Readers React: What kind of civics lessons are young people getting from the 2016 campaign?

To the editor: Thank you for your excellent editorial demonstrating that idealism and pragmatism are not mutually exclusive in American politics, especially as they relate to the Democratic contest between presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). (“Campaign 2016: Idealism battles pragmatism in the Democratic Party,” editorial, April 13)

Sadly, this message has been often lost in the current presidential primaries, where personal and ideological attacks often reign supreme and discussion of vital issues often takes a back seat to delegate counts and poll projections.

From the perspective of a civic educator, I worry about what effect all of this is having on children and students throughout the country, who are just developing an understanding of politics and participation in civic life. Our next generation of citizens needs to witness and learn how to discuss controversial issues in a constructive way, understand how government works, think critically and form evidence-based opinions on public policy issues. These are key components of high-quality civics learning and must be a part of every child’s education if our democracy is to survive and thrive.

A little modeling from the candidates, their campaigns and those who cover them would be much appreciated.

Marshall Croddy, Los Angeles

The writer is president of the Constitutional Rights Foundation, a nonprofit that promotes civics education.

..

To the editor: Your editorial referred to Abraham Lincoln but missed the opportunity to cite the ultimate example of compromise by the ultimate politician — and thereby failed to expose the fatal flaw in Sanders’ candidacy.

The Emancipation Proclamation loftily orders that “all persons held as slaves … shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.” But, well, not exactly: Only the slaves in states rebelling against the Union would be free. Slavery was still just peachy in border states like Kentucky, which had not seceded.

Lincoln knew if he outlawed slavery nationwide, Kentucky would join the Confederacy and the Union would lose its full control of the Ohio River, and the war would be lost. A lovable, well-meaning, impractical idealist like Sanders probably would have outlawed slavery everywhere from the get-go. He’d have been the darling of the abolitionists while losing Kentucky and the United States along with it.

Russell S. Kussman, Pacific Palisades

..

To the editor: The editorial repeats the superficial comparison between “idealistic” Sanders, the naive candy man, and “pragmatic” Clinton, the voice of reason.

Far better is Isaiah Berlin’s comparison of the fox, who knows many things, and the hedgehog, who knows one big thing. There is a place for both, but at present realism points to the big thing stressed by Sanders and ignored in the editorial.

Grotesque inequality and the inevitable corruption that it brings have so distorted our politics that even clever foxes can’t achieve much. When their intelligent proposals offend the corporations, they will be blocked or amended to uselessness by members of Congress reciting lobbyists’ talking points and terrified of primary challenges.

The fox may at least stop things from getting worse and will likely get my vote (I’m being realistic). But Sanders the hedgehog is the more pragmatic choice for these times.

Allan Stewart-Oaten, Santa Barbara

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook