1. A “neo-conservative/neo-liberal agenda for character education in schooling is an historical continuation of American cultural and educational hegemony, supported by the power of Christian orthodoxy when infused into governmental policies. As such, formal character education programs are generally rooted in anthropocentric and authoritarian ideologies that tend to oppose perennial wisdom and utilize cultures of fear.
  2. —Martin Eigenberger
 
I.
 
On April 11, 2005, I was surprised to find a book in my mailbox entitled, The Discourse of Character Education: Culture Wars in the Classroom (Smagorinsky and Taxel, 2005a). Accompanying it was a letter from the authors on a Lawrence Erlbaum Associates letterhead that read:
 
We have sent you one of our limited complimentary copies of this book because we admire your own distinguished record of commentary and analysis in our field. We offer you an opportunity to be among our first readers as a gesture of thanks for your provocative work. (Smagorinsky and Joel Taxel, 2005b)
 
Although flattered by the gift and the words, I was nonetheless curious to see what aspect of my and my daughter’s work had inspired them and I quickly searched their text for clues. In referring to our 2001 manual for teachers, Teaching Virtues: Building Character Across the Curriculum (2001), the authors, Peter Smagorinsky and Joel Taxel, explain:
 
Here Jacobs and Jacobs-Spencer offer a possibility not available through Western conceptions of character, the idea that moral relationships extend to the natural environment. In this reciprocal view, animals, not people, are the original teachers of virtues and remain so in the modern world…This view departs dramatically from what they regard as the ‘overly anthropocentric’ orientation of most character education programs. (Smagorinsky and Taxel, 2005, p. 56)
 
And,  
Such facets of character as feeling humility, being at peace, being spiritual, seeing generosity as the highest expression of courage, and feeling connected with all life forms are absent from Western conceptions of character. As we will review in subsequent chapters, they are not surprisingly absent from proposals funded by OERI (Office for Educational Research and Improvement) for character curricula. (Ibid, p. 58)
 
 And
Our reading of this perspective has opened our eyes to the environmental benefits that might follow from the sorts of activities recommended by Jacobs and Jacobs-Spencer. (Ibid, p. 346)
The centerpiece of the authors’ discourse is an analysis of proposals funded by the OERI in the latter half of the 1990s. Their conclusion is that the dominant perspective on character education is based on “an authoritarian view in which young people are indoctrinated into the value systems of presumably virtuous adults through didactic instruction” (Ibid, backcover). Considering that between 1996 and 2000, the U.S. Department of Education awarded more than 25 million dollars in character education renewable grant funds to 36 states and the District of Columbia, and that Bush requested 25 million more in 2004, this “authoritarian view” represents a considerable influence in American schools (U.S. Government, 2004).
 
This current emphasis on character education may have been born when, in 1996, Texas Commissioner of Education Mike Moses sent out copies of “The Building Good Citizens for Texas-Resource Guide” to all of the schools in the state, “highly encouraging” all teachers to use it in the classroom. Created by the “Institute on American Values, the cover letter for the booklet was written by then governor George W. Bush.”
 
In “A Critique of Character Counts! As a Curriculum Model for Explicit Moral Instruction In Public Schools” (2001), Peggy Ruth Green says that the program is little more than an effort to assure that children do not think critically and reflectively. Character Counts! is a product of the Josephson Institute of Ethics. A key tenant of this organization, which claims to be nonpartisan, is that negative social influences are usually overcome by the exercise of free will and, of course, good character. Perhaps an example of this relates to Bill Nielsen, a member of the Board of Governors. He is also Vice President of Johnson and Johnson, a company currently in litigation for allegedly cheating the Indian government of millions in taxes (Indo-Asian News Service, 2003).
 
It is also interesting to note who the financial sponsors, besides the U.S. government, are. For example, the Jaquelin Hume Foundtion donated 130,000 to the Josephson Institute (Media Transparency, n.d.). The Hume Foundation celebrates the free market. They are the founders of Citizens for America, a right-wing lobbying group aimed at bringing the message of the free market throughout the world. It is also the sponsor of the Foundation for Teaching Economics, an effort to teach the basic concepts of market economics in public schools. Of course, the Hume Foundation is also a large donator to the Republican Party and in 1998 made two 100,000 dollars contributions to California for Paycheck Protection, an anti-union ballot initiative. They also supported school voucher initiatives and anti-bilingual education (Bacon & Berkowitz, 1999).
 
