Tim Slekar, Director of the Educator Preparation Program at Muskingum University in Ohio comments here on the recent report that NAEP scores in history and civics dropped during the pandemic. The decline should surprise no one since neither subject has mattered for the past two decades. Far more worrisome, he says, is the erosion of democracy. How do you prepare students to participate in a society where voter suppression and gerrymandering are widespread and are approved by the courts? Where members of the Supreme Court see no harm in accepting valuable gifts from billionaires? Where one of the two national political parties insists the last presidential election was stolen without any evidence? Where nominees for the highest Court testify under oath that they believe in stare decisis, then promptly overturn Roe v. Wade? Where killers stalk schools and public places because of the power of the gun lobby? Where honest teaching about political events and history is considered divisive and may be criminalized?
Slekar writes:
“In the 1930s, George Counts dared the schools to “build a new social order” comprised of an active, critical citizenry, challenging industrial society’s inequities through boldly democratic education. In 2016, a supposedly educated population of United States citizens elected Donald Trump as its next president, ushering in what surely will be a new social order. For decades preceding that election, social studies educators, researchers, and leaders have rejected powerful and critical social studies learning efforts in favor of superficial standards-setting and accountability talk….My guess is that Counts would not be very happy with Trump’s construct of a new social order, and my point is that standards—particularly in social studies—have been useless as instruments intended to affect how the social order Counts envisioned might be built through public education.”
I wrote the above in 2018. 40 years of devotion towards the erosion of the civic mission of history and the social studies had resulted in the election of a narcissistic reality tv show host to the presidency of the United States. There were no headlines about the dismal state of teaching and learning American history and civics in 2018. The most obscene—in-your-face evidence of civic failure was ignored.
And now America is faced with a “crisis” because of an insignificant drop in 8th graders’ test scores in US History and American Civics NAEP tests. Really? This is our national concern? Really?
What about the fact that the 8th graders tested spent significantly less time in History class than 8th graders 10 – years ago?
What about the fact that 8th graders 10 years ago spent significantly less time in History class than 8th graders 20 years ago?
Thank you Race to the Top (Obama) and No Child Left Behind (Bush).
What about the current reality of state legislatures taking the insignificant time devoted to the teaching of History and whitewashing the content that can be taught through the mandated erasure of painful truths that make some “uncomfortable?”
What about legislating penalties on teachers that involve students in that horrible civic responsibility of engaging with their elected officials?
The evidence is clear. We have a crisis of democracy. We have a morality crisis that has been legislated since 1983. The mission of public schools was purposely killed and now we have a society of grievance snowflakes that openly believe intolerance, bullying, and racism are constitutional rights.
Test score drop? Fake news!
Diane Ravitch's blog 
BRAVO !!!
Science and social studies have taken a back seat in Ohios K-8 classrooms for more than two decades. The result is multiple generations of students with a less experience in research and hypothesis, analytical thinking regarding evidence, problem-solving, civics, history, political science, debate, etc. The damage is terrifying as more and more of our citizens believe the single source of information they receive and blindly follow “leadership” without question.
I firmly believe this was the design and intent of NCLB in addition to disparaging public schools and driving away a highly intelligent teaching force.
May I suggest that the majority of rightwing voters in Ohio were educated in the generations before NCLB? Would someone do the stats about how the post-NCLB generation leans? My guess is that the younger voters who were taught more about critical thinking skills than drilled dates of historical facts are more skeptical of the conservative agenda today.
Shelley Rivlin– I challenge you to show how NCLB annual testing – let alone the spurious standards to which it was attached in 2010 (via Race to the Top)— have done anything at all to encourage critical thinking. Find me some sample questions from an annual state-standardized test that assess critical thinking. Explain how another layer of testing, plus test-prep during the year [due to high stakes], plus progress assessments added to tweak evaluation of test scores do anything other than compress the classtime needed for discussions that develop critical thinking.
This is purely anecdotal, but I have read similar comments from profs at many ed articles: starting 10 yrs ago, my friends who taught at community & 4-yr colleges began complaining that incoming freshman were unaccustomed to and impatient with classroom, discussion/ debate, frequently saying “just tell us what is going to be on the test.” This corresponds to the first generation of NCLB students.
Nothing associated with NCLB encouraged critical thinking. Nor Race to the Top.
Best post I’ve read here in years.
