argumentative speech civic courage

“Civil courage is needed – everywhere”

Psychologist Anna Baumert and her team are trying to identify personality traits that enable people to intervene courageously in the face of injustice

Showing civil courage is not easy. However, at a time when populism is on the rise, civil courage and the ability to intervene on behalf of others are needed more than ever. But why do we hesitate to stand up for justice so often? And what distinguishes civilly courageous people from others? Anna Baumert and her team are trying to find answers to these questions. One thing is certain: we can learn how to intervene astutely and constructively in any situation – even relatively minor ones.

Anna Baumert has been leading the research group Civil Courage at the Max Planck Institute for the Research of Collective Goods in Bonn since March 2017.

© private

Ms Baumert, the reporting on civil courage, particularly in the press, is often sensational. What is your focus?

Civil courage constantly features on the radar of public interest. This may make the topic familiar on a general level but our focus is on basic research. What we study are situations in which someone does something wrong, breaks rules or behaves immorally – and is observed by a third party. The psychological processes and mechanisms that govern whether someone intervenes against a perpetrator of injustice probably differ from those that dictate whether you will help a stranger lying on the street or in a car park, for example.

How much civil courage do people have then?

Far fewer people intervene when an injustice occurs than we would assume. And I include myself here. I would like to think that I would be willing to intervene in an effective way if I found myself in a challenging situation. But the research confirms that just because I think I would intervene does not necessarily mean that I would. This discrepancy makes the research on this topic particularly fascinating. 

Is there a type of person who will always help?

There are people who are convinced that they can deal very competently with new situations, who have a high level of what we call self-efficacy. It could be assumed that these people find it easier to act with civil courage. Our findings up to now show that they would not hesitate to intervene in the hypothetical cases we describe. However, a person’s self-efficacy does not appear to play any role in real situations.

Why so? We carried out comparative research: we described a situation to the participants and then we put them in the actual situation. It became clear that there are very considerable discrepancies between the intention to intervene and actual intervention. Many people overestimate their willingness or capacity to act. They overestimate their commitment and their courage. Only a very small minority actually intervene. The intensity with which people act is also considerably lower than their self-assessment would suggest.

There are always people who intervene in difficult situations. What makes them different?

We can only offer some assumptions about this at this point.

First and foremost, a moral disposition is involved: how much attention a person pays to moral issues, how important their moral principles to them, how strongly they tend to react with negative emotions when they experience injustice or immorality. It is also a question of impulsivity: how strong is the impulse to have to intervene immediately in certain situations?

In addition to this, it is possible that the willingness to break learned societal rules also has a role to play here. Most of us have learned to behave in a controlled way, to regulate our emotions and leave other people in peace.

So these societal norms ensure that many people don’t intervene?

Precisely, this is what we suspect. In situations in which there is a perpetrator who could be stopped, you have to go against many learned conventions. That is not very easy.

What’s more, it is often unclear whether a person’s intervention is justified or not.

With civilly courageous action, there is clearly the risk of blaming someone wrongly – and putting yourself in an embarrassing situation as a result. Intervening can be just as much of a mistake as not intervening. You must ultimately ask yourself what the consequences of different ‘mistakes’ would be.

Must I feel bad if I do not intervene?

From a psychological perspective, there are many obstacles that make non-intervention understandable, even if they do not necessarily justify it. It should be clear to everyone, however, that their behaviour has consequences for that of others. If you remain inactive yourself, you run the risk that others will behave in the same way.

Does this also mean, conversely, that when others will join me I intervene?

Not necessarily. You have to weigh up each situation individually. We recommend that you should not get involved in every situation immediately. Otherwise you can put yourself in very serious danger.

What should you do when a challenging situation arises?

Basically what the police recommend: approach other people and draw their attention to the injustice being perpetrated. You should form alliances and get help, and then make yourself available as a witness.

You would like to develop a characterology of courageous helpers with the help of your study. A lot of research has already been carried out on civil courage. What is different about your study?

The majority of the previous research is based on hypothetical scenarios: situations involving injustice are described to people and they are asked how they would react to them. The problem with this methodological approach is that the answers may bear no relation to what happens in reality.

We only invite people to participate in our study who have shown civil courage in the past. They include people who have been honoured in Germany for their actions. We also launched a general appeal for participants. ( www.coll.mpg.de/studie_persoenlichkeit ). The participants must have experienced injustice as bystanders and have intervened in some way.

Everyone who meets these criteria receives a questionnaire from us that consists of two parts and can be completed online. The first part takes between 15 and 30 minutes. The participants are asked about the situation in which they intervened or took action. Two weeks later, they are then invited to participate in a second part of the study which takes around two hours with breaks. The evaluation is anonymous.

There are schools in Germany that offer training in civil courage. Do these centres not have a lot of experience with character building?

These schools are undoubtedly good and helpful. And the trainers work with many different people there. What we are doing, however, is basic research, and I am certain that our findings are also of relevance for this kind of training.

There are many films on YouTube showing people who show civil courage. What do you think of them?

In my view the knowledge gain from these films, which are often recorded using hidden cameras, is minimal. Moreover, the approach is ethically questionable. In most cases, the ‘participants’ do not know that they are being filmed and have not given their permission for the material to be used. It is important that people are told – at least afterwards. And not just those directly involved but also any passers-by. Many people do not realise when a situation was faked.

Can you learn to act with civil courage?

That is a very individual matter. What is certain is that you do not have to experience a major case of conflict to do so. Civil courage is needed everywhere. – in schools, in neighbourhoods and in the workplace. There are many minor situations in which you can intervene against injustice. You can learn to be more aware of injustice everywhere.

Interview by Martin Roos.

Notification Settings

Explore the Constitution

• The Constitution
• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview

Constitution Daily Blog

• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects

Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, civic virtue, and why it matters.

February 20, 2020 | by Jackie McDermott

In the midst of growing polarization and the aftermath of a divisive impeachment trial, some have called for a revival of the values espoused by America’s Founders and historic leaders.

Last week’s episode of We the People focused on those values— summed up by the term “civic virtue”— and host Jeffrey Rosen discussed them with Margaret Taylor, senior editor and counsel of the Lawfare blog, and Adam White, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Civic virtue describes the character of a good participant in a system of government —the personal qualities associated with the effective functioning of the civil and political order or the preservation of its values and principles. According to White, the Founders designed the American republic with those qualities in mind and believed they were essential to upholding it.

“Our constitutional structure itself presumes certain virtues among the people,” White said, identifying self-restraint as one of those virtues. “The point is self-restraint with an eye to something beyond your immediate needs or wants, being able to recalibrate your own behavior in accordance to a higher goal—and in a way that's what republican virtue would require—an ability to get along within the framework of slow, deliberative , conflict-ridden, republican self-government, knowing that you needed to restrain yourself in the process for the sake of the process as a whole.”

White also cited Benjamin Franklin’s 13 virtues : temperance, silence, order, resolution, frugality, industry, sincerity, justice, moderation, cleanliness, tranquility, chastity, and humility. Franklin laid out these virtues in his autobiography , which he started writing in 1771, and recommended that readers try to master one virtue at a time in pursuit of becoming a better American. White and Rosen also pointed to other philosophical inspirations for the Founders, including Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, the writings of Sir William Blackstone, John Locke, and Montesquieu, and some of the teachings of Judeo-Christian religions.

Taylor agreed that these civic virtues undergirded the Founders’ conception of the constitutional structure (while noting that the Founders believed in the freedom to exercise all religions, not just Judeo-Christian ones). She added that the Founders recognized the fragility of a system that depended on such values, and she expressed concern that today’s public figures sometimes do not adhere to them:

“I think what we’re seeing more in modern life is that . . . our sort of bad impulses maybe are not quite as restrained. So what we see is a constitutional system that is being tested by actors in various parts of the government who, by their actions— what I would call sort of intemperate or just off the cuff sorts of actions— are reminding Americans and scholars like us about the fragility of that system and how, if actors within it don’t act in accordance with civic virtue, it really exposes how a lot of things I think Americans thought were [such] a firm part of our political culture [were] really based on norms and not on laws.”

Taylor and White further reflected on how today’s public figures discuss the values that make up civic virtue— as Attorney General William Barr did in his October 2019 speech at Notre Dame Law School — and seek to demonstrate them— as Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) did in the floor speech explaining his impeachment vote . Senator Romney, the only Republican who voted to convict President Trump of abuse of power, said in part that he felt compelled to do so because he swore an oath before God to administer impartial justice at the start of the impeachment trial. White said this focus on the oath was the key takeaway from Romney’s speech:

“He recognized that in swearing that oath to do impartial justice, he was undertaking this public obligation one that he was then by honor and, as he explained in his case, his commitment to his God and his faith, he was duty bound to undertake. It comes close to what Benjamin Franklin identified as the virtue of resolution, to resolve to reform what you ought, the ought being defined outside of you. . . . Romney, I think, by focusing on the oath, really put his finger on this idea of self-restraint and exemplified the kind of statesmanship that the founders were hoping for, not just in an impeachment trial, but in the work of the Senate more generally.”

Taylor added Romney’s speech was “a true and actual act of political courage."

"Our political culture right now, in varying ways, seems to be rewarding confrontation and party loyalty, and punishing compromise and cooperation among our political leaders, and I do wonder how that ends," she said. "Do we reach a turning point where something like what Mitt Romney did becomes more sort of the norm, or is he kind of the last gasp of this notion of separating your sort of party views from what you think your constitutional duties are?”

Taylor and White agreed that public figures must model the values of civic virtue in order for them to be revived among the public.

“If you do not have people in government who are modeling these characteristics, it is taken as a green light with people in their normal lives to do the same thing,” Taylor said.

White added that living out these virtues is crucial to the very idea of “self-government,” reflecting on the meaning of that term.

 “It’s not just a coincidence of words,” he said. “It’s two deeply interwoven themes . . . Individual self-government was necessary for the sake of public self-government, whether among the people themselves or a president or the courts restraining themselves, or legislators restraining themselves in a way in the course of governance.”

Taylor and White are authors of two separate essays for “ The Battle for the Constitution ,” a joint project between the National Constitution Center and  The Atlantic which features essays exploring the constitutional issues at the center of American life. Read “ The Founders Set an Extremely High Bar for Impeachment ” by Margaret Taylor here and “ A Republic, If We Can Keep It “ by Adam White here.

More from the National Constitution Center

Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

ELEANOR ROOSEVELT, ADDRESS BY MRS. FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT–THE CHICAGO CIVIL LIBERTIES COMMITTEE (14 MARCH 1940)

Heather Brook Adams

University of Maryland

On March 14, 1940, Eleanor Roosevelt (ER) implored a Chicago audience to “have  courage,” “not succumb to fear of any kind,” and work together toward a “more truly . . . democratic nation” (14). [1] In addressing the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee, an organization located in a city rife with suspected communist activity, [2] Roosevelt’s speech equated freedom with democracy and placed the responsibility of upholding democratic freedom upon each man and woman in America. Given the turbulent climate of 1940, when some argued that the support for civil liberties reflected un-American sentiment, ER’s speech reflected the first lady’s own courage and commitment to democracy and civic deliberation.

ER’s speech also reflected a universal understanding of citizens’ rights and responsibilities that challenged gendered boundaries of public and private spaces during the 1940s. Toward these ends, ER modeled universal citizenship and championed civil liberties in unprecedented ways, emphasizing the need for individuals to resist fear-laden attitudes that eroded civil liberties. While simultaneously reflecting and transcending traditional gender ideologies, ER spoke to the CCLC as a rhetorical first lady. An examination of her speech reveals limitations of this position as well as ER’s ability to supplement her argument because of, not in spite of, her position as a first lady taking the public podium. This essay examines ER’s speech as rhetorical first lady discourse and asserts three claims. First, ER embraced a dual persona within the speech that reflected her position as a woman simultaneously outside of and privy to the sphere of politics. Second, ER articulated a faith in the potential of American democracy to effectively fulfill the will of the people by upholding “the real principles of democracy-in-action” (14). Lastly, ER imbued her speech with a nationalist spirit, echoing notions of American exceptionalism in order to move her audience to action but offering a revision of the tenets of this philosophy in the process. In the end, ER’s public performance as a rhetorical first lady modeled the civic responsibility she espoused, reflecting the long-held tenets of republican motherhood and extending the legacy of the rights rhetoric often featured by women orators who came before her.

The Gendering of Public and Private Spheres

In some ways, a separation of the “public” and “private” spheres serves a legitimate function within a liberal political framework that values individual freedom. The public realm is the place of interaction between the individual and the state; conversely, the private sphere represents a space where the individual maintains personal autonomy apart from the interference of government. [3] The public and private divide has historically denoted male and female difference, and the ensuing distinctions between the sexes have been an enduring part of Western thought since antiquity. In The Politics and the Constitution of Athens , Aristotle defined the relationship between humans and the state in part through a gendered interpretation of men and women’s “correct” and seemingly natural roles. “[T]he male is by nature superior,” Aristotle explained, “and the female inferior; and the one rules and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.” [4] Aristotle further argued that both sexes have separate attributes, quoting the poet Sophocles who declared: “‘Silence is a woman’s glory.'” [5] This early prescription justified women’s exclusion from political deliberation, a sentiment whose legacy was felt for centuries. [6]

The relegation of most elite white women to the private sphere had important ideological implications. Examining the gendered differences between the public and private spheres, Patrice Clark Koelsch’s survey of classical Greek thought leads her to conclude that a sex-based “distinction implicitly denigrates women and excludes truly personal concerns from political legitimacy.” [7] The public and private spheres were not just separate from one another but were assigned hierarchical value whereby those in the public had rights and freedoms not granted to those relegated to the undervalued private sphere. The private sphere, thus, provided “the productive and reproductive labor of persons who could not participate in [the polis ],” which meant that “women, as a biologically laboring class, were devalued,” despite their necessity to the existence and maintenance of the public sphere. [8]

The cultural separation of gendered spheres was replicated in the United States during the post-revolutionary era. Before America sought its independence from Britain, continental thinkers espoused a separation between woman and the state that reflected the views of antiquity. [9] Despite the influence of the Enlightenment thinkers, who encouraged subjects to reconsider their relationship to the government and state, these philosophers “offered no guidance to women analyzing their relationship to liberty or civic virtue.” [10] As the nation’s founding fathers penned a fresh political framework, they sought guidance from an English Whig tradition “that never gave explicit attention to basic questions about women.” [11] In so doing, they avoided infusing into their vision of the new republic more recent philosophies that might have given women increased access to the public sphere.

In order to maintain a gendered public/private divide, America’s nation builders normalized the public presence of men and the private political function of many women through a practice later termed “republican motherhood.” According to Linda K. Kerber, republican motherhood “guaranteed the steady infusion of virtue into the Republic” through women’s “significant political role” of nurturing “public-spirited male citizens.” [12] This notion “assumed that women’s lives were shaped primarily by family obligations” and thus “offered a politics congruent with the world as most women experienced it.” [13] The republican mother model became integral to the perceived need for women to fulfill a unique, gendered, and politically significant role. Kerber explains that women “would devote their efforts to service: raising sons and disciplining husbands to be virtuous citizens of the Republic.” This role was critical role due to the perception that “the stability of the nation rested on the persistence of virtue among its citizens.” Ultimately, Kerber explains, “the creation of virtuous citizens was dependent on the presence of wives and mothers who were well informed.” [14]

A popular twentieth-century painting of Betsy Ross by Charles H. Weisgerber illustrated the spirit of republican motherhood. The painting, featuring Ross presenting her newly-stitched American flag to three revolutionary leaders, including George Washington, “became a symbol for appropriate female action in the public sphere.” This depiction of Ross created the ultimate symbol for women of the new nation; her embodiment of republican motherhood offered women a socially-acceptable prototype for political participation. [15] More than a supplement to a history lesson of America’s founding, Ross provided an articulation of proper female citizenship.

