One Man’s Initial Attempt to Define the Purpose of Public Education

We have spoken of the need to reach back beyond the rhetoric about public education in this country to ask “What is the Purpose of Public Education?”  We have also mentioned the necessity of emphasis on teaching and learning as two critical parts of educating.  In addition, we have mentioned the importance of the involvement of more citizens in this process, with schools becoming centers of lifelong dynamic learning.  Without further ado, let me introduce what could, at the very least, be a basis for discussion of a general Purpose for our public education system:

“To involve an entire community of learners (administrators, teachers, students, parents, volunteers and other interested citizens) in the teaching of traditional and foundational curricula (history, English, mathematics, science, language, art, technology); at the same time drawing out experiential learnings  and discovering talents, concepts, beliefs, values and facts (some that may have been lost, concealed, suppressed or forgotten) in order to produce responsible and accomplished individuals, informed citizens, critical and independent thinkers, lifetime learners, cultural literates, world-class workers and competitors,  and compassionate human beings willing to advocate for the welfare of the human family.”

If we had such a common Purpose for all public education, what could we reasonably propose as strategies for accomplishing such a purpose?

First:  we would have to hope that States and local school boards would be encouraged to set goals and strategies based on such a Purpose for their local systems, according to what each could reasonably accomplish, and fund!
Second: it would make sense to emphasize the community nature of teaching/learning by involving each teacher-learner in the development of an Individual Education Plan (with input from fellow teacher-learners) that would serve as the basis for a commitment to lifelong learning and discovery.
Third:  work on development of public and chartered specialized centers of teaching/learning that will provide a wide variety of school choice for students and parents; in fact, student-learners might even attend different schools for specified periods of time, depending on his or her individual goals and needs;
Fourth:   develop teaching and learning centers that will be beehives of citizen activity for the community, involving parents, mentors, volunteers and community “teachers” who will provide actual examples of experience, skill and talent as “experience teachers”;
Fifth:   bring teacher-learners to the community and the community to the teacher-learners so that all persons involved will become concerned citizens.  This must be expanded to on-the-job training, internships; learning about work places; plus having workers and executives involved in sharing expertise and personal experience with the teacher-learners.
Sixth:  involve “students” in teaching other teacher-learners;  everyone must be seen as having something to offer others; this is where self-esteem is built.  We all have a stake in teaching and learning; “dropping out” of school must be seen as a loss not only to the individual, but to all of society, particularly to the teaching/learning community. 

What would a new teaching/learning paradigm class look like?
First: it might be in a schoolroom, but just as likely in a community setting like a museum, business, religious center, library, college, park, conference center, all depending on the learning that is being sought.
Second: there will be ergonomic furniture that is adaptable to various configurations, depending on the mode of teaching or learning that is involved;
Third: there will be more people in the room than just students and teachers: mentors, tutors, aides, learning supervisors, parents, and guests might be interacting with each other and with students
Fourth:  lecturing or Socratic questioning will be used only when either can contribute to learning; methods of imparting knowledge or drawing out learnings will vary, and the lead facilitator (formerly known as “teacher”)  will bear responsibility for developing a team methodology and input that will lead to group as well as individual learning based on IEPs.
Fifth:  learning will be a mutual endeavor:  all will be teachers and all will be learners; therefore communications between others in the room will reflect this mutual endeavor: it may be noisy (requiring sound-deadening material in walls and ceilings).
Sixth: there may be diverse stations or learning kiosks throughout the room, so that research and teamwork, and special projects may be done in a particular space; some learners may be out of the classroom in other areas (library, media room, computer room, etc), and, in order to build personal responsibility and integrity, there will be no passes needed; however, there will be a responsibility to the classroom community to sign-out or sign-in just to learn to use time responsibly and to determine where people are in case they are needed.  But let’s get rid of forced dependence and conformity; we need responsible independence and inner integrity to dictate actions.
Seven:  testing and grading are always difficult concepts to change, but change they must.  In a teaching/learning community, testing must be based on IEPs, not on a standard set by someone outside the teacher-learner.  Grading must be a community exercise: teacher-learners must grade themselves based on their own IEP and their own goals; then the community teacher-learners need to give their input based on how they see the progress being made.  IEPs then need to be adjusted to reflect whatever changes, advances, goals and challenges are needed.
Eighth:  bullying from anyone toward anyone else cannot be tolerated; it is a destructive denial of the importance and uniqueness of each member of the teaching/learning community;   
Ninth: in case it is still unrecognized from all of this, let me emphasize that such a Purpose changes almost everything; especially current ways of doing education because it calls for new attitudes and questioning of established ideas and concepts.  Indeed, I can’t even begin to list all of the changes that might potentially happen if such a Purpose were to be adopted nation-wide!

Searching for an Educational Purpose Statement

 

We have spoken of the need to reach back beyond the rhetoric about public education in this country to ask “What is the Purpose of Public Education?” A similar concern is expressed by Walt Kelly who wrote  “Common Sense, A New Conversation About Public Education” to focus public attention on what he believed to be a crisis in our society:

“Is the operating purpose of public education today still a workable premise?  We are caught in a flurry of tactics and never question the premise.  What is the purpose of public education today?  Almost all of the education reforms that the experts propose have some merit.  Yet our public education is still failing our children and our society because today’s purpose of public education is outdated.
The educational model of today evolved with the Industrial Revolution and was designed to produce a new kind of worker: patriotic, civic minded, and obedient to authority.  It is demonstrably not working.  What’s more, it cannot work again in the future.  The entire context for learning is radically different than it was in the 1830’s when our current purpose for public education was born.  We cannot solve this crisis with remedial actions based upon our old map of reality.  We must develop a new and national purpose of public education…that would again produce schools that offer hope and opportunity to their children and communities.”

