Please enjoy our previous articles listed on the Archives page
Below:
Below:
- Conservatism is rooted in natural rights
- The Unexamined Rise of Therapeutic education . . .
- Privilege or Consistency? A high school teacher has an eye-opening discussion on ‘white privilege’ with students
- The Party of Death Wants Total Control Over You
Conservatism is Rooted in Natural Rights
by James Piereson
August, 2020
Is there a distinct form of American conservatism that distinguishes it from varieties of conservatism found in other countries? The answer to that question is certainly “yes.”
The conservative movement in America in the post-war period advanced in two broad stages. In the first phase, running from the 1950s into the 1970s, influential thinkers sought to define conservatism broadly in terms of an approach to politics and society that transcended national boundaries. In the more recent period, conservatives have advanced a set of ideas that are uniquely American, focusing on America’s founding institutions, the Founding Fathers, and a few other notable American thinkers.
William F. Buckley, Jr., is generally credited with launching the post-war conservative movement when he founded National Review in 1954. In launching the magazine, Buckley was greatly influenced by two canonical books that shaped conservative thought in the 1950s: Witness, by Whittaker Chambers (published in 1952), and The Conservative Mind, by Russell Kirk (published in 1953). These books were widely read (both were best-sellers) and favorably reviewed in prominent newspapers and journals, and had great appeal to a reading public searching for something different after two decades of liberal control of national politics. Both Witness and The Conservative Mind, however, outlined versions of conservatism that transcended national boundaries and particular regimes. They were about “Conservatism,” not necessarily American conservatism.
Witness was an autobiographical work in which Chambers traced his personal journey from communism to Christianity, culminating in his confrontation with Alger Hiss over Hiss’s role in espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union. The dominant theme of Witness, leaving aside the Hiss case, was religious rather than political. Chambers saw in communism the latest campaign by secular man to displace God as the source of morals and meaning in life and history. Witness, as a work of conservative thought, sounded the alarm that Western civilization was under threat not merely from communism but from secular doctrines in general, including socialism and liberalism. In contrasting himself with Hiss and his supporters, Chambers also drew a line between common citizens (like himself) and highly educated elites who were prepared to sell out the country for their secular ideals—thus pointing toward a conservative version of populism. Nevertheless, Chambers ended the book on a pessimistic note: he said that in abandoning communism he had joined the losing side against the inevitable winners.
The Conservative Mind was a different kind of book, an effort by Kirk to trace the threads of conservative ideas in the writings of prominent thinkers extending back into the 18th century.
Kirk located the origins of conservative thought in Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke’s broadside against the French Revolution where he made the case for tradition, continuity, and stability in politics against the abstract claims of the revolutionaries that turned France upside down. Kirk identified various conservative themes in the writings and speeches of others who were not ordinarily classified as conservatives—figures such as John Adams, Tocqueville, Disraeli, Santayana, and many others. In doing so, he demonstrated that conservatism had a respectable intellectual lineage. He concluded his book by identifying several themes common to conservatism: a belief in divine purpose, continuity and tradition, private property as a foundation for freedom, and common sense as opposed to abstract reasoning in politics.
Kirk spent little time on America’s Founding Fathers or on the Constitution and the Constitutional Convention, barely mentioning Madison, praising Hamilton for his conservatism but criticizing him for poor judgment in favoring political centralization, and disdaining Jefferson for embracing Locke, abstract ideals, and the French Revolution. Kirk, leaning on the writings of Orestes Brownson, understood conservatism in America more in terms of the habits and mores of the American people rather than in terms of the Constitution or the Declaration. In his criticisms of Jefferson, Kirk implied that he did not look favorably upon the Declaration of Independence and especially those passages in the Declaration that Jefferson borrowed from Locke (“We hold these truths to be self-evident…”). Kirk mentioned Lincoln only in passing, and in the sectional conflict expressed greater sympathy for the plantation South than for the industrial North.
These works had great influence in the growth of the conservative movement from the 1950s into the 1970s and 1980s—and rightly so; they laid the groundwork for a movement that until then was moribund and lacking in direction. Those works are still widely read today. Viewed historically, these writers had to define conservatism broadly before they or others could give it a national interpretation. Yet that may have been a weakness. They did not articulate an American version of conservatism that celebrated the country’s founding institutions along with popular heroes like Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and Lincoln.
