Apparently little emphasis is placed on American history and government studies in elementary through high school in the public school in modern education system in America.

I’m old as dirt and growing up in the 50’s state and American history to include the constitution, branches of government and the interrelation of citizens with the government, to include civic duty to the government, was as normal as math or science.

In Puerto Rico great emphasis is placed on civics as it applies to Puerto Rico and American government and voting turnout nears 90% at election times. My sons can tell you in three languages how PR and American government work and the value of their citizenship.

I read an alarming article on the subject: Survey Finds Students Ignorant Of Basic First Amendment Rights at http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/february/0...nt_survey.shtml
And could hardly believe my eyes on the reported statistics.

Questions for debate:

Do you think Civics is essential to create a sense of nationalism?

Do you think the proper amount of classroom time and emphasis are dedicated to Civics?

Why has Civics been given less attention in the modern public education system?

Do you think Civics is essential to create a sense of nationalism?

I think it is essential to teach civics, (government) and American history, but not for the purpose of creating nationalism. Rather those efforts should go toward teaching kids to think, evaluate our national system and state sub-systems and begin the process of equipping them to become participants—at least on the voter level.

I do not care for the idea of requiring students to recite rote the Pledge of Allegiance on a daily basis

Do you think the proper amount of classroom time and emphasis are dedicated to Civics?

This question is difficult to answer since graduation requirements vary from state to state and within states from district to district. Currently Texas requires 3.5 credits in the social studies area out of a total of 24. Local districts may increase this requiement, but not lessen it.

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/press/pr000707.html

Why has Civics been given less attention in the modern public education system?

I think it all started when the Soviets launched Sputnik on October 4, 1957. At that time the social studies or social sciences were down played in favor of “catching up with” the Soviets in science and technology. During the 1990s there was a similar move as we perceived the Japanese and German economies were doing better than our own. We also had a move in some states to lengthen the school year and school day during the 90s.

Do you think Civics is essential to create a sense of nationalism?

I don't think civics does anything like that, but I do think civics should be an important part of our education. It seems to me that if we want people to participate in our political process whether simply by voting or a more active role, it is essential that they understand that process. One of the basics is how our government is designed to work.


Do you think the proper amount of classroom time and emphasis are dedicated to Civics?

Absolutely, positively not. When my son was in high school just a couple of years ago, he received virtually no instruction in civics at all. He learned all of that from me.


Why has Civics been given less attention in the modern public education system?

BoF may have a point, it could be that more emphasis has been given to math and science. I don't know. I asked them at my son's high school about it and bascially they just told me "it wasn't in the curriculm".

Reference nationalism.
Well, it had that affect on me, I love America and my home state and will stand instantly when I see the state or national flag and get a swelling in my heart I just can’t describe. I think it must be according to how it is presented, for me I grew up in the cold war and it was red ink flowing over communist USSR maps. People who could afford to built underground nuclear fallout shelters and 007 was a hero equal to Superman and everyone was glad he was on our side. Here in Puerto Rico it has the exact same reaction and I will dare any of you to seek out Puerto Rican’s in your neighborhood and check out their cars and if you don’t find a Puerto Rican flag and probably an American flag too someplace on it let me know and I’ll send you an IOU for a beer.

Is enough taught?
With the answers on the link and Americans communicating with foreigners who may dislike America I think Americans need a built in defense of knowledge of what we are made of and how we got where we are.

Why less attention?
Perhaps BoF has the facts correct? I just think as long as young citizens answer polls with the results displayed on the link a reevaluation of curriculum is in order.

Like most posters so far, I disagree with the very idea of a class (or any governmental actions at all) for the purpose of instilling a sense of nationalism.

It is best to teach civics/history and let the students make up their own minds.

I think it is patently obvious that civics education is lacking, one of the more ironic signs that people don't care is that the US press hardly covered the results of this survey while the BBC for instance highlights the story.

Check out this headline:
US teens 'reject' key freedoms

...needless to say this doesn't look good, as is actually dangerous.


I think the lack of focus on recent US history which carries the best examples of struggle for First Amendment rights (The Civil Rights and Women's Liberation movements for example) has caused a severe lack of appreciation.

I was shocked to here that kids don't value freedoms that were fought for tooth and nail...

