During the shutdown, Trey Grayson (former Secretary of State, R-Kentucky and current director of Harvard’s Institute of Politics) and I published a piece on civic education in The Hill, the newspaper for Congress and people who work around it. We tried to draw policymakers’ attention to civic education during the political crisis:

How should we teach civics when Congress doesn’t seem capable of following the principles in an eighth-grade civics textbook? The budget impasse is just the latest example of the bitter partisan struggle that our children observe as they form their impressions of politics and public life. …

As the political system evolves into something remote from the traditional civics textbook, educators, parents, and policymakers must take a new look at how we teach the subject. Preparing the next generation to work together to address serious national problems remains the core goal. It is even more important—but also especially difficult—in a time of rapid change and frequent crisis. …

A great issue of our time is the struggle between two ways of thinking about human behavior: a philosophical mode that uses terms like “moral” and “immoral,” “good” and “evil”; and a psychotherapeutic mode, which uses terms like “normal” and “healthy” to the exclusion of any moral vocabulary.

I am aware that professional psychotherapists hold various views of morality. (For instance, see William Doherty for a very interesting defense of moral language in therapy.) But I maintain that the mainstream, everyday practice of psychotherapy assumes one or more of these anti-moralistic premises:

1. A psychotherapist (someone who has had a specialized training based on science) has no means of knowing the difference between right and wrong.
2. The patient has a right to his or her own values and should not be influenced morally.
3. Moral pressures are psychologically harmful and should be reduced.

Note that these premises are mutually inconsistent. For instance, #2 and #3 assume that the psychotherapist does know right from wrong–it is wrong to influence a patient’s values or to put moral pressure on her. But the three statements get mixed up because they support the same conclusion: Do not tell patients what is right.

To support my generalization, I offer sample questions from real tests given to clinical social workers.

1. From socialworktestprep.com:

A 32-year-old man is referred to a social worker after his children were removed by child protective services due to allegations of neglect. He tells the social worker that he is not sure that he wants to fight to get them back. He states he doesn’t think he wants to go through all the things child protective services wants him to do only to not regain custody in the end. Which response is the best thing the social worker should say to the client?

• The correct response: “You are free to choose whether or not you want to try to regain custody of the children.”
• One of the incorrect responses: “Your children will benefit from knowing that you at least tried to regain custody, even if you aren’t successful.”
• Official explanation:

A core principle of social work is the client’s right to self-determination. The NASW Code of Ethics is clear that social workers should support a client’s right to self-determination, unless a client is posing a risk to self or someone else. Social workers should set aside their own values and encourage clients to make their own choices based on what they think is right for them. Although it may be appropriate at times to discuss the pros and cons of a decision, clients need to know that ultimately the decision is up to them.

2. From socialworkinfo.com

Mr. J, is referred to the Social Worker after he is released from his first psychiatric hospitalization. His hospital admission occurred sometime after his return from a trip to Rome, where he had gone to give advice to the Pope. His family knew nothing of the trip until the bills arrived. A salesperson, Mr J. had called strangers in the early morning hours seeking sales. He was described as euphoric in mood, but his family reported that be became irrational when his wishes were thwarted. Mr. J. experienced a reduced need for sleep and was described as talking non-stop for long period of time. Based on the above information, which of the following DSMIV TR diagnoses seems most probable?

• Correct answer:  “Bipolar I Disorder, Single Manic Episode.”

Just to put my own cards on the table: I think the 32-year-old man has a moral responsibility for his children. That does not mean that he should fight for custody. The kids may be better off without him in their lives. But the main issue he must consider is their welfare; custody is either good or bad for that end. His happiness is also an issue that he may think about, but the children count for more because: (1) there are more of them than him, (2) they are more vulnerable; (3) they have more of their lives ahead of them; (4) he brought them into the world; and (5) we should generally weigh others’ welfare more than our own.

The man who rushed off to advise the pope is probably mentally ill and needs treatment. But I would like to know what he told the pope. Maybe he was right, in which case I would hate to see his inspiration and euphoria medicated away. He reminds me of Saul Bellow’s Herzog and St. Teresa of Avila. I think I can demonstrate that Herzog is a misogynist, but it would surely be reductive to treat him as manic. His unsolicited letters to world leaders are outpourings of the sensitive modern soul. As for St. Teresa–I’m afraid I cannot accept the metaphysical underpinnings of her thought, but she was a great leader, reformer, and writer.

W.H. Auden eulogized Freud as a moralist who “showed us what evil is.” It is “not, as we thought, deeds that must be punished” but “our dishonest mood of denial.” There was some truth to that: dishonesty and repression are evils. But they are not the only evils; some deeds ought to be punished or at least reproved.

(See also: “insanity and evil: two paradigms.”)

With the government in shutdown, but TSA deemed “essential” so that people like me can keep burning carbon and racking up the frequent flyer miles, I have been traveling almost constantly, encountering a stream of strangers from Raleigh to Sacramento. Some faces and voices linger in my short-term memory:

The Massachusetts surfer-dude cabby, who tells me: Bro, I surfed Nantasket all day yesterday, and it was awesome. This comes in a strong Boston accent from a young dude with long blonde hair.

