In the Republic of A, the highest appeals court may overturn legislation based on the text of an idealistic but short and vague constitution (without further appeal to the legislature), that court consists of just nine justices appointed for life, appointment requires an agreement between the president and the Senate, and those two bodies are separately elected and can belong to different parties. This sounds like … a royal mess.

You’d predict that Supreme Court appointments in this republic would be another form of regular legislative politics, but with higher stakes and less accountability. When one party controlled both the executive branch and the Senate, they would appoint a justice to promote their agenda for the rest of her or his life. When the branches were split, they would be unable to make appointments at all, unless as part of elaborate horse-trades. If the public did not accept these realities, then politicians would attempt to conceal the underlying situation by endorsing justices with appropriate judicial “temperaments” and sterling resumes, trying to avoid discussing the nominees’ positions on issues.

The actual record in the Republic of the USA is a bit more complicated. There have been long periods of rocky confirmations–especially 1800-1870–as well as lulls in that strife.

Note also the waning public confidence in the Supreme Court. Here I show the trend for younger adults separately, because early-adult experiences are formative, and youth have lost a lot of confidence since ca. 2000.

One explanation for the lulls could be a degree of consensus about the issues coming before the court, but that can’t explain why Taft could appoint five conservative justices, and FDR, eight liberals. Throughout that period, there was a bitter debate about the role of government, yet presidents were successful at appointing justices who shared their views.

A different explanation is that our two parties were divided internally on ideological lines from about 1890-1980. Thus any president could almost always assemble a majority by combining his whole party with the faction of the opposition that was aligned with him ideologically. That situation only ended ca. 1990, when the parties polarized in Congress. Note the resulting turbulence since then.

The Supreme Court is not simply a machine for implementing partisan policy preferences. Justices are also guided by legal principles, considerations that arise in the specific cases or controversies that come before them, constitutional texts and interpretations, precedents, deliberations among the Nine, and concern for the institution of the court. They may reach unexpected conclusions.

Yet we see generally different results from justices appointed by Democrats versus Republicans. That means that the Supreme Court represents at least a big dose of legislative politics by other means. The small number of justices, their life terms, and the randomness of who can appoint and confirm new members all raise the stakes and lower our confidence in the fairness of the process.

From this perspective, the familiar list of grievances (Bork, Thomas, Garland, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh) is predictable and only likely to worsen. If we are open to alternatives, we might begin to consider:

1. Weakening judicial review so that the Court is less likely to be the final arbiter of deeply contested issues. That would be a democratic reform but not a liberal one, and it could be dangerous for minorities of all kinds.
2. Strengthening advice and consent by developing a norm that the president should choose from a short list acceptable to members of both parties. That reform has a centrist bias that may not be desirable.
3. Constitutional reform. For instance, imagine that justices hold rotating nine-year terms. Then every year at least one vacancy would arise (more if someone resigned or died). Debates over confirmation would be constant, but the stakes would fall. Each new president could count on four chances at appointments, followed by the referendum of a national reelection campaign. A two-term president with a Senate majority could entirely reshape the court, but her successor could change it back.

[Confirmation data from the Senate. See also: is our constitutional order doomed?, are we seeing the fatal flaw of a presidential constitution?,  two perspectives on our political paralysis,  and the changing norms for Supreme Court nominations.]

Democracy

Russia, the internet and "political technologists" - is this the future of democracy? (Open Democracy)
As more revelations emerge about Russian interference in Western democracies, Nick Inman reviews a BBC broadcast that asks if Russia is merely where 21st century ideas of democracy died first. Continue Reading

'Can Democracy Work?' considers the perils and pitfalls of the institution across time (Christian Science Monitor)
Author and academic James Miller examines the idea of democracy in five distinct moments throughout human history, and chronicles how vastly different each iteration has been. Continue Reading

Democracy and the Internet (New York Times)
An expert discusses the continuing battle with tech companies to safeguard our institutions. Continue Reading

Opportunity/Inequality

Opportunity/Inequality

Union Membership Narrows the Racial Wealth Gap for Families of Color (Center for American Progress)
The data suggest that nonwhite union members receive a particular boost in their wealth because they see larger increases in pay, benefits, and employment stability than white union members. Continue Reading

Detailed New National Maps Show How Neighborhoods Shape Children for Life (The Upshot)
Some places lift children out of poverty. Others trap them there. Now cities are trying to do something about the difference. Continue Reading

The Most Important Least-Noticed Economic Event of the Decade (The Upshot)
A localized recession in manufacturing-heavy areas can explain a lot of things. Continue Reading

Engagement

Managing Digital Change: Playing The Long Game For Participatory Democracy (Forbes)
At a time when social platforms are increasingly under scrutiny-censoring "fake news," deciding who has access to their tools for what purpose, determining if and where to draw boundaries around free speech-tech companies are reluctantly playing a role in defining "right" versus "wrong" for billions of people every day. Continue Reading

