My Beauty Best Teacher

As a conservative who fights for liberty and freedom, I have been unhappy with the attacks of our civil liberties that have dramatically escalated in the recent years since President Obama and the liberal Democrats have gained more political power. These left-wing groups pretend to care about civil liberties- but unlike under Bush when the conversations were hypothetical (what if we waterboard more than one person, what if the Patriot Act is abused, etc), under Obama the attacks on civil liberties are real and dangerous. Since yesterday was the anniversary of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution came into effect on December 15, 1789), via Cato let's get a quick update on how these amendments are being violated.

To see all of the links, check out the full article at Today Is Bill of Rights Day:

The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” Government officials, however, have insisted that they can gag recipients of “national security letters” and censor broadcast ads in the name of campaign finance reform.

The Second Amendment says the people have the right “to keep and bear arms.” Government officials, however, make it difficult to keep a gun in the home and make it a crime for a citizen to carry a gun for self-protection.

The Third Amendment says soldiers may not be quartered in our homes without the consent of the owners. This safeguard is one of the few that is in fine shape — so we can pause here for a laugh.

The Fourth Amendment says the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Government officials, however, insist that they can conduct commando-style raids on our homes and treat airline travelers like prison inmates by conducting virtual strip searches.

The Fifth Amendment says that private property shall not be taken “for public use without just compensation.” Government officials, however, insist that they can use eminent domain to take away our property and give it to other private parties who covet it.

The Sixth Amendment says that in criminal prosecutions, the person accused is guaranteed a right to trial by jury. Government officials, however, insist that they can punish people who want to have a trial—“throwing the book” at those who refuse to plead guilty—which explains why 95 percent of the criminal cases never go to trial.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases where the controversy “shall exceed twenty dollars.” Government officials, however, insist that they can impose draconian fines on people without jury trials.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. Government officials, however, insist that a life sentence for a nonviolent drug offense is not cruel.

The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage others “retained by the people.” Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what rights, if any, will be retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people. Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what powers they possess, and have extended federal control over health care, crime, education, and other matters the Constitution reserves to the states and the people.

It’s a disturbing snapshot, to be sure, but not one the Framers of the Constitution would have found altogether surprising. They would sometimes refer to written constitutions as mere “parchment barriers,” or what we call “paper tigers.” They nevertheless concluded that having a written constitution was better than having nothing at all.

The key point is this: A free society does not just “happen.” It has to be deliberately created and deliberately maintained. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. To remind our fellow citizens of their responsibility in that regard, the Cato Institute has distributed more than five million copies of our pocket Constitution. At this time of year, it’ll make a great stocking stuffer. Let’s enjoy the holidays but let’s also resolve to be more vigilant about defending our Constitution.

Africa has long been saddled with poor,even malevolent, leadership: predatory kleptocrats, military-installed autocrats,economic illiterates, and puffed-up posturers. By far the most egregious examples come from Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Zimbabwe—countries that have been run into the ground despite their abundant natural resources. But these cases are by no means unrepresentative: by some measures, 90 percent of sub-Saharan African nations have experienced despotic rule in the last three decades. Such leaders use power as an end in itself, rather than for the public good; they are indifferent to the progress of their citizens (although anxious to receive their adulation); they are unswayed by reason and employ poisonous social or racial ideologies; and they are hypocrites, always shifting blame for their countries’ distress. Under the stewardship of these leaders,infrastructure in many African countries has fallen into disrepair, currencies have depreciated, and real prices have inflated dramatically, while job availability,health care, education standards, and life expectancy have declined. Ordinary life has become beleaguered: general security has deteriorated, crime and corruption have increased, much-needed public funds have flowed into hidden bank accounts, and offcially sanctioned ethnic discrimination—sometimes resulting in civil war—has become prevalent. This depressing picture is brought into even sharper relief by the few but striking examples of effective African leadership in recent decades. These leaders stand out because of their strength of character, their adherence to the principles of participatory democracy, and their ability to overcome deep-rooted challenges. The government of Mozambique, for example, brought about economic growth rates of more than ten percent between 1996 and 2003, following the economic catastrophe wrought by that country’s civil war (which ended in 1992). And in Kenya, President Mwai Kibaki has strengthened civil society, invested in education, and removed barriers to economic entrepreneurship instated during the repressive rule of Daniel arap Moi.The best example of good leadership in Africa is Botswana. Long before diamonds were discovered there, this former desert protectorate, which was neglected by the British under colonialism, demonstrated a knack for participatory democracy, integrity, tolerance, entrepreneurship, and the rule of law. The country has remained democratic in spirit as well as form continuously since its independence in 1966—an unmatched record in Africa. It has also defended human rights, encouraged civil liberties, and actively promoted its citizens’ social and economic development.
GOOD APPLES
What has enabled Botswana to succeed where so many other African nations have failed? Some observers point to the relative linguistic homogeneity of the country. But Somalia, which remains unstable despite a similar uniformity, shows that this factor is far from sufficient.Others point to the century-old teachings of the congregational London Missionary Society—the peaceful, pragmatic outlook that is inextricably bound up in the country’s political culture. But this explanation also fails to explain why the same positive effects have not been witnessed in other countries with a history of Christian teaching, such as in neighboring Zambia. Nor are Botswana’s plentiful diamond reserves responsible:Angola, Gabon, and Nigeria all have abundant natural resources, but none has seen comparable returns for its people.It is Botswana’s history of visionary leadership, especially in the years following independence, that best explains its success. Sir Seretse Khama, Botswana’s founding president, came from a family of Bamangwato chiefs well regarded for their benevolence and integrity.
When Khama founded the Botswana Democratic Party in 1961 and led his country to independence, he was already dedicated to the principles of deliberative democracy and market economy that would allow his young country to flourish. Modest, unostentatious as a leader, and a genuine believer in popular rule, Khama forged a participatory and law-respecting political culture that has endured under his successors, Sir Ketumile Masire and Festus Mogae. Although operating in very differerent circumstances, Mauritius’ first leader,Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, held to the same leadership codes as Khama.Ramgoolam gave Mauritius a robust democratic beginning, which has been sustained by a series of wise successors from different backgrounds and parties.Both Khama and Ramgoolam could have emulated many of their contemporaries by establishing strong, single-man, kleptocratic regimes. But they refused to do so.Effective leadership has proved the decisive factor in South Africa, too: without Nelson Mandela’s inclusive and visionary leadership, his adherence to the rule of law, his insistence on broadening the delivery of essential services, and his emphasis on moving from a commandeconomy toward a market-driven one, South Africa would probably have emerged from apartheid as a far more fractured and autocratic state than it did.Too few African leaders have followed the examples of Mandela, Khama, and foreign affairs . Ramgoolam. Ghana, Lesotho, Mali, and Senegal are all showing promise. But in many other African countries,leaders have begun their presidential careers as democrats only to end up, a term or two later, as corrupt autocrats: Bakili Muluzi of Malawi, Moi of Kenya,and, most dramatically of all, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Other leaders, such as Sam Nujoma of Namibia and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, may be heading in the same direction.
A BOLD INITIATIVE
To build on the positive leadership examples, a select group of prominent past and present African leaders who met over the last year decided to confront the continent’s pathology of poor leadership with deeds as well as words. At the conclusion of a series of private meetings(the final one of which was held in Mombasa, Kenya), they established the African Leadership Council, promulgated a Code of African Leadership with 23 commandments, issued a Mombasa Declaration promoting better leadership,and proposed a series of courses to train their political successors in the art of good government.Members of the council believe that absolute standards of leadership are both appropriate and attainable. Good leaders deliver security of the state and of the person, the rule of law, good education and health services, and a framework conducive to economic growth. They ensure effective arteries of commerce and enshrine personal and human freedoms. They empower civil society and protect the environmental commons. Crucially, good leaders also provide their citizens with a sense of belonging to a national enterprise. Conscious that Africa’s poor are getting poorer and that good governance is essential for successful economic development, the council sees itself at
the vanguard of fundamental reform in the continent. Its approach certainly goes far beyond the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (nepad) and proposals for the African Union. The Code of African Leadership, for example, says in its first commandment that leaders should “offer a coherent vision of individual growth and national advancement with justice and dignity for all,” implying that most leaders today do not. Other commandments demand that African leaders encourage “broad participation,” adhere to the letter and spirit of their national constitutions (especially term limits), encourage dissent and disagreement, respect human rights and civil liberties, strengthen the rule of law, promote policies that eradicate poverty and improve the wellbeing of their citizens, ensure a strong code of ethics, refuse to use their offices
for personal gain, oppose corruption, and bolster essential personal freedoms. This uncommonly bold agenda seeks to avoid renewed patrimonial leadership debacles, such as those presided over by Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, Moi in Kenya, Idi Amin in Uganda, and Jean-Bedel Bokassa in the Central African Republic. The council is highly conscious,too, of the hijacking of Zimbabwe’s government by Mugabe, which has resulted in starvation and drastically reduced living standards.The council is chaired by former President Sir Ketumile Masire of Botswana and includes former Nigerian head of state General Yakubu Gowon,Vice President Moody Awori of Kenya, former Prime Minister Hage Geingob of Namibia, and a dozen other present and former prime ministers and cabinet ministers from Sierra Leone to Kenya, Malawi, and Uganda. All are regarded throughout Africa as men of unusual personal probity and esteem and as accomplished proponents of good governance. The council intends to recruit additional members from the ranks of Africa’s outstanding democratic leaders, Francophone and Anglophone, female and male. Together they will serve the continent by advising international organizations, individual countries, and donor agencies on how to improve leadership. The group stands ready to assist civil societies in countries undergoing serious leadership crises. It will also urge greedy national leaders to attack corrupt practices and adhere to term limits (the current presidents of Gabon, Malawi, Namibia,Uganda, and Zambia, for example, have all had pangs of desire for illegal third terms). Next year(2005), it expects to begin holding special seminars for cabinet ministers and others. The council’s curriculum emphasizes constitutionalism, the rule of law, ethics, accountability,diversity, good fiscal management, coalition building, and the fundamentals of modern micro- and macroeconomics. Training courses will soon be launched.Whether the efforts of the African Leadership Council will reduce bloodshed,diminish corruption, and encourage more prosperity for citizens across Africa is by no means certain. But as a unique African response to the continent’s immense needs, this innovative endeavor is a promising, dramatic step forward.

