Moussaoui prosecution

(On the way to Macon, GA): The government is moving to dismiss all

charges against Zacarias Moussaoui, who is accused

of being the 20th hijacker on 9/11—the co-conspirator who couldn’t

actually fly a plane because he was already in custody. Prosecutors

now say that they are seeking to dismiss the charges so that they

can appeal Moussaoui’s right to question al Qaeda prisoners. But a

well-informed person told me several weeks ago that he had heard from

a reliable source inside the government that the real 20th hijacker

is being held in Guantanamo. This would mean that Moussauoi is innocent

of the precise charges against him, which may be the real reason why

the charges are being dropped.

imprisonment in the USSR and the USA

According to a scholarly article cited here,

there were between 2 million and 2.5 million people in Soviet prisons

and camps every year between 1938 and 1953. The current population

in US jails plus prisons also exceeds 2 million (Bureau

of Justice Statistics). This comparison has not escaped people’s

notice, as a Google search of "Gulag" and "prison population"

will reveal.

Of course, there are differences between prisons in the US and in

Stalin’s Soviet Union. First, the vast majority of incarcerated people

in America have committed crimes, and they have received due process,

albeit flawed in some cases. Second, conditions in US prisons are

better than conditions in Siberian work camps. Third, our incarceration

rate is lower as a percentage of our population, although it may be

higher in some inner-city neighborhoods today than it was in the USSR

circa 1950. Fourth, the modern rationale for mass incarceration (reducing

crime) is better than Stalin’s reason (terrorizing people into submission

to him personally). Above all, the Soviet terror involved mass killing

as well as imprisonment.

Nevertheless, at the very least, the incarceration of 2 million Americans—with

collateral damage to their victims, and to their families and communities—represents

a social failure that’s unique in today’s world and comparable to

the disasters under Stalin.

patriotism and civic

Some people who talk or write about civic education insist that the

United States has the very best democracy (or society) in

the world. In my opinion, the US is one of a few dozen polities

that stand head-and-shoulders above the rest (due to good luck as

well as wise ancestors). I think it’s a goal of civic education to

help students understand how fortunate they are compared to people

who live in tyrannies or anarchy. I feel loyalty and gratitude toward

the United States and not toward any other nation, and I think this

is a good attitude for Americans to hold. However, it’s far from clear

to me that our polity is the single best in the world. We have low

voter participation; our crime and incarceration rates are amazingly

high; and we live shorter lives with more disease, compared to people

in some of the northern European nations. Nor do we compare favorably

with these countries if one thinks about the long term. Sweden, for

example, has been stable and at peace for 200 years, progressing steadily

toward liberty and democracy. These other democratic states are all

to our left politically. Thus I wonder whether some people want to

teach students that the United States is the best society

in order to head off discussions about whether we should move somewhat

leftward.

Congressional Conference on Civic Education

I spoke today at the first annual Congressional Conference on Civic

Education, which was attended by delegations from all fifty states,

including state legislators, educators, and executive branch officials.

I had served on the advisory committee for the conference, so I was

glad to see it come to pass. It was also my third opportunity in 10

days to make a speech about the Civic

Mission of Schools report. (The other two were the 50th anniversary

of the National Conference on Citizenship

and the Youth for

Justice state directors’ meeting.)

At all three events, there was discussion of the importance and difficulty

of teaching controversial issues in schools. Today,

I mentioned Gun Owners of America’s attack on the

civic education bill as evidence that there are people who do

not want such discussion in classrooms. After the session, a state

legislator from the West approached me and said that I had been un-civil

in treating the Gun Owners as "nuts"; I should have made

sure I understood and conveyed their position fairly. He said that

my incivility was an example of what is wrong with civic education.

I was taken aback, since I feel that much of my work is aimed at

promoting civil and respectful dialogue, and I strive to understand

opponents’ point of view. For example, I strongly disagree with the

National Rifle Association’s positions, yet I think its views are

sincerely held, based on principles, sometimes unfairly caricatured,

and conceivably correct. I suppose I would defend my criticism of

the Gun Owners by noting that I didn’t attribute a hidden agenda

to them; I simply paraphrased their public statement, which is a pretty

explicit attack on critical thinking in schools.