Response to Larry

“Why is it that, as a lawyer, I find that American government courses are oversimplified and have about the level of analysis found on a talk show?”

That’s kind of a sweeping statement, don’t you think? I’m just guessing here, but I’d be surprised if you’ve regularly attended more than one intro American government course in your life. Even if we include the non-intro classes (maybe you were a Poli Sci major), that would still likely add up to less than a dozen, all taught by faculty in the same department.

My experience in Poli Sci 101 was apparently much better than yours, which proves nothing, but it does demonstrate that there is variation in the complexity and levels of analysis available in the political science classroom.

There are two sets of relevant statistics cited or implied in this article. Those produced by the ISI are, in my view, automatically suspect. The ISI is a right-wing outfit whose platform is—and I exaggerate only slightly here—that everything about higher education, if not society, has declined since about 1950. As one of my American government teachers once told my class, be wary of any public opinion poll conducted on behalf of an interest group, particularly when the results of said poll dovetail with the group’s agenda.

The second set of statistics involves the electoral participation rates of young Americans. As you correctly point out, these have always been low, but they rise predictably as each cohort ages. There are plenty of reasons why this is the case, but none of them involve the unproven and unlikely decline in the quality of political science instruction.

You’re also quite correct that there are numerous ways to participate in the political system other than voting. Still, elections ultimately determine who will govern us, and that remains a consequential decision. Can anyone doubt that life in America would be much different today had George W. Bush not (choose one: won/stolen) the 2000 election against Al Gore? So I’m not sure what you mean when you say that “voting seems to be the act of one of the lower classes".

“Instead, I would urge professors to encourage their students – all students – to attend good law schools so that they can effectively engage democracy.”

Well, I’d certainly urge all Americans to take a good Constitutional Law/Civil Liberties course. I’m not so sure they’d benefit as much from, say, civil procedure. But I’m not sure how law school otherwise helps students to “engage democracy” more effectively than any other sort of post-graduate activity.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 8:40 am EST on November 6, 2007

Any rethinking of government studies should begin in high schools—especially the AP-type programs. Although I live-in the DC suburbs where politics is “bus-stop” talk, I have yet to meet a kid who thought their government classes in high school were anything but “hard and confusing"— this from kids who could all list at least 10 of the major parties” current primary candidates. When our brightest, most politically and issue-conscious kids consider AP high school government courses dull and irrelevent, something is lost well before these kids get to college.

sarah, mom, at 9:15 am EST on November 6, 2007

Response the Second

From Larry:

“But then, at the bottom of your post you showed that you really didn’t care for any degree of complexity or nuance: the elections were “stolen” by the candidate that you didn’t like.”

No, actually I didn’t say that at all. I said, “choose one: won/stolen". I was, perhaps, being a little flippant, but I was clearly taking neither side in a debate that has raged since December, 2000. As for the legal issues and the strategic decisions, you’re right, they went unaddressed. I rarely footnote my flippant comments, particularly when the legitimacy of the 2000 outcome wasn’t really central to my point. C’mon, this is a comment thread, not a courtroom (or classroom, for that matter).

“And, whatever the case, no matter who is president, it will be us – the lawyers – that make decisions.”

To some extent, that’s true, but not as much as you seem to think. Neither Bush nor Cheney is an attorney, and I think it’s fair to say that they’ve made their share of rather consequential decisions. In many of the most important issues of the past few years (warmaking, torture, domestic spying), the lawyers have simply been hired guns supplying each side with ammunition as the real decisions are made by politicians and their security advisers.

“The practice of law as well as government affairs (which is how people that need to achieve political goals achieve them) would not be radically different with Gore in office...”

I don’t know about the practice of law, but I find it ludicrous to suggest that public policy (which is what I assume you mean by “government affairs") would be no different if Al Gore had been president since January, 2001. For one thing, we almost certainly wouldn’t be fighting a war in Iraq. That may be a good or bad thing (see, fair and balanced), but it’s pretty important. I also suspect we would not currently be debating the legality of waterboarding, either, except perhaps as a purely academic issue. I suppose this may all come down to what you mean by “radically different", but if you are suggesting that the Bush presidency hasn’t changed America in very important ways (again, for better or worse), then I’m not sure where you set the bar. It is, in any event, a statement far more oversimplified that even the worst American government syllabus (of which you’ve apparent seen only “a couple", and never as a student).

Unapologetically Tenured, at 10:10 am EST on November 6, 2007

American government is not about being trendy

Professor Inbody, I am really curious as to how you know what the “What the Constitution really says”? Determining the meaning of the constitution has been probably the single biggest legal project ever undertaken in the US to date. Do you actually cover all that in one semester? Wow!

Considering that most people that actually need to achieve political ends have more sophisticated methods, registering to vote seems rather simplistic. In fact, would be embarrassed if my means of influencing democracy was limited to “voting” or “writing [unexpected] letters to Congresspeople.”

Let me suggest something to you about American government: stop trying to teach it. Undergraduate education should be about fundamental problems that later emerge in the study of government. This would require students to study hard philosophy and not simply read the newspaper or mouth a few platitudes.

Your idea about a “short” essay about a hot topic seems, well, insulting. First of all, undergrads should be capable of longer and more theoretical topics. Secondly, both topics you mentioned relate to an attempted abrogation of a decision by the Supreme Court, they require an understanding of the underlying decisions. Do you really expect your students to read and understand all of the underlying decisions, and understand their basis? Third, you seem to not particularly have any interest in more fundamental (but more nerdy) issues of separation of powers which would not be concurrently addressed by state constitutional rights? Is this deliberate. Or are you just trying to get students “interested” by teaching trendy things?

Unapologetically Tenured, Just a couple of quick notes. This administration has hired more attorneys then any other administration. Sure, Bush and Cheney are not lawyers, but their policies are made by them. Secondly, I don’t think that we can prove or disprove that things would be different with or without Bush. However, the trendy topics (such as water-boarding or warrantless surveillance) really have little or nothing to do with actual policy debates. Instead, they are 1) fodder for professors; or 2) policy ploys employed by one group or another.

Larry, at 5:10 pm EST on November 6, 2007