What follows is one man’s attempt to find the elements that might inform such a Purpose.

From an article titled “School: the story of Public Education in America” on PBS.org, we find a beginning statement of some goals that have been held over time for public education:

To prepare children for citizenship
To cultivate a skilled workforce
To teach cultural literacy
To prepare students for college
To help students become critical thinkers
To help students compete in a global marketplace

In my humble opinion, these various goals make an assumption which may be part of the problem with public education:  all of them assume that students can only be taught.  There seems to be no part for the student to take in his/her own education or learning.  That, it seems to me, is a problem; a problem that needs to be addressed as part of any purpose for public education.  A student writer expressed it this way:
“The heart of the problem is something much more fundamental – that is, the roles of students and teachers. The common belief seems to be that schools should be like a factory. The teachers are the workers, and the students are the products. Ideally students are supposed to sit down, shut up, and absorb whatever the teacher pours into their heads. The idea is to produce as many contributing members of society as possible – a noble goal, but a horrendously misguided approach.
Why not create a system where students are partners with teachers in their own education? Where they are not supervised at all times? Where they can have some measure of control over their own education, and the responsibility that comes along with it?  Many students today correctly view education as something that is forced upon them, which is why so many react poorly to it. Were students truly given a stake in their own education, I believe that they would rise to the occasion.
I know firsthand that students are capable of so much more than school expects of us, yet many of us are not capable of what they do expect of us – unquestioning obedience, dependent thinking, and conformity. If we are ever to see any improvements in education, the bar must be set higher, for both student and teacher alike.”

Dictionary definitions of “education” concentrate on a similar process of imparting something: 1)  the process of training and developing the knowledge, mind, character, etc., especially by formal schooling; teaching; training; 2)  knowledge, ability, etc., thus developed; 3)  a) formal schooling at an institution of learning b) a stage of this (a high school education)  4) systematic study of the methods and theories of teaching and learning.  The basis of the word educate is ‘educare’ from the Latin to bring up, rear or train; but ‘educere’ from the Latin also means to lead or draw out or bring out. So apparently there is another process involved in education which is the drawing out or bringing forth of something.  Another definition of educate is to form and develop (one’s taste, etc.).  Possibly, there is more than one process involved in education: teaching or training, and drawing out.

Perhaps, we need to look beyond “education” to the word “learn” or “learning.” One definition is “to get knowledge” by study, experience, instruction, etc.  Another is to come to know (to learn what happened).  For synonyms, the word “ascertain” implies a finding out with certainty or careful inquiry; experimentation; research, etc.; “determine” stresses the intent to establish facts exactly to resolve doubt;  “discovery” implies a finding out by chance, exploration, etc. of something already existing; “unearth” implies a bringing to light of something, by diligent search, that has been concealed, lost, or forgotten.

Have we, in some sense, been bamboozled by the forces in favor of educating children only by “teaching” “instructing” “training” because anything else is too “messy”?  Have we given in to the forces of order, discipline, obedience, conformity and dependence, thereby avoiding the issues involved in also emphasizing self-discipline, constructive criticism and questioning,  non-conformity and independence; in other words, avoiding a balance in our educational system between teaching and learning?  I firmly believe that to be the case.

Thus, in my opinion, we must offer some additions to the purpose listing from PBS, above.

-To encourage, nurture and enhance the natural talents, skills and dispositions of all learners
-To provide the atmosphere in which students can develop their own educational aims and goals with input from internal and external resources
-To develop a milieu in which all in public educators (administrators, teachers and students) are considered learners for a lifetime
-To provide a spectrum of educational choices to every learner so that “schooling” will meet their individual aims and goals

Adding these to the PBS list, we have what amounts to a multi-purpose statement.  On the one hand, we must teach (input, instill, inculcate, etc) the basic building-blocks of our heritage: math, language arts, history, civics, etc. so that our young people can be given the knowledge they need to do all those necessary things for themselves and their country:  prepare for a good job, be a good citizen, become critical thinkers, be able to compete in a global workplace, become culturally literate.  On the other hand, we must learn how to learn and how to make learning the basis for a new paradigm:  drawing out talents and skills, research, experimentation, chance, discovery, lifetime learning, and full participation must all be part of our national education purpose.

Then the question becomes:  Can we do all of this?  And, the answer is: not under the current circumstances; not with the current mindset; not with the current funding formulas; not with the current buildings; not with the current 19th  & 20th century models, methods and materials. And yet, all of those are the obstacles that we keep funding and keep touting and keep tweaking! 

So, with all that in mind, what can we do to bring about a new purpose, a new paradigm, for our public education system?  In our next blog, we will try to define such a purpose with some ideas as to how to  implement that purpose.

TIME TO TALK EDUCATION

With the media beginning to hold forums, and with the Obama administration’s attention to a reform movement called “Race to the Top”, it’s time to turn our attention to one of the most critical public issues that we as a democratic society must face squarely with all the vigor and thoughtful debate that we can muster.  I speak, of course, of an issue that goes to the heart of who we are as informed citizens of a democratic republic: public education.

But we need to start much further back than many politicians or proponents of change and reform seem willing to go.  In my humble opinion, the question of education reform should NOT start with whether the legislation that goes by the laughable nickname of “No Child Left Behind” needs to be amended or discarded, or kept intact.  We need to get much more basic about this particular reform movement. 

We are in deep trouble as to our standing in the education arena.  According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States ranked as follows in 2003 in several areas of education:

The U.S. ranks 18th in reading
Finland ranked first, with an average score of 543.

The U.S. ranks 6th in college students aged 20-24 
Slovenia ranks first, with 46.1% of all 20 to 24 year old residents enrolled in college.

