Tuesday’s voters to GOP: No thanks.
E. J. Dionne’s latest column runs through the rout delivered to Republicans by voters in several states yesterday:
This week’s elections around the country were brought to you by the word “overreach,” specifically conservative overreach. Given an opportunity in 2010 to build a long-term majority, Republicans instead pursued extreme and partisan measures. On Tuesday, they reaped angry voter rebellions.
The most important was in Ohio, where voters overwhelmingly defeated Gov. John Kasich’s bill to strip public employee unions of essential bargaining rights. A year ago, who would have predicted that standing up for the interests of government workers would galvanize and mobilize voters on this scale? Anti-labor conservatives have brought class politics back to life, a major threat to a GOP that has long depended on the ballots of white working-class voters and offered them nothing in return.
In Maine, voters exercised what that state calls a “people’s veto” to undo a Republican-passed law that would have ended same-day voter registration, which served Maine well for almost four decades. What’s often lost is that the conservative Republicans elected in 2010 aren’t simply pushing right-wing policies. Where they can, they are also using majorities won in a single election to manipulate future elections — by making it harder for young and minority voters to cast ballots, and by trying to break the political power of unions. The votes in Maine and Ohio were a rebuke to this strategy.
Read the rest right here. And, while you’re at it, make sure to look at our November 18 issue, posted this week.
Re Ohio insurance mandate was defeated. The good news is that nationally 1 million youngsters were enrolled in parents health care till age 26. [My 4 college grandchildren were enrolled in their pops' policy] I wonder how many Tea Party people enrolled their kids and grandchildren, and so taking advantage of the ‘dirty’ Obama care?
Kevin Drum has a cogent article on Kasich’s overreach in Ohio. Headline: “Ohio Just the Opening Volley in Coming Pension Wars.”
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/11/ohio-just-opening-volley-coming-pension-wars
It’s not “extreme and partisan” to curb the ability of public workers to strike sweetheart deals that no one can afford to pay for.
If public workers in Ohio continue to demand benefits like the Cleveland health insurance plan for teachers that has zero deductibles, then government employers will just have to lay off people.
Guaranteeing that some of your co-workers get laid off just so that you can have ridiculously high benefits is the very opposite of someone thinking about the common good.
Nor is it surprising that the average voter would have been swayed by a $20 million scaremongering campaign. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-9xXdXR8vM
“It’s not ‘extreme and partisan’ to curb the ability of public workers to strike sweetheart deals that no one can afford to pay for.”
Yes, let’s blame the state drudges for our economic woes and never mind that millonaires are offshoring jobs, holding out their hands for all the corporate welfare they can get, as we throw money down a rathole in Afghanistan. Yay, Ohio!
Highever, an off-off-year election like this one may not be the best indicator of the overall political mood of the country. Interesting discussion about this on NPR’s “Political Junkie” segment.
“Overreach” is a poor analysis. In most cases, the GOP attempted to do exactly what they’ve promised to do for some time; they didn’t ambush with previously unmentioned secret plans. Faced with the possible ramifications hitting so close to home/hearth/pocketbook, voters rejected them even if they once went along with the rhetoric. I do agree with Dionne when he observes that class politics (i.e. politics) has been brought back to life – but we can thank a whole lot of Democrats for that too.
I wouldn’t call a GOP effort to enforce the belief that life (i.e. personhood, legal protection) begins at conception “overreach”. I have an idea they’ve been saying that for a while.
I wouldn’t call the GOP trying to crush unions overreach. They’ve ginned up hatred of teachers, for example, for a long time. Remember school vouchers?
Same with the voter-repression measures – always been a conservative concern/tactic.
It’s the collapse of divide-and-conquer politics, if anything.
I think over-reach is actually pretty apt as far as the a GOP’s anti-union activity goes. I am often unsympathetic to the particular contracts demands of some of the large unions, and can see myself siding with govt in some negotiations. But using the force of law to stop people from even organizing? That’s a whole different ballgame and, like the large majority of Ohio voters, I am 100% with the unions on that.
School vouchers are not hatred of teachers. That’s silly. (Vouchers are basically Catholic doctrine, by the way.)
@Studebaker (11/10, 8:43 am) Is it really your understanding that school vouchers “are basically Catholic doctrine”? If yes, where and when and how did they become doctrine? (I missed it.)
