Jess King: A Mennonite Running for Congress

This is not my district, but I live close to its borders.  I have written before about the way Christianity has been fueling the Democratic candidates for Congress in south-central Pennsylvania.  (Also see this post on Lutheran minister George Scott).

Here is another Washington Post piece on Jess King, a Mennonite who is fighting an up-hill battle against Republican incumbent Lloyd Smucker in Pennsylvania’s 11th Congressional District.

A taste:

LANCASTER, Pa. — Voters in the heart of Pennsylvania’s rolling dairy farms and Amish countryside have rarely seen a Democrat mount a competitive campaign for Congress — until now.

From all appearances, first-time candidate Jess King is giving freshman Republican U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker a fight to the finish in Tuesday’s midterm election in this heavily conservative district on Pennsylvania’s southern border.

Drawn by her Mennonite faith into a career of nonprofit anti-poverty work, King said she isn’t necessarily running against President Donald Trump.

For sure, she doesn’t like Trump, calling him inflammatory and divisive.

But, she said, she is trying to tap into issues where she and Trump voters can agree, whether on the need for health care, a level economic playing field or a government that is responsive to people, not corporate campaign contributions.

“That’s why we don’t talk about Trump so much because it’s not helpful, in that it becomes another element of the division, and shame is not a tactic that works,” King said in an interview in her bustling downtown Lancaster campaign office. “You know, to shame people into, ‘hey, you were wrong in your vote,’ or ‘hey, you should have done something else,’ or ‘hey, I think less of you.’ That doesn’t work, so we don’t do it.”

King, 44, is endorsed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and has gone toe-to-toe with Smucker in fundraising without accepting corporate campaign contributions or getting help from Democratic Party organizations.

Smucker, 54, acknowledges the race is competitive. Two polls in recent weeks have shown a single-digit race and Republicans are not disputing that finding. Still, Smucker says Republicans are getting engaged and happy with the last two years, and will vote to ensure the seat remains in Republican hands.

Last week, Vice President Mike Pence came to campaign and raise cash for Smucker, who began airing attack ads that King says are full of lies about her.

Smucker suggests she wants to legalize heroin and abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. She doesn’t. He said she’s for open borders. She’s not.

The ads show Smucker in a plaid shirt, call him a central Pennsylvania native and suggest that “socialists” from San Francisco and New York are funding King’s campaign. King does not call herself a socialist and much of Smucker’s campaign contributions are from outside the district.

Read the rest here.

 

Penn Live Endorses George Scott in Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District

George-Scott-1600x900

George Scott

A lot of his here in south central Pennsylvania are following the congressional race in the 10th District.  Trump loyalist and incumbent Scott Perry (R) is running against Lutheran clergyman (ELCA) George Scott (D).  Because of the newly redrawn congressional maps in Pennsylvania, the district that includes my hometown of Mechanicsburg is now up for grabs for the first time in decades.

Last week Penn Live (the online version of the Harrisburg Patriot News), endorsed Scott:

Here is a taste of the endorsement:

Scott, who aspires to be a “servant-leader,” is a political moderate at a time when American politics is badly in need of some moderation. 

He impressed the board with his views on healthcare, women’s reproductive rights and his commitment to increasing the minimum wage and expanding Medicaid coverage, among other issues. 

Unlike Perry, who has marched in lockstep with the House’s most conservative faction, Scott has said he will not support current House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for House speaker should Democrats retake the majority on Election Day. 

His aspiration to bipartisanship in an institution where that tradition is a dying art was also refreshing. He told the board that “it all starts with personal relationships … not just with people in my party, but with folks on the other side of the aisle … who want to solve tough issues.”

He shares Perry’s commitment to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

But unlike his Republican opponent, Scott also believes that right must be balanced with better regulation, including background checks for all gun sales and bans on products like bump stocks and high-capacity magazines.

