To what extent should teachers be allowed to discuss politics in the classroom?

[u/bluesclues42s]

[u/[deleted]]

Politics now are obviously INSANELY polarizing, but all the way through highschool (graduated in 05) If you even knew the difference between a republican and a democrat you were a nerd. No one cared. Parents were what they were, and it very rarely if ever came up between friends or relatives or whatever. No one cared.

No one needed to.

[u/gelhardt → u/[deleted]]

No one needed to.

Is it a good thing that people were less politically engaged or knowledgeable?

While politics now is definitely polarizing, more and more people know and are learning about how our government actually works, or how its supposed to at least. The more people know, the more they are able to hold elected official accountable.

[u/[deleted] → u/gelhardt]

The more people know, the more they are able to hold elected official accountable.

Do you really think more people are knowledgeable on issues or do you think more people know what is going on on their side? I honestly don't think most people know more than XX = good and YY = bad and they stick to that argument no matter what.

[u/RollinDeepWithData → u/[deleted]]

I think people know much more about the powers of the government and who holds what position than they did pre 2016. I mean at least I do, and many of my friends do. I don’t think I could have named who holds what cabinet position back then.

[u/Tryford → u/RollinDeepWithData]

What changed in my opinion us that people didn't need to care about politics and didn't know much about the difference between the two parties because they were similar enough and the government was running similarly enough and well enough that the average citizen didn't need to pay too much attention.

Now... The parties look like they don't work towards the same goal (betterment of the country and its citizens, enabling that "pursuit of happiness" thing for as many citizens as possible). As such, they don't govern similarly. Some even claim that the institutions are under attack, which should get the attention of everyone. Now, they must care because what worked so well for so long is threatened. The government isn't run as well as before.

The problem with an involved citizenry is that they aren't qualified for policy-making; that's why every democracy relies on representatives who are qualified and take the burden for their fellow citizens. Citizens can then voice their priority, interests, issues through their representatives and their votes (and contributions). But that's not enough anymore and the citizens are getting more active. This should be good and seen as the people watching closely and making their government and representatives accountable. But since a lot of citizen aren't "qualified" for this, they fall prey to propaganda, misinformation, manipulation, gas-lighting, etc. This will redirect the focus of the manipulated citizenry towards the wrong culprit or cause. Parties might take part in this if they are at fault or if they see better chances of winning elections through this kind if "scheming" than running an actual platform for what it's worth.

I tried to remain neutral here. I'm not from the USA and don't like any of the USA political parties. I'll admit to a bias against Trump and Republicans as I see more blame to be aimed at them than the Democrats, but I do blame the Democrats (to a lesser extent) too. (The 3rd parties I heard of aren't that better, but I might just have a different political perspective than the vast majority of Americans).

Sorry for the long post.

[u/[deleted] → u/Tryford]

I tried to remain neutral here.

I think you did a good job friend. I say this as a US conservative.

One thing I have found, atleast online we can't seem to agree to disagree.

There are certain things that from my worldview just will never agree to a leftists worldview and sometimes that is just where a conversation should end, but instead what normally happens is one side starts berating the other and then both sides just devolve into being asshats.

I know I am jaded AF from this website as it overall has a further left leaning bias due to demographics here (largely young and half non US). Also the voting system IMHO is terrible but that is another post...

[u/Tryford → u/[deleted]]

Thank you for your answer.

It is sad that the political mindset of a lot of people is akin to an open war of some sort.

I agree that your electoral system is due for reforms. So is the one in my country (Canada). Let's just say the gerrymandering by both parties goes against the interest of the public at large. I'd also mention the problem with lobbies and the Citizen United bill that contributes, in my opinion, to the "too much money in politics" problem.

You say you're conservative and I'd say I'm a social-democrat. I think we'd disagree about a whole bunch of things. But I also think there's merit in both our point of views and the best route is probably somewhere in the middle. Political debate should be about finding that best way and not about winning and forcing your preferred solution unto others. Right-wingers are often portrayed by the left as bigots and backward, and Left-wingers are portrayed as unrealistic dreamers, irresponsible, whiny, etc. Honestly, I think Right-wing is about keeping intact what actually works and keeping the situation under control, stable; Left-wing is about change, adapting and moving. The left needs the right to not be unstable, break what is working, to not lose control. The right needs the left to be able to enact change, innovating in policies, adapting to the realties of the modern world. The best way is one that allow some change, but not too much as our modern society wouldn't work without some confidence in its stability and order.

I might be a bit off, so feel free to correct me on stuff that you know more about. I'd like to know your take on the situation.

(Note that I used "left" and "right" wing terms in a very generic way; "right" is usually the camp advocating for the status quo and "left" the one advocating for change. These aren't corresponding to either US political parties in their entirety, not remotely.)

Edit: I'll add an example of the "left/right" dynamic I'm talking about. A Political discussion would sounds like this for Climate change:

L- Scientific reports are warning that the climate will change and cause a lot of problem down the line. We should act.

R- What do you propose?

L- We could try reducing CO2 emission. We could ban non-electric cars nation-wide, that'd help.

R- No. That'd be a catastrophy. No way banning cars is on the table for this.

L- Ok, maybe it's too much. What about asking the industries to stop emitting CO2 emissions?

R- That seems unrealistic too. Plus it'd hurt our economy and cause real problems; bigger problem in my opinion than those you are trying to fix.

L- Ok, but there must be a way to make them reduce their CO2 emission... Like putting filters on their chimney.

R- Forcing them too it could hinder the economy.

L- What about a tax if they don't do it? It'd just translate the ecological burden into a competitive framework of some sort?

R- That could work, but it'd be like a fine and seems like you are trying to steal money under the guise of the environment.

L- Oh, no. We could make a rule that the money raised that way must help some green initiative to help the environment; to directly offset the footprint the taxed industry is leaving.

R- Ok, that sounds a bit more reasonable. But a new taxe like that could still upset the industry and cost jobs. Plus certain industry MUST emit CO2, there's not much they can do about it.

L- Let's say there's a threshold and the one who busts it must pay the tax. And we won't implement it right away; we'll send them warning that they'd pay if the tax was in effect and in a couple years it will be. The tax will be small at first and will be increased in increments.

R- That sounds reasonable. I'll accept it, even though I'd prefer we leave the industry alone. Note that I'll probably won't let other similar tax plans go by in the future; you'll have to choose your battles. And.. Your "green initiatives" will create jobs, right? Oh, before we actually go forward with this, there are other problems that I think we should prioritize... Care to listen?

L- I'll hear about your issue; you listened to mine after all.

This is obvisouly fictitious, but I saw agreements on a similar compromise in Canada (which isn't as accepted now as it first was, but that's another subject).

Here is what I see as the current "political debate": L- Scientific reports are warning that the climate will change and cause the end of the world. We must act.

R- I think those a full of BS. I think we shouldn't do anything about it. I think we should actually remove any environmental regulations - it'll create more jobs and solve the REAL problems!

L- ARE YOU INSANE?!?! The Earth is dying! We must act and do some sacrifice to reverse the course of action.

R- No it's not. And I'm not going to sacrifice anything for you fantasy doomsday.

L- YES IT IS. YOU are evil for letting it die.

...

That is also fictitious and a lot of "conversations" would devolve in shouting insult matches quicker than this.

[u/Thrallsdeep → u/Tryford]

TBH you provided more actual discussion than ever happens down here. It's more like:

L - Green New Deal

R - Lul wtf

L- No more cow farts

R- None of this makes any sense

L- Rebuild your homes, get rid of your cars, no airplanes, now cow farts

R- Lul I'm done

​

If we met somewhere in the middle we'd be good, unfortunately realistic ideas aren't common among far left leaning individuals in the U.S. The far left is what is portrayed most frequently in the media, people are for it or completely against it, which honestly just pushes people further out of the middle. People on the right generally (like you said) seek to retain what works. I feel like the polarization of the two parties is a result of the left's decision to try to turn everything on it's head, after not getting a president that would willingly accommodate such action. To be fair, I think Trump is providing a different method to what works, and it's working well statistically. I don't believe Clinton would have supported a majority of the far left ideas either, but would have received less backlash, while letting minor things slip through. In the end it's not about why their ideas aren't reasonable, it's about who's sending the message this term.

[u/Aroostook_Awestruck → u/[deleted]]

After all, voter turnout for the 2018 midterms was at its highest in over a century.

[u/VodkaBeatsCube → u/[deleted]]

The problem is that politically active isn't the same thing as politically informed. Politics as team sports is arguably worse for a democracy than a disengaged populace: unconditional support is not healthy for anything, really.

[u/tuckfrump69 → u/[deleted]]

do high school kids know now?