RealClearPolitics reports that for upper-level government employees, the Trump administration is developing an 80-hour training program on the Constitution. So now, instead of the left’s “sensitivity training” classes, et al., we will now have the right’s classes on the Constitution.
With all due respect, to the extent that such “training” may address partisan issues of constitutional interpretation, this is a terrible idea.
Would there be partisan issues? Certainly with issues of constitutional interpretation, there would be. But what do upper-level federal employees need to know about constitutional interpretation? Their task is not to interpret, but to implement.
If there are partisan issues in the course, they may be found in the editing — that is, in which provisions are addressed and which are not. Is there perhaps such a conflict as that?
If the standard procedure for implementing such programs is followed, we will never know.
The only way we will know is if such standard procedure is not followed, and 40 of the 80 hours, and equivalent funding, is delegated to the congressional leadership of the Democrat party, the Democratic National Committee, or some other element of the Democratic leadership.
If such element declines, then we can conclude that there is no partisan element. If it accepts, then the federal employees will have a real education.
In such classes, on issues of dispute, each side could present its own perspective and comment on or criticize points made by the opposing side. If there is testing, then each will compose one half of the questions. The questions would not go to which side is right or not, but would simply go to the content of the arguments and counter-arguments made by each side of instructors. Which side is “right” should be left for the government employees to decide for themselves.
If the administration gets a choice of subject of governmental administration, and chooses the Constitution, then its opponents — if it engages in such issue — should have the option of choosing an additional subject of its own preference. If the administration chooses the Constitution, then the opponents might choose the issue of “Diversity, Inclusion, Equity,” AKA DIE (or DEI).
If Trump really wants to increase understanding of the Constitution, or if Democrats really want to increase understanding of DIE, in either case, the best way to do this is not by monopolizing the instruction — AKA, indoctrination, regardless of the instruction in it is true or false — but by splitting the instruction between opposing instructors. As trial lawyers have long understood, the most engaging part of any trial is not the examination of the litigating parties by their respective attorneys, but the cross-examination — the examination of them by the opposing attorneys.
And since both sides believe that their own position is correct, both sides would presumably welcome such an approach, in which, through argument (or the refusal by one of the sides to participate), such correctness could be confirmed.
In such a way, Trump would transcend any charges of abuse of power. And if his position proves to be the stronger one, he will have promoted it all the more effectively. So it’s a win-win — unless, of course, his favored position proves to be the weaker. Then it’s a win-lose. (Although, for the country, it would still be a win-win.)
And it would likely be a long-term win-win, for once such an approach has been established, it would hard for any future president putting forth a partisan training program to explain why he is not using it.
The First Amendment asserts, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
The same principle applies to establishing a tax-funded government ideology, even if it is otherwise faithful to the Constitution itself. If that principle can be taught at all, it will most effectively be done so not by words, but by example. Tax-funded training classes in which only one side of a partisan subject is authorized and funded to “train” is not such an example. Classes in which conflicting sides are equally authorized to do so are. As ever, “the medium is the message.”
Bert Peterson holds a J.D.; he has a modest website currently addressing the issue of voting in a democracy at 4thofjuly.info.
Image via Pxfuel.