How can you be shocked Turnea? Really! How anyone can be suprised when one listens to the rhetoric being spewed by the talking heads of both parties.

"These freedoms should be supressed because there may be terrorists hiding in yiour garage at this very moment"

"These people shouldn't have these rights because the will of JesusAliMohammedMcBuddha supersedes a free and democratic nation"

"Forget civil rights these people physically resemble terrorists so they should either placed in camps--Malkin-- or just deported"

"Doesn't matter if you disagree with the war on Iraq, if you write things that say so or even protest you are aiding and abetting the enemy and are a TRAITOR" --Coulter, Hannity Rush and just about any Republican these days.

Look at the eminent domain thread and see just how many people believe and support the governments "right" to take your property away from you.

Children growing up these days hear these rants from their parents daily. Spewed forth by parents who are barely literate in anything regarding American history and with even less understanding about how our government was designed let alone the philosophies that shaped it.

Democrats will sacrifice your rights for the "Good of Society" and Republicans do it out of either fear and prejudice or cause gawd said so. The mentality of far too many Americans these days is that their FREEDOM is permitted to them from the government. A whole nation of sheep and their shepard is the President and washington.

I have always believed that the reason Civics classes were slowly strangled in public schools was because it fits the socialist necessity to remove a sense of freedom and independance from people to make them submit to the grand plans of "Great Society" believers. Now it seems the Republicans who have turned their backs on limited government for control politically will make use of it to build support from the ignorant for their "Lets spread American democracy throughout the world" at gun point if necessary mentality.

You should neither be suprised nor sympathetic. American are going to get the kind of government and lack of freedom they have earned.

Do you think Civics is essential to create a sense of nationalism?


dictionary.com

-dictionary.com

Creating a sense of Nationalism is one of the strongest traits of Fascism. Italy, under Mousilini had a strong sense of Nationalism. Germany, under Hitler had a strong sense of Nationalism. the USA, under Bush exhibits a strong sense of Nationalism (excluding the signifigant minority of Anti-Bushists)

I am not sure that an education in Civics brings Nationalism into existence. I think propaganda and rhetoric create an overwhelming feeling of pride that I would call Nationalism.

Do you think the proper amount of classroom time and emphasis are dedicated to Civics?

Absolutely not. I don't think America raises it's children to be responsible citizens in a democracy. Not nearly enough time is spent covering the the citizens' responsibility to ensure the proper functionality of a democracy. The push from the authorities (not the teachers) is towards an academic curriculum, with little time left for Civics, or for that matter, humanity, relationships, liberty, etc... Furthermore, I think this is purposeful. I believe that the Powers that be have a vested interest in Americans being uninformed, and consumeristic, not to mention "sheepish" in that they will accept what they are told, and follow suit. That is not how I understand America.

Why has Civics been given less attention in the modern public education system?

The rise of Fascism in America. The push of the Elite to control the curriculum and eliminate true democracy. I do not throw this term out lightly. I would ask that everyone read this transcript. It is a sermon given by a Unitarian Preacher, in Austin, TX. (I'm not religious, but I am American to the core!)

http://www.uua.org/news/2004/voting/sermon_loehr.html

There are more motives than overtly appear to the push towards more testing, more standards, etc...

This is what I have been fighting against. This is the reason that I think it is truly time for a popular democratic uprising in America.

President James Monroe originated nationalism with the Monroe doctrine, a policy of limiting European colonization after the forceful taking of Florida preceding the war of 1812. Nationalism has remained very popular throughout the US with the exception of the Civil War until very recent history.
In the period American nationalism was proclaimed to have a "manifest destiny" the power to guide and educate "lesser" peoples in the world.


I agree, I think when the great depression occurred FDR changed an entire generations mindset towards socialism. Elected officials established DOE and entrenched themselves removing Civics, which would teach America was not founded on a concept of large central government, it was founded on the principles of individual freedom and equality taken as self-evident. No entitlements and no protections for those who did not practice capitalism successfully. FDR invented socialism that doesn’t exist in the constitution.


