I recently received the FREE 2012 Electoral College map that C-SPAN is giving to US teachers (for more information, read this post), and it is a durable and valuable resource. Now I need some materials to help me explain this unusual voting technique to my middle schooler.
Enter C.G.P. Grey, who has created two videos that are perfect for my son, at least. They are short and to the point, and use math examples to make the system concrete. Best of all, they insert some humor, which always works to keep my son interested.
The first one explains the Electoral College System:
But I like the second one even better. It demonstrates the problems with this system, and dismisses some of the myths that are offered as explanations about why we have to keep this antiquated technique of electing our modern President:
I learned some stuff, and I'm already pretty well versed on the subject (or so I thought).
I definitely recommend keeping these in your arsenal of tools when you are covering the 2012 Presidential election with your middle schoolers.
Showing posts with label presidential election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label presidential election. Show all posts
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Monday, September 5, 2011
Looking Forward to Looking Back on the 20th Century
Happy Labor Day to all! As an official holiday, I didn't give my son any school work today, but I have been busy planning our curricula for the year ahead. I was particularly focused today on working on our plans for our history studies this year.
As I stated in a previous post, we are doing 20th century history this year, and I'm really excited about it. Many people would not be. History of the 20th century can be pretty depressing, given the high numbers of wars, conflicts, purges, and other major exterminations of groups of people, not to mention economic depressions, ecological disasters, wildlife and nature decimation, and other such dreary topics. For example, Susan Wise Bauer, the author of the popular Story of the World series, sums up the 20th century in this way:
However, the timing seems perfect to me. Followers of this blog know I'm pretty fanatical about politics, and the upcoming presidential election, more so than any I've experienced in a long time, really seems like it could be about the fundamental principles about American democracy. The clash between the Tea Party and the Progressives is no longer about one candidate versus another, or one side of various issues versus the other side, but a true debate about the nature of government--a debate that is addressing some of the issues that have mostly been taken for granted for as long as I've been alive.
So we argue about the role of government regulations, and whether or not they should be eliminated, or made stronger. Should we be talking about that without reviewing what life was like in the 1900's and 1910's, before government got into the business of regulating business? (Although I don't think I dare have my son read The Jungle yet, since I'm not prepared to switch to vegetarianism.) As Michael Gerson writes in a recent article in the Washington Post, Texas Governor Rick Perry is actually attacking the entire New Deal itself. How can we evaluate his arguments, and the counter arguments of his foes, if we haven't studied the Great Depression and legislation that was passed to respond to that economic crisis? In terms of foreign policy, doesn't it make sense to analyze the wars that we've "won" (surely most would agree that included World War II and the first Bush's Persian Gulf War) and those that we've "lost" (perhaps more debatable, but I think most would include the Vietnam War in that category, and I think Anne Applebaum makes a good case for the "War on Terror," at least as we've chosen to pursue it so far)?
So we might not have a jolly year ahead of us in history this year. But it seems like it will be a really significant one. I think it will be important for my son to have some of this background as he tries to understand and decide about the candidate positions he will be hearing in the Presidential election of 2012. I'll do my best to give him a factual basis from which to evaluate the conflicting claims.
I only hope the rest of the country will try to recall some of our 20th century history as well. We have learned a few lessons since the Boston Tea Party, after all.
As I stated in a previous post, we are doing 20th century history this year, and I'm really excited about it. Many people would not be. History of the 20th century can be pretty depressing, given the high numbers of wars, conflicts, purges, and other major exterminations of groups of people, not to mention economic depressions, ecological disasters, wildlife and nature decimation, and other such dreary topics. For example, Susan Wise Bauer, the author of the popular Story of the World series, sums up the 20th century in this way:
Revolution shatters the structures; but the men who build the next set of structures haven’t conquered the evil that lives in their own hearts. The history of the twentieth century is, again and again, the story of men who fight against tyrants, win the battle, and then are overwhelmed by the unconquered tyranny in their own souls.Boy, that sounds like a bummer, right?
However, the timing seems perfect to me. Followers of this blog know I'm pretty fanatical about politics, and the upcoming presidential election, more so than any I've experienced in a long time, really seems like it could be about the fundamental principles about American democracy. The clash between the Tea Party and the Progressives is no longer about one candidate versus another, or one side of various issues versus the other side, but a true debate about the nature of government--a debate that is addressing some of the issues that have mostly been taken for granted for as long as I've been alive.
So we argue about the role of government regulations, and whether or not they should be eliminated, or made stronger. Should we be talking about that without reviewing what life was like in the 1900's and 1910's, before government got into the business of regulating business? (Although I don't think I dare have my son read The Jungle yet, since I'm not prepared to switch to vegetarianism.) As Michael Gerson writes in a recent article in the Washington Post, Texas Governor Rick Perry is actually attacking the entire New Deal itself. How can we evaluate his arguments, and the counter arguments of his foes, if we haven't studied the Great Depression and legislation that was passed to respond to that economic crisis? In terms of foreign policy, doesn't it make sense to analyze the wars that we've "won" (surely most would agree that included World War II and the first Bush's Persian Gulf War) and those that we've "lost" (perhaps more debatable, but I think most would include the Vietnam War in that category, and I think Anne Applebaum makes a good case for the "War on Terror," at least as we've chosen to pursue it so far)?
