Le Sabot Post-Moderne

Federalism has always been an idea that both sides could embrace. The problem arises when people use it as code for the Civil War being about states' rights to enslave or disenfranchise parts of the population, legalized segregation, making idiots out of our children by pushing creationism as equally acceptable as evolution in our school systems, enforced inequality, and other nonsense and horrors from our past. In those instances, the federal government needs to step in to enforce fairness and equality before the law as the law of the land. I especially like the idea of abolishing the military as a federal structure and just have the national guard. Then, each state can decide whether or not to commit its people based on whether there is a real threat or a lot of hot air being blown about by "toy soldier" Texans.

I like your comments a lot more when they don't dissolve into cant, like this one:

"I especially like the idea of abolishing the military as a federal structure and just have the national guard. . . a real threat or a lot of hot air being blown about by "toy soldier" Texans.

As for both sides supporting federalism, this is simply false. Modern liberalism has been essentially centralizing, seeing the federal government as a tool for the betterment of the country. This was an easy philosophy to hold when they held almost continuous congressional and Supreme Court majorities for about 40 years.

No one can look at what they've done to the Interstate Commerce Clause or substantive due pocess and aver with a straight face that they've "embraced federalism" in any real sense.

Your Creationism comment demonstrates how liberal talk of federalism is generally lip service. A majority of Americans support the teaching of Creationism along with Evolution. In some states, strong majorities do so. But you disagree, and would use the power of the federal government to overrule local choices.

If people aren't going to have a choice in something as fundamental as how they educate their children, in what meaningful sense are you using the word federalism?

I didn't say that liberals have supported federalism, I said that they could. There are instances, however, when the federal government needs to step in since states' rights arguments have all too often been cover for denying rights to people. That said, the federal constitution wasn't imposed on the states by some outside force, the representatives of each state vote on it. Win some, lose some.

Due process? You have a problem with fair and impartial trials? Interstate commerce? Thank god for uniformity in this case otherwise the US would still be a nightmare of transport and its economy would be comparable to that of California presently...maybe. So, if you're talking of federalism in an absolutist sense never intended by the Framers, no we won't agree.

The fact that a majority of Americans believe in creationism does not mean that we should be teaching it in school since school is a place to educate kids on facts and supportable theories, not religious doctrine. Of course, if a person wants their child(ren) to believe in creationism, they can do it at home or the kids can take a class on religious theory but leave the theology out of the science classes. This is a matter of national importance because the future of our country depends in large part on the education of our children. Further, while many people do want their kids to learn about creationism they agree that it should be left out of (at least, public) school curricula.

Kirill-

"There are instances, however, when the federal government needs to step in since states' rights arguments have all too often been cover for denying rights to people."

I agree.

"Due process? You have a problem with fair and impartial trials? Interstate commerce? Thank god for uniformity in this case otherwise the US would still be a nightmare of transport and its economy"

This is a weird paragraph for someone to write, if they knew anything about the subject at hand. First of all, I said "substantive" due process. Secondly, since you didn't know -- the Congress spent the last century using its Interstate Commerce clause to regulate virtually any aspect of state business it chose, because everything ultimately touches on interstate commerce, if you stretch it sufficiently.

"This is a matter of national importance because the future of our country depends in large part on the education of our children."

Except, of course, that education has always been a preserve of local control. You pay lip service to federalism, but would actually centralize things worse than they already are. Like most liberals, in my experience.

"The fact that a majority of Americans believe in creationism . . . educate kids on facts and supportable theories, not religious doctrine.

No, a majority favor teaching it in school, not just in general. Further, there are variants of Creationism that are both scientific and non-theological. Demonstrating evidence for planned design in nature is empirical, not religious. You may disagree with the conclusions they draw, but that doesn't change anything. And local parents should have a right to make that decision for their children -- not you.

Okay define substantive due process. Often this is cover for an anti-abortion rant but I'll abide.

As for interstate commerce laws, cover for anti-pollution legislation, for one, they have been more liberating than oppressive and the regulations, while excessive at times in their detail, do serve a point to make sure that businesses are responsible to the people they may affect. They have so reduced the costs of doing business across state lines that everyone has benefited.

Education has not always been the preserve of local control and local control has proved to be the wrong choice at times. It is the extent of local control that means there is such uneven education across the country and our children are educated, as an average, so porrly when stacked up against most developed economies.

I haven't seen the statistics on the majority wanting it taught in public schools. If that was the case, I doubt that this intelligence design (which has been empirically tested but not proved; it can't be because it is based on belief not the physical world as it is) would be banned from schools so often. Intelligent design is not non-theological...no way, no how.

Federalism rocks. Let's see some diversity between our states. What the Federalist papers refer to as "laboratories for democracies". Let's try different policies, compete amongst each other, and we as states will adopt those policies which we see garnering desirable results elsewhere.

This should NEVER have been a red-blue, left-right split. It's a series of historical coincidences, and a centralization of power resulting from the New Deal and WWII that made it so. It's time to rediscover our roots.