On your link the guy talks about a lot of contradicting things but leave me under the impression his message to the audience was to replace the word “Fascism” with Republican but when you look into the terms fascism would be replaced by Democratic. Your link has democratic talking points that don’t match history. Too many contradictions to hardly list for example corporatism are a European conservative doctrine in France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. This doctrine is based on the Roman Catholic church encyclicals “Rerum novarum 1891 and Quadragesimo anno 1931", which incorporates church and state to cause the workers and employers under the direction of the state regarding work conditions, wages, prices, production and exchange. Now I think we can agree Republican Party doesn’t strive towards those goals. Now the democrats would like to re-importation of drugs, control workers wages and support unions and FDR did try, unsuccessfully to pass the New Deal.
The conservatives disapproved of the New Deal and restated the fundamental premises of a free-market economy.
Conservatives insisted America was based on capitalism free of federal controls. Conservatives pointed out that the US Constitution was based on a view of citizens worth based on their resourcefulness of unfettered capitalism, social Darwinism; the social pecking order willing the strong survive! That is why the Catholic Church with its corporatism was limited specifically by the separation of church and state in my opinion. Likewise, perhaps it explains Catholics voting democratic when many democrats value differ from the church. The FDR era changed the founding of America towards secular socialism and persisted through 1962 when the New Right was founded. Then in 1980 during the Regan era a move to return to America’s founding of capitalism with small federal government was reborn. My response to your post is based on reading reference in Microsoft Encarta encyclopedia 99. By keying in search word conservatism and read entire contribution by Roy C. Macridis. The research even endorses America being based on neutral v. secular government. Also by searching [b]nationalism and select article United States of America and read through the hunt for communist. For a short view click.

http://encarta.msn.com/text_761573099___1/Conservatism.html

Edited to add Hugo's signature as it seemed appropriate for an ending for this post.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents" James Madison

Winner: Person you would most like to punch in the nose award.

Pretty good read there Sarge.
Except the Republican revolution towards limited government died with George Jr.
He has followed full bore the path started with Lincoln and fleshed out by FDR. Lincoln finished off the ability of states to withdraw from the union or even really refuse to follow the central planning and FDR made the changes to how things operated to give the monetary control of the USA to the executive branch by neutering the Congress by in effect cutting the purse strings. This is how Presidents get us into wars and leave Congress with no more power than to rubber stamp their decision. With the advent of television the control was tightened as you then get televised propaganda to scare and thus influence enough of the country to send our troops in to fight the "Gathering Storm".

I will usually refer the Bush as the Greatest Democrat ever elected to the office of the Presidency. His political orientation seems very similiar to JFK. Compare Bush to the older pre Vietnam Democrats--epitomized these days by Zell Miller and Lieberman and they line up almost exact.
In fact nothing George Bush has done even resembles Republicanism except for the manipulation of the hard core religious conservatives.

My Grandfather always said if you want to go to war elect a Democrat. How very true.

Yes. Not only nationalism but a sense of civic responsibility. Our public school system is seriously under-educating children in knowledge of our basic institutions. Not only do kids not understand the constitution or the principles behind it but they don't understand even rudimentary information about the mechanics of our economy. To make matters worse, the current fetish of value neutral moral relativism prevents our children from learning how our system has proven to be superior to other systems.

Why? Because the political forces that have dominated education are liberal and inherently hostile to traditional American values. They are quick to focus on the areas of our system that are flawed but do not give equal or even much time at all to the dramatic success of the American system when compared to other human societies throughout time. That's why slavery and Vietnam get so much attention but the unprecedented freedom and economic prosperity get short shrift.

It's yet another example of the failure of public education in my view.

Do you think Civics is essential to create a sense of nationalism?
No, I don't think so. Other nations are nationalistic without having formal civics education. And, as an outsider, I would say that despite the poor levels of education in civics, nationalism is not a quality that America is particularly lacking at the moment.
Indeed, I'd say blind ignorance coupled to government-inspired paranoia could probably be manipulated to INCREASE nationalism, if that alone were a laudible goal.
But I am not sure how NATIONALISM in the "my country; right or wrong" sense is a good thing most of the time.

What does suffer from a lack of civics knowledge - however it is won - is the quality of democracy. It's only in wealthy stable democracies that civics treaching is necessary, because kids become remote from the people who thought freedom was important enough to personally strive or suffer for it - Iraqis just voted in droves to participate in democracy and exercise their new-found freedom, but they didn't do it because anyone taught them they should in a school-room. Neither did the black South Africans when they got more freedom (by a different route). But both Iraqis and South Africans were as nationalist as most other countries before and after the elections.

