, deciding that its education program was inadequate, adopted a "Hirschean knowledge-based curricula for each grade." Twelve years later (there is no "race to the top" or rushing of education), on "the 2005 NAEP tests, Massachusetts ranked first in the nation in fourth- and eighth-grade reading and fourth- and eighth-grade math. It then repeated the feat in 2007. No state had ever scored first in both grades and both subjects in a single year—let alone for two consecutive test cycles." (They repeated again in 2009 and 2011.) 

On the Trends in International Math and Science Studies test in 2008, the Bay State's fourth graders ranked second globally in science and third in math; the eighth-graders tied for first in science and placed sixth in math. 

Further evidence of success comes from Joel Klein, chancellor of the country's largest school district. Klein had introduced Hirsch's program into 10 of New York's city school's reading programs. Those students "achieved progress at a rate that was 'more than five times greater,' Klein said, heaping praise on the program." 

I would hope that would be enough to convince the Republican National Committee, the teacher's unions, and the Tea Party that this is a credible program - and that the one currently in place, the one they apparently wish to retain, is demonstrably a failure. But I'm sure there will still be those who object on the basis of its once-size-fits-all characterization. Again Hirsch rebuts the contention by pointing out that "the standards do not prescribe a definite curriculum, many different curricula could fulfill them." 

Why is a common core essential? Because this nation was founded on enumerated principals that cannot be found elsewhere. To endure, they must be faithfully passed down from generation to generation (much as the Hebrews have done with their faith for thousands of years). As far back as 1833 Abraham Lincoln was urging that these principals "be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws…" 

A century later, educator William C. Bagley, "felt the school curriculum was too diluted by nonessentials and should consist of essential facts and a common culture…one that was an intellectual curriculum rather than a curriculum focused on growth and development…"  And equally important, a recognition that education requires hard work and respect for authority.

Perhaps Bagley's most power flu argument was that a core of common knowledge is more needed in the United States than in schools of smaller, less diverse nations. That very diversity, which has morphed into a civic deity, makes it more important than ever that those founding doctrines be passed on as they were enacted.

It was 30 years ago last month that "A Nation at Risk"  was unveiled by President Reagan. It found that the prevailing system “incoherent, outdated patchwork quilt” of courses and learning and that this “cafeteria style curriculum” was designed to allow students to advance with only a modicum of effort. The study's committee put forward 38 recommendations. None of the major ones and only a very few of the minor ones have ever been adopted. 

Other similar studies were conducted under Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Bush II. Twenty-five years after "Risk" was published an analysis claimed that "The missing ingredient isn’t even educational at all. It’s political…[programs have been] stymied by organized special interests and political inertia."

It would appear a major effort is being put forward once again to maintain a status quo that most everyone agrees is a failure.

Dynamics of Immigration - part 1

Back  in 2000, The Economist, ran an article ("Who gains?") on the pros and cons of a liberal immigration policy. Not surprisingly, the arguments then were not unlike those we hear today. Toward the end of the article I came across a  phrase that has stuck with me: "a self-selected elite." That is how a representative of the Cato institute characterized the immigrant - going on to add, "in a world where nine out of ten people live within 100 miles of their place of birth, they have already taken a big, bold step simply by coming to America."

I have often wondered at just how accurate a characterization this was and is. From tales passed down through our family and others, there WAS little doubt that those who dared, arrived with great hopes but no promises. There were no welfare offices, job placement facilities, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, relief programs or any of the other amenities that exist today. As Rose Lane Wilder put it in one of her essays, the standard admonition to pigs, freemen, the indentured, and the immigrant was "Root, hog, or die." 

For today's immigrant, there IS a variety of organizations, both public and private, which do much to alleviate some of the difficulties initially encountered. Many, in fact, have grown substantially and, it is argued (with some merit), for reasons that go far beyond genuine compassion - the politics of the voting booth have played a central role. Immigrants under the impression that they are valued for their unique folkways, cultural vibrancy, and intellectual contributions, are sadly mistaken. 