My two cents: More at the end about the systematic devaluing, and so the persistent demoralization of teachers . . . which paves the way for children’s disrespecting of not only teachers, but intelligent adults who drive 20-year-old cars in general. CBK
Agreed. It’s good to read Diane’s full throated passion on the subject. Her anger is justified. The corporate hypocrisy is palpable. I’d like to punctuate every sentence of this post with an emphatic YES. You’re in good form, Diane.
Thank you, LCT
Catherine,
“. . . but intelligent adults who drive 20-year-old cars in general.”
What is that supposed to mean?
I’d like to think that I fit the first criteria-maybe not. . . but what do you consider “intelligent adults” to mean? I know many intelligent adults whose education level is “high school grad or GED certification. And they can outthink many who comment here.
As far as the second criteria, I certainly don’t qualify as my pickup with over 200,000 miles is an 07. But again, what are you trying to say with that statement?
Hi Duane I just know allot of teachers who are as intelligent as, or more than, people who make scads of money, but they cannot afford to buy a new car. That’s all I meant. I wasn’t categorizing absolutely everyone. And there’s nothing in the water, so to speak, that makes everyone with a formal college education biased against those who don’t have one. One of the first things I learned from going to college is that fact, along with the other fact . . . that some college graduates are sxxt stupid. CBK
This is like the supposed vast learning loss from the pandemic–drops of 4 and 7 points, on average, on 500-point NAEP tests. 0.8 percent and 1.4 percent. Barely a blip and not significant.
The testing and standards movement has led to a DRAMATIC devolution of U.S. pedagogy and curricula and a deemphasis on everything not related to the ELA and Math tests based on the puerile Gates/Coleman bullet lists. Time to do away with those. And time to can the whole idea of supposed “standards” that consist of a list of almost entirely content-free “skills” expressed so broadly and vaguely that they are not at all validly testable.
The ELA “standards,” that is. There is a different set of problems with the math “standards.”
Bob: I think as well that there is a philosophical problem associated with educators using the word “Standards.” It implies that we can list student behaviors that indicate learning. I have a problem with this idea, and I have objected to it ever since my education prof assigned us the task of writing Behavioral Objectives (curse you, Bloom!).
Consider:
I taught math for 29 years before teaching history my last 5. Most of the standards movement I experienced in math, so I will draw an example from teaching algebra. A generally accepted standard for teaching algebra is that students be able to factor basic trinomials. This seems very attainable on the surface, but it is not specific enough. Students must understand a wide range of instructions before the can properly do this on a test made by someone other than their teacher. They always became confused over what words meant exactly what intellectual behaviors, because most of their reading experience did not include literal meaning of words the way math uses literal meaning. Giving a student a test consisting of ten polynomials to factor into two binomials, perhaps the clearest task known to Algebra, is to complex to be considered analogous to measuring a gallon of water.
Students might miss a problem on a test because they do not properly read the problem, incorrectly interpret the instructions, lack prerequisite skills, are too distracted due to their own or a friend’s troubles…I could go on indefinitely. It is not that I do not believe in behavioral expectations, it is that I object to saying such expectations are standards, a word that has a scientific feel to it.
Roy I also find it odd (not to mention ignorant) that, at the end of programs or even at graduation, many schools ask students to write or talk about what they learned, . . . rather than how they developed, e.g., in different aspects of their lives, e.g., psychologically, intellectually, socially, politically . . . CBK
In ELA, Roy, people write a hundred statements of the “The student will understand the multiple meanings of words” variety. But notice that that refers to any words that have multiple meanings. It can refer to a simple difference between cat as housecat and cat as big wildcat, such as a cheetah or lion. It can refer to something as difficult as the difference between what Kant and Sartre meant by “representation.” It can refer to words that are ambiguous, intentionally or unintentionally. It can refer to metaphors and metonymies and synecdoches and similes. It can refer to separate denotations or connotations. It can refer to nuances. And on and on and on. Many things. OK. So, you have a list of 100 of these vague, extremely broad statements. Then, you have a test with, say, 25 multiple-choice items on it. So, you decide that one of the 25 questions will be a “multiple meanings of words” question. What ONE question will you ask that, answered correctly, will ENSURE that the student has mastered the “skill” (as if it were one thing) of interpreting words with multiple meaning or that, if answered incorrectly, will indicate, definitively, that the student has NOT mastered this “skill” IN GENERAL? The answer, ofc, is that it is impossible to put together such a question. So, the test CANNOT be made that will VALIDLY test for what these tests purport to test for–proficiency (or lack thereof) in the 100 or so “standards.” The very idea is utterly pseudoscientific poppycock. And yet the morons who cooked up this bs have gotten away with foisting it on the country. Almost no one has called bs on it.
