A Failure of Citizenship and the Health Care Debacle

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

Thomas Jefferson penned those words in an early debate on the role of government in education.  He went on to say:  “Universal education is the most effective means of preserving democracy and good government.”

Nobody would accuse Jefferson of being a Communist, particularly because Marx would not be born for another 40 years.  Yet here was one of our Founding Fathers advocating a “government takeover” of education.

Jefferson also advocated a “government takeover” of the military by relieving the militia with “regulars” during time of war.  In his first inaugural address, he said somewhat subtly:

“A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration.”

Jefferson was no extreme radical in the cabal of staid Founders; his ideas were mainstream among his brethren.  The idea that our central government can and rightfully should “take over” certain critical functions in society is embedded in the very foundation of our country and codified in our Constitution.  This should put in context the idea that our government can have at least some role in guaranteeing access to basic health care for all Americans.  We are after all the only democracy that does not offer such basic care to all citizens.

But here we run into a terrible problem.  The health care debate cannot be understood in historic context because many Americans have never heard of Thomas Jefferson.  Extrapolating from state surveys, only 14% of American high school students can name who wrote the Declaration of Independence.   Nearly 75% do not know that George Washington was our first president.  More than 90% could not pass the exam given to immigrants who wish to become citizens.   No wonder that Jay Leno has so much material for his Jay Walking segment.  We can say that our educational system has failed when the vast majority of American students do not know enough to pass an exam to qualify as American citizens.

We cannot expect to be ignorant and free, and this reality is manifesting itself clearly in the health care debate.  Our health care system is destroying us from within, threatening our economy and our future.  Yet with our incredible ignorance of our history, we lose critical perspective and the ability to have a rational discussion of government’s proper role in solving the problem.  Any reasonable debate is drowned out with absurd accusations of socialism and Communism and outright fabrications and fear mongering about death panels and a government takeover.  Ignorance leads to comments like “keep your government hands of my Medicare.”  The debate is not founded in reality, reason or history.  Ironically, many of those who claim to defend the Constitution most fiercely have never read the document.  That lack of familiarity with our founding document gives rise to the bizarre and false notions that universal health care is Communist or in some way counter to the governing principles of this country.

The “public option” of offering Americans the ability to choose an insurance program backed by the U.S. government is nothing close to a government takeover of health care, and in fact is well within the ideals of government contemplated by our Founding Fathers.  But we cannot possibly know that if we do not even know the names of any of our Founding Fathers!

And just as we are ignorant of our history, we ignore basic facts about our health care system.  The biggest lie perpetrated by opponents of reform is that the United States has “the best health care system in the world.”  We do not, and not by a long shot.  People fear “rationing” without recognizing that the worst kind goes on right now.  Insurance companies dictate what surgeries, diagnostic tests, preventative care and curative procedures can be done, taking the decision out of the hands of your doctors.  For those with no insurance, health care is rationed by wealth.  Those who can afford good care get all that is available; those who cannot often die.  Close to 25,000 Americans die each year from treatable medical conditions because they lacked access to proper care – that is rationing by any definition.

Even with all of that rationing, our health care system is the most expensive in the world.  We spend twice as much per capita as any other wealthy democracy.  We devote nearly 17.6% of our GDP to health care compared to the next most expensive systems in Canada and Germany (10.6%) and Switzerland (10.4%). 

We are not getting a good return on our investment.  We are not healthier and do not receive better health care.  Compared to Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, the United States ranks last or next-to-last in the five primary dimensions of a properly functioning health care system:  quality, access, efficiency, equity and quality of life.  The United States is the only developed country in the world that does not offer universal health care.  We are ranked 26^th in infant mortality among industrialized nations. We are ranked 24th in healthy life expectancy.  That means the citizens in 23 other countries on average live longer healthier lives than Americans.  That hardly makes us the best in the world.  Our overall health care system is ranked 37th globally, behind Malta, Colombia and Oman.  We have some of the lowest satisfaction with our system, with only 40% approving, compared to 91% in Denmark and 81% in Finland.  The United States is the only country in the world that has medical bankruptcies. 