Beginning in the 1970s, perhaps because of the bicentennial of the Declaration of Independence and, a dozen years later, of the U.S. Constitution, or because of the election of Ronald Reagan, conservatives began to focus more intently upon the nation’s founding institutions, especially the Declaration with its ringing endorsement of natural rights. Historians and biographers such as Gordon Wood, Joseph Ellis, Richard Brookhiser, and others highlighted the distinctly American contribution to political theory in the Declaration, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and other writings emanating from the founding generation. Due in part to the growing relativism of the American Left, conservatives endorsed the absolute language of the Declaration, which left no doubt as to the truths upon which the nation was founded. Here was something of a change: conservatives began to embrace the natural rights philosophy of John Locke, an outlook that Kirk criticized as abstract, individualistic, and potentially radical. The new outlook represented a distinctly American version of conservatism, one that resonates well with the American public—and for that reason has contributed to the rise of conservatism as a popular movement.
There is also the issue of Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War. Russell Kirk rarely mentioned Lincoln in The Conservative Mind, and did not parse the Lincoln-Douglas debates or Lincoln’s wartime speeches, where Lincoln set up the struggle over slavery in terms of the natural rights delineated in the Declaration of Independence. The emergence of Lincoln as a conservative hero late in the 20th and early in the 21st centuries could not have been predicted based upon Kirk’s book or the conservative mood of the 1950s and 1960s. This owes something to Harry Jaffa’s pathbreaking book, The Crisis of the House Divided(1959), in which he showed that it was Lincoln and not his adversaries who were faithful to the Declaration and the Constitution—and to his many students who continue to raise the flag of Lincoln.
With the dust now settled, we can see in all this the emergence of a more distinctively American version of conservatism, based upon the Founding Fathers, the nation’s founding documents, the writings and speeches of Abraham Lincoln—and, of course, the natural rights philosophy limiting government to a few important duties. This was an important corrective to (but not a repudiation of) the conservative writings of the early 1950s. It was also essential to the rise of conservatism as a popular political movement: before it could succeed politically, the movement had to embrace more forcefully the nation’s founding philosophy of natural rights.
James Piereson is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
August, 2020
Is there a distinct form of American conservatism that distinguishes it from varieties of conservatism found in other countries? The answer to that question is certainly “yes.”
The conservative movement in America in the post-war period advanced in two broad stages. In the first phase, running from the 1950s into the 1970s, influential thinkers sought to define conservatism broadly in terms of an approach to politics and society that transcended national boundaries. In the more recent period, conservatives have advanced a set of ideas that are uniquely American, focusing on America’s founding institutions, the Founding Fathers, and a few other notable American thinkers.
William F. Buckley, Jr., is generally credited with launching the post-war conservative movement when he founded National Review in 1954. In launching the magazine, Buckley was greatly influenced by two canonical books that shaped conservative thought in the 1950s: Witness, by Whittaker Chambers (published in 1952), and The Conservative Mind, by Russell Kirk (published in 1953). These books were widely read (both were best-sellers) and favorably reviewed in prominent newspapers and journals, and had great appeal to a reading public searching for something different after two decades of liberal control of national politics. Both Witness and The Conservative Mind, however, outlined versions of conservatism that transcended national boundaries and particular regimes. They were about “Conservatism,” not necessarily American conservatism.
Witness was an autobiographical work in which Chambers traced his personal journey from communism to Christianity, culminating in his confrontation with Alger Hiss over Hiss’s role in espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union. The dominant theme of Witness, leaving aside the Hiss case, was religious rather than political. Chambers saw in communism the latest campaign by secular man to displace God as the source of morals and meaning in life and history. Witness, as a work of conservative thought, sounded the alarm that Western civilization was under threat not merely from communism but from secular doctrines in general, including socialism and liberalism. In contrasting himself with Hiss and his supporters, Chambers also drew a line between common citizens (like himself) and highly educated elites who were prepared to sell out the country for their secular ideals—thus pointing toward a conservative version of populism. Nevertheless, Chambers ended the book on a pessimistic note: he said that in abandoning communism he had joined the losing side against the inevitable winners.
The Conservative Mind was a different kind of book, an effort by Kirk to trace the threads of conservative ideas in the writings of prominent thinkers extending back into the 18th century.
