Post by Cathy Ahrens: Cathy is a Nationally Certified Board teacher in her 25th year of teaching Social Studies, all at Bettendorf High School. You can follow her on Twitter @Ahrens_Cathy
As a high
school U.S. history and government teacher, I watch serious issues unfold
around me with great trepidation. While
there was a road rage murder tonight, global warming impact and social security
bankruptcy tomorrow, and the war on terror every day, there is one part of me
that is simply just glad its not my job to address these issues. Then the reality settles in. It is my job, and your job, and the job of
your students in your classroom, including those who are passing and those who
aren’t doing a thing in class… it is all of our jobs in a democracy. Franklin Delano Roosevelt said “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who
express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of
democracy, therefore, is education.” How
well equipped are we to take on this challenge?
Congress is
getting ready to debate the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or
AUMF , which if passed will essentially renew the President’s power as
Commander in Chief to continue the fight against ISIL in the Middle East. Obama’s administration has already begun the
attacks with the authorization “left over” from that gained by Bush in the wake
of 9-11. The very polarized Congress and
society within which we live will debate the need for this, and certainly the
wisdom of this, but that is not the focus here.
Instead, the question that needs to be addressed is how will U.S. Congresspersons make this decision,
which will likely cost billions of dollars, the lives of thousands, and last an
unknown number of years into the future?
What will they use to guide the all-important yea or nay that will
either continue or complicate the fight against terror? Will it be their party, the media, or their
constituents that hold the most sway? To
what extent are these sources of information qualified to guide wise
policy?
In today’s
partisan atmosphere, how party leaders cue their members to vote may be more
influenced by how it will affect their next election than what will make the
best policy for the country in this circumstance. This is evidenced most obviously by how
almost every Congressperson responded negatively to the AUMF when
proposed. Careful to appease both sides,
Obama chose wording that would be less likely to result in an over commitment
for Democratic members, and would not go far enough toward empowering the
military for most Republican members.
Congress knows AUMF is not likely to see results that can be
characterized as a “victory” in the near future, if ever, so they are staking
their ground so they can point out to their constituents in 2016 that they were
opposed to its passage from the beginning.
They have only to look at the new Senator from Illinois named Barack
Obama in 2004 who was able to say he opposed the war in Iraq to see how useful
such a stance can be. True debate about
the merits of action are likely to get lost in this jockeying for position.
Since most
Americans have not taken a trip to the war zones to experience the action first
hand and certainly don’t get the opportunity to question the commanders and
intelligence analysts involved in the action on the ground, they must rely on
the media for information to help them understand what is at stake. Since most media outlets rely on advertisers
for their sustenance, there is an emphasis on the bold and brash, with a good
picture, with only enough depth to fit inside a sound bite. Few go to the effort to research beyond.
To what extent should our Congresspersons
listen to us, their constituency? How
informed are we? We are tweeting with
greater frequency, and are answering the CNN poll that our Congresspersons may
be looking at, but do we know what we are talking about? What are schools doing to arm us with the
ability to think critically? Can schools
do more to engender a sense of intellectual curiosity, so voters keep an open
mind and recognize value in exploring an alternative viewpoint? How well can we distinguish between a quality
objective source and some radical’s blog?
The rise of radical Islam has been a growing element of American foreign
policy for almost as long as we feared communist expansion, yet few history
classes teach beyond the cold war. It’s
time students leave high schools with an understanding of the background of the
conflicts that directly involve an ever increasing number of Americans.
As billions
of dollars are being spent on the front lines to “win the war on terror”, maybe
we are missing the point. Maybe a better
understanding of our history, and a functional democracy that utilizes its
resources to make decisions to positively affect the greatest number, based on
INFORMED decisions, is where we should start.
No comments:
Post a Comment