PJ Media

This is, of course, is using the language of the anti-public school movement, created and funded by a small number of tightly linked ideologues and rightwing thinktanks, with the ultimate aim (at the level of leadership; ordinary supporters are no doubt often sincere and well-meaning) of destroying our public school systems and replacing it, as much as possible, with privatized, for-profit schools. (See also: social security). Part of the motivation is free-market fundamentalism and a deep aversion to any notion of the common good, of a democratic government providing its citizens public services.

Rubbish: Invert your need to provide a proof of concept by smearing the rational opposition with carefully chosen terminology designed to appeal to emotion. Dan S., I’m still waiting for your evidence of both right and functionality. I see that you habitually avoid those requirements and now were down to appeals to emotion and status quo.

Not a convincing sales pitch.

Redirecting taxpayer dollars to private profit is another aim, as is the partisan goal of weakening or destroying teachers unions in order to deprive the Democratic Party of part of its fundraising and organizing base. (Why did you think they are so constantly demonized, to a degree far beyond any genuine issues?)

Ah, and now we get to the nub of your argument: Your special interest — your closed, iconoclastic, monolithic, equally-radical, anti-choice, idealistic, NEA think-tanking, to use your words — resisting the natural criticism leveled at it by simple reason. Don’t criticize us, says Dan S. because we don’t like criticism and our system can’t take criticism because it depends on sheer convention and political impetus. Our critics harm our ways and means, our motives and intents and surely their criticism must end.

Interestingly, there isn’t really any liberal equivalent to this sort of radical ideological fixation. Liberals, after all, understand that many things are done far better by the market, and should be left to it, while some others are best provided by government. There simply isn’t anyone on the American political spectrum who wants to shrink the market until it can be drowned in a bathtub, or who advocates for government production of soup, say, or cars.

This is yet another appeal to convention one necessarily without reason. There simply isn’t anyone on the American political spectrum who wants to shrink the market until it can be drowned in a bathtub? How about millions on the American political spectrum who would like to fix the eternally broken government education system or replace it with choice and academic prosperity?!

In fact, reason is shunned for it will continue to expose the fallacy of government “education”!

The problem becomes, Dan S., that at some point you have to factor in something far more rational. I suggest you begin by replacing this Democrat-vs-Republican horizontal linearity with the vertical reality of collectivism and authoritarianism versus the individual, personal accountability and choice, and freedom. There’s a profound difference between liberal and, as you handily put it for your purposes, radical conservatism. That difference has to do with your collective fantasies versus the accomplishment and satisfaction that comes with reforming historical top-down power into the obvious productivity and accomplishment of free markets and actual freedom. Comparisons to fire departments may likewise be initially interesting, but they simply do not apply, nor can you therefore show how they would or shall.

Magical thinking indeed. The logical extension of “fire-station” collectivism is…the collective. I do believe the track record of collectivism is dismal, Dan S. And yet you define free choice-education as a radical assault on…on…your job? If not that, what?

My wife teaches kindergarten in an extremely poor, drug-ridden, and rather violent neighborhood in Philly. It’s true she doesn’t have a reason. As she puts it, she has 30 reasons.

And that I find to be radical idealism, Dan S. The radical idealism of a special personal interest coupled with job security coupled with whatever it takes to keep things as they are capped with actually harming children. Harsh words, but no way around them. Radical indeed.

Again: If government schools are all about equalizing society, why are they so apt at chronically, historically damaging the lowest classes?

You have yet to address a single pertinent, fundamental issue concerning that fundamental performance-based outcome. Should you do so, which you cannot, you should then proceed to a convincing demonstration of moral and constitutional right.

Failing all of the above, are we perpetually left with these appeals to reason and bad convention?

Oh, and most public schools are not “doing fine.” Research shows that the private sector can replace their monolithic incompetence and lack of expression, free speech, and free expression at half the cost.

Were we to spend, dollar for dollar, on private education what we do on government schools, we’d have double the education. Not a bad idea as the System descends into dysfunctionality.