Kirk located the origins of conservative thought in Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke’s broadside against the French Revolution where he made the case for tradition, continuity, and stability in politics against the abstract claims of the revolutionaries that turned France upside down. Kirk identified various conservative themes in the writings and speeches of others who were not ordinarily classified as conservatives—figures such as John Adams, Tocqueville, Disraeli, Santayana, and many others. In doing so, he demonstrated that conservatism had a respectable intellectual lineage. He concluded his book by identifying several themes common to conservatism: a belief in divine purpose, continuity and tradition, private property as a foundation for freedom, and common sense as opposed to abstract reasoning in politics.
Kirk spent little time on America’s Founding Fathers or on the Constitution and the Constitutional Convention, barely mentioning Madison, praising Hamilton for his conservatism but criticizing him for poor judgment in favoring political centralization, and disdaining Jefferson for embracing Locke, abstract ideals, and the French Revolution. Kirk, leaning on the writings of Orestes Brownson, understood conservatism in America more in terms of the habits and mores of the American people rather than in terms of the Constitution or the Declaration. In his criticisms of Jefferson, Kirk implied that he did not look favorably upon the Declaration of Independence and especially those passages in the Declaration that Jefferson borrowed from Locke (“We hold these truths to be self-evident…”). Kirk mentioned Lincoln only in passing, and in the sectional conflict expressed greater sympathy for the plantation South than for the industrial North.
These works had great influence in the growth of the conservative movement from the 1950s into the 1970s and 1980s—and rightly so; they laid the groundwork for a movement that until then was moribund and lacking in direction. Those works are still widely read today. Viewed historically, these writers had to define conservatism broadly before they or others could give it a national interpretation. Yet that may have been a weakness. They did not articulate an American version of conservatism that celebrated the country’s founding institutions along with popular heroes like Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and Lincoln.
Beginning in the 1970s, perhaps because of the bicentennial of the Declaration of Independence and, a dozen years later, of the U.S. Constitution, or because of the election of Ronald Reagan, conservatives began to focus more intently upon the nation’s founding institutions, especially the Declaration with its ringing endorsement of natural rights. Historians and biographers such as Gordon Wood, Joseph Ellis, Richard Brookhiser, and others highlighted the distinctly American contribution to political theory in the Declaration, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and other writings emanating from the founding generation. Due in part to the growing relativism of the American Left, conservatives endorsed the absolute language of the Declaration, which left no doubt as to the truths upon which the nation was founded. Here was something of a change: conservatives began to embrace the natural rights philosophy of John Locke, an outlook that Kirk criticized as abstract, individualistic, and potentially radical. The new outlook represented a distinctly American version of conservatism, one that resonates well with the American public—and for that reason has contributed to the rise of conservatism as a popular movement.
There is also the issue of Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War. Russell Kirk rarely mentioned Lincoln in The Conservative Mind, and did not parse the Lincoln-Douglas debates or Lincoln’s wartime speeches, where Lincoln set up the struggle over slavery in terms of the natural rights delineated in the Declaration of Independence. The emergence of Lincoln as a conservative hero late in the 20th and early in the 21st centuries could not have been predicted based upon Kirk’s book or the conservative mood of the 1950s and 1960s. This owes something to Harry Jaffa’s pathbreaking book, The Crisis of the House Divided(1959), in which he showed that it was Lincoln and not his adversaries who were faithful to the Declaration and the Constitution—and to his many students who continue to raise the flag of Lincoln.
With the dust now settled, we can see in all this the emergence of a more distinctively American version of conservatism, based upon the Founding Fathers, the nation’s founding documents, the writings and speeches of Abraham Lincoln—and, of course, the natural rights philosophy limiting government to a few important duties. This was an important corrective to (but not a repudiation of) the conservative writings of the early 1950s. It was also essential to the rise of conservatism as a popular political movement: before it could succeed politically, the movement had to embrace more forcefully the nation’s founding philosophy of natural rights.
James Piereson is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
The Unexamined Rise of Therapeutic Education: How Social Emotional Learning extends K-12 education's reach into students' lives and expands teachers' roles
by Robert Pondiscio, American Enterprise Institute
October, 2021
Key Points
In some quarters of K–12 education, perhaps most, the increased focus on social and emotional learning (SEL) is viewed as an unambiguously positive development—a welcome course correction after more than two decades of focus on academic standards, testing, and accountability. But SEL, which is typically presented as an academic enhancement, not a distraction, carries more cause for concern than is commonly acknowledged. It represents a different vision for public education.