Notions of republican motherhood simultaneously supported civic participation and prescribed strict parameters for how this engagement could take shape. As a socially-sanctioned political role for women, republican motherhood relegated women’s citizenship to the private spaces of the family. Such family expectations, at least in part, corresponded with the precepts of the “cult of true womanhood,” a mid nineteenth-century social code that included the “four cardinal virtues” of the woman’s private sphere: piety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity. [16] These “womanly” virtues translated into the social expectation that women would be dependent on the men in their lives and remain in the home.

Some women were moved to challenge gendered social conventions in order to advocate issues they felt were of great concern, moving their civic and moral roles as republican mothers and true women from the family to the community. Notable female orators such as Angelina and Sarah Grimké spoke out against slavery as part of the male-led abolition movement of the early-to-mid nineteenth century. [17] Other women, including Lucretia Coffin Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and later Frances Willard were all part of reform efforts geared toward morally-charged issues such as slavery, alcohol abuse, and prostitution. [18] These women wrote and spoke publicly, “donning the armor of God” to persuade audiences that such social problems, because they indicated a lack of virtue, were within the province of the woman’s sphere. [19] Other women, however, still objected to women publicly speaking out on social issues, even when they supported the same causes. Catharine Beecher, for example, supported abolition but opposed women’s public acts of moral suasion, or the use of persuasive appeals. Beecher was so opposed to women speaking publicly that she wrote and circulated an essay denouncing Angelina Grimké for her orations on the cause that both women favored. The written essay allowed Beecher to express her opinion in protest in a way that she deemed more socially acceptable for a woman. Beecher perceived that the written word, rather than the spoken word, was more appropriate for women’s acts of moral suasion, ironically illustrating the difficulty women had in identifying and negotiating their own sense of propriety and influence. [20]

The nation’s earliest female orators also faced persecution for their outspokenness on public issues. Gradually entering the public debates over social issues, female speakers “in a position to exert meaningful social and political influence ” were often characterized as sexually deviant, particularly when addressing mixed sex or “promiscuous audiences.” [21] Susan Zaeske argues that although the earliest iterations of “promiscuous” merely referred to any indiscriminate mixture, “by the 1820s both the word and the phrase had become increasingly linked with the morality and sexuality of women.” [22] Political participation enacted through public address or deliberation was rarely favored by women; many were even hesitant to sign their name under the title “citizen” on public petitions. [23] Nan Johnson affirms that “at the start of the nineteenth century, the arts of rhetoric were the undisputed province of the male professional classes.” [24] And, in postbellum America, popular writers often cautioned that “if happiness was to be preserved in American homes, women needed to reserve their rhetorical influence for their counseling and instructive roles as wives and mothers.” [25] By “redirecting women to rhetorical roles in the home,” those penning manuals and guides for women’s rhetorical activities helped deter many women from any overtly public or political act, thus “complicating their access to the public rhetorical spaces where the fate of the nation was debated.” [26]

Despite defamation and censure, early women orators advocating for the rights of others helped develop a sense of political efficacy among women, which served as a catalyst for the first-wave of the women’s rights movement. Females prohibited from speaking at male-led abolitionist meetings formed “female anti-slavery societies and ultimately . . . began to press for their own rights in order to be more effective in the abolitionist struggle.” [27] Historian Lori D. Ginzberg notes that “the late 1850s witnessed a burst of legislative activity on the part of women,” attempting to secure their own “civic and political rights” as they joined men in social and political work. [28] Women from across the country who were still wary of talking about politics became politically involved in more socially acceptable ways. Many supplied anti-slavery fairs with sewing circle handiwork or signed public petitions (often distributed by women) that were labeled “prayers.” [29] Although women cautiously experimented with varying levels and types of political engagement, a remarkable number of postbellum American women were gradually leaving their homes, imbuing the private and now public sphere with the sentiments of republican motherhood.

Prior to the suffrage campaign, women’s political interests were frequently redirected toward benevolent work on behalf of others. By the Gilded Age, many women formed alliances and philanthropic organizations meant to uphold members’ moral and civic obligations. In particular, middle- to upper-class white women embraced volunteerism as a “full-time career” because of their financial security and new-found leisure time. [30] Early grassroots efforts to assist those in need became more organized after the Civil War. According to Kathleen D. McCarthy, by 1900 women who experienced formal “political invisibility” were able to form robust and collaborative kinship networks that paralleled the structure of the local, state, and national government. [31] Benevolent work allowed women to “slowly but forcefully” embrace a place within the “political public sphere through a series of maternally themed political associations.” As women took part in benevolent social movements centered on the protection and education of children and women, [32] they extended their influence outside of the private realm. Nevertheless, women still were denied a full political voice.

Benevolent work thus gave way to new levels of public engagement by the end of the nineteenth century, enhancing women’s sense of autonomy, self-worth, and collective power. The “New Woman” emboldened by the employment, consumer, and leisure opportunities afforded by an increasingly urban and industrial life eschewed true womanhood for a fiercer sense of independence. [33] Generally, the New Woman was “young, well-educated, probably a college graduate . . . highly competent, and physically strong and fearless”; this spirit of empowerment helped influence women of various ages, most of whom were white. [34] Middle aged, white women of means formed women’s clubs, which granted women access to public speaking and interests outside the public sphere. [35] Other New Women embraced more overt and active political roles, particularly those aligned with efforts during the Progressive Era to bring change to overcrowded city centers. Earlier, morally-driven female societies had granted women public leverage and collective power, so that “what had long been women’s province through voluntary associations and charitable benevolence was increasingly defined as a proper scope for public policy.” [36] New Women pioneered “the creation of new public spaces–voluntary associations located between the public world of politics and work and the private intimacy of family.” In doing so, they made “possible a new vision of active citizenship.” [37] Thus, a significant number of twentieth-century women had unprecedented, yet still limited, public and political access even before gaining suffrage in 1920. This access reflected women’s gradual willingness to transcend gendered public and private divides.

The First Lady: An Emerging Rhetorical Figure

The role of the first lady epitomizes the contradictions and cultural tensions experienced by American women straddling the public/private divide. Barbara Burrell notes that “[t]he woman who serves as first lady is [in this role] because of her relationship to a man, not through her own achievements. She is to represent the expressive, supportive, traditional role of women as wife, mother, and homemaker.” As an exemplar of woman’s potential, however, first ladies have “the potential to dramatically alter the idea of what is private and what is public in the political realm.” [38]

Most first ladies have had to navigate the politics of a public/private divide; many also have served as role models for other women. Shawn J. Parry-Giles and Diane M. Blair argue that first ladies “helped craft a role for women’s participation in the political sphere, transforming the twentieth-century version of the republican mother into an activist voice of national consequence.” [39] Before 1920, according to these authors, the first lady role was primarily limited to private-sphere political influence and morally-sanctioned benevolent acts. First ladies performed “social politicking” through such private activities as advising their spouses, attempting to shape their own and/or their spouses’ political image, or performing acts of patronage–“the practice of securing political jobs or other rewards for acquaintances and family members.” [40] As discussed earlier, the wave of benevolent volunteering that afforded many women morally permissible yet limited access to the public sphere was also embraced by eighteenth- and nineteenth-century first ladies who carefully navigated the fine line between maintaining a “womanly” sense of privacy and pursuing societal improvements aimed at socially acceptable projects for women. [41]

Just as women assumed varying levels of participation in earlier debates about slavery and other moral concerns, so too did first ladies take on differing levels of exposure to public issues while in the White House. In the twentieth century, for example, Ellen Wilson, first wife of Woodrow Wilson, made slum clearance a top priority after she personally witnessed the unfit living conditions of poverty-stricken Washington, D.C. neighborhoods. Although Ellen Wilson did not directly appeal to Congress in support of this cause, she commissioned a White House car to be used to tour the slums and raised enough attention about the issue to persuade a member of Congress to sponsor a bill for housing appropriations. [42] Representing a different interpretation of the role, Grace Coolidge, with a “youthful demeanor and lively personality . . . not incommensurate with the mien of the politically liberated ‘new woman’ of the 1920s,” remained essentially silent during her tenure in the White House. [43] According to Janis L. Edwards, Grace Coolidge contended that “the responsibility of a first lady was to maintain and preserve [a civic] monument” of the first lady office “against the potential impact of words or deeds by a presidential wife who acted outside her conventional role.” [44] Even in the early twentieth-century, the legacy of woman’s separate sphere was apparent in the White House.

By the late 1920s, however, first ladies’ activities were increasingly rhetorical in nature. As these women began to supplement acts of goodwill with direct activism and advocacy on the behalf of others, they broadened “their space of authority to local, state, national, and international communities.” [45] First lady discourse, at times, still reflected antecedents of republican motherhood while illustrating that women could bring such moral and civic commitments to the public stage. Lou Hoover, for example, delivered speeches to Girl Scouts about responsible citizenship, framing this duty around the roles of “wives, mothers, and homemakers.” [46] At the same time, Hoover also established a new precedent for first ladies by delivering formal speeches and by reaching out to a wide range of Americans through radio addresses. Hoover thus established important groundwork for ER’s later political activities. [47] At the same time that the presidency itself was becoming more of a “rhetorical” institution, first ladies began to assume a public voice that appealed to mass audiences, utilizing “the power of public persuasion to fulfill the president’s or their own political goals.” [48]

Eleanor Roosevelt: Independent Public Servant

ER’s approach to the role of first lady in many ways paralleled the gradual rise of public women during her lifetime. A brief biographical sketch of ER reveals her own transformation into a public actor and illuminates her willingness to embrace a rhetorical and political role. From her unique perspective as a public woman and, more specifically, a first lady interacting with a diverse cross-section of Americans, ER challenged limited notions of citizenship and extended conceptions of one’s responsibility to the community. ER’s view of democracy, so evidently centered around the role of the individual, highlighted the personal needs and responsibilities of the community. ER envisioned a shared community encompassing individuals from varied backgrounds. Arguably, ER’s commitment to communal unity was linked to her lifelong ethic of service to others and active political engagement. Examining ER’s activities prior to her first ladyship accentuates her interest in benevolence as a “new woman” and informs an assessment of her rhetorical choices while in the White House.

Although ER’s impact as a forward-thinking and incredibly active first lady is widely celebrated, she reportedly did not initially embrace her move to the White House. ER resented FDR’s desire to become president, a view she later labeled as “pure selfishness.” [49] After FDR’s inauguration, she remembered walking “up to the White House portico with considerable trepidation.” [50] Instead of aspiring to the position of national hostess , ER considered the role of the traditional first lady inhibiting. She refused to perform the ceremonial functions expected of a first lady, calling such matters “futile and meaningless.” [51] Vacillating between her own desires and cultural expectations, ER admitted having difficulty remembering that she “was not just ‘Eleanor Roosevelt, ‘ but the ‘wife of the President.'” [52] Biographer Blanche Wiesen Cook writes that ER countered her fears that “she would . . . be forced into a life of political confinement somewhere in the shadows, a prisoner to the presidency” by plunging “into the political fray.” [53] ER’s choice to leave the recesses of the White House in favor of public exposure had significant personal and political implications. Many political wives knew that their actions not only reflected on the work of their spouse, but also on the nation as a rising world power. [54] Still, ER eschewed the traditional role of first ladies as social hostesses, unwilling to unlearn a lifetime of personal independence.

ER’s preference for following her own instincts emerged from a life-long engagement with the community and an ongoing sense of social and civic responsibility. ER’s pre-White House life was characterized by travel and first-hand exposure to community problems that lured her out of an insular, domestic experience. At the age of fifteen, ER was sent to study at Allenswood, a finishing school in England. There she studied under Headmistress Marie Stouvestre, who encouraged her students to think and act with a sense of social responsibility and service to others. [55] Souvestre not only asked her students to respond critically to history and literature lessons, but she also took ER and her other students on trips to the continent, where their curriculum came to life. During these travels, Stouvestre insisted that ER “see the people of the country” and not just her “own compatriots,” thus broadening her worldview beyond the confines of Allenswood . [56]

When ER returned to the United States, she followed her mentor’s advice and remained socially engaged, volunteering with the Junior and Consumers Leagues and teaching at the College Settlement on Rivington Street in New York City’s Lower East Side. [57] This exposure to poorer areas of the city, plagued with inadequate housing and oppressive working conditions, made a lasting impression on ER. She admitted that “the streets filled with foreign looking people, crowded and dirty, filled me with a certain amount of terror.” Nevertheless, she reconciled her fear with the “glow of pride” when one of these individuals identified himself as the father of an admiring pupil. Individual responsibility to the needs of a community was a guiding factor in the settlement movement, which had gained popularity by the early twentieth-century. [58] Settlement houses, situated in poverty-stricken urban centers, attracted workers after college graduation, and thus “the houses served as field-based graduate schools for a generation of college-educated women.” [59] Settlers, or volunteers living in the same community as the “neighbors” they served, extended the notion of benevolence to embrace a more direct interaction with a diverse, often predominantly immigrant community. Instead of merely helping the poor, this public work rendered many settlers “transformed by the experience.” [60] Although ER admitted that as a settler, she was “ready to drop all this good work” to enjoy a summer of “idleness and recreation,” her early exposure to the unpleasant realities of the less fortunate informed her future volunteer work and sense of social service. [61]

ER’s commitment to public service became increasingly political in nature after she married FDR in 1905. ER’s public work was initially impeded by her multiple pregnancies during the early part of the marriage. Either pregnant or recovering from pregnancy from 1906 to 1916, the future first lady waited until her children were sufficiently self-reliant before again focusing her attention on civic activities. [62] By this point FDR was Governor of New York and he encouraged ER to direct her efforts toward activities that would support his political commitments. Specifically, FDR asked his wife to inspect state facilities that he could not easily visit due to his polio-induced immobility. [63] ER traveled extensively in order to report back to her husband on the conditions of his less fortunate constituents. Touring the country became part of ER’s regiment, and this continued after she arrived at the White House. Her civic activities were supported by FDR and his closest aide, Louis Howe. As her husband’s ambassador, ER traveled more than 40,000 miles during her first three months in the White House. [64] Traveling as first lady, ER became the president’s eyes and ears, inspecting conditions throughout a nation struggling to recover from economic depression. In the process, she challenged traditional notions about the proper role of the first lady in ways that had direct and substantive influence on the Roosevelt administration’s political outlook and policies. Not satisfied in taking a seat behind or even beside her husband, ER met Americans in her ongoing pursuit to connect with the nation. She met and spoke with members of underserved populations and social service agencies such as the American Friends Service Committee. Through her exposure to the country, ER determined that new economic policies were essential to the future of the ailing nation. She returned to Washington D.C. to express her observations and opinions directly to the president. Through her first-hand exposure to the living conditions of the poor, ER was able to advocate effectively for government aid to populations in need. She even spearheaded efforts to set up subsistence homesteads and government subsidized social welfare programs. [65]

Just as ER’s direct interaction with others in the public sphere contributed to her own influence as first lady, it also enabled and legitimized the political work of other women. ER voiced her observations and political opinions to the nation through a variety of media, including radio, syndicated newspaper columns, and magazine articles, and she supplemented this communication with frequent public speaking engagements. [66] ER followed in First Lady Hoover’s footsteps by appealing to the nation directly via radio, but she also broke new ground in validating the presence of women in public discourse. [67] Setting a new precedent for White House communication, ER regularly held her own press conferences, granting access only to women journalists. [68] She also appealed directly to readers across the globe as she became a political pundit through her daily “My Day” articles, which were syndicated and circulated to more than four and a half million persons. [69] ER became the first wife of the president to take advantage of her visibility and “turn this access to her own advantage.” [70] Through her travels across the nation and her direct appeals to the men and women of America through various media, ER portrayed herself as a politically viable liaison between the White House and the nation that it served. Such political engagement was demonstrated most clearly in ER’s promotion of civil liberties during her March 14, 1940 speech to the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee.

