THE SCHOLARS' SCOOP

The political and legal issues focus area is one of deep discussion and extreme intellectual thinking.

The students and their great teacher, Drew, both explained that most days were spent reading from aPlato’s republic. However the day I was in the class it was mostly an open discussion on modern politics, the ideas behind them and how we can improve the situation we are in. The core topic Drew intended his class to focus on was how to represent people and their ideas. The class thought some form of election would be best. They decided that a smart, political expert, who was bipartisan, and put people first would be the most reliable ruler. Drew then brought in the question of should we elect people who “understand us” or are “like us’ and told us that modern Americans voted more people who are like them.

The class began a short discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of a single ruler, a small group of rulers, and direct democracy. The scholars, determined that a single rule was effective but had too high of a chance to take control. They believed a small congress was slower but would create better legislation through argument. Drew began talking about the “Cabal of the elected” and the fact that both parties try to keep each other in power. Finally, the scholars realized direct democracy would lead to logistical challenges but give every person a clear and heard voice.
Drew then started asking about student councils and how often they accomplish nothing. He continued this by describing how students tell student council members what they want, a place where they will not learn. Drew then explained that the people do not always know a good way to get what they want.

Drew uses the previous example to also question if absolute democracy can function in the modern U.S. This question sparked a debate among the students. Every student was either talking or listening intently to the other side. A few students even referred to things discussed in previous lessons and a couple used direct quotes from sources like the federalist papers and Plato’s republic. There were good, questionable, and entirely irrelevant points made but almost every student contributed something.

The debate was not started by Drew, but was entirely student made and led. They said direct democracy may work because we are in a new age. This was countered with the fact that human nature does not change over 200 years. The people against direct democracy stated that people do not have enough time to learn about everything going on to be educated voters. This was elegantly countered by a student saying “Not even the president knows what’s going on.” There were more serious answers to this issue such as people tend to follow the first thing they hear and will not seek opposite opinions.

The debate began going off topic but Drew brought it back by referring to his student council example from the beginning of class. He brought up people’s lack of knowing how to get what they want and asked if everyone should have an equal vote. He questioned whether he, a man with a PHD in political science, should have the same power as a man who works at Dairy Queen and votes just because his family told him who to vote for.
This example caused the students to begin debating the usefulness of the electoral college. The people who wanted it gone went back to the fact that the internet has changed politics forever, while their opponents argued that human nature is still the same. They seemed to reach a consensus that the electoral college turned the presidential election into a state-by-state popularity contest. An argument was made that it evened out big and small states, but another student mentioned that it was not fair when 100 people’s vote counted as much as 10 people’s just because of state.

The popular vote was decided as the better option by most students. But Drew once again brought up the point that maybe everyone’s voice should not be heard. This time added that there is no solution to make every person happy. The students brought up the fact that right and wrong are decided by the majority of voters. The discussion led onto topics such as mob mentality and racial discrimination. This debate was ended by a student quoting the federalist papers “There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.”

Drew then mentioned that there may be one solution to the issue of government but it was up to the students to learn from Plato’s republic and other books about government to find it. He ended the class by mentioning that if people believe something does not make it true. The example he used was that many people now believe the moon landing was faked even though it was verifiably true and people still go to space.

Observing this class was a great experience. I learned about how today’s students think about politics and solving political issues. Drew welcomed the students debating while they would gladly engage with each other. They politely debated the other sides points and ideals without attacking people, something our own government could learn from them. A quote I heard several times has summed up this class well, “If men were angels, the government would be perfect, but men are not angels.”