A Summary of the Responses to the Lesson Plan on the Texas Floods

(above photo is not from Texas; I think it is from flooding in Iowa)

We the People of the United States, in order to... promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty... ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

During the summer, I put together a lesson plan on the Texas floods. I wanted students to recall the horrible things they'd heard about government. It's bloated, it takes money away for no good purpose, what it provides anyone can do, it inhibits progress. And I wanted some careful consideration of these accusations. Not so they would conclude government is great, but that they might reflect on what is propaganda as opposed to substance. Those constantly screaming about waste and fraud may not care where roads or hospitals or firefighters come from. If they don't care, their sincerity and competence are open to doubt. They may not be saying anything in good faith.

Of course, one can (and sometimes should!) argue for limited government. But incessant, destructive rhetoric which tries to shame government for providing medical care or disaster relief can be a form of extremism. –Granted, it is extremism we're used to. We hear it everywhere, far more than we hear the text of the Declaration or Constitution. We certainly hear it more than attempts to address the problems people actually have.–

My students worked through the lesson plan beautifully and came to a number of conclusions. Some did think the state alone could provide an adequate response. Texas, if considered a country on its own, would be the world's 8th largest economy. And some were skeptical that government could help such an awful disaster. I'm proud they worked through the readings and videos and came to their own conclusions.

A number were furious that hundreds could die and excuses would proliferate. They didn't just rant. They provided thoughtful commentary on what else is at stake that too much concern with the size of government is prone to miss. I want to share with you a few of the topics and themes they addressed. It is so important when we are flooded with assignments done by AI to show just what can be achieved without it. There's a rich, deep political commentary out there which cable news will never rival:

• One spoke about how a lack of preparedness on the government's part creates a lack of trust. Can you trust the government to keep you safe? Hers is a powerful comment that I need to address in class. The foundation of the social contract is the alienation of self-preservation. We give government the right to keep us safe; we do not exclusively reserve it for ourselves. As I'm writing this, I'm reflecting on how few politicians would have the sense to understand the issue this way.
• Another talked about saving lives as an "opportunity" for government. Not just a way to win trust–although that is of the utmost importance!–but a complete reorientation of perspective. The government isn't there to make money or point weapons. It is there to consider how lives can and should be saved. I want to mention in class that this may be a manifestation of a fundamental and supremely moral aspect of the general will: we the people do not leave others behind.
• In that spirit, I had still another response call our attention to the "United" in the "United States of America." What are we doing when we pretend that unity isn't possible or desirable? That states should always hate federal help, should always strive for supreme self-sufficiency? How deep might a rebellion against our political ideals be if it cannot acknowledge the name of the country?
• On that note, someone explained that the help of the federal government is really the help of all the states. The unity is very much present and operative. What might it mean to not be able to see it?
• There are many more things they brought up, but an answer about how the federal government should not neglect therapy for those affected by disasters caught my attention. That student clearly understood how prevalent the attitude of "get over it" is from individuals and institutions. It helps to have a federal government, an authority with enormous power, to stop people from putting others down, especially when others are vulnerable.

I encourage my fellow instructors to fight the swarm of AI-infused rhetoric. We can celebrate the original, thoughtful contributions of earnest students. We can help them participate in a rich dialogue, granted to us by the past, allowing us to articulate our present concerns and find our own answers. You'll note this is a dialogue which many elements in society do not care for. Students who can see that unity and shared resources matter are probably far less prone to make bets on DraftKings. They know emergencies happen and preparedness matters. They may not be convinced that technology solves all ills. It isn't hard to notice those hoarding wealth as well as extensive amounts of our personal data. And they may be less than enthusiastic about institutions with a carefree approach to rights. The overwhelming sentiment in the responses I received to the lesson was that of seriousness. When hundreds die, there has to be reflection and accountability of some sort, and these students know it isn't trivial to demand that.