This Thing of Ours

Today is India's Independence Day, a day when a nation newly minted stepped forth into the community of free people and prepared to address the critical question of just what kind of government it should adopt. The word is instructive, for India chose her form of government, and while it often leaves much to be desired, and can drive its people to near insanity with its Byzantine forms and methods, it still is the government selected by the people of India. It is a day when I find myself musing on the nature of government itself, and its role in our life today, especially here in the United States.

In my current domicile, faith in government, tenuous at best is dropping once more, driven by a disgust at partisan gridlock and our elected representative's Nero-esque mastery of fiddling and fed in part by a strange delusion that it is American to distrust one's government. Whether such distrust is historic I cannot say, but one thing seems to be fairly certain - the current distrust and hatred of every aspect of our government is fruit of the Reagan revolution. Ronald Reagan, that master of the pithy soundbite, injected a poison into the body politic stronger perhaps than even he realized, and today we still suffer the consequences. When he declared that government was not the solution to our problems, but the problem itself, Reagan gave a catchy slogan to opponents of government and started us on the path to destroying ourselves.

Today, there is a strong constituency in the country that believes that whole government, or at least a very large part thereof should be shut down and those functions handed off to the private sector. This is, to view it charitably, a philosophy that seems largely ignorant of history. The American government, more than any other in the world, and certainly the first of its kind, was not a system of rules imposed upon the nation by an external force; rather it was a compact formed by the people and adopted as the most effective way of meeting the challenges they faced. This is a government, as Lincoln put it, by the people and for the people. And yet today we face a group of people who continually talk about the government as an alien entity that must be opposed and destroyed; one might as well seek to cut off one's arm or leg in a fit of pique.

There are two broad views of the fundamental nature of government. The minimalists believe that the government should be of such size and power that it cannot impact their lives at all, it should have no power to tax, or regulate. Being of the opposite camp, of course, I exaggerate their position, but based on statements by some of the loudest cheerleaders, I do not think I state it very wrongly. They would have people live by their personal means, and would have the government never aid or hinder the progress of any person, nor their destruction. There are naturally shades of difference, and this libertarian viewpoint is often compromised by those who would impose their own social values upon the rest through the medium of government.

On the other hand, there is the liberal view of government, of which I am a firm believer. Government was formed by us to serve our needs and purposes. It is a tool we have created to ensure our safety and progress, and it serves us at every level, from city to state to nation, and we have bestowed powers upon our government to serve specific needs in response to specific challenges. There is no magical level at which government becomes unacceptable and at some point the artificial walls between nations will crumble and be swept away and a world government will succeed our national governments as the highest power - this is the arc of history and we can embrace reality or stick our heads in the sand; the result will be the same with the difference being the level to which we can fashion the government that forms. As a liberal, I believe that we have formed our government to ensure equality and equal opportunity. It is something of an article of faith amongst believers in capitalism that "a rising tide will lift all boats"; we liberals believe in the same concept, that if we help our less fortunate brothers, it will benefit everyone.

It is sometimes suggested that liberalism is the enemy of capitalism. While some left-leaning governments have misstated the case, nothing could be further from the truth, really; the two are not mutually exclusive systems and should in fact bring out the best in both. Capitalism when it works, rewards excellence. A liberal government would actually ensure a healthier market to consume the fruit of a capitalist' labor and by promoting equal opportunity would actually inure the market against it's naturally monopolistic, and self-defeating tendencies. If there had never been a bust up of AT&T would we have enjoyed the explosion of mobile technology, or would we have been forced to suffice with whatever a monopolist company deigned to give us? Can capitalism thrive if there are no consumers for its produce? If capitalism is allowed to concentrate all wealth in the hands a very small number, wherefore the capital to fund development and innovation and improvements, given that great personal wealth rarely is harnessed in pursuit of the greater good?

And that really is the crux of the question: do we want a liberal form of government dedicated to the greatest good of the greatest number or do we wish to plow our lone farrows neither seeking help from anyone else nor offering any in turn? But in the end, no man is an island, and in the words of Disraeli, we must hang together, or assuredly we will hang separately.

