In his presentation at Sutherland Institute’s Congressional Series, Rep. Burgess Owens spoke about education policy – specifically, policies that protect the role of parents in education.

The discussion was made more compelling by the family stories that Owens shared as background. He noted that many don’t know the historical context of racial discrimination that made his own father’s quest for education so remarkable.

His father was barred from graduate education because of Jim Crow laws in Texas but was able to pursue an additional degree in Ohio and eventually became a college professor in Florida. It was not surprising, then, that Owens could speak so strongly about the value of education and the importance of parental support to a child’s education.

Historical context helps us understand individuals, but it also can (and should) influence policy discussions.

For instance, the historical experience of racial discrimination in education should inform policies to help minority students, who even now are often experiencing the consequences of longstanding educational neglect, some of which has been transmitted intergenerationally. Policymakers should take this historical context into consideration and promote policies that seek to affirmatively create opportunities that help all students succeed regardless of the educational background of their families.

Historical context is also an important element of good citizenship. An informed voter would have not only opinions on relevant issues but also a basic understanding of relevant history. A policy adopted in ignorance of background is, at the least, unlikely to succeed – and could do harm.

Lawmaking happens in the present but is inevitably informed by the past. That is not, however, how it often feels to observers (and perhaps to some participants). Today’s problems and conflicts feel unprecedented and thus in need of novel solutions.

One insight of conservatism is that novelty, untethered to context, is frivolous at best and dangerous at worst. Since we are all shaped by the experience of generations, completely novel solutions imposed from outside that context can be unsettling and destructive.

A classic comparison that illustrates this observation involves the French and American revolutions. The latter was arguably an extension of the colonial experience of self-rule. Although government structures changed, the newly independent United States still retained the laws governing most day-to-day life intact from pre-Revolutionary times.

By contrast, the French Revolution aimed to start governing from scratch, symbolized by the adoption of a new calendar with a designation of time dating from the revolution. Thus, September 22, 1792, became Year One. Even more radically, Khmer Rouge Cambodia had its own “Year Zero,” during which cities were cleared to create an agrarian society.

The failures and tragedies of these experiments are now widely taken as a cautionary tale of the risks of disrupting the organic development of a nation.

Of course, history must be understood if it is to be helpful to citizens and policymakers. That is one reason civics education is so important – it can provide useful context that makes a discussion of proposed responses to social needs more likely to be productive and workable.