Tuesday, April 17, 2007
"Near Dictatorial Power"
Please read this article at Salon by Glenn Greenwald. It talks about a disturbing view among neo-cons that the president has "near dictatorial" (read: dictatorial) power in conducting war and foreign policy. Greenwald does a good job of refuting it. I thought this paragraph was particularly well argued and resonant:
What the actual Americans who founded the country feared (as opposed to "hoped for and craved") was that the President would wield "near dictatorial power." Anyone with doubts should simply read Article II -- defining the powers of the President -- and see how limited those powers are. Even the glorious sounding power of "Commander-in-Chief" is, as Scalia noted, nothing more than the power, when Congress decides to fund a military and when it authorizes the use of military force, to act as top General directing troop movements and the like. In all other respects, those powers are checked, regulated and limited by the people through their Congress.
Additionally, in the MetaFilter thread about these guys, in which the above article was linked, Mefite kirkaracha quotes Teddy Roosevelt:
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
I don't suppose Bush, Cheney, etc. have used the word "treason" to describe disagreeing with them yet, but "cowardly," "unpatriotic," and- most disturbingly- "helpful to our enemies" have been flying around a lot. I hate this administration.
What the actual Americans who founded the country feared (as opposed to "hoped for and craved") was that the President would wield "near dictatorial power." Anyone with doubts should simply read Article II -- defining the powers of the President -- and see how limited those powers are. Even the glorious sounding power of "Commander-in-Chief" is, as Scalia noted, nothing more than the power, when Congress decides to fund a military and when it authorizes the use of military force, to act as top General directing troop movements and the like. In all other respects, those powers are checked, regulated and limited by the people through their Congress.
Additionally, in the MetaFilter thread about these guys, in which the above article was linked, Mefite kirkaracha quotes Teddy Roosevelt:
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
I don't suppose Bush, Cheney, etc. have used the word "treason" to describe disagreeing with them yet, but "cowardly," "unpatriotic," and- most disturbingly- "helpful to our enemies" have been flying around a lot. I hate this administration.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Political Blogging? Political Blogging, Indeed.
I read an op-ed piece in the Washington Post yesterday that really got me thinking. Thinking to the point that I'm willing to break my outrageously long and lazy silence and blog about the thoughts I had. I know. Crazy. The piece is by Andrew Coulson of the Cato Institute (The WaPo says he blogs here). It's a screed against national curriculum standards, as introduced in a bill sponsored bSen.en. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Rep. Vernon Ehlers of Michigan. Before I go any further, you should know that the standards the bill proposes would be voluntary- a fact Coulson never mentions. I'm slightly ambivalent about the standards themselves, though I think I lean slightly in favor of them. What I really took issue with in Coulson's piece is the euphemisms he employs to essentially argue for the maintenance of the classist, racist status quo. Coulson has no interest in assuring that every American child receives the excellent education he or she deserves. Instead, he uses terms like "a diverse menu of schools" with different specializations to argue for tracking poor students into the menial jobs he sees as necessary for the continuation of the American market economy and the enrichment of the already-wealthy.
Coulson writes:
Specialization and the division of labor are essential to the effectiveness of the market. If all schools conformed to a single curriculum, it would drastically reduce their ability to compete and thus their incentives to improve. Instead of a diverse menu of schools specializing in fine arts, applied sciences, or international relations, families would be offered a uniform educational gruel.
This is where Coulson's true motivation show through most clearly. Specialization and the division of labor, of course, refer to the fact that there always has to be someone around to pick up after the wealthy people. There are always going to be shitty jobs and we might as well just train our dimmest bulbs to be ready for them. Coulson, however, pretends that this is not what means. Instead he lists a few subject areas in which American students would be able to specialize, but only without national curricululm standards. He seems to think of national standards not as minimums- places where the educational bars are set- but as maximums- limits on what children may learn under federal mandate. It is a fairly classic pro-status quo argument: Why bring everybody down to the lowest level (by serving them "a uniform educational gruel")? There are always going to be some people who are just better!
What Coulson fails to realize, however, is that national standards would simply ensure that all American students achieve certain benchmarks in reading and math. They would not serve in the least to limit the pursuit of education in the fine arts, foreign relations, or even automobile maintenance. Once the national standards are met, schools will be free to provide whatever electives and curricularculars they wish to and can afford. Don't worry, Mr. Coulson- even with national standards, wealthy students in excellent schools would still be able to leave their poor counterparts in the chalkboard dust.
Coulson tells us that a national curriculum would "[place] all intellectual eggs in the same basket." This would prevent competition, he says, and magnify the negative effects of a poor decision by the policy-makers designing the curriculum. Aside from the implication in his metaphor that bad eggs should be weeded out, there are other problems with his thinking here. He is again seeing the standardsceilingieling instead of a platform. He ignores the possibilities for differentiation both within and above and beyond the requirements of the curriculum. Schools that disagree with the national curriculum could always opt out- don't forget, as Coulson would have you do, that it is voluntary. Additionally, schools that wished to and had the resources could implement a limitless variety of instruction to enrich and expand upon the national standards. By ignoring this fact, Coulson allows himself to argue against the standards and mask his true reason for doing so: the maintenance of the status quo.
Coulson writes:
Specialization and the division of labor are essential to the effectiveness of the market. If all schools conformed to a single curriculum, it would drastically reduce their ability to compete and thus their incentives to improve. Instead of a diverse menu of schools specializing in fine arts, applied sciences, or international relations, families would be offered a uniform educational gruel.
This is where Coulson's true motivation show through most clearly. Specialization and the division of labor, of course, refer to the fact that there always has to be someone around to pick up after the wealthy people. There are always going to be shitty jobs and we might as well just train our dimmest bulbs to be ready for them. Coulson, however, pretends that this is not what means. Instead he lists a few subject areas in which American students would be able to specialize, but only without national curricululm standards. He seems to think of national standards not as minimums- places where the educational bars are set- but as maximums- limits on what children may learn under federal mandate. It is a fairly classic pro-status quo argument: Why bring everybody down to the lowest level (by serving them "a uniform educational gruel")? There are always going to be some people who are just better!
What Coulson fails to realize, however, is that national standards would simply ensure that all American students achieve certain benchmarks in reading and math. They would not serve in the least to limit the pursuit of education in the fine arts, foreign relations, or even automobile maintenance. Once the national standards are met, schools will be free to provide whatever electives and curricularculars they wish to and can afford. Don't worry, Mr. Coulson- even with national standards, wealthy students in excellent schools would still be able to leave their poor counterparts in the chalkboard dust.
Coulson tells us that a national curriculum would "[place] all intellectual eggs in the same basket." This would prevent competition, he says, and magnify the negative effects of a poor decision by the policy-makers designing the curriculum. Aside from the implication in his metaphor that bad eggs should be weeded out, there are other problems with his thinking here. He is again seeing the standardsceilingieling instead of a platform. He ignores the possibilities for differentiation both within and above and beyond the requirements of the curriculum. Schools that disagree with the national curriculum could always opt out- don't forget, as Coulson would have you do, that it is voluntary. Additionally, schools that wished to and had the resources could implement a limitless variety of instruction to enrich and expand upon the national standards. By ignoring this fact, Coulson allows himself to argue against the standards and mask his true reason for doing so: the maintenance of the status quo.