Scott has also called for a strong federal policy to address climate change, and says one that has caught his eye is a carbon fee-and-dividend proposal advanced by the Citizens Climate Initiative that would tax fossil fuels at production or point of importation, according to the carbon dioxide (one of the top greenhouse gases)  produced.

The idea is to get business, industry and government to more quickly convert to conversion to renewables and other cleaner fuels.

After three terms in Congress, Perry has emerged as a sharp-elbowed partisan and loyal conservative foot soldier of the hyperpartisan Freedom Caucus, a coalition of GOP lawmakers whose main priority often seems to be less about effective governance and more about ensuring a permanent state of legislative paralysis on Capitol Hill. 

Perry has voted repeatedly to repeal the Affordable Care Act, without approving legislation that would have replaced former President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement.

In 2017, he voted in favor of the GOP-authored alternative, the American Healthcare Act. Despite recent attempts at Republican white-washing, the bill would have made it harder and much more expensive for people with pre-existing conditions to obtain insurance coverage.

Perry voted against a carbon tax proposal and has said his preference is to let market forces continue to attack the problem. He pointed to large emission reductions that have occurred organically in recent years as American power plants have moved from coal to natural gas as a fuel source.

Perry’s assertion to a constituent that he didn’t want to pay for maternity care for other women because “I have two children, and we’re not having any more,” is dangerously short-sighted and a profound violation of the social contract between Americans.

Perry joined with the Freedom Caucus to call for the impeachment of the Rod Rosenstein, the senior U.S. Department of Justice official, who oversees Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. 

And he made the bizarre assertion, without providing any evidence, that ISIS was behind the mass shooting in Las Vegas that wounded hundreds and resulted in the death of 59 people. Asked by the board to substantiate that claim, which he still stands by, Perry declined, saying he’d been given access to confidential information he could not share.

The Nov. 6 midterm offers central Pennsylvania voters a chance to forge a new direction, in a new district, with someone who truly represents their values. George Scott is that candidate.

Read the entire endorsement here.

Blame Gingrich

554d3-gingrich-arms-wide

According to McKay Coppins, Newt Gingrich “turned partisan politics into bloodsport, wrecked Congress, and paved the way for Trump’s rise.”  Here is a taste of his piece at The Atlantic, “The Man Who Broke Politics”:

There’s something about Newt Gingrich that seems to capture the spirit of America circa 2018. With his immense head and white mop of hair; his cold, boyish grin; and his high, raspy voice, he has the air of a late-empire Roman senator—a walking bundle of appetites and excesses and hubris and wit. In conversation, he toggles unnervingly between grandiose pronouncements about “Western civilization” and partisan cheap shots that seem tailored for cable news. It’s a combination of self-righteousness and smallness, of pomposity and pettiness, that personifies the decadence of this era.

In the clamorous story of Donald Trump’s Washington, it would be easy to mistake Gingrich for a minor character. A loyal Trump ally in 2016, Gingrich forwent a high-powered post in the administration and has instead spent the years since the election cashing in on his access—churning out books (three Trump hagiographies, one spy thriller), working the speaking circuit (where he commands as much as $75,000 per talk for his insights on the president), and popping up on Fox News as a paid contributor. He spends much of his time in Rome, where his wife, Callista, serves as Trump’s ambassador to the Vatican and where, he likes to boast, “We have yet to find a bad restaurant.”

But few figures in modern history have done more than Gingrich to lay the groundwork for Trump’s rise. During his two decades in Congress, he pioneered a style of partisan combat—replete with name-calling, conspiracy theories, and strategic obstructionism—that poisoned America’s political culture and plunged Washington into permanent dysfunction. Gingrich’s career can perhaps be best understood as a grand exercise in devolution—an effort to strip American politics of the civilizing traits it had developed over time and return it to its most primal essence.

Read the entire piece here.

Coppins is probably right about Gingrich, but let’s be careful making too many grandiose claims about Newt as the originator of political bloodsport. As I read Coppins’s piece I was reminded of Yale historian Joanne Freeman’s new book The Field of Blood: Violence in Congress and the Road to the Civil War.

