Teaching the Holocaust in Florida…and Everywhere Else

Posted on July 9, 2019 by stevemasy

You may have recently seen news reports about a principal in the Palm Beach area who suggested that because there were those that question the Holocaust, he had to be ‘neutral’ in any instruction or approach to learning about the Holocaust. This principal has since been reassigned and the district has recommitted itself to improving instruction on the Holocaust, as mandated by Florida statute.

Senator Marco Rubio plans on introducing the ‘Never Again Act’ which will “help states obtain resources from the U.S. Department of Education to teach students about the Holocaust.” This can only be a good thing. But it also reflects the position of both the Florida Council for the Social Studies and the National Council for the Social Studies that more and better resources must be provided to ensure adequate instruction about the Holocaust. Last year, the Florida Council submitted to NCSS the following resolution, intended to prevent errors in judgement as seen in Palm Beach:

Resolution # 18-03-1
Advocating Improved Holocaust Education and the Provision of Necessary Resources
Sponsor: Florida Council for the Social Studies

Co-Sponsors: Colorado Council for the Social Studies, Connecticut Council for the Social Studies, Wisconsin Council for the Social Studies, Human Rights Education Community

Rationale: Recent events in Florida, Virginia, and elsewhere in the United States have raised questions about the ways in which we as educators approach and teach the events of the Holocaust.1
As of 2017, only eight states mandate instruction on the Holocaust, and increasingly we as citizens and educators are losing access to those survivors and eyewitnesses, living primary sources who can serve as resources for education and remembrance.2
Research suggests that in some cases, when it is taught, the approach often focuses on shock value and shallow interpretations rather than roots and policies. At the
same time, the Holocaust is often approached as a “controversial issue” that requires “balance.”3
As social studies educators, we have an obligation to understand what we are teaching to
confront the facts of events like the Holocaust. Educators must be knowledgeable, understand the purpose and function of Holocaust education, and use age-appropriate materials to ensure that students gain a comprehensive understanding of
this dark time in world history.4

WHEREAS: anti-Semitic acts of violence are on the rise in the United States, reaching nearly 2,000 unique events in 2017, according to the Anti-Defamation League 5; and

WHEREAS: in contradiction to the limited state policies that do exist, some district and school administrations throughout the country have suggested that educators approach the Holocaust as a “controversial issue” that requires “balance,” while general knowledge about the Holocaust continues to decline; and

WHEREAS: a number of excellent, proven, and grade level appropriate resources exist for teaching about the Holocaust; and

WHEREAS: the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) has an obligation to support accurate quality instruction and to support members in the field;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that NCSS support the teaching of the Holocaust as an absolute fact without mitigating circumstances that require a consideration of “balance”; establish a clearinghouse of resources and instructional tools on socialstudies.org that can be used to teach about the Holocaust; support professional development opportunities that will improve teacher understanding of the Holocaust; and support a 50-state effort to mandate quality K-12 Holocaust education.

Notes
1. Colleen Wright and Marlene Sokol, “What Teachers Can and Can’t Say. Did a
Citrus County Educator’s Podcast Cross the Line?” Tampa Bay Times (March
6 2018), http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/What-teachers-can-and-can-tsay-Did-a-Citrus-County-educator-s-podcast-cross-the-line-_166092840 and Emma
Green, “Why the Charlottesville Marchers Were Obsessed with Jews,” The
Atlantic (August 15, 2017), http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/nazisracism-charlottesville/536928/
2. New Campaign Seeks to Mandate Holocaust Education in all 50 States, www.
notthelastbutterfly.com/50-state-initiative.html
3. Louis Llovio, “Teaching the Complexities of the Holocaust a Challenge for
Teachers,” Richmond Times-Dispatch (Oct. 25, 2015), http://www.richmond.com/news/
local/education/city-of-richmond/teaching-the-complexities-of-the- holocaust-achallenge-for-teachers/article_83ad4ee0-a0b9-5646-a644-6e7abfd37f08.html;
Aleksander Kwasniewski, “On Holocaust Education” Opinion, The New York
Times (June 28, 2010), http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/opinion/29iht-edcounter.
html and Maggie Astor, “Holocaust Is Fading From Memory, Survey Finds,”
The New York Times (April 12, 2018), http://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/us/
holocaust-education.html.
4. D. Lindquist, “A Necessary Holocaust Pedagogy: Teaching the Teachers,” Issues
in Teacher Education 16, no. 1 (2007): 21–36. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
EJ796255.pdf
5. 2017 Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents, http://www.adl.org/resources/reports/2017-auditof-anti-semitic-incidents

As the resolution suggests, social studies teachers in Florida are dedicated to teaching the Holocaust as it deserves to be taught, and we must be clear that this is not an issue that requires ‘balance’ in instruction. Rather, it is an evil to which we say “Never Again”, and that “Never Again” can only be achieved through proper instruction, preparation, and resources, both in Florida and nationwide.

