The Return of Civics

lewleadbeater.com

notes from the edge

Home

Email Me

Other Essays

The Return of Civics

May 14, 2002

In one of his recent speeches, President Bush advocated the re-introduction of civics classes into the curricula of public schools. Such classes were popular before the social and political revolutions of the 60s, and usually included material meant to teach students how the various levels of government worked and to what extent citizens were expected to participate in them. They were, essentially, non-partisan social studies courses with a political twist.

Since then, social studies courses in the public schools, as well as government courses in higher education, have included much of what constituted the old civics courses. Yet, though Bush and his education gurus have assured us that it is indeed the old civics courses that they wish to resurrect, we should be skeptical.

Coming on the heels of an unprecedented outpouring of patriotism and some of the highest presidential approval ratings ever recorded, this proposal may well be an attempt on the part of the administration to sustain an unacceptable level of nationalism and to assure an unthinking populous that, regardless of what our government does or doesn’t do in the field of foreign policy, we all have a responsibility to remain patriotically pledged to the moral rectitude of its intent.

Soon after the events of September 11, for instance, Bush announced that the core of his foreign policy was the capture of Osama bin Laden and his henchmen “dead or alive.” And to this we devoted thousands of troops and millions of dollars. Now, however, in May of 2002, we hear no mention of Osama bin Laden, and in fact our government has claimed that he is no longer important to the remodeling of Afghanistan.

True, we have installed a non-Taliban government in that weary country, but to what end?

It, like many countries in Africa and the Middle East, is comprised of a morass of tribal authorities who have no intention of ceding power to a central government, and there are still pockets of resistance which may be holed up on the Pakistani border for years to come. Yet we’ve heard nothing from the Bush administration about an endgame insofar as our participation in all this is concerned. Indeed, on May 13 Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announced that, as far as Afghanistan is concerned, “there will be no end.” He might well have added that, despite our attempt to fashion a new democratic nation out of the rubble of Kabul, there will be no end to terrorism either.

The present debacle in Israel and Palestine is adequate testimony to the fact that bombing and strafing cities and villages in the hopes of finding terrorists is a notion whose time has passed. Despite the fact that Israel has flattened Jenin and Nablus, Yasser Arafat still can’t bring himself to condemn his martyrs or Hamas. And why should he? What’s in it for him if he does? Even now the Israeli parliament under the faux leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu is proclaiming that they will never accept a Palestinian state.

Indeed our foreign policy relative to the Palestinian question has proven to be just as bankrupt as is our attempt to pacify Afghanistan.

Nevertheless we must remain patriotic, and we must be convinced that our war on terrorism is moving swiftly and efficiently to a positive conclusion. But how do we sustain such faith in this gallant war?

Well, we do it by promising that by this time next year we’ll once again be on the road to Baghdad.

Never mind that the public has been presented no evidence whatsoever that Iraq is back in the business of biological weapons, or any other weapons for that matter. Nor do we care that the United Nations and Iraq are now negotiating for the return of weapons inspectors. No, we have just announced perfunctorily that we shall be waging war on Iraq sometime next year because that country is part of the “axis of evil.” And that’s all the public needs to know to stay with the program of patriotism.

The war of Bush pere will now become the war of Bush fils, and he will bring it to its rightful conclusion by ridding the world of Saddam Hussein and replacing him with one of the “dissidents” with whom we’re now negotiating. And if this doesn’t sound like Afghanistan all over again, I don’t know what does.

Indeed, it’s nothing short of amazing how pipsqueak dictators like Hussein, Ghadaffi, Ortega and Castro tweak, rankle and twist the minds of Republican presidents. Yet they do, and in so doing they provide presidents like Reagan and the Bushes with the one thing vital to their foreign policy: an enemy. And make no mistake about it, with enemies come patriotism and high public approval ratings.

In fact, if I were Castro, I’d be a bit worried now, since the Bush administration recently issued a report claiming that Cuba was in the process of developing biological weapons, which may be the first indication that we’re contemplating an invasion of that country. If the foray into Iraq doesn’t quite work out, there’s always Castro’s little island to look forward to. And more patriotism, of course.

And that, I suspect, is what all this new civics business is about. What it won’t be about is asking serious questions and doing meaningful research into the real cause and effect relationship that drives administrations to sustain themselves on the ignorance of the people they serve.

Though Abraham Lincoln didn’t think that you could fool all of the people all of the time, the present administration is trying to do just that. Furthermore, its attempt to do so by concocting patriotic, pride-in-country civics courses is insulting, if not extremely dangerous.