There is a substantive moral message in SEL that is largely unacknowledged, perhaps unwittingly, by its promoters and enthusiasts. The bland, pseudoscientific, and somewhat inscrutable term “social and emotional learning” grafted onto the academic effort of schooling masks its nature, which heralds a reimagining of schools’ and teachers’ roles. Advocates insist SEL serves academic outcomes and is thus a natural extension of a school’s mission. But even if this were true, it is an invitation for schools to expand their role and influence in a way that might not be universally applauded, particularly by conservative families and teachers.
Inherent in SEL is an under-discussed change in the role of the teacher, from a pedagogue to something more closely resembling a therapist, social worker, or member of the clergy—no less concerned with a child’s beliefs, attitudes, and values. At the very least, the rise of SEL, under the cover of jargon and educationese, has become a largely unquestioned feature of mainstream education thought and practice, with insufficient discussion and debate about its effect on schools’ missions.
Whether SEL can benefit academic outcomes is an interesting and important question, but it’s secondary. The more salient question, which tends to go unasked but must be settled first, is about the appropriate business of a school. Similarly, at what point does a school’s concern for its students’ emotional health and well-being, however well intended, become too personal, too intrusive, and too sensitive to be a legitimate function of public school and thus the state?
Finally, there is a risk, also too little acknowledged and discussed, that the increased focus on SEL fundamentally changes teachers’ responsibilities, forcing them into roles they may embrace reluctantly or not at all and that they are unqualified or unsuited to play, with potential negative consequences for students. As damaging to children as it might be for a teacher to perform poorly at teaching reading, math, or history, the effect of being a poor mental health professional could be even more dire.
Read the PDF.
October, 2021
Key Points
- Social and emotional learning (SEL) has drifted ever closer to being a central purpose of education without a full and proper examination of its role or a sufficient discussion about its practices or expectations for its effectiveness.
- To many, SEL is an unwelcome intrusion into what is traditionally the work of families, faith, culture, and other institutions and relationships in American life.
- Ideas and techniques borrowed from popular psychology have aggressively inserted themselves into classroom practice, resulting in the rise of therapeutic education.
- The unexamined rise of SEL has led to schools assuming powers and responsibilities far beyond their brief and educators working beyond their training and expertise.
In some quarters of K–12 education, perhaps most, the increased focus on social and emotional learning (SEL) is viewed as an unambiguously positive development—a welcome course correction after more than two decades of focus on academic standards, testing, and accountability. But SEL, which is typically presented as an academic enhancement, not a distraction, carries more cause for concern than is commonly acknowledged. It represents a different vision for public education.
There is a substantive moral message in SEL that is largely unacknowledged, perhaps unwittingly, by its promoters and enthusiasts. The bland, pseudoscientific, and somewhat inscrutable term “social and emotional learning” grafted onto the academic effort of schooling masks its nature, which heralds a reimagining of schools’ and teachers’ roles. Advocates insist SEL serves academic outcomes and is thus a natural extension of a school’s mission. But even if this were true, it is an invitation for schools to expand their role and influence in a way that might not be universally applauded, particularly by conservative families and teachers.
Inherent in SEL is an under-discussed change in the role of the teacher, from a pedagogue to something more closely resembling a therapist, social worker, or member of the clergy—no less concerned with a child’s beliefs, attitudes, and values. At the very least, the rise of SEL, under the cover of jargon and educationese, has become a largely unquestioned feature of mainstream education thought and practice, with insufficient discussion and debate about its effect on schools’ missions.
Whether SEL can benefit academic outcomes is an interesting and important question, but it’s secondary. The more salient question, which tends to go unasked but must be settled first, is about the appropriate business of a school. Similarly, at what point does a school’s concern for its students’ emotional health and well-being, however well intended, become too personal, too intrusive, and too sensitive to be a legitimate function of public school and thus the state?
Finally, there is a risk, also too little acknowledged and discussed, that the increased focus on SEL fundamentally changes teachers’ responsibilities, forcing them into roles they may embrace reluctantly or not at all and that they are unqualified or unsuited to play, with potential negative consequences for students. As damaging to children as it might be for a teacher to perform poorly at teaching reading, math, or history, the effect of being a poor mental health professional could be even more dire.
Read the PDF.