It’s shocking, completely shocking, that Gates and Coleman and Jeb Bush and the other idiots who put forward this bs have been allowed to get away with this at such a dramatic cost to the country for so long.
And Catherine, I find it bizarre that people think they shouldn’t ask people any specific thing that they learned, to share any actual knowledge that they acquired, but instead think that they should demonstrate something as vague and untestable as is–you name it–“general inferencing skill.”
And so we have a nation full of students, who have had these vague, bs lessons on developing skills GENERALLY, in the absence of any actual learning of any actual knowledge, and so think that Africa is a country and that Canada is one of the states up north. You know, ones with knowledge at the level of that of, say, a Donald Trump.
Bob It’s not a stark either/or, Bob. A disregard of one, and over-emphasis on the other, always ends in distortions of both, either way.
In fact, we develop differentiations of mind in unison with the myriad and endless object/content-knowledge that we learn; . . . and we are ABLE to learn and understand more, and more deeply, as we develop the capacity to do so which, in turn, enables us to understand the same knowledge in its context and as deeper and more (or less) significance as we grow. CBK
Exactly right, Catherine. But we need to have an understanding of what is testable and what isn’t.
Bob I totally agree . . . (about testing). I often think about the subtle messages that the game show “Jeopardy” sends . . . like testing (and as much as I enjoy that program) it can make it look to some like being educated is the same as having a good recall/memory for lists and facts. . . and that’s it. I cringe.
Philosophically, it’s a holdover from scientific positivism and the disregard of the subject (uh, namely: the students), which in my view makes SEL (social-emotional learning) a good thing, if taught rightly, but really it is just a band-aid for a much more serious and pervasive philosophical issue concerning cognition and cognitional theory.
If the test makers really understood what education is about, and had to make tests accordingly, they all would realize the importance of the teacher/teaching, sell their stock, and invest in bitcoin. CBK
And I understand why there was a time, Catherine, when educators got all worked up about curricula that was all about regurgitating facts and did not treat more sophisticated stuff–thinking. However, along the way, because of that critique, we lost our way. Now, we are doing vast amounts of supposed instruction that is almost entirely content/information/knowledge free. Oh, we are practicing our inferencing skills. And that’s just b——–t. Examine any supposed “skill” closely enough, and you will find out that it is made up of a LOT of concrete DESCRIPTIVE AND PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE. And the teacher who has thought the instruction through enough to have arrived at that and can impart it to kids is ACTUALLY teaching what is needed to demonstrate a “skill.” For this reason, we should have a moratorium in education on the use of the term “skill.” In most lessons I see on “skills,” there is no there there. The student leaves the room not knowing anything that he or she did not know going in.
Correction:
“THE STANDARDS AND TESTING MALPRACTICE REGIME has led to a DRAMATIC devolution of U.S. pedagogy and curricula. . . ” 😉
As Tim points out, the quality of what history and civics is being taught, at least based on my anecdotal world, is awful. Every time I looked into what my son’s AP Government class was “learning”, I just shook my head. It scares me that kids like him test out of intro to American government. They learn a lot of facts, some of which are questionable, but zero context. And no papers or books to read other than a faulty textbook! Nuts.
Or they engage in faux (Fox?) debates in class where the loudest mouth wins because the students vote for which team argues the best.
Tim rocks. Great guy, sharp mind.
All true. And then there are threats to teachers if they encourage class discussions on current events. That can wring the spirit out of a good teacher.
In addition, when looking at the breakdown, student scores of those who reported to have not taken a social studies course with a focus on US history, did worse than those students who reported to have taken a social studies course with a focus on US history. I bet there are some real smart folks out there thinking of a solution to help improve the test scores for those students who reported to have not taken a social studies course with a focus on US history.
Slekar should take a look at the Guardian article about Stanley Kurtz of the EPPC (5-5-2023). Kurtz is the one who has driven the, “crusade against ‘woke civics.’ ” The connections between the Koch network and EPPC can be reviewed.