By
Robert I. Rotberg

Reprinted with permission
Copyrighted 2004 Council on Foreign relations Inc. All Rights Reserved

Tesfaye Habisso writes in Friends of Ethiopia:

It must also be understood by all that elections alone will not produce democracy and do not necessarily bring about democratic culture. Authoritarian traditions take a long time to wash away. Creating a democracy in poverty -stricken and illiterate societies such as ours itself takes a long time and exacts huge costs, and is often accompanied by violence, disorder, and a period of uncertainty, even chaos. After all, democracies do not at a stroke make societies more civil and stable; they require strong civil institutions and a long period of time. It is only those who are committed to the values of democracy, rule of law, civil liberties and are prepared for the long-haul, and support less than perfect results as long as the efforts are sincere, who will succeed in realizing democracy and development, peace and stability

.More here

As a teacher, eventually I get to a unit on the President (next week my civics students will be on this unit). One of the ways that I teach this unit is by going through all the roles that the President can be said to play in our political system (or the different hats that he wears, if that helps you). Let's take a look at one of these roles today, the role of Commander in Chief. Let's talk about this role, and then evaluate Bush and Obama in their ability to do this role.

Even though the President of the United States is not a member of our armed services, in our country, the President is commander in chief of the military. He controls (primarily through the executive cabinet-level Department of Defense) a military that is very powerful- one of the biggest in numbers, one of the best in training, and certainly the most well-financed (the US accounts for over 50% of all military spending in world). This means that the President is in position to control a very powerful military.

Prior to becoming President, Bush was a member of the military. You can debate the quality of his service, but he did serve, so he was in that environment, and learned the principles of warfare and the honor of sacrifice. He handled military hardware, and was comfortable around their use. His ability to fulfil this part of the Commander in Chief role was not the best, and certainly not as good as McCain's, but it is considerably more so than Obama, who has no military experience, knowledge, or interest in the military to speak of. Again, Obama has little to no experience or known abilities in this part of the role.

Although most President's are rather hands off with the actual strategy, that doesn't mean they have to be- LBJ, FDR, and Lincoln all directed battlefield strategy. The President has the authority to send troops in to other countries for limited amounts of time (limited by War Powers Act, he needs congressional authorization for more than 60 days). The President is in charge of the purchasing of weapons, such as Reagan focusing on SDI, and the President is in charge of the selling of weapons, letting some states purchase surplus/used military hardware while other states can not.

Prior to becoming President, Bush was an officer in the military, so did learn how to order troops into battle, and must have studied or learned about some aspects of this. Again, his ability to fulfil this part of the Commander in Chief role was not the best, and certainly not as good as McCain's, but it is considerably more so than Obama, who has no military experience, knowledge, or interest in the military to speak of. Again, Obama has little to no experience or known abilities in this part of the role.

