In a 1987 survey, about half of the American citizens polled thought that the phrase, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” came from the U.S. Constitution. Regardless of what one thinks of that sentiment, it would improve political discourse to identify it correctly as classic Karl Marx. 

~Nick Down, Senior Program Officer, ACTA

The above quote comes from Mr. Down’s testimony in support of SB117 before the Ohio State Legislature.  If you are not familiar with ACTA (American Council of Trustees and Alumni), it is a non–profit organization which promotes “…academic excellence, academic freedom and accountability at America’s colleges and universities.”  Hard to argue with that in the abstract.  Unfortunately, Mr. Down seems to be the one who needs to be held accountable for his lack of academic excellence..

SB117 was introduced “to establish the Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society at the Ohio State University, to establish the Institute of American Constitutional Thought and Leadership at the University of Toledo, and to make an appropriation.”  As the holder of three degrees in political science, I welcome the idea that an understanding of the constitution, governance and civic responsibility is critical to any system based on the will of the governed.  Unfortunately, so many good ideas have been hijacked by ideologues, particular members of MAGA world, to justify actions contrary to the intended purpose of the original concept.

One way you can tell when such hijacking is in process is whether proponents of an initiative either exaggerate, misrepresent or outright lie about evidence supporting their position.  Which brings me back the opening quote and Mr. Down.  Since he did not identify the source of the 1987 survey, I tried to find it on the internet. I did find several other organizations which cited the 1987 survey.  Only one Education Week provided a link to the actual survey source, The Bill of Rights Institute.  However, any information about the survey had been removed from their website.

A 2001 survey commissioned by Columbia Law School is also cited as the source for claims similar to Mr. Down’s.  However, in June 14, 2002, Los Angeles Times reporter Tim Rutten suggests the results may not have been so clear cut.  The question did not ask if the phrase was in the Constitution.  It asked if the phrase “was or could have been written by the framers and included in the Constitution.”  You know who else COULD have thought “from each according to his ability…?”  Jesus.  Actually, he kind of did according to the gospels and the parable about the good Samaritan.”  Even though many of the founders were “deists” who did not believe the source of the Bible to be the divine word of God, they did advocate the values contained within.  

Finally, when you look at the actual survey results, you see how intellectually suspect the spin has become.  Thirty five percent said yes.  But we do not know if that response meant they thought the phrase was actually in the Constitution or whether the framers simply thought it might be a good idea for the haves to aid the have-nots.  Thirty one percent said no.  Were they referring solely to the document itself or, through some form of time-travel mental telepathy, included the founding fathers’ mindset?  The only intellectually honest respondents are the 34 percent who said “don’t know.”  There is no black-and-white answer to such an ambiguous and poorly constructed survey question.

Mr. Down does not stop there. He further bolsters his case using information from an ACTA commissioned survey that  “only 18% of college graduates identify James Madison as the ‘Father of the Constitution.'” The survey consisted of 15 multiple choice questions which you can still take on-line HERE.  The choices were:  Benjamin Franklin, Cassius Clay, Thomas Jefferson or James Madison.  The Constitution was the product of a Constitutional Convention consisting of 55 delegates appointed by the states (with the exception of Rhode Island which chose not to attend).  Should we really lose sleep if someone thought Benjamin Franklin, the oldest delegate at age 81, was the “Father of the Constitution?”  One would expect to see this question on Jeopardy instead of a civics quiz.

Civics is better served when we focus on institutions and processes, not personalities.  Take question #15, “Who is the current speaker of the House?”  Options:  Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan or Bernie Sanders.  Depending on the timing of the survey, either Paul Ryan or Nancy Pelosi COULD be correct.  If you take the survey now, the answer is the non-existent option  “None of the above.”

Here is a more recent example of the difference between a process and personalities.  Which would be a better question to gauge knowledge of the process by which we elect the president?  Question #1:  Who is the current president of the United States?  As of September 2022, 61 percent of Republicans still believed Donald Trump won the 2020 election (Monmouth University poll).  Question #2: Who certifies a state’s electoral college delegates and sends the winners’ names to Congress to be counted on January 6th?  Options:  Governor, Secretary of State, State Legislature or Varies by state law or constitution.

I raise the above question because several states besides Ohio are considering funding civics programs in K-12 schools and public universities.  The value of these programs, as is so often the case, depends on the motives of those promoting the programs. In my home state of Florida, the governor and state legislature are mandating civics education as long as the curriculum does not offend their base voters.  Civics education, especially in higher education, should promote Socratic dialogue, not lectures.  Imagine a political science course based on issues the framers addressed if the convention convened in 2023 instead of 1787.  If I were teaching that class, there would only be one requirement.  Any evidence provided to support a student’s position must be fact-based sans misinterpretation or ideological spin.

Unlike some of the arguments presented by the ACTA representative before the Ohio legislature.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 26 – In an unexpected surprise announcement, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), during questioning of American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten, suggested unwanted pregnancies should be terminated as opposed to being raised by women or men who were not their biological parents.

You probably missed this story because it is not true.  That is not EXACTLY what she said.  But she might as well have.  Here is what Greene actually did say to Weingarten during a hearing on the continuing effects of the coronavirus pandemic on students and teachers.

MTG: Are you a mother?

RW: I am a mother by marriage.  And my wife is here with me, so I’m really glad that she’s here.

