FALL 2015 The Public Eye g” Right-W hin ing as Ec -W on h o it m a i F c “ s A l s w e o i : v T e h e R n H i i s st rt or o y ep W R ar r ∙ s C ea on pp tin isa ue e D ∙ P eopl olicies That Make P editor’s letter THE PUBLIC EYE QUARTERLY PUBLISHER As the presidential primary campaign is underway this fall, some conservative can- Tarso Luís Ramos didates are racing each other to the bottom of the barrel, scapegoating immigrants and GUEST EDITOR poor people for all the nation’s woes. But alongside the dangerous demagoguery of a Kathryn Joyce Donald Trump lies a less obvious threat: the renewed and growing efforts of a coalition COVER ART of Christian and Corporate Right figures to rebrand Republicans’ approach to poverty. Amelia Spinney LAYOUT In this issue’s cover story, “Faith-Washing Right-Wing Economics” (page 4), PRA Jennifer Hall Economic Justice Researcher Mariya Strauss details how “compassionate conserva- PRINTING tism” has been updated for 2015, using progressive language about social justice and Red Sun Press Christian rhetoric about “the least of these” as fig leaves for policies aimed at gutting EDITORIAL BOARD long-established social protections. While business-friendly leaders publicly talk about Frederick Clarkson • Alex DiBranco “declaring peace on the social safety net,” behind closed doors billionaire donors are Eric Ethington • Tope Fadiran funding Christian theologians and social scientists to come up with scripture-based ar- Kapya Kaoma • L. Cole Parke guments to contain popular anger over the economy—arguments that prescribe free- Tarso Luís Ramos • Spencer Sunshine market capitalism, individual charity and “the dignity of work” to alleviate poverty, and Mariya Strauss which cite Calvinist hierarchies (wherein everyone succeeds or fails according to their talents) to justify income inequality. This kinder, gentler face of free-market capital- The Public Eye is published by Political Research Associates ism has as many potential victims as Trump’s “makers and takers” Producerism, but, as Strauss writes, it’s not the only way. Tarso Luís Ramos EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR In our second story, “The History Wars Continue” (page 3), PRA program coordi- Theresa Blackman OPERATIONS COORDINATOR nator Gabriel Joffe and author Katherine Stewart team up for an in-depth look at the Eric Ethington ongoing battle over Advanced Placement U.S. History (APUSH) curricula. For the last COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR several years, conservatives have taken aim at the course’s inclusive approach to explor- Kapya Kaoma ing “the ‘why’ of U.S. history,” warts and all, casting the course as a primer on civil dis- RELIGION AND SEXUALITY RESEARCHER obedience that would leave most students “ready to sign up for ISIS.” Joffe and Stewart Mark Brown explore how the seemingly grassroots opposition to APUSH is actually a well-coordinat- FINANCE MANAGER ed national campaign that, this summer, succeeded in getting the curriculum’s authors Kassia Palys to revise the course along more conservative lines. They also explore the deeper ques- DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATE tions at stake in the debate, namely whether history education should be a fact-based L. Cole Parke GENdeR JUSTICE RESEARCHER reckoning with our country’s past, or a means of inculcating ideas about citizenship and unified national identity. Mariya Strauss ECONOMIC JUSTICE RESEARCHER Gabriel Joffe In this issue’s Q&A (page 11), journalist Dani McClain speaks with New Orleans PROGRAM COORDINATOR housing justice activist Shana griffin on the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. In 2005, FELLOWS after Katrina left more than 1,800 people dead, and displaced hundreds of thousands Tope Fadiran • Frederick Clarkson of others, some politicians saw a silver lining. The storm left them with a blank slate Cynthia Greenlee • Spencer Sunshine that “cleaned up” public housing and cleared the way for redevelopment initiatives that Rachel Tabachnick would massively alter the face of the city. Ten years later, the new New Orleans is whit- INTERNS er, richer, and more corporate-friendly than ever before. But griffin and her non-profit, Ally Batchelder • Eli Lee the Jane Place Neighborhood Sustainability Initiative, are fighting back. Jaime Longoria • Katie Matejcak Laura Muth • Cassandra Osei Lastly, in Reports in Review (page 18), we look at some notable new publications Meghan Racklin • Jacey Rubinstein and studies from the past year, covering topics such as right-wing groups who oppose BOARD OF DIRECTORS government control of public lands; the effects of mass incarceration on families; the Dania Rajendra, Chair “Say Her Name” campaign to center women in the national movement for Black lives Katherine Acey • Paulina Helm-Hernandez Lynette Jackson • Janet Jakobsen and discussions around police brutality; and a new data report on LGBTQ people’s legal Hamid Khan • Maria Elena Letona rights in the South, the Midwest, and the Mountain States. Scot Nakagawa • Zeke Spier FOUNdeR We hope you enjoy this quarter’s Public Eye, and look forward to bringing you the Jean V. Hardisty, Ph.D. Winter 2016 edition, which will be a special issue themed around anti-Black racism and African American resistance. 