# data[].attributes.body
Apr 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Growing inequality threatens our most basic democratic principles.

Image

The Jefferson Memorial in Washington. As a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, Thomas Jefferson led legislative efforts to abolish the laws that kept large estates within families across generations. Credit Credit George Tames/The New York Times

Pete Buttigieg, who's shown an impressive knack for putting matters well in these early days of the 2020 presidential race, nailed it recently when Chuck Todd of NBC asked him about capitalism. Of course I'm a capitalist, he said; America "is a capitalist society."

But, he continued: "It's got to be democratic capitalism."

Mr. Buttigieg said that when capitalism becomes unrestrained by democratic checks and impulses, that's no longer the kind of capitalism that once produced broad prosperity in this country. "If you want to see what happens when you have capitalism without democracy, you can see it very clearly in Russia," he said. "It turns into crony capitalism, and that turns into oligarchy."

Aside from enabling Mr. Buttigieg, the South Bend, Ind., mayor, to swat away a question that has bedeviled some others, his rhetoric reminds us of a crucial point: There is, or should be, a democratic element to capitalism - and an economic element to how we define democracy.

After all, oligarchy does have an economic element to it; in fact, it is explicitly economic. Oligarchy is the rule of the few, and these few have been understood since Aristotle's time to be men of wealth, property, nobility, what have you.

But somehow, as the definition of democracy has been handed down to us over the years, the word has come to mean the existence and exercise of a few basic rights and principles. The people - the "demos" - are imbued with no particular economic characteristic. This is wrong. Our definition of democracy needs to change.

Democracy can't flourish in a context of grotesque concentration of wealth. This idea is neither new nor radical nor alien. It is old, mainstream and as American as Thomas Jefferson.

I invoke Jefferson for a reason. Everyone knows how he was occupying his time in the summer of 1776; he was writing the Declaration of Independence. But what was he up to that fall? He was a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, and he was taking the lead in writing and sponsoring legislation to abolish the commonwealth's laws upholding "entail" (which kept large estates within families across generations) and primogeniture.

Mere coincidence that he moved so quickly from writing the founding document of democracy to writing a bill abolishing inheritance laws brought over from England? Hardly. He believed, as the founders did generally, that excess inherited wealth was fundamentally incompatible with democracy.

They were most concerned with inherited wealth, as was the Scottish economist Adam Smith, whom conservatives invoke constantly today but who would in fact be appalled by the propagandistic phrase "death tax" - in their time, inherited wealth was the oppressive economic problem.

But their economic concerns weren't limited to that. They saw clearly the link between democratic health and general economic prosperity. Here is John Adams, not exactly Jefferson's best friend: All elements of society, he once wrote, must "cooperate in this one democratical principle, that the end of all government is the happiness of the People: and in this other, that the greatest happiness of the greatest Number is the point to be obtained." "Happiness" to the founders meant economic well-being, and note that Adams called it "democratical."

So, yes, democracy and the kind of economic inequality we've seen in this country in recent decades don't mix. Some will rejoin that many nations even more unequal than ours are still democracies - South Africa, Brazil, India. But are those the models to which the United States of America should aspire?

A number of scholars have made these arguments in recent years, notably Ganesh Sitaraman in his book " The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution." All that work has been vitally important. But now that some politicians are saying it, we can finally have the broad national conversation we've desperately needed for years.

Bernie Sanders has proposed an inheritance tax that the founders would love, and Elizabeth Warren has proposed a wealth tax of which they'd surely approve. But you don't have to be a supporter of either of those candidates or their plans to get behind the general idea that great concentration of wealth is undemocratic.

Policies built around this idea will not turn America into the Soviet Union or, in the au courant formulation, Venezuela. They will make it the nation the founders intended. And this, as Mr. Buttigieg's words suggest, is how Democratic candidates should answer the socialism question (with the apparent exception of the socialist Mr. Sanders). No, I'm a capitalist. And that's why I want capitalism to change.
The Times is committed to publishing Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: letters@nytimes.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Is America Becoming an Oligarchy?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Growing inequality threatens our most basic democratic principles. Pete Buttigieg, who's shown an impressive knack for putting matters well in these early days of the 2020 presidential race, nailed it recently when Chuck Todd of NBC asked him about capitalism. Of course I'm a capitalist, he said; America "is a capitalist society."