Another big player in character education is The Character Education Partnership, a Washington, D.C. It is a coalition of character education organizations and Character Counts! International. It was formed during the Aspen Institute conference. The Aspen Institute is a global forum whose Board of Trustees includes Henry Kissinger and a number of other prominent global free marketers.
Not all the players in character education are of this ilk. Smagorinsky and Taxel also reviewed proposals for character education that, although marginalized, did emphasize reflection on morality rather than didactic instruction in morality. However, no program other than that presented in Teaching Virtues brought forth the more holistic Indigenous approach. Because these character education researchers could understand and be so inspired by the Indigenous perspective, I in turn have been inspired by them to go deeper into the study of why character education programs in the U.S. generally ignore Native American philosophies of child management that, according to Dr. Larry Brendtro, a foremost expert on at-risk youth, is “perhaps the most effective system of positive discipline every developed. These approaches emerged from cultures where the central purpose of life was the education and empowerment of children” (Brendtro et al, 1990, p. 35). I will also explain why I think they have been hijacked for use by neo-liberal and neo-conservative forces to foster a particular political agenda, one that seems to oppose the ideals and goals of good character.
 
Although I am uncomfortable with the labels, for the sake of clarity I offer the following working definitions of the four major concepts to which I refer. These definitions, arguable as they may be, will nonetheless help me present my essay so as to best shed yet another ray of light on the path leading to this book’s goals.
 
Neo-liberal is a way of thinking that imposes financially motivated hierarchies, including their powerful agendas and unfortunate priorities, onto society. Since the early 1800s, the corporation has been the predominant model for this. In terms of character education, think “pick yourself up by your bootstraps” or “survival of the fittest.”
Neo-conservatism is closely related but refers more specifically to a rationale of supremacy that tries to assure that the United States remains the authority and distributor of neo-liberalism the world over. In terms of character education, think “moral high ground” or “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Character education is any intentional effort to instruct the future citizens of a society in ways that cultivate particular moral tendencies. According to a large body of research based on Lawrence Kolberg’s stages of moral development of most people in Western cultures, most privileged white males never reach the highest scale- doing what is right regardless of social laws that may dictate otherwise.1
Indigenous worldview refers to a generalized paradigm shared by most of the very diverse traditional Indigenous cultures of the world that is significantly different than the generalized paradigm of the dominant Western cultures. These differences as relates to the building of character are revealed throughout my narrative (see Jacobs, 1998).
 
It is, I believe, important to note that Thomas Paine, not I, was the first to write about this “hijacking” of “character education” as it relates to a rejection of Indigenous wisdom. It is important because being aware of his views, and of the challenges to them that he suffered, can help us use the historical problem of “character education” to better understand the contemporary American experience. Paine’s writings were the backbone of the American Revolution and offered the vision for American democratic ideals. Referring to his passionate belief in liberty and his abhorrence of tyranny, Scott Liell says in 46 Pages: Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and the Turning Point to Independence, “It was these two qualities and the forceful, direct way in which Paine expressed them that made Common Sense the single most influential political work in America” (Liel, 2003, p. 16).  
 Paine was equally passionate about the kind of character traits that would be needed for a successful America. He did not think it would come from the Christian religion’s doctrines and claims of inerrancy. In referring to the Biblical approach to “character education” in his book, The Age of Reason, he said:
  1. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. (1794) 
Avoiding the misinterpretations of the overly romanticizing Rousseau , Paine’s writings came from having spent much time with his American Indian neighbors, especially the Iroquois whose governmental structure was the basis for our own (see Johansen, 1982). His writings often spoke of the result of their virtuous way of being in the world: For example
  1. To understand what the state of society ought to be, it is necessary to have some idea of the natural state of man, such as it is at this day among the Indians of North America. (1797)
And,
 
Among the Indians there are not any of those spectacles of misery that poverty and want present to our eyes in the towns and streets of Europe. (Ibid)
 
 Paine also learned from observing the First Nations that the European concept of land ownership was flawed. Paine admired the Native way of equally distributing property. A major debate on this issue resulted in the phrase “happiness” being substituted for “property,” in our Declaration of Independence, “with the description of American Indian societies played a provocative role (see Johansen, 1982, pp. 103-108).