My understanding is that support for school vouchers is a public policy preference of many Catholic bishops—but that it does not rise to the level of doctrine.
Three sources:
GRAVISSIMUM EDUCATIONIS (a Vatican II document):
Charter of the Rights of the Family (1983):
Canon Law:
“But using the force of law to stop people from even organizing? That’s a whole different ballgame”
Hi, Irene, did SB 5 (the “Issue 2″ on the Ohio referendum ballot) prevent workers from organizing? I’ve always thought that federal law controlled organizing rights. FWIW, here is how Wikipedia sketches the features of the law that was just repealed:
“Senate Bill 5 would have impacted the state’s 400,000 public workers, restricting their ability to strike and collectively bargain. The bill would have limited public employees to collectively bargain for wages, preventing them from collectively bargaining for health insurance and pensions. It would also have prohibited all public employees from striking and could have increased employee contributions for pensions and healthcare.”
Based on this description, I’d characterize the now-repealed law as, “like Wisconsin, but even more so.”
I’d add this comment: In repealing the law, the citizens of Ohio have now taken direct ownership of their broken public-sector employee pension funding, to an extent that hasn’t been the case until now. My understanding of how states have arrived at the dire financial straits in which they now find themselves is more or less as follows: public-sector unions have negotiated pensions with the applicable government agencies, we may charitably assume in good faith by both parties; state government (particularly legislatures) have been underfunding these pension obligations for many years; and that the citizens have been largely unaware of this situation as it has continued to deteriorate over years and decades.
Now that the citizens of Ohio have killed SB 5, it would seem to be incumbent on them to figure out an alternative way to fix their funding woes and meet their pension obligations. Good luck to them.
Jim. Your Illinois has a bigger problem.. so good luck to you too. And complain more about failing CEO’s golden parachute pensions and your desire for restraint will have more credibility
Ed, thank you, as we will need all the luck we can get. FWIW – the epiphany I’ve had on this issue of underfunded state pensions is that the union members really are a class of victims, as are the citizens of the state. The blame, if it is important to blame anyone, belongs to union leaders and government officials who cut unsustainable deals, and elected officials who failed to provide the funding they are supposed to provide. Perhaps we can blame the citizens for not keeping a sharper eye on their elected officials, and maybe even union members for not holding their leaders accountable. The whole thing seems a mess without a solution that will not result in substantial pain for the union members and the citizens.
Hey, Ed, sure, I can complain about golden parachutes for incompetent execs. But my heart won’t really be in it very much. I’m not a class-warfare kind of guy. I’m more, We’re all in this together.
That’s a different issue anyway. If there aren’t enough public funds to pay for exorbitant pensions plus everything else that the state governments do, it doesn’t solve the problem to point the finger at a few executives from private companies who got sweet pensions. That’s like ignoring a forest fire by pointing at a household fire somewhere else. Doesn’t make the forest fire go away.
Government pensions were usually set to keep government workers wages manageable and put off paying them to the future.
Of course Stu can lable them exorbitant but that’s his axe to grind.
Greed has deiven us to terrible government funding problems especially at the State level.
I think the voter’s choices are against that gred and urging lawmakesr not to overreach (there’s that word and desrving of capitalization IMO) and start working together.
Bob — what do you think of California’s 3% at 50 rule and its retroactivity? (Also, can you run your comments through a spellchecker? It would be easier to read.)
Stepping away from the particulars of public-sector pensions (by the way, the larger pension/retirement problem our society faces is the disappearance of the private sector defined-benefit pension, and the failure of its replacements), and returning to the main point of Dionne’s column, it will be interesting to see—both on the state level and on the national level—what the response of the Republican Party will be to this week’s election returns.
At some point in the not-too-distant future, it seems likely that the irresistible force of demographic changes in our society will overrun the immovable object that is today’s conservative movement. The linked column (http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/gxb2011111002/) is focused on next year’s presidential race; if anything the numbers are even more worrisome for Republicans a few years down the line.
Sample: “Obama is starting out with a 19%-5% lead. That puts a lot of pressure on the Republican nominee to get it perfect with the remaining 76% of the electorate. Where’s that 14 point lead come from? African Americans and Hispanics.” In other words, for the foreseeable future Republican presidential candidates will need upwards of 57% of the Anglo and Asian vote to remain competitive.
State and local races will vary of course, but the electoral math keeps getting more difficult for Republicans in the coming decade.
Stu, sorry for my spelling uglies -no excuses – I won’t try a Perry “Oops.”
I think my generalizations stand beyond any one instance.
I also think that we will not solve these problems ny hard line ideological postures.
Finally, I think Dionne’s analsis of the vote was correct.
It’s entirely possible that the GOP will inch away from Tea Party positions and more toward the center. The internal party chaos launched by the 2008 shellacking continues in full force. The whole point of the primary season is to sort these things out.
I don’t suppose many folks around here watched the Republican debate last night, but it certainly was full of economic ideas, some far-fetched and politically unrealistic, some not.
“I don’t suppose many folks around here watched the Republican debate last night, but it certainly was full of economic ideas, some far-fetched and politically unrealistic, some not.”
We were unable to watch b/c we don’t have cable, but plan to watch Saturday night. I weary of news media (NPR included) that cover the horse race–Rick Perry stumbles on the inside curve while Herman Cain dodges an obstacle from Gloria Allred!–rather than the ideas the candidates have on offer.
I must be very cynical but I don’t think the Ohio, Wisconsin, and Indiana push to eliminate collective bargaining is about balancing state budgets. It is about defunding their opposition, especially in face of the recent Supreme Courts’ decision to equate money with political speech. Furthermore, the assault on public education in Indiana is less about education and more about shrinking government. (and to bolster Mitch Daniels’ resume to run for President) If the conservative vision is to be realized of shrinking government, at the state level that means education. There is not enough room here to detail the policy specifics, but it is clear that in Indiana, at least, with property tax caps, a one size fit all mandatory yearly evaluation of public school teachers (yes, the same evaluation for high school teachers as kindergarten teachers) and a limit on how many teachers can receive merit pay, restrictions on collective bargaining, it is pretty clear what the intent is. The for profit school management companies are licking their chops at the new terrain for charter schools and vouchers for private schools.
Tom — as shown above, support for vouchers is Catholic doctrine in a number of ways, and it’s quite un-Catholic to dismiss vouchers (as Indiana just made available to parents within 150% of the federal free-and-reduced lunch income level) as mere profiteering or as an “assault on public education.”
Studebaker,
Unless the Three sources:
GRAVISSIMUM EDUCATIONIS (a Vatican II document0; Charter of the Rights of the Family (1983); Canon Law:
were aimed specifically at the United States, which I doubt they were, they must be interpreted in terms of the entire world. In too many places on earth, there is no “subsidized” (public) education. In too many places a Catholic school would be unable to even open, let alone flourish. (the largest country on earth springs to mind) As to choice, that can be understood as a choice between a specifically Catholic or secular or Baptist school. Religious institutions in the US are still subsidized through infrastructure, fire protection, and so forth, but are exempt from taxes. It may be that your interpretation is too narrowly drawn.
I think a better argument would be that public schools are protestant schools and should be critiqued for that reason because they violate the establishment clause of the US Constitution.
And by the way, the Indiana Constitution specifically prohibits public monies going to religious schools.
The voucher program in Indiana is set to expand well beyond the lower income groups and already has with the tax credit for contributions to tuition charities (ala Arizona). Credit, not deduction. This in a state which still requires its public school students to pay for their textbooks (no deduction on taxes for that) and will not fund all day kindergarten.
“I must be very cynical but I don’t think the Ohio, Wisconsin, and Indiana push to eliminate collective bargaining is about balancing state budgets. It is about defunding their opposition, especially in face of the recent Supreme Courts’ decision to equate money with political speech.”
Certainly it is about addressing accumulated long-term underfunding of pension obligations.
Perhaps it is also about defunding opposition. If the opposition’s former funding mechanisms were unjust, and unjustly enshrined in law, that may be a good thing. To answer these questions would seem to require a deep dive into the specifics of how the funding worked prior to the new laws, and how funding would work under the new laws.
Tom — it seems very evasive to ignore the Church’s repeated counsel that parents should be publicly subsidized in choosing schools for their children — which the United States can easily afford to do and which would be cheaper than public education — on the grounds that education isn’t as readily available in Third World countries. Nor can the issue of subsidies to parents be waved away merely by pointing out that Catholic schools are allowed to exist on public roads and receive fire protection.
If you don’t like the Church’s teaching, it would be better to state a straightforward intent to ignore it than to put forth such palpably inadequate arguments.
