Do You Know Basic Civics?

I first heard about this story on the Rush Limbaugh show today. I was simply appalled. A conservative non-profit group recently released The Shaping of the American Mind: The Diverging Influences of the College Degree & Civic Learning on American Beliefs. This report sought,"... to measure for the first time the impact that earning a bachelor’s degree and acquiring additional knowledge of America’s history and institutions exerts on public opinion." The results were not good. The group, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, administered a basic civics test to some 14,000 college students (half were freshmen, half were seniors). They also got a number of elected officials to take the test.

If you want to take the test yourself, you can at this site. I took the test and scored an 83%. According to ISI, 71% of Americans failed the test. The average score was 54.2%. I thought many of the questions were very basic. The very first question is a great example (this is copied from the site, so the bullets don't work):

1) Which of the following are the inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence?

A. life, liberty, and property

B. honor, liberty, and peace

C. liberty, health, and community

D. life, respect, and equal protection

E. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

I am embarrassed that this question could cause anyone trouble. However, 30% of the elected officials who took this quiz got the answer wrong. Here's another one:

3) What are the three branches of government?

A. executive, legislative, judicial

B. executive, legislative, military

C. bureaucratic, military, industry

D. federal, state, local

51% of Americans who took the quiz missed this problem as well. Some of the other stats are equally embarrassing. To be fair, there are a few questions on the test that are a little more difficult, such as:

14) The Puritans:

A. opposed all wars on moral grounds

B. stressed the sinfulness of all humanity

C. believed in complete religious freedom

D. colonized Utah under the leadership of Brigham Young

E. were Catholic missionaries escaping religious persecution

(The answer is B, and this is one of the questions I missed)

The bulk of the questions should really be easy to anyone who has graduated junior high. The problem is that we have gotten away from teaching basic civics to our students. There are any number of explanations for this, but none of them are acceptable. If our children don't understand how the government works, or even their basic rights, how can we expect them to govern themselves and to carry freedom forward to the next generation? Being a citizen of the world means nothing if you don't understand your own country and heritage.

This represents a pretty big problem for our future. If our children don't know the rules the government plays by, how do they know when the government has overstepped its boundaries? How do they recognize tyranny, even a "benevolent" one?

Is North Carolina History?

North Carolina has made a bold decision that history began in 1877. You may think they have lost their mind, but Fox News reports:

Right now, {North Carolina} high school students learn world history in the ninth grade, civics and economics in the tenth and the entirety of U.S. history in the eleventh grade. Under the proposed change, all ninth graders wouldn't study world history. Instead, they''ll have to take a course called Global Studies focusing on the modern issues like the environment.

Tenth graders will still get Civics and Economics, while the junior year U.S. history class would start in 1877. State officials say events prior to that year will be taught before high school and also incorporated into the sophomore year Civics class.

Education officials acknowledge this is a big change but believe it will allow them to connect with a standard of teaching based on a new national initiative called called Common Core which emphasizes standards to help prepare students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in college and careers and to be prepared to compete globally.


"The whole notion of the common core is fewer, clearer and more in depth standards. So that our students remember what's important," Garland said.

North Carolina had signers at the Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution. It was here at the founding of our nation, and now it has decided that it's history, and that of the United States, isn't really that important. I guess we should feel privileged that they are keeping history after 1877. The rest of the world has no history at all according to North Carolina officials.


I have often heard history teachers complain that it's hard to squeeze all of U. S. History into the time they are allowed to teach it. However, I don't believe many of them would vote to simply not teach anything before 1877.


Our history makes us who we are. We have made mistakes, but we have also been a beacon of hope for the rest of the world. How do you argue against ideas that could be destructive if you have no concept of the context of our government, our nation, our history, or our values?


School officials in North Carolina have lost sight of what they are suppose to do. Teaching our children math, english, AND history is important. Global "Environmental" studies can be important, but not at the expense of our own identity. Without our identity, what are we?

A Lesson on Taxes and Spending

In preparation for this week's issue of "Of Government and Men", I wanted to recount this story about David Crockett. I have seen this story in a number of places, the version I am going to quote below is from Ted, White, and Blue by Ted Nugent. "The Nuge" in turn is quoting from The Life of Colonel David Crockett by Edward Sylvester Ellis. This story is about a lesson then Congressman David Crockett learned from a constituent. The story as quoted was in Crocket's words.

One evening, Congressman Crocket and a number of other elected officials were around the Capital when they noticed a large fire had broken out in Georgetown. They rushed to the scene and tried to lend their hand, but the damage was done. Crocket was distraught to see a number of families were now homeless, and had only the clothes on their back as a result of the fire. The next day, a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for the relief of the victims of this fire. Congress put aside all other business to rush this through, and they were quite proud of themselves at appropriating this money for those families.

The next summer, Crocket was back in his home district campaigning for re-election. He didn't expect any trouble, but thought it might be a good idea to feel out his constituents. He came across a farmer who was polite to him but very cold at the same time. The farmer told Crocket he had voted for him before, but wouldn't be voting for him again. Crocket was shocked and begged the man to tell him why. Eventually the farmer came back to the vote the previous year to appropriate $20,000 for the victims of the Georgetown fire. He asked Crocket if he had in fact voted for said $20,000 relief bill. Crocket said he had, and he was proud he had. Any nation as rich as ours could afford to give, "…the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve the suffering women and children, particularly with a full and over flowing treasury…" This was the problem. The farmer pointed out that Crocket either hadn't read the Constitution, or didn't understand it, and that his vote for this bill proved it. He pointed out that first, the government should only have enough money to cover it's legitimate purposes. The money in the treasury is taken from working families, so while Congress may feel good giving this money to families in need, what about the need of the families they took these funds from?

Secondly, the Constitution doesn't define charity. If Congress believes it has the right to donate to charity (as in this case) then there is no stopping the amount they may take from one family to give to another. Finally, the farmer pointed out, "Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose." The farmer stressed that the money Congress had appropriated for the relief of the fire victims wasn't Congress's money to give away. They should take up a collection of their personal money if they felt that passionately about it, but they shouldn't take from the treasury, and by extension, the other families of the nation to give to these families.

Crocket then says the following:

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to."

He finally asked the man to give him one more chance. Crocket promised to study and be guided by the Constitution. He hoped that if he ever voted for another bill such as the Georgetown fire bill, he would be shot dead. This is an important story from our nation's history, and one with lessons for today's Congress as it debates health care and other issues. Congressman David Crocket had his eyes opened to the meaning of the Constitution by talking to a constituent. I hope more of our members of Congress learn from their constituents during this recess, and that they realize that tax money isn't their money. It's the people's money and it should be treated with the respect it deserves.