More Evidence of Less Support for Democracy by the Young

This is from a recent study by Sean Kates, Jonathan M. Ladd, and Joshua A. Tucker. As they sum it up:

… while a large majority of Americans think democracy is the best form of government, nontrivial portions of Americans disagree. They believe that democracy as a form of government tends to serve the elite, and there are times when nondemocratic systems are preferable.

But perhaps even more concerning is that the young are less supportive than older Americans of democracy as a concept. They are not less satisfied with American democracy right now, nor are they less likely to think it is responsive to their needs, but they are less likely to believe that democracy is superior to other forms of government and more likely to believe that it serves the elite.”

Another study, this one by Eric Oliver and Thomas Wood, might seems to dampen this claim, but even they show that the young today are less supportive of certain democratic values than their age group was a generation ago.

 

A Statement on Civility and Civil Discourse

Image result for incivility

Last week, in one of our large 120-student sections, a student was threatened by another student after class for something she had said in class. She did not see the student’s face, but she heard him say “You better watch what you say, or I’ll shoot you.” Or something like that. After trying and failing to identify the student, we decided that, at a minimum, the instructor should post a message on iCollege and say something in class about the importance of civil discussion and debate, and the unacceptability of threats of violence. I offered to write a first draft of the iCollege message, and I’m posting it here in case anyone would like to adapt the language for their own purposes (preferably as a preventive rather than reactive measure). Here’s the message:

A lot of you are probably as disgusted as I am by acts of politically-motivated violence that have occurred around the country recently. I wanted to take this as an opportunity to discuss something important about our democracy. As we have discussed, the basic hope of our system of government is that we can be free to disagree about all kinds of important things and also to organize politically–often times in competition with those with whom we disagree–to seek to see our views represented in public policy. Proponents of authoritarian government think this is nothing short of insane. To them, it seems like a recipe for anarchy, disorder, and chaos. And yet Americans have governed themselves, however imperfectly, democratically for over 200 years, and we have enjoyed more stability than most countries — whether democratic or authoritarian — could even dream. One reason for this is that our democracy has a variety of customs, practices, and unwritten rules — which political scientists call “norms” — that enable us to debate and compete politically without crossing the line into violence. To be sure, these norms have historically been unevenly recognized. For example, slavery and the Jim Crow system of racial segregation were predicated upon violent suppression of African Americans’ political freedom. But the norms, when recognized and followed, have served Americans well, including, arguably, when the first African American President of the United States demonstrated — by his example — their value throughout his time in office. One of these norms is something we have an opportunity to practice in this class, and I fear is something eroding in our politics. I am referring to the norm of civil discussion and debate. The basic idea with this norm is that we seek to “disagree agreeably.” That is, we are free to express our views insofar as we do so in a respectful way and that we do not in any way deny or threaten anyone else’s right to offer their own potentially contrary views. Civil discussion and debate does not mean we pretend to agree with one another when we in fact disagree. In fact, for it to be meaningful and worthwhile, it requires that we openly express our disagreement. But it does require that we respect the free expression of those with whom we disagree as the price we pay for having our own right of free expression equally respected. Civil discussion and debate is based on reason-giving. It means we do not simply say what we think, but we offer reasoned justifications for what we think. One great hope of such reason-giving is that others will find our reasons persuasive and thereby come around to agreeing with us. But civil discussion and debate also requires acceptance of the fact that others will often remain unpersuaded and that this too is their right. Anyway, there is more to it than this, but I did want to make clear that I welcome discussion and debate in this class, but I expect everyone to conduct themselves according to the norm of civility. Everyone should respect the mutual rights of everyone else to express and justify their viewpoints, and it is never acceptable to threaten or intimidate anyone in or out of class for anything they have expressed in this class. This is not only a vital democratic norm; it is also a university rule. Threatening violence for any reason is strictly forbidden on this campus. I hope it is unnecessary for me to say this, but, like I said, I am afraid the norm of civility is eroding, including on university campuses.”

Link to US Civitas Facebook Thread

Teaching the Principles of American Government with China’s “Charter 08”

News of the tragic death of Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo–who was serving an 11-year prison sentence for his role in the writing of the democratic reform document called “Charter 08“–led me to read an English translation of that remarkable expression of yearning and advocacy for liberal democracy. Charter 08–publicly released in China on the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (on December 10, 2008)–begins by identifying “democracy and constitutional government” as “the fundamental framework for protecting” the “universal values” of “freedom, equality, and human rights.” It then goes on to advocate for the establishment in China of laws, practices, and institutions that have long been hallmarks of the American system of government and politics. Among other things, it advocates for rule of law and constitutionalism; the separation of powers (especially an independent judiciary); free and open elections; protections for the freedom of speech, Continue reading

Veterans Day

Some helpful reminders from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs:

Soldiers of the 353rd Infantry near a church at Stenay, Meuse in France.

World War I – known at the time as “The Great War” – officially ended when the Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919, in the Palace of Versailles outside the town of Versailles, France. However, fighting ceased seven months earlier when an armistice, or temporary cessation of hostilities, between the Allied nations and Germany went into effect on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. For that reason, November 11, 1918, is generally regarded as the end of “the war to end all wars.”

. . . In November 1919, President Wilson proclaimed November 11 as the first commemoration of Armistice Day with the following words: “To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations…”

. . . The Uniform Holiday Bill (Public Law 90-363 (82 Stat. 250)) was signed on June 28, 1968, and was intended to ensure three-day weekends for Federal employees by celebrating four national holidays on Mondays: Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Columbus Day. It was thought that these extended weekends would encourage travel, recreational and cultural activities and stimulate greater industrial and commercial production. Many states did not agree with this decision and continued to celebrate the holidays on their original dates.

The first Veterans Day under the new law was observed with much confusion on October 25, 1971. It was quite apparent that the commemoration of this day was a matter of historic and patriotic significance to a great number of our citizens, and so on September 20th, 1975, President Gerald R. Ford signed Public Law 94-97 (89 Stat. 479), which returned the annual observance of Veterans Day to its original date of November 11, beginning in 1978. This action supported the desires of the overwhelming majority of state legislatures, all major veterans service organizations and the American people.

Veterans Day continues to be observed on November 11, regardless of what day of the week on which it falls. The restoration of the observance of Veterans Day to November 11 not only preserves the historical significance of the date, but helps focus attention on the important purpose of Veterans Day: A celebration to honor America’s veterans for their patriotism, love of country, and willingness to serve and sacrifice for the common good.

[Photo shows soldiers of the 353rd Infantry near a church at Stenay, Meuse in France, as they waited for news about the end of hostilities. This photo was taken at 10:58 a.m., on November 11, 1918, two minutes before the Armistice went into effect.]