Freedom and Fear: The Debate Over Civil Liberties

The 1930s was a decade when the very meaning of Americanism was called into question. Increasing diversity in heritage, religion, and thought provoked fear among many Americans, and a growing national debate over the rights and freedoms of the citizenry pitted organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) against legislative and judicial decisions. Congressional investigations, most notably those of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), roused the suspicions of many Americans fearful of communist infiltration into their local communities. Simultaneously, many individuals resorted to abusive measures in silencing those who did not follow prescriptive norms for “American” behavior and values. [71] This volatile political context provided the backdrop for ER’s rhetorical response to the controversy over civil liberties during wartime.

The New York Herald Tribune on the day of ER’s speech, March 14, 1940, evidences the charged political atmosphere surrounding the debate over civil liberties. One article reported Wendell L. Willkie’s call for increased protection of civil liberties for all Americans. A second article described a defensive FBI director, J. Edgar Hoover, who had been called upon to deny accusations that he authorized wire tapping the telephones of U.S. Senators. [72] The nation directed its attention toward an unfolding drama between the principles of liberty and concerns about American security.

Amid these concerns, ER addressed the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee (CCLC), openly supporting the group’s work to preserve basic freedoms for all Americans. The CCLC was an organization of approximately one thousand volunteers that had become a branch of the ACLU some six years earlier. [73] On the national level, the ACLU was gravely concerned with what it perceived as attacks on personal freedoms. Critics feared that impending legislation might impinge upon personal liberties, especially those of the foreign-born and “fifth-columnists”–a term applied to anyone suspected of having communist affiliations. Specifically, the Smith Act, which stood to become “the first peacetime sedition law in American history,” proposed to criminalize membership in any organization that sought the overthrow of the U.S. government. It also called for the “fingerprinting and registration of all aliens.” [74] The ACLU was one of only three organizations that had testified against the act. The act passed overwhelmingly in late June, despite the protests of the ACLU. [75]

The congressional debate only exacerbated concerns among many civil libertarians that FDR’s New Deal would extend the reach of government and threaten basic freedoms. For supporters of the ACLU, “[t]he New Deal reawakened . . . [the] fear of a leviathan state which would manipulate the national emergency to justify repression.” [76] As historian Samuel Walker has noted, ACLU founder Roger Baldwin was a leader in voices such concerns, defining civil liberties as freedom from governmental intervention. Baldwin warned that unless the administration’s power was restricted, Americans might soon lose their right to express freely their political views or protest against governmental actions. [77]

Escalating concerns over the communist threat culminated in the sensational investigations of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC). In October 1939, Representative Martin Dies (Democrat, TX) visited Chicago as HUAC’s chairman, focusing national attention on the city that he argued was the center of the communist threat. [78] According to one historian, Dies and his committee became “an effective political lightning rod which attracted those who had failed to find a home in the New Deal and wanted to believe the worst about it.” [79] Unabashedly sharing his findings with the nation, Dies named 2,000 of the 4,700 communists allegedly living in the Chicago area at the time of his visit, [80] including many professionals and government workers, particularly employees of Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration (WPA). Furthermore, Dies claimed that one civic-minded organization, the League for Peace and Democracy, was “communistic” and peopled by “hundreds of government employees.” [81] Dies thus raised suspicions about communist influence among civic organizations as well as local governments. According to the congressman, his “revelations” proved that Chicago represented “the powerhouse of subversive energy and propaganda in the Middle West.” [82] With such rhetoric, HUAC succeeded in raising “the fear of Communism to a fever pitch.” [83]

National fears provoked by HUAC manifested themselves in a growing number and variety of assaults on civil liberties. In 1942, a book published by the CCLC catalogued a variety of attacks on civil liberties during this period, including not only those inspired by the communist threat, but also some related to labor disputes and economic disparities. Freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of conscience were not the only rights violated during this period. The CCLC also insisted that Americans had a right to freedom from organized mob violence and unconstitutional police activities, and it expressed concerns with academic freedom and the rights of immigrants. [84] Writing in Cosmopolitan just one month before her speech to the CCLC, ER echoed the organization’s broad concern with civil liberties, chronicling the forms of intolerance that concerned her most. According to the first lady, a “wave of anti-Semitism” was the “greatest manifestation of intolerance today,” but she added that “in some places anti-Catholicism runs a close second and in others fear of the Negro’s aspirations is paramount.” [85]

Xenophobic sentiments had led to a variety of groups being labeled and attacked as un-American. Immigrants were often denied employment in the public and private sectors due to suspicions about their loyalties. Many were flatly denied naturalization; those allowed to apply for citizenship were frequently made to repay any government-sponsored financial aid received prior to naturalization. [86] Measures such as the Smith Act justified limitations on the basic freedoms of a wide variety of Americans, but especially on immigrants. Even Jehovah’s Witnesses fell prey to humiliation and violence. Refusing to perform the rituals of patriotism, such as saluting or kissing the American flag, members of the group were denied their religious freedom and exposed to mob and police brutality. [87]

The most vehement opposition to the “un-American,” however, was directed at those subscribing to communist thought. [88] In September 1940, Theodore Irwin wrote in The Public Opinion Quarterly:

Deprivation of the civil rights of Communists has taken the form of beatings of members who solicited signatures to put the party on the ballot; the revocation of citizenship of Communists on relatively trivial grounds; and moves by public official in at least eight states . . . aimed at depriving the Communist party of its place on the ballot in the national election. [89]

Well over a year before the attack on Pearl Harbor, anti-communist sentiment was alive throughout the United States. ER, as a visible representative of the Roosevelt administration, occupied a precarious role as a rhetorical first lady committed to universal tolerance in spite of such extreme national exigencies.

Eleanor Roosevelt’s Civil Liberties Speech

ER occupied a tenuous place as a first lady condemning civil liberties violations on the public podium. Her CCLC speech illustrated the ways in which she simultaneously lauded and challenged prevailing notions of civic virtue from this contested position. She capitalized on her institutionally sanctioned, yet unofficial role, drawing upon the legacy of women before her, and embracing and extending the republican motherhood tradition. ER’s constructed vision of civic virtue exemplifies the limitations and potential of rhetorical first lady discourse in three ways. First, ER bolstered her credibility as an exponent of American values by appealing to her audience through a dual persona; she alternately spoke as a woman of the people and from the more distanced position of first lady. Secondly, ER became an interlocutor, deciphering foundational American documents that offered a blueprint for democracy and enacting her political role in the process. Finally, ER infused her speech with a revised sentiment of American exceptionalism, by which she urged her audience to act upon the nationalistic principles of humanity and inclusion. In so doing, ER demanded that Americans embody, not just agree with, the ideals associated with Americanism, enacting her notions of civic virtue as a rhetorical first lady while encouraging others to do the same in their own communities.

ER’s speech reflected a dual persona that stemmed from her position as a first lady both outside and inside the scope of governmental influence. When greeting her audience, ER’s tone was humble. Apologetically, she admitted that “a great many” of the audience members “could give my talk far better than I” thanks to their “first-hand knowledge” of civil liberties violations (2). Later, ER admitted that she “had almost forgotten how hard the working man had to fight for his rights” (14). In both instances, ER’s self-effacing language elevated the experience of the average American, imbuing her talk with respect for those in the audience. Despite the fact that ER related to her audience, her discourse acknowledged her tenuous identification with the American people when speaking from her role as first lady. By creating a framework in which she distanced herself from the lived experiences of her audience, ER nodded to the antecedents of a generally private first lady position.

Shifting to her voice as a rhetorical first lady, however, ER also asserted her authority as a proponent of the preservation of civil liberties. She bolstered her ethos by reversing her original position, arguing that she was “more conscious of the importance of civil liberties in this particular moment of our history than anyone else” (2). ER’s basis for this claim was her experience as an active, public first lady. She admitted, “as I travel through the country and meet people and see the things that have happened to little people, I am more and more conscious of what it means to democracy to preserve our civil liberties” (2). ER challenged her audience to respect her authority as a first lady who learned her most significant lessons about democracy from the people of the nation. ER focused her attention away from more long standing first lady concerns inside the White House to the political realities of the nation; her perspective bolstered her ethos as an authority on turmoil in Chicago, and America in general.

Speaking with assuredness, ER shared experiences that legitimized her interpretations of national and international political situations. ER reflected on her leadership work with the National Committee of Democratic Women, recounting her exposure to intolerant literature. It was this first-hand experience from which ER claimed to have drawn her understanding of the hatred harbored by some in the name of religious purity. ER illustrated her understanding of communism through a book-length account she read about its rise in Czechoslovakia. “I can only say that it seems to me we should read as vivid a story as that now,” she urged, “just to make us realize how important it is that for no reason whatsoever should we allow ourselves to be dominated by fear so that we curtail civil liberties” (8). Unhesitatingly, ER spoke of her self-education on international affairs and asked the audience to emulate her model responsible world citizenship. Notably, the first lady did not reference FDR’s stance on civil liberties issues. ER was not acting overtly as a spokesperson of the Roosevelt administration; instead, she was using her voice as an independent political actor to provoke action on the part of her audience members.

Through an association between individual rights and national responsibilities, ER’s speech before the CCLC fused personal liberties with nationalistic appeals, also allowing her to interpret democratic blueprints established by America’s founders and model her vision of citizenship. Faith in democracy, she suggested, could triumph over exaggerated fears. As a first lady appealing to the CCLC’s “promiscuous audience,” ER enacted her vision of active political engagement; in so doing, she also infused a political argument with her unique perspective as a woman of great accomplishment. ER advocated a return to virtuous democratic ideals, guiding her audience toward morally sound standards of citizenship. ER grounded the discourse of civil liberties in foundational American documents, calling for the preservation of civil liberties for all Americans as a realization of democratic ideals. She counted every individual among the vanguard of sacred freedoms, and appealed to all listeners to actively pursue the public work of enacting effective citizenship. ER’s ability to model the liberated citizen reflected the legacy of republican motherhood and positioned her as a harbinger of equality, championing the need for each individual’s full participation in the community.

As ER posited a faith in the underlying philosophy of American democracy, she drew on fundamental premises established by the nation’s political architects. ER encouraged her audience to “obey the laws” and “live up” to the democracy envisioned in the founding documents of the nation (8). ER declared: “We have to make up our minds as to what we really believe. We have to decide whether we believe in the Bill of Rights, in the Constitution of the United States, or whether we are going to modify it because of the fears that we may have at the moment” (12). Relying on these foundational American documents, ER legitimized her opinions and substantiated her political appeal.

Early woman’s rights orators such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony based their arguments for change on the tenets of foundational American texts; ER’s use of such documents echoed these early women’s voices while reminding listeners of the first lady’s relationship to the national seat of government. [90] These earlier women adopted a natural rights stance to bolster their arguments for political inclusion, speaking as disenfranchised members of the public. ER, in her politically institutionalized role, borrowed from the founding documents as a representative of the presidential administration. In so doing, she underscored the nation’s commitment to democratic ideals through her words and her presence while simultaneously exposing the prevailing discrepancies. ER imparted a faith in the robustness of the American political structure to meet the needs of a diverse citizenry through governmental representation and accountability. [91] This belief was reflected in the speech, as ER advocated for “free discussion and really free, uninfluenced expression in the press” (6). She contended that free speech was never threatening when exercised within a political framework constructed by the “fundamental principles that we have laid down” (6). By situating herself as a proponent of basic tenets of American democracy, ER not only aligned civil liberties with such foundational principles, but also legitimized her public role as political actor.

As an advocate for the preservation of civil liberties, ER remained adamant that these rights should extend to all members of the community. According to ER, difference served as a reminder of every individual’s need to personally uphold the “spirit of America” by safeguarding all community members (5). ER’s story of visiting a poverty-stricken immigrant family exemplified her commitment to difference. Her willingness to “travel through the country and meet people and see the things that have happened to little people” rendered ER a credible witness to injustice and one more able to critique the erosion of civil liberties than “anyone else” (2). Thus, the first lady embodied her own model of virtuous citizenship, advocating an equitable application of rights that would allow the nation to fulfill its republican promise.

ER’s performance exhibited the ability of women not only to enter public spaces but also to dissent against powerful national leaders; she implicitly took issue with the strident anti-communism of J. Edgar Hoover and some conservatives in Congress. ER also validated the political power of her listeners, instructing them to assume an active and engaged role to help “guard the mainstays of democracy” (2). Only when individuals lived up to their “obligation to the various strains that make up the people of the United States” would their own civil liberties be safe (10). She thus cautioned her audience against thoughtlessly buying into the anti-communist frenzy of the day. Speaking as a voice of wisdom and perspective, she articulated the principle behind her defense of civil liberties. “The minute we deny any rights of this kind to any citizen,” she warned, “we are preparing the way for the denial of those rights to someone else” (12).

In her speech on civil liberties, ER harkened back to the traditional republican mother who taught her charges how to be good citizens and uphold their democratic duty. In the process, she relied upon her status as first lady to give her argument weight. ER pinned the hope for a more perfect democracy on “the youth of the nation” who could be trusted to “herald” its “real principles” (14). Accordingly, the first lady urged parents to start earlier in educating their children about the freedoms afforded by their nation. The first lady thus utilized her access to the podium as an unelected political figure to promote the protection of civil liberties.

ER’s speech reflected of the tenets of republican motherhood and was based largely, but not entirely, on the democratic structure established by America’s founders; nevertheless, the CCLC address implicated citizens’ responsibilities extending beyond those specified in the Constitution. Specifically, ER lamented the plight of an immigrant family who seemed to have fallen outside of the concern and protection of the community. “It hurt you,” ER asserted. “Something was wrong with the spirit of America that an injustice like that could happen to a man who, after all, had worked hard and contributed to the wealth of the country” (6). ER’s claim that the situation did not align with the spirit of America pointed to a cultural code of American identity that was not detailed in any governmental document. Rather, the sentiment to which ER referred implicated a shared sense of duty and responsibility for the essence of national law. The “spirit of America” is a concept heavy with personal and cultural connotation but one lacking an official or governmentally sanctioned definition.