Paine’s study of the American Indian way of life helped him realize that caring for the elderly should be a responsibility of the society. From it he proposed a retirement pension for Americans who reached the age of fifty. Paine opposed slavery and one was of the few founding fathers who refused to own slaves. He was against capital punishment, a champion of public education and a guaranteed minimum wage. He advocated for many other radical ideas that stem from a citizenry characterized by what are generally the stated goals of character education- generosity, caring, honesty, humility, courage, and respect- traits he saw the Native people practicing without the need of legal repercussions for acting otherwise.
 
Paine’s belief that First Nations offered the social capital for creating a new American society was shared by other founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson, referring directly to the concept of morality wrote that Native Americans had never:
 
submitted themselves to any laws, any coercive power and shadow of government. Their only controls are their manners, and the moral sense of right and wrong. (Jefferson, 1794/1955, p. 93)
 
Writing to Edward Carrington in 1787, Jefferson again connected character to social organization, citing American Indians exemplary:
 The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, our very first object should be to keep that right; . . . I am convinced that those societies [as the Indians] which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under European governments. (Jefferson, 1787/1950, p. 49) 
Jefferson knew the American Indians were not just running free and “wild in the woods,”  but were highly organized in societies guided by guidelines that rested upon the good character of the People. Unfortunately, unlike Paine who neither owned slaves nor used his power for financial gain, Jefferson’s actions as a slave owner did not  match the character of his language.
Benjamin Franklin also had spent many hours with the First Nations people. He truly believed that happiness was more likely to come from the kind of societies he witnessed in First Nations than that which he witnessed in Eurocentric ones. He said, “No European who has tasted savage life can afterwards bear to live in our societies” (Franklin 1770/1973, p. 381).2 He, who like Paine was a brilliant orator and inventor, was more aware of (or concerned with) the political consequences of a strong affiliation with the American Indians and their paradigm than Paine may have been. Still, Paine honored Franklin as a mentor and called upon him often to review his writing. In the following letter from Franklin tries to talk Paine out of publishing his views on organized religion, apparently to protect him from the public resentment he would likely (and did) receive. I have identified a number of assumptions I believe Franklin is making in the letter that speak a contrast between Native and Western thinking. Below I list the ones that relate to parts of the text I have underlined. Keep in mind that Franklin, like Paine, was one of the geniuses of the time. His insights reveal wisdom about the culture in which he lived. Later, I will analyze his assumptions to contrast the dominant Euro-centric worldview with an Indigenous one in order to reveal the truth about the authoritarian character education programs that Smagorinsky and Taxel say dominates federally funded character education projects in the U.S.
 
Franklin’s Stated or Implied Assumptions in his Letter to Paine
  1. • People need to believe that some people are favored by God and others are not in order to have a reason to worship God.
  2. • When there is a choice between educating for character via extrinsic motivators like those present in authoritarian religious dogma,  and achieving good character through a reflection on life’s experience in light of a caring attitude toward others, the former will win.
  3. • Humans are suspicious of their own nature and require such authoritarian mandates for security because they do not trust in their potential for virtuous behavior otherwise.
  4. • The value of reasoned principles will not stand against the emotions of the people.
  5. • Anyone who stands against anthropocentric religiosity and for a wisdom that emerges from nature is committing political suicide or worse.
  6. • Humans are weak and ignorant.
  7. • Wild animals are no more than violent beasts who must be leashed to protect mankind.
 
As you read Ben Franklin’s sincere and respectful letter to his admired young friend, look for these assumptions as I have characterized them. What possible connection do they have to the kind of character education that seems to be practiced in the majority of our schools? Was Franklin telling Paine that if we have a choice between a fear-based religion and a nature-based consciousness for developing character, we must choose the former and suffer the consequences of elitism and oppression? How might his assumptions support the neo-conservative agenda? What can we learn from Paine’s respect for the Indigenous foundations of our democracy? Is it the people themselves or their leaders who create the basis for these assumptions?
Within the body of his letter, I have added underlining here and there to emphasize the language that supports my interpretations. Later I refer to the aforementioned assumptions as a way to discuss the contrasts between hegemonic character education and authentic character education. 
TO THOMAS PAINE.
 
DEAR SIR,
I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.
But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.