The U.S. ranks 28th in three year old students
Belgium ranks first, with 99.6% of all three year old children enrolled in school.

The U.S. ranks 4th in money spent per student on secondary education
Luxembourg ranks first, at $18,144.

The U.S. ranks 8th in expenditure on education
Mexico ranks first with 15.1%.

The U.S. ranks 12th in college faculty to student ratio
Sweden ranks first, with 114.2 teaching staff for every 1,000 college students.

CBS News had some interesting comments on these rankings:

“(AP) The United States is losing ground in education, as peers across the globe zoom by with bigger gains in student achievement and school graduations, a study shows.
Among adults age 25 to 34, the U.S. is ninth among industrialized nations in the share of its population that has at least a high school degree. In the same age group, the United States ranks seventh, with Belgium, in the share of people who hold a college degree.
By both measures, the United States was first in the world as recently as 20 years ago, said Barry McGaw, director of education for the Paris-based Organization for Cooperation  and Development,  said that the United States remains atop the ‘knowledge economy,’ one that uses information to produce economic benefits. But, he said, ‘education's contribution to that economy is weakening, and you ought to be worrying.’
The report bases its conclusions about achievement mainly on international test scores, and top performers included Finland, Korea, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada and Belgium.
Given what the United States spends on education, its relatively low student achievement through high school shows its school system is ‘clearly inefficient,’ McGaw said.
In all levels of education, the United States spends $11,152 per student. That's the second highest amount, behind the $11,334 spent by Switzerland.
The very best schools in the U.S. are extraordinary,‘ McGaw said.
‘But the big concern in the U.S. is the diversity of quality of institutions — and the fact that expectations haven't been set high enough’.”

John Stoessel of ABC News gave us this more recent assessment in January, 2006:

“A recent Gallup Poll survey showed 76 percent of Americans were completely or somewhat satisfied with their kids' public school.  Education reformers like Kevin Chavous have a message for these parents: If you only knew.
Even though people in the suburbs might think their schools are great, Chavous says, ‘They're not. That's the thing and the test scores show that.’
Chavous and many other education professionals say Americans don't know that their public schools, on the whole, just aren't that good. Because without competition, parents don't know what their kids might have had.
And while many people say, ‘We need to spend more money on our schools,’ there actually isn't a link between spending and student achievement.
Jay Greene, author of ‘Education Myths,’ points out that ‘If money were the solution, the problem would already be solved ... We've doubled per pupil spending, adjusting for inflation, over the last 30 years, and yet schools aren't better.’
He's absolutely right. National graduation rates and achievement scores are flat, while spending on education has increased more than 100 percent since 1971. More money hasn't helped American kids.
To give you an idea of how competitive American schools are and how U.S. students performed compared with their European counterparts, we gave parts of an international test to some high school students in Belgium and in New Jersey. We didn't pick smart kids to test in Europe and dumb kids in the United States. The American students attend an above-average school in New Jersey, and New Jersey's kids have test scores that are above average for America.
Belgian kids cleaned the American kids' clocks, and called them ‘stupid.’

Lov Patel, the boy who got the highest score among the American students, told me, ‘I'm shocked, because it just shows how advanced they are compared to us.’
The Belgian students didn't perform better because they're smarter than American students. They performed better because their schools are better. At age 10, American students take an international test and score well above the international average. But by age 15, when students from 40 countries are tested, the Americans place 25th.

Chavous, who has worked to get more school choice in Washington, D.C., said,  ‘Competition inspires people to do what we didn't think we could do. If people got to choose their kids' school, education options would be endless. There could soon be technology schools, science schools, virtual schools where you learn at home on your computer, sports schools, music schools, schools that go all year, schools with uniforms, schools that open early and keep kids later, and, who knows what else. If there were competition, all kinds of new ideas would bloom‘.”

It is not an exaggeration to say, then, that the news about our education system is not good, and is getting worse.  To throw more money at the problems – and call that “reform” - without a thorough analysis and debate would be in some sense a criminal act.

So, where do we begin?  In my opinion, we must decide what the national PURPOSE of public education is in our Country.  I challenge you to try to find any such statement that exists as an overarching statement at this moment.  There is a purpose statement for the Department of Education, but that’s different.  To what end do we have public education?  Why have public education at all?  What reason or reasons are behind our immense system of education in this country?  How can we know what our system requires if we don’t even know why we have it in the first place?

It would help to know what other countries say as to the purpose of their educational systems, especially in those countries that lead in certain categories of comparison.  We also need to hold regional conferences all over this country to give ordinary citizens, teachers, pupils, parents, administrators, etc., an opportunity to develop PURPOSE statements that might be used to feed into a national (White House?) conference which could perhaps develop a national Statement of Purpose, a Mission Statement, plus a set of goals and objectives that could lead us to a real reform of the current system.

Yes, this would take time -- a fair amount of time -- but it’s been done before, particularly as preparation for the White House Conference on Aging held in 1981, and it worked!  Yes, it took a better part of a year to hold all the regional Conferences, but the results were solid, and produced some important recommendations and subsequent legislative enactments that are still benefiting senior citizens. 

We have a choice: keep going along as we are (holding to the status quo in education); throwing money down a dark hole, not knowing for what reason or purpose we are spending that money, and all the time losing the global race to have the best educated citizenry;
OR: we can act deliberatively and deliberately to bring about real reform by deciding, first of all, why we have public education; what it’s outcomes are meant to be; what goals we need to set; what objectives and actions we need to fund to accomplish our educational Purpose and our Mission, and to meet the goals that have been set.

ARE YOU ANGRY ENOUGH TO FORGET WHAT’S IMPORTANT?

Apparently, there is a lot of anger abounding out there.