ER leveraged her call for increased civil liberties protection by invoking the spirit of America while explaining how the nation had failed in living up to this democratic characteristic. In so doing, ER shaped her call for the protection of civil liberties in a manner that echoed the Puritan jeremiad and a reliance on the notion of American exceptionalism. The jeremiad was a political sermon delivered by Puritan clergy in New England. [92] It called for listeners to realize their disobedience in the eyes of God and then recommit themselves to a covenant with Him. [93] When Puritans left England to start a new life of service to God in America, they imported the jeremiad as a genre of sermon, although the new American jeremiad had features that distinguished it from its European precursor. Specifically, the Puritan jeremiad included “an unswerving faith in the errand” or the destiny of the Puritans to tame the American wilderness to establish an earthly city from where they could live as God’s disciples. [94] Firmly rooted in this notion of the errand was the concept of being God’s chosen people, contributing to a feeling of American exceptionalism. Joyce Appleby explains that exceptionalism, in the context of American nationalism, means more than being different than other nations. She argues that exceptionalism “projects onto a nation” characteristics that “represent deliverance from a common lot.” [95] This sense of superiority is one that has remained with America past Puritan times. The national sentiment of exceptionalism also imbues America with a “unique moral value and responsibility” that comes along with its perceived special status. [96]

ER’s speech assumed the tone of the jeremiad and relied on the responsibilities inherent to American exceptionalism to provoke change. ER lamented what she observed in America; she noted with disdain the breaches of basic human rights in a land founded on principles of freedom. In her explication of the crisis of civil liberties’ violations, ER chastised those who did not live up to the precedent set forth by founders, thus suggesting that America had fallen in its effort to maintain the basic tenets of democracy. This tone of reproach and ER’s call to recommit to the freedoms ensured in the nation’s official documents infused her talk with the flavor of the Puritan jeremiad and a secular errand to preserve basic freedoms. ER admonished those who did not preserve civil liberties based upon her belief in America’s responsibility to live up to its exceptional status, both historically sacred and secular in nature.

Despite ER’s having evoked American exceptionalism in her speech, she nevertheless complicated her position by challenging the assumptions of who can and should embrace an American identity. Reminiscent of the voice of traditional Republican motherhood, ER contended that Americans had “an opportunity to teach our children how much we have gained from the coming to this land of all kinds of races, of how much this has served in the development of the land” (11). This praise echoed the narrative of Puritans leaving Europe in order to fulfill their divinely inspired mission to tame the New England wilderness. ER complicated this quintessential story of American exceptionalism, however, when she continued:

Yet somehow I think we have failed in many ways to bring early enough to children how great is their obligation to the various strains that make up the people of the United States. Above all, there should never be race prejudice; there should never be a feeling that one strain is better than another. After all, we are all immigrants—all except the Indians, who, I might say, are the only inhabitants of this country who have a real right to say that they own the country. I think that our being composed of so many foreign peoples is the very reason why we should preserve the basic principles of civil liberty. (11)

As evidenced above, ER reshaped notions of “American” to emphasize difference over homogeneity. Her depiction of all Americans being immigrants except for American Indian tribes challenged the perception that the American land was created by God for early settlers who would develop it for their own use. She altered the resonant story of American exceptionalism, seating the promise of the nation in its ability to extend the tenets of democracy as articulated by the nations founders. She concluded, “It should be easy for us to live up to our Constitution” (11).

From a twenty-first century perspective, ER’s concept of American identity might seem commonplace; however, during much of the twentieth-century, notions of American nationalism did not include diversity explicitly. Vanessa B. Beasley’s examination of presidential rhetoric during the twentieth century reveals that some executives were willing to describe a national identity based on shared ideas even when they suggested that immigrants were not able, cognitively and attitudinally, to be citizens of the United States. [97] FDR, whose rhetoric reflected more tolerance than his predecessors, was generally unwilling to address issues of immigration in a straightforward manner. [98] In enacting her role as first lady and model citizen, ER also articulated a revision of what American spirit could be, altering the assumptions of American exceptionalism that undergirded notions of nationalism and citizenship. Perhaps her ability to blend a dual voice, her dedication to foundational texts, and her willingness to challenge long-held prescriptions of national identity are more possible because of ER’s position as an unelected, somewhat peripheral actor.

ER exploited her own political agency and access to public spaces in ways unavailable to earlier women activists, who typically spoke from the political periphery. Earlier women’s right activists, like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, made powerful moral arguments about discrimination and injustice, but they spoke as commentators on a political scene of which they were not fully a part. At a time when women finally had the vote but still hovered on the margins of the political sphere, ER, an orator of the new woman tradition, spoke with confidence and self-reflection from a position of considerable authority. In the process, she extended the legacy of women’s rights rhetoric, pointing the way toward an era when women would routinely speak from positions of institutional power and promulgating, with a new level of authority, the expansion of rights to all Americans.

ER’s performance, although bolstered by her role as a first lady, was also limited by her association with the president. Allida M. Black notes that between 1940 and 1962, ER’s stance on civil liberties included three elements: 1) disdain for lessened war-time civil liberties, 2) defense of those called into question by the administration, and 3) personal increase in post-war civil liberties campaigning. Despite these commitments, ER noticeably refrained from speaking against the Roosevelt administration’s internment of Japanese-Americans. [99] ER’s hesitancy to speak against the president’s policy indicated the extent to which the role of first lady–as supporter or political partner of the president–also limited her rhetorical options. Still today, it is hard to envision a first spouse publicly criticizing the president.

America’s Ongoing Civil Liberties Debate

After ER’s 1940 address, Chicago would continue to be a center of controversy over the limits of freedom in a time of suspicion. On February 7, 1946, for example, a disturbance took place outside of the Chicago West End Women’s Club when Father Arthur Terminiello delivered a talk about the choice between Christian nationalism and communism. Terminiello blamed the conspiracy against American nationalism on Russia and communism in general but also pointed to Eleanor Roosevelt and the New Deal as domestic sources of un-American sentiment. While Father Terminiello spoke to the audience inside the club, a riotous crowd protested outside, attesting to the explosive nature of this topic. The incendiary was arrested later that evening for provoking a public disturbance. [100]

ER’s message, while offensive to some, can now be remembered as a courageous statement in support of civil liberties during a tumultuous time in the nation’s history. Her ideas also were manifested in FDR’s famous Annual Message to Congress in 1941, where he outlined his four freedoms: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. According to biographer Allan M. Winkler, this rhetoric “provided the ideological framework for American views” about World War II. [101] Although it would be presumptuous to say that FDR’s discourse was framed by his wife’s political views, ER’s defense of civil liberties and civil rights–topics which the president generally did not treat as high priorities—echoed in the president’s “Four Freedoms” speech.

The first lady’s address also resonates in today’s discussions of the conflict between civil liberties and national security in times of war. Just as many Americans in ER’s day feared that the nation’s safety would be compromised by communism, Americans struggle today to uphold individual liberties in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks and the subsequent War on Terror.

Advocates for civil liberties have called into question the decisions of the Bush administration after the 2001 attacks. One prime area of debate involves the 2001 passage of the Patriot Act and its reauthorization by President Bush in March 2006. According to the White House, the Patriot Act permitted increased communication between law enforcement and intelligence officers in order to bring “terrorists to justice.” [102] The Act also has enabled criminal investigators to employ the same “tools” to terrorist investigations that were used for other, non-terrorist security and enforcement measures. According to the Bush administration, the Act’s 2006 renewal was meant to “improve our nation’s security while we safeguard the civil liberties of our people.” [103]

Opponents of the Patriot Act cite its threats to civil liberties as the primary reason to oppose this legislation. According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Act jeopardizes First Amendment rights, devalues our right of privacy, and minimizes due process for non-citizens. [104] One provision of the Act affords the government unrestricted access to library records, allowing government officials to learn about people’s reading habits, while another grants law enforcement agencies the power to subpoena records without judicial approval. [105] Despite the controversial nature of the Act, which grants unprecedented power to the executive branch, the “hastily drafted, complex, and far-reaching legislation” initially passed with minimal deliberation. [106]

Whether one supports or opposes current legislation that restricts civil liberties, two things remain certain. First, upholding personal freedoms becomes a more complex and philosophically challenging task during times of perceived national security threats. In abstract terms, civil liberties and democratic ideals “garner overwhelming support.” [107] Yet in “applied contexts” like war, our allegiance to those values sometimes wavers. [108] Secondly, public deliberation and political involvement enable citizens to identify, articulate, and make public their own opinions about these difficult questions. Barbara Olshansky, Director Counsel of the Global Justice Initiative, argues that “only the people–individually, collectively, and through their elected representatives” can reclaim rights that she thinks are under “assault by the executive branch.” [109] Increased public debate about civil liberties, particularly in light of America’s ongoing international conflicts, will only help citizens better understand their individual rights and equip them to make well-informed decisions as to if and when these freedoms should be compromised in the name of national security.

ER’s public stance on the need to protect civil liberties illustrated her willingness to put the rights of others ahead of her own political popularity, even when that stance prompted others to accuse her of unpatriotic sentiments. [110] ER’s address contributed to ongoing discussions of civil liberties that extend well into our present moment. In light of the United States’ ongoing security concerns both at home and abroad, this tension between national security and personal liberties will no doubt be with us for a very long time. One can appreciate the enduring nature of this debate tied so closely to the very notions of American democracy.

Heather Brook Adams is a graduate student in the Department of Communication at the University of Maryland. She would like to thank Dr. Shawn J. Parry-Giles for her encouragement, support, and guidance through multiple drafts of this essay.

Keywords: Civil Liberties, Eleanor Roosevelt, Republican Motherhood, Rhetorical First Lady