National pride is not necessarily bad - indeed, it is preferable to perpetual breast-beating national shame, even when there is something tangiable to be ashamed of. For example, there is something vaguely unsavoury about the urge of some post-war Germans to subsume themselves into a European superstate. It smells to much like denial.

But it needs to be a sober pride that recognises the faults as well as the triumphs. A deeply Christian country like America will know that pride is not only a sin, but goeth before a fall. This a hard balance to achieve, since we find it hard to be critical and complimentary about the same thing at the same time and still talk anything like sense.
We should remind ourselves rather more often than we do that loud and passionate criticism of a country from within is one of the hallmarks of the great human achievement of free speech and democracy. Saddam Hussein could garner 98% support in elections with 98% turn-outs, and there were no formal voices of opposition from inside Iraq (none that lasted long, anyway) but that was no measure of his democratic credentials or of his popular support.

Do you think the proper amount of classroom time and emphasis are dedicated to Civics?
I can't comment, as I am not American. There may be equivalent classes in British schools today, but there were not in any of the schools I went to - my political education is one area where I have done all the work myself. (Some might say it shows! )

Why has Civics been given less attention in the modern public education system?
I with agree lordhelmet that it's mostly down to neglect and leaving the educational establishment to it's own devices. I also agree with him that public education in the USA (and the UK too) is failing to equip most children with the necessary requisites for full participation. I do have a more cynical spin on it though - the politicians who disburse public money for public education are not necessarily that interested in actively engaged vocal discussion and the concomitant levels of dissent and argument with tier own aims.

I can declare myself the most democratically-minded politician in the world, but I am only really in favour of people intelligently exercising their votes if you cast them for me!

Lord Acton was right - power tends to corrupt. I'm not suggesting that politicians on all sides have forced the pace in the move away from proper "liberal" education (in the old sense). Just that politicians are human, and it's human to want to get one's own way as smoothly as possible, and if the easiest way to do that is by not doing something, so much the better. how long is it since it became clear that standards in some areas of public education have been falling? Since it's invention? Yet politicians have always taken the path of least resistance - it's what they do, since doing hard or unpopular things tends not to win many votes.

Currently, the easy route in education includes saying things like "the modern world/the jobs market/international competitiveness demand that certain subjects be given more prominence, and there are only so many hours in the timetable". To an extent that's true - I am 37, and I was too old by a year or two for my school even to have owned a computer, let alone have lessons based on them like they do now. That's one extra subject putting pressure on the timetable. "Soft" subjects like Civics, where the benefit is harder to quantify are going to come under pressure unless someone is defending them. (So brownie points to everyone here that's speaking up for them. )

But I have to ask about this:

I guess it depends on how you measure superiority, freedom & prosperity, and what you define as "proven", doesn't it?
If the measure is longevity, America's superiority has (charitably) lasted just over 200 years. Imperial Rome lasted closer to 500 years. The British Empire lasted almost 400. Nothing very superior there.
If the measure is the number of people to whom relatively stable and peaceful democracy has been spread, you've got a long way to go to catch up with 1 billion Indians who follow, more or less, the Westminster parliamentary model.
But I assume that the second quote means that you view that the "proven" superiority of the American system comes from the unprecendented freedom and prosperity.
Prosperity? In absolute terms of wealth alone, Americans today are certainly more prosperous thatn anyone has ever been. Well, ok, some of them are. Some of them at the economic bottom end have shorter lifespans and worse infant mortality rates than most other developed countries. But that's a standard of living and quality of life measure, and not just naked wealth, so I guess you can still tell yourself your best.
Freedom?
Was the average Greek citizen, who didn't have to trust anyone else to represent his views, but could walk into the Forum himself and speak freely - was he any less free than the average American, some of whom (and if it's more than one it's a source of shame, or should be) are legally prevented from voting during Presidential elections?
Okay, so the Greeks didn't have universal suffrage, and were a society based on slavery, so huge parts of the population who lived in Greece had no freedom at all. When did the US give women the vote? Or blacks? Not all THAT long ago, and in some cases after other countries did it - how superior is the system again?
Not to mention that ALL modern countries conveniently disenfranchise large numbers of the people living and working within their border by calling them "illegal immigrants".
I'm not saying that's wrong, but the ancient freedom to move and live wherever you like that the people who now constitute America would not currently exist without (or indeed, those of everywhere outside Africa) - that's one quite precedented freedom that even America doesn't see as necessary any longer. (Huddled masses? - you can keep them!) Presumably because a group of noble, farsighted and intelligent (but not infallible) 18th Century gentleman didn't specify that they thought this particular freedom was one endowed by their Creator.
Relativism is - literally - the comparison of one thing to others. And value attribution is something you should do after you've made the comparison - asking which is better and which is worse, and examining why you think that. It seems to me that if you (plural) don't actively intend to come across as truly ignorant, not to mention arrogant and hubristic, a dose of real value-neutral relativism might be just what America needs.