# data[].attributes.headline
Is the U.S. a Democracy? A Social Studies Battle Turns on the Nation’s Values

# data[].attributes.subject
Is the U.S. a Democracy? A Social Studies Battle Turns on the Nation’s Values

# data[].attributes.body
Apr 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The American Curriculum

Michigan spent five years debating how to teach American history. One of the biggest questions was how to describe the nation's government.

Image

Becky Debowski, an eighth-grade social studies teacher, regularly has students assume roles of partisans throughout American history. Credit Credit Brittany Greeson for The New York Times

LANSING, Mich. - Bruising political fights are usual business in Becky Debowski's eighth-grade social studies classroom. From a model Constitutional Convention to a bare-knuckle debate in Congress over slavery, she regularly has students assume roles of partisans throughout American history, like Abraham Lincoln and John C. Calhoun.

After the exercises, the class comes back together to debate whether the nation lived up to what the state of Michigan calls "core democratic values," such as equality, liberty and diversity.

For decades, the values have been the heart of the state learning standards in social studies, a doorstop of a document that guides what teachers of history, civics, economics and geography cover in their lesson plans.

"I'm really proud of my students," Ms. Debowski said. "They can handle the complexity." So she was angry last year when she learned of a proposed revision of the state standards, in which the word "democratic" was dropped from "core democratic values," and the use of the word "democracy" was reduced.

The changes were made after a group of prominent conservatives helped revise the standards. They drew attention to a long-simmering debate over whether "republic" is a better term than "democracy" to describe the American form of government.

That the two sides in that tussle tend to fall along party lines, each preferring the term that resembles their party name, plays no small part in the debate. But members of the conservative group also brought to the table the argument that K-12 social studies should be based on a close, originalist reading of the United States' founding documents.

They contended that the curriculum ought to focus more on the nation's triumphs than its sins. And they pushed for revisions that eliminated "climate change," "Roe v. Wade" and references to gay and lesbian civil rights.

After a local publication, Bridge Magazine, reported the changes, the backlash in this political swing state was intense. In response, the state brought a broader group of Michiganders into the process to redraft the standards, which will be presented to the State Board of Education on April 9. The board, an elected body with eight members, will then vote on whether to adopt the document.

"Social studies is not rocket science," said Jim Cameron, who led the committee's work. "It's more difficult."

The United States, unlike many other developed nations, lacks a national curriculum that defines what students should know. Each of the 50 states can create its own learning standards.

These documents are closely examined. While schools can teach material not included in them, they shape the content in standardized tests, and many educators rely heavily on the standards as they craft lesson plans. Student teachers are trained to use them.

Activists have long seen influencing state standards as an effective way to shape the next generation of voters. In 2010, conservatives on the Texas State Board of Education removed the word "democracy" as a description of American government, prompting protests. Georgia has also debated the term, eventually settling, in 2016, on standards that use the phrase "representative democracy/republic."

The Michigan conservatives - who prefer "constitutional republic" - say their arguments are historical, not partisan.

Image

The kindergarten section of the new draft of the Michigan social studies standards. Previously, conservatives pushed for the nation to be called a "constitutional republic" founded on "core values," not "democratic values." The previous draft also used the term "roles of the citizen" instead of "civic participation."

"When you read Article IV, Section IV, it says you're guaranteed a republican form of government," said Patrick Colbeck, a Republican former state senator, citing the United States Constitution.

While the founders were indeed skeptical of direct democracy, mainstream historians, political scientists and legal scholars say that the United States is both a representative democracy and a republic - and that there is no contradiction between those terms.

A democracy is government by the people, who may rule either directly or indirectly, through elected representatives. A republic is a form of government in which the people's elected representatives make decisions.

Some of the country's political processes, like ballot referendums, are more democratic than others, like the Electoral College. Grappling with that complexity is key to understanding American government, according to social studies experts.

The Michigan Department of Education invited Mr. Colbeck to participate in the standards-writing process after he submitted a 13-page critique of a 2015 draft of the document. Mr. Colbeck, a former aerospace engineer who became active in politics through the Tea Party movement, saw liberal bias throughout the standards.

Asked to name the influences on his view of American history, Mr. Colbeck cited Dinesh D'Souza, the right-wing commentator, and a radio talk show hosted by Levon R. Yuille, a pastor and anti-abortion activist.