Lastly, as Commander-in-Chief, our President can be expected in times of great crisis or war to assume emergency powers, such as issuing orders to regulate industry, set price controls, ration food, or take other actions. This is a tough thing to do, but you want a President who is willing to break an egg every now and then to make an omelet- during WWII or the Civil War, civil liberties were broken, but for the good of our nation. Can the President make these tough calls? Can he resist the call of too much power, and not become a dictator, and battle with himself about how much power the President should have?

Bush has continually struggled with this- in that he has tried to fight the War on Terror while keeping us as free as possible. You might contend that he sacrificed too much- but he was willing and able to make the tough calls he thought were necessary for keeping our country great during times of crisis. Obama has denied that we are at war, and has failed to answer the call for every crisis that our country has recently faced, displaying an inability to make tough decisions. One wonder what happens if we do go to war- would he be weak and indecisive, or overcompensate by wielding too much power?

Just some thoughts to think about today.

There is an appealing logic to the latest multimillion-dollar aid package for Africa announced last week by George Bush and Tony Blair. It is supposed to help rob terrorists of a breeding ground and, in a humanitarian spirit, relieve the continent of some of its misery. But anyone who has followed the fate of Africa over recent decades might wonder: Why should these millions of dollars have any better effect than the billions that have gone before? Why does the West feel the need to keep pouring money into Africa? One answer has to do with the underlying conventional wisdom, which blames Africa's miseries on the delayed effects of Western colonialism.
['Africa Unchained']
Yet as the decades pass it becomes apparent that, although there is some truth to the claim, there is more to Africa's problems than that: A solution will require radical changes in the way Africa is governed and in the way its economies function. George Ayittey makes such an argument in "Africa Unchained" (Palgrave, 483 pages, $35), a superb analysis of the continent and its recent ordeals................
................Colonialism plays a part in Mr. Ayittey's account, too, but in a different way. For him, the continent's problems stem from the characteristics of the governing elite. In "Africa Unchained," he draws a sharp distinction between African governments -- generally corrupt, socialist, centralizing -- and the informal sectors of the African economy, which the elite's misdeeds have impoverished. At independence in the 1960s, Africa was a net exporter of food; now it imports $18 billion of food per annum.
But where did the elites pick up their bad habits? Mr. Ayittey describes in detail the economics of precolonial African societies. Property was held in common among the extended family but not by the community as a whole, while economic activity was undertaken for profit, with prices set by hard bargaining. Government operated through consultation, with chiefs exercising power only after full discussion with a council of elders. Thus the modern pattern of one-party or one-person rule, state ownership and state controls over prices and distribution is an import from Europe, not an African tradition.
Free Institutions
Mr. Ayittey's claim that democracy and free markets, not autocracy and communal ownership, are a legacy of Africa's own past is important, since it provides a rationale for Africans to move toward a system that can work. It presents a striking parallel to the work of parliamentarian historians at the time of the English Civil War, who traced English civil liberties back before Magna Carta to the Anglo-Saxon "Witanagemot" -- a gathering of tribal eminences -- and to the free institutions ascribed by Tacitus to the Germans of the first century. These historians gave their liberal cause legitimacy; Mr. Ayittey's researches may give a similar legitimacy to free institutions in Africa.
As for what those institutions might be, Mr. Ayittey calls for independent judiciaries, independent media and, not least, independent central banks. He would like to see power devolve as much as possible to Africa's traditional leaders -- at the village and regional level -- who are closer to the people they rule and less able to escape abroad from the penalties for corruption and malfeasance. He notes that Africa's governments today too often divert what money they have -- from aid or from oil and mineral revenues -- to military spending, wasteful prestige projects and tax-haven bank accounts. Here, too, local control would help. Aid in particular -- Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair take note -- needs to be targeted locally and regionally, rather than nationally, and it needs to be dispensed much more quickly than it is now, and in much smaller amounts.
What chance is there of such reforms actually happening? Less than one might wish. Part of the problem still comes from the West. When the principal cadres of Westerners dealing with Africa are aid agencies, charities and NGOs, rather than the financiers and businessmen who predominate in India and China, one has to expect that Africans, elite and otherwise, will be exposed to a high level of economic illiteracy.
Still, capital and investment will not flow toward Africa until it has done more to shrink the power of its governments and provide havens, secure against tax, inflation and expropriation, for the savings of its striving peoples. And in this regard Western attempts at institution-building will be of little help. It is for Africans to build their own models of governance. Luckily, as Mr. Ayittey shows, they have a proud tradition to draw upon -- and never mind the colonizers.
Mr. Martin Hutchinson is the author of "Great Conservatives" (Academica Press).