The two New Yorkers who board at Kennedy, never having met before, and quickly establish a rapport through kvetching. For the first hour, their conversation concerns irresponsible grown children. (Oy!) Then one of them starts explaining how George W. Bush planned 9/11 so he could pass the Patriot Act. (Otherwise, how could they be rebuilding the World Trade Center site so fast?–they must have had the plans ready.) Meanwhile, a Tchaikovsky Symphony is playing loudly. I assume it is Jet Blue’s background music, although it seems surprisingly bombastic. It turns out that the Truther’s cell phone is broadcasting the music–much to his own surprise.

A pastor, born and still living in North Carolina, strives to marry a same-sex couple in his congregation. He won’t cross a state line to do that. It would be a defeat not to marry them in the Tarheel State, which he expects to do.

A whole planeload of octogenarians with Minnesota accents, slowly boarding the pre-dawn flight from Sacramento to Minneapolis. Going home to the Mayo Clinic for Scandinavian-style care?

In Virginia and North Carolina, whole rooms of people tell me they are pretty confident about the values and facts that are relevant to the social causes they care about. It’s the strategies that baffle them. What can they do to make the big world better?

At 2 pm Eastern, I’ll be on NPR’s “So Tell Me More,” talking about the Pledge of Allegiance. I don’t know where the conversation will go, but this is my usual line on the Pledge. Because it’s traditional, stopping it (or letting it lapse) is interpreted as a lack of concern for patriotism, for the flag, or for the God who is mentioned in the third clause. But imagine we had never had a Pledge in schools, and people wanted to do something to boost patriotism. Would they really invent a daily ritual that involved these characteristics?

1. Asking people who are too young to make a legal commitment to say something that sounds like a vow.
2. Asking people who have already “pledged allegiance” to re-pledge allegiance every day for 13 years? (I thought promises were for keeps.)
3. Asking children to say words like “indivisible” without studying their meaning.
4. Repeating the same activity every day from kindergarten to 12th grade without raising the difficulty or adding new ideas.
5. Asking students to say “liberty” and “justice” every day without making sure that they understand the live debates about what those terms mean.
6. In a 30-word statement that is meant to summarize the core, shared values of the republic, courting controversy by making it a pledge to a flag (considered idolatrous by some), citing a singular God (not recognized by many, and considered profane to name by others), and emphasizing indivisibility (which, I assume, is a rebuke to successionists).

Even if your fundamental goal is to inculcate patriotism, I can think of better means to that end.

(Sacramento) If the legislature of almost any other democracy faced our current crisis, there would be talk of forming a new government.

John Boehner presides over a coalition composed of the center-right plus the Tea Party. Since those two groups are at odds, the obvious choice in almost any other system would be to build a different majority in the House. For instance, Boehner could propose a status-quo budget until the 2014 elections and promise to allow votes on all other topics with simple majority support. That proposal would probably gain the backing of 70% of the House. (It would exclude the Tea Party–who would turn their attention to the next election–and the House Progressive Caucus, whose members would balk on the ground that the budgetary status quo is unacceptable.) Boehner could even offer Nancy Pelosi the number-two position in the House. He would thus become the leader of a new majority coalition that would easily pass a budget.

Why isn’t this an option in the US? The constitution is no impediment. In fact, as Sandy Levinson notes, the House can even name a distinguished non-Congressperson to serve as Speaker. That is an example of the freedom to innovate that we tend to forget because we regard our traditions as inviolable.

If the constitution does not prevent a parliamentary solution to our current crisis, I think these are the main obstacles:

First, single-member, winner-take-all districts yield a two-party system. If there are just two parties, then (barring a perfect tie) one of them must have an outright majority in the House. Members of the majority party benefit from that status and are always highly reluctant to split. In Italy, India, or Israel, legislators come from many parties that sometimes split and recombine; leaving the governing coalition can be an appealing choice.

Second, the Speaker controls the floor. I don’t know much about discharge petitions and the like, but I don’t think that a proposal for new leadership could come up for a vote without the rules changing first. This means that although Boehner could—hypothetically—abandon the Tea Party and build a new centrist majority, no one else is really in a position to do that. Since Boehner doesn’t have to worry about the threat of a new majority being formed by a rival (say, by Nancy Pelosi), he can concentrate on potential revolts within his own party instead.

Finally, sheer tradition stands in the way. Because new coalitions never form in our Congress, the Tea Party would regard Republicans who suddenly joined a bipartisan governing majority as traitors on the order of Benedict Arnold himself. Their shock and horror would be immense. In contrast, parliamentary systems see frequent realignments. If you get dropped from a majority coalition, it’s just politics as usual.

John Boehner could form a centrist coalition in the US House and resolve the current budgetary crisis. That’s not illegal or unthinkable, but I think the odds are about one in a thousand. It’s also about one in a thousand that some moderate Republicans will decide to caucus with the Democrats and bring down his speakership. Far more likely is a continued struggle between the two existing party blocs in the House. Although our system has certain advantages, it is far more brittle than the alternatives, and we are paying the price right now.