New Paper: Participatory Budgeting Improves Civic Voices and Tax Revenues

Posted on July 9, 2019 by Keiva Hummel

NCDD member organization The Participatory Budgeting Project recently shared a new research paper on how participatory budgeting (PB) has been linked to improved civic engagement and increased tax revenue. PB is a process where community members vote on how to spend a portion of public dollars and is increasingly being attributed to bolstering peoples’ faith and practice in local governance. The article written by Loren Peabody shares the research of Michael Touchton, Brian Wampler, and Tiago Peixoto, who found that when people have the opportunity to give input on government spending, they are also more willing to pay their taxes. You can read the article below and find the original on the PBP’s blog here.

New Studies: PB Increases Tax Revenue as it Grows the Number of Voices in Government

New ideas often get a skeptical response, and participatory budgeting (PB) is no exception. One common doubt: while PB may be admirable, unfortunately governments just can’t afford it.

A new World Bank working paper by Michael Touchton, Brian Wampler, and Tiago Peixoto concludes just the opposite — PB and participatory institutions actually improve government balance sheets by boosting residents’ willingness to pay taxes. While most strategies for improving tax compliance rely on tougher enforcement or easier filing processes, these researchers provide evidence that people more readily pay their share of taxes when they feel they have a voice in the policy-making process and when they believe that governments are more transparent and deliver better services.

The study investigates a database of 5,570 Brazilian municipalities over a 13-year period, an ideal setting to see if participatory institutions have an impact on tax collection for several reasons. First, Brazilian cities have more legal autonomy and greater responsibility for delivering public services than municipal governments in the United States. One outcome of this autonomy was participatory budgeting itself–first developed in Porto Alegre in 1989 before spreading across the country. What’s less well known is that Brazil has also been a leader in developing public policy councils, which are co-governance institutions made up of officials and members of the public that formulate policy and oversee government performance.

Finally, Brazilian cities vary widely in the quality of their governance and their ability to collect tax revenue. Some municipalities have received considerable acclaim for their public administration. Curitiba, for example, has won awards for its sustainability and transportation planning. Others display a dynamic that is all-too-common in developing countries: poorly functioning governments lose public legitimacy, making individuals reluctant to pay their taxes and leading to a downward spiral as the government can’t obtain the revenue needed to improve performance.

Touchton, Wampler, and Peixoto find that both forms of participatory institutions — policy councils and participatory budgeting — have a positive and statistically-significant association with collecting more tax revenue. Municipalities with higher-than-average use of policy councils collect 27% more tax revenue than cities without the councils (averaged across different measures of tax collection). The relationship is even stronger with participatory budgeting: “On average, municipalities with PB have tax outcomes that are 34% greater than those without PB… [and] municipalities with PB for over 8 years have tax outcomes that are 39% greater than those without PB.”

Causation? Or Coincidence?

A skeptical reader would wonder exactly how the causation works here. It could be that some unobserved factor improves tax collection practices and simultaneously prompts governments to adopt PB and policy councils — rather than the participatory institutions being the cause of the improvement. To minimize this possibility, the researchers used a statistical technique called matching that pairs up cities that are similar in terms of their local economic and political conditions and in terms of proxy measures for their administrative capacity, but that differ with respect to whether or not they implemented participatory institutions.

In contrast to surveys or lab experiments, a strength of this research design is the ability to show that a link between public participation, good governance, and tax compliance can be observed in the real world. On the other hand, the study’s real-world setting could also mean that the findings only apply to the Brazilian context. To investigate the generalizability of these relationships, Tiago Peixoto teamed up with Fredrik M. Sjoberg, Jonathan Mellon, Johannes Hemker, and Lily L. Tsai for an additional study that performed an online survey experiment involving 65,000 respondents from 50 different countries. It found that across widely disparate contexts, individuals were more likely to report a stronger commitment to tax compliance when they are given an opportunity to voice their preferences about government spending (a simple simulation of taking part in PB).