Peter Beinart on the “Real Authors” of *The New York Times* Op-Ed

Congress

Writing at The Atlantic, Beinart argues that Republicans in Congress are the “real authors of the anonymous New York Times op-ed.  Here is a taste:

In theory, in America’s constitutional system, the different branches of the federal government check one another. When a presidents acts in corrupt, authoritarian, or reckless ways, the legislative branch holds hearings, blocks his agenda, refuses to confirm his nominees, even impeaches him. That’s how America’s government is supposed to work. But it no longer does. Instead, for the last year and a half, congressional Republicans have acted, for the most part, as Trump’s agents. Not only have they refused to seriously investigate or limit him, they have assaulted those within the federal bureaucracy—the justice department and the FBI in particular—who have.

So in the absence of this public, constitutional system of checks and balances, a secret, unauthorized system has emerged to replace it. Because Congress won’t check the president, the president’s own appointees are doing so instead. 

Read the rest here.

Pro-Life and Pro-Gun: Part Two

Shooting At High School In Parkland, Florida Injures Multiple People

The members of the House of Representatives who get the most money from the NRA are listed below.  Their current anti-abortion voting score from National Right to Life is in parentheses next to their names.  Find the list of Senators here.

French Hill of Arkansas (100%)

Ken Buck of Colorado (100%)

David Young of Iowa (100%)

Mike Simpson of Idaho (100%)

Greg Gianforte of Montana (100%)

Don Young of Arkansas (100%)

Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania (100%)

Bruce Poliquin of Maine (87%)

Pete Sessions of Texas (100%)

Barbara Comstock of Virginia (87%)

Does the Separation of Powers Allow the President to Deliver a Face-to-Face Message to Congress?

Wilson SOU

Today this sounds like a silly question, but there was a time in American history when something like a State of the Union Address was unthinkable.  Karen Tumulty explains in her recent piece at The Washington Post.  A taste:

When President Trump steps into the well of the House on Tuesday to give his first formal State of the Union address, he will be performing one of the most familiar presidential rituals.

But for nearly half the nation’s history, the idea of a president personally delivering a speech on Congress’s turf was considered an act so presumptuous as to be nearly unthinkable.

The president who broke the mold — and introduced the kind of speech that modern Americans expect to hear each year — was Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson tested out the idea barely a month after his 1913 inauguration, when he traveled to Capitol Hill to give a speech on tariffs.

“Washington is amazed,” The Washington Post pronounced in a headline, over a story that noted no president since John Adams had done such a thing.

“Disbelief was expressed in congressional circles when the report that the President would read his message in person to the Congress was first circulated,” The Post reported, but assured its readers that such spectacles were “not to become a habit.”

Read the rest here.

Is Trump Going to Western PA to Stump for Rick Saccone? Who is Rick Saccone?

The POTUS wrote this tweet about today’s trip to Western Pennsylvania.  But the White House says something different.

So who is Rick Saccone? He is a Pennsylvania state representative who is running in a special election for a seat in Congress.  This is the seat that opened after pro-life Republican Tim Murphy resigned in October 2017 after it was revealed he had asked his mistress to have abortion.

Early last year Saccone announced that he was running for a U.S. Senate seat.  Now he is running for Congress.

As we reported back in February 2017, Saccone is one of Pennsylvania’s biggest David Barton supporters.  He is a Christian nationalist with a Ph.D in public and international affairs from the University of Pittsburgh and a former professor at Saint Vincent College in Latrobe, Pennsylvania.  In 2013, he published God in our Government.

He also loves Donald Trump:

Frankly, when Donald Trump won the GOP nomination, I thought Christian nationalist rhetoric would decline.  It has not.

Here are some tweets:

Lutherans allowing a politician to speak in church?

Watch and Pray

TinderI have recently been reading some of the work of Christian political philosopher Glenn Tinder.   In his wonderful essay, The Fabric of HopeTinder argues that good politics requires patience.