This is quite a stretch. The basis of the article is that some one-third of college students consider that the press has too much freedom, half believed the government has a right to censor the internet and two thirds believed it was illegal to burn the flag.

The most shocking being:
!!!!

This has nothing to do with liberal values which are about TOTAL freedom of the Press, lack of any censorship of the internet, and the absolute right to burn the flag if in extreme protest.

I saw this as a dangerous level of conservative thought from our youth towards the government control..... the media, controlling freedom of the still relatively free internet, and ultimately censoring free thought and disemination of information. I was astounded when I read this a week ago already.

Imagine if the media were only able to publish stories that had government approval? Its absolutely fascist, or on the other side communist! I have no idea what these kids are thinking but I assure you, this is not liberal thought.

I have no idea what is being taught in classrooms today, but the questions are loaded. I dont think Civics should be taught to create a sense of nationalism, but should be taught as a knowledge of ones freedoms and rights and a good sense of where one lives in the world, of/in history and in comparison to others. An appreciation and necessary backround.

Why our children dont understand what the First Amendment means to the US and to us as citizens is truly distressing.

Lordhelmet, forgive me but I am tired of the lies about liberals not understanding what this country was founded upon and the constant onslaught of empty rhetoric, cliches, and any excuse in any thread to paint a less than American figure of those of us that have worked to give the people of this country civil rights and the vote, womens rights and the vote, child care, health care, 401K's, environmental protections, national and city parks, community centers, clinics, fair criminal justice and anti-discrimination laws, social security and many other benefits that dont fit in with brutal capitalism and the inherant racism and discriminatory, traditional values this country was founded upon, AND, liberals believe in putting MUCH MUCH more money into free education than our conservative counterparts, AND we believe in the free Press and often the FREE presses are liberal. So knock off the 'any excuse' to paint liberals in a bad light or anti-american. Many benefits you enjoy are of liberal design. I love what this country stands for and its history just as much as you do, we just have different views on what the founders meant by it all.

I think our government and the country's history, Civics should be taught from Jr high through high school, as it was to me (right after the Vietnam era, and yes from liberal teachers who told a bit more truth than the sterilized patriotic version of revisionist history in the books, sorry, its better to know the truth).
Perhaps economics should be included in high school, they were not in my day.

I think education is so much less effective than it was when I was in school, and I believe, as a liberal (with it seems a hostile understanding of the US traditional values, whatever that means), that education is severely lacking on all counts, and believe its one of the best ways out of poverty, and that we should be pouring tons of money into it to assure the future of the country, despite that our esteemed government does not feel it is necessary, in accordance with thier traditional American and may I say 'conservative' values.

Government control is NOT a conservative value. Government control is a desire held by BOTH sides of the aisle to be abused when it favors their differing ideology.

TOTAL freedom of the press? I remember a movement by the left to push for government controls on the content of talk radio. Freedom of Speech? Sure, so long as it is not considered "hate" speech.

On the conservative side of things, Limited government? Sure, 36% expansion of the Department of education (a department that still achieves next to nothing), The partial elimination of Due Process (Patriot Acts I and II).

BOTH parties value Government control of our lives to serve their purposes. There is no question that if one truly seeks personal freedom and accountability the they need to stop supporting BOTH parties.

Should Civics receive a greater focus in our schools? Absolutely!! How can we expect our children to grow to become adults who involve themselves in our system of government if we don't bother to explain to them what that system is or how it works?

Why don't we focus on civics any more? Elected officials on both sides PREFER an apathetic and ignorant America. It makes elections easier, it makes their various frauds, misdealings, and lies easier to get away with. Remember, The board of education is an elected body as well.

