As a social studies teacher and political science major I enjoy following politics and the theater that is our discourse. I’ve gone through whatever stages you want to call them. From pre-teen “I don’t care, and I never will” to hard-core activist and campaign organizer. I see the world differently now and the fun is somewhat still there, but it would really be a lot more fun if we knew what we were talking about.

I would never assume I know “what’s going on”, or to have many answers. And regardless of your views, there is an element of emotion and identity in our political views that cannot really be measured equally. Specific issue debates will always be divisive and unpersuasive. The tragedy of our political theater today, is the level of animosity is so high, there is no persuadable Middle. Our political process is an exercise in mobilizing enough informed, angry voters to stand in line on a Tuesday in November.

I don’t have the slightest clue how to fix this, but I do know unless we make an effort to get smarter, it is not going to get better. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has spent a large amount of her career and her retirement championing the cause of civics education. Unfortunately, we have diluted our discourse to the point, we avoid it or discuss it less and less. She could be onto something.

The less informed we are, the easier we are to control, and that usually isn’t good for us. It can also lead to severe misunderstandings such as this, and this  Often leading to a path riddled with tragic results. The delusion so many can be sold is much easier when there is no understanding. Tierney Sneed’s article here gives us a great example of this lack of understanding in action.

The basic understanding part is nowhere near as "fun" as the controversial part, but it's where we have to start. I was a big fan of The West Wing. It was on as I was in college and was just good tv. (The eerie similarities of its last season and 2008 are for another discussion.) In a discussion with Donna about their opponent Gov. Rob Ritchie and what he expects of a leader. The setup is Gov. Ritchie has some self-help guru as a “consultant” and Josh wants to exploit that. I couldn’t find a video clip but it’s from the Red Mass episode The discussion is on the self-help guys books and how he’s just cribbing from old philsophers and dumbing it down. It culminates is the lines spoken by Josh below:

What does this remind you of? "I believe in hope, not fear." "I'm a leader, not a politician."

"It's time for an American leader." "America's earned a change." "I before 'E' except after 'C'!" It's the fortune-cookie candidacy! These are important thinkers, and understanding them can be very useful and it's not ever going to happen at a four-hour seminar. When the President's got an embassy surrounded in Haiti, or a keyhole photograph of a heavy water reactor, or any of the fifty life-and-death matters that walk across his desk every day, I don't know if he's thinking about Immanuel Kant or not. I doubt it, but if he does, I am comforted at least in my certainty that he is doing his best to reach for all of it and not just the McNuggets. Is it possible we would be willing to require any less of the person sitting in that chair? The low road? I don't think it is.

I don't think that's too bad of a place to start. 

In a piece for The Atlantic Scott Samuelson makes a passionate argument for teaching the liberal arts. As he says, they are called The Humanities for a reason. We have real problems in this country. Problems no one is going to fix on their own, and we need ideas. Those ideas aren’t going to produce themselves. It’s up to us as teachers, and up to us as citizens to engage each other honestly and intellectually. That can’t happen until we get a little more intellectual and our politics to get a lot more honest.  Here’s hoping...