I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,
 
  1. B. Franklin (in Sparks, 1840, pp. 281-282)
 
Before discussing these assumptions and their relevance to the religious right that is currently dominating American politics and education, especially “character education,” (Kohn, 1997) it may be interesting to note that six weeks before Franklin died, at age 84, he summarized his own religious beliefs in a note to Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale University. He seems to have a different tone here and modifies if only a little his assertions. Perhaps with no political positioning to protect he is more honest here than he was in his letter to Paine. Or, maybe he gained something from Paine’s courage in having ignored his advice and going ahead and publishing his anti-religion piece.3It is also possible that Franklin’s first letter intended only to protect his friend, and did not represent his deepest convictions. (In fact, Franklin’s warning prophesized what would happen to Paine as a result of publishing his manuscript.)4 In any case, in this last letter he tends to downplay religion per se, leaning more toward the beliefs Paine had shared with him earlier:
 
  1. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
        As for Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as it probably has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed, especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any particular marks of his displeasure. (Allen, 2005)
 
II.
For the remainder of this essay, I will address the assumptions that I believe are  illustrated in Ben Franklin’s letter to Thomas Paine, as they relate to character education. Whether or not these assumptions are real is not as important as using them as a way to look deeply into the issue before us.
 
It is important to believe some are favored over others by God.
Franklin tells Paine, “For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity.” I believe that in this sentence Franklin is telling Paine that we live in a competitive world where we need to believe that God favors the winners over the losers. Recall that Paine felt the opposite way. This is why he was a champion for social security, the minimum wage, and most of the other liberal ideas that gave birth to the American revolution. Also note that this sense of competitive favor does not exist in the spiritual or social life of most traditional Indigenous cultures. The role of women in governing is a good example. American Indians gave women a prominent if not primary position in their societies, whereas, with the exception of Paine and a few others, women were not “favored” in the creation of America’s system of government. Since the Christian Bible was the main source of character education (and later the McDuffy Reader, which was little more than a condensed version of the Bible and was used in schools throughout the U.S. until the 1960s), it is easy to see why a male dominated perspective emerged within the boundaries of this “favored status” idea when one understands how Scripture considers women.
 
The Nicomachaen Ethics is arguably the first character education text, one that precedes even the Bible. In it, Aristotle refers often to Olympic athletes as the model for good character. The Olympics were competitive games. Aristotle’s influence on Christianity and on the idea of “ethics” was significant.  We should not think that the fact that both conservative and democratic presidents refer to the goal of school in terms of being more competitive in the global marketplace.
The Conservative Model of character education wants children to be socialized to conform to status quo authority and to employment market needs. The Liberal model focuses on questions of power in reaction to the injustices that result from the dog-eat-dog ethic of capitalism but still tends to view the world as competitive in nature. ..In the Indigenous view, relationships are neither intolerant of nor competitive with others. Rather, aboriginal people experience themselves as part of others and see in nature, even in the fiercest struggles, examples of symbiosis, not survival of the fittest per se. (Four Arrows, 2004, p. 88)
 
If Thomas Paine’s non-competitive vision of America, a vision largely based on Indigenous worldview, had taken hold, how would things be different? What kind of character traits would be prominent in our citizenship? What success has the neo-conservative ideology shown in terms of America’s character? I will finish with this particular assumption by offering Currie’s partial answer to this last question:
Contemporary conservatives like those before them who have successfully posed as the guardians of domestic tranquility for decades typically promote social and economic polices that bea a large part of the responsibility for the level of crime and violence we suffer today. (Currie, 1985, p. 571)
 
 
When there is a choice between educating for character using extrinsic motivators present in authoritarian religious dogma, and achieving good character through a reflection on life’s experience in light of a caring attitude toward others, the former will win.
 This assumption seems to emerge from Franklin’s continual reference to how easily people are motivated in the short term by rewards and punishments. In his second letter, he admits that how much good a person does for others is ultimately the measure of a person’s life, but in his letter to Paine he grants that although some men are intrinsically motivated to do good, most require the authority of a mandate.
 