Believe it or not, this is actually a Chinese curse, and not something that people actually want. And yet, reading what some are writing about Obama, and listening to what they say about Obama, you would think that people actually do want to live in interesting times- they want to live in a time of great upheaval and great change.

Many want Obama to be Lincoln, who, even though he was a great President, was head of a country that descended into a Civil War that was incredibly bloody and socially destructive. They want Obama to be FDR, who was the head of a nation that went into its longest and deepest recession ever and engaged in another bloody and destructive war. Or they want Obama to be JFK or LBJ, both of whom ran a country that was in the midst of some interesting times- riots, strikes, Vietnam, etc.

How come liberals and the media don't want to live in the 1980's, that was a long boring time of economic growth and rebuilding of strength. Or the 1950's, when our country returned to white picket fences and normal times (admittedly, I'm too young for this, but I always loved that show Wonder Years). Because those were the boring times under Republican Presidents, and were not times when liberals grew in power.

Via Ed Driscroll, here is what Jonah Goldberg wrote:

Listening to liberals gush over a "new New Deal" and Obama's call for us to emulate the "Greatest Generation," you'd think they want another Great Depression and World War.

Indeed, liberals have long idolized the 1930s as a decade of great unity. It wasn't. The 1930s was a miserable decade of poverty, domestic unrest, labor strife, violations of civil liberties and widespread fear. If liberals really loved peace, prosperity and national cohesion, they'd remember the 1920s or 1950s more fondly. And yet they don't. Why? Because liberals didn't get to impose their schemes and dreams on the country in those decades. Behind all the talk of unity and bipartisanship and shared sacrifice lies an uglier ambition: power. The audacity of hope behind all this Lincoln-FDR-Obama blather is the dream of riding roughshod over the opposition, of having their way, of total victory.

The Chinese curse and cliche "may you live in interesting times" is on point. Liberals (and a few conservatives as well, alas) seem desperate to live in interesting times. Not me.

One can only hope that we don't live in interesting times, nor suffer the even more worse curses of you coming to the attention of those in authority, or our nation finding what liberals are looking for.

UPDATE: Powerlineblog has used the phrase "interesting times" in its blog post today as well! I think there is something to this curse. Also, there is a really good Terry Pratchett with the title "Interesting Times" too- I highly recommend it- Cohen the Barbarian and some of his geriatric colleagues combine with Rincewind the Wizard to take over the Chinese Empire.

Via Dirty Harry's Place comes this little note about the misuse of government power for the purposes of harming anyone who speaks a conservative voice- Joe the Plumber has been illegally investigated by Ohio authorities:

Ohio’s inspector general is investigating why a state agency director approved checking the state child-support computer system for information on “Joe the Plumber.” Helen Jones-Kelly, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, confirmed today that she OK’d the check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher following the Oct. 15 presidential debate.

She denies that there were political reasons for the check on the sudden presidential campaign fixture though the Support Enforcement Tracking System, and Democrat Gov. Ted Strickland is satisfied with that explanation.

The use of a state computer system to search for information on Wurzelbacher is the fourth uncovered by The Dispatch.

This is what happens when you ask the wrong questions in this country. And Helen Jones-Kelly? She is both appointed by a Democrat and a maxed out Obama donor. Interesting. I guess the ACLU and other civil liberties groups would have been outraged if Joe the Plumber were a foreign terrorist plotting to destroy America- then they would have called for an investigation into this abuse of power. But since he is just a regular American who recognizes that Obama's tax plan would hurt him, I guess he has no rights.

Bill Easterly contends that to solve development challenges "problem-solving systems" must be be in existence. This assertion has been on this blog and Timbuktu Chronicles under a number of guises. Be it evolving the culture; informal industrial clusters;startup; ecosystems; etc. Societies that do not evolve autocatalytic,sustainable methods of overcoming their challenges will remain moribund,regardless the level of external intervention:

Development happens thanks to problem-solving systems. To vastly oversimplify for illustrative purposes, the market is a decentralized (private) problem solving system with rich feedback and accountability. Democracy, civil liberties, free speech, protection of rights of dissidents and activists is a decentralized (public) problem solving system with (imperfect) feedback and accountability. Individual liberty in general fosters systems that allow many different individuals to use their particular local knowledge and expertise to attempt many different independent trials at solutions. When you have a large number of independent trials, the probability of solutions goes way up.

