I was tuning in this NYT opinion piece, a YouTube-archived recording of a conversation, which to my ears sounded very NPRish, from a production values standpoint (pretty good in other words, if too uber-slick in places, that's journalism), and musing further about the partisan role of political parties.
Discussing the role of parties, as in political parties, is of intrinsic interest.
My rhetorical flourish was to create yet another Pirate Party, distinct from the others, with only planks, no candidates. Folks in the other camps should feel free to walk 'em. For example where are the "by application process only" Fed boarding schools that ain't militaristic?
We need to breed diplomats, not just sore losers. We have West Point and... ?
Looking back, I'd say Uncle Sam's public offerings, since privatized (given his passing), insufficiently prepared young Americans for the debates of today.
As a parent, I don't have that criticism, as our Portland debate team culture was well-developed, reaching national championship level twice during our family's period of patronage. However I'm able to see my fortunate experience in contrast to the norm.
I'll admit I haven't recently sought out the YouTube channels where high school aged debaters are taking on serious resolutions reflecting today's events. I used to do that more.
What are the teams allowed to say, regarding the blowing up of gas pipe infrastructure, as in the case of Nord Stream? I'd have to go look.
What I surmise, though, is most subcultures are too nervous about being politically correct to risk too much realism.
Not until I was chaperoning our Cleveland "we'll eat you alive" Cannibals did I tune in Model NATO as a thing. I met some recruiters in Indianapolis, at one booth among many (Reed College had a booth).
Model UN we'd all heard of, but here the kids were trained to thinking more like NATO states first and foremost, or at least that's what I'd expect. I'm not curating comments here in my Quaker journals (blogs) but do feel free to be in touch or elsewhere record what Model NATO was really like.
I didn't do much Model UN either, as a parent or high schooler. I've got my little story about all that.
Back to the NYT thing: so why just the two parties?
Anytime I bring up my experience of moving to Italy, wherein the number of parties was more open ended, people tell me that's a "parliamentary" system and the US doesn't have a prime minister, ergo (the logic goes), so many parties, including Socialist and Communist parties, maybe several of each, a Christian Party if that's feasible (too many factions?), could never coexist within our US motherboard's design.
Our OS is inherently duopolistic, is the thesis there.
Like in that NYT piece, they're talking about William Buckley's encouragement of anti-communism more as a witch-hunt FBI thing than as a big tent Congress thing with at least a seat or two for pinkos.
With different, more up to date public school offerings, Uncle Sam might've prepared today's Feds for such as "zionetics" as well as "dianetics" i.e. leading "ics" of the last century. Cybernetics. General Semantics. Of course "zionetics" is usually cast as an "ism" not an "ics" but we needn't get lost in esoteric grammatica here.
Will today's high schoolers be familiar with talking points on all sides, or were the speeches of Lavrov not curriculum-included, only press conferences by WDC admin spox John Kirby? That'd be insufficient prep to score highly. Time to cram?
Will the forensic societies be so lackadaisical as to lose all debates at the global level? Losing a round of poker and resorting the one's pistol versus paying debts is an old timey sad story. The more honorable course is to cash out and settle.
Of what worth is high school if no one is equipped to talk about the Minsk Agreements (for example) when debating the Ukraine debacle. They'll miss the thrust and parry that only realism in simulations might provide, if they don't know the history.
Bone up in a gamepod why dontcha? Find some way to self brainwash that works for ya. No one else can do your own thinking quite so effectively, so take the helm.
So what's my solution, as a curriculum developer, to all debate team deficiencies? Do I have one? Not directly.
I trickle charge my 4D solutions through mathematical fantasies and science fiction, with my "synergetics" (another "ics"). I pipe in lots innocuously neutral content (see "hypertoons"), that's yet "outside the box" enough to get more teachers amused and in a mood to be open-minded.
If the mathy mind (STEM) is so able to spring open so smoothly, then why can't debate culture in the humanities (PATH) be likewise infused by a painless osmotic process, resulting in more relevant models and imagery? That the teachers feel thought-provoked is about all one might shoot for and expect positive results. Being too pushy only delays right action further.