Of all PB’s positive impacts that researchers have been documenting–including increased public investment in low-income communities, more active civil society, higher voter turnout, improved public health and well-being — improved tax collection may have the most impact of all, by increasing the total revenue available to address public needs. It can also help buttress the argument that deep, equitable democratic participation is valuable in itself by showing it is also a practical solution to some key problems cities face. As Touchton, Wampler, and Peixoto put it, “Governments that adopt participatory institutions make investments in democratic accountability and legitimacy that pay dividends in tax revenue. In turn, more revenue can increase the capacity to deliver better services, which begets still more legitimacy.”

You can find the original version of this article on the Participatory Budgeting Project’s blog at www.participatorybudgeting.org/pb-and-tax-revenue/.

how to improve the civil society of a school

Posted on July 8, 2019 by Peter

Students learn to be citizens by joining, forming, leading, and influencing extracurricular groups in their own schools. A school’s whole array of groups is its “civil society.” The number, diversity, reach, purpose, vitality, and interconnection of these groups is important for youth development, generally, and for civic education, in particular.

Discussing this topic with teachers this morning, I received an excellent question. How should we encourage all students to participate? What should we do about the fact that 9th-graders sign up for many groups but membership trails off fast? How about the students who are too busy because they work? And what about the kid who wears headphones all day and just doesn’t want to connect?

I think I began my reply with two caveats. First, I don’t know how to motivate teenagers nearly as well as teachers do. And second, some kids really may face serious barriers to membership, no matter how hard you try to include them.

That said, the challenges of a school’s civil society are like those of any civil society. Like teenagers, adults exhibit different degrees of commitment. They drop out when they lose interest or as a response to disagreements. Many free-ride, staying in a group to get its benefits without doing a fair share of the work. Some work extra hard and well but aren’t noticed.

Addressing these problems constitutes Alexis de Tocqueville’s “art and science of association.” It’s never easy but there are good practices. Impose regular penalties for non-contribution but make initial penalties very light so that they are actually enforced and violators can recover easily from being penalized. Keep a clear and public list of who belongs and who doesn’t and clarify what constitutes membership versus exit. Rotate responsibilities. Incorporate low-cost methods of monitoring compliance, such as sign-in sheets. Implement efficient mechanisms for conflict-resolution. (For these principles, see, among other sources: Ostrom, Elinor. “Design principles and threats to sustainable organizations that manage commons.” Santiago, Chile, March. 1999.)

Learning these practices is a core task of civic education. We traditionally learn them only from experience, but it is possible to learn some of them from texts and discussion. Students who learn to lead groups are better placed than any adults to actually generate viable groups in their own schools. Thus I would recommend teaching strategies for recruitment and group-management explicitly, and then encouraging student leaders to be primarily responsible for the vitality of their own civil society.

Ben Franklin Circles Announces Free Online Course Series

Posted on July 8, 2019 by Keiva Hummel

Our friends at Ben Franklin Circles shared this announcement with us about an exciting new online course they are launching at the end of July! This free course series will offer the opportunity to learn with a cohort about how to start and convene your own Ben Franklin Circle. Classes will be online every Thursday and registrants will receive a copy of Priya Parker’s book, The Art of Gathering. Registration closes July 19th, so don’t delay! If you do participate, we encourage you to share with us how it goes in the comments section below or by reaching out to keiva@ncdd.org! We’d love to hear about it and potentially share it on the blog. You can learn more about the Circle class in the post below and find the original information on the BFC site here.

Free class helps you start your own Circle

We are excited to announce that we will be kicking off something new this July – an online course in starting a Ben Franklin Circle! (New to Ben Franklin Circles? Visit our homepage.)

Have you considered hosting but first want to familiarize yourself with the format? Or want a little more guidance on how to make it a success? Join us for this opportunity to go through the process with a small cohort of other hosts who are also just beginning. Over six sessions, you’ll assemble your group, plan and hold your first meeting, and get real-time feedback along the way. By the end, you’ll have your Circle up-and-running and have a community of peers to turn to for support and inspiration as you go.

Like everything BFC, you can think of what is offered like an outfit that you try on, keep what you like, let go of the rest, and as always, include your own style.

How will it work? Starting Thursday, July 25th, 6 one-hour zoom video sessions will walk participants through the process of starting a circle. Led by experienced Ben Franklin Circle Host, Kim Crowley, each session is a chance to share your progress, workshop questions and exchange feedback on everything from location to the plan for your first meeting.