*  Some are angry about unemployment
*  Some are angry about housing foreclosures
*  Some are angry about government size
*  Some are angry about deficit spending
*  Some are angry about illegal immigration
*  Some are angry about government intervention
*  Many are angry about political party dithering
*  Many are angry about the failures of institutions - both public and private
*  Many are angry at Wall Street and BP
*  Many are angry about government’s inability to solve societal problems and needs:  jobs, poverty, better education, dependence on oil, climate change, etc.

There is nothing wrong with anger in itself.  It is a valid emotion.  What really matters is how we use our anger.  Anger can be the path to destruction, or a stimulus to newness, or something that ends up creating immobilization and inability to act.

Just how angry are you?  Angry enough to jettison all reason, to do something stupid just to make a point, or to get back at the “powers that be”, or to “throw the bums out.”   It’s time to address this question because soon it will be time for elections, and elections are a mechanism for expressing opinions, and needs, and desires.  However, just expressing anger through one’s vote is probably not very useful.  Think about it. 

For instance, are you angry enough to throw out all incumbents?  The real question is: what do you get in their place?  Unfortunately, you immediately get another incumbent!  Someone who may be more power-hungry, greedy, and unresponsive than the last “incumbent”. To vote against someone is not as responsible as voting for someone who demonstrates an ability to make a difference in your life and the life of your community.  We must, above all, take the measure of the abilities of each candidate, and not simply be led to vote for anyone out of anger - yours or theirs.  We must question their views and not just accept slogans and “talking points” and negative campaign techniques.  What does each candidate offer in depth toward the solutions to the problems that affect you the most?  Voting for what you think they might do once in office cannot substitute for making them indicate clearly what they want to do, expect to do, and know that they can do. 

Are you angry enough to vote simply to throw out a particular Party in order to balance and check the power of another party? It rarely works, but often leads to worse inaction and gridlock.  One of the things you must know in order to vote responsibly is to what principles are candidates committed because of their Party affiliation?!!  Why?  Because once in office, those same candidates who ran “against Washington” or “against Albany” or “against the establishment”, are going to become an integral part of that establishment, and their Party leaders will not only be expecting them to adhere to party ideology and principles, but to vote the Party line more often than not. 

The concept of the political “maverick” is pretty much a myth.  John McCain is proving it right now, Scott Brown is not doing much better, and the newly elected Governor of Virginia already has his problems because he expressed some negative aspects of his party’s views.   Politicians have declared their “independence” at times, but remain “team players” even though they may not always vote with their Party.   Watch out when you vote for Party mavericks or independents-- you will get outcomes that you didn’t expect because they will mainly uphold their Party’s principles once in office.  Therefore, be sure of the “brand” for which you are voting:  will they pretty much support Wall Street and breaks for Big Business, or for the Middle class and Labor Union issues?  Will they be supporting privatization of government programs, or programs under government control and administration?  Will they support tax cuts for the richest members of society, or targeted tax cuts and incentives for the middle class?  Will they favor private entities to solve societal problems like poverty or need for jobs, or will they favor government programs to do that?  Will they support war as a major way of solving problems with other nations, or support other less bellicose means like negotiations and alliances?  Check the “brand” carefully before voting. 

And finally, be careful to know who is supporting each candidate.  Where is their financing coming from?  To whom are they beholden?  Who wants their ear for their own ends and not yours?  Who has supported their third party ads?  These are sometimes the most telling questions because the answers are very revealing as to what they will do as office-holders, and whose “agenda” they will support once in office.  Campaign financing is often the “dirty little secret” that tells an unwelcome truth about a candidate: for whom she or he may be the mouthpiece, the puppet, the surrogate.

So, tune out the rhetoric; forget the negative ads; eschew the empty slogans, and use your anger in a constructive way.  Examine the “brand” (party ideology) represented by each candidate; find out what changes they will support in office; make sure to discover who gives them financial support.  Then vote responsibly! 

Meeting Expectations

 

Some people just can’t help themselves.  Richard Hanna is one of them.  He is meeting my expectations just as I thought he would.  That’s right -- Richard Hanna has run a campaign of misdirection and generalities, just as I expected he would!  He has come out in favor of saying “No” to everything that the Republican leadership wishes -- like the extension of unemployment benefits to 2.5 million people while at the same time supported extending tax cuts for the richest 2% (without any indication of how to pay for that extension).  That certainly met my expectations.  Then, of course, I have searched and searched for anything comparable to an actual Hanna plan for reducing spending and supporting jobs for the middle class.  There is none.  I found only vague references to these problems but no specific measures for solving them.  Again, he more than met my expectations.

I more than sympathize with the gentleman who wrote in the Observer-Dispatch-D recently that the voters of this area need to put their faith in the Republican party and its candidates.  I got the distinct impression that this poor man is living in a world that has passed him by -- a world in which moderate and progressive Republicans existed, like Sherwood Boehlert and Jacob Javits.  That brand of Republican is gone, gone, gone, as is their moderate approach to solving the nation’s problems.  The neo-conservatives who came to power with the Reagan administration have effectively destroyed that brand of Republicanism.  So, if you have the same expectations for Richard Hanna that you might have had for a Sherwood Boehlert -- forget it -- it’s not going to happen.  Richard Hanna, as a freshman Congressman, would be beholden to the Republican leadership of the Congress -- radical Right-wingers like John Boehner and Eric Cantor -- for committee assignments, getting bills considered, consideration for his district.  In other words, he would have to go along to get along; unfortunately that means cow-towing to the radical Right.  Hanna knows it, and Voters need to know it too!