"I wanted to make sure there was a seat at the table for a conservative worldview," Mr. Colbeck said.

After the proposed revisions garnered local media attention, hundreds of people flocked to community meetings to voice their outrage about what they considered conservative bias. Thousands more registered their objections online.

Ms. Debowski, the eighth-grade social studies teacher, was among those against replacing "democratic values" with "core values." She was capable, she said, of explaining the difference between party names and political concepts. "It belittles my subject," she said.

Many of the students who protested were less worried about terminology than about the way the standards dealt with gender and race. Alex Hosey, a 16-year old high school sophomore in East Lansing, objected to what had been left out, such as any mention of redlining, which contributed to the racial segregation of Michigan cities.

"Hiding our nation's sins isn't the right way to do it," he wrote in a letter to the State Board of Education. "Teach us about everything - the good and the bad, so we can learn to think for ourselves."

Under fire, the state education agency asked for volunteers to help rewrite the standards yet again - for the third time in five years.

Out of 144 people who applied, 116 were selected. They included teachers, college professors, parents, students and retirees. They were placed on subcommittees dealing with every aspect of the document, from American history, civics and economics to "bias review," and sorted through thousands of pages of public comments.

They added depth to sections on indigenous peoples' history. Roe v. Wade, climate change and gay and lesbian rights were all restored. The bias review committee suggested the terms "enslaved people" or "enslaved Africans" instead of "slaves."

The overall goal was that every Michigan student - a third of whom are nonwhite - would be able to "see themselves" in the social studies standards, said Marsha Lewis, a Detroit assistant principal and a chair of the bias review group.

But in the days before the document was to be sent to the State Board of Education, fundamental questions about how to describe American government and citizenship had not been resolved.

It was not just that some Democratic-leaning committee members liked the term "democracy" while some Republican-leaning members preferred "republic." The debate was really about bigger disagreements that transcended party lines: about how to deal with populism and protest, and about whether the United States is a unified entity of citizens or a conglomeration of groups divided by race, class, language and other identities.

On March 7, the heads of all the subcommittees gathered at the Historical Society of Michigan in Lansing to go through the draft one last time. The laptop screen of the head writer, a district social studies consultant named Dave Johnson, was projected onto the wall as he made last-minute revisions in a Google document.

Should "responsible citizenship" be replaced with "civic participation," in an effort to include undocumented students?

Were elementary school students ready to learn about the right, stated in the Declaration of Independence, to "alter or abolish" a government?

"There's a treason clause in the U.S. Constitution," said Michael Libbee, a professor of geography at Central Michigan University.

"It's only treason until it works," replied Ellen Zwarensteyn, executive director of the Michigan Center for Civic Education.

In the end, "alter or abolish" was included, though the number of mentions was greatly reduced. The writers replaced many, but not all, instances of the word "citizenship" with "civic life" or "civic participation."

After lunch, Mr. Cameron, the committee leader and a state education consultant, tacked to the walls poster pages of handwritten suggestions from African-American and Asian-American community groups.

Among their suggestions were to add references to Korematsu v. the United States, the Supreme Court case that allowed Japanese internment during World War II. They also asked for mentions of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Flint water crisis, the #MeToo movement and Black Lives Matter.

Ms. Zwarensteyn took careful notes. Some of the most rigorous debates had occurred on the civics subcommittee she helped lead, where Michael Warren, a circuit court judge, was a strong conservative voice. Judge Warren preferred the term "first principles" to "democratic values," and had pushed for the civics standards to be based on a close reading of the founding documents.

The list of core values that the standards writers eventually agreed on was "equality; liberty; justice and fairness; unalienable individual rights (including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness); consent of governed; truth; common good."

And after months of sometimes bitter debate, the group decided these values could still be called "democratic." As part of a compromise, the nation's political system would be referred to primarily as "American government," but also, in some instances, "constitutional government" and - yes - "democracy."

Korematsu and the Flint water crisis made it into the standards. Redlining, the Chinese Exclusion Act, #MeToo and Black Lives Matter did not. Neither did James Madison, to the consternation of Mr. Warren.

Mr. Colbeck, the former state senator who had helped write the previous draft, was displeased. Calling the nation a democracy was not "politically neutral and accurate," he said.