Privilege or Consistency?
by Tracey M. Downey MAH
October 2021
In 2021 the common theme heard in academia is the push to strengthen ideas on critical race theory in the classroom. This is causing a profound dilemma for history teachers trying to teach all aspects of U.S. history, both the good and the bad. A large part of this problem is what our students bring to class daily from the bits and pieces they have picked up from their discussions at home but, more importantly, from social media. USA Today’s Madeline Purdue discusses a study where 1,000 teens were polled which found that “60% of teens say they are getting their news from celebrities, influencers, and personalities.” Students are inundated with biased information daily, and in fact have a far different perception of what the whole conversation is about. The argument they make often is that they would believe someone famous before a news anchor or even some adults. Sadly, this must be met by some argument to bring the conversation back to the discussion at hand, and to direct them to see the Internet and more specifically social media for what they are- there is so much information on the Internet that it is always easy to find an article or story or meme that backs your arguments and personal beliefs.
In a class discussion about civil rights a sidebar came up about race and white privilege this past school year. Many students wanted to have the opportunity to openly discuss their ideas without feeling judged but were shocked by other students’ ideas of what constitutes privilege. The students came to realize that notions of privilege, fed to them their whole lives by the media and others, were mistaken. What they perceived as one race having better opportunities turned out, after discussion, to be better behavioral choices or a push to excel on the part of individuals of that race.
The conversation opened with a student simply saying, ‘I wish I were white like you so I could have privilege.’ I asked the student to clarify what they saw in me that made my life so much better. As the conversation progressed my kids gained a whole new insight as they saw with their own eyes assumptions and differences crashing down around them. Here I must digress to explain that I work in a Title 1 low-income school with a very diverse population, each class having a good mixture of all backgrounds and ethnicities, very much a melting pot of the minds.
One assertation of privileges stated to me was, “I bet you anything you were raised by both parents your whole life and they are probably still married.” This in fact would be a true assessment as my parents have been married fifty-two years, but as I nodded another student chimed in to say that couldn't be a white thing because their parents and grandparents were all still married and she was Hispanic. With that we took a classroom poll and it appeared that long standing marriage crossed all backgrounds and therefore could not be used in the student’s argument of how my life was better.
The next argument was that I probably never had to work more then one job to provide for myself because white people get paid more. Again not a true statement as I had to explain I have held multiple jobs my whole life because I have always wanted more and that “more” came with a larger price tag so I had to have an extra job to give me extra money. I also explained that when I was growing up my family did not have a ton of money but that my dad used to go out before everyone else started their days to deliver newspapers for extra money so that I could stay in dance classes. Was that “privilege” that my dad had to do this instead of just pulling me out of dance? When I explained that there was a time in my life that I lived off macaroni and cheese and only turned my AC on at night while I slept so I could keep costs down and afford rent, my students laughed as they all shared stories of funny things, they have seen their parents do to keep the household going. Once again debunking the idea that money privilege is color based.
The discussion took us through going to college, getting better jobs, not having to always watch your back, but the most shocking of all was the perception that all white people had trust funds as seen on T.V. With every topic the whole class with their myriad of ideas realized that no matter what your background most of us have had very similar experiences if not the same stories. What made the conversation most interesting was when a co -teacher came in to share in the discussion with her class and as she shared her stories the students were stunned to see that she in fact, as a black woman with a master’s degree- raised by both her parents- had more privilege than me growing up as she never had to work in high school.
One thing both of us shared with our students that shocked them was that our parents were very consistent in their rules for us. As much as my parents loved me and hers loved her, they were never our friends. They were our parents first and if they did that job well they would raise children who would become good parents themselves and then maybe have a friendship as equal parents. The students were floored to know that there were curfews that were not to be broken, restrictions on when phones could be used or television could be watched, an absolute law against being with anyone our parents didn't know or already had an amicable relationship with, and zero tolerance for lack of respect to adults and authority. My parents did not sway on punishments for not getting chores done or staying out ten minutes past curfew nor did they ever stand for mediocre grades, or average performance. The parents of both of us were firm that we would be better than they ever had the chance to be and that our best was all we should accept. This did not mean our parents were strict, it simply meant they were striving to make good responsible children who earned their place in life.
As I look at the students’ discussion on privilege, I can see perceptions that are bound to cause confusion among others. Our society makes privilege out to mean someone gets something better than the other because of his or her race or ethnicity. Instead, the students learned that what they saw as “better” equated to working harder or having people that pushed you to excel. This was not a naïve conversation and therefore it lent itself to far harder topics discussed later in the year, but this one ended on a positive with students seeing others around them in a more authentic way. “We accept the reality of the world with which we’ve been presented,” (The Truman Show) this in fact rings true for all my students who freely spoke that day. So many were shocked to see that what they had been told or presumed was not always reality.