He writes:

A politics of sobriety would take the form sometimes of a stance seldom adopted in so impatient and restless a society as America.  The stance is that of waiting.  As we have seen, the idea of waiting for God is strongly emphasized both in the Old Testament and in the words of Jesus (“Watch and pray”).  There is such a think as waiting for God in a political situation.  It comes about when the demands of a situation are contradictory or obscure.  Hence we hesitate, hoping for clarity of mind and conscience.  We wait for the leadership of God.  In such circumstances, the waiting is itself a form of obedience–an act taken, so to speak, in anticipation of further instructions.  In an age beguiled by unrealistic hope, waiting is a repellent notion, darkened by a consciousness of human limitations.  But neglect of those limitations, in our time, has been calamitous.  A realization of their inescapable reality would be one of the benefits of a true understanding of hope.

In an age when bills are passed quickly and legislative decisions are rushed through Congress with little dialogue, deliberation, feedback, or conversation, Tinder’s words are sobering.

Confederate Monuments Get Their Day in Congress

MHC_Confederate_Statue_Hill

Over at AHA Today, Dane Kennedy reports on a congressional briefing about what to do with Confederate monuments.

Here is a taste:

A standing-room-only crowd gathered at the Rayburn House Office Building to hear three leading authorities on the subject—David Blight, director of the Gilder Lehrman Center at Yale University; Karen Cox, professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte; and Gaines Foster, LSU Foundation Professor of History at Louisiana State University. James Grossman, executive director of the American Historical Association, chaired the event….

How, asked a congressional staffer, does one respond to those who argue that the removal of Confederate statues erases history? It isn’t history that the statues’ defenders want to preserve, Blight insisted, but a memory that distorts or denies history. Cox made a similar point, noting that these monuments celebrate a sanitized version of history that obscures the centrality of slavery and white supremacy to the “Lost Cause.”

Another person asked, so what should be done with the monuments? Options include placing them in museums, contextualizing them with historical labeling, and collecting them at a single site, such as Stone Mountain. James Grossman pointed out that the Russians adopted the latter strategy with their Fallen Monument Park, where they relocated statues of Soviet leaders. In response to a related question about how public arts programs can alter historical narratives, Grossman recommended monuments that present the Civil War as a war of liberation for blacks. Blight suggested memorials to the black churches that sustained African American communities in the South and “elegiac” monuments that highlight the horrific slaughter of the Civil War. But he also cautioned against any precipitate action, urging deliberation in dealing with Confederate monuments. Foster struck a similar note, pointing out that public opinion on the issue needs to change. Cox was blunter: the removal of these monuments, she stated, will not bring an end to the systemic racism that inspired them.

Read the entire piece here.

Princeton University’s President on the Democrats’ Religious Tests for Public Office

I saw this today at Alan Jacobs’s blog Snakes and Ladders:

I write, as a university president and a constitutional scholar with expertise on religious freedom and judicial appointments, to express concern about questions addressed to Professor Amy Barrett during her confirmation hearings and to urge that the Committee on the Judiciary refrain from interrogating nominees about the religious or spiritual foundations of their jurisprudential views. Article VI of the United States Constitution provides explicitly that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” This bold endorsement of religious freedom was among the original Constitution’s most pathbreaking provisions. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), holding that the First and Fourteenth Amendments render this principle applicable to state offices and that it protects non-believers along with believers of all kinds, is among the greatest landmarks in America’s jurisprudence of religious freedom. Article VI’s prohibition of religious tests is a critical guarantee of equality and liberty, and it is part of what should make all of us proud to be Americans.

By prohibiting religious tests, the Constitution makes it impermissible to deny any person a national, state, or local office on the basis of their religious convictions or lack thereof. Because religious belief is constitutionally irrelevant to the qualifications for a federal judgeship, the Senate should not interrogate any nominee about those beliefs. I believe, more specifically, that the questions directed to Professor Barrett about her faith were not consistent with the principle set forth in the Constitution’s “no religious test” clause.