Unfortunately, giving in to this assumption is what allows the neo-conservative/liberal agenda to have authority over modern character education. As a result, the heavy dose of extrinsic motivation used in character education programs across the country will have outcomes that oppose authentic virtues. Alfie Kohn, who has claimed that modern character education is little more than a pulpit for Christian religion and conservative ideology, also authored a book that exposes the educational problems relating to an overuse of rewards and punishments. In Punished by Rewards (1999),  he refers to numerous research studies that show that extrinsic motivation encourages temporary obedience but ultimately leads to outcomes that contradict the original goals. For example, children who are rewarded or punished for being generous when young turn out to be less generous as adults.
 
 
Humans are weak and ignorant and they are suspicious of their own nature and require such authoritarian mandates for security because they do not trust in their potential for virtuous behavior otherwise.
 
For Franklin, one of America’s most brilliant minds, to be guided by this assumption is one of the tragedies that stems from the Euro-centric, Christian worldview. Indigenous worldview does not view humans in terms of being born as sinners nor sees children as needing to be “seen but not heard” where the adage “spare the rod and spoil the child” emerges as the inherited mode of child discipline. Indigenous worldview embraces a sort of humility that is about equality, about the sacred wisdom born with children, about being a product of the Creator but knowing we will never know as much or be as perfect. It does not subscribe Aristotle’s the blank slate philosophy or the assumptions that the masses must be controlled for their own good. Indigenous history proves the falsity of this (see Four Arrows, 2006).
 
The Ten Commandments legislation follows the logic of this assumption. TELL HISTORY FROM TEACHING VIRTUES…..
 
Character education programs that are funded by this negative view of human nature will naturally assume an authoritarian flavor. Indigenous assumptions are quite different. Traditional Native educational practices saw mastery, power and virtue as a natural evolution of humankind. Although independence was a natural outflow of such a philosophy, so was cooperation. The highest expression of courage was the expression of generosity.
 
 
The value of reasoned principles will not stand against the emotions of the people
 
When Franklin told Paine that his “reasonings were subtile” he most likely meant they were sagacious and discerning but also crafty. Franklin declined to argue against Paine’s reasoning because he could not. Rather, he merely says that reasoning will have no effect against human sentiment, even if that sentiment is manufactured by those in power. This is not to discount sentiment or a spiritual awareness that everything is significant, sacred and connected, something I will discuss a little later, but it is to say that the emotions of a mob should not be allowed to overshadow good, rationale reasoning.
 
In any case, it appears that the idea here is that reasoning, no matter how discerning, is not going to “succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind” on the subject of emotion and authority based religious beliefs. Recall that Paine’s publication of the work in question was called “The Age of Reason.” His former publication, the one the represented the literary backbone of the American Revolution and its ideals, was called “Common Sense.”  
 
Aristotle even admits that rational thinking is a prerequisite for character building. Einstein believed that the intuitive mind is a sacred gift, but that the rational mind is a faithful servant and, unfortunately, that we have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. Smagorinsky and Taxel found some rhetoric regarding the importance of critical thinking in the proposals funded by the government but say that the discourse was silent on the threat to authoritarian societies that may find it disrespectful or otherwise deficient in character to use critical thinking to challenge authoritarianism (Smagorinsky & Taxel, p. 115).
 
The character education discourse may indeed by “silent” on this concern regarding critical thinking but it is far from disregarded. The neo-conservative promoters of character education are all too aware of this issue. Their morality is not a matter of right versus wrong, but of right versus left. William Bennett, author of the famous Book of Virtues (1993), a book of stories emphasizing the “pick yourself up by your bootstraps” philosophy in various stories, is but one example. Former U.S. Secretary of Education under Reagan, he is considered one of the prime movers of the conservative movement (see Media Transparency).  Bennett is a member of the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation. He has been a Cabinet official in several Republican administrations. He is a Senior Fellow of the Freedom Works, a foundation dedicated to school vouchers (especially for religious schools.)  He helped form the Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, dedicated to keeping left wing educators from misleading students about the nature of the war on terrorism. He is also a founder of Empower America along with a former member of Reverend Moon’s Unification Church, an organization that has paid big bucks to hire Bennett as a speaker. He was Chairman of Hudson’s Modern Red Schoolhouse Design Team for the New American Schools Development Corporation, a private, tax exempt organization established by the National Business Roundtable and the National Association of Business. A major promoter of “character education,” Bennett’s Book of Virtues has been compared to Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book. Character education was at the heart of Chairman Mao’s Cultural Revolution in Red China.
 