Who is on the board of EPPC? Robert P George and Lenard Leo are.
At some point, the sheer evidence will prevent heads from finding the sand in which to bury themselves.
All I know (and my grandpa reminded me if I thought I knew everything I didn’t know anything at all) is IF THERE IS TIME we will teach other subjects. Or, like I did and a few of my rogue colleague, “we snuck stuff in.” Case in point: I went to my son’s fifth grade parent conference (He is now 29) and saw the class schedule. Reading. More Reading. Math. More Math. Recess (they got audited so they had to give it back) and at the very end of the list, art, history, science, and physical education. As we were going through his progress, I said, “So, how is my son getting an art education? What’s up with that?” It stopped him. We paused. I said, “I noticed on the board there is not enough time for that. He was a new teacher. “They really want us to focus on testing.” My son said school was boring as they taught to the lowest common denominator. He was not challenged (and he loved school). We pulled him out and homeschooled him for a few years till high school. Later, I was afforded the opportunity to teach American Government to at-risk youth. When I went to my “We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution 11-day at Boston University, we had focus groups. A question: “How do you get your students engaged in civics, voting, and government?” I replied, “I piss them off.” I went on to explain how I would discuss the importance of their vote. I would make things up like, “Did you know that the bus your parents need for work is shutting down? Yeah, they said too much money.” The kids would look at me, then how will they get to their job?” I went on to say, “Are you 18? Then get registered to vote! Make your voices heard. Stop the shut down!” The kids were tired of lip service and finally it made sense. I got many of my students trained as voter registrars. Some kids wanted to start grass roots organizations to stop the “bull shit” happening to them. They were tired of being victims. They were happy that someone (rather than dismissing them as kids who didn’t want to do homework) taught them something especially about the law. Most thought the United States Constitution applied to them when they turned 18. I brought in an attorney to explain “search and seizure” laws since many were involved with cops always “shaking them down.” I told them, “You what is powerful? Understanding your rights. Understanding how the law works. And especially when a person of color (My kids were mostly Mexicano) know the law. Make the law work for you, not against you. We did some great work especially with kids who weren’t supposed to care. https://gilroydispatch.com/students-enter-the-great-election-debate/
Good for you! Unfortunately, some police are biased against Black and Brown folks, and they abuse their power as law enforcement officers.
@retired teacher — that’s why I brought an attorney in to explain how to properly respond to the “shake downs.” Thanks for listening.
The need is all full of the drop in civics scores. My attention fell on a poster on the gas pump this morning advertising the klan. I showed a picture of it to the woman running the station and she became quite agitated. I was glad. She looked like she might have been the one who put it up, but she was clearly worried about its presence.
Scores on civics? Hardly important. How can you test the ability to realize the klan is evil?
News. Not need
Roy-
Your final point is on target.
When right wingers use their religious sect as excuse for inhumanity, like opposition to CRT and the rights of women and people who are gay, we can better understand the depth of the problem that must be overcome. When a religious sect’s politicization is inextricably linked to libertarians like Charles Koch, we must acknowledge the indecency of it.
If the acquisition of civics is in decline, it may also be due to high stakes tests in math and reading while other subjects get less attention. If pundits think knowledge of civics is in decline now, just wait until they see what happens when more and more students attend charter and voucher schools with teachers that have questionable preparation for the job. The best solution to improve civics education is to eliminate high stakes testing and adequately fund public education which stands the best chance of producing an informed electorate.
Amen, retired teacher!
👍👍👍
“My attention fell on a poster on the gas pump this morning advertising the klan.”
!!!!!
Tell your daughter for me, Roy, that this is why we need her to graduate from college and start running stuff ASAP!
Also, move to civilization? (says the guy who lives in Flor-uh-duh)
Tennessee ranks 2nd, nationwide, in number of hate groups per capita.
Your last paragraph summarizes how wrong we are to indulge these right wing snowflakes that attack and undermine the common good. The whole concept of rights has been twisted around so that individual perceptions of rights are taking priority over what is beneficial to society in aggregate. The appointment of right wing justices is the way in which they are dismantling the commons. The right has also thwarted Biden’s judicial appointments, particularly in the South.https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/09/politics/biden-judges-south/index.html
Diane and retired teacher “Twisted, undermined, dismantling” . . . exactly.
