Should schools teach politics by ideology instead of by party

My brother asked me today on what the class P.I.G. (Participation in Government) consists of since he will be taking it next year and it got my thinking. All through my high school and college life when there was political discussion everything was put into Republican vs Democrat. Never did I hear Conservative vs Liberal as far as I can remember anyway. So my question is should politics be taught by ideologies and not by party?

Example:

Liberalism and its sub-sects;:

- Neoliberal
- Paleoliberal
- Progressivism
- Social Liberalism
- Fiscal Liberalism

Conservativism and its sub-sects;

- Paleoconservative
- Neoconservative
- Classic Liberalism
- Social Conservative
- Fiscal Conservative

Libertarianism and its sub-sects

- PaleoLibertarian
- Neoliberatarian
- Right Libertarian
- Left Liberatarian

and of course the extremist ideologies;

- socialism/communism
- fascism
- anarchy
- etc

I say by ideology, because parties change.

Ideally yes. But even ideologies are of limited value. If a school wants to teach about current events, that's great...but I think they should avoid lumping every view on an issue into one of those categories you listed.

For example, I think it's much more practical to tell students that some people favor Resolution 106 because X, Y, and Z, whereas others oppose Resolution 106 because A, B, and C. And most supporters are conservatives/Republicans whereas most opponents are liberals/Democrats.

That's a much better way of teaching it than telling students that the conservative or Republican position on the issue is X, Y, and Z, and the liberal or Democratic position is A, B, and C.

It seems that you have thoroughly thought this though.

I agree that it would be better, since party philosophies change over time, but the ideologies remain fairly constant.

Further, I think this would allow for better teaching, since the students would have a lot fewer preconceptions in most cases, not feelings that they must support their parent's affiliations, (or oppose them if a kid is at the egregious stage.)

Good thinking!

I would do both. It would be a great history lesson to see how the various parties in the US have evolved and changed to suit the times. We use to have socially progressive but fiscally moderate Republican Party. We used to have socially conservative and fiscally conservative Democratic party. Learning about the various other parties in US history and where they stood would be several steps up from our education system now.

I always thought that the talking points of an issue should be taught in government, and party/ideology should be taught in history.

But I guess I'm one of those nuts who doesn't think our children should be brought up thinking they have to fit into one of those cookie cutters.

Lachean said:

But I guess I'm one of those nuts who doesn't think our children should be brought up thinking they have to fit into one of those cookie cutters.

Click to expand...

I think the best advice my dad gave me regarding this was the following; "Not everyone is going to like you, you do what you think is right and dont waste time trying to impress others."

Personally, I believe that our academic approach to politics is misleading.

I believe that politics should be explored as a cohesive whole from an outside perspective. That may seem a little compromising at times, but I think a necessary lesson that students should learn is that part of being an imperfect humanity is having an imperfect government.

That being said, I believe that it is pertinent that we express the government in terms of its underlying principles, and the way that it has been manipulated in a myriad of ways to the ends leading up to where we are now. You see, technically, what we're supposed to have is a constitutional government--one that acts in accordance to its doctrine, and a doctrine that's not esoterically written, but one that is plain and direct. This way, we can have varying interpretations, but not in relation to what our opinions are. In any case, as a result of our feelings that our constitution is "dependent on one's interpretation," we have developed a series of political sects that are supposed to represent these varied interpretations.

Instead, what we have are a series of small but quiet and generally ignored groups that accommodate our nation's small standard deviation. This gives us the illusion that we have a choice, because supposedly, if our country at any time makes a unitary decision to change our political structure, we can. Otherwise, what we have are smoke and mirrors: one political party that makes all of the major decisions about this country, usually inhabits the majority of the government, and represents a sort of stifling and manipulative approach that imperialists have come to believe is essential. The other political party is the proverbial pacifier--they pander to the "irrational" desires and trends of the majority of society. This political party activates while things are at their worst, both to sate society's dissatisfaction and to take the blame for it. The major representatives of this party are those who are attacked the most, controversy after tainted skeleton appearing on news headlines almost once a month.

And I think we should be honest about it. Don't be scared. If our young, brilliant minds don't like it and can come up with something better, why not?. It's called progress.

chevydriver1123 said:

I think the best advice my dad gave me regarding this was the following; "Not everyone is going to like you, you do what you think is right and dont waste time trying to impress others."

Click to expand...

Your dad was a wise one, my father tried to raise me in the "what other people see you as matters most, first impressions, etc.." school of thought.

Took years to unlearn that tripe...

It depends on the grade level. We shouldn't be overloading the kids at 4th grade history with political jargon. It is easier to tell them about the elephents and the donkies.

However, idealogy should be taught in HS and college and parties don't need to be mentioned. We also do not want schools to biasly prop up this there is only two choices idea.

Knowing idealogy also lets students to easily understand international politics and changes in the parites' idealogical base.

I say other, teaching ideology and party is tricky, if done incorrectly it can lead to either intentional or unintentional indoctrination. I think instead we should teach the historical principles and thinking processes behind both the party, and the ideology, as well as the constitution and the full histories of why things happened, such as the Great Depression, Civil War, Vietnam, the Great Society, New Deal, Wilsonian Doctrine, etc. Also, youths should be taught how to apply thinking to all of this and form their own opinions of the entire system, so that they have the tools to go out in the world and fully appreciate their rights and responsibilities, as well as exercise them to the fullest, maybe we could even make the elected class poop themselves a little with a more informed future voting class.