If your expectations extend to: improvement of the economy and more job opportunities (not favored treatment for the very banks, wall street firms, insurance companies and businesses that are holding back on creating jobs while their profits increase), new and creative opportunities for Central New York like high-speed rail, reasoned alternative energy and environmental improvements (not the vague improvements touted by Republicans), then you need to vote to re-elect the progressive moderate in this race: Congressman Michael Arcuri, who has already proven that he can deliver all this and more for the people of Central New York, and has even been named “Legislator of the Year” for the bills he has written or co-sponsored.  

CONSERVATIVES and the CHOSEN FEW

 

What is “conservative“?  It depends on whom you ask, but  the New World Dictionary defines it this way: “tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any changes in these.”

Just what are they trying to preserve?  What do these conservatives want and is this what most of us want, or is it what will benefit just a chosen few?

Foremost, they apparently want to cut taxes and limit spending.  This may sound familiar because it’s been touted by every Republican administration and Republican-controlled Congress for the last 60 years (and probably longer). 

This is what they really mean by “Cutting Taxes“:
--  cutting the “death tax”, (i.e. the inheritance or estate tax), so that those who are rich can pass on to their heirs what they have garnered without having to pay for it; 
--    cutting the “capital gains” tax, so that the few who make their money through major investments can continue to escape the burden of paying adequately for what they have accumulated for themselves;
--    substantial cutting at the upper level of the “income tax” rates so those who should be paying more can actually get away with spending less;
--    providing “tax loopholes” so that those with substantial incomes can continue not to have to pay their fair share (just ask Warren Buffet, who said one year that he paid less in income taxes than his receptionist!); 
--    granting special “tax incentives” to big and small businesses so that those who want to escape certain costs (labor, health insurance, workers’ comp, etc.) can do so.  All of these incentives are “corporate welfare” from the government so the robber barons can invest more, make more, buy more, charge more -- and in the end can continue to compensate their political benefactors through large campaign contributions.

“Limiting spending” to the Conservatives means several different things as well:
--    limit spending on “social” and “welfare” programs and anything that smells of government lending a helping hand to people they think should make do with what they have or who, they believe, should earn their own way; 
--    Cut “entitlements” so that Social Security, Medicare, prescription drugs, health care do not have to be supported by the rich (but don’t ever touch over-blown defense contracts!);
--    Say “no” to extending unemployment insurance benefits for millions of people during a major recession (but, at the same time, support extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% without indicating how to pay for it!);
--    Finally, “cut the deficit.”  In fact, in the last 60 years (since Eisenhower), every Republican administration oversaw increased deficits during their time in office!  It seems that they like to spend, spend, spend once they get into office -- not on those they call the “lesser” people, but on the rich and the military-industrial complex where the big money is!  Only President Clinton-- a Democrat-- actually reduced the deficit he inherited!

So, apparently conservatives often mean something quite different than the words they use to solicit your support.  Being a Conservative means keeping things the way they are and opposing real change; keeping a certain class in power and others “in their place“; helping those who are “in the bucks” and barely helping anyone else.  All of it contributes to the maintenance of the status quo which happens to favor  Big Oil, Wall Street, Banks, Insurance Companies and them, not YOU! 

And YOU, Dear Voter, are the greatest asset to those who want no change -- because you keep voting for them thinking they will somehow benefit you!!  It will never happen because that is not who they are or why they exist.  To them, you are a joke: the “lesser people.”  They laugh at you behind your back, because YOU help them maintain all that favors the rich and privileged, and enable them to deny entitlements and protections to deserving citizens.  You have a real choice this fall.  Say NO to going backward to the same old failed, trickle-down, self-serving conservative agenda touted by Republicans and tea partiers -- which does not favor 98% of us!!

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS –the only way to real reform!

It’s time to get serious about amending the Constitution of the United States.  Even the Tea baggers’ “Contract From America” agrees with that to some extent!  And - surprise, surprise - I agree with them, to some extent!  Unfortunately, we probably don’t agree on the wording or intent of the needed amendments.

One of the myths we must get beyond is the idea that the Constitution is sacrosanct.  It’s not and never has been.  Yes, the writers - the founding fathers - did a great job in turning out an instrument that contained unique and even revolutionary concepts.  We should always honor that.  However, we have to admit when the Constitution is inadequate, and it is becoming clear that it is inadequate to speak to some of the issues that have come to the forefront in the 20th and 21st centuries, such as campaign finance, earmarks, balanced budget, use of federal funds, term limits, etc.  All of these, and others, are inadequately addressed in the Constitution as presently constructed.  Instead of hoping for the best, or believing that Congress will legislate campaign reforms that actually threaten their livelihoods, we must take the plunge and begin to propose actual constitutional amendments to deal with these unresolved issues.  A movement (organization) called Common Cause was formed to deal specifically with the  issue of campaign finance.  After 40 years, they have brought little change that can said to be revolutionary, although they have influenced some reforms.  It is not something that can be addressed adequately by piecemeal legislation but must be written into the fabric of our democratic system by an amendment to our Constitution.

Of course, the language I have proposed for each amendment is my own.  It has not been “vetted” by any lawyer, nor has anyone else contributed their ideas.  With that in mind, I concede that some wording may be poorly done for an amendment to our Constitution.  Some wording may also lead to “loopholes” that I did not foresee but which might be taken advantage of by some who are always seeking for a way around the law so they can profit in some manner.  But, in all cases, I have at least made clear my intent through the comments attached to each proposed amendment.

All of my proposed amendments are in CAPITAL letters, and all of my comments are in Italics.  So, let’s get started, and let the chips fall where they may.

Article I, Section 2
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every THIRD 
second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each 
State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. TERM OF OFFICE FOR MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES  SHALL BE LIMITED TO FOUR FULL TERMS OR A CUMULATIVE TOTAL OF TWELVE YEARS.

