3 ms·

From a local high school history textbook (commenting on the the first amendment): > Just how liberty should be limited is a matter of debate. For example, mos

From a local high school history textbook (commenting on the the first amendment): > Just how liberty should be limited is a matter of debate. For example, most of us support freedom of speech, especially when it applies to speech we agree with. But what about speech that we don’t agree with or that hurts others, such as hate speech? Should people be at liberty to say anything they please, no matter how hurtful it is to others? Or should liberty be limited at times to serve a greater good? If so, who should decide how, why, and under what circumstances liberty should be limited? Interestingly, there's a bunch of little asides like this. And most of them have this glaringly obvious lean to them, where they choose examples to comment on very conveniently. Personally I don't think niche political aspirations to "reinterpret" the first amendment have a place in a textbook for high schoolers

paulmd 3y ago
Well, blindly espousing the benefits and design goals of the current system's design is also a glaringly obvious lean, it's effectively an endorsement of the status quo, especially when you do it to literal children! it's actually quite problematic to go presenting civics as "wow, our system of checks and balances, how wonderful!" and ignore the part where overuse of checks and balances and requiring supermajority control of every single branch and chamber of government to do anything produces grinding deadlock and inability to respond to changing situations and an overall changing world. The benefit (prevent rash action and ensure control of a single branch/chamber/etc does not lead to negative outcomes) are effectively being presented while the downside is not, and people then go on to blindly chant these merits in their adult life and political life too. Things like the president being elected (rather than the leader of the party) also result in these "split government" outcomes that can also leave the government paralyzed, even if they increase the "expressiveness" of the political outcomes. Optimizing for a system where nobody is in the drivers seat has always struck me as a baffling design goal. Would you ever have a ship (or even a hospital operating room) with nobody in command? Perhaps it would be better to optimize for somebody being in the driver seat but then try to optimize the system so their actions are representative of the public's desires/needs, rather than simply optimizing for inaction and assuming inaction is usually best. We can always try again at the next election, but having 30-40% of the public able to drag the whole system to a halt is a bad design even if it springs from well-intentioned goals. Obviously not a third-grade civic lesson but for high-schoolers or AP civics/history courses? yeah, it probably should be discussed. But then, this also bumps into people who don't want citizens to receive training on critical thought in the first place, when that might lead to questioning authority (civic, religious, family, or otherwise). I think this is a situation where if the ideas are so fundamentally and obviously good, then they should be able to withstand a little bit of discussion and debate, no?
- mvncleaninst 3y ago
  > The benefit (prevent rash action and ensure control of a single branch/chamber/etc does not lead to negative outcomes) are effectively being presented while the downside is not, and people then go on to blindly chant these merits in their adult life and political life too. I feel like you're just ranting against a strawman here. I did public k-12 in a deep red state with teachers who were vocally conservative, and I remember them teaching the trade off (which is: checks and balances slow things down and make government more rigid, but can protect against abuse of power, especially from the executive). The thing is, most likely neither of us actually knows what's being taught in K-12 classrooms and we can only really speculate > but having 30-40% of the public able to drag the whole system to a halt is a bad design even if it springs from well-intentioned goals. It's only bad design if you don't agree with that 30-40%, else it's a lifesaver. Similar reasoning where you advocate for empowering the execute branch. In certain rare cases like FDR you could make the argument that it's beneficial and it wouldn't be far off, but FDR is the exception, not the rule

paulmd 3y ago

Well, blindly espousing the benefits and design goals of the current system's design is also a glaringly obvious lean, it's effectively an endorsement of the status quo, especially when you do it to literal children! it's actually quite problematic to go presenting civics as "wow, our system of checks and balances, how wonderful!" and ignore the part where overuse of checks and balances and requiring supermajority control of every single branch and chamber of government to do anything produces grinding deadlock and inability to respond to changing situations and an overall changing world. The benefit (prevent rash action and ensure control of a single branch/chamber/etc does not lead to negative outcomes) are effectively being presented while the downside is not, and people then go on to blindly chant these merits in their adult life and political life too. Things like the president being elected (rather than the leader of the party) also result in these "split government" outcomes that can also leave the government paralyzed, even if they increase the "expressiveness" of the political outcomes. Optimizing for a system where nobody is in the drivers seat has always struck me as a baffling design goal. Would you ever have a ship (or even a hospital operating room) with nobody in command? Perhaps it would be better to optimize for somebody being in the driver seat but then try to optimize the system so their actions are representative of the public's desires/needs, rather than simply optimizing for inaction and assuming inaction is usually best. We can always try again at the next election, but having 30-40% of the public able to drag the whole system to a halt is a bad design even if it springs from well-intentioned goals. Obviously not a third-grade civic lesson but for high-schoolers or AP civics/history courses? yeah, it probably should be discussed. But then, this also bumps into people who don't want citizens to receive training on critical thought in the first place, when that might lead to questioning authority (civic, religious, family, or otherwise). I think this is a situation where if the ideas are so fundamentally and obviously good, then they should be able to withstand a little bit of discussion and debate, no?

mvncleaninst 3y ago
> The benefit (prevent rash action and ensure control of a single branch/chamber/etc does not lead to negative outcomes) are effectively being presented while the downside is not, and people then go on to blindly chant these merits in their adult life and political life too. I feel like you're just ranting against a strawman here. I did public k-12 in a deep red state with teachers who were vocally conservative, and I remember them teaching the trade off (which is: checks and balances slow things down and make government more rigid, but can protect against abuse of power, especially from the executive). The thing is, most likely neither of us actually knows what's being taught in K-12 classrooms and we can only really speculate > but having 30-40% of the public able to drag the whole system to a halt is a bad design even if it springs from well-intentioned goals. It's only bad design if you don't agree with that 30-40%, else it's a lifesaver. Similar reasoning where you advocate for empowering the execute branch. In certain rare cases like FDR you could make the argument that it's beneficial and it wouldn't be far off, but FDR is the exception, not the rule