More here

A reader recently emailed me and asked an interesting request and a couple questions- "I am a fellow conservative government teacher and was hoping that you could give me some advice about how to teach government so that my students will be more open to the founding principles and conservative values. How do you become a 'conservative teacher'? What techniques in teaching can I use to encourage conservatism? What can I do as a teacher to help my students be more receptive to libertarianism, conservatism, right-wing, social conservatism, and other views that are commonly attacked in public schools?" Here is my reply to that reader looking for help and tips on education and teaching and being a teacher that will produce more conservative-thinking students at the end of the year.

Well, first off, you don't want to bias your class or try to push any particular set of values on your students or spew out propaganda or attempt to brainwash your students- that's what liberals do and it is wrong. That being said, there are several techniques that you can use as a teacher to help to encourage students to think about adopting a more conservative or libertarian mindset that embraces our founding principles.

A good habit to begin every class is to take a concept or principle or idea that you are studying in class and think of some way to frame those in terms of current or timeless policy/legislative debates. Government is not empty and theoretical- it is the real exercise of power to control human behavior. If you are studying Congress, take the process by which a bill becomes a law and ask if the founding fathers would have supported the Democrats passage of Obamacare how they did. If you are studying federalism or state's rights, pose a question to the students over what they think about the Arizona immigration debate situation. If you are studying the President, ask your students to discuss whether he is more to blame for the economy than Congress is. Take current or timeless policy debates/legislation and ask your students questions that tie into what you are learning about in class.  Make these questions open-ended so the students are free to answer them. Try to either make them with no slant at all, or ask the same question from a right and left slant. Put this on the board, let the students talk about it with each other, then call on students and see what they think. Play devil's advocate with them- poke holes in their answer from every angle and teach them to think critically about their responses- but also to be confident about their personal beliefs and willing to back up their views. Be sure that you either prompt them or directly bring up all the views/responses that may come up on this issue- conservative views, liberal views, libertarian views, socialist views, moral views, fascist views, etc. It is my belief that when all these views and opinions come out and students think about them, they'll be smart enough to realize that conservative views are the right ones to adopt.

Another important technique for building or encouraging a conservative-friendly classroom is to remember that all government in the United States begins and ends with the Constitution. So every lesson that you begin and end should also begin and end with the Constitution. Your initial unit on the purposes of government should include the preamble to our Constitution and at American Exceptionalism. Your unit on the background to our Constitution should be based around lectures on the philosophers who contributed to our nation (focus on Locke), on the history of our nation (read and re-read and read out loud the Declaration of Independence), and on the founding principles of our nation. Your unit on each branch of government should include translating and memorizing the Constitutional articles relevant. Your unit on civil liberties should include lively debates and discussions on major judicial decisions, including your own or pretended opinions on the opinions designed to spark debate and teach students that it is okay to disagree with judges. Your unit on political parties, interest groups, and the media should center around Federalist 10. Your unit on federalism and state government should highlight the battle between the national government and the states, and encourage students to choose sides and like the side they are on. Focus each unit of your classroom on founding principles, and keep coming back to those over and over again, asking students if we today are holding to those through the lens of every unit you are doing. If not, and kids are okay with that, then so be it- if a student is a communist or a liberal and is proud of that, that's okay.

But most of the times when someone is forced to think about their views and judge whether they are consistent with our founding fathers, they'll make the right choice. It is ignorance, anger, bitterness, jealousy, and the dark side of the force that clouds their minds- when they are calm, at peace with themselves, and thinking clearly, they'll make the right decisions on policy and legislation. But it isn't up to you to control their minds or force them to adopt a viewpoint- it is merely up to you to teach them how to think and give them a range of things to think on, and they can freely make up their minds after that.

One last piece of advice- do not ignore holidays because they all provide an important opportunity for teachable moments. I've already written on my blog about how to teach Constitution Day, Patriot Day (9/11), Earth Day, and several other dates- do not forgot about these chances to break away from the daily rigors of teaching and really get students thinking. These days will stay with them and at the end of the year will be more important to them then some of the other lessons you did. See my blog for ideas on how to teach those holidays in a conservative fashion.

Hopefully this is enough to get you thinking about your teaching and perhaps change an item or two. If you want more details or more tips, please feel free to email me. Enjoy!