The decline of civics: the greatest national security threat?
Today’s politicians missed the class—or the semesters—on American history and civics.
Two years ago, retired Admiral William H. McRaven was asked what constituted our greatest national security threat. McRaven, who as a four-star admiral commanded the U.S. Special Operations Command, whose SEAL Team 6 found and killed Osama bin Laden, replied: “K through 12 education.”
McRaven, a former Navy SEAL himself, went on to explain: “The reason I think that’s important is because if we are not reaching our young men and women, how to think critically, having the right STEM skills, understanding civics, understanding how to behave well in a tough, contentious environment—if we’re not teaching the basics of math and science and reading—they’re not going to be good decision makers when it comes time to make decisions on national security.”
There are many reasons to believe that McRaven, who retired after 37 years in the Navy and went on to become Chancellor of the University of Texas System, was right.
I think about McRaven’s concerns a lot these days. I’m reminded each time I hear elected officials saying things or taking actions that reflect either an ignorance of, or indifference toward, the historical events and values that led to our Declaration of Independence, the creation of the United States of America, and the fundamental principles on which our government was designed.
Having had a bad experience with the concentration of power under King George III, the Framers painstakingly crafted a delicate system of checks and balances—specifically, a separation of powers. There might be a reason why it took 12 years between the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the Constitution. Sometimes it takes time to do big things right. For example, the idea behind federalism was to delegate certain specific powers to the federal government, while other powers would be reserved for the states.
Within the federal government, the Framers split authority between three different and co-equal branches: a legislative branch in the form of Congress to make the laws; the executive branch headed by the president to execute and oversee the administration of the laws; and a judiciary, with a Supreme Court at the top, to interpret the laws.
The key was that each branch would have enough power to keep the other two in check; no branch would have too much power. The idea of ending the spoils system and creating a professional civil service emerged in the second half of the 1800s, and it was also significant. All in all, this system worked pretty well for over two centuries. But over the last decade or two, it has been tested as never before. It would appear that many missed the class—or the semesters—on American history and civics (as well as those on the value of civility). More than a few would likely be shocked to discover that Publius is not a reference to erotica.
Today, with plenty of people in each party seeing those in the other as essentially evil—as existential threats to the country and democracy—to the point that the ends justify the means, we have a problem. We are witnessing a significant increase in muscle-flexing, a hyper-aggressive expansion and concentration of power in the executive branch, particularly in the president. One has to wonder what the reaction will be if (or when) the opposition gets into office and tries to behave the same way. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
The North Star has been—as was the Founders’ intent—to remain faithful to how and why the country was formed, and why our government was designed the way it was. Gerrymandering has been a chronic problem almost as long as we have been a country. But as bad as it was through the 1980s, it was nothing like what plagues us today. The idea of mid-decade redistricting for any reason other than a court order is offensive on multiple levels, starting with fairness and fair play, regardless of which side initiates it.
It’s disgraceful to see what Texas is doing now, and what several other red states might do, and it will be equally disgraceful if Democrats in blue states respond in kind.
Of all of the questionable, if not objectionable, decisions that the U.S. Supreme Court has made in modern times, few have been more destructive than their 5-4 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause in 2018. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that federal courts are charged with resolving cases and controversies of a judicial nature. In contrast, questions of a political nature are “nonjusticiable,” and the “courts cannot resolve such questions.” In football, that would be called “punting.” In other areas, it’s just shirking responsibility.
From a purely political standpoint, there are roughly 47 or 48 percent of voters locked-in on the Republican side and another 47 or 48 percent on the Democratic side. There is a narrow sliver of 4 to 6 percent of voters in the middle, who may not pay too much attention to these things—but if given a choice between thinking that one side is as bad as the other, or else thinking that one side has the higher moral ground and is less despicable than the other, personally I would rather take my chances with the latter. Knowing that these voters in the middle are generally inclined to break against the party in power, they now vote against candidates or parties more than they vote for them. It seems that short-sighted Democrats responding tit-for-tat are ceding the high ground, morally and politically—particularly at a time when one can say that “nothing exceeds like excess.”
Democrats have been wringing their hands over their party’s brand being damaged, pointing to poll numbers showing their favorability ratings at a record low. Conveniently, they don’t bother to look at when the problem began; if they did, they would find that their downward spiral started in the first two years of the Biden administration. What I would tell my Democratic friends is that there is bad news and there is good news. The bad news is that the public still doesn’t like you. The good news is that the midterm election probably won’t be about you.
Dems might find that doing the “right thing” rather than what makes them feel better will also be the best thing for them politically. Most people still favor white hats over black hats. Why ditch the white hat?