@Studebaker (11/11, 9:42 am) (Disclaimer: this is off the top of my head. Feel free to dismantle my arguments but please, be gentle.)
First, millions of American Catholic parents have successfully raised their children in the teachings and the practice of the faith while sending those children to public schools. They’ve done so by using the CCD, religious education, youth ministries, and Sunday School systems of their parishes and dioceses—as well as their own example and teaching.
Second, the basic structure of how the American government and various religions interact on matters of education was established in the mid-19th century (h/t to Abp. Hughes of NY—among others):
*the public schools will not be used to indoctrinate students in any particular religion, nor will the public schools favor one religion over another;
*citizens will not be taxed to support sectarian schools;
*citizens may band together voluntarily to create their own schools (Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc.) which will function as tax-exempt organizations.
Over the last 175 years this structure has allowed for the creation of the largest and (by many measures) most successful national Catholic church in the industrialized world. Where’s the problem?
Studebaker –
You keep referring to the position of “the Church” as expressed in Vatican documents. Most Vatican documents are the products of curial offices and can hardly be said to be the teaching of “the Church”.
Check out Sandro Magister’s latest column, “Too Much Confusion. Bertone Puts the Curia Uner Lock and Key”. It says that Cardinal Bertone, Secretary of State, has ordered that all documents released by the Vatican must be approved by his office. The reason is that the recently controversial document on world economics was not to his (or Benedict’s?) liking. He disputed some of the claims in it. (Looks like a major power grab to me.)
I’d like to know Cardinal Turkson’s reaction.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/?eng=y
Luke — your comment does not engage with any of the Church documents I cited at all.
Ann — from Wikipedia, which I believe to be accurate: “Gravissimum Educationis is the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Christian Education. It was promulgated on October 28, 1965 by Pope Paul VI, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,290 to 35.”
Studebaker, I’m for school vouchers. I am also for massive increases in education spending. You with me there? Or would any school vouchers of any amount cover your moral imperative?
Yet another aspect of school vouchers, Catholic schools and teacher/employee rights is that, in my estimation (and, I believe, the estimation of many Catholic school teachers), Catholic school teachers tend to be *underpaid*. (So are Catholic church workers in general, but that takes us beyond the scope of this conversation.)
Naturally, claiming that Catholic school teachers are underpaid raises the question, “Underpaid compared to whom?” Are prevailing public-school salaries and benefits the standard by which Catholic school teacher wages should be measured? Those public school wages themselves vary pretty widely. How much is enough, how much is too much, how much is not enough? Obviously, this is a difficult problem to unravel.
If widespread vouchers were to have the effect of raising Catholic school teacher salaries (which is certainly not a foregone conclusion), would that be an social-justice argument in favor of vouchers?
These aren’t rhetorical questions – I’d really like to know what folks think about this.
Studebaker,
The authorities you cite are not the sole experts on education in the US. Nor do I hear the kinds of arguments made in your authorities made by the politicians who push them. They worship at a completely different altar; they worship at the altar of the market, where the market solves all problems, not church authorities. They claim that vouchers will improve all of education by creating competition. Not that it is a fundamental human right (that is not usually the kind of arguments made by market fundamentalists).
Finally I would disagree with the authorities you cite because religious schools are a ministry are they not? I mean is the only difference between Catholic school and the local PS19 just daily chapel time? I don’t think so. Why should the state subsidize ministries and why would those vital ministries open themselves up to control from outside the faith?
Public schools are not perfect, never have been. And they are not adapting fast enough to deal with the changing culture of which they are part. But deal with that, don’t create systems designed so that all public schools eventually will “fail” as NCIB does. Which in turn creates the problem that vouchers solve.
Jim–
Given their quasi-monopoly, I think it’s an economic law that on average public school teachers are over paid and Catholic school teachers are under paid. Having said that, I think there are far too many in each group that are underpaid–that’s what you get with monopolies. I think the strongest argument, though, for choice in education will be that it’s best for the kids. And when you hear someone say the market will have too much say, replace “market” with “parents of young children”, then tell them they have too much say in the education of their children!
“Studebaker, I’m for school vouchers. I am also for massive increases in education spending. You with me there?”
Well, good on the first part. Explain yourself on the second, though, keeping in mind that the country today spends about $600 billion (with a b) per year on K-12 education, and that the most recent stats on per-pupil spending in constant dollars show a steady trend upwards: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66
Specificially, in constant dollars, we already spend almost double per pupil what we spent in 1980. Why are further massive increases necessary?
Studebaker,
I think if you looked at what we spend per soldier on the military and per capita spending on health care you would find similar trends. I don’t want to make it too simple of an answer but technology costs have much to do with it. When I graduated from HS in 1976 there was but one computer terminal there, but several very expensive Wang calculators ($100 each I recall). Unlike manufacturing and other industries where technology increases productivity or can substitute for labor costs, that is not as true in those industries. I’m sure we could manufacture WWII era, P-51s much cheaper than the F-22. The costs just to equip a soldier are astronomical compared to even Vietnam era soldiers. Same with technology in schools and then there is maintenance, and what is the technology lifecycle of computers today? 3 years?
My elementary school was razed a few years ago. It was, at the time, the oldest elementary school building in the school district. When it was announced it was to be replaced, the parents mobilized to save it. Everyone loved the quirky architecture, etc. But the building was so inadequate for the technology (and increased safety requirements) that what parents viewed as a perfectly serviceable building (and good enough for them when they attended) was nevertheless razed, surely bonded and increased education costs as a result with likely little measureable productivity gains, other than that school was now on par with the richer, whiter schools in the district.
Hi, Tom, if your old elementary school’s academic performance was typical of general trends, then the parents who organized to save the building were substantially better-educated (according to metrics like performance on standardized tests), at some fraction of the real-dollars cost, than the kids in the new building.
The historical trend in my area (Chicago area) is that the majority of increases in educational funding goes to teacher wages. We can all agree, I suspect, that at least some of that money has been justly spent, if it raises wages to just wages. How do we know, though, when we’ve reached the point in which teacher wages are just? And when we’ve reached the point of just wages, I don’t see that giving the same teachers more money, while holding all else – students, curriculum, administration, community, etc. – equal, will result in better educational outcomes than before.
None of this should be construed as an attack on teachers. Some of them are very good. But funding is finite. In a sense, we’re pitting retired teachers and their retirement income against currently-employed teachers and their wages (and both against taxpayers and their limited tax dollars). What is the most just way to split the pot?
Not just that: demanding ever-more money for schools right now is the same as demanding less money for roads, healthcare, unemployment payments, and everything else the government does. There isn’t enough money to have “massive increases” in everything.
Tradeoffs exist.
I would trade off a large portion of our military spending. Say about half.
Jim,
Actually, no, the parents who organized to try to save my old school were not among the educated. You might be surprised how passionate even uneducated people can be about their schools, especially in smaller towns.
I see the situation with teacher pay and performance quite differently. Research (and European and Asian experience) suggest that “teacher quality” is quite important to student performance. Compared to the 1970s and earlier, teacher quality, in terms of standardized test scores and class position has dramatically fallen. This is a downside of the reduction in barriers to women in the labor market. In 1970 80% of women worked in just five occupational categories. Nurses and teachers being the two for college educated women. Today, and it is important to keep nurses in mind, the top of the college class today, don’t choose education because for the same education, one can make much more money as an accountant or a nurse. Nurses average salaries have gone up but not teachers. And teachers don’t reflect the best and brightest anymore. This is nothing against teachers, in the US, you get what you pay for, because let’s face it, educators are not held in high status like an accountant, business manager, or nurse is.
The increases in cost has a lot to do with changes in women’s labor force participation. In the 50s and 60s, women didn’t stick it out for 40 years the way they do today. HIghly educated women would teach until they married, or if they continued, until they had children, often being married to educated men. Now, they are in it, in greater numbers, to the end. Hence, raising costs and not seeing their jobs as just “until I am married.”
The retirement system for teachers creates a perverse motivation. I know lots of teachers who would retire early, if they could get a reasonable retirement. But, take my wife’s situation. She has been teaching for 30+ years, but if she retired tomorrow, she would take home 320 a month. In 5 more years, she wi “vested” and she takes home $1200. This type of system is designed for people who will never stay in the whole time, which fits much of the 50s and 60s. But not today. Middle class families need the contribution of both spouses (assuming it is a couple) to maintain a middle class existence into retirement.
I think we could learn much from Finland. They have, based on test scores, the best education system. And while the US is not Finland, that argument only holds if we were to federalize the education system. But if you think of states, a state could do what Finland has done. I wish some state would try it. The unions would squawk, but the transition would take 20 years, and if a state was willing to buy out burned out existing teachers, the new system could be introduced much quicker.