Source

 

Here is Al Franken:

I should add that the Blackstone Legal Fellowship has an advisory board that includes law professors from  University of Texas, University of Nebraska, Harvard (Mary Ann Glendon), Princeton (Robert George), and Notre Dame.

Here is Diane Feinstein:

Here is Dick Durbin:

And let’s not forget Bernie Sanders from earlier this year:

Here is Emma Green’s reporting on this at The Atlantic.

Historicizing Violence Against Members of Congress

Congress

Yale historian Joanne Freeman reminds us that violence against members of Congress has a long history in the United States.  In a recent op-ed at The Washington Post, Freeman takes us back to the contentious decades before the Civil War.

Here is a taste:

When House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and four others were shot during baseball practice at a park in Alexandria, Va., on Wednesday morning, it was the third incident of violence involving legislators in recent weeks, and by far the most extreme. On May 24 in Montana, only hours before being elected to the House, Greg Gianforte “body-slammed” Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs for asking a question about health-care policy. Five days later, during an immigration policy protest in the Texas House, Rep. Matt Rinaldi (R) caused a scuffle when he confronted Latino members of the chamber about protesters in the gallery.

This is hardly politics as normal in America. But it’s not unprecedented. Throughout the first half of the 19th century, legislative violence was far more common. State legislatures and Congress sporadically erupted into violence. Lawmakers assaulted each other during debate — in one case in Arkansas, resulting in a death. And occasionally, aggrieved citizens assaulted lawmakers.

During the 1840s and 1850s, Congress was ground zero for legislative violence because it was the epicenter of the nation’s fraught slavery debate. In those two decades alone, there were scores of violent incidents in the House and Senate, including shoving matches, fistfights, guns and knives drawn, canings and the occasional mass brawl.

Read the entire piece here.

What the GOP in the House Did Yesterday

Just so we are clear, the American Health Care Act:

  • Takes health insurance away from at least 24 million Americans; that was the number the CBO estimated for a previous version of the bill, and the number for this one is probably higher.
  • Revokes the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid, which provided no-cost health coverage to millions of low-income Americans.
  • Turns Medicaid into a block grant, enabling states to kick otherwise-eligible people off their coverage and cut benefits if they so choose.
  • Slashes Medicaid overall by $880 billion over 10 years.
  • Removes the subsidies that the ACA provided to help middle-income people afford health insurance, replacing them with far more meager tax credits pegged not to people’s income but to their age. Poorer people would get less than they do now, while richer people would get more; even Bill Gates would get a tax credit.
  • Allows insurers to charge dramatically higher premiums to older patients. If you want a reliable company that can give you car insurance and many others visit One Sure Insurance for more info.
  • Allows insurers to impose yearly and lifetime caps on coverage, which were outlawed by the ACA. This also, it was revealed today, may threaten the coverage of the majority of non-elderly Americans who get insurance through their employers.
  • Allows states to seek waivers from the ACA’s requirement that insurance plans include essential benefits for things such as emergency services, hospitalization, mental health care, preventive care, maternity care, and substance abuse treatment.
  • Provides hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for families making over $250,000 a year.
  • Produces higher deductibles for patients.
  • Allows states to try to waive the ACA’s requirement that insurers must charge people the same rates regardless of their medical history. This effectively eviscerates the ban on denials for preexisting conditions, since insurers could charge you exorbitant premiums if you have a preexisting condition, effectively denying you coverage.
  • Shunts those with preexisting conditions into high-risk pools, which are absolutely the worst way to cover those patients; experience with them on the state level proves that they wind up underfunded, charge enormous premiums, provide inadequate benefits and can’t cover the population they’re meant for. Multiple analyses have shown that the money the bill provides for high-risk pools is laughably inadequate, which will inevitably leave huge numbers of the most vulnerable Americans without the ability to get insurance.
  • Brings back medical underwriting, meaning that just like in the bad old days, when you apply for insurance you’ll have to document every condition or ailment you’ve ever had.