Bennett’s goal it seems is to completely indoctrinate children with the values of the corporate-run global state (see Watch Unto Prayer, nd).  His, like many involved in the character education movement, continue to promote the free-market philosophy of “pick yourself up by the boot straps” instead of the more liberal concept embraced by the phrase, “there but for the grace of God go I.”
 
Such character education programs that emerge from this controlling idea allows for the free market, but not for caring relationships between people. Referring again to The Discourse of Character Education:
 
The emphasis on relationships runs counter to the discourse of the authoritarian society, which places students in subservient positions relative to adults. A relational approach to character education instead relies on mutual understanding and personal mentorship so that students are apprenticed into a caring community’s value on joint activity and mutual assistance. (Smagorinsky, p. 287)
 
 
Anyone who stands against anthropocentric religiosity and for a wisdom that emerges from nature is committing political suicide or worse.
 
Neo-liberals and neo-conservatives have taken anthropocentrism to the extreme in relation to our environment. Chet Bowers, in Education, Cultural Myths and the Ecological Crisis (1993),  describes the problem in education:
 
Typically, textbooks represent natural resources-that interesting metaphor that encodes so many cultural assumptions-as the “property” of a political unit. But since people make up the political unity, human needs remain the determining factor in what aspects of the environment are considered a “natural resource” (p. 131).
 
Bowers also criticizes  liberalks, including critical thinkers who fight for social justice onlyy in terms of human interests and the authority of rationality, as also contributing to a socialization process that prevents students from “understanding the limitations and consequences of embracing certain values.” The values he refers to relate to materialism and consumerism that leaves students with the message “you can have it all.” Bowers again:
 
  1. The energy put into the politics of self-interest, as well as the older variety of interest group politics, becomes important as it erodes the sense of member ship in a larger community. When the metaphor of community is extended to include the interdependence of species and other natural systems that constitute the bioregion, we can see the danger posed by increasing our reliance on the use of the political process. (p. 196)
 
In terms of understanding the Western pitfalls surrounding the idea of “character education,” we see in the generalized Indigenous worldview (keeping also in mind the great diversity among Indigenous cultures) a solution to the assumption in Franklin’s letter and to the problems identified by Bowers. As stated earlier, this solution comes from a deeper understanding of and respect for relationships. Such relationships focus on interdependence that includes but goes far beyond those that are human centered, even beyond the animal and vegetable kingdoms into realms of mystery that can only be understood through cultural metaphors, music and ritual. In my 1998 book, Primal Awareness, I also address the issue of anthropocentrism:
 
If we stopped anthropomorphizing spirituality and started to reinvestigate how we have allowed the so-called written “Word of God” in books like the Bible to supersede a more global understanding of the cosmos and our relationship to the universe, we might regain our lost balance.
 
Because I am confident that the reader is more than aware of the ecological plight we now find ourselves in, one that since the Bush administration has been in powered has increased significantly, I will not spend time detailing the degree to which our ecological balance has been lost, but will end this section but suggesting it is more severe than words can describe.
 
Wild animals are no more than violent beasts who must be leashed to protect mankind.
    
Recall that Smagorinsky and Taxel, in their discourse on character education, noted that the character education approach suggested in my book, Teaching Virtues: Building Character Education Across the Curriculum, stood outside the conceptual frameworks of all the character education programs that were funded by the U.S. Department of Education. In considering Franklin’s use of the tiger metaphor, and the possibility that it demonstrates his own uninvestigated assumption that it best for humans to assure that such beasts are not unleashed, it is interesting to note the aspect of my book that seem to strike these authors as the most unusual:
 
Here Jacobs and Jacobs-Spencer offer a possibility not available through Western conceptions of character, the idea that moral relationships extend to the natural environment. Throughout their book they describe encounters with hawks and other creatures whose example informs their development of character and life choices. “From all the noble creatures that display courage, patience, humility, generosity, or fortitude,” they say, “we learn about the respect and responsibility necessary to keep these intimate relationships in natural harmony” In this reciprocal view, animals, not people, are the original teachers of virtues, and remain so in the modern world. According to Four Arrows, this stature as moral exemplars explains why animal stories are used in most cultures to teach virtues. This view departs dramatically from what they regard as the overly anthropocentric orientation of most character education programs. The idea that reciprocal relationships can exist between people and all earthly life, and that attention to these relationships is central to one’s character, is extended in together worked by Jacobs to include not only the whole ecology but all earthly and heavenly elements. This animistic perspective is not accounted for in Western conceptions of character. (p. 56)
 