Promotion Standards and Public Engagement (Inside Higher Education)
A new study examined in Nature says that university guidelines on tenure and promotion still focus on publication metrics, rather than professed values such as public engagement. Continue Reading

What's New in Civic Tech: Long Beach, Calif., Establishes Office of Civic Innovation (Government Technology)
Long Beach, Calif., has established a new office of civic innovation within its city manager's office, according to a press release from the city. Technologists in the office will serve as in-house consultants to other departments, with a goal of co-creating effective approaches to pressing community issues. Continue Reading

K-12

11 charter schools get permission to open in New York, bringing the city closer to the legal limit (Chalkbeat)
Nearly a dozen new charter schools have gotten the green light to open in New York in the next three years, bringing the city closer to a looming limit on charters that has advocates fretting. The SUNY Charter Schools Institute, one of two entities able to approve new charter schools for the state, signed off on 11 applications during a meeting in Albany Thursday. All of the schools aim to open in the Bronx or Brooklyn, and while several would be part of existing school networks, others would be the first for their operators. Continue Reading

Working in a group might be the best way to help kids meet individual goals, study says (Hechinger Report)
A new study out by the American Institutes for Research (AIR), a nonprofit research firm, makes the argument that collaborative, group learning might actually serve each student's individual academic needs quite well. Continue Reading

Does Teacher Diversity Matter in Student Learning?

(New York Times)
Research shows that students, especially boys, benefit when teachers share their race or gender. Yet most teachers are white women. Continue Reading

Higher Ed/Workforce

At Elite Colleges, Racial Diversity Requires Affirmative Action (New York Times)
Getting more low-income students into elite colleges like Harvard and Stanford is an important goal. But it can't replace race-based affirmative action. Continue Reading

Boston judge permits lawsuit against Harvard to go forward (Christian Science Monitor)
In a closely watched case that could influence affirmative action practices in college admissions decisions, a federal judge on Friday rejected a motion from Harvard University to rule in its favor. The university faces a lawsuit on the basis of discrimination against Asian-American applicants. The trial is set to begin on Oct. 15. Continue Reading

Education Department will miss deadline on rules affecting students in for-profit colleges (Washington Post)
The Education Department is going to miss a self-imposed deadline to deliver new rules governing how for-profit colleges and universities should deal with their students. But critics of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos say the delay is actually a good thing for students. Continue Reading

Health Care

Congress angles for air ambulance cost transparency (Modern Healthcare)
Last November, a fully insured North Dakotan was dispatched on an 84-mile medical air transport from Langdon, N.D., to Grand Forks. When the charges came in at more than $66,000, out-of-network insurance covered just $16,000.The patient was left with a $50,000 bill balance from Valley Med Flight. Continue Reading

Lawmakers: States need to gather better data about mothers dying in childbirth (Fierce Healthcare)
States are not doing enough to understand what went wrong after mothers die from pregnancy-related complications-a necessary step to figuring out how to stem growing maternal mortality rates in the U.S., experts told lawmakers on Thursday. Continue Reading

New Report Examines Healthcare in the "Amazon Era" (Healthcare Informatics)
Hospital business leaders are open, and even optimistic, about the benefits of innovation from non-traditional healthcare players, such as Amazon and Apple, according to a new report from Captains of Industry, a marketing consultancy. Continue Reading

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan would be pleased that Trump has signed a massive tax cut, presided over deregulation, and saved NAFTA by essentially reenacting it after running for president against it. Nevertheless, his worldview and his coalition are inconsistent with their legacy.

The regime that they founded has had the following characteristics:

1. Political elites widely agree that government programs, especially redistributive welfare programs, are inefficient and counterproductive. It was Bill Clinton who announced “the era of big government is over” and ended the federal welfare guarantee. It was the Socialist President François Mitterand who led France into austerity (“la rigeur“) in 1983. What characterizes this period is not the electoral victory of pro-market parties, but the fact that the opposition also criticizes the welfare state.
2. Progressive movements channel most of their energy into opening capitalist institutions to women, people of color, and sexual minorities, rather than overturning capitalist institutions. Progress means being able to be who you are at work or in school. That is a broadly libertarian impulse.
3. Many huge countries liberalize and deregulate their economies, fully entering the competitive global economy. Whether as a result or by coincidence, they see rapid and sustained improvements in human development (education, health, longevity). Of the 135 countries with data, 132 have seen improvements in the Human Development Index since 1970, many to a startling degree.
4. International flows of capital rapidly increase. So do rates of economic migration, albeit at a slower rate than capital. Developed nations become more diverse as a result of immigration.
5. Developed nations deindustrialize, with the losses of manufacturing jobs concentrated in certain cities. For example, Detroit’s population falls by more than 50%.
6. Unions practically vanish. Union density falls from more than 30% of US workers in 1955 to 10% now (6.7% in the private sector).
7. Many countries get “tough on crime,” expanding the use of prisons.
8. Some nations that are capitalist and authoritarian become magnets for capital. Of the world’s nine Alpha+ and Alpha++ Global Cities, five are located in authoritarian states: Singapore, Hong Kong, Beijing, Dubai, and Shanghai.
9. The US and NATO countries spend heavily on the military (with most of the money flowing to defense industries). They are especially prone to intervene in the Persian Gulf, where the oil comes from. We should also acknowledge that the chance of dying in a war during this period is the lowest in human history. One interpretation is that the US and its allies have locked things down in ways that really do reduce violence, albeit also to the advantage of multinational corporations. Terrorism is a feature of this period, but it kills an infinitesimal number of people compared to war.