This is from Paul Waldman’s piece in The Washington Post.  He wants to hold the GOP accountable.

After the bill passed, you can hear congressmen on the floor singing this:

Slacktivist is also ready for a fight.

How Do You Implement a New Government When Nobody Shows Up to Govern?

Federal HallAt first glance you may have thought that this post had something to do with the habits of some of our current members of Congress.  Nope.  The title of the post is referencing the first meeting of the United States Congress in 1789.

Here is a taste of Erick Trickey‘s piece at Smithsonian.com:

Cannons fired 11 shots at sunrise, one for each state that had ratified the Constitution. At noon, they fired again, to announce the opening of Congress. It was March 4, 1789, and a new federal government had dawned. But awkwardly, no one was ready. Only eight senators and 13 representatives showed up at New York’s newly renovated Federal Hall for the festivities. Where was everyone?

The excuses were various: The members of the new government were sick, late, slowed by weather, not even elected yet. Others simply didn’t bother to attend. The new republic had a new congress—but it was off to an embarrassing start.

Pennsylvania senator Robert Morris was just across the Hudson River in New Jersey, writing to his wife that “the wind blew so hard, the Evening so dark & Fogg so Thick,” he didn’t dare get on a boat. Congressman Theodorick Bland of Virginia was still in his home state, “shipwrecked & landwrecked, mired, fatigued with walking.” New York’s legislature, split between Federalists and Antifederalists, hadn’t yet chosen its U.S. senators.

Even new congressman James Madison, who had done so much to draft the new Constitution and argue for its ratification, got to New York late. Fresh off a victory over his friend James Monroe in Virginia’s congressional election, he’d stopped by Mount Vernon on the way north to help George Washington draft his inaugural address. Then he got caught on muddy roads.

Read the entire piece here.

Urge Congress to Support a Bill That Will Bring Improved K-12 Instruction in History

Here are the details from the Organization of American Historians. If you care about funding for history education, contact your representative as soon as possible.  I just contacted mine.
On December 2, the House of Representatives is scheduled to consider the conference report to S. 1177, the “Every Student Succeeds Act.” The bill reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for the next four years and replaces the much maligned No Child Left Behind Act. Most importantly the legislation includes multiple sources of funding to support improved instruction in K-12 history, civics, geography and economics.
The Organization of American Historians (OAH) urgently needs you to contact your Member of the House of Representatives and urge him or her to support the conference report that includes key provisions that benefit history and civics education. Click here for a link that allows you to send an email directly to your Member of the House of Representatives and urge him or her to support the conference report that includes key provisions that benefit history and civics education.
The House is voting first on S. 1177, the “Every Student Succeeds Act.” While the Senate is likely to pass the bill, as you know in recent months the House has gone through a chaotic fight over its leadership. Even though the bill cleared the House-Senate conference committee by an overwhelming bi-partisan majority of 38-1, its passage by the House is by no means a foregone conclusion. Politics unrelated to the underlying merits of the bill may still derail it. So it is vital that all representatives, Republicans and Democrats, receive the message from their constituents that the education of our nation’s K-12 students is vitally important and a non-partisan issue.
OAH limits our legislative “action alerts” to situations and issues that are vital to the interests of our constituents. We cannot overstress the importance of this effort! Congress has not reauthorized the ESEA in 15 years so this legislation is our only opportunity to get funding restored for K-12 history and civics education.
The bill is expected to go to the House floor on December 2. Time is of the essence so call or email today!
How to Contact Your Representative
Please call or email your House member’s office and urge them to support restoring federal funding for history and civics education. To contact your representative, you can use one of these two options. No matter which means of communication you choose, please personalize your message as to your background or interest in history. If you are employed in the field, especially as a K-12 teacher, mention the institution where you work in your congressional district.
  1. Make a phone call. All Members of Congress can be reached through the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202)224-3121. If you feel comfortable doing so, a personal phone call is preferable to an email.If you are not sure who your Representative is you can follow this link to the House’s website and enter your zip code which will provide a link to your House member’s website: http://www.house.gov/
  2. Send an email. The National Coalition of History (of which the OAH is a member) is working with the National Humanities Alliance which has prepared a one-step link to your House member (click here). You simply enter your address and the system identifies your representative. We’ve provided an email template that can be edited to personalize your message. The message not only goes to your House member’s email, but their Twitter account and Facebook page as well.

Historians (and Students of History) Influencing Public Policy on Capitol Hill and Beyond

Are you familiar with the National History Center‘s “Congressional Briefings” program?

The Center’s Congressional Briefings program aims to provide members of Congress and their staff with the historical background needed to understand the context of current legislative concerns.  It does so by bringing leading historians to Capitol Hill to provide non-partisan briefings on past events and policies that shape the issues facing Congress today.

In the last year, the Center has sponsored forums to help national legislators understand the historical context behind of a host of policy issues, including incarceration, tax reform, the Ukraine crisis, and the Ebola outbreak in Africa.  On December 4, 2015, the Center is sponsoring a briefing on the Voting Rights Act.  (I would love to see them do one on religion and the American founding.  I think a lot of GOP legislators need to be informed on this issue!)

This is an outstanding program.  It is yet another way to bring historical knowledge and thinking skills to some of the most important policy issues facing the United States today.

I was aware of the Congressional Briefings program, but I did not know that the National History Center had extended it to college students until Amanda Moniz, the Assistant Director of the Center, brought the Mock Policy Briefing Program to my attention. It is featured in her article in the October 2015 issue of Perspectives on History

Here is a taste:

This fall the National History Center is introducing the Mock Policy Briefings Program, modeled on our own Congressional Briefings by Historians initiative.

The inspiration for the Mock Policy Briefings Program comes from concerns and questions of colleagues and students. Last fall, in an address about the state of civic engagement in the United States, National Endowment for the Humanities chair William “Bro” Adams remarked that the humanities are the intellectual guardians of civic participation and challenged us to think about how we can strengthen civics education and practice. Later, one of the participants in our briefing last winter on the Ukraine-Russia conflict, Mark Von Hagen of Arizona State University, told center staff that his students were surprised to learn that he, a historian, was going to Washington to brief congressional staffers.

The Mock Policy Briefings Program responds to Adams’s challenge and students’ curiosity about historians’ public role, along with broad concern in the discipline about declining history enrollments. The program has three goals. It aims to foster students’ understanding of the value of historical perspectives for policy decision making. It seeks to enhance students’ civic engagement by asking them to connect their historical studies to policy-making conversations. And, finally, it aims to help students recognize and showcase the skills and habits of mind they have gained from their history education.

This fall, Temple University’s Jessica Roney has incorporated the briefings model into a course on the history of the City of Brotherly Love. Examining local history within the context of national and international developments, her students will craft a briefing to bring a historical perspective to an issue currently facing Philadelphia policy makers. Members of the class are working both individually to research potential topics and collaboratively to choose and prepare the issue for the class briefing. Once they have identified appropriate policy makers and held a dress rehearsal near the end of the semester, they will hold the formal event before an audience of Philadelphia policy makers. (I am honored to have been invited to attend and offer feedback.) The final assignment for the course is a blog post reflecting on what students learned about how history shapes current policy considerations and how they can apply those lessons going forward. Watch AHA Today (blog.historians.org) to learn more about the students’ experiences.

Read the entire article here.  I especially recommend the section on how other history professors are using this model for student engagement with the past and the present in their classes.  This is definitely something to think about after I return to the classroom in Fall 2016.

Show Your Support for the Funding of History in Schools

I strongly encourage you to write your member of the House of Representatives.  STEM may produce good workers in a capitalist economy, but history and the humanities are essential for the preservation of our democracy.

From the Organization of American Historians via History News Network:

Negotiations to finalize a rewrite of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) will resume when Congress returns after Labor Day. Members of the House and Senate will be meeting to iron out the differences between the versions of the bill passed by each body. Quite simply, the Senate bill restores federal funding for K-12 history and civics education while the House bill does not. 

The Senate version includes four provisions that create funding for high quality American history, civics, geography, and economics education.  Some House Majority Conferees, however, have already declared their top priority in conference to be eliminating as many new programs and grants as possible.  This poses a direct threat to the Senate provisions that could inject much needed funding into history, civics, and the social studies.

The Organization of American Historians and the National Coalition for History (NCH) urgently need you to contact your member of the House of Representatives. Congressmen Ross (R-FL) and Cicilline (D-RI) have drafted and distributed a sign-on letter urging their colleagues to adopt the history and civics provisions in the Senate’s version of the bill.  We need your help collecting as many signatures on this “Dear Colleague” letter as possible before September 11th so that this letter can have an important impact on the negotiations. 

Please urge your representative to sign the “Dear Colleague” letter supporting key provisions that benefit history and civics education.   

Send an email directly to House members! 

Follow this link to NCH’s website for more information.  

We cannot overstress the importance of this effort. Congress has not reauthorized the ESEA in 15 years so this is likely our only opportunity to get funding restored for K-12 history and civics education.  Time is of the essence, please act today!

Jon Butler
OAH President 2015-2016 Howard R. Lamar Professor Emeritus of American Studies, History, and Religious Studies,  Yale University
Adjunct Research Professor of History, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Katherine Finley
Executive Director 
Organization of American Historians  

Our Dysfunctional Congress

Lee White is the executive director of the National Coalition for History.  His job is to advocate before Congress on behalf of history.  In the November Perspectives of History, White explains what frustrates him about his job.  Here is a small taste: 

Not surprisingly, just 12 percent of Americans now approve of the way Congress is handling its job, matching its all-time low, recorded in October 2008 at the height of the economic crisis, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, which was released on September 16. Only 6 percent of registered voters say that most members of Congress have earned re-election. And President Obama’s disapproval ratings are hovering in the low 50 percent range, the worst of his presidency.

The American people are clearly fed up. So the collective response appears to be “throw the bums out.” Well they’ve done that three times over the past four years. They elected a Democratic president to replace a Republican one and control of the House and Senate has flip-flopped between the Republicans and the Democrats.

Like a hyperactive child the body politic seems to be craving immediate gratification. They see problems that have festered for years such as deficit spending, the collapse of the real estate market, lack of a coherent energy policy, and underperforming schools, and demand that their representatives in Congress and the president to fix them right away or suffer the consequences. Incumbency and the ability to look out for constituents that went with seniority that used to be considered an asset is now a liability.

One could argue that a general lack of knowledge of history and civics have contributed mightily to the deterioration of public discourse and the ability of our elected officials at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to do their jobs. Even a rudimentary knowledge of how Congress works shows that all great legislative achievements in our nation’s past have required serious compromise from both sides of the aisle. They also needed—as the founders clearly intended—a slow and deliberate legislative process. Obviously, the larger the challenge, the more likely it is that a bipartisan solution is needed.

Earlier this year, The Nation’s Report Cards assessing knowledge of U.S. history, civics and geography by students in Grades 4, 8, and 12 showed students at all three levels generally performing at or below proficiency levels in all three subject areas. For example, in 2010, over half (55 percent) of high school seniors performed below the Basic achievement level in U.S. history.

“The report cards in civics and U.S. history, adds to a picture of stagnating or declining overall achievement among U.S. students in the social sciences.” said David P. Driscoll, chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board, which sets policy for NAEP.

Despite the evidence and awareness of the problem of civic illiteracy, it appears that subjects like history and civics will be further marginalized when one considers the proposals on the table in the House and Senate to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).