Comment: three years gives representatives space to work on legislating rather than always raising money and campaigning.  A limit of 4 such terms seems reasonable for the representatives in the “people’s” House.  Let more ordinary citizens have a chance at service; we don’t need “professional” representatives who have had little experience in other fields.

Article I, Section 3
    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.  NO PERSON SHALL BE ELECTED TO THE OFFICE OF SENATOR FOR MORE THAN THREE FULL TERMS OR A CUMULATIVE TOTAL OF18 YEARS.

Comment: Senators should continue to have longer terms than representatives, because they do generally reflect a more deliberative body, and a more experienced background in the legislative and political process.  Nonetheless, they should not be able to mount a career in politics at the expense, often, of the people.  Eighteen years in the Senate is a reasonable limit and should prevent the kind of stagnation that has often occurred with “Senators for Life”.

AMENDMENT XXVIII:
ALL CAMPAIGNS FOR FEDERAL ELECTIVE OFFICE SHALL BE ENTIRELY FUNDED BY FUNDS DRAWN FROM THE TREASURY IN CONSEQUENCE OF APPROPRIATIONS MADE BY LAW, AND BY INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN CONTRIBUTIONS, BUT MAY NOT BE FUNDED BY ANY CORPORATE OR ORGANIZED ENTITY.  CONGRESS SHALL SET PRUDENT AND REASONABLE LIMITATIONS FOR SUCH GOVERNMENTAL AND INDIVIDUAL     CONTRIBUTIONS, AND SHALL PRESCRIBE MAXIMUM LIMITS FOR EXPENDITURES ALLOWED FOR EACH CONTESTED OFFICE.  ALL STATE GOVERNMENTS SHALL MAKE SIMILAR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FOR    GOVERNMENTAL AND INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN     SUPPORT FOR ALL STATE AND LOCAL ELECTIONS, EXCLUDING CORPORATE OR ORGANIZED CONTRIBUTIONS IN ANY FORM, AND SETTING MAXIMUM LIMITS FOR     EXPENDITURES FOR EACH CONTEST.

Comment: we must limit the control exercised by corporations and unions over our elections; we must also undo the outrageous decision by the Supreme Court to introduce the concept of protected “political speech” rights for corporations and organized groups who already unduly influence our elections.  It is past time to enforce limited government funding and individual citizen contributions in our electoral process.  We must also get rid of the concept of PACs which was simply a way to get around public financing.  Citizenship must be meaningful, and the electoral process is one way in which citizenship is enhanced.  We cannot continue to let organized special-interest entities rob us of our right to fair and just elections.

Article I, Section 5
NEITHER HOUSE SHALL MAKE ANY RULE OR PROVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR OTHER THAN A MAJORITY VOTE ON LAWS, RULES OF ORDER, PROCEEDINGS, OR PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES, EXCEPT AS ALLOWED BY THIS CONSTITUTION.

Comment: the cloture rule, and the Senate provision for filibustering, are abominations; they tie up the legislative process, too often exploit it for political gain,  for personal aggrandizement, or for the killing of legislation that should instead be thoroughly debated and voted up or down by majority vote. It is time to over-throw these ill-conceived rules that give tyrannical rights to a minority.

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO PROVISION IN ANY BILL THAT APPROPRIATES FUNDS TO AN INDIVIDUAL, ORGANIZED ENTITY, CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OR STATE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF 2/3s OF EACH HOUSE.

Comment: earmarks, and other budgetary maneuverings that seek tax-payer dollars for limited and many non-essential projects in one district or state, are not appropriate without strong support in both houses; support that is equal to the vote needed to over-ride a presidential veto.  We have managed to overlook this perverted pork-barrel process for too long, even though it has brought us to a situation where our dollars are being spent frivolously and with little regard to budgetary debt or deficit.  It has to stop.   

Article I, Section 6
NO SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE SHALL, FOR THE DURATION OF FIVE YEARS AFTER LEAVING ELECTIVE OFFICE, BE ALLOWED TO ACCEPT A PAID POSITION WITH, OR BE ALLOWED TO ADVOCATE PARTICULAR LEGISLATION FOR, ANY ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, CORPORATION, UNION, OR OTHER ENTITY WITH WHICH THE OFFICE-HOLDER HAD A PRIOR LEGISLATIVE RELATIONSHIP OR MUTUAL AREA OF INTEREST.  THIS RESTRICTION SHALL EXTEND IN FULL TO ALL APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THIS GOVERNMENT.  

Comment: the “revolving door” that professional politicians use to line their pockets after their political careers are over, needs to be controlled. Representatives,or Executive appointees, who take jobs or positions with employers who were previously beholden to them for “helpful” legislation or attention should have to find other means of support for a period of time like any citizen who changes jobs. Special Privileges or Rewards for legislators and bureaucrats after they are rejected by voters, or leave of their own accord, is not appropriate for our representative democracy. 

NO SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE SHALL ACCEPT OR RECEIVE COMPENSATION,     SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, EMOLUMENT, GIFT OR ANY FORM OF CONTRIBUTION FROM ANY INDIVIDUAL, ORGANIZATION OR SPECIAL INTEREST ENTITY THAT COULD DIRECTLY BENEFIT FROM THE OUTCOME OF PARTICULAR LEGISLATION, OF AN OVERSIGHT FUNCTION, OR OF A COMMITTEE PROCESS.

Comment: it is time to outlaw all contributions to legislators from corporate entities that seek to influence legislation.  No matter how used, it is “dirty” money meant to influence legislation that is favorable to one group or another without regard to the effects on other citizens or groups.  This is a form of privilege, for it gives access to legislators that not all citizens possess.  It must be stopped in its tracks now, or our democratic system will be in serious jeopardy.

Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises 
shall be uniform throughout the United States; PROVIDING, THAT ALL NEW TAXES SHALL REQUIRE A 2/3s VOTE OF EACH HOUSE TO BECOME LAW

Comments: the tea party “Contract From America” has a point here, I think.  Taxes are so important to the operations of our government that new taxes should not be levied without strong support in each house.  Taxes are so burdensome now that this is incredibly timely.  Control of this process is long overdue.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.  HOWEVER, CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWS THAT EXEMPT CONGRESS OR ITS MEMBERS FROM APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF ANY AND ALL SUCH LAWS. 

Comments: the concept of no special privilege for any of our leaders is embedded in our constitution for a very good reason: the founding fathers wanted a more equalitarian system that would not set up privileged classes similar to those that were prevalent in England.  We have to be particularly sensitive to the concept of privilege because we have inherited a system of government that has kept alive the concepts of fairness, of equality, of justice, of freedom for all; often kept alive with the sacrifice of lives and fortunes of patriots and warriors and ordinary citizens.  We must attack privilege-making wherever we suspect its harmful intent.  Congress has no right to set itself up as a privileged few exempt from laws that apply to the rest of the people.

Article I, Section 9

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of  Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the  Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time 
to time,
INCLUDING THE AUDITING OR EVALUATION BY GROUPS OF PRIVATE CITIZENS     APPOINTED JOINTLY BY THE CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE, OF ALL FEDERAL FUNDS CONTRACTED, GRANTED, APPROPRIATED, OR LOANED TO ANY AGENCY, ORGANIZATION, CONTRACTOR, STATE OR COUNTRY.  THE RESULTING ACCOUNTING OF EXPENDITURES SHALL INCLUDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OR AGAINST CONTINUED FUNDING.

Comment: In their “Contract From America,” the tea partiers speak of an audit of federal funds.  I agree that we need it, but I take it a lot further, I think, in allowing for an evaluation by an outside group, and by calling for auditing of funds, however they are let out to groups, or countries, along with recommendations for future funding based on the audit.  It is far past time to stop the free handouts, and to demand accountability when federal dollars (taxpayer money) are given out to any entity.  On a personal note, as a former project director of a federally-funded program, I was responsible for how funds (that were meager in comparison with large government contracts) were expended in specific categories, for quarterly reporting of actions taken to meet goals and objectives connected to that money, and for an annual assessment of program progress that was done by a volunteer member Advisory Council; all of which were considered in relation to the next year’s funding.  I resent the fact that there are recipients of much greater sums of federal money who have no such obligation or accountability process.  It’s time that all recipients of citizen taxes had to account for their actions and outcomes or lose their funding.

Article II, Section 1

No Person except a natural born Citizen, OR A NATURALIZED CITIZEN, of the United 
States (at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,) shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible 
to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Comments: this is a nation of immigrants, and part of our strength is related to that fact.  Allowing only native-born citizens to hold this office sets up a special privilege that is not appropriate in a nation that prides itself on being a democracy and an example to other nations.

Article III, Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, BUT SHALL NOT SERVE FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS

Comments: I find little merit in a life-long appointment to the Supreme Court or to inferior courts.  This is a form of special privilege that does not particularly enhance this branch of government.  Since most justices receive appointment after some experience, either on the bench, or in related occupation, it makes sense that the wisdom of age or experience is not at issue here.  But a justice appointed at say age 60, should be able to influence the Court to some degree in the 20 years allowed here.  In fact, this could be the most valuable 20 years that person has to offer.  New opinions, new views, new experiences, are valuable and should be sought from others once a person has served this many years.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, OR ON PETITION OF AT LEAST ONE-HALF OF THE POPULATION OF THE SEVERAL STATES, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified

Comments: amendment by the Congress and the calling of a constitutional convention by application from the States is provided for, but the calling of such a convention by the people is ignored.  It is time to make provision for this important branch of government to have an equal say in this process, particularly since the average citizen has much more education and political experience and involvement than at any other time in our history.  In fact, many citizens have more ability, life experience, and education than do some of those who claim to represent us in the Congress!   

FARCE TAKES OVER!

 

The political scene is fast becoming farcical!  Can you imagine that?  Now we have the very same people who rail against the federal government -- for being too big, ineffective (“can’t run anything right, especially health care!”) and interventionist -- now calling for the federal government to solve the Gulf oil spill disaster!!  It’s unbelievable!

Further, many of the very same people who LOVE big oil corporations and who want them left alone (“don’t interfere; de-regulate“, “leave the market alone“), are now mistrusting of the very people they so glaringly support.  That is, BP is now being said not to have the ability to manage this problem; instead, they say, the federal government needs to take over the sealing of the well AND the clean-up.  Oh brother, it’s amazing how the uber-right wing can tilt with the political winds.

Finally, here are the very same people who made sure that BP and all the BIG OIL corporations were able to write their own ticket; who invited them into the V-P’s office (remember Cheney) to make sure that the Bush administration gave them everything they needed to DO BUSINESS.  Now who’s complaining because the regulators didn’t have regulations in place to stop this kind of oil spill from happening in the first place?  You guessed it -- the same people who believe so strongly in de-regulation; the same people who support the excesses of wall street and the robber baron corporations, the same people who believe in the privatizing of government functions, and the “leave us alone” philosophy!

Why don’t we send the uber-right-wing privatizers down to the Gulf and let them come up with the solution to the problems that this spill will create for thousands of people?  And, let Rush Limbaugh lead them (who said, in essence -- not to worry: the ocean will take care of the spill!).  Farcical?  You betcha’.