This is the “best health care system in the world” that people are defending.  This is the system that people fear will be reformed.

Much fear of reform is based on ignorance of our history and the willful ignoring of inconvenient facts that do not conform to political or religious convictions.  Any claim that our health care system is the best is factually incorrect, proven wrong across multiple dimensions.  But with that basic falsehood as a premise for discussion, the debate gets derailed before a dialogue can even begin.  Why reform something that is already the best?  With unfounded fears of socialism as a basis for debate, we eschew our history and focus attention away from potential solutions.

So I offer a radical proposal to move forward, recognizing that ignorance is a fundamental constraint to progress.  Since one must be a citizen to vote in this country, all voters should be required to demonstrate the same knowledge necessary to become a citizen.  All potential voters should be required to correctly answer the same questions as those on the naturalization test prior to registering to vote. There would be no limit on how many times the test could be taken until completed satisfactorily.  This test requirement would ensure that every voter has a minimum basic understanding of our form of government and the principles on which the country was founded.  The quality of political discourse would almost certainly improve.

Why should the accident of birth confer upon someone the privilege of voting?  We are not an aristocracy in which our bloodline determines our fate.  Why should voting be any different?  Voting should be seen as a privilege rather than as a consequence of where one is born.  Voting should be a right earned rather than conferred by fate or the accident of citizenship.  Voting should be a right that is gained upon acquiring basic knowledge about the country in which one is voting. 

I am not demanding much.  Here are some sample questions from the naturalization test: 

• Name one branch of government.
• What is the highest court in the United States?
• Why does the flag have thirteen stripes?
• Name one author of the Federalist Papers.
• What do we call the first ten amendments to the Constitution?

 

Some may object at this point that my proposal is discriminatory, favoring the wealthy over the poor (and therefore Republicans over Democrats).  But that is not the case; those high school surveys prove that ignorance of our history knows no socioeconomic boundaries.  Anecdotally, as a trivial aside, note that many of those folks on Jay Walking fall into the category of White middle class.  My proposal would in fact level the playing field because anybody, regardless of social status, can easily obtain the naturalization test in multiple languages and study the provided answers.  The language debate is a false one; knowledge of our history and government is more important than the language in which it is acquired.  The only qualifications for voting would be citizenship and enough motivation to learn the simple outlines of our history and about our form of government, knowledge necessary to make minimally informed decisions.  I strongly suspect that an electorate better versed in our history would not be yelling “socialist” and “government takeover” every time the president mentions a public option.

But yes, my proposal does discriminate – against those who do not know enough to qualify as citizens.  That is fully consistent with the fact that we currently discriminate between citizens and non-citizens, only allowing the former to vote.  Since we comfortably make that distinction, we should apply the knowledge test universally.

We are witnessing a tragic, horrific, pathetic decline in basic education.  We are producing a generation unaware of even the most basic truths of our history.  Almost half of our students do not even know that the United States borders the Atlantic Ocean on the east coast.  The majority cannot name how many branches of government we have.  We could not possibly expect a student demonstrating such colossal ignorance to evaluate the subtleties of government’s proper role in providing access to health care. Instead we can expect a knee-jerk reaction, like “socialism!”

Of course many who oppose health care reform are well aware of our history and are familiar with the Constitution; many are highly educated.  Well-informed opposition to reform can come from many sources, including legitimate concerns about cost, efficiency and fairness.  Open discussion is welcome.  These are complex issues with no easy or painless answers.  But widespread ignorance is skewing the national debate, preventing us from exploring reasonable solutions. 

Ignorance has now become an existential threat.  We must take dramatic action to combat the trend.  All citizens whether recently naturalized or descendents of Mayflower pilgrims, rich or poor, must demonstrate they know the basics about the United States before being allowed to vote.  We cannot expect to be both ignorant and free.  And time is running out.

 

 

Follow Jeff Schweitzer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffSchweitzer

Comments

[terribyte]

Anybody see the irony in this?

Public education failing to the degree that our public is too ignorant to intelligently debate public health-care.
Instead of independent testing, we should perhaps require public-school students to pass testing equivalent to those seeking citizenship.