[1] I respectfully use Eleanor Roosevelt’s initials in lieu of “Roosevelt” for clarity and simplicity; other scholars have used the same reference. I will also later refer to President Roosevelt as FDR for these same reasons. Eleanor Roosevelt to the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee, “Address by Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt,” March 14, 1940, Eleanor Roosevelt Papers, Franklin Roosevelt National Library. Here and elsewhere passages from the speech are cited with reference to paragraph numbers in the text of speech. [2] Lizabeth Cohen, “Encountering Mass Culture at the Grassroots: The Experience of Chicago Worker in the 1920s,” in Popular Culture and Political Change in Modern America , eds., Ronald Edsforth and Larry Bennett (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991). [3] This separation reflects a theoretical ideal. Such a finite distinction of course is often blurred, and certainly many would deny the existence of this division between public and private. [4] Aristotle, The Politics and The Constitution of Athens, ed., Stephen Everson (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 17. [5] Aristotle, The Politics , 29. [6] Aristotle also asserts that a man should rule his wife because “the male is by nature fitter for command than the female, just as the elder and full-grown is superior to the younger and more immature,” despite the fact that “the idea of a constitutional state implies that the natures of the citizens are equal, and do not differ at all.” Aristotle, The Politics , 27. [7] Patrice Clark Koelsch, “Public and Private: Some Implications for Feminist Literature and Criticism,” in Gender, Ideology, and Action: Historical Perspectives on Women’s Public Lives , ed., Janet Sharistanian (New York: Greenwood Press, 1986), 12. [8] Koelsch, “Public and Private,” 13; Exclusion from the polis was based solely on sex. Slaves and resident aliens, for example, would have also been considered non-citizens by Aristotle. See Stephen Everson, “Introduction,” in The Politics and The Constitution of Athens , xviii. [9] Eighteenth-century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, for example, equated a woman’s desire to be part of the political community with a denial of her sexuality, similar to earlier conclusions drawn by Plato. See Linda K. Kerber, “The Republican Mother: Women and the Enlightenment–An American Perspective,” in Toward an Intellectual History of Women: Essays by Linda K. Kerber, ed., Linda K. Kerber (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997), 41-62. [10] Linda K. Kerber, Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980), 27. [11] Kerber, Women of the Republic , 28. [12] Kerber, Women of the Republic , 11-12; Kerber attends to the limitation of the political influence truly granted to women by noting that “The image of the Republican Mother could be used to mask women’s true place in the polis: they were still on its edges.” [13] Linda K. Kerber, “Republicanism in the History and Historiography of the United States,” American Quarterly 37 (1985): 488. [14] Kerber, Women of the Republic, 285; Kerber, “The Republican Mother,” 58-59. [15] JoAnn Menezes, “The Birthing of the American Flag and the Invention of an American Founding Mother in the Image of Betsy Ross,” in Narratives of Nostalgia, Gender, and Nationalism, eds., Jean Pickering and Suzanne Kehde (New York: New York University Press, 1997), 85. [16] Barbara Welter, “The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820-1860,” American Quarterly 18 (1966): 152. [17] Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, Man Cannot Speak for Her: A Critical Study of Early Feminist Rhetoric , 2 vols. (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1989). [18] Campbell, Man Cannot Speak for Her . [19] Stephen Howard Browne, Angelina Grimke: Rhetoric, Identity, and the Radical Imagination (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1999), 95. [20] Browne also argues that Beecher’s An Essay on Slavery and Abolition with Reference to the Duty of American Females recognized “the relationship between virtue and action . . . in terms of duty a principle that governed for Beecher the optimal ordering of self and community.” Beecher’s published persuasive writing challenged the tenets of republican motherhood while simultaneously trying to uphold them, illustrating woman’s changing relationship with this ideological framework. Browne, Angelina Grimke , 87. [21] Susan Zaeske, “The ‘Promiscuous Audience’ Controversy and the Emergence of the Early Woman’s Rights Movement,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 81 (1995): 198. Emphasis mine. [22] Zaeske, “The ‘Promiscuous Audience’ Controversy,” 191. [23] Susan Zaeske, Signatures of Citizenship: Petitioning, Antislavery, and Women’s Political Identity (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003), 98. [24] Nan Johnson, Gender and Rhetorical Space in American Life, 1866-1910 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2002), 3. [25] Johnson, Gender and Rhetorical Space in American Life , 15. [26] Johnson, Gender and Rhetorical Space in American Life , 2. [27] Campbell, Man Cannot Speak for Her, 1: 4. [28] Lori D. Ginzberg, “‘Moral Suasion is Moral Balderdash’: Women, Politics, and Social Activism in the 1850s,” Journal of American History 73 (1986): 604. [29] Lee Chambers-Schiller, “‘A Good Work Among the People’: The Political Culture of the Boston Antislavery Fair,” in The Abolitionist Sisterhood: Women’s Political Culture in Antebellum America, eds., Jean Fagan Yellin and John C. Van Horne (Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994); Beth A. Salerno, Sister Societies: Women’s Antislavery Organizations in Antebellum America (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2005). [30] Kathleen D. McCarthy, “Women and Political Culture,” in Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in American History , eds., Lawrence J. Friedman and Mark D. McGarvie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 192. [31] McCarthy, “Women and Political Culture,” 182. [32] James M. Lindgren, “‘A New Departure in Historic, Patriotic Work’: Personalism, Professionalism, and Conflicting Concepts of Material Culture in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries,” The Public Historian 18 (1996): 43-44. [33] See Angelika Köhler, Ambivalent Desires: The New Woman Between Social Modernization and Modern Writing (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 2004); and Mary Martha Thomas, The New Woman in Alabama: Social Reforms and Suffrage, 1890-1920 (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1992). [34] Jean V. Matthews, The Rise of the New Woman: The Women’s Movement in America, 1875-1930 (Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee, 2003), 13. [35] Matthews, The Rise of the New Woman , 15. [36] Thomas, The New Woman in Alabama , 2. [37] Thomas, The New Woman in Alabama , 3. [38] Barbara Burrell, Public Opinion, The First Ladyship, and Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York: Routlege, 2001), 14. [39] Shawn J. Parry-Giles and Diane M. Blair, “The Rise of the Rhetorical First Lady: Politics, Gender Ideology, and Women’s Voice, 1789-2002,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5 (2002): 567. [40] Parry-Giles and Blair, “The Rise of the Rhetorical First Lady,” 570; Parry-Giles and Blair list a variety of examples of early social politicking activities, including Abigail Smith Adams’s meeting with members of Congress, Dolley Payne Todd Madison’s willingness to guard the White House when President Madison took leave from Washington, D.C. before the War of 1812, and Sarah Polk’s perusal of newspaper articles to be read by the president. Burrell similarly notes that care for the president, interest in the social aspect of the political community, and direct sway over the president or public policy are examples of the increasing levels of political involvement presidential wives have assumed in their role as first lady. See Burrell, Public Opinion . [41] Parry-Giles and Blair, “The Rise of the Rhetorical First Lady,” 572-575. [42] Betty Boyd Caroli, First Ladies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 140-141. [43] Janis L. Edwards, “Grace Goodhue Coolidge: Articulating Virtue,” in Inventing a Voice: The Rhetoric of American First Ladies of the Twentieth Century, ed., Molly Meijer Wertheimer (New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.), 146. [44] Edwards, “Grace Goodhue Coolidge,” 154. [45] Parry-Giles and Blair, “The Rise of the Rhetorical First Lady,” 567. [46] Ann J. Atkinson, “Lou Henry Hoover: Mining the Possibilities as Leader and First Lady,” in Inventing a Voice: The Rhetoric of American First Ladies of the Twentieth Century, ed., Molly Meijer Wertheimer (New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.), 168. [47] Nancy Beck Young, Lou Henry Hoover: Activist First Lady (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004), 146. [48] See Parry-Giles and Blair, “The Rise of the Rhetorical First Lady,” 567. According to Jeffrey K. Tulis, the notion of the rhetorical presidency refers to twentieth-century presidents’ willingness to speak directly to the people instead of primarily to the Congress. In so doing, these presidents are thought to have enlivened the spirit of the people through their direct public appeal more than earlier presidents. See Jeffrey K. Tulis, The Rhetorical Presidency (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987). [49] Eleanor Roosevelt, This I Remember (New York: Harper and Row, 1949), 69. [50] Roosevelt, This I Remember , 76. [51] Roosevelt, This I Remember , 88. [52] Roosevelt, This I Remember , 89. [53] Blanche Wiesen Cook, Eleanor Roosevelt , 2 vols. (New York: Penguin, 1999), 1:2, 9. [54] Molly M. Wood, “Diplomatic Wives: The Politics of Domesticity and the ‘Social Game’ in the U.S. Foreign Service, 1905-1941,” Journal of Women’s History 17 (2005), 146. [55] See Tamara K. Hareven, Eleanor Roosevelt: An American Conscience (Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books, 1968), 6-7; and Lois Scharf, First Lady of American Liberalism (Boston, MA: Twayne Publishers, 1987), 24. [56] See Eleanor Roosevelt, This is My Story (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1937), 84; and Scharf, First Lady of American Liberalism, 26. [57] See Myra Gutin, The President’s Partner: The First Lady in the Twentieth Century (New York: Greenwood Press, 1989), 82; and Blanche Wiesen Cook, Eleanor Roosevelt, 2 vols. ( New York: Penguin, 1999), 1:1. [58] Roosevelt, This is My Story , 108. [59] Marylin Gittell and Teresa Shtob, “Changing Women’s Roles in Political Volunteerism and Reform of the City,” Signs 5 (1980): 70. [60] Gittell and Shtob, “Changing Women’s Roles,” 70; Eleanor J. Stebner. The Women of Hull House: A Study in Spirituality, Vocation, and Friendship (Albany: State University of New York Press 1997). [61] Roosevelt, This is My Story , 109. [62] Caroli, First Ladies, 187. [63] Gutin, The President’s Partner, 85. [64] Allida M. Black, Casting Her Own Shadow: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Shaping of Postwar Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), 25. [65] Blanche Wiesen Cook, Eleanor Roosevelt , 2:130. [66] Maurine H. Beasley, Eleanor Roosevelt and the Media: A Public Quest for Self-Fulfillment (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987), 4. [67] Young, Lou Hoover , 140-143. [68] Beasley, Eleanor Roosevelt and the Media , 51-67. [69] Black, Casting Her Own Shadow , 26. [70] Beasley, Eleanor Roosevelt and the Media, 4. [71] One representative example of such abuse is the mob harassment, physical attack, and damage to personal property suffered Jehovah’s Witnesses in Litchfield, Illinois in 1940. See Chicago Civil Liberties Committee, Pursuit of Freedom: A History of Civil Liberty in Illinois 1787-1942, eds., Edgar Bernhard, Ira Latimer, and Harvey O’Connor (Chicago, IL: Chicago Civil Liberties Committee, 1942), 15-17. [72] “Willkie Urges Action to Guard Civil Liberties,” New York Herald Tribune, March 14, 1940; “J. Edgar Hoover Denies Tapping Senators’ Wires,” New York Herald Tribune, March 14, 1940. [73] Chicago Civil Liberties Committee, Pursuit of Freedom , 15-17, vii; Mrs. Charles Helen S. Ascher to Chicago Civil Liberties Committee, March 23, 1934, Swarthmore College Peace Collection (hereafter cited SCPC), American Civil Liberties Union Records (hereafter cited ACLUR), Box 6, Swarthmore College–Swarthmore, Pennsylvania (hereafter cited SC–S). [74] Samuel Walker, In Defense of American Liberties: A History of the ACLU (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1999), 123; Members’ Bulletin from Philadelphia Civil Liberties Committee, May 29, 1940, SCPC, ACLUR, Box 6, SC–S. [75] Walker, In Defense , 123. [76] Jerold S. Auerbach, “The La Follette Committee: Labor and Civil Liberties in the New Deal,” Journal of American History 51 (1964): 435. [77] Walker, In Defense , 96. [78] “Dies Calls Chicago ISMS Power House,” New York Times , October 4, 1939. [79] Auerbach, “The La Follette Committee,” 449-450. [80] “Dies Calls Chicago ISMS Power House.” [81] “Dies Calls Chicago ISMS Power House.” [82] “Dies Calls Chicago ISMS Power House.” [83] Walker, In Defense, 120. [84] Chicago Civil Liberties Committee, Pursuit of Freedom. [85] Eleanor Roosevelt, “Intolerance,” in Courage in a Dangerous World: The Political Writings of Eleanor Roosevelt, ed., Allida M. Black (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), 121. [86] Theodore Irwin, “Control: Freedom and Censorship,” in Public Opinion Quarterly 4 (1940): 524. [87] See Chicago Civil Liberties Committee, Pursuit of Freedom , 15-17. Witnesses considered the flag a worldly emblem that symbolized values conflicting with their religious beliefs. [88] In 1940, the ACLU also experienced a schism resulting in the organization’s denouncement of former leader Elizabeth Gurley Flynn due to her identification as a communist. See Walker, In Defense , 121-125. [89] Theodore Irwin, “Control: Freedom and Censorship,” 523. [90] Campbell, Man Cannot Speak for Her. [91] Eleanor Roosevelt, “The Moral Basis of Democracy,” in Courage In a Dangerous World: The Political Writings of Eleanor Roosevelt, ed., Allida M. Black (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999). [92] Sacvan Bercovitch, The American Jeremiad (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978), 6. [93] Bercovitch, The American Jeremiad , 32. [94] Bercovitch, The American Jeremiad , 6. [95] Joyce Appleby, “Recovering America’s Historic Diversity: Beyond Exceptionalism,” in Marks of Distinction: American Exceptionalism Revisited , ed., Dale Carter (Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press), 25. [96] Thomas B. Byers, “A City Upon a Hill: American Literature and the Ideology of Exceptionalism,” in Marks of Distinction: American Exceptionalism Revisited , ed., Dale Carter (Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press), 46. [97] Specifically, Presidents Harrison, Cleveland, and McKinley created discourse of this strain. Vanessa B. Beasley, You, the People: American National Identity in Presidential Rhetoric (College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 2004), 73-81. [98] Beasley, You, the People , 83. [99] Black, Casting Her Own Shadow , 132-135. [100] Patrick Schmidt, “‘The Dilemma to a Free People’: Justice Robert Jackson, Walter Bagehot, and the Creation of a Conservative Jurisprudence,” Law and History Review 20 (2002): 519-520. [101] Allan M. Winkler, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Making of Modern America (New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2006), 164. [102] “President Signs USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act,” March 9, 2006, www.whitehouse.gove/news/releases (accessed April 2, 2007). [103] “President Signs USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act.” [104] Nancy Chang and the Center for Constitutional Rights, Silencing Political Dissent: How Post-September 11 Anti-Terrorism Measures Threaten Our Civil Liberties (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2002). [105] “Bush Renews Patriot Act Campaign,” New York Times, January 4, 2006. [106] Chang, Silencing Political Dissent, 43. [107] Darren W. Davis, Negative Liberty: Public Opinion and the Terrorist Attacks on America (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2007), 4. [108] Davis, Negative Liberty, 4. [109] Barbara J. Olshansky, “Our Civil Liberties: Who’s Watching the Home Front?,” in Awakening from the Dream: Civil Rights Under Siege and the New Struggle for Equal Justice, eds., Denise C. Morgan, Rachel D. Godsil, and Joy Moses (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2005), 220. [110] For a discussion of ER’s critics, including J. Edgar Hoover, who associated her sentiments with un-American fascism, see Black, Casting Her Own Shadow.

Contact Information

Voices of Democracy: The U.S. Oratory Project Shawn J. Parry-Giles Department of Communication 2130 Skinner Building University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742-7635

301-405-6527 spg@umd.edu

Questions/comments about the VOD website may be directed to Shawn Parry-Giles, University of Maryland

Web Accessibility Privacy Notice

The Power of Courage: Civic Participation in Everyday Life

Subjects themes, what students will uncover.

The value and significance of courage 

Essential Questions

• What does it mean to have courage? 
• How do you see courage reflected in the stories you read? How do the characters in these stories embrace courage? 
• How does your family and community help to develop your heart and mind?

Lesson Overview

In this lesson, students will explore the power of courage. By examining a quote from Parker Palmer’s essay “Five Habits to Heal the Heart of Democracy,” students will engage in learning activities that examine the value and origins of courage in their own lives and communities, throughout literature, and in the lives of leaders and visionaries who have helped to shape democracy. 

By finding ways to embrace courage, students can develop tools for civic participation and actively engage in their own lives and in the communities in which they live. 

Learning Objectives

Students will:

• Understand the meaning of courage.
• Identify leaders and visionaries who model moral and civic leadership.
• Identify habits and behaviors that contribute to a healthy democracy.

Putting the Essay in Context

Intended for the educator, this section provides information about the essay as well as an overview of the American political system and democractic ideals.

The Continental Congress adopted the United States Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. This document has since been an important piece of the nation’s history and continues to be a renowned statement documenting the rights of U.S. citizens. One often-cited quotation is most revered: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” [1] The democratic ideals of freedom and equality expressed through the Declaration of Independence have inspired a number of political and social movements, ranging from the French Revolution in the 18th century to the American Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Despite the impact that these democratic ideals have made on key historical events, many have questioned the practical power of these ideals, often pointing to the abhorrent institution of slavery as a historical example.

Parker Palmer’s essay, “ Five Habits to Heal the Heart of Democracy ,” explores attitudes and practices he believes are essential within both individuals and communities to strengthen American democracy and the ideals upon which it was founded. His ideas, which he articulates in his book, Healing the Heart of Democracy: The Courage to Create a Politics Worthy of the Human Spirit , are applicable to current challenges and issues to creating a healthier democracy. Palmer suggests examining “five habits of the heart.” These habits express that together, we must value our differences, draw inspiration and greater understanding from contradictions, honor the voice and will of the individual, and celebrate the power of community building to restore our democratic society.

The phrase “habits of the heart” was originally coined by a young French political scientist and historian Alexis de Tocqueville. After he visited America in the 1830s, he returned home to write Democracy in America ; he proposed that the habits of mind and heart of people would play a significant role in the protection of freedom. [2] Palmer, in his essay, “Five Habits to Heal the Heart of Democracy,” states that democracy’s future would depend on “habits of the heart” as well as the local venues that support community, including families, neighborhoods, classrooms, and congregations. These would, in turn, shape an “invisible infrastructure of American democracy on which the quality of our political life depends.” [3]  

1. U.S. Declaration of Independence , 1776.  [^]

2. " An Introduction to the Work of Tocqueville. ” Great Thinkers an initiative of The Foundation for Constitutional Government.  [^]

3. “ Five Habits to Heal the Heart of Democracy. ” Parker Palmer for The Global Oneness Project. (Essay)  [^]

Setting the Stage: Lesson Introduction

Explore this exercise with students before introducing the quote from Parker Palmer.

Ask students to consider what it means to be a citizen in their community with the following:

Read aloud the following quote from Congressman John Lewis to students. 

Share with students that Lewis was a civil rights activist and leader who served in the United States House of Representatives. He believed in protecting human rights through nonviolence. ( Note: Introduce students to John Lewis further by using this resource . )

Ask students: What are some reasons for speaking up? How does speaking up help others? If you could name this trait (of speaking up), what word would you use?

Engaging with the Story

Before sharing the quote, introduce students to educator and activist Parker Palmer and explore the meaning of the word  courage.

Tell students they will learn about the work of Parker Palmer, an author, educator, and activist who focuses on issues in education, leadership, and social change. The quote from Palmer mentions Rosa Parks.

Introduce students to Rosa Parks by using this resource from National Geographic Kids . Explain that Parks is considered a hero who stood up for her rights by refusing to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955. Explain that her action was one that helped spark the civil rights movement.

Ask students to define the word courage in their own words by writing down their definitions. (Note: collect all of these definitions and document them in one place, so they can be used later in the lesson.) 

Share with students that one definition of the word courage is to make good choices when facing an obstacle or fear. What are some other words that are similar to the word courage ? (Possible answers include bravery , boldness , and daring .) 

Share with students that characters in many stories (in books, films, etc.) show or embrace courage. Some characters need courage when facing obstacles.

Ask students to think about their favorite stories whose characters embrace courage. What obstacles did the characters have to face? How did courage help them to overcome the obstacle?

Delving Deeper: Discussion Questions

Encourage students to examine the themes raised in the quote from Parker Palmer.

Use the following questions to help students unpack the quote:

• Ask students: What does community mean to you? Who are all the groups of people in your community (family members, neighbors, students, teachers, community members, etc.) who are important to your lives and to the place you live?
• How does your family help you to develop your ideas, attitudes, values, and habits?
• Share with students that Palmer writes about the power of community and working together. Palmer says that there are places where the heart gets “formed.” These “places” include families, neighborhoods, classrooms, and congregations. How do you think these places help to “form” your heart? 
• Ask students: If all of the members of a community work together, what might happen?
• Ask students: What does the word voice mean to you? What might it mean for  one person to have a voice? A community? 

Explore the meaning of courage by using the following questions: 

• Explain to students that cor is the Latin root from which we get the word courage . Cor means “heart.” Other words from the Latin root include: core (a central part of something), cordial (cheerful or with heart), and encouraged (given hope or courage).
• Ask students to revisit their definitions of the word courage by displaying them on the board or virtually (through Padlet, Google Docs or Google Slides, etc.) Would they make any additions to this list?
• In what ways did Rosa Parks have courage? Students can select words and phrases from the list.
• Ask students: Have you experienced courage? What does courage feel like? Do you think courage is important? Why? 
• Ask students: What does it mean to make decisions from your heart?

Reflecting and Projecting

Challenge students to consider the quote’s broader implications and to integrate their knowledge and ideas from various points of view.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg was a Supreme Court Justice who dedicated a lifetime to justice and equality. Ginsberg said, “Fight for the things that you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.” What does this quote mean to you?