October 2021
- A high school teacher has an eye-opening discussion on ‘white privilege’ with students
In 2021 the common theme heard in academia is the push to strengthen ideas on critical race theory in the classroom. This is causing a profound dilemma for history teachers trying to teach all aspects of U.S. history, both the good and the bad. A large part of this problem is what our students bring to class daily from the bits and pieces they have picked up from their discussions at home but, more importantly, from social media. USA Today’s Madeline Purdue discusses a study where 1,000 teens were polled which found that “60% of teens say they are getting their news from celebrities, influencers, and personalities.” Students are inundated with biased information daily, and in fact have a far different perception of what the whole conversation is about. The argument they make often is that they would believe someone famous before a news anchor or even some adults. Sadly, this must be met by some argument to bring the conversation back to the discussion at hand, and to direct them to see the Internet and more specifically social media for what they are- there is so much information on the Internet that it is always easy to find an article or story or meme that backs your arguments and personal beliefs.
In a class discussion about civil rights a sidebar came up about race and white privilege this past school year. Many students wanted to have the opportunity to openly discuss their ideas without feeling judged but were shocked by other students’ ideas of what constitutes privilege. The students came to realize that notions of privilege, fed to them their whole lives by the media and others, were mistaken. What they perceived as one race having better opportunities turned out, after discussion, to be better behavioral choices or a push to excel on the part of individuals of that race.
The conversation opened with a student simply saying, ‘I wish I were white like you so I could have privilege.’ I asked the student to clarify what they saw in me that made my life so much better. As the conversation progressed my kids gained a whole new insight as they saw with their own eyes assumptions and differences crashing down around them. Here I must digress to explain that I work in a Title 1 low-income school with a very diverse population, each class having a good mixture of all backgrounds and ethnicities, very much a melting pot of the minds.
One assertation of privileges stated to me was, “I bet you anything you were raised by both parents your whole life and they are probably still married.” This in fact would be a true assessment as my parents have been married fifty-two years, but as I nodded another student chimed in to say that couldn't be a white thing because their parents and grandparents were all still married and she was Hispanic. With that we took a classroom poll and it appeared that long standing marriage crossed all backgrounds and therefore could not be used in the student’s argument of how my life was better.
The next argument was that I probably never had to work more then one job to provide for myself because white people get paid more. Again not a true statement as I had to explain I have held multiple jobs my whole life because I have always wanted more and that “more” came with a larger price tag so I had to have an extra job to give me extra money. I also explained that when I was growing up my family did not have a ton of money but that my dad used to go out before everyone else started their days to deliver newspapers for extra money so that I could stay in dance classes. Was that “privilege” that my dad had to do this instead of just pulling me out of dance? When I explained that there was a time in my life that I lived off macaroni and cheese and only turned my AC on at night while I slept so I could keep costs down and afford rent, my students laughed as they all shared stories of funny things, they have seen their parents do to keep the household going. Once again debunking the idea that money privilege is color based.
The discussion took us through going to college, getting better jobs, not having to always watch your back, but the most shocking of all was the perception that all white people had trust funds as seen on T.V. With every topic the whole class with their myriad of ideas realized that no matter what your background most of us have had very similar experiences if not the same stories. What made the conversation most interesting was when a co -teacher came in to share in the discussion with her class and as she shared her stories the students were stunned to see that she in fact, as a black woman with a master’s degree- raised by both her parents- had more privilege than me growing up as she never had to work in high school.
One thing both of us shared with our students that shocked them was that our parents were very consistent in their rules for us. As much as my parents loved me and hers loved her, they were never our friends. They were our parents first and if they did that job well they would raise children who would become good parents themselves and then maybe have a friendship as equal parents. The students were floored to know that there were curfews that were not to be broken, restrictions on when phones could be used or television could be watched, an absolute law against being with anyone our parents didn't know or already had an amicable relationship with, and zero tolerance for lack of respect to adults and authority. My parents did not sway on punishments for not getting chores done or staying out ten minutes past curfew nor did they ever stand for mediocre grades, or average performance. The parents of both of us were firm that we would be better than they ever had the chance to be and that our best was all we should accept. This did not mean our parents were strict, it simply meant they were striving to make good responsible children who earned their place in life.