A Teaching Moment

One sunny afternoon some weeks ago, as my co-workers and I returned from lunch, one of them remarked that it was high time we got rid of the teacher's unions, which in his opinion was nothing but a means to ensure that lazy good-for-nothings could never be disciplined or removed. He cited their right to tenure as a glaring example of their unfair advantage over the school districts.

This attitude seems to be spreading, fueled in part by a major campaign against all organized labor across the nation, wherein somehow our friends and neighbors become the personification of all is evil socialism the moment they cross into their workplace. Governors Walker and Christie have done more to dismantle the power of organized labor than any  leader since President Reagan, I'll warrant. And teachers, as members of one of the most visible public employees' unions, have drawn a disproportionate level of invective. Teachers have been accused of many socialist evils, and at least some of the dislike of the may be rooted in their distressing desire to teach students about such objectionable subjects as Darwin's theory of evolution and equality of humankind, irrespective of race, color, gender, religion or sexual orientation - unacceptable obviously and a clear attempt to corrupt the minds of the youth. It appears that hemlock is not as easy to procure today as in classical times. and so we must find other ways to deal with the malaise of an out of control teaching establishment.

I once met a woman who explained that her hyperactive five-year old son was not really out of control even when he was wrecking his school room, he was just active and full of energy and if the teacher would just hold him gently by firmly for a few minutes he would calm down and stop smashing things. She was in absolute earnest that the teacher, given charge of fifteen or twenty children should adopt this unique maternal approach to handling one child and should not get angry with his destructive behavior. Of course, should a teacher actually attempt such an approach, there would probably be other parents lining up to scream about inappropriate behavior and all but ready to lynch her. This is the world our teachers work in, and they receive scant compensation for the work they put in.

It is popular to talk about how teachers have summer vacations and the school day ends at 3pm compared to the longer hours we work in 'real" jobs. But teachers work far past the end of school day. I had a roommate who was a teacher and she spent evenings grading homework, and preparing for the classes of the next day. I've taught a few classes in my days at graduate school and I know that it can take as much time out of class as in the classroom. Then add in the sheer variety of challenges that teachers deal with in their classes daily. Most of us, service industry excepted, deal with a fairly uniform group of people from day to day; how would we fare if we had to deal with students ranging from near moronic to smart enough to me in MIT, and bored if the class moves at anything slower than their own aptitude. Teachers are hamstrung too, in the level of discipline they are allowed to impose on their charges, and in the attitudes of parents to any shortcomings in their offspring. We expect teachers to turn the children into paragons of virtue and wisdom, but we give them no assistance. On the contrary, parents seem ever more eager to point the finger of accusation at teachers. In which other job are staff expected to put up with lewd comments and get no succor (and we'd be fooling ourselves if we think female teachers in any class above fifth grade do not face it)? In which job do staff face the risk of violence as teachers must? It may not happen all the often, but it's a very real possibility? And what do we offer them in return? A low salary, constant criticism and abuse, little to no appreciation and untenable situations. We have even stripped teachers of the right to a personal life, with some teachers losing their jobs for the wildly inappropriate image of being seen with a glass of wine while hanging out with friends.

All this do we do, and then we ask the teachers to also be willing to lose their jobs at the whim of the market. It's time to realize that good teachers are not created overnight, that experienced teachers are worth their weight in gold. If we dismiss teachers whenever we need to balance a budget we will never have any institutional knowledge, nor will the teachers have any incentive to do anything beyond the absolute minimum. Why would teachers work past the end of day to help students with extra curricular activities? Do we really think those teachers do that for money? As Matt Damon explained, teachers in the vast majority do what they do because they love their work, not for the inadequate money we pay them. Most of them could earn more in other jobs, but choose to work as teachers for love of educating and molding minds. Giving them the security of tenure is a way to encourage them to put forth all their energies into what they love without the fear that their efforts of one year will be swept away the very next, along with their jobs. If we pretend otherwise, we will assuredly get what we pay for, and it won't be a pretty sight.