Disco and Kirill:

Why are US students so far behind students from the rest of the developed world? I taught for four years in Ukraine and now teach at a good state university in the USA, and (I'll tell ya) it's scary what our (USA) kids don't know.

I have asked my US students "What is a thrush" or "What form of government did France have [during the 1500's]"--and many other such questions--and gotten blank stares from THE ENTIRE CLASS.

My students also routinely misspell the name of the author we are studying, be it "Shakespear" or "Hemmingway." (Not that any one mistake is so bad, but why don't they that you should check out such things?)

And I won't even start on the math and science deficiencies of our students.

I know that it is a popular belief that Americans want "local control" over education. But is it really best to have a school board elected by the people--a school board which often consists of hardware store owners, housewives, and farmers who have never been to college--make decisions about curriculum and policy? And don't think that I'm denigrating farmers and housewives. My dad was an eigth-grade educated bricklayer--but he never served on the school board.

I think that more involvement by state and national leaders is needed to help raise the standards. Our kids deserve better for their own sake, as well as to help the USA compete in the international marketplace.

Joe,

Did you have particularly good students in Ukraine? My kids in Uzbekistan had enormous knowledge gaps and zero critical thinking skills. I'm pretty down on US students, but they're better than what I saw in Uzbekistan.

Your point about not making education an entirely local issue is well-taken, but if the feds and the state are missing the point, they won't help much either. In fact, I think that school systems in the former Soviet Union make it pretty clear that universal standards can lead to universally bad schooling. My successful and smart Uzbek students had remarkably similar characteristics to good students here. They were motivated and encouraged by parents who set standards and were invested in their success. Schools can play that role to a point, but I'm much more confident that local pressure as opposed to federal pressure will make this happen.

The problem with the schools here (Ukraine) as in most parts of the former Soviet Union is they teach what to think rather than how to think. Of course, this is my biggest problem with NCLB since it forces students to learn the test and they're too busy learning what to think. We have lost the idea that there is a difference between knowledge and intelligence preferring to be a trivia nation and leaving ourselves behind in the world.

I don't think that's necessarily a problem of NCLB. It's more a problem of how school districts and teachers decide to meet the standards that NCLB sets. There definitely should be standards. I firmly believe that the biggest problems with schools here and kids in general is the lack of expectations and the idea effort should be rewarded as much as outcomes.

One thing in particular I like about NCLB (and something that says to me centralized policy can be good to a degree) is its emphasis on proven methodologies. About half our kids in public schools here in Philadelphia can't read at grade level. At work, we've put kids in a program that stresses phonics and phonemic awareness instruction among other things--both of which have research to back them up--and seen incredible turnarounds.

From what I gather, talk of federalism has been an utter sham from *both* sides, for a long *long* time.

Example in point: Civil-war era talk of states' rights, that "states' right" being ofcourse slavery. But when the South broke away and created its own constitution, the individual Confederacy states had even *fewer* rights on the issue of slavery: they were obliged to support slavery. So much for "states's rights"

I think the idea of federalism-as-sham is almost inevitable in USA because of two factors:
1. the two-party system
2. combined with the fact that there are only only two dominant geographically separated cultures striving for supremacy. (from what I gather only a handful states might be considered of having unique cultures that differentiate them significantly from their neighbours -- places like Utah or Hawai, and they don't play strong enough a role to make a difference)

With each party having formed strongholds where each of these cultures (liberal coastal, conservative Southern) are strongest, there doesn't seem much reason for a dominant (nationwide) party to be federalist. Federalism always seems to be the argument of the party that loses in the national elections.

(though Republicans and Democrats have switched once or twice over which is supported by the "Northern" liberal culture and which by the "Southern" conservative culture)

Anyway, both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this. For example, that whole proposed Defense of Marriage Amendment?

Now compare with Europe and the EU -- here because there are dozens of different cultures (groups of nations divided by different lines over religion, ethnicity, societal and economic liberalism, historical attitudes of military neutrality or not) you have both left-wing and right-wing people opposing further EU integration and likewise both left-wing and right-wing people supporting it. It's a subject that divides parties internally; people that might support largely the same issues may object on whether they should be handled by the EU or nationally.

It's not just about which side is dominant because there don't exist only *two* sides.

I've rambled a bit and am not sure if I'm made myself clear. Sorry.

Kirill:
Yeah, I've heard that many times--Soviet schools drilled in facts by rote, while American schools teach critical thinking. Excuse me while I sneeze at that.
As Nathan points out, we aren't even teaching our kids to read. Ukraine has a 98% literacy rate. That's a good start. Notice that only when state and national (No Child Left Untested) folks got involved that the "local" folks finally got these wonderful new researched methods and started putting them into practice.
And what if the local folks, as in many rural poor and inner city neighborhoods, don't value education? Just let those kids do without?

Just my thoughts; I don't claim to have all the answers. But I do think more state and national leadershi--even just moral support and bully pulpiteering--would be a good idea.