Much of Western, anti-nature worldview comes from Plato. Plato, Aristotle’s teacher and the student of the father of Western philosophy, Socrates, quotes Socrates as saying, “I’m a lover of learning, and trees and open country won’t teach me anything, whereas men in town do” (Plato, 1972, 230b-d). Until we realize that landscape is sacred, “embodying a divinity that it shares with everything from trees and rocks to birds and animals” (Four Arrows, 2004, p. 90), we will, especially under the leadership of neo-conservative and neo-liberal ideology and Euro-centric assumptions that even Ben Franklin used to try and stifle his friend Tom Paine, continue to cause us to bleed at our roots:
 
Oh what a catastrophe for man when he cut himself off from the rhythm of the year, from his unison with the sun and the earth. Oh what a catastrophe, what a maiming of love when it was made a personal, merely personal feeling, taken away from the rising  and the setting of the sun, and cut off from the magic connection of the solstice and the equinox! This is what is the matter with us. We are bleeding at the roots, because we are cut off from the earth and sun and stars, and love is a grinning mockery, because, poor blossom, we plucked it from its stem on the tree of Life, and expected it to keep on blooming in our civilized vase on the table. (Lawrence, 1960/1994).
 
 
 
III.
Since Franklin’s letter to Paine was all about protecting him from the wrath of those whose subscription to the authority of religion was greater than any commitment to reason, love, freedom or the liberal values that come from challenging authoritarianism, it is fitting to end this essay with a reminder of the role that Christian Fundamentalism plays in the character education movement and in the neo-liberal/neo-conservative movement that employs character education.
 
Jesus is reported to have said in Matthew 12:30, “He that is not with me is against me.”  Bush’s use of this phrase in his speech on terrorism is not coincidental (Thaku, 2002). This polarizing, absolutist statement is typically made by dictators in totalitarian regimes and shows neo-liberalism’s true colors. Furthermore, it is also a common strategy to weave such polarization into the fabric of a religious perspective, the very thing that Paine feared the most for America. Bush’s born-again positioning and his “God is on our side” slogans are, or should be, a great warning. He told former Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath and Mahmoud Abbas, former Prime Minister and now the Palestinian President that “I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’ and I did. Although his White House spokesman says he did not say it, it is likely that he did considering that Bob Woodward quotes him in his book Plan of Attack as telling him, when discussing Iraq war motives, “I pray that I will be as good a messenger of His will as possible” (Cornwell, 2005).
 
It should be obvious to the reader that Christian Fundamentalism and neo-liberal, free-market ideology are using character education to assure that Paine’s message and his desire for a separation of church and state are at last buried forever. What is at stake is the complete loss of the commons. The goal is for everything, from drinking water and national forests to public gathering places and public education, to be privately owned. Bill Willers, in his article, “Breaking the Bank: The Right Wing Road to America’s Privatized Future” (2005) describes the strategies that have been in place since Reagan. Charter schools, vouchers and character education are part of this strategy, as is the “private” use of Christian orthodoxy for political and financial gain.
 
In her book, The Fundamentals of Extremism: The Christian Right in America (2003), Kimberly Blaker opens her introductory chapter with a quote from James Dobson, former Professor of Pediatrics and founder of Focus on the Family and host of a radio program that broadcasts on more than 2,000 stations. The quote is from Dobson’s book, Children at Risk, that has a forward written by William Bennett.
 
Those who control what young people are taught, and what they experience-what they see, hear, think and believe-will determine the future course for the nation.” (Dobson, 1990, p. 27)
 
Blaker goes on to say that Dobson is
 
known for his strong web of ties to the Christian Right. In fact, his ability to wield power over the Republican Part suggests he is the Christian Right. Dobson, an evangelical, a patriarch, an advocate of corporal punishment is an opponent of reproductive choice, homosexual rights, ree speech, liberal sex education and the right to die with dignity. Yet, he has a remarkable ability to manipulate unsuspecting Americans who otherwise might not agree with his views. His sly maneuvering through the political arena unseen and unheard-except by those whose chains he pulls-has been a key to his power and success. (2003, p. 7)  
 
Blaker’s words rang true this week when the news came out  that Karl Rove had secret conversations with Dobson about Harriet Meier’s qualifications to be a nomination for the Supreme Court two days prior  to Bush’s. Later Dobson confessed that the information was simply a confirmation of her very conservative religious views, which of course are a positive for the Bush administration.
 