I believe that most of the trends enumerated above were popular. I am familiar with the Martin Gilens/Benjamin Page argument that the US is an oligarchy–responsive to lobbies, not to ordinary voters. I think that explains why specific bills are blocked even though they are popular. It does not explain a much deeper and broader trend toward a certain kind of global corporate political-economy.

Reagan was elected in a country with a large White majority that was affluent by historical and global standards. A voting majority was suburban, Christian, and bourgeois. To a rough approximation, they got what they voted for. Every indication is that Chinese citizens appreciate the progress generated by their version of a neoliberal regime.

The questions now are: 1) Are people revolting against the current order? How many people? How effectively? 2) What is most likely to replace it? New versions of egalitarianism? Ethnonationalism and authoritarianism? Davos Man strikes back? And 3) How to move forward? It is generally a lot harder to build things up than tear them down, and we don’t just need new governmental policies; we also need new institutions in civil society.

(I see that I’ve addressed the same topic once before, offering a different list: what is the political economy that people are revolting against?)

Good afternoon friends! Another day, another chance to highlight some interesting sessions at FCSS this October. Be sure to register here, and join your colleagues for what will be an excellent weekend! Now, on to some highlights!

Well, of course we have the Friday night reception and the Saturday and Sunday keynotes, so you will definitely want to check those out! But what about some other interesting sessions?

Saturday Morning, October 20
8:00 AM Session
Mentor Session
Scott Kaplan, Pinellas County Schools

Are you a new or beginning social studies teacher? This session, sponsored by the FCSS Endowment and led by the excellent Scott Kaplan, will connect you with experienced educators and provide valuable insights into teaching social studies in a variety of classrooms.

Concurrent Session 1
Student Curriculum Relevance and Historical Relationships from Past to Present
Glen Wolff, Cypress Bay High School

How can we connect historical topics with present day events? How can we help our kids become critical thinkers and writers about past, present, and future? These sorts of questions will be addressed in this session! 

Civics and the Social Goals of Holocaust Education
Mitchell Bloomer, Holocaust Memorial Resource and Education Center of Florida

Looking for some good standards-based civics lessons featuring Holocaust education content? Then check this session out. See how they can be applied in the classroom, and get some ready to go resources!

Concurrent Session 3
Lessons in Character Education Found in Modern Media Formats
Kelsey Evans, Brian Furgione, and Allison Sheridan, University of Central Florida
This CUFA session considers how PBS programming, and media like it, contribute to the teaching of character education and the ways in which the messages in the media are perceived by families and kids. Certainly sounds like an interesting look at the ways we interpret the meanings behind what we watch and listen to and say.

Concurrent Session 5
The Imperative of Courage and Compassion in Combating the Holocaust
Bozena U. Zaremba, Jan Karski Educational Foundation

I am a huge fan of graphic novels, and this session will share with participants a graphic novel concerning courage and compassion, and the importance of engaging with, not running from, evil. Definitely one to check out. 

Be sure to register here, and join your colleagues for what will be an excellent weekend! 

The penultimate paragraph of Lincoln’s “Lyceum Address” (Jan 27, 1838)

[Memories of the sacrifices of the American Revolution] were the pillars of the temple of liberty; and now, that they have crumbled away, that temple must fall, unless we, their descendants, supply their places with other pillars, hewn from the solid quarry of sober reason. Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence.–Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws: and, that we improved to the last; that we remained free to the last; that we revered his name to the last; that, during his long sleep, we permitted no hostile foot to pass over or desecrate his resting place; shall be that which to learn the last trump shall awaken our WASHINGTON.

“Trump” here means to summon loudly like a trumpet, as in John Keble’s Christian Year (1827): “Awake—again the Gospel-trump is blown.” It probably doesn’t mean “To give forth a trumpet-like sound; spec. to break wind audibly (slang or vulgar),” although the OED attests that sense from 1425 onward.

In all seriousness, Lincoln’s address is a timely reminder that high ambition may have motivated the founders to create a republic, but the ambitious gain no renown from keeping an existing republic going. The irony is that Lincoln ended up with a massive memorial on the National Mall because history gave him the opportunity to save and re-found a union imperiled by others.

See also: ambition: pro or con?  and hearing the faint music of democracy