Did you know that if the American economy returned to the “gold standard” monetary system, as libertarians and other right-wing social Darwinists urge, our immortal national soul would be spared and so would your Lord-fearing wallet?
And did you realize that patriotism and progressivism are incompatible and mutually exclusive, according to these protectionists of privilege and portfolio?
If you want to save your country from ruin and takeover, then close your eyes (or better yet, blind them with pokers) and be led by the likes of the bloggers at Pajamas Media, the supply-siders of motherhood, apple pie and those other quaint Yankee things that folks in lands with more equitable distribution of riches cannot relate to.
They prescribe panaceas for everything that ails America, especially in education.
In “Beyond Politics: Removing the Progressive Drag on America,” Jeff Perren advocates “fighting the soul-killing, wealth-destroying acts of progressives” and “neutralizing their influence throughout the culture.”
He claims “They control curricula for public K-12 education almost everywhere… dominate credential-required education courses, and strongly influence test book selection.”
Does he mean “neutralize” in a military sense? He sounds like a guy who likes his earth scorched.
Perren, whose embrace of free enterprise (as in “anything goes”) allows him the inexcusable liberty of reassigning meanings of words and mixing and matching synonyms, goes on to use the term “post-modern” interchangeably with “progressive.” Perhaps he believes that the same Constitutional Second Amendment that entitles him to brandish a pistol on his hip while at work or at play also guarantees his right to mutate the language.
He says that “post-moderns” (he also calls them “liberals”, as well as “progressives”, using those terms as epithets) have dominated the film and television industries disproportionate to their numbers. He yearns for yesteryear when “their views very sparsely infected the law.”
His thoughts and perhaps some companion imagery that he may conjure to amuse himself is chillingly derivative of certain European bureaus of “popular enlightenment” in the 1930s.
We who are the beneficiaries of Perren’s loathing (and we are an extended family) should be proud of it. We are in some admirable company:
He accuses Scientific American of being “an organ for anthropogenic global warming propaganda” which represents a “full-scale assault on all classical values… freedom and industrial production.”
Perren is mired in the mainstream of kookdom.
The role of government-sponsored (public) education is to advance the “objective ethics” of a Pax Americana, he would say. Unfortunately, he has a highly subjective grasp of objectivity.
He wants American values and culture, as he defines those terms, to rule our schools and indeed the world, but he wants absolute and non-negotiable “laissez-faire” when it comes to textbooks and teachers presenting any opposing convictions.
Perren is so hostile to “progressivism” that I bet he’ll eventually change his surname so it starts with a different letter.
What, exactly, does “progressivism” mean, anyway, in regards to education? What do its practitioners stand for? Why do non-sages like Perren peg its proponents practically as enemies of the state? What are the relationships between “progressivism” and “progress” and “libertarian” and “liberty”?
This small closet of Internet space cannot accommodate an exploration of progressivism. But it’s a sure bet that if it is antithetical and a foil to Perren’s biases, then it must ultimately be found wholesome and fit for intellectual consumption.