Come To The Cabaret

A few days ago, I saw a revival performance of the musical “Cabaret”.  It brought to my mind the insidious takeover of government by a “militia group” (the Brown Shirts; Nazis), and the contrast that existed between the world of the Cabaret (seemingly insulated and oblivious), and what was happening in the world of politics.  Are we living in a similar time, with much of the population oblivious to, or ignorant of, what is happening around us?  With that in mind, let us explore some areas that may give clues to some of what is happening now that may have disturbing parallels to what happened then.

“Obama is a socialist - he’s taken over private enterprise and he advocates government takeover of our health-care system”  “Obama and the Democrats want to take away our guns”  “Obama is really a Muslim”  “The government is our enemy; it wants to take away our rights.”  “Hollywood and the media are nothing but a bunch of liberals trying to destroy our values” 
Do we hear in these phrases the possibility that some group feels that there is a CONSPIRACY or PLOT against ordinary citizens?

“There’s no such thing as global warming”  “We want Creationism taught in our schools; there’s no such thing as evolution” “Lock and load” “Defend your rights”  “I want the right to carry a gun to a political rally; to church; wherever I want to”
Is there a climate of anti-intellectualism and anti-science; does a certain group want us to believe that ACTION is what matters, not deliberative thought or reasoning?

“Obama and the Democrats are soft on terrorism; don’t they understand we’re at war” “Let’s nuke those bastards” “We can’t ever take the nuclear option off the table” “Pre-emptive war is a successful strategy” “Blast those scarf-heads”  “Let’s blow their factories up before they can develop atomic bombs” “Those peaceniks are anti-American” “The Congress needs to be investigated to find those members who are un-American”
Is there a group out there that always needs to be defining someone as ‘the ENEMY’ and that sees WAR as inevitable; or, that views diplomacy, negotiation, and other peaceful measures to be anti-American and even traitorous?

“Obama wasn’t born in this country so he’s not eligible to be President.”  “We must seal our borders” “Keep those criminals out of our country” “No amnesty” “Build that fence”  “Arizona has the right idea” “Stop illegal immigration now” “Those people are taking jobs from Americans” “They’ve ruined this town, state, country” “Profiling is very necessary”
Is there already a large group of Americans supporting the concept that there is a group of immigrants or FOREIGNERS that are at the root of our problems? Is there an appeal to a frustrated middle class that targets a lower class as the ENEMY?

“I’m not going to pay for your health care”  “Don’t ask for a hand-out; take some initiative” “Welfare Queen” “Stand on your own two feet; get a job” “You Retard” “We’re spending too much on entitlements” Do you remember the video of the well-dressed man taunting the seated man with cerebral palsy berating him and saying he wouldn’t pay for his health care?
Is there a group, or groups, out there who are targeting the WEAK in order to enhance their image as the STRONG?   

“Talking points” “Slogans” “Irrational tirades” “Attacks on liberals”
Is there already a media blitz of lies, distortions, banal slogans, diversionary speech, etc. which is the base of a “newspeak” that encourages IRRATIONALITY rather than critical reasoning; that encourages groups that are associated with all of the above?

To conclude, let me simply quote from a piece that may give us food for further thought:

In a 1995 essay "Eternal Fascism", the Italian writer and academic Umberto Eco attempted to list general properties of fascist ideology. He claims that it is not possible to organize these into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it".
His proposed features of fascism are as follows:
+"The Cult of Tradition", combining differing cultural beliefs with a rejection of modernism.
+"The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
+"Disagreement is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.
+"Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
+"Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
+"Obsession With a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
+"Pacifism is Trafficking With the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" -     there must always be an enemy to fight.     
+"Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.
+"Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People".
+"Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

Are you being bamboozled by forces already committed to concepts that could damage our democratic Republic, our freedoms, our real values?  Don’t be too quick to judge, or too facile in your deliberation.  There are elements of fascism and governmental takeover in the Tea Party and militia movements that cannot be ignored (and some Republicans have supported these elements).  In the 1920s and 30s, that fringe element was ignored and look what it got us!    

Give Them What They Ask For

It’s difficult to believe the tea bagger groups when they say, “All we want is for government to leave us alone.”  Wow, what a simplistic statement.

I really think government should give them exactly what they ask for:  cut off their Medicare, their postal service and VA services for those who are vets.  Take away police protection and first responders.  Get rid of the national guard in their areas so they won’t have any help during an emergency or natural disaster.  Don’t let them have access to hospitals who receive federal funds of any kind.  And, how about cutting out those border guards so that illegal immigrants can pour over the borders where some of these tea baggers live.  Oh, and don’t let the FDA give any approvals on any drugs or treatments or foods, or the National Institutes of Health provide any support for scientific research.  In fact, remove all the government control and oversight agencies so that private enterprise can do whatever it wishes. Privatize the armed forces, so that they won’t have to deal with any government-provided defense. Yes, let’s give them what they ask for:  get government out of their lives.

Now ask:  what will they have left?  Why, private enterprise, of course.  They will have all those profit-seeking entities that actually seek every day to control them, manipulate them, fleece them, and to take away any semblance of control they think they have.  Without the checks and regulations of government, these private entities will go wild trying to squeeze out all that remains in the lives of these teabag radicals. Prices will rise without reason, loan rates will skyrocket, services will be slashed, jobs will be reserved for those who can bribe their way in; con-men will run amuck, rents will escalate, travel and health care will be available only to those who can pay for it on-the-spot; food, water, energy and other resources will be available to the rich, and tremendously limited for the rest of us; tax breaks for the rich will bankrupt many of the tea baggers and the rest of us.   Profiteers run amuck is not a pretty sight!
 
When simple concepts like: “get government out of our lives” become banal slogans, watch out!  You are being bamboozled, and you will pay the consequences: no services, no controls, no assistance, no protection, no defense, no fairness and no justice!