As I look at the students’ discussion on privilege, I can see perceptions that are bound to cause confusion among others. Our society makes privilege out to mean someone gets something better than the other because of his or her race or ethnicity. Instead, the students learned that what they saw as “better” equated to working harder or having people that pushed you to excel. This was not a naïve conversation and therefore it lent itself to far harder topics discussed later in the year, but this one ended on a positive with students seeing others around them in a more authentic way. “We accept the reality of the world with which we’ve been presented,” (The Truman Show) this in fact rings true for all my students who freely spoke that day. So many were shocked to see that what they had been told or presumed was not always reality.
Communism Kills
The Party of Death Wants Total Control Over You
- Is it any wonder that the Progressives’ total disregard for human life has become a main feature
in their revolution to overturn our Constitutional Republic?
By LTC David R. Bores, US Army (Ret)
September 2021
PERMALINK
During WW II the Nazi’s murdered over 16 million Jews in the Holocaust. Today, over 62,000,000 abortions have been performed in the United States. Long before the Supreme Court upheld Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that sanctioned the killing of unborn babies, there were those who forewarned that legalizing abortion would put America on a slippery slope toward moral decay.
Progressives ignored their heeding and pressed on with an agenda to ensure abortions were legally protected. But apparently, their blood lust is not yet satisfied. Since Biden became President, evidence continues to mount that demonstrates how little regard these social democrats have for human life.
There is no better example than the thousands of deaths that occur as a direct consequence to the Progressives’ open-door policy at our Southern border. An alliance of Mexican drug cartels with jihadists uses the weak belly of our nation to smuggle tons of made-in-China fentanyl into the US. Approximately 90,000 people die annually to drug overdosing, 60% due to fentanyl. According to CDC:
Most of the increases in fentanyl deaths over the last three years do not involve prescription fentanyl but are related to illicitly-made fentanyl that is being mixed with or sold as heroin—with or without the users’ knowledge and increasing as counterfeit pills.
To be sure, these fentanyl deaths are intentional. China has declared total warfare against the US using a ‘non-military war strategy.’ This is but one prong of their unconventional scheme. And while narco-cartels are reaping millions of dollars in profits to advance their money-making ventures—sex trafficking and counterfeit pharmaceutical production—the jihadists’ use their financial cut to finance the global movement to spread Shar’ia to non-Islamic parts of the world through violence and subversion.
Clearly, Americans would be safer if the Southern border was sealed. But Progressives ignore the safety aspect, instead favoring an open-door policy that injects misery, mayhem, and murder into our nation. Their policies regarding illegal immigration along the border has led to the deaths of thousands of US citizens and other violent crimes as well. Yet illegal aliens are let into the country, many of whom are infected with COVID and other communicable diseases, then transplanted throughout America to infect others.
Speaking of COVID, it was the staunch Progressive social democrat, Governor Andrew Cuomo, who housed infected patients inside nursing homes, knowing that elderly citizens were highly vulnerable to the virus. FOX News reported that Cuomo was responsible for over 1,000 nursing home deaths.
Unfortunately, many more citizens have died as a consequence of receiving the COVID-19 shot. A news report, drawing information from CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), stated that “In just the first four months of this year, the U.S. government has recorded more deaths after COVID vaccinations than from all other vaccines administered in the United States between mid-1997 and the end of 2013.” VAERS records also reveal that many people receiving the shots have suffered severe medical complications as a result. Never-the-less, Progressive bureaucrats downplay that fallout and push the vaccine, insisting everybody get ‘vaccinated’…even people who virologist Dr. Robert Malone said should not receive the shots.
For more evidence that Progressives have little to no regard for human life (or suffering) consider their callous attitude toward the crime, violence, and high murder rates in many of our largest urban areas—especially those run by Democrat officials. It’s because of progressive policies, like defunding the police, releasing violent criminals without bail, and removing qualified immunity protection for police officers, that murder rates and other violent crimes are skyrocketing, and who is it that suffers under such policies but minority citizens living in these inner cities.
Finally, we’ve all witnessed the cold disregard Biden has shown for Americans left behind after his unilateral pull-out of troops from Afghanistan, which is highly reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s abandonment of an ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi; all of whom were killed.
It was not happenstance that they would turn into cold, amoral death agents. For decades they have been obsessed with totalitarian movements. The Communist and Marxist ideologies they find so attractive were spawned by amoral, cold-blooded despots like Stalin and Mao. Progressives deify these thugs and glorify communist revolutionists, such as Fidel Castro and Che Guevara.