There will still be time for public comment and revision. Education officials plan to introduce the new standards in "listen and learn" meetings across the state this spring.

If the Board of Education, which after November's election went from a 4-4 partisan split to a 6-2 Democratic majority, votes to adopt the document, the state will begin training teachers on how to use the new standards.

Then, most likely in the next decade, policymakers will outline new priorities for Michigan schools, and they will ask educators and experts to rewrite the standards once again. The process of retelling the nation's history - deciding what gets left out and who is heard from - never ends.

Dana Goldstein is a national correspondent, writing about how education policies impact families, students and teachers across the country. She is the author of "The Teacher Wars: A History of America's Most Embattled Profession."

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: A More Perfect Civics Lesson? 'Democracy' Itself Is Up for Debate. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is the U.S. a Democracy? A Social Studies Battle Turns on the Nation's Values

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The American Curriculum Michigan spent five years debating how to teach American history. One of the biggest questions was how to describe the nation's government. LANSING, Mich. - Bruising political fights are usual business in Becky Debowski's eighth-grade social studies classroom.

# data[].attributes.body
Mar 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A New York court rules that the Constitution does not shield President Trump from allegations of misconduct before he took office. The case has echoes of Paula Jones's suit against President Clinton.

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.

Image

Credit Credit Pete Ryan

The legal travails of President Bill Clinton may soon haunt President Trump.

A New York appeals court on Thursday ruled that Mr. Trump, like Mr. Clinton before him, is not protected by the presidency from answering civil charges. The five-judge panel in Manhattan said that the Constitution's supremacy clause does not bar state courts from hearing claims over "alleged unofficial misconduct" - that is, claims of improper or illegal action before a president took office. The decision expands on the precedent set in Clinton v. Jones, in which a unanimous Supreme Court in 1997 ruled that a federal court had jurisdiction over a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Paula Jones, a former low-level Arkansas state employee, against Mr. Clinton.

Yes, the presidency is important and its occupant may have important duties to attend to other than to produce documents or sit for depositions in a civil suit alleging sexual misconduct and defamation, the court explained, but "the President is still a person, and he is not above the law."

Two judges dissented, observing that the threat of contempt, should Mr. Trump resist the legal process, would put a state court in "direct control" over the president.

A former contestant on Mr. Trump's reality TV show "The Apprentice," Ms. Zervos went public during the 2016 campaign with accusations that Mr. Trump kissed and groped her without her consent. She is suing the president for defaming her shortly after she came forward, calling her charges a "hoax." She filed her suit days before Mr. Trump took the oath of office.

The president's legal team has vigorously opposed Ms. Zervos's lawsuit and a separate legal action by the New York attorney general involving Mr. Trump's foundation. In both cases, judges have rejected the argument that the presidency insulates Mr. Trump from the reach of state courts hearing cases unrelated to his official duties.

Mr. Trump's lawyers said they would appeal the ruling in the Zervos matter.

If past is prologue, these lawsuits could be a minefield for Mr. Trump, who so far has avoided, on his lawyers' advice, a face-to-face interview with the special counsel, Robert Mueller - in no small part because of the president's tenuous relationship with the truth.

After the Supreme Court ruled for Ms. Jones in 1997, President Clinton, like a regular citizen, was questioned under oath by her lawyers, and in the process denied that he had ever had a sexual encounter with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. The rest, as they say, is history.

George Conway, husband of the White House adviser Kellyanne Conway, played a not insignificant role, both publicly and behind the scenes, in getting the public and the justice system to accept the premise that Mr. Clinton - or any other president, for that matter - shouldn't be beyond the reach of the courts. Mr. Conway, who was one of the lawyers who represented Ms. Jones in her suit against the president, was among a cadre of conservatives who used a variety of means - including the courts - to hound the Clintons. He was part of what Hillary Clinton termed at the time a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

On Thursday, after learning of the New York ruling, Mr. Conway took a victory lap of sorts. He shared on Twitter a Supreme Court brief he helped ghostwrite in the Jones case. "I stand by these arguments, as applied to any president, of any party," he wrote.

More coverage of the Zervos case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | 'The President ... Is Not Above the Law'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A New York court rules that the Constitution does not shield President Trump from allegations of misconduct before he took office. The case has echoes of Paula Jones's suit against President Clinton. By The Editorial Board The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher.