Many Vietnam veterans have mixed feelings about Veterans Day – you can count me as one of them. I was proud to serve in Vietnam, but it seemed that many of my countrymen at home hated me for it. I make no bones about my service in Vietnam. We fought in defense of freedom – freedom in Vietnam, in America, and everywhere people yearn to be free. Like all the veterans before and after us, we answered our country’s call, and, in Vietnam, we acquitted ourselves splendidly. We won every battle, and, by any military measure, we soundly defeated our enemy on the field of battle. (That’s why I went to war. I fought the war for much more personal reasons: my comrades in the air and on the ground.)
In any case, during the 1960’s and 70’s, hardly anyone was interested in our opinions about the war. The anti-war protestors held the stage and theirs was the predominant voice heard in America. The anti-war crowd portrayed America as an imperialistic oppressor of the Vietnamese people and American servicemen as lackeys blindly doing the will of a power hungry pentagon and greedy industrialists. And the anti-war crowd had plenty of support from Hollywood, television, magazines, newspapers, and the evening news, all reciting the same story: America had no right to intervene in Vietnam; America was responsible for the death of countless thousands of innocent Vietnamese people; the South Vietnamese hated us and wanted us to go back home; we were losing the war to a superior North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong; and, worst of all, American troops were dying in vain for a worthless cause. What a pile of BS - recalling that hogwash still makes me sick to my stomach. Hear this, America: the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong did not beat us – it was our own politicians, media, and anti-war protestors that lost the war. If you tell a lie loud enough and long enough, people will believe you, and America fell for the lie.
Consequently, when our troops came home, we were greeted with boos, catcalls, derision, and even people spitting on us. We were called baby killers, murderers, warmongers, cowards, and every other vile epithet the protestors could muster up. It broke our hearts, but it seemed there was little we could do to change the prevailing anti-war, anti-military sentiment in America. So, we swallowed our pride, packed away our uniforms, grew our hair out, went back to school, got jobs or started businesses, worked hard and supported our families. We went on to become an integral part of the most productive generation in American history. We helped to create more than 30 million new jobs, and we were part of the engine that powered one of the longest periods of economic growth in American history. When the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union fell apart, we were proud that America had won the Cold War. We veterans knew we had done our part – Vietnam was one of the hottest parts of the Cold War.
Nonetheless, we were mostly invisible, and remain so to this day. The press and the media continue to paint us with the same miserable brush. Vietnam veterans are portrayed as troubled, alcoholic, drug addicted, abusive, and violent - societal misfits. Even though that sad characterization applies to only a small percentage of us, it became and somehow remains the public face of Vietnam veterans everywhere.
If you have not served in the military, if you want to know the truth, if you want to know who we Vietnam veterans really are, ask us. We don’t talk about our wartime experiences very much except in the secure presence of each other, but we will respond if you ask. These days you will find many of us enjoying our grandchildren. If you ask us about our careers, you will find we served in government jobs, taught your children in school and Sunday School, built your roads, bridges, skyscrapers and homes, coached in community sports leagues, cut your hair, fixed your cars, treated your injuries and illnesses, flew your planes, and preached the sermons you came to hear on Sunday. We were trades and professional people, entrepreneurs, neighborhood business owners, cops and firemen, blue, pink and white collar workers, and on and on. Oh, and by the way, some of us achieved considerable success and hired many of you. In other words, we were and continue to be the normal productive Americans you see all around you every day.
Nonetheless, to this day, when someone first hears that I served in Vietnam, they commonly respond with pitying eyes, sorrowful looks, and a sympathetic,
“I’m sorry”.
You can imagine their reaction when I respond,
“Why are you sorry? I’m not. I’m proud of my service in Vietnam and my time in the Marine Corps. Those were my formative years and they changed me forever, all for the good.”
Believe it or not, those comments are usually well received, and they often lead to a productive discussion on the war in Vietnam, why we were there, what it meant, and the troops who fought there.
I have found that the best way for me to stand up for my fellow Vietnam veterans is to tell the Vietnam story from my perspective. When I do that, people usually listen and they are often surprised at what they hear. They tell me they never heard those things before. Often, they change some of their opinions about the war and the troops.
The first time I tried this approach was in 1972. I had been off active duty for a couple of years and I was back in school getting a degree in engineering. I was still young, only in my late 20’s, but I felt much older than most of the kids around me. One day Jane Fonda and her draft-dodging husband, Tom Hayden, came to the campus to speak at a big anti-war rally. I hung around in the back of the crowd to see if she was as bad as my friends had said (she was worse). After the rally broke up, I was walking back to the library when a young student, maybe 19 or 20 years old, confronted me. He got in my face and said,
“You’re a vet, aren’t you!”
I answered,
“Yes I am.”
Then he let me have it. He screamed,
“How could you do those awful things? How could you kill those babies and innocent women and children? How could you be part of that evil war? Why did you go? Why?
I should note that getting in a Marine’s face is usually not a wise move, and I did consider simply smacking his pimply nose; but, for some reason, I kind of felt bad for him. He was just a dumb kid who had been pumped up by the lies of a good looking, smooth talking movie star. So, I said,
“Do you really want to know why or do you just want to stand there and scream?”
Surprisingly, he paused, took a breath, and said,
“Ok, tell me.”
So, I told him.
“First of all, I was in Vietnam for over a year, and I didn’t do any of those awful things you said and I never saw anyone else do it. I joined the Marines and volunteered for Vietnam because I believe in freedom. I believe in it so much that I’m willing to die for someone else’s freedom. I went to Vietnam to free the Vietnamese people from totalitarianism. I went to fight for their right to be free. I went to defend freedom where it was most threatened - Vietnam. I went to defend the rights of free people everywhere. I went to fight for American freedom. I went to fight for your freedom. I went to fight for your right to stand there and insult me. That’s why I went. So, what do you have to say to that?”
His eyes got a little moist, and he said,
“Thanks.”
29 October 2010
25 October 2010
Government VII: Last Chance to Choose Freedom
Lots of polls indicate that America is a center-right country. Most of us don’t believe in socialism, we like democracy and capitalism, and we cherish our freedom. We love being free, and the free market, and we love America. We are proud of our country, we think of ourselves as patriotic, and we believe that America is exceptional: freedom’s greatest ally and the great hope of freedom loving people everywhere. We believe that families are the foundation of our society. We want freedom of religion not from religion. We like being self sufficient, and we have high hopes for our future and even higher ones for our children. We are generous, and we are more than willing to help those who cannot care for themselves, but we have little compassion for those who will not care for themselves. We want the government to protect us from enemies outside our borders and criminals inside our borders, but not from ourselves. Unless we become disabled, we don’t want the government or anyone else to take care of us – this especially includes economists, academics, intellectuals, the media, movie stars, politicians, progressives, and others of supposedly superior intellect and understanding who offer themselves as our leaders and caretakers.
So how does a country like us keep moving to the left, toward socialism? Many pundits say we are already a “socialist democracy”. How did that happen?
Actually, freedom, the genius of our system, has been its own downfall. Here is the litany of American freedom. America is great because it is free. Because America is free, opportunity is everywhere and individual strengths such as courage, drive, determination, pride, and a strong work ethic became the greatest determinants of financial and personal success. Because Americans valued individual strengths, Americans and American immigrants strove to develop those traits in themselves and their children; and, America became the most successful and productive country in the world. Because America was so successful, it became a safe, comfortable, and easy place to live. Because America was such an easy place to live, Americans became complacent, placed less value on individual strengths, and relied increasingly on government. Because America was complacent, individual strengths were gradually replaced with values such as self gratification, comfort, leisure activities, and dependency – a setup for ambitious politicians who promised entitlements and an easier life, all provided by a beneficent government that would take care of you. Entitlements, easier life, dependency on a strong central government - read socialism. Earlier Americans would have rebelled at the very thought of government or anyone else taking care of them. Their entire life’s work was dedicated to being able to care for themselves and their families. Many of us still feel the same way.
And it all began with freedom, our greatest value, our greatest gift, our genius. But, like so many precious things, freedom is fragile. It must be cherished, nurtured and carefully protected lest it become lost, deteriorated, or even destroyed. Freedom is the source of our strength and success, but we have lost touch with it. We have chosen comfort over freedom. We have succumbed to the temptations of an easier life of ever-increasing government benefits, purchased at the cost of our individual freedom.