I’ve never seen it so obviously stated as when, in a recent clip, Tucker Carlson complained that (paraphrased) the left thinks they are better and know better than everyone else. In other words, don’t talk to them.
But it’s not about the work of understanding the hard-won truths or falsities about WHAT is being said or argued for or against in any specific case, but WHO has the brute power to do whatever the wish. And God help us if they get “uncomfortable.”
It’s not only about “undermining” and “dismantling” of truth, then, but of the whole idea of objectification of truth and the knowing of it; and so, of the methods we use to get there, e.g., intelligence, reasonability, responsibility, and evidence, all based on the good will of the participants. Without these we have no democracy.
The “twist” then is downward: The ground of the discussion is reduced tribalism . . . physical power, zero-sum (that’s all that’s left), namely, violence based on the “best” debased “leader” you can find and follow, . . .
. . . rather than on having to think about things, and on reasonable discussions among thoughtful people, based on a mutual regard for well-thought-out and long-established laws, civil order, and a similarly reasonable democratic polity . . . all gone or at least on their way out the door.
England is getting a new king; whereas the United States is dallying with dumping democracy and a installing a new fascist regime. CBK
Catherine– The Carlson remark you paraphrase is so typical of JQPublic [rw version] commentary on article threads that it is obviously a classical meme of the rw media they imbibe. Classic “us vs them” populist division tactic. There are many among the ranks of the ___[fill in aggrieved group] who have been convinced lifelong that those in the next rung up of society [whoever they imagine that to be] are laughing down their noses at them. Even if that were true, anything from imagined slights to Op-Eds in snooty media is in a whole different ballpark from their own legislatures undermining their own civil rights.
BeThree5 *. . . are laughing down their noses at them. Even if that were true, anything from imagined slights to Op-Eds in snooty media is in a whole different ballpark from their own legislatures undermining their own civil rights.*
Yes . . . exactly. It’s a constant appeal to the living ghosts of whatever petty slights their audience has suffered over their lifetime and that no one paid attention to–and there is an awful bias among those with no college against those who have attended or graduated. That, coupled with the old “existential” fears of racism and (as you say) fill in the blank-isms for fear mongering.
Who wants to talk about legislatures undermining civil rights when I feel (more self-invited ghosts) constantly put down because I didn’t go to college, and there’s a black kid ringing my doorbell who surely wants to kill me? CBK
The majority of Fox audience are seniors who had those civic and American history classes that are supposedly gone from the curriculum. How much good did it do? The passionate rejection of Republican ideology is led by a majority of young voters who had less instruction in traditional civics. It’s not history that’s missing. My generation had substantially less emphasis on critical thinking skills than today’s students.
Shelly Rivlin writes: “. . . My generation had substantially less emphasis on critical thinking skills than today’s students.”
I am an American citizen/senior. I think you might be overlooking the fact that civics, regardless of how it was taught, was also “in the cultural air” at least for the decades following WW II, and probably more so in Europe.
How many here remember when there were no computers or cable news, and we listened to Huntly and Brinkley, or better yet, Walter Cronkite aka: Uncle Walter . . . it went without saying that they were patriots at their core, but also the people whom we trusted to tell the truth to us every night on one of three channels.
It wasn’t perfect, by any means, or even by some of our present standards (such as they are). But it also wasn’t all about what each of us experienced in our formal education, such as it was. Partly, yes. Wholly, no. CBK
Shelley
Thank you for making your points.
Shelley
Whether you are receptive to the following info. is likely dependent on where you live, regionally, blue vs. red state and if you are a conservative religious tribalist or not.
Up until Raegan, many Catholics voted Democratic. It has changed. For example, Religion News Agency reported in 2019 that 4% and 28% of Catholic bishops and Catholics overall, respectively, named MSNBC as their preferred news station. The numbers for Fox were about 50% and 42% respectively. Sixty-three percent of white Catholics who attend church regularly voted for Trump in 2020.
About the seniors you reference- some sources cite about 10% of students were in Catholic schools in the 1950’s. People born in the 1950’s are 64 to 73. The percentage enrolled in Catholic schools in the 1940’s may have been greater and they would be seniors, 74-83. If the enrollments were greater in the current red states, it may explain why Republicans are winning in places other than the east and west coasts. Polls report that about a quarter of those voting nationwide are Catholic.