[greyhound2]

The right to vote should at least require graduation from high school. There are too many issues to be decided by the lowest common denominator.

[Thabit]

I doubt that this test would make any difference on how the 2 partys discuss policy but it might just make a difference how voters respond to that discussion. In that republicans rely on uninformed voters this proposal would be the "Kiss of Death" ROFL

[Tim303]

In the US citizenship test, voting is described as a responsibility, not a right. This essay has a point.

[levee]

As some have pointed out, this idea is dangerously close to having literacy requirements. Voting is voting. Even ignorant people should vote. Keep it simple and Democracy will prevail.

Now, having some knowledge tests as a prerequisite to broadcast, journalize, or even run for office would be the end of this era of stupidity. The absurdity of the false equivalence of the "two sides" of the story would be put to bed when Rachel Maddow , Keith Olbermann, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and John Kerry scored in the nineties and Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Chris Wallace, Jim DeMint and Jim Inhofe got a zero.

Many, including me, may not like the style of many who would pass the test, but "stupid is as stupid does" and vice versa. When I need an appendectomy I want it from the geek, the wonk, the one who knows what they're doing. Why are we so casual about the requirements for peddling information?

I dream of a time when Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann are in a "feud" on competing networks because the national debate is articulating the merits of a public option vs. a single-payer system.

It ain't never gonna happen when the first amendment is the excuse that allows Rupert Murdoch to experiment with brainwashing.

[terribyte]

Your comment suggests that our education is to be left up to those talking heads, that our children are weened on the teet of the omni-present box in the living room - and there's no off switch.

[jmpurser]

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be...Universal education is the most effective means of preserving democracy and good government.”

Thank you for that Jefferson quote.

I quite agree with you on the "contribution" that our failed education system has on our failed national dialog.

The science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein had a musing where he suggested that prospective voters have to solve a simple mathematical equation in order to unlock the voting booth. His slightly more extreme measure would give the would be voter three chances to solve the equation, after which the curtains would open to reveal an empty booth. Someone unable to do math who still insisted on trying to vote would simply be removed for the good of society.

[wildedge]

I agree with you entirely, but few of our politicians, and fewer still in our media, have any interest in educating the electorate; indeed, their investment is in the opposite. Sad; I don't see any improvement in the near future.

[napalmgod]

You do realize that this has already been tried? Many southern states had laws requiring literacy before you could vote, and they got to decide what 'literate' meant. The same laws had 'grandfather' clauses saying that if your grandfather voted then your literacy didn't matter (thus allowing illiterate white people to vote). The end result was that blacks were effectively denied the right to vote while white people could vote.

This is exactly what the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was for, to ensure equal access to voting.

You have two fundamental flaws in your theory. First, you assume that everyone receives a decent education. Consider how many people graduate or quit school effectively illiterate, much less have a working knowledge of The Federalist Papers.

Second, you assume that poll workers will treat everyone fairly. I can easily see situations where poll workers put out the answers to the questions for white people and pull the answers when a black person tries to vote (or vice-versa).

In concept, though, it's a good idea.

-ng

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

My proposal is quite distinct really from the old literacy requirements, which were designed by southern states to exclude African Americans from voting. Unlike in that case, ignorance of hour history and country are not restricted one socioeconomic group.

And I explicitly do not assume that everybody receives a decent education -- that is in fact the problem I'm addressing. The point is that no matter somebody's background, they have to demonstrate minimum knowledge of our history and country.

The test would not be administered by poll workers, or taken at polls. It could be given by DMVs for example.

[napalmgod]

First, I'm curious: How often would you have to take this test? Just once when you turn 18, or every 5 years or so?

But mainly, how would this make for a more intelligent voter? On the one hand, you say that it's simple rote memorization, but on the other hand, you say that it will transform the voting populace. In short, if the problem is an ill-educated public who fails to understand social studies and the difference between fascism/so­cialism/ca­pitalism/g­ood government, then having them memorize the names of the Federalist Papers probably won't alleviate the situation.