Who is it designed for?
This course is for those who:

Have decided to start a Ben Franklin Circle.
Will organize their Circle as we go.
Will host a first meeting in the Fall of 2019. The class will set you up to do this. Those with earlier start dates are also welcome!
Plan to attend all 6 sessions.
Are open to receiving and giving thoughtful feedback.

Start a Ben Franklin Circle Over six sessions, you’ll assemble your Circle, plan and hold your first meeting, and get real-time feedback along the way. By the end, you’ll have your Circle up-and-running and have a community of peers to turn to for support and inspiration as you go. Led by experienced Ben Franklin Circle Host, Kim Crowley, each session is a chance to share your progress, workshop questions and exchange feedback on everything from location to the plan for your first meeting.

Participants receive a free copy of The Art of Gathering: How We Meet and Why It Matters. Author Priya Parker explores how to create a meaningful gathering with helpful tips and a wide range of examples.

Schedule
Every other Thursday from 7:00-8:00 pm EST (6:00 CT, 5:00 MT, 4:00 PT)

Session 1: July 25th. Talking about BFC and recruiting members
Session 2: August 8th Outreach and invitations
Session 3: August 22nd Location, scheduling & engagement
Session 4: September 5th Recruitment check-in
Session 5: September 19th Plan for 1st meeting
Session 6: Nov 7th Check-in, recap and celebrate!

Registration
Complete an application and sign up HERE

Registration deadline: Friday, July 19th.
Space is limited. This is a free course.

Direct questions or inquiries to Danyel Addes at daddes@92y.org

You can find the original version of this announcement on the BFC blog at www.benfranklincircles.org/tips-advice/online-class.

Wednesday Webinar Roundup for Dialogue & Deliberation

Posted on July 3, 2019 by Keiva Hummel

Summer is a great opportunity to build your skill toolbox and this week’s roundup features many opportunities coming up! We encourage you to check out these events from NCDD sponsor org The Courageous Leadership Project, NCDD member organizations MetroQuest, Living Room Conversations, and National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI), as well as, from the International Associate for Public Participation (IAP2) and the Tamarack Institute.

NCDD’s online D&D event roundup is a weekly compilation of the upcoming events happening in the digital world related to dialogue, deliberation, civic tech, engagement work, and more! Do you have a webinar or other digital event coming up that you’d like to share with the NCDD network? Please let us know in the comments section below or by emailing me at keiva[at]ncdd[dot]org, because we’d love to add it to the list!

Upcoming Online D&D Events: The Courageous Leadership Project, MetroQuest, Living Room Conversations, NIFI, IAP2, Tamarack Institute

Online Living Room Conversation: The America We Want to Be – 90-Minute Conversation w/ Optional 30-Minute Bonus Round!

Wednesday, July 3rd
4 pm Pacific, 7 pm Eastern

When the Declaration of Independence was written, not everyone was included in the famous statement about “pursuit of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” And while the aspirations expressed in our founding documents resonate for some more than others, there are many views regarding the degree to which we have advanced these aspirations for everyone. Some focus more on the great strides we have made; others point to how far we still need to go. Some believe that focusing on the past prevents forward progress; others think we still need to come to terms with our shadow side. Here is the conversation guide.

REGISTER: www.livingroomconversations.org/event/the-america-we-want-to-be-90-minute-conversation-w-optional-30-minute-bonus-round/

July CGA Forum Series: Coming to America: Who Should We Welcome? What Should We Do?

Saturday, July 6th
3 pm Pacific, 6 pm Eastern

Please join us for a Common Ground for Action (CGA) online deliberative forum on Saturday July 6th at 6pm ET/3p PT on the issue of “Coming to America: Who Should We Welcome? What Should We Do?” If you haven’t had a chance to review the issue guide, you can find a downloadable PDF copy at the NIF website: https://www.nifi.org/es/issue-guide/coming-america

REGISTER: www.nifi.org/en/events/july-cga-forum-series-coming-america-who-should-we-welcome-what-should-we-do

Tamarack Webinar – Bridging the Gap: Repairing Relationships for Stronger Community Engagement

Tuesday, July 9th
9 am Pacific, 12 pm Eastern

Can online meetings be as engaging and productive as face-to-face meetings? Maggie Chumbley believes the answer is absolutely yes! Maggie’s experience is that, in fact, online meetings can actually be better than meeting in person if they are designed and hosted skillfully. In this webinar, Maggie will highlight helpful tools and online platforms that she relies on to ensure the virtual meetings she facilitates foster connection, create shared learning and generate results. Participants will learn tactics, tips and advice for overcoming common challenges of engaging everyone; sharing visuals; perceiving subtle social cues and getting real work done together.