This was not a revolutionary process. It evolved slowly at first and took root with the early 20th century progressives, followed by Roosevelt’s New Deal and Johnson’s Great Society, and kicked into high gear with the Obama Administration and Democrat control of both houses of congress.
Let’s get specific. In a democracy, government requires the support and consent of the governed, the productive class. We, the productive class, rarely agree to pay for government expansion without the expectation that it will provide benefits of at least comparable worth. So, progressive politicians have slowly traded benefits for our votes and some of our freedom. Initially, these benefits were practical in nature, but, once the basics were secured, the only benefits left to offer involved comfort, ease of life, and entitlements intended to “take care” of us. Because all new benefits and entitlements require more bureaucrats to process and manage them, the government continues to grow and expand. The costs associated with continually growing the government and providing increasing benefits and entitlements have now dwarfed the revenues that the government collects from taxes, so the government now has to borrow nearly as much money as it collects. Any country, business, family or individual that spends twice as much as it makes is sure to go broke. President Obama tripled the federal deficit his first year in office. The government has borrowed so much money that symptoms of a failed economy are everywhere – devaluation of currency, long term recession, failures of some economic sectors, etc. Worst of all, we have saddled our grandchildren with a huge bill. This is the first time in American history that we have asked a younger generation to sacrifice their own quality of life in order to pay for the comfort and benefits of a preceding generation. The American ideal has always been to pass on increasing opportunity and a better, stronger country. We are passing on a weaker country, a government that punishes success, a huge debt and a stifled economy. We ought to be ashamed, and our grandchildren will tell us so.
As a consequence, folks from all walks of life and political persuasions are questioning the wisdom of a big and growing government accumulating all this debt and insinuating itself into private businesses and our private lives. Washington’s only answer is that everything will get better if we only allow the government to grow even more, gain more power, and borrow more money (in total violation of the first law of holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging). Nonetheless, in order to quell the growing public distrust, and to stay in power, rest assured that progressive politicians will continue to offer even more benefits (entitlements) and to tax “only the rich” in exchange for our votes and a little more of our freedom.
Right now we are at a critical junction. We, the productive class, must utilize our shrinking majority to stop the government growth before we forfeit too much. If the productive class fails to act in time, we will lose our majority status and any chance of reversing the course. The government will then be in complete control and will no longer need the consent of the governed – pure socialism. We will no longer be citizens – we will be subjects.
Think I’m crying wolf? Check out our economy right now: high unemployment, a stagnant stock market, housing market stuck in low gear, falling dollar values, deflation with a constant threat of inflation, small business choked by a regulatory nightmare, entire economic sectors bailed out or taken over by the federal government, tsunamis of government “stimulus” money that fails to stimulate, heath care (17% of the economy) overhauled in favor of the government, looming cap and trade legislation that will skyrocket all our energy costs, etc., etc., all capped by a staggering national debt – I’d say our economy is teetering on the edge of a chasm.
We are certainly at a crossroads where we must decide whether to abandon the free market and become socialists or to stop and reverse the unsustainable growth of government. Will we find the courage to fight for our core principles of democracy, capitalism, and freedom or will we just become lackadaisical euro-socialists? It may already be too late.
So how does a country like us keep moving to the left, toward socialism? Many pundits say we are already a “socialist democracy”. How did that happen?
Actually, freedom, the genius of our system, has been its own downfall. Here is the litany of American freedom. America is great because it is free. Because America is free, opportunity is everywhere and individual strengths such as courage, drive, determination, pride, and a strong work ethic became the greatest determinants of financial and personal success. Because Americans valued individual strengths, Americans and American immigrants strove to develop those traits in themselves and their children; and, America became the most successful and productive country in the world. Because America was so successful, it became a safe, comfortable, and easy place to live. Because America was such an easy place to live, Americans became complacent, placed less value on individual strengths, and relied increasingly on government. Because America was complacent, individual strengths were gradually replaced with values such as self gratification, comfort, leisure activities, and dependency – a setup for ambitious politicians who promised entitlements and an easier life, all provided by a beneficent government that would take care of you. Entitlements, easier life, dependency on a strong central government - read socialism. Earlier Americans would have rebelled at the very thought of government or anyone else taking care of them. Their entire life’s work was dedicated to being able to care for themselves and their families. Many of us still feel the same way.