My view is that the problem is a lack of following current events. TV news has become infotainment. Talk radio and the web tend to be people preaching to the choir rather than presenting diverse views. You end up with either a soundbite that doesn't provide context, or a he-said/they -said 'fairness' statement.

That is what needs to be fixed.. I have no idea how to do it. The best idea I've come up with is to let the "Don't socialize my medicare" idiots to die off. The newer generation has a clue, many of the 40-80 year olds sure don't.
-ng

[SelenicMagick]

Speaking as an election official who has TRAINED poll workers... THIS sentence is HIGHLY offensive: "I can easily see situations where poll workers put out the answers to the questions for white people and pull the answers when a black person tries to vote (or vice-versa)."

While I am SURE that there ARE election officials out there who WOULD do something like that (Cook County IL comes instantly to mind) the VAST MAJORITY of election officials would NOT violate the LAW with regards to elections. There is a VERY SMALL minority of election officials who are NOT staying inside the letter, spirit and intent of the LAW with regards to elections and painting ALL election officials as "corrupt" in the manner that you did is not only offensive it is IGNORANT.

[napalmgod]

At no time did I explicitly or implicitly say "All poll workers". You completely misunderstood my point if that is your understanding of my comment.

[confidance government]

“Universal education is the most effective means of preserving democracy and good government......Yet here was one of our Founding Fathers advocating a “government takeover” of education."

You ever heard the term "non sequitur," because this is a great example. If Jefferson has writings supporting GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED, universal education, I would be most interested to see them.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

Well you've just proved my point! Obama's proposal for a public option is no more of a government take over of health care than Jefferson's idea of universal education.

[confidance government]

Is not public schooling an analog to the proposed public option, that would lead to a similar de facto monopoly in insurance that exists in the education system (better characterized as a two-tier system with public schools for the masses and private education for the elite)?

[SelenicMagick]

Jefferson likely did, he IS after all the author of the Declaration of Independence as well as one of the authors of the Constitution.

It should be noted however that Alexander Hamilton and James Madison had a LOT to say about education and the public funding of it in the Federalist Papers.

[confidance government]

I was always more on Anti-Federalist side of that debate......

[XCF]

In his novel "Starship Troopers" Robert Heinlein described a society where only veterans were allowed the vote. Not because veterans as individuals were any wiser or more honest or moral than their civilian counterparts but because by serving and putting their life on the line they demonstrated they were willing to put the good of society above their own personal welfare.
Eric

[Liberal2]

Adolf Hitler was a decorated veteran of WW1. Robert E. Lee fought to defend his belioved Virginia from the liberal demand to end slavery.

Military service is nothing if one doesn't understand what one is defending. "My country, right or wrong" isn't the test.

[XCF]

You miss the point, as individuals vets can be just as bad or evil as anyone else. But as we have seen from all the chicken hawks in the republican party simply being smart and educated is no guarantee of moral wisdom either.

[SelenicMagick]

Heinlein had some interesting flights of fancy but I doubt that he meant any of them to be applied to current society.

[XCF]

I think the point he was making was that a free citizenship may not have much real value.

[dynwit]

I gave a quiz in my college American History class on Friday. After supposedly reading the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, my students were asked to tell me how many amendments make up the Bill of Rights. Out of 35 students, only two got it right.

It's very, very disheartening.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

Indeed, and I don't think those 33 students have earned the right to vote. If they want to vote, and appreciate the privilege, then they'll study a bit more.

[Bloggerrogr]

If I may, I'd like to suggest that voting is also a civic duty. The trick, as I see it is to meld that sense of civic duty to the concept of 'privilege' - in this case the privilege of living in a free, open society.
Interesting point about Heinlein also.
In "Stranger In A Strange Land" Heinlein points out that the weakest religions are those that cost nothing to join. That when we make 'offerings' it's our way of getting some skin in the game.
In any event, Jeff, this is a very thought-provoking post.
I'll be back.
FWIW

[eciaccio]

While Jeff Schweitzer's questions seek to demonstrate a knowledge of our history, current, active citizenship demands answers to questions such as these:

1. Who is your Representative?
2. Who are your two Senators?
3. Who is your state assembly person?
4. Who is your state senator (if a bicameral legislature)?
5. Who is your local council person?