REGISTER: http://events.tamarackcommunity.ca/webinar-hosting-great-virtual-meetings

Online Living Room Conversation: Communicating with Care – 90-Minute Conversation w/Optional 30-Minute Q&A w/Hosts!

Tuesday, July 9th
10 am Pacific, 1 pm Eastern

We may want to communicate with others in such a way that we gain knowledge and bridge divides, but those conversations don’t always come naturally. Most of us struggle to self-evaluate our communication skills and we might be unaware of words and actions that shut down healthy dialogue when discussing divisive issues. In this conversation, we will actively share and explore what works and what doesn’t, and we will reflect on ways that we can improve our interactions with others. Here is the conversation guide.

REGISTER: www.livingroomconversations.org/event/communicating-with-care-90-minute-conversation-w-optional-30-minute-qa-w-hosts/

IAP2 Monthly Webinar: Victoria Encore – “Not Just Dragons”: A Model For Inclusive Engagement With Communities Of Colour

Tuesday, July 9th
11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern

Once again, we’re excited to present one of the session presentations at the 2018 IAP2 North American Conference, that attendees told us would make a good Learning Webinar. In this, Miranda Eng, senior consultant at Context Research, will share recent collaborative work with community members from Vancouver’s Chinatown to co-create a model to guide culturally respectful planning and design of engagement processes. Engaging cultural communities is crucial yet complex. When public processes have failed to be inclusive, we’ve seen civic distrust and a loss of community support for projects and plans. So what can inclusive engagement in cultural communities look like? How might we go beyond platitudes of ‘diversity and inclusion’? How might some tactics that we typically rely on be considered disrespectful?

REGISTER: https://iap2usa.org/event-3167679

The Courageous Leadership Project webinar – Brave, Honest Conversations

Wednesday, June 10th
9 am Pacific, 12 pm Eastern

Some conversations are hard to have. Fear and discomfort build in your body and you avoid and procrastinate or pretend everything is fine. Sometimes you rush in with urgency, wanting to smooth things over, fix them, and make them better. Sometimes you go to battle stations, positioning the conversation so you have a higher chance of being on the “winning” side. NONE OF THIS WORKS. Instead, it usually makes a hard conversation harder; more divided, polarized, and disconnected from others. The more people involved, the harder the conversation can be. I believe that brave, honest conversations are how we solve the problems we face in our world – together.

In this webinar, we will cover: What is a Brave, Honest Conversation? Why have one? What can change because of a brave, honest conversation? How do you have one? What do you need to think about and do? How do you prepare yourself for a brave, honest conversation?

REGISTER: www.bravelylead.com/events/bhcfreewebinar

Online Living Room Conversation: Digital Dialogue – 90-Minute Conversation w/ Optional 30-Minute Bonus Round!

Thursday, July 11th
4 pm Pacific, 7 pm Eastern

We are in an age of wonder and amazement with technology. It can go anywhere with us and we can be reachable at any time. We use technology to order our groceries, navigate our cities, keep up with breaking news, family members living away and in some cases remain connected to our politicians and faith-based communities. So many of us are reachable and can respond immediately to beeping, buzzing, and ringing of texts, emails and phone calls. We like what we feel when our phones ring or ping us with a new message and that makes us want more. Some experts have suggested that technology is controlling us, that we have lost control of it…like an addiction. Is technology our friend, the life-saving tool of the 21st Century or a manipulator of our minds and master of our time? Who is in charge? Hereis the conversation guide.

REGISTER: www.livingroomconversations.org/event/tribalism-101-90-minute-conversation-w-optional-30-minute-bonus-round/

SPECIAL Online Living Room Conversation: Race and Ethnicity Conversation Series

Tuesday, July 16th
10 am Pacific, 1 pm Eastern

Please join us for a 3-conversation series on Race & Ethnicity taking place over the course of three weeks (July 16, 23, & 30, 2:00 – 3:30pm ET / 11:00 am – 12:30 pm PT). Check out this four-minute video from a previous Race & Ethnicity Conversation Series to get a taste of this conversation! In this series of three in-depth conversations, participants explore the complexities of the concepts of Race, Ethnicity, and their impacts on people from all walks of life. We will cover new questions from the three Race & Ethnicity conversation guides found here.