1310 Broadway, Suite 201 Somerville, MA 02144-1837 Tel: 617.666.5300 Best, [email protected] Kathryn Joyce © Political Research Associates, 2015 Guest Editor All rights reserved. ISSN 0275-9322 ISSUE 84 www.politicalresearch.org commentary BY GABRIEL JOFFE AND KATHERINE STEWART The History Wars Continue How Right-Wing Pressure Influenced the APUSH Curriculum Update New Orleans after Katrina. Photo: Flickr. License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode Photo via Flickr courtesy of Don Harder. License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode On July 30, 2015, the College Board, creators of college-level curricula and testing for high school students, released an update to its Advanced Placement U.S. History (APUSH) course.1 The revision came after what had already been a two-year battle and was quickly criticized by all sides. Digital news outlet Quartz published an article detailing “All the ways the new AP U.S. history standards gloss over the country’s racist past,”2 while conservative media sites like The Daily Caller quoted conservative “experts” who groused that the changes were merely cosmetic and still don’t adequately emphasize “American Exceptionalism.”3 But as to why the changes had been undertaken in the first place, the media consensus was, as The Washington Post put it, that “Conserva- tives convinced College Board to rewrite American history.”4 Were these headlines just clickbait or had there been mounting pressure on the College Board to appease right-wing critics? Jeremy Stern, an independent historian who had consulted on the College Board overhaul,5 cast the revision in a more positive light, telling The Christian Science Monitor, “This is a major success for an unpolitical look at American history.”6 However, there was nothing “unpolitical” about the events preceding the revisions. The fight over APUSH had been simmering ever since the College Board released its new version of the frame- work in 2012; it boiled over in several states after the new curriculum was implemented for the 2014-2015 school year. The original redesign of the course—in the works since 2006—was intended to reflect an ongoing shift in history classrooms from rote memorization to critical thinking skills.7 As the authors of the new cur- riculum explained in Education Week,8 they’d been motivated by the concerns of AP teachers who felt the exist- ing APUSH curriculum “prevented them and their students from exploring in any depth the main events and Joffe and Stewart, continued on page 14 FALL 2015 Political Research Associates • 3 BY MARIYA STRAUSS “Faith-Washing” Right-Wing Economics How the Corporate and Christian Right Are Marketing Medicare’s Demise f you have worked all your adult dom Caucus” and the GOP leadership in the economic populist Left, the Chris- life and are now receiving Medicare the House of Representatives can be man- tian Right and free market fundamental- health benefits, you may be vexed aged remains to be seen. As William Gre- ists are changing the packaging on their to find that the third-largest federal ider recently wrote8 in The Nation, “The long-shared policy agenda12 of cutting Iprogram1 may not cover everything you party can’t deal with the real economic the government benefits on which vast need. Indeed, as PBS reported in July, distress threatening the nation as long as numbers of people rely. “Medicare certainly does not cover long- rebellion is still smoldering in the ranks. During this primary season, right-wing term custodial care in nursing homes or Of course, that suits the interests of the populists such as Donald Trump and other institutional settings.”2 Despite country-club and Fortune 500 wing of the Sarah Palin have grabbed headlines with its limitations, the federal benefit pro- party—the last thing they want is signifi- the racist implication that everyone who gram remains among the most popular cant economic reform.” isn’t a “maker” is to blame for keeping government initiatives in U.S. history, In the throes of this turmoil, the free the United States from greatness. From even among Tea Party Republicans, who market or “country-club” conserva- a public relations standpoint, this sort of found a rallying cry in one South Caro- tives are test-marketing a new brand: a unrestrained demagoguery—dangerous lina man’s infamous 2009 demand to Christian-inflected, contemporary remix as it is—could polish the shine on the re- establishment politicians: “Keep your of the 1980s’ and ’90s’ “compassion- launch of compassionate conservatism. government hands off my Medicare.”3 A ate conservatism.” Even as candidates But when we turn down the volume on 2011 Marist poll showed that 70 percent like Jeb Bush (who wants to “phase out” these deliberately offensive antics, it be- of those identifying themselves with the Medicare9), Sen.