Observers will testify that while one side cynically welcomesimmigrants as a source of votes, the other side insidiously welcomes them as a source of cheap labor. True enough…for certain groups. But it must be noted that all immigrants (legal or illegal) are not equally solicited. An undocumented, unskilled continental European, for example, would find few organizations specifically designed to help him gain permanent admittance. Those from eastern Europe, Russia, and the Indian subcontinent would encounter similar indifference. 

If this were not true, movies would be sub-titled in Russian, Norwegian, Farsi, and Hebrew. Automated phone answering machines would ask non-English speakers to push different numbers for those wishing prompts in Polish, Lithuanian, German, or Italian. And our public schools would offer special classes for students of those nationalities. Why are these "conveniences" not available? Quite simply because we "expect" speakers of those languages to be capable of communicating in English also. 

It behooved early immigrants to this country to learn the language; especially as the nation industrialized and the machinery increased in complexity and the necessity of understanding instruction became essential to life and limb. Going a step further, immigrants were expected to accept the laws of the land (which were far fewer then than now). Some native folkways and traditions continued to be practiced in the ethnic enclaves which developed and, in many cities, still exist. 

However, newcomers were strongly advised to adhere to our governmental and legal systems. At the time, America's political structure remained a severely tested, never-before experienced structure. New challenges in the form of new and imported social and/or economic doctrines, were unwelcome. The degree to which Americans trusted either of the two major political  parties can be seen in how frequently the party leadership of both houses changed regularly. The rise and fall of various "splinter" factions was not an unusual and destabilizing occurrence - what endured was an often uncomfortable compromise between democracy and republicanism. 

With the abolition of slavery and as immigration accelerated so too did the constituencies most likely to push for democratic changes. So various poll taxes, land ownership requirements, gender qualifications, and citizenship tests were put in place to limit access to the polling booth. In the late 1800s the Populists attempted to harness these groups into an effective bloc, but failed. 

However, the Panic of 1893 was to become a watershed event leading to dramatic and lasting changes in the American electoral process.* At the time, it was the worst depression the county had experienced and was brought about by over-lending, over-expansion, and over-speculation (sound familiar?).  While no segment of society was unaffected, the poor, the black, and the recent immigrant were impacted most. On the eve of the panic the Democrats controlled the White House and the Populists still had measurable influence. As a result, both parties were trounced in '94 elections and the Republicans swept both houses. By '96 things were still dismal and the Republicans (in McKinley) gained the White House also.

By 1897, the economy was recovering and the Populists had been replaced by the Progressives, an amalgam of educators, scientist, lawyers, physicians, and clergymen. Notably, these had all been very influential groups prior to the introduction of technology, big cities, and big business. They were to achieve influence once again, first at the local level, and then nationally, through an ideology that most problems, if submitted to scientific scrutiny, could be adequately diagnosed and cured.**

The passing of the Depression may have had some positive effects on business, but "Big Business" was held in contempt. Nor was the situation alleviated by the influx of 8.8 million immigrants between 1900 and 1910. Their addition to the labor pool fueled a push toward even lower wages and increased big city poverty. While many big city "machines" worked to ease this burden among favored ethnic groups through nepotism, patronage, and aid (in return for votes), the federal government had neither the funds nor inclination to step in. 

However, the Progressives, aided in no small part by the burgeoning popularity of the "muckrakers", pushed for a stronger national role in the economy, the regulation of business, and immigration. Government action, though, came about less through a sense of equity or largesse, and more through an appreciation of the dangerous economic and social implications should it go unaddressed. 

Many of the dynamics that drove the next developments exist today. In the next installment I'll examine what followed and see if we can get an idea of what to expect in the near future. 

*Commager, Henry Steele. The American Mind: An Interpretation of American Thought and Character Since the 1880's. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1950.

**Hofstadter, Richard. The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1955.