Even if news such as this eventually leads to indictments against the top members of the Bush administration, including Bush himself, the neo-conservative/neo-liberal agenda is too deep and too dependent upon the religious right to not remain a serious influence on the character education movement. Consider, for example, that the House of Representatives will soon debate legislation reauthorizing the historic anti-poverty Head Start preschool education program.  At that time, an amendment is likely to be offered which, for the first time, would permit Head Start programs run by religious organizations to engage in religious discrimination in hiring and firing of teachers and staff (see Anti-Defamation League, 2005).  Similarly, the neo-conservative movement is pushing “Intelligent Design” into school curriculum. It continues to assure that abstinence only sex education dominates in spite of research that reveals its harm. Increasing us of vouchers for private religious schools; increased corporate encroachment into classrooms, and use of No Child Left Behind for military recruitment are but a few of the examples that parallel the untoward use of character education for purposes of the agenda.
 
Recall that in 1999, the U.S. House of Represenatives voted 248 to 180 to allow states to post the Ten Commandments in public schools. This rider was attached to a juvenile justice crime bill. Its author convinced the legislators that only an improvement in the character of youth can prevent the violent crimes they are perpetrating, and that Biblical laws are the bet sources for such a task. Within a year, fourteen states proposed bills requiring that The Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms (see Jacobs, 2001). In 2005, only Indiana, Kentucky and South Dakota have passed such bills, but many states are waiting for the Supreme Court to weigh in on this sometime in 2005 for the first time since 1980 when it determined that the Ten Commandments could not be displayed in public schools because the children might read them and think that the government was encouraging children to follow them.
 
One great irony in all of this is that honesty and integrity are universally touted as being primary objectives of character education. That America continues to disregard the evidence surrounding the aforementioned concerns is in itself a sign of self-deception. The neo-conservative, religious-right hypocrisy can only continue when we allow authoritarianism to overshadow our search for the truth and when our religious orthodoxy gives us false security that allows us to be led by authoritarian mandates “on high.”
 
Daniel Goleman addresses how easily humans subscribe to self-deception in his book, Vital Lies, Simple Truths: The Psychology of Self Deception (1996).
 
We live at a particularly perilous moment, one in which self-deception is a subject of increasing urgency. The planet itself faces a threat unknown in other times: its utter destruction. We live our lives oblivious to the consequences for the planet, for our own descendants, of just how we live. We do not know the connections between the decisions we make daily - for instance to buy this item rather than that - and the toll those decisions have on the planet. And for most of us, being oblivious to that relationship allows us to slip into the grand self-deception, that the small and large decisions in our material lives are of no great consequence. Self-deception operates both at the level of the individual mind, and in the collective awareness of the group. To belong to a group of any sort, the tacit price of membership is to agree not to notice one's felling of uneasiness and misgivings, and certainly not to question anything that challenges the group's way of doing things. The price for the group in this arrangement is that dissent, even healthy dissent, is stifled. 

Before educators get too involved in implementing the federally granted character education programs, perhaps it is time for the educators themselves to become people of character and speak truth to the powers that are doing violence to both children and our world at large.
 
 
References
 
 
Anti-Defamation League. (2005). The Ten Commandments Controversy: A First Amendment Perspective. Retrieved October 22, 2005, from http://www.adl.org/10comm /Prohibitions.asp
Aristotle. (350 B.C.E./1998). The Nicomachean Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bacon, D. and Berkowitz, D. (1999). San Francisco's Hume Family -- Building a Rightwing Empire on Dried Garlic and a Busted Union. Retrieved December 21, 2005, from http://dbacon.igc.org/Strikes/12Hume.htm#top
Blaker, Kimberly (2003) “The Perils of Fundamentlaism and the Imperilment of Democracy” in The Fundamentals of Extremism: The Christian Right in America: Michigan: New Boston Books, p. 7.
Bowers, C. A. (1993). Education, Cultural Myths and the Ecological Crisis. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.