Is it any wonder that the Progressives’ total disregard for human life has become a main feature in their revolution to overturn our Constitutional Republic?
Today’s Progressives are moral reprobates, having no empathy for human life, other than their own. They must be stopped.
- Is it any wonder that the Progressives’ total disregard for human life has become a main feature
in their revolution to overturn our Constitutional Republic?
By LTC David R. Bores, US Army (Ret)
September 2021
PERMALINK
During WW II the Nazi’s murdered over 16 million Jews in the Holocaust. Today, over 62,000,000 abortions have been performed in the United States. Long before the Supreme Court upheld Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that sanctioned the killing of unborn babies, there were those who forewarned that legalizing abortion would put America on a slippery slope toward moral decay.
Progressives ignored their heeding and pressed on with an agenda to ensure abortions were legally protected. But apparently, their blood lust is not yet satisfied. Since Biden became President, evidence continues to mount that demonstrates how little regard these social democrats have for human life.
There is no better example than the thousands of deaths that occur as a direct consequence to the Progressives’ open-door policy at our Southern border. An alliance of Mexican drug cartels with jihadists uses the weak belly of our nation to smuggle tons of made-in-China fentanyl into the US. Approximately 90,000 people die annually to drug overdosing, 60% due to fentanyl. According to CDC:
Most of the increases in fentanyl deaths over the last three years do not involve prescription fentanyl but are related to illicitly-made fentanyl that is being mixed with or sold as heroin—with or without the users’ knowledge and increasing as counterfeit pills.
To be sure, these fentanyl deaths are intentional. China has declared total warfare against the US using a ‘non-military war strategy.’ This is but one prong of their unconventional scheme. And while narco-cartels are reaping millions of dollars in profits to advance their money-making ventures—sex trafficking and counterfeit pharmaceutical production—the jihadists’ use their financial cut to finance the global movement to spread Shar’ia to non-Islamic parts of the world through violence and subversion.
Clearly, Americans would be safer if the Southern border was sealed. But Progressives ignore the safety aspect, instead favoring an open-door policy that injects misery, mayhem, and murder into our nation. Their policies regarding illegal immigration along the border has led to the deaths of thousands of US citizens and other violent crimes as well. Yet illegal aliens are let into the country, many of whom are infected with COVID and other communicable diseases, then transplanted throughout America to infect others.
Speaking of COVID, it was the staunch Progressive social democrat, Governor Andrew Cuomo, who housed infected patients inside nursing homes, knowing that elderly citizens were highly vulnerable to the virus. FOX News reported that Cuomo was responsible for over 1,000 nursing home deaths.
Unfortunately, many more citizens have died as a consequence of receiving the COVID-19 shot. A news report, drawing information from CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), stated that “In just the first four months of this year, the U.S. government has recorded more deaths after COVID vaccinations than from all other vaccines administered in the United States between mid-1997 and the end of 2013.” VAERS records also reveal that many people receiving the shots have suffered severe medical complications as a result. Never-the-less, Progressive bureaucrats downplay that fallout and push the vaccine, insisting everybody get ‘vaccinated’…even people who virologist Dr. Robert Malone said should not receive the shots.
For more evidence that Progressives have little to no regard for human life (or suffering) consider their callous attitude toward the crime, violence, and high murder rates in many of our largest urban areas—especially those run by Democrat officials. It’s because of progressive policies, like defunding the police, releasing violent criminals without bail, and removing qualified immunity protection for police officers, that murder rates and other violent crimes are skyrocketing, and who is it that suffers under such policies but minority citizens living in these inner cities.
Finally, we’ve all witnessed the cold disregard Biden has shown for Americans left behind after his unilateral pull-out of troops from Afghanistan, which is highly reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s abandonment of an ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi; all of whom were killed.
It was not happenstance that they would turn into cold, amoral death agents. For decades they have been obsessed with totalitarian movements. The Communist and Marxist ideologies they find so attractive were spawned by amoral, cold-blooded despots like Stalin and Mao. Progressives deify these thugs and glorify communist revolutionists, such as Fidel Castro and Che Guevara.
Is it any wonder that the Progressives’ total disregard for human life has become a main feature in their revolution to overturn our Constitutional Republic?
Today’s Progressives are moral reprobates, having no empathy for human life, other than their own. They must be stopped.