Remember all those education Ads of our youth, like "I'm Just a Bill?" Remember, when we were in school we would participate in mock elections, with weeks of buildup and education before we held them?

Well the civic lessons ads are gone, the mock elections are there, but based on my sister-in-laws experience, they are one day affairs at best with no buildup and little to no education on how elections work. Civics class? She never heard of it.

Virtually everyone posting in this thread has stated that we need more Civics education to teach kids how to get involved in the process. How many of you posters have been to a board of education meeting? How many of you have stood at the podium and made this argument to the board? How many people here have used their civics education to fight for a return to civics education?

I Challenge EVERYONE here, right, left or anywhere in between. GO TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETINGS! It doesn't matter if you have a child in school or not, your taxes, fund those schools. FIGHT FOR WHAT IS RIGHT!

One important civics lesson is that there is strength in numbers. When only 3 or 4 adults show up at Board of Education meetings, we effectively grant them permission to do whatever idiotic things they choose to do. Government by default is not civics. Want to teach you kids civics? Then do something "civic"!!

:::Stepping down from Soapbox now:::

The two major political parties have polarized our nation and those of us old enough to remember President Carter’s attempts at change realize the futility of attempting to turn the oil tanker with a rowboat. Since that time the majority of citizens excuse their party for what weakness it may have rather than to just elect a new crew from bottom up that represents what the people would have government be.

OLS is correct the truth is not in the party choices it is in the minds of people’s thoughts not represented. Nationalism comes automatic with knowledge of civics and no motto need be memorized or repeated daily. Civics teaches us we were bad to kill American Indians, hold people as slaves and place women in a subordinate citizenship. Likewise it tells of the reasons for the government’s choices and the conclusions came to by the majority. Civics is non-polarizing, it is a unitineing class that doesn’t place justification on polarization. Both parties have 35% each of America in total support and then convince those in the middle which is the lesser of two evils. The end result is two America’s, one is wrong and one is right, one the good guy the other the enemy of all things American. Nothing could be further from the truth than to blindly support a concept that government is always ran by the wrong team.


Wow I love a person with passion! Thought I should take some of the heat on this one too since I started the thread and preach traditional conservatism capitalism. I think you clearly explain why civics isn’t taught anymore. Civics would cause one to question polarization in at the level it has risen in our democracy. It would cause one to realize OLS is correct that neither party in power is representing the values of the America we live in nor are we offered a team nearest our values. This problem is consistent in almost every debate, the absence of middle ground. Either side views the other so vastly different to the point they think that person can’t be American. Read this link and try to negotiate a middle ground in this opposition and I think you will find the Israel – Palestine issue easier to resolve. http://capwiz.com/sicminc/issues/alert/?al...6940016&type=CU

lordhelmet,

We don't have a "public school system" in this country, but 50 state systems and thousands of small systems called districts. Texas alone has more than 1100 independent school districts. Curriculum varies from state to state and from district to district. Texas requires government as part of its high school graduation requirements. Local districts may require more. Obviously, some states districts do a better job than others, but to paint all the nation's districts as not doing their job is being both uninformed and irresponsible.

In other regions public school systems are operated by the city instead of an independent board of education.

1.)I can't argue with this point, it's very necessary to foster a sense of identity and responsibility to one's government and community at large.

2.)I do believe that enough time in the classroom is spent on on civics. The high school that I work at, and others in my state require 3-4 years of social sciences, with a civics course being a requirement when students are a senior. Could that time be enlarged? I believe it should and perhaps civics ought to be a two year high school course, or at least an introductory course that junior high students should take along with American History.

3.)I'm not certain if it's a question of a lack of attention. The National Center for Educational Statistics found that 87% of Americans ages 25-64 had completed a civics education course at some point in their high school education. This number could increase, but that would perhaps lead to federal mandated action, since educational matters are mostly a product of locally elected school boards.

I would add as a side note that all the classes in the world won't help one iota if parents themselves do not value civics and civics education. How many parents have taken their high school aged kids to a city council meeting? How many parents have worked alongside their kids in a community volunteer project or had thanksgiving at the Salvation Army? How many parents have run for office and had their children help?, or even a better question-how many parents read and keep up on politics themselves?....or even vote??