When you’ve been around as long as I have, one gets all manner of intriguing questions. While I usually respond to such queries in private, some seem likely to be of broader interest. So, in “Ask Rick,” I occasionally take up reader queries. If you’d like to send one along, just send it to me, care of Greg Fournier, at greg.fournier@aei.org.
Dear Rick,
Last fall, I saw you wrote a piece that seemed to suggest we shouldn’t care whether civics education encourages students to vote. With presidential primary season upon us, I found myself thinking back on the piece. At the time, I thought that was a pretty odd stance, especially for someone who once taught high school civics. Did I misunderstand you? If not, that strikes me as a dubious stance at a time when democracy is under threat.
Sincerely,
Dubious
Dear Dubious,
Thanks for your thoughtful query. Let’s see. First off, let me provide readers with a bit of context for your question. Last fall, the American Educational Research Association touted a new study that found, as the press release declared, “State-Mandated Civics Test Policy Does Not Improve Youth Voter Turnout.” In discussing the study’s results, I argued that the tendency to regard voting and advocacy as the aim of civic education is misguided.
Why would I think it’s misguided to focus on voting? Well, self-government also requires knowledge, a respect for rules, personal responsibility, patience, and a willingness to work with those who see things differently. My concern is that these things have gotten neglected amid the focus on “engagement.” After all, let’s note that “democracy is under threat” at a time when voting is easier than ever (due to mail-in ballots, same-day registration, et al.) and at a time of historically high voter participation. There’s an obvious disconnect here.
Once upon a time, as you note, I taught high school civics. So, it’s no surprise that I want graduates to vote. But we live in an era when “small money” donors have eclipsed party leaders in their influence on candidates, Americans consume political tirades as social media entertainment, and the most extreme voters call the shots in party primaries. The problems we confront are not, I’d argue, due to a lack of political participation but to a lack of restraint, trust, knowledge, and respect for institutions and norms.
Self-government depends on our accepting electoral outcomes or court decisions even when we disagree vehemently with the result. It depends on presidents and voters understanding that the executive branch isn’t empowered to spend billions of dollars (on a border wall or a student-loan jubilee) without a law that empowers them to do so. It depends on respect for due process, free speech, canvassing boards that faithfully review vote tallies, independent courts, responsible legislators, and limits on executive authority. That’s the stuff that should be at the heart of civics education.
Today, civics education has strayed pretty far afield from such notions. Heck, in 2022, the RAND Corp. reported that, when asked about the purpose of civics education, more K–12 teachers emphasized environmental activism than “knowledge of social, political, and civic institutions.” Teachers who say they’re more concerned about environmental activism than civic institutions when asked about civics education are probably not focused on exploring why things like federalism or the separation of powers might be good (especially when they impede one’s preferred environmental agenda).
As I see it, the critical part of civics education isn’t students learning how to be heard; it’s their learning to be responsible, reflective citizens. And voting doesn’t require that voters be either responsible or reflective. Rather, it’s mostly an opportunity to tell office-seekers, “This is what I want.” That may be a crucial part of citizenship, but it’s also the easy part.
I’ll go further: The hard part is understanding why we shouldn’t always get our way. That applies equally to Trump backers who refuse to accept that he lost in 2020 and student-loan borrowers who want the Biden administration to ignore all those legal niceties and just “forgive” the hundreds of billions they owe the U.S. Treasury. In these cases (as in many others), the guardians of self-government have not been the voters. Civic education should help students grasp the role of institutions and norms in safeguarding self-government and checking illiberal impulses, whether those are found on the right or the left.
I’m far less concerned with teaching students to get their way than with helping them understand how anti-majoritarian arrangements like the Bill of Rights, the federal system, the separation of powers, and judicial review can protect us—even in those moments when we’re furious about the results. Civics should teach students how democratic institutions actually work and what it takes to maintain them. And it should prepare them to be the kind of officials and citizens who will stand up to bullies, mobs, and demagogues in the years to come.