As you note, it is the critical thinking skills that were absent
in the seniors’ schooling. It is that same feature that makes public support of religious schools anathema to me.
Linda I think that’s just another RTA (really twisted argument); but here’s something you’ll like that will probably show up on the nightly shows soon, if it hasn’t already . . . more evidence of so-called-religious cover for bad acts and actors. CBK
From TRUTHOUT in today’s mail:
“Leonard Leo Arranged Secret Payments to Ginni Thomas Ahead of Voting Rights Case . . . JON QUEALLY, COMMON DREAMS . . . The Supreme Court is looking less like a bench and more like an auction house, said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.”
Read the Article → (not available without written permission)
A lack of History , Social Studies , Civics … education in the last 2 decades is not responsible for the shift to right wing authoritarianism and the other ills of American Society. Millennials and Gen Z voters educated in that period voted by a 20 point margin for Biden (when they voted ). Those voters tend to be more progressive across the spectrum from social issues to Global Warming . That would lead me to believe that there are far greater influences on American ethos than Education. In reality those influences may have had more impact on shaping Education than Education has had on shaping beliefs.
How exactly did we move from a Society in the 30s to the 60s in which the majority believed Government was acting for the public good. To one in which Government was accepted as the enemy.
Kurt Anderson attributes too much to Vietnam. Were the seeds planted by Right Wing Oligarchs since before FDR.
Charles Koch is not the first to “Koch” our Universities. And Louis Powell’s complaint is not so much the ideology being taught as much as it was losing the narratives he wanted taught and spread in the media.
Part of the answer, Joel, is Reagan’s anti-government rhetoric. Surely there was anti-government sentiment long before Reagan, but workers and non-elites understood that the government was on their side, not their enemy. Many red states—esp in the Midwest—used to be Democratic.
dianeravitch
No doubt; my point is those seeds were planted long before Reagan came to office.
NELA and NAM set the stage for Reagan in the 20s, 30s and 40s followed later by the National Chamber of Commerce. As the working class was rejecting corporate power post the 29 crash. They were subliminally fed the narrative that Government was bad. Equating Capitalism to Freedom and liberty and Government intervention to Socialism and autocracy. Who or more correctly how many would have thought that Readers Digest was the Fox News of the day. Mixed in with the pablum were attacks on Unions and the new deal . In 1945 RD. Publishing a condensed version of “The Road to Serfdom” a version that Hayek himself might have felt went too far in attacking Government intervention.
All equated Socialism with authoritarianism. Government intervention in markets with socialism. As others went as far as to equate Socialism with National Socialism because of the name. Regardless of the absurdity of that claim. The alternative to Government the wonders of the FREE Market . The genius of American Industry
The Vietnam war opened the door to Reagan and his most terrifying words being I am from the Government and I am here to help. But those seeds were planted decades before.
It’s been a very long time since anyone read Reader’s Digest. I know that anti-government rhetoric has a long history. It didn’t take root until the 80s.
dianeravitch
Exactly, a very long time since Readers Digest and a slew of other cultural influences were shaping opinion. So whose opinions were shaped. Not Gen Z and Millennials who voted with a 20 point margin for Biden. Boomers and Gen x .Born after the war with no memory of the depression. Remind me how these groups voted in 2016 -2020.
I acknowledge that the following explanation will be rejected in favor of the continued search for something more palatable.
1) The advancement of the nation under FDR was justified by the social gospel movement.
(2) Italian-American Democrats (lower socioeconomic class at the time) were given credit for FDR’s election.
(3) In the 60’s, whites were economically progressing in part because of the GI bill and mounting economic growth spurred by the demand for goods following WWII. Whites didn’t mind the lift in Black status as long as the disparity between the two had balance acceptable to them
(4) The Catholic vote shifted to GOP as their incomes grew.
(5) Reagan’s appointment of Scalia was a watershed decision. For description, read Ryan Girdusky’s interview with Pat Buchanan posted at the Buchanan site. The explanation was written in 2014.
(6) Koch (seeking his own goals) provided money for red state politics and he saw the national opportunity for influence via Catholic University and Georgetown -both located in D.C. The richest 0.1% tightened the economic screws creating an environment of the affluent and the poor which shrank the middle class. Fewer middle class Whites meant fewer moderate voters and more extreme opinions. As Obama said, when people are desperate, they turn to their Bibles and guns.