REGISTER: https://www.livingroomconversations.org/event/special-online-living-room-conversation-race-and-ethnicity-conversation-series-2/

MetroQuest webinar – Beyond Fear:
Public Views on Emerging Transportation Technologies

Wednesday, July 17th
11 am Pacific | 12 pm Mountain | 1 pm Central | 2 pm Eastern (1 hour)
Educational Credit Available (APA AICP CM)
Complimentary (FREE)

Technologies are transforming the future of transportation, but are your residents ready for innovations like self-driving vehicles? It’s time to go beyond the hype and fears by uncovering true public priorities. Join NCDOT on July 17th as its forward-thinking team reveals what 10,000+ residents in North Carolina want for the future of their transportation system.

Jamille, Nastasha, and Colin will share the input they captured online. Should tax credits or infrastructure be prioritized to support an electric vehicle boom and achieve zero emissions? Are citizens more concerned with tech failures causing accidents or ensuring equitable access to mobililty innovations? Effective public engagement was critical to getting answers.

REGISTER: http://go.metroquest.com/NCDOT-Beyond-Fear-Public-Views-on-Emerging-Transportation-Technologies.html

July CGA Forum Series: Shaping Our Future

Wednesday, July 17th
5 pm Pacific, 8 pm Eastern

Please join us for a Common Ground for Action (CGA) online deliberative forum on Wednesday July 17th @ 8pm ET/5p PT on ” Shaping Our Future: How Should Higher Education Help Us Create the Society We Want?”

REGISTER: www.nifi.org/en/events/june-cga-forum-series-climate-choices-how-should-we-meet-challenges-warming-planet

the ethics of playing hardball with the federal budget

Posted on July 1, 2019 by Peter

Congress must pass appropriation bills by late September and must raise the debt limit by about Oct. 1 to allow the government to pay its bills. Failure to do either will have substantial economic impact. Neglecting to raise the debt limit could be catastrophic, since the federal government has never defaulted before.

A solution could either be a real agreement or a mere patch–a bill that continues current spending levels for a few months and raises the debt limit enough to get us to the next short-term deal.

Since the economy seems fragile, and federal (and state) elections are a mere 16 months away, the political stakes are high. In fact, I think the negotiation over the budget and debt limit is the most important political story of the present moment.

Conventional wisdom holds that an incumbent president has more to lose from a sudden recession than members of Congress do. Thus Donald Trump is probably most at risk if there is no deal. Although most Americans disapprove of his economic policies, I still think his popularity would fall further if we entered a recession.

For their part, the Democrats must decide how hard to bargain. That is an ethically complex question, and it confronts not one actor (an imaginary, monolithic party) but many Democratic members of Congress who have disparate values and interests.

Democrats have good ethical reasons to play hardball. They have policy goals (spending, immigration, climate) that they can advance by forcing Trump to swallow compromises. By pushing hard, they risk a government shutdown or a default, but the moral responsibility for a crisis would be shared. Whatever happens, we are headed for a recession at some point, and the country may be better off if it comes in time to unseat Trump rather than late enough that we must weather the downturn during his second term.

On the other hand, Democrats shouldn’t intentionally drive Trump into an impasse because they are happy to hasten a recession. To see that that is wrong, apply Immanuel Kant’s test of publicity. It is unethical to do something unless you can admit you are doing it. That is especially true of political leaders in a republic, because it is definitive of republics that everyone must explain their actions to everyone else. I don’t think the Democrats could face the electorate saying that they had intentionally driven the economy into recession.

But there is a fine line between: (a) driving a hard bargain for good causes while not worrying overly about the collateral risk to the economy and (b) actively pushing a breakdown in order to cause a recession and win the next election. I would drive right up to the edge of (b) but not over that line.

A subtler question is what to do about raising the domestic discretionary spending limits. Democrats believe that raising these caps will truly help people. However, increasing spending without raising taxes is a fiscal stimulus. As such, it has some potential to forestall a recession. Thus raising the domestic spending limit is win/win for Trump and the congressional Democrats (although an ideological loss for congressional Republicans). The problem is that a win/win deal could get Trump re-elected. I think I would bargain hard on immigration and climate regulation and give way on domestic spending for this year.

Civic Studies

An intellectual community of researchers and practitioners dedicated to building the emerging field of civic studies

Monthly Archives: July 2019