How the West was won and where it got us
Is knowledge of our country’s history necessary for engaged citizens?
A few days ago, an op-ed in the USA Today by Sandra Day O’Connor and George Nethercutt, Jr. lamented the lack of knowledge among Americans of the history of the nation and its founding documents. In their words:
Parents, educators and leaders at all levels of American society have a role to play in helping our youth develop a working knowledge and understanding of our nation’s founding papers, the American political system, lessons of principled leadership, basic economic principles and significant historic events that have shaped our nation. This basic knowledge of our past is critical to our present and to our future if we are to continue to enjoy the freedoms envisioned by the Framers.
What I find most interesting is the inclusion of both historical and civic education in this prescription for America. No doubt, most people would agree that a basic understanding of politics and economics is a moral imperative for engaged citizens in a democracy, but does historical knowledge have the same moral standing? The assumption here seems to be that without knowledge of American history, one cannot truly understand American institutions. I find this claim suspect.
It doesn’t seem to me that in order to understand the purpose and function of the Constitution someone also has to study the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Neither does knowledge of history seem to be a prerequisite to judgments about the American political system. Suppose, for example, that someone believes a bicameral legislature is not the optimal legislative system. Before she makes this judgment, must she also know the history of the Connecticut Compromise? If she is ignorant of this history, is her judgment somehow less valid?
I concede, knowledge of the past can inform judgments in the present. Perhaps with knowledge of the Connecticut Compromise, this person would understand the bicameral legislature as a compromise between large and small states. But of course, she could also come to this view if someone simply argued for it – the historical context is superfluous. In fact, the historical context can sometimes serve to obscure the actual cogency of arguments. Conditions that held two hundred years ago, for example, may not hold anymore. Thus, what was the best plan during the Philadelphia Convention is not necessarily the best one today. In addition, famous historical figures are not infallible, and even their decisions should be scrutinized. Just because Thomas Jefferson believed something, doesn’t mean all Americans should as well. Thus, political arguments would ideally be presented without historical context, and assayed on their own merits, without relying on historical authority.
This is certainly not a trivial point. Veneration of our founding fathers has a dangerous underbelly. It would only be a slight hyperbole to say that documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution have reached the level of gospel. In the same article cited above, the writers admonish a publisher for “foolishly asserting that [the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist papers] do not represent “modern thought” or adequately take into account social issues on which the United States has evolved since our country’s beginnings.” Perhaps this disclaimer is false, but it certainly may be true, and most importantly, it shouldn’t be a question that is unacceptable to ask. If historical documents and ideas are truly correct, then forget who wrote them, and explain why. If they are not, then replace them with better ideas. This is the responsibility of the engaged citizen.
-Han
Photo by Flickr user ttarasiuk used under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
Related posts:
- History helps
- The originality of originalism
- Sacred (but political) texts
- How the West was lost
- The Congressman and the Common Good
ShareComments
2 Responses to “How the West was won and where it got us”
Leave a Reply
This article makes some cogent points. However, I can’t help but believe that if more people were aware of the age of lassaiz faire capitalism there would be fewer touters of the virtues of unbridled free market economics.
[...] his post today, Han disagrees with some big guns–Sandra Day O’Connor and George Nethercutt, [...]