|
Before giving the my first test each semester, I have a humorous - but very serious - discussion with my students about how to think critically and attack essay questions.
"If I ask you, 'which is more expensive, per ounce - the lemon or the orange?', the following are not appropriate answers:
"I think oranges are too expensive"
"I really, really like oranges!"
"I actually prefer limes in my drinks."
"Do oranges grow anywhere except Florida?"
Students often laugh at this, but it is a very common college freshman approach on an essay test to write 'something' about the subject, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with answering the specific question that was asked. Sometimes it is because the student is evading the question, because they don't know the answer; other times, it is a serious inability to engage in critical thinking.
It is, apparently, not an error limited to college freshman: it appears to be standard operating procedure among Republican Presidential candidates...an error (or tactic) that is exacerbated by their frightening ignorance of basic constitutional law.
At a campaign stop last week, in Iowa, Rick Perry was asked to reconcile his support for limited government with a state anti-sodomy law that was on the books while he was Governor. The questioner mentioned Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to strike down the law, in effect legalizing private consensual sexual activity of any flavor. Perry was governor at the time of the court decision.
Perry rambled the following answer:
"I don't dislike government, I just want government to work" [not an answer]. "We have a federal government that is out of control from the standpoint of spending [not an answer]. And, you know, I wish I could tell you I know every Supreme Court case. I don't. I'm not even going to try to go through every Supreme Court case. I'm not a lawyer.[ignorance of basic constitutional law decided while he was Governor of the state which was the subject of the decision]. But here's what I do know. I know they're spending too much money in Washington, D.C., and $15 trillion worth of debt is on that young man right there [not an answer]. We can sit here and play I-gotcha questions on 'What about this Supreme Court case?' [you should know this, Rick] or whatever, but you know and I know that the problem in this country is spending in Washington, D.C. It's not some Supreme Court case.[Fail]
Later, when asked by reporters if he knew what the Lawrence v. Texas case was, Perry answered, "I don't. I think I explained ... that pretty good there, that I didn't understand it. I'm not taking the bar exam."
That was at least a direct, honest answer to the question. It also revealed startling ignorance.
Last night at St. Anselm's College in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney pulled the same "I prefer limes in my drinks" non-answer.
The exchange began when ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos asked whether Romney believed that the US Constitution contains a Right to Privacy. The question was clearly seeking his opinion on the 1965 case, Griswold vs. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court invalidated a Connecticut statute that prohibited birth control, even between married adults. This decision established a right to privacy (especially in family matters) in the Bill of Rights, and has been cited for almost 50 years by the Court in subsequent decisions ranging from reproductive rights to home education rights. Here is the exchange:
Romney: "George, this is an unusual topic that you're raising [non-answer; buying time]. States have the right to ban contraception? [No, they don't, due to Griswold vs. Connecticut]. I can't imagine that states would want to ban contraception. If I were a governor or a legislator in a state, I would totally oppose any effort to ban contraception [non-answer]. So you're asking -- given the fact that there's no state that wants to do so -- you are asking could it constitutionally be done? We could ask our constitutionalist here" [pointing at Ron Paul, and buying more time].
Stephanopoulos: "I am asking you, do you believe states have that right or not?"
Romney : "George, I don't know whether the state has the right to ban contraception. [Ignorance]. No state wants to. The idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do is kind of a silly thing, I think [continued Non-answer. Attack the questioner rather than answer the question].
Stephanopoulos : "You went to Harvard Law School, you know very well ..."
Romney: "Has the Supreme Court decided that the states do not have the right to ban contraception? [startling ignorance]"
Stephanopoulos: "Yes, they have. 1965. Griswold vs Connecticut."
Romney then went on to a rambling non-answer about how Americans have the right to amend the Constitution, and that he favors amending it to ban same-sex marriage [an obvious, " I-prefer-limes-in-my-drink response]. "But I know of no reason to talk about contraceptions...Contraception, it's working just fine, just leave it alone" [non-answer].
Stephanopoulos: "Do you believe the Supreme Court should overturn it or not?"
Romney: "Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v Wade?" "Yes, I do." [Not even limes any more...he jumps to Kumquats now...]
It really doesn't matter to me how Perry reconciles his small-government philosophy with his state's former anti-sodomy statute. Nor does Romney's stance on Griswold vs. Connecticut matter to me. There is no conceivable way I would vote for either of them. But their failure to grasp basic constitutional law, and their inability - or refusal - to offer direct answers to the questions asked calls into question their fitness to be the Chief Executive branch official of the United States Government.
|