Prediction- The Hispanic vote will trend in the direction of the GOP Catholic votes. The details of the shift are dependent on the vagaries of the gains in income.
The correlations between Catholic dogma, the GOP and the aims of those who vote Republican likely include authoritarianism (as long as the voters see themselves as favored), patriarchy and social conformance. Adrian Vermuele, Michael Flynn, John Eastman and Steve Bannon provide examples of a segment that enjoys the feeling of superiority linked to how they perceive their religious sect.
Catholic voters nationwide are about 1/4 of the votes. Dismissing them on the grounds that there are different views within the sect, ignores the power of the church’s purse (state Catholic Conferences), the affiliated lay groups like the Knights of Columbus and, the wealthy Catholics like the Ricketts family who feel their Republican politics further God’s will.
Linda
You are not wrong in that description. The problem is as usual you leave out an entire movement in the Protestant church that moved toward prosperity gospel and away from social justice. Those seeds were planted in the 1950s and nurtured by Nam and its corporate moguls. By the time Falwell and co. show up there is a whole right wing infrastructure within the protestant church, vehemently libertarian in their philosophy ready to kick the moderates in the SCLC out the door. Except of course libertarian only until they are the Guberment.
Where you are certainly correct is that while the Christian Right has been seen as a Protestant movement the Catholic Church has been given a pass while doing great damage (ie. the Court)
I recommend a willingness to entertain the idea that the protestant evangelicals aren’t in the same league politically as the Catholic Church.
At VSquare, 7-6-2021, there is info about Ordo Iuris, founded in 2013 by a Catholic organization. It has connections to ADF. As a 2nd source that informs, those who want to learn, can read about the Holy See (p. 17) at the Oursplatform.org, Chap. 1, of “Rights at Risk: Observatory of Rights Trends Report.”
The Wikipedia entry for Austin Ruse (Opus Dei) introduces readers to the conservative players attempting under Trump to influence the U.N. Two of the American delegates to the UN Commission on the Status of Women were, first, Lisa Correnti, who was Director of Catholic Women’s Group and who led Catholic outreach to the 2008 GOP convention. And, the 2nd, was Grace Melton, who works at Koch’s Heritage in the DeVos Center for…Religion. She is on the Board of the Cardinal Kung Academy (Catholic) along with Sean Fieler, who provides funds and advocacy for the Catholic Church’s view of birth control.
Btw- Ruse said, “hard left, human-hating people who run modern universities …should be taken out and shot.” According to Wikipedia, Ruse attacked BLM and attributed George Floyd’s death to drug use. Ruse has advocated for the criminalization of homosexuality.
Exactly right, Joel
Agree with you, Joel. What are a few of the factors that you think account for the move to the right?
The American Oligarchy set the stage feeding the Public with a Right Wing philosophy which denigrated Unions, the New Deal and Government intervention in Markets ie. Labor laws environmental laws …
Equating Socialism with authoritarian and central state planning. Capitalism with Freedom and Democracy including freedom of Religion. All through the 20s ,30s and 40s. It mostly fell on deaf ears after the Crash. But it was heard none the less.
Till Vietnam and a real decline in living standards for Blue Collar Workers in the 70s and 80s. Left the working class looking for someone to blame and they were prepped to blame Government for decades. Reagan had an easy job after repeated oil shocks in the 70s .
So as not to plagiarize “The Big Myth “(How American Business Taught Us To Loathe Government and Love The Free Market) covers it in excellent detail.
It’s not just less time in history and civics classes that’s a problem, it’s that teachers don’t dare teach a lot of history and civics anymore for fear of being sued and/or fired.
Yup. I retired a few years ago. Among other things, I taught American lit classes, deeply informed by American history. If I were still teaching in Flor-uh-duh, I would probably be fired because I didn’t coat it with sugar and jingoistic nationalism.
TOW, yes! If you teach honest history and civics, you could be fired!!
Bob and Diane On teaching “honest history.” Apparently for Tucker Carlson and so many others on the right, there is no “honest.”
There is only the lib/democrats claiming that their view is honest, and so better than those on the right. To them, “honesty” is just another charlatan cover.
Under this thinking, ALL views are equal and so, after truth, honesty, etc., have lost their power, brute power is all that is left. This is one reason why evidence means nothing to them, and it’s why the next trick can only be a play for brute power. CBK