So we might not have a jolly year ahead of us in history this year. But it seems like it will be a really significant one. I think it will be important for my son to have some of this background as he tries to understand and decide about the candidate positions he will be hearing in the Presidential election of 2012. I'll do my best to give him a factual basis from which to evaluate the conflicting claims.
I only hope the rest of the country will try to recall some of our 20th century history as well. We have learned a few lessons since the Boston Tea Party, after all.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
American History in the News
This year, we will be focusing on 20th century history for our social studies. This is just kind of how it turned out, as we've been approaching history chronologically and thus marching through time year by year. But with the elections coming next year, I'm glad my son will be exposed to 20th century history this year. Increasingly, it appears we are facing deep problems in American society that we haven't faced since the early 20th century, and I will be glad for him to know some more about those times as we try to analyze the arguments of the political candidates who are vying for our votes (OK, my vote at least, although he did participate thoughtfully in the Kids Vote program during the last presidential election). Plus, facing some of the same issues today will, I believe, make our study of those past policies, failed or successful, richer and more meaningful.
There were two articles I read in the Washington Post today that brought this synchronicity home to me. In one, Greg Ip, who is the US economics editor of The Economist and author of The Little Book of Economics: How the Economy Works in the Real World, analyzes the changing beliefs about basic economics by the current Republican party. Entitled The Republicans' New Voodoo Economics?, Ip suggests that some of the most radical Republican candidates are rejecting not just Obama's economic policies, but the entire Keynesian economic theory that has driven most of the US economic policies for the bulk of the 20th century. Mr. Ip seems not to be in favor of this trend, mentioning, among others, the belief that it was Herbert Hoover's narrow focus on balancing the budget in 1932 that made the Great Depression more severe.
Keynesian economic philosophy is not something that I know enough about that I can talk intelligently as to its success in the past vis a vis other alternatives. But believe me, it will be something I will be looking into more carefully when we get to the 1930's in our history studies. And, fortunately, I have some family resources at hand; my father is/was a professional economist, and my brother just visited the Herbert Hoover presidential library, trying to find out what more there was to the man than a one-term President during the Depression.
The other article goes back even further than Keynes and Hoover. In The Real Grand Bargain Coming Undone, Harvard history professor Alexander Keyssar writes that the current political debate reminds him not of the Depression, but of the Robber Barons of the late 19th century and the reform efforts to balance their power that were passed in the first several decades of the 20th century. Keyssar, who also is the author of The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States, points out that the public outrage over the excesses of unbridled capitalism at the turn of the century were mollified by such laws or programs as the Sherman Antitrust Act, worker safety laws, banking regulations, the rise of the labor movement, and the establishment of the social welfare programs of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare--most of which are currently under attack by some Republicans. He argues that it is this agreement between segments of society--that corporates can run up huge profits if workers have a basic level of protection and a social safety net--that is what really is under attack in today's politics.
Anyway, these echoes from the past that are arising in our current political debate promise to make this year's history studies particularly important and fruitful in raising a young man who can participate intelligently in our democratic system. It reminds me of the all-too-often misquoted Santayana quote, which I think is worthy of being repeated in its entirety here, especially since the first sentence is what many of us need to consider:
There were two articles I read in the Washington Post today that brought this synchronicity home to me. In one, Greg Ip, who is the US economics editor of The Economist and author of The Little Book of Economics: How the Economy Works in the Real World, analyzes the changing beliefs about basic economics by the current Republican party. Entitled The Republicans' New Voodoo Economics?, Ip suggests that some of the most radical Republican candidates are rejecting not just Obama's economic policies, but the entire Keynesian economic theory that has driven most of the US economic policies for the bulk of the 20th century. Mr. Ip seems not to be in favor of this trend, mentioning, among others, the belief that it was Herbert Hoover's narrow focus on balancing the budget in 1932 that made the Great Depression more severe.
Keynesian economic philosophy is not something that I know enough about that I can talk intelligently as to its success in the past vis a vis other alternatives. But believe me, it will be something I will be looking into more carefully when we get to the 1930's in our history studies. And, fortunately, I have some family resources at hand; my father is/was a professional economist, and my brother just visited the Herbert Hoover presidential library, trying to find out what more there was to the man than a one-term President during the Depression.
The other article goes back even further than Keynes and Hoover. In The Real Grand Bargain Coming Undone, Harvard history professor Alexander Keyssar writes that the current political debate reminds him not of the Depression, but of the Robber Barons of the late 19th century and the reform efforts to balance their power that were passed in the first several decades of the 20th century. Keyssar, who also is the author of The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States, points out that the public outrage over the excesses of unbridled capitalism at the turn of the century were mollified by such laws or programs as the Sherman Antitrust Act, worker safety laws, banking regulations, the rise of the labor movement, and the establishment of the social welfare programs of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare--most of which are currently under attack by some Republicans. He argues that it is this agreement between segments of society--that corporates can run up huge profits if workers have a basic level of protection and a social safety net--that is what really is under attack in today's politics.
Anyway, these echoes from the past that are arising in our current political debate promise to make this year's history studies particularly important and fruitful in raising a young man who can participate intelligently in our democratic system. It reminds me of the all-too-often misquoted Santayana quote, which I think is worthy of being repeated in its entirety here, especially since the first sentence is what many of us need to consider:
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana, Reason in Common Sense, 1905
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)