Chapter 5, Section III. The Harvard Civics Misfire
- john raymond
- Jul 14
- 4 min read
In 2025, Harvard launched a widely celebrated, free online civics course—an ambitious attempt to repair America’s battered democratic norms. The effort was earnest. The intentions were noble. The press coverage was glowing. This was, after all, the kind of thing people said they wanted after the Trump years: a return to seriousness, to education, to shared civic understanding.
And yet, despite its polish and pedigree, the course missed the mark entirely. Not because civics are unimportant—but because civics, on their own, will not save us.
The belief that America is suffering from a civic deficit is superficially correct but strategically dangerous. It allows well-meaning people to pretend that our national decay is a matter of procedural ignorance—that if Americans simply relearned how a bill becomes a law, or memorized the Constitution, we could return to sanity. But that theory misdiagnoses the disease.
Trumpism was not born from a population that forgot the number of Supreme Court justices. It was born from a population that no longer knows how to interpret reality in a world defined by asymmetric threats, strategic deception, and global consequence. It is not our lack of constitutional literacy that will destroy us. It is our inability to distinguish propaganda from truth, enemies from allies, and strategy from noise.
The modern American doesn’t need a refresher on the three branches of government. They need to understand how information is weaponized. How algorithms amplify division. How global adversaries use legal systems, investment portfolios, social networks, and proxy organizations to attack democratic cohesion without firing a shot. In short, they need to understand the hidden, the deceptive, and the nonlinear. These are not lessons civics is designed to teach.
And yet, the elite imagination—Harvard included—remains convinced that America’s sickness is procedural. The Constitution, they believe, is a strong enough immune system. Teach it well, and the country will fight off the infection. But this analogy breaks down when the attacker isn’t internal, isn’t direct, and isn’t obvious. We are no longer living in a world of only domestic threats. Democracies do not just fail from the inside out. They also fail from the outside in.
This point cannot be stressed enough. Authoritarian powers like Russia and China are not merely observing our dysfunction. They are shaping it—probing our weaknesses, deepening our divisions, seeding doubt and paranoia, and offering seductive counter-narratives.
They do not need to conquer American soil. They need only to compromise American perception. And because our institutions have trained citizens to understand only internal mechanics—elections, amendments, legal structures—they are unarmed in the face of external manipulation.
Civics, in its current form, is a dangerously incomplete defense. It teaches how to drive the car—but not where the road leads, who else is on it, or how the terrain has changed. What good is knowing how a bill becomes a law if you cannot locate Poland on a map, or understand that Taiwan’s independence is part of your own economic future? What use is memorizing the First Amendment if you cannot recognize that a Russian bot farm is using that same amendment to erode your country’s coherence?
The problem isn’t just knowledge. It’s context. It’s strategy. It’s systems-level thinking. We teach Americans how the engine works, but not how wars are fought now—not with tanks, but with networks. Not with flags, but with narrative. Not just through invasion, but through entanglement.
This is not hypothetical. Americans now routinely confuse viral propaganda with authentic discourse. They cannot distinguish between foreign influence operations and genuine grassroots movements. They fall for TikToks that push Kremlin-aligned talking points and repeat Chinese state narratives dressed up as contrarian “truth.”
Why? Because civics does not train them to identify strategic deception. It teaches them how to participate, not how to interpret.
In this way, Americans are paradoxically more vulnerable than ever before. They wrongly believe they understand democracy because they voted, or read the Constitution once. But when confronted with the operations of modern asymmetric conflict—shell companies, cross-border legal traps, fake opposition groups, networked censorship—they are lost.
These tactics exist in the blind spots of a civics-based worldview. They exploit the distance between domestic understanding and international strategy.
This isn’t just a failure of education. It’s a failure of imagination. Harvard’s civics course, for all its pedigree, reflects a desire to return to a world that no longer exists. A world where domestic norms were enough. A world where threats came from within, not through the backdoors of global infrastructure, economic coercion, and narrative warfare.
That world, however, is gone. Today’s threats are foreign or foreign-backed, intimate, legal, and lawless. They area digital and psychological. We have not prepared the public to recognize this complexity—much less defend against it.
Nor should we mistake geographic ignorance for harmless trivia. Americans routinely fail to locate basic strategic allies or adversaries on a map. They believe NATO is a domestic club, that Taiwan is a faraway island with no bearing on their lives, that Russia is simply a nation that cheats at the Olympics.
These misapprehensions are not cultural quirks. They are vulnerabilities. A nation that cannot even locate its allies cannot defend them. A nation that doesn’t understand supply chains cannot survive economic coercion. A nation that thinks wars begin with gunfire will not recognize them when they begin with lies.
This is the ultimate failure of the civics-only approach. It assumes that knowledge of domestic form is enough to preserve democratic substance. But that is no longer true—if it ever was.
We are being attacked through our ignorance and beliefs. Our sense of reality is under siege. And a citizen who knows the number of electoral votes in Ohio, but cannot distinguish an influence operation from a meme, is still a danger to their own country.
Strategic literacy—not civic literacy—is now the core requirement for national survival. Americans must learn to think in systems, interpret indirect threats, recognize abstraction, and understand how adversaries manipulate global structures to achieve local collapse.
Without this understanding, civics becomes performance—a ritual of memory with no relation to modern conflict.
Democracies do not die by accident. They are killed—by enemies from within, yes, but also by enemies without. And in the age of asymmetric war, the boundary between the two is deliberately blurred.
Teaching civics is not wrong. But imagining it will save us—while ignoring the strategic illiteracy that defines the modern American mind—is a fatal conceit.
Comments