Ask students if they can think of a leader who has stood up to fight for what he/she believes in and cares about. The leader could be someone students know personally (parent, teacher, community member) or someone they know about (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for example). Ask students to write down and describe the ways in which this leader has brought people together through their actions. Ask students to share their responses in a whole class discussion. 

What's Happening Now

Provide students with follow-up activities and resources to explore current events and updates to the story.

Congressman John Lewis said, “The vote is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have to make all the change that is necessary. Change requires patient, persistent action."

As Lewis said, voting is one of the fundamental rights that represents the people. However, amid the current challenges we face in our democracy, voting rights are threatened. Explore this resource with students from Learning for Justice: My Voice, My Voter’s Guide .

Take Action

How will you become an advocate for a healthy democracy.

Parker Palmer is an advocate for a healthy and just democracy.

Visit Rock the Vote with students to learn more about how voting takes place in your state (in the United States).

Ask a local government official to talk to students about the voting process and the importance of local government.

Ask students to conduct a mini interview with their family members about voting. Students can use these questions: What do you think about the voting process? What do you care most about? What are some ways you help to advocate for, or support, change? Answers can be collected through written responses or with an audio recording. Students can share their interviews with the whole class. 

SDG 16 : Promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies

Companion Texts

These texts are recommended by teachers who are currently using “Five Habits to Heal the Heart of Democracy” in their classrooms.

• Ruth Bader Ginsburg: The Case of R.B.G. vs. Inequality by Jonah Winter
• I Dissent by Ruth Bader Ginsburg
• Every Voice Counts: Make Yourself Heard by Dr. Seuss 
• What Can a Citizen Do? by Dave Eggars and Shawn Harris
• Maybe Something Beautiful: How Art Transformed a Neighborhood by F. Isabel Campoy
• Say Something by Peter Reynolds 
• Palmer, Parker, Healing the Heart of Democracy: The Courage to Create a Politics Worthy of the Human Spirit (California: Jossey-Bass, 2011).
• U.S. Declaration of Independence , 1776.
• “ The Concepts and Fundamental Principles of Democracy ,” in Elements of Democracy (Center for Civic Education, 2007), 11–13.
• Hollister, Matthew. " Millennials Don’t Vote But They Do Care ." (Infographic) The Atlantic, 2015.
• " Election Central ." PBS Learning Media.
• " Center for Courage & Renewal. " (Organization founded by Parker Palmer) 
•  Pringle, Zorana Ivcevic. “ Why Creativity Takes Courage .” Psychology Today , August 12, 2020.
• “ My Voice, My Voter’s Guide ” Student Task. Learning for Justice.
• “ John Lewis .” Britannica Kids.

Connections to National Curriculum Standards and Frameworks

Sel competencies (casel).

• Self awareness. The ability to accurately recognize one’s own emotions, thoughts, and values and how they influence behavior.
• Social awareness. The ability to take the perspective of and empathize with others, including those from diverse backgrounds and cultures, to understand social and ethical norms for behavior.
• Relationship skills. The ability to establish and maintain healthy and rewarding relationships with diverse individuals and groups.

College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework

• D2.Civ.6.3-5. Describe ways in which people benefit from and are challenged by working together, including through government, workplaces, voluntary organizations, and families
• D2.His.3.3-5. Generate questions about individuals and groups who have shaped significant historical changes and continuities.

NCSS National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies 

• Theme 4:   Individual Development and Identity. Questions related to identity and development, which are important in psychology, sociology, and anthropology, are central to the understanding of who we are.
• Theme 10: Civic Ideals and Practices . What is civic participation? How do citizens become involved? What is the role of the citizen in the community and the nation, and as a member of the world community?

Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

• CCSS.ELA-W.3.4. With guidance and support from adults, produce writing in which the development and organization are appropriate to task and purpose. 
• CCSS.ELA-SL.3.1-5.1. Engage effectively in a range of collaborative discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led) with diverse partners on [grades 3–5] topics and texts, building on others' ideas and expressing their own clearly.

Choose a Different Grade Level

More to explore.

A conversation with Parker J. Palmer and Rabbi Dr. Ariel Burger.

The Forum | Western Civilization

Civic and moral virtues, the american way: the 1776 series.

It is sometimes said that the Founding Fathers created a “procedural republic” that was indifferent to what Americans did with their freedom. But this is to confuse a forthright defense of liberty with moral relativism that cannot distinguish right from wrong, virtue from vice. In a thoughtful and penetrating essay, Will Morrisey demonstrates that “the American way” was intended from the beginning to link rights and responsibilities, political freedom with civic virtue. The old “cardinal virtues” lauded by Aristotle and Cicero—prudence, courage, justice, and moderation—still spoke to the American people in a way that respected human freedom and individual conscience. Americans were both “humble” before God, and proud or “magnanimous” in asserting their independence and freedoms. As Morrisey shows, Americans aim to be neither haughty nor servile but rather participants in “a great and good shared action, the establishment of just self-government in their country.” As demonstrated by George Washington and other illustrious founders, Americans never severed liberty from their “sacred honor” or their allegiance to “Nature and Nature’s God.”

This essay is part of  RealClearPublicAffairs’s 1776 Series , which explains the major themes that define the American mind.

In declaring their independence from Great Britain, Americans famously asserted their unalienable rights. Much less conspicuously, but no less tellingly, they listed  ten moral responsibilities  consonant with those rights.

In  announcing  their political separation, they begin by acknowledging a duty to observe “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind” by stating the causes for their decision.  1).  “Decent” means fitting, appropriate; the opinions of mankind are fittingly respected because human beings possess the capacity for sociality, for understanding one another, for giving reasons for their conduct. Any important public action entails the responsibility to explain oneself, to justify that action before the bar of reasoning men and women.

To justify oneself, in turn, requires Americans to state their standard of justice. That standard is unalienable natural rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

To justify oneself, in turn, requires Americans to state their standard of justice. That standard is unalienable natural rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  2). Justice numbers among the four cardinal classical virtues, defined and elaborated by Plato, Cicero, and other philosophers well known to the Declaration’s signers. Just conduct consists of actions defending natural rights in a civil society; to assert those rights, to separate oneself from those who would violate them, logically entails respecting those rights in all other persons, inasmuch as “all men are created equal,” all equally entitled to enjoy their natural rights undisturbed by tyrants.

Governments that secure such rights are established by the consent of the governed. This means that consent cannot mean mere assent or willingness. It can only mean reasoned assent.  3).  Reasoned assent to natural right implies a modest degree of another classical virtue, wisdom. In this case, it is what Aristotle calls “theoretical” wisdom, understanding general or abstract principles. Americans recognize their duty to understand what human nature is—not only the nature of Americans, or the English, or the French, but of human beings as such.

4).  Aristotle identifies a second kind of wisdom: practical or prudential wisdom, the ability to figure out commonsense ways to secure the rights of human nature established in theory. “Prudence,” the Declaration states, “will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.” Long-established governments have lasted a long time for some good reasons; they have stood the test of experience, of practice. Much of the Declaration of Independence is given over to showing why the causes for which the signers owe mankind an enumeration are not light and transient. They are profound and long-lasting, and to fail to foresee their likely results would be to fail to exercise the virtue of prudence.  

5).  Closely related to prudence is a third classical virtue, moderation. Like all of mankind, Americans have exhibited patience in enduring “sufferable” evils as subjects of the British empire. Only “a long train of abuses” revealing an intention by the regime of that empire to “reduce them under an absolute Despotism” gives them not only the right but also the duty to “throw off” that regime and concomitantly to frame a new order that will secure their natural rights. Both prudence and moderation justify a right to revolution and, simultaneously, the duty to found a regime that will work better in practice.

6).  The fourth classical virtue is courage. Without it, wisdom, justice, and moderation by themselves will leave you high and dry. As a baseball manager once said of a rival, “Nice guys finish last.” Accordingly, Americans announce their intention to defend their rights with “manly firmness.” It should be noted that manliness in their minds had no “gender.” Abigail Adams was no less “manly” in her firmness than her husband, John. He knew that and said it. Looking back on the American Revolution, he wrote that those were times that tried women’s souls as well as those of men, and that American women had exhibited no less courage than their husbands and sons. Several decades later, gallant Tocqueville went so far as to say that America owed much of its success in self-government to “the superiority of her women” to those seen in European ballrooms and salons, where the sterner virtues had gone out of fashion.

The virtue of civility treats naturally equal human beings as equal citizens in a regime designed to give every citizen representation in government—government by consent.

7).  The signers also held up the virtue of civility against barbarism, by which they didn’t mean primitiveness. They meant Machiavellianism, the intention to rule by force and fraud or, in their own words, cruelty and perfidy. By this standard, the English monarch’s policies regarding the American colonists were barbaric, however “civilized” his pomp and circumstance may have made him seem. Aristotle understands human nature to be not only rational but also political or civil. By “political,” he means the capacity to rule and be ruled in turn, as good husbands and wives do in a justly ordered household, and as citizens do among themselves. Political or civil rule contrasts with parental rule—rule over children for “their own good.” The civic equivalent of this would be a kingship, one-man or one-woman rule for the good of the subjects, often described as the “children” of the monarch. Political or civil rule also contrasts with the rule of masters over slaves, which is established, Aristotle observes, for the good of the master, not the slave. The virtue of civility treats naturally equal human beings as equal citizens in a regime designed to give every citizen representation in government—government by consent. Civility animates the regime of republicanism, which will replace British tyranny.

8).  Americans also esteem a virtue less classical than Biblical—namely, humility. They have petitioned the British monarch in “humble terms.” The Bible teaches that humility is a virtue because, while God created all men equal in their humanity, they are equal before God, and under God. In Hebrew, the word for humility,  anav , appears frequently in association with the greatest of all Israelite founders, Moses, the great lawgiver. Moses’s humility enables him to bring forth the Ten Commandments not as his own laws, products of his own wisdom, but as God’s laws. In describing their right to independence as established by the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, the signers of the Declaration show a similar humility. They do not strut proudly before mankind as “exceptional” Americans. They announce their intention to claim their rights on the foundation of laws seen in the nature created by God. They are not divine creators but human receivers of God’s gifts.

While petitioning the monarch in humble terms, they also appeal to the “magnanimity” of their “British brethren,” the people of Great Britain.  9). Magnanimity—literally, greatness of soul—crowns and epitomizes the classical virtues. Aristotle describes the magnanimous man as one whose soul is big enough to endure the rigors of political life without resentment, without the petty retaliation exercised by men of  micropsychia , smallness of soul. The Americans understand that their action will take the British people by surprise. Britain’s mighty empire, a source of understandable national pride, will be diminished. Having given up on showing humility before the king—humility isn’t groveling—Americans ask from his people nothing less than greatness of soul. They can demand no less from themselves, as well, and accordingly hold the British people “enemies in War” but “in Peace friends.” They see that a war of independence will provoke angry passions in their own hearts against that people, even as they now feel such passions against King George and the British parliament. They vow to greet former battlefield enemies with magnanimity, once peace has been restored.

. . . [Americans] understand humility as a virtue attendant to due deference—in civil society, to a monarch insofar as he adheres to the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God; in civil society and in nature, to God and His laws, to be obeyed by peoples and monarchs, commoners and aristocrats alike.

It has never been the case that Biblical humility and classical magnanimity comport easily with one another. The signers of the Declaration of Independence pair them. They can do so because they understand humility as a virtue attendant to due deference—in civil society, to a monarch insofar as he adheres to the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God; in civil society and in nature, to God and His laws, to be obeyed by peoples and monarchs, commoners and aristocrats alike.

10).  Finally, to one another the Americans pledge “our sacred Honor.” If Americans owe a decent respect to the opinions of mankind, they owe honor to one another, particularly loyalty in a great and good shared action, the establishment of just self-government in their country. They will not betray one another. They will respect the opinions of others, but in this task each will deserve the good opinion of his countrymen.

“ First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen .” George Washington served as the exemplary American to Americans. First in war, he showed courage on the battlefield, and civic courage, after the war, when he faced down a nascent military coup. First in peace, he showed a decent respect for mankind in his  Farewell Address , avoiding military alliances in Europe (then a cauldron of war) and leading his countrymen to a constitution designed to secure justice for all American citizens. He proved to them that he possessed the wisdom to establish government by consent. And he won first place in the hearts of his countrymen with his unflagging civility, his humility in reprehending any suggestion that he be made a monarch (King George never thought he could resist the temptation), and perhaps above all in his greatness of soul and sense of honor—“aristocratic” virtues he humbly placed in the service of the republicanism that Americans had fought for, and won.

In all this, Washington became a living embodiment of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, their foremost practitioner, and the example for Americans of the virtues Americans esteemed. Throughout the soul-trials of revolutionary regime change and peaceful regime-building, Washington and his fellow Americans never considered these virtues uniquely American, but rather as the shared patrimony of all human beings, under the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.

Will Morrisey is Professor Emeritus of Politics at Hillsdale College and editor of   Will Morrisey Reviews , an online book review publication. He is author of   Self-Government, The American Theme: Presidents of the Founding and Civil War (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2003).

This essay originally appeared in  RealClearPublicAffairs: American Civics .

RELATED PRESS MENTIONS

Launched in 1995, we are the only organization that works with alumni, donors, trustees, and education leaders across the United States to support liberal arts education, uphold high academic standards, safeguard the free exchange of ideas on campus, and ensure that the next generation receives an intellectually rich, high-quality college education at an affordable price.

STAY INFORMED

Sign up to receive updates on the most pressing issues facing our college campuses.

Stim Bullitt Civic Courage Scholarship

The Stim Bullitt Civic Courage Scholarship is an opportunity for local students to write essays about an individual or group of individuals from Washington State who have demonstrated civic courage on an issue of importance to the community at great personal, political, or professional risk.

Meet the 2024 winners and read their essays here .

Watch the video below to hear from past winners about the inspiration they drew from the library and what civic courage means to them!

The 2025 contest will open on January 1.

Applicant Requirements To qualify to submit an essay, you must:

• Reside, attend school, or work in Seattle.
• Be 13 years of age or older.
• Have a Seattle Public Library card.
• Be a current high school senior or undergraduate enrolled or planning to enroll at a post-secondary school that accepts  Federal Student Aid  (FSA).

In your essay be sure to:

• Provide a persuasive case as to how the individual or group you have selected has embodied or demonstrated civic courage.
• Define  civic courage  in order to make your argument.

Essay Requirements To qualify for the competition, the essay must:

• Draw upon at least three credible sources.
• Utilize in-text citations, preferably using the MLA format (find formatting guidance online, for example at  Purdue Owl ).
• Provide a works cited page, preferably using the MLA format.
• Be between 1,500 and 2,000 words (excluding the citations or works cited).
• Be double-spaced and use Times New Roman 12-point font.

You are highly encouraged to refer to the  Essay Judging Rubric  as you write and review your essay. Please see the  Official Rules  for complete details on eligibility and essay requirements.

First Place: $5,000 scholarship Runners-up: Two $2,500 scholarships

In addition to the scholarship prize, the winning essays will be added to the collection in the Hugh and Jane Ferguson Seattle Room at The Seattle Public Library.

Thank you to our 2024 panel of author judges:  Stacy D. Flood ,  Jon Krakauer , and  Kristen Millares Young !

The Legacy Behind the Scholarship Learn more about Stimson Bullitt, a great civic leader.  Click here .

Inspiration, Examples, and Research Assistance We encourage you to find your own civic hero! Read the past winning essays for inspiration.

• Research assistance is available from librarians at all  Seattle Public Library locations . The Foundation also supports free one-on-one tutoring at the Library through  Homework Help  or virtually through  Tutor.com . Helpful online resources are available for research, including:  Special Collections at The Seattle Public Library ,  SPL African American Collection ,  HistoryLink.org ,  BlackPast , and  University of Washington Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project .

For the Sake of Argument

Civil discourse isn’t just about polite conversation. It’s a vital ingredient to better public policy and public leadership. And vital to the Kennedy School’s focus on public engagement.

“Be civil.”

“Show some civility.”

These appeals are familiar to many of us. From Twitter to the The New York Times , the word “civility” has made a conspicuous appearance in recent years, becoming something of a lightning rod. A New York Times Magazine piece, “When is ‘civility’ a duty, and when is it a trap?” ran in the fall, a month after an opinion piece in the Washington Pos t titled, “The left and the right cry out for civility, but maybe that’s asking for too much.” Outside the United States as well, from Brazil to Britain, public discourse has become more rancorous.

But what is “civil discourse” anyway?

With a number of different meanings, "civility" can be a tricky word to pin down. And calls for civility in politics have been met by fears that these appeals give harmful views a free pass. April Holm, an associate professor of history at the University of Mississippi, wrote in the Washington Post recently, “Calls for moderation and civility, combined with denouncing both sides as too extreme, are common in moments of moral and political crisis. But they are not apolitical. They take the focus away from injustice and put it instead on the behavior of those protesting it. This allows critics to adopt a moral high ground as the civil, reasonable ones without ever publicly taking sides in the debate.”

However, detached civility-as-politeness is not the same thing as the civility that drives principled debate and civil discourse. “It’s important to distinguish between two senses of civility," Archon Fung , the Winthrop Laflin McCormack Professor of Citizenship and Self-Government , has written. "The first is a superficial kind of civility—being nice, refraining from insults or ad-hominem kinds of argument. The second is a deeper, more important (and older, for what that’s worth) sense of civility that is about behaving in ways that are necessary for cooperative projects such as schools and democratic societies to work well. This deeper sense of civility comes from the Latin civilitas —relating to citizens. Civility in this sense is behavior that is important for good citizenship.”

And good citizenship is perhaps especially important at this time of widening ideological divides and growing political polarization.

A November 2018 Pew Research Center report showed that “over the past two years, Americans have become more likely to say it is ‘stressful and frustrating’ to have political conversations with those they disagree with,” and an October 2018 PBS NewsHour /NPR/Marist poll revealed that 74 percent of respondents thought civility in Washington, D.C., has declined since the 2016 election. This problem is not unique to the United States. In a number of countries around the globe, populist parties and movements have gained ground and are increasingly at odds with establishment parties and traditional institutions, leading to more-heated rhetoric.

This heat has come to university campuses as well—including Harvard’s. Some public figures invited to speak at the Kennedy School over the past few years have drawn controversy and criticism. For example, when the U.S. secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, spoke about education policy at a 2017 John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum , she was met by crowds of protesters. Nevertheless, DeVos was given her time to speak and to respond to questions—she was not shut down. Fung, then the academic dean of HKS, moderated the Forum and acknowledged the tense atmosphere, saying, “Conversations like we’ve just had are very, very difficult.”

Why Should the Kennedy School Care About Civil Discourse?

Dean Doug Elmendorf made an explicit case for teaching and modeling civil discourse at the Kennedy School in a letter to the campus community at the start of the 2018–2019 academic year:

To make the Kennedy School the best possible learning environment and the most welcoming personal environment, we need to let members of our community speak up about their views and be heard, even—in fact, especially—if they disagree with one another. Rather than dismiss or ignore those with whom we disagree, we should listen to them, try to understand their perspectives, vigorously advocate our own views—and then look for ways to work across differences that do not require us to abandon our principles but do allow us to move forward. Both our lives at the School and our ability to address public challenges outside the School are improved by an ability to have respectful and thoughtful interactions with people with different perspectives. Accordingly, we will continue to invite as guests of the Kennedy School people with a wide range of views, we will arrange some opportunities to discuss approaches to civil discourse, and we will continue to expect civil discourse and civility between members of our community.

Can Civil Discourse Be Taught?

Civil discourse is a core element of the Kennedy School’s teaching in the areas of ethics, negotiation, and leadership as well, both in the School’s degree-program courses and in its executive education programs. One effective way to model this discourse is through case studies and simulations—forms of experiential learning that give students an opportunity to engage in real-life problems by studying or acting out scenarios.

Jane Mansbridge , Adams Professor of Political Leadership and Democratic Values , has worked with other faculty members at the Kennedy School—including Brian Mandell , Mohamed Kamal Senior Lecturer in Negotiation and Public Policy ; Kessely Hong , lecturer in public policy ; and Julia Minson , assistant professor of public policy —to create cases and simulations for teaching negotiation tactics at the state legislative and national congressional levels as part of the Legislative Negotiation Project. The goal is to help legislators work together more effectively in this era of increased polarization and political impasses.

And last year, Mandell and Chris Robichaud , senior lecturer in ethics and public policy , piloted a new simulation on civility with support from the Kennedy School’s Center for Public Leadership. Robichaud and Mandell wanted to explore what civil disagreement looks like in practice, why civil discourse is important for leadership and democracy, and how it can be taught.

One hundred and twenty Kennedy School students took part in the pilot simulation, which was conducted in groups of six. Participants were given roles to play and differing information according to whether their assigned characters were liberal or conservative. They then reviewed a fictionalized incident in which an unarmed black man was shot by the police. Each participant in a group was given the news through a different fictional media outlet with a particular political slant and wrote a social media post in response to the article. Then, the six-person group was brought together to discuss the responses. Adam Murray MC/MPA 2018, who participated in the pilot, says, “The simulation itself was a useful exercise, and I remember thinking at the time that it felt ripped right from the headlines. I found it a bit challenging to really take on some of the incivility in the role play, but it was still valuable in seeing how people with different backgrounds and perspectives can all view the same situation quite differently. We were all playing characters living in their own information bubbles, and we didn’t even know it.”  Murray, who is a Foreign Service officer, adds, “being able to understand where others are coming from—even if we totally disagree—is a vital skill in my profession.”

Robichaud and Mandell had an opportunity to talk about the experience of running this new simulation at one of the Dean’s Discussions, a set of themed campus conversations introduced by Dean Elmendorf that feature Kennedy School faculty members examining important topics outside the classroom. Last fall the three discussions were about civil discourse and its place at HKS. One of them, “Tensions in Cyberspace,” modeled civil discourse in practice, with three faculty members weighing the conflicting values of security, rights, and privacy that are often in play in conversations about cyberspace and new technology. The final session delved into moral and practical questions that public leaders and policymakers face when they disagree with the decisions or values of their governments. All three conversations were moderated by the former editor in chief of TIME Nancy Gibbs , faculty director of the Shorenstein Center and visiting Edward R. Murrow Professor of Practice of Press, Politics, and Public Policy.  For Gibbs, such conversations are important. “As a journalist, I believe in discourse,” she says. “More debate is better. Put your argument on the table, and may the best argument win.”

A Platform for Dialogue and Debate

Given the range of views fellows represent, these conversations often serve as models of civil discourse. Past IOP Fellows Forums have had titles such as “ IOP Fellows Unpack Politics: Congress, the Candidates, and Catalyzing Civil Discourse .” Other Forum events have focused on dialogue and discourse. Cornel West, professor of the practice of public philosophy at Harvard, and Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, took part in a conversation this spring titled “ Free Speech, Open Minds, and the Pursuit of Truth ”; they explained that they disagree on many issues but admire and enjoy learning from each other. They were followed a few days later by U.S. Senator Jeff Flake —who has frequently called for bipartisanship and civility in politics—speaking in the Forum. Because Forum participants, like all external speakers at the Kennedy School, must take unfiltered questions from the audience, these events offer even greater opportunity for public dialogue.

Another flagship program of the IOP is the Bipartisan Program for Newly Elected Members of Congress, which the IOP has run for more than 45 years. In this time, nearly 700 members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have come through the program. This past December, the agenda included a conversation on civility and democracy with David Gergen , public service professor of public leadership , who recently stepped down after almost two decades of directing the Center for Public Leadership; Arthur Brooks , who is president of the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute and will join the Kennedy School as a professor of the practice of public leadership this summer; and Danielle Allen , James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard and director of Harvard’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics.

Alumni Leading the Conversation

Another Kennedy School graduate, Julia Dhar MPP 2014, went viral last year with a speech on this subject. Her October TED talk, “ How to Disagree Productively and Find Common Ground ,” has been viewed more than 2 million times. Dhar argued, “We are so scared of getting into an argument that we are willing not to engage at all. … Contempt has replaced conversation.” With her background as a formal debate champion, Dhar argues that the skills of engagement that are learned through debate can help conversationalists separate people from their ideas in order to have real, objective dialogues.

Dhar (who went by Fetherston while at the Kennedy School) credits her HKS training as one influence in creating her viral video. “At HKS, there is a tradition of rigorous inquiry, robust debate, and self-criticism and self-examination,” she has said. “I was inspired to create a toolkit that mirrored the HKS tradition in real-life practices.” Dhar cites three principles that have helped her find common ground with others: “First, identify the things you and your discussion partner can agree on, no matter how small. Use that source of agreement as the jumping-off point. Second, separate ideas and identity. One of my lessons from HKS was that great ideas come from everywhere, and when we jump to label them as liberal or conservative, foreign or domestic, we deprive ourselves of examining the ideas themselves. Third, open yourself up to being wrong.” Dhar believes that we can all benefit from what she calls the “humility of uncertainty” and that “we should start asking ourselves and each other, ‘What have you changed your mind about, and why?’”

Generous Listening and Brave Speaking

Civil discourse alone will not bring an end to political polarization, but—if undertaken with a genuine desire for dialogue and engagement—it is one tool that policymakers and public leaders can use to improve their communities. True civil discourse involves both speaking our views clearly and listening closely to the views of others. “Listening,” Nancy Gibbs wrote in a recent piece on Medium , “is hard when the sounds around us grow mean and ugly.” Calling out “listen” as her word of the year for 2018, Gibbs cited Elmendorf, who has emphasized the importance of listening while not abandoning one’s own principles. Drawing on language from a Harvard-wide report on diversity and inclusion, Elmendorf has said, “Generous listening can take as much courage as brave speaking, because listening to people with whom you strongly disagree or with whom you think you have nothing in common is hard. But understanding others’ perspectives and acting on that understanding is crucial for making a better world.” He cautions, too, that listening does not necessarily mean agreeing. In his Commencement address last year , Elmendorf said, “To be clear, listening and understanding do not always mean agreeing and compromising. When we look back on past public policies and leaders, we should not look equally fondly on the different sides of every issue or wish we had always just split the difference between one side and another. On the contrary, we need to make moral judgments.” But it is through the process of civil discourse—through listening, speaking our views, and making judgments—that we can aspire to become even better citizens and more principled and effective public leaders. And that is the heart of the Kennedy School’s mission. —

MORE FROM HKS MAGAZINE

Like a river in the desert: kad kaneye and meredith segal, both mc/mpa 2017, have built a new type of university in niger, the decision scientist: kennedy school professor jennifer lerner is teaching the military how to harness the science of judgment and decision making, help yourself: development economists look to better governance to improve the lives of the world’s poorest people.

Get smart & reliable public policy insights right in your inbox. 

Module 1: Introduction to Public Speaking

Speaking as civic engagement, learning objectives.

Outline public speaking as a form of advocacy or civic engagement.

The very foundation of public speaking is rooted in advocacy and civic engagement.  Aristotle framed public speaking, or rhetoric as it was called at the time, as the art of persuasion and said the early study of it would lead a rhetorician to discover all means of persuasion within a given case. So important was rhetoric that it became a discipline of study necessary to take part in the civil society of Athenian Greece.

Today’s form of civic engagement involves seeking out and creating opportunities to listen as well as to be heard, whether speaking at your local city counsel meeting, PTA, or even in front of Congress.

When we learn to speak up and speak out, we increase our  civic agency , which can be defined as the capacity of members of a society “to work collaboratively across differences like partisan ideology, faith traditions, income, geography and ethnicity to address common challenges, solve problems and create common ground.” [1] According to political theorist Danielle Allen, civic agency entails three core tasks:

First is disinterested deliberation around a public problem. Here the model derives from Athenian citizens gathered in the assembly, the town halls of colonial New Hampshire, and public representatives behaving reasonably in the halls of a legislature. Second is prophetic work intended to shift a society’s values; in the public opinion and communications literature, this is now called “frame shifting.”   Think of the rhetorical power of nineteenth-century abolitionist Harriet Beecher Stowe, of Martin Luther King, Jr., or of Occupy Wall Street activists with their rallying cry of “we are the 99 percent.” Finally, there is transparently interested “ fair fighting ,” where a given public actor adopts a cause and pursues it passionately. One might think of early women’s rights activists such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Matilda Joslyn Gage. [2]

Allen organizes the three elements of civic agency along a continuum of interest—the degree to which one is personally invested in or affected by a given issue. When I attend a meeting about improving traffic flow in my city, I may be doing so from a fairly disinterested standpoint. Regardless of my feelings about traffic, I don’t have any greater or lesser personal stake in it than anyone else. However, if the issue under discussion is whether to knock down my apartment building to put in a new freeway, I might have a more  interested view of the subject, and I might advocate  a different solution, such as improved public transportation. This public advocacy is what Allen calls the civic task of “fair fighting”: speaking up for a cause.

When we ask an audience to consider our ideas, take action, find solutions, or support a policy, we are advocating . Most importantly, advocacy demands that you identify what you hope to accomplish. Wanting change is where advocacy begins, but it requires that we identify the specific changes that we are advocating for. Otherwise, we cannot prescribe behavioral calls to action.

Civic engagement demands that we move beyond our social circles to consider what an oppositional or undecided audience believes, feels, and values. A skilled public speaker then shapes arguments and uses examples and support that will resonate with that audience to deliver a powerful, well-executed, and meaningful speech.

In May of 1969, Fred Rogers spoke before the US Subcommittee on Communication to advocate against cutting the PBS budget in half. Committee Chair Sen. John O. Pastore, who was initially adversarial and dismissive toward Rogers, responded to his speech by saying, “I think it’s wonderful. Looks like you just earned the $20 million.”

You can view the transcript for “May 1, 1969: Fred Rogers testifies before the Senate Subcommittee on Communications” here (opens in new window) .

What to watch for:

True to form, Mr. Rogers makes an emotional, sincere appeal for the importance of the kind of programming he wants to bring to children. Rogers uses simple language, but his argument is sophisticated and his description of the show is detailed and precise.

I’m very much concerned, as I know you are, about what’s being delivered to our children in this country. And I’ve worked in the field of child development for six years now, trying to understand the inner needs of children. We deal with such things as — as the inner drama of childhood. We don’t have to bop somebody over the head to…make drama on the screen. We deal with such things as getting a haircut, or the feelings about brothers and sisters, and the kind of anger that arises in simple family situations. And we speak to it constructively. [3]

Note how Rogers uses the same techniques—and even the same gentle language—that he models in his show to win over a hostile Committee Chair. Think how different his argument would be if he defended the value of the show with bombastic rhetoric such as “How DARE you take away the children’s hopes and dreams?!” The consistency between his language, argument, and tone signals Rogers’s genuineness and authenticity.