MTG: I see.   People like you need to admit that you’re just a political activist, not a teacher, not a mother, and not a medical doctor.

Wait, is this is the same Marjorie Taylor Greene who claims there are thousands of adults, ready and willing to adopt the unwanted children the Supreme Court and GOP legislators demand must be carried to term?  Now she questions the ability of those same women and men to provide a caring and nurturing environment for these infants.  I normally would not risk “mansplaining” an issue to a member of the opposite sex, but in this case, I will make an exception.

Ms. Greene, the only thing EVERY biological mother has in common, is that they produced a child via intercourse.  There are no mandated eligibility criteria, background checks or required training to become a parent.  Think of it like the gun laws in your home state.  Fortunately, the overwhelming majority accept the responsibility from that act, providing a loving and safe environment for their offspring.  Some, however, do not fulfill that obligation resulting in the emotional or physical harm or even the death of an innocent child.  Do the names Susan Smith, Andrea Yates and Casey Anthony, all biological mothers, ring a bell?

In contrast, EVERY adoptive parent makes a conscious decision to take on the responsibilities of raising a child.  There are no “accidental adoptions.” They are subjected to background checks.  Have strangers scout out their homes to ensure the child will have a safe and healthy setting.  They often persevere through false starts or wait more than nine months to realize their dream.  Becoming an adoptive parent can be excruciating, which makes the rewards of success more cherished.

When the late Colin Powell founded America’s Promise, pulling together more than 400 private, non-profit and public sector partners “to improve the lives of children and youth,” he never talked about biology.  Instead, his goal was to ensure every boy and girl had a “responsible, caring adult in their lives.”

I will give former RNC chairman Michael Steele the last word. He posted the following response to Representative Greene on his Twitter page.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

A St. Louis police officer was shot and wounded Friday afternoon during a welfare check for a man whose relatives were concerned about his mental health, law enforcement officials said.

Associated Press/April 28, 2023

“Red Flag” laws are gun safety measures which  allow law enforcement officials to confiscate firearms, following a judicial process, from individuals who exhibit behaviors which suggest they might use such weapons to harm themselves or others.  Advocates, at first glance, might say the above AP story is a perfect example of why “red flag” laws are necessary.

I am not so sure.  No, I have not suddenly become a rabid defender of the perverted interpretation of the Second Amendment on display at the recent NRA annual meeting in Washington, D.C.  Nor do I believe the right to defend one’s property is absolute.  This morning, however, I wonder if the responsibility for enforcing “red flag” situations is unnecessarily putting law enforcement officers at risk of injury or death.  If I am guilty of anything, it is aiding and abetting true conservatives (as opposed to MAGA world) who believe government should not be responsible for solving all of society’s ills.

Take another look at the first sentence in the AP story from a journalistic perspective.  The lede is supposed to be a factual summation of the critical aspects of the narrative.  You know, the what, who, where, when and why.

• What?  There was a shooting.
• Who?  Of a law enforcement officer who went to check on the mental health of a citizen.
• Where?  The citizen’s home.
• When? After relatives reported the shooter might be mentally unstable.
• Why?  Because a 71-year-old man who relatives claim was delusional saw two police officers approaching his home.

Advocates of “red flag” laws say this is a “common sense” solution that will reduce gun violence.  My “common sense” tells me something different.  You do not send uniformed police officers or even a mental health expert in civilian clothes to interact with an armed, perhaps paranoid individual.  Especially if that individual is exposed to cable news or social media, day in and day out, spreading stories how the authorities are coming to get him.  You do not need to call a psychic like the late Jeane Dixon to predict the outcome

Consider an alternative in this case. Start with an assumption, Grandpa’s relatives knew he owned a handgun.  If not, why would they call the police, rather than a social worker, to check in on him.  They knew he was dangerous.

When they realized he was exhibiting signs of mental instability, would it not make more sense for one of them to suggest, “Maybe it’s not such a good idea for him to have access to a firearm.”  They devise a plan.  “A couple of US take the old man out for dinner while another one of US searches his home for weapons and, if still present, removes them from the residence.  Then, if he gets mad, the worst he can do is throw the TV remote at somebody”

Do not take my word for it.  The Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), the largest mental health teaching hospital in Canada, lists contacting the police as the last of four actions one should consider when concerned about a family member.  The first three rely on a relative or friend as an intermediary, someone the person in need of help trusts.  Someone who will talk with the troubled individual in terms of “I” or “WE,” instead of the more judgmental “YOU.”  NOTE:  To ensure their own safety, CAMH recommends relatives or friends read up on mental health care and get training before initiating an intervention with a loved one.

Interventions by a stranger, much less uniformed police officers, are more likely to exacerbate the situation.  We need look no farther than the April 13 shooting of a black teenager Ralph Yarl by 84-year-old Andrew Lester.  Or the death of 20-year-old Kaylin Gillis four days later at the hands of 65-year-old Kevin Monahan.  Their crimes?  In Yarl’s case, mistakenly going to the wrong house to pick up his brother.  Gillis’?  Pulling in and turning around in the wrong driveway.  In this era of “fire first, ask questions later,” law enforcement officers are just as vulnerable as everyone else.

As CAMH suggests, red flag laws still make sense as a last resort.  However, incidents such as the one last Friday in St. Louis are less likely when someone whom a troubled individual knows and trusts takes the lead in deescalating the situation.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP