Watching the debate last night, my mind would drift during the particularly awkward parts. During one of my mental excursions, I began to really wonder just how well students in America are taught to present an idea and defend it with facts and logic. Do we really do enough of that? How do students know when they are doing a good job of it? How do we ensure that students are able to debate for themselves and also be able to see the fallacies in someone else's case?
Watching the debate, I also began to wonder why it is that we hold politicians to views they held ten and twenty years ago. I am definitely a different person now than I was ten and twenty years ago. My views have changed (I hope for the better). Why can't a candidate make the case that at one point they believed something and have since evolved to another viewpoint without being called a flip-flopper? Both Trump and Clinton would have been way better served to admit a change in stance than to deny a previous stance. What does it tell society when people are unwilling to admit a shift if perspective?
I certainly was glad that my 11th and 8th grade children were interested in the debate last night. My daughter was also required by both her English and Social Studies teachers to post some of her reactions on forums that they had set up. I thought that this was great. Now, most of the students in my daughter's classes have similar backgrounds and political leanings, but the ideas were out there and public which is a good thing. Is there any national forum out there for students to post reactions and civilly debate for themselves how this election is going? How many breakfast tables across the nation do you suppose were talking about the debate this morning? I hope a lot.
While I would have welcomed the third party candidates to the debate last night so that the public could be aware of other possibilities, their presence would have radically changed the dynamics of last night's debate. I am not sure the new dynamics would have been better. I liked the stark contrasts I saw and some of the sub-surface emotion that was clear. Johnson and Stein would have diminished that. However their presence may have gotten the debate to a clearer focus on issues and policies. Less exciting, but more important in the long run.
Watching the debate, I also began to wonder why it is that we hold politicians to views they held ten and twenty years ago. I am definitely a different person now than I was ten and twenty years ago. My views have changed (I hope for the better). Why can't a candidate make the case that at one point they believed something and have since evolved to another viewpoint without being called a flip-flopper? Both Trump and Clinton would have been way better served to admit a change in stance than to deny a previous stance. What does it tell society when people are unwilling to admit a shift if perspective?
I certainly was glad that my 11th and 8th grade children were interested in the debate last night. My daughter was also required by both her English and Social Studies teachers to post some of her reactions on forums that they had set up. I thought that this was great. Now, most of the students in my daughter's classes have similar backgrounds and political leanings, but the ideas were out there and public which is a good thing. Is there any national forum out there for students to post reactions and civilly debate for themselves how this election is going? How many breakfast tables across the nation do you suppose were talking about the debate this morning? I hope a lot.
While I would have welcomed the third party candidates to the debate last night so that the public could be aware of other possibilities, their presence would have radically changed the dynamics of last night's debate. I am not sure the new dynamics would have been better. I liked the stark contrasts I saw and some of the sub-surface emotion that was clear. Johnson and Stein would have diminished that. However their presence may have gotten the debate to a clearer focus on issues and policies. Less exciting, but more important in the long run.
I am currently observing a few different ESL classrooms at Burncoat Middle School and one of the classes is watching the debates and talking about how to make a good argument and debate each other. The students get very excited whenever they get to watch the debates in class and I think it is so important that all students are exposed to politics and learn the importance of our political system.
ReplyDeleteI think that your point on flip-flopping was very well said. If we tell students, or even society in general, that their opinions can't change I think that it forces people into a very rigid, limited way of viewing the world. As educators it is so important to remind people, especially our students, that you are constantly growing, learning, and developing over the course of your lifetime and with each new experience your opinions could change.
I think that people might be a lot less hostile if they were just open to listening to the other side's point of view. This election shows the extreme sides of both parties but sometimes it seems as if both are just yelling into the void. If we only surround ourselves with people who share our opinions we are limiting our learning opportunities. We don't have to agree with the other side, and we may never agree with certain people, but learning the reasoning behind their choice and respecting their opinions is something that we should be open to.
Obviously this year is different than most election years but how do you think that we could reduce hostility between different political parties? Should discussing politics be limited to those with whom you agree? How can we discuss politics without creating an argument? I would love to hear your thoughts.