But at the very foundation of our dying democracy, more and more citizens no longer believe that any government officials at any level truly represent them, rather than the wealthy and corporations who fund their campaigns and lobby for advantageous laws.

Thus, this "failure of citizenship" is not so much a result of ignorance on our part, which is indeed a troubling reality, but mostly a consequence of more than a century of corruption of our political system by wealthy and corporate interests who care only about their own fortunes, and not the common good.

The ordinary person may not be able to answer some very elementary questions about our history, but many of us know that bailing out wealthy Wall Street Banksters and wasting lives and trillion$ on unnecessary wars is wrong and anti-democratic. We are angry at being exploited and abused, but we don't have any recourse except elections which merely replace one set of Corporate Tools by another.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

Right, but to protest corruption and institute a more representative government, we need to have an informed electorate! We keep electing corrupt politicians because we have no sense of our history, and keep repeating the same mistakes.

[SelenicMagick]

This is true however MOST people find history and government to be subjects that are nothing more than a dead boring, dry recitation of facts that have little bearing on their lives.

As an example, until a mere 9 months ago Placebo would have told you that history had no bearing on the present. Today he wouldn't tell you that because in the last 9 months to a year he has *learned* the value of history.

We cannot continue to look on history as merely a dry, boring recitation of facts from the past. If the people teaching history can't bring it to life and, more importantly, CONNECT it to the daily lives of people today so that the kids LEARN the value of history then there's no point in teaching it at all.

[SelenicMagick]

1. Who is your Representative? Congressman Bart Stupak

2. Who are your two Senators? Senator Carl Levin and Senator Debbie Stabinow

3. Who is your state assembly person? Michigan doesn't have "Assembly persons"... we have Representatives. Mine is Kevin Elsenheimer... who happens to be a VERY nice guy that I have had quite a bit of contact with over the last few years.

4. Who is your state senator (if a bicameral legislature)? Tony Stamas. Also a VERY nice guy.

5. Who is your local council person? I live in a state with Townships... I don't have a local council person, I have a Township board that consists of the Township Supervisor, the Township Clerk, the Township Treasurer and 2 Trustees.

[Romulus]

"Extrapolating from state surveys, only 14% of American high school students can name who wrote the Declaration of Independence. Nearly 75% do not know that George Washington was our first president. More than 90% could not pass the exam given to immigrants who wish to become citizens. "

This is shocking to me. I wonder how many of those on HuffPo could pass a citizenship exam. If you want to find out if YOU can, here is a web address for that exam:


http://usgovinfo.about.com/blinstst.htm

[SelenicMagick]

* Name one branch of government. Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

* What is the highest court in the United States? Excluding the "court of public opinion, The United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the land.
* Why does the flag have thirteen stripes? The Original 13 colonies.

* Name one author of the Federalist Papers. The 70-odd Federalist Papers were written by three men. James Madison (28), Alexander Hamilton (52) and John Jay(5).

* What do we call the first ten amendments to the Constitution? The Bill of Rights.

Did I pass the test? I didn't even have to resort to a search engine.

[Romulus]

Nope. You only got 60% because you failed to follow directions. LOL You were supposed to name ONE branch and ONE author and you named three each. :-D

[SelenicMagick]

Possibly BUT in both cases I am completely correct. :D

[PlaceboStudman]

I say forget the SAT and give everyone the Naturalization test upon preparing for graduation from high school. And, I agree, passing this test should be a prerequisite to earning the right to vote. Actually, we need to do a combined hybrid of an IQ test and the Naturalization test, because we also need to educate kids on the use of Logic and how to craft a linear argument.

Another thing, and I may be crucified for saying this, but we must continue to minimize the influence of organized religion in this country. It is organized religion who is probably the most responsible for our ignorance, and more important our apathy. We must teach people that "it is so, because it is written/because so-and-so said so" doesn't float in this country.

Wait....isn't the philosophy "It is so because it is written/spoken" a basis of Socialism or Fascism that all these people fear???

Curious