Americans are too impatient. I don’t expect it to happen. We will continue to look for quick fix schemes and our children will fall further behind as a result.
Jim P. ==
Yes, replacing incompetent teachers with higher paid competent ones would take 20 years, but if the public couldn’t see the results immediately it would undoubtedly withdraw the financial support.
I don’t think buy-outs would work. There could be buy-outs of the incompetent ones but then many of the competent ones would demand to be bought out too, and there wouldn’t be enough new competent teachers to fill the open slots.
Tom — did your wife switch between states? There’s no pension system out there that requires 35 years to vest.
Unagidon — that explains where the money would come from, but you haven’t even tried to explain why the highest marginal benefit would come from re-allocating it to education. Can you answer that, keeping in mind the facts I previously mentioned?
Studebaker,
I guess you know more than my wife does, but there is a formula, age 55 (or older) plus years in service must equal 85. It works out to 30+ for most people. because women often take time off for kids. Our governor has spoken about it and wants to convert all current teachers to a 401, but the first run at it fell well short of what folks were promised (and have a contract for). So, the woefully unfunded pension system is a big problem. Again, the system is designed so that few make it to the end. I just checked my wife’s latest statement, 5 more years makes a huge difference, almost $800 per mpnth. It creates a perverse incentive for burned out teachers to stick it out and they hang on for dear life when they are pushed to retire (understandably so).
Tom — good points. The only point of confusion is that you used a term (“vested”) that doesn’t apply. Your wife would have been vested many years ago. But she still has to reach full retirement age to retire with full benefits (she could still retire now, and she’d get something — because she is vested — but the benefits wouldn’t be as high).
I wrote, “Hi, Tom, if your old elementary school’s academic performance was typical of general trends, then the parents who organized to save the building were substantially better-educated (according to metrics like performance on standardized tests), at some fraction of the real-dollars cost, than the kids in the new building.”
Tom replied, “Actually, no, the parents who organized to try to save my old school were not among the educated. You might be surprised how passionate even uneducated people can be about their schools, especially in smaller towns.”
Hi, Tom, my comment misled you. What I had hoped to point out is that, whether parents are educated or not (in the sense of having attended college), the quality of elementary school education has declined over the last couple of generations. Thus, the parents, upon exiting fifth or sixth grade, probably had received a better education up to that point than their children have. I agree wholeheartedly with you that many parents are passionate about their children’s education.
I hope your wife is able to stick it out to receive her full pension – and I hope the pension is funded. As I stated earlier, surely the employees are the primary (but not only) class of victim if states default on their pension obligations, or if benefits are unilaterally reduced.
It seems to me that the loss of a large pool of very smart women teachers is only one of the big problems of the schools, and the problem isn’t just a matter of money. I mean technology.
The world economic situation is such that the poor nations siphon off American industrial jobs plus the even lower paying ones. The American economy must become a technological powerhouse. But the schools are not producing kids who can do the math. Why is that? And what to do?
The start-up costs of technology schooling are huge, and sadly the computers, etc., become obsolete fast and need replacement. But the money problem isn’t the only problem with technology. Kids with their smart phones, iPods and computers have already learned to multi-task, and from what I read they resent being required to concentrate on one task. Indeed, they seem *incapable* at the point of concentrating. But somehow they need to learn to concentrate and read well, otherwise the country will be saddled with citizens whose interests don’t extend past doing technical jobs and watching sports events, TV shows about celebrities and stupid so-called reality shows. A democracy presumes a citizenry that can read intelligently about the historical, political, moral and, yes, philosophical issues intrinsic to life in a democracy. No, I’m not talking Aristotelian metaphysics here. I mean they need to learn about such things as what scientific method is and what its limits are, plus basic political theories (Note: the Russian peasants learned Marx pretty quickly), and the basic moral systems on which the political systems are based.
Is this a tall order? Indeed. The founding fathers knew very well that such thinking was necessary condition of governing the country well. It seems to me that we need to listen to them. We ignore them at our peril.
P. S. I forget which study it was (the recent Pew report on young people and religion?), but I read recently that kids themselves say they don’t talk about morality beyond saying that each person “makes up his own mind” about what is right and wrong, and that’s the way it ought to be. They are total relativists. I agree with Benedict XVI that a civilization based on relativism is bound to fail.