• Civic Agency . American Association of State Colleges and Universities, http://www.aascu.org/programs/adp/civicagency/ . ↵
• Allen, Danielle. “What Is Education For?” Boston Review , 24 Oct. 2016, bostonreview.net/forum/danielle-allen-what-education. ↵
• https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fredrogerssenatetestimonypbs.htm ↵
• LGBTQ Communities Dialogue and Capital Pride Board Meeting Washington DC USA. Authored by : Ted Eytan. Located at : https://www.flickr.com/photos/22526649@N03/34515690106/ . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• May 1, 1969: Fred Rogers testifies before the Senate Subcommittee on Communications. Authored by : danieldeibler. Located at : https://youtu.be/fKy7ljRr0AA . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
• Speaking as Civic Engagement. Authored by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

En gratistjänst från Mattecentrum

Argumentative Speech - Civic Courage: A Driving Force for Significant Change or Overrated Virtue?

Jag skrev min text inför första uppgiften som fanns på uppdrag 5 och som jag frågade efter innan..

Skulle någon se ifall jag behöver lägga till något?

Greta Thunberg

Greta Thunberg born in Stockholm in 2003. She  is one of the most well-known climate campaigners worldwide. Greta started her "School strike for the climate"—also known as the "Strike outside the Riksdag house in Stockholm—on August 20, 2018. She continued her strike every day until the September 2018 parliamentary elections, at which point it was extended to every Friday. The strike aims to align Swedish policy with the Paris Agreement, a worldwide climate accord that aims to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and provide assistance to individuals impacted by climate change. The dedication of her and other young people has brought attention to the climate issue on a global scale.

Before Greta's demonstration, there were quite a lot of gas emissions. There was a lot of dirty air. Thanks to her, after her demonstration, there were big changes. Many children, youths, women and men began to think about it. They started thinking, for example, that instead of taking the car to the store, I can either cycle or walk. This led to less emissions and fresher air. Greta is an important person, she started demonstrating from a young age. Which is great because older people would never have dared to fight and fight against the climate. Without her, we now have a really bad climate.

Ja, det är definitivt en fin text. Något som du kanske skulle kunna tänka på är att du borde kunna stödja dina argument med källor. Den första paragrafen är bra, eftersom den visar konkret vad Greta har gjort för klimatet, men sen i den andra paragrafen skriver du till exempel att "thanks to her, after her demonstration, there were big changes", utan att riktigt visa vilka ändringar som gjordes. Du kan ju skriva till exempel att hon inspirerade många andra ungdommar till att börja protestera för klimatet, eller att hon vann Time Person of the Year.

Problemet med att skriva till exempel att "this led to less emissions and fresher air", är att du i så fall måste kunna visa en direkt länk mellan Gretas handlingar och förminskade koldioxid utsläpp, vilket är väldigt svårt att göra. Annars skulle din motståndare bara kunna säga att Greta minsann inte alls ledde till mindre utsläpp, och i så fall skulle du inte riktigt ha klara motargument till det. Personligen skulle jag nog fokusera mer på sånt som hur känd Greta blev, och hur mycket hon inspirerade andra, vilket du ju helt klart kan stödja.

Funkar det bra nu?

Before Greta's demonstration, there were quite a lot of gas emissions. The Air was very dirty. She inspired many other young people to start protesting for the climate. Many children, youth, women and men began to think, well why not? Why can't we make a change to our beautiful world? They also began to think, for example, that instead of taking the car to the store, I can instead either cycle or walk. This can lead to lower emissions. Greta is an important person, she started demonstrating from a young age. Which is great because older people would never have dared to fight against the climate. There are still emissions, yes, but she made people wake up and ask themselves "what are we doing, we have to do something". But yes, from person to person there are different thoughts about the climate.

Det fattas ett verb i den allra första meningen.

Smaragdalena skrev: Det fattas ett verb i den allra första meningen.

Was eller is eller nånting.

Smaragdalena skrev: Was eller is eller nånting.

Greta Thunberg was born in Stockholm in 2003.

Du behöver Logga in eller Bli medlem först!

• Fler språk Alla trådar
• Samhällsorientering Alla trådar
• Ekonomi Alla trådar
• Fler ämnen Alla trådar
• Övriga diskussioner Alla trådar

The Power of Courage

Introduction

Good evening! It’s a pleasure to be here today. I’m here to talk about courage – an essential quality for any meaningful life. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “Courage is the ladder on which all the other virtues mount.”

What is Courage?

Courage is an incredibly important, yet often overlooked, quality. It’s the willingness to face danger, difficulty, or pain without being overcome by fear. Courage is doing something even though you’re afraid, even though you don’t know what the outcome will be. It’s having faith in yourself and others, and it’s the capacity to stay strong and true to your values.

Examples of Courage

We all have a unique capacity for courage. We can see it in everyday acts, like standing up for what you believe in, comforting someone who is hurting, or simply speaking up for yourself. We can also see it in bigger acts, like rescuing someone from a burning building, marching for social justice, or volunteering in a crisis.

Benefits of Courage

Courage brings a number of benefits. It can help us make better decisions, lead more meaningful lives, and reach our goals. It can also give us a sense of purpose and help us to grow and develop as individuals. It can even help us to build resilience and cope with difficult times.

In conclusion, courage is an essential quality that should be cultivated and developed. It can help us to live more meaningful and fulfilling lives. With courage, we can overcome our fears and doubts and make powerful decisions. So, let’s all have the courage to face our fears, make meaningful connections, and pursue our dreams. Thank you.

Feedback for the Speaker

Appreciation

I would like to start off by thanking the speaker for delivering a thoughtful and inspiring speech on the importance of courage. The speaker did a great job of illustrating the concept of courage and providing meaningful examples of how it can be used in our daily lives. The speaker also provided an overview of the benefits of courage and concluded their speech with an inspiring call to action.

Content and Purpose

The content of the speech was well thought out, with the speaker providing a clear definition of courage, as well as meaningful examples of how it can be used in our daily lives. The purpose of the speech was to illustrate the importance of courage and how it can help us lead more meaningful lives. The speaker achieved this purpose well by providing a clear explanation of the concept and providing examples of how it can be applied in our lives.

The structure of the speech was clear and effective. The speaker used a step-by-step approach, starting with an introduction of the topic and then providing an explanation of what courage is, followed by examples of courage, and then a discussion of the benefits of courage. This structure was effective in conveying the main points of the speech.

The speaker used language effectively to convey their message. The language was clear and concise, and the speaker used examples to illustrate the points they were making. The speaker also used quotes from famous authors to add authority to their points.

The overall message of the speech was inspiring and motivating. The speaker provided a clear explanation of courage and how it can help us lead more meaningful lives. The speaker concluded their speech with an encouraging call to action, which was effective in motivating the audience to take action.

Public Speaking Techniques

The speaker used a range of public speaking techniques to deliver their speech. They used a conversational tone to create a connection with the audience, and they used body language to emphasize their points. The speaker also used pauses to emphasize certain points and build suspense. In addition, the speaker used quotes from famous authors to add authority to their points.

Areas for Improvement

The speaker could have further developed their points by providing more examples and elaborating on their points. This would have been effective in conveying the message of the speech more clearly. For example, the speaker could have provided more examples of everyday acts of courage, such as standing up for someone or speaking up for yourself.

Overall, the speech was very well-delivered and effective in conveying the message of the importance of courage. The speaker used a range of public speaking techniques to deliver their speech, and the content and purpose were clear. The only area for improvement would be providing more examples to further develop the points. I would like to thank the speaker again for delivering an inspiring and motivating speech.

Leave a Message

I want to give a comment I want to ask a question I want to give feedback on the speech I want to attend a learning session I want a mentor for my speeches I want to contribute my speech

Name (optional)

Email address (optional)

Phone number (optional)

Learning Civil Courage: A Citizens’ Perspective

• September 2021
• Educational Researcher 50(9):0013189X2110441
• 50(9):0013189X2110441

• Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Miriam Milzner
• Maxim Abramov
• Tatiana Popova
• Andrey Kurnosenko

• Birthe Tahmaz

• Camb J Educ

• Mirjam Schmida
• Christopher R. Rate
• Jennifer A. Clarke

• Robert J. Sternberg

• Peter Fischer

• COGN SYST RES
• Derek A. Epp

• ORGAN BEHAV HUM DEC

• A Halmburger
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Visit Our Blog about Russia to know more about Russian sights, history
• Check out our Russian cities and regions guides
• Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to better understand Russia
• Info about getting Russian visa , the main airports , how to rent an apartment
• Our Expert answers your questions about Russia, some tips about sending flowers

Russian regions

• Altay republic
• Irkutsk oblast
• Kemerovo oblast
• Khakassia republic
• Krasnoyarsk krai
• Novosibirsk oblast
• Omsk oblast
• Tomsk oblast
• Tuva republic
• Map of Russia
• All cities and regions
• Blog about Russia
• News from Russia
• How to get a visa
• Flights to Russia
• Russian hotels
• Renting apartments
• Russian currency
• FIFA World Cup 2018
• Submit an article
• Flowers to Russia
• Ask our Expert

Omsk Oblast, Russia

The capital city of Omsk oblast: Omsk .

Omsk Oblast - Overview

Omsk Oblast is a federal subject of Russia located in the south-eastern part of Siberia, in the Siberian Federal District. Omsk is the capital city of the region.

The population of Omsk Oblast is about 1,879,500 (2022), the area - 141,140 sq. km.

Omsk oblast flag

Omsk oblast coat of arms.

Omsk oblast map, Russia

Omsk oblast latest news and posts from our blog:.

10 November, 2019 / Tomsk - the view from above .

3 July, 2016 / Omsk - the view from above .

20 October, 2012 / The bear at the gate .

2 August, 2012 / Omsk city from bird's eye view .

14 December, 2011 / Time-lapse video of Omsk city .

More posts..

History of Omsk Oblast

Ancient people began to settle in the area of the middle reaches of the Irtysh River about 45,000 years ago. This region became the place of numerous migrations of different peoples, of interpenetration of forest and steppe cultures. In the Middle Ages, the territory of the present Omsk region was part of the Western Turkic Khanate and the Siberian Khanate. As a result, an ethnic group of the Siberian Tatars was formed. This region was also inhabited by Kazakhs and other peoples.

The history of the development of the Irtysh by Russians is connected first of all with the legendary Yermak. Although even before him, in the 15th century, Russian merchants from the Urals visited the Siberian Khanate.

In the early 18th century, major reforms carried out by Peter the Great required large expenses. The first Russian emperor turned his attention to the east. He sent a detachment of Cossacks under the command of the lieutenant-colonel I.D.Bukhgolts from the town of Tobolsk up the Irtysh River in search of gold deposits.

More Historical Facts…

The expedition failed because of resistance from the nomads Dzhungars. Russians were forced to take a step back. In 1716, they founded a fortress at the mouth of the Om River - future Omsk. Russian peasants began to settle in the land around the fortress. To the south of Omsk, a line of outposts was constructed for protection from the nomads.

In 1782, the fortress became a town. Omsk district was formed on the basis of the southern part of Tarsky district and, in 1785, the town of Omsk was given a coat of arms. Omsk became an important center for the study of Siberia and Central Asia. This region like other parts of Siberia was used as a place for political exile.

In the 19th century, the people exiled to Siberia were the Decembrists, Petrashevts, Narodniki, representatives of other revolutionary parties and organizations, participants of the Polish national movement. These people had a major cultural impact on the local population. The great Russian writer F.M.Dostoyevsky was one of the prisoners of the Omsk jail.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, Siberia experienced significant changes. Large-scale migration of peasants led to the rapid growth of the local economy, especially agriculture. Due to its favorable economic and geographical location, at the intersection of the Trans-Siberian Railway and the Irtysh River, Omsk rapidly turned into a large transport, trade and industrial center of Western Siberia, the largest city in Siberia.

During the Second World War, about 100 industrial plants were evacuated from the European part of the USSR to Omsk. They became the basis of the local engineering industry. In 1949, the first refinery in Siberia was constructed in Omsk. In 1954-1956, during development of virgin lands, several large agricultural enterprises were built in the southern part of Omsk Oblast. In the 1970s, Omsk oblast became one of the most economically developed regions of Siberia.

Pictures of Omsk Oblast

Wooden chapel in Omsk Oblast

Author: Sedov Artem

Country house in Omsk Oblast

Author: Heinrich Jena

Provincial life in the Omsk region

Author: Baranov Pavel

Omsk Oblast - Features

Omsk Oblast is located in the south of the West Siberian Plain, in the middle reaches of the Irtysh River, with steppes in the south, which turn into forest steppes, forests and marshy tundra in the north. The territory of the region stretches for about 600 km from north to south and 300 km from west to east. In the south, Omsk Oblast borders with Kazakhstan.

The largest cities and towns of Omsk Oblast are Omsk (1,126,000), Tara (28,500), Kalachinsk (21,900), Isylkul (21,700). The main river is the Irtysh with its tributaries (the Ishim, Om, Osha, and Tara). The Trans-Siberian Railway is an important traffic artery. There is an international airport in Omsk.

The climate is continental and sharply continental. The average temperature in January is minus 19-20 degrees Celsius, in July - plus 17-18 degrees Celsius in the northern part and plus 19 degrees Celsius in the south.

Omsk Oblast has such natural resources as oil, natural gas, brown coal, iron ore, various construction materials. Main manufacturing, construction and trade are carried out in Omsk. Industrial sector is represented by military, aerospace and agricultural engineering, petrochemical, light and food industries.

Agriculture is represented by crops, dairy and beef cattle, pig and poultry farming. Cereals (wheat, rye, oats, barley), potatoes, vegetables, sunflower, and other crops are cultivated.

Attractions of Omsk Oblast

A lot of sights can be found in Omsk. The most interesting places located outside the city are:

• Achairsky Convent in the upper reaches of the Irtysh River, 50 km from Omsk;
• St. Nicholas Monastery in the village of Bolshekulache, 20 km from Omsk;
• Nature reserve “Bairovsky” created for the preservation and reproduction of rare and valuable species of birds and animals;
• Batakovo tract - a natural and archaeological park on the left bank of the Irtysh River, 150 km north of Omsk, in Bolsherechensky district;
• Znamenskiy museum of local lore dedicated to the history and nature of Omsk oblast, located in one of the oldest settlements of the region - in the village of Znamenskoye;
• Chudskaya mountain on the left bank of the Irtysh River, 3 km north of Znamenskoye;
• Lake Ulzhay - a relict water reservoir in the northwest of Kurumbelskaya steppe, in Cherlaksky district, 160 km from Omsk;
• Lake Ebeyty in the southwest of the region;
• Lake Platovskoye located to the north-east of the village of Platovo in Polstavskiy district;
• “Bird’s Haven” - a natural park located in Omsk;
• “Devil’s finger” - a rock on the right bank of the Irtysh, 2 km from the village of Serebryanoye, on the territory of Gorky district.

Omsk oblast of Russia photos

Nature of omsk oblast.

Omsk Oblast landscape

Author: Vitali Ellert

Omsk Oblast scenery

Author: Yury Ermakov

Small river in Omsk Oblast

Author: Andrey Genze

Wooden house in the Omsk region

Winter in Omsk Oblast

Wooden church in Omsk Oblast

• Currently 2.88/5

Rating: 2.9 /5 (140 votes cast)