And it all began with freedom, our greatest value, our greatest gift, our genius. But, like so many precious things, freedom is fragile. It must be cherished, nurtured and carefully protected lest it become lost, deteriorated, or even destroyed. Freedom is the source of our strength and success, but we have lost touch with it. We have chosen comfort over freedom. We have succumbed to the temptations of an easier life of ever-increasing government benefits, purchased at the cost of our individual freedom.
This was not a revolutionary process. It evolved slowly at first and took root with the early 20th century progressives, followed by Roosevelt’s New Deal and Johnson’s Great Society, and kicked into high gear with the Obama Administration and Democrat control of both houses of congress.
Let’s get specific. In a democracy, government requires the support and consent of the governed, the productive class. We, the productive class, rarely agree to pay for government expansion without the expectation that it will provide benefits of at least comparable worth. So, progressive politicians have slowly traded benefits for our votes and some of our freedom. Initially, these benefits were practical in nature, but, once the basics were secured, the only benefits left to offer involved comfort, ease of life, and entitlements intended to “take care” of us. Because all new benefits and entitlements require more bureaucrats to process and manage them, the government continues to grow and expand. The costs associated with continually growing the government and providing increasing benefits and entitlements have now dwarfed the revenues that the government collects from taxes, so the government now has to borrow nearly as much money as it collects. Any country, business, family or individual that spends twice as much as it makes is sure to go broke. President Obama tripled the federal deficit his first year in office. The government has borrowed so much money that symptoms of a failed economy are everywhere – devaluation of currency, long term recession, failures of some economic sectors, etc. Worst of all, we have saddled our grandchildren with a huge bill. This is the first time in American history that we have asked a younger generation to sacrifice their own quality of life in order to pay for the comfort and benefits of a preceding generation. The American ideal has always been to pass on increasing opportunity and a better, stronger country. We are passing on a weaker country, a government that punishes success, a huge debt and a stifled economy. We ought to be ashamed, and our grandchildren will tell us so.
As a consequence, folks from all walks of life and political persuasions are questioning the wisdom of a big and growing government accumulating all this debt and insinuating itself into private businesses and our private lives. Washington’s only answer is that everything will get better if we only allow the government to grow even more, gain more power, and borrow more money (in total violation of the first law of holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging). Nonetheless, in order to quell the growing public distrust, and to stay in power, rest assured that progressive politicians will continue to offer even more benefits (entitlements) and to tax “only the rich” in exchange for our votes and a little more of our freedom.
Right now we are at a critical junction. We, the productive class, must utilize our shrinking majority to stop the government growth before we forfeit too much. If the productive class fails to act in time, we will lose our majority status and any chance of reversing the course. The government will then be in complete control and will no longer need the consent of the governed – pure socialism. We will no longer be citizens – we will be subjects.
Think I’m crying wolf? Check out our economy right now: high unemployment, a stagnant stock market, housing market stuck in low gear, falling dollar values, deflation with a constant threat of inflation, small business choked by a regulatory nightmare, entire economic sectors bailed out or taken over by the federal government, tsunamis of government “stimulus” money that fails to stimulate, heath care (17% of the economy) overhauled in favor of the government, looming cap and trade legislation that will skyrocket all our energy costs, etc., etc., all capped by a staggering national debt – I’d say our economy is teetering on the edge of a chasm.
We are certainly at a crossroads where we must decide whether to abandon the free market and become socialists or to stop and reverse the unsustainable growth of government. Will we find the courage to fight for our core principles of democracy, capitalism, and freedom or will we just become lackadaisical euro-socialists? It may already be too late.
17 October 2010
Government VI: Moral Standards
All societies need a moral foundation, and that is especially true of democracies because they are free. Freedom is a two-edged sword - it comes with great benefits and great temptations. Because we are free to succumb to our lesser angels, most of us need to be reminded and even exhorted to respond instead to our higher angels. Leaving aside the question of moral absolutes, each of us must be guided by some moral standards less we become anarchists. Like everyone else, I live by many standards. Here are some that I believe are among the most important:
• to provide for and protect our families;
• to care for those who cannot care for themselves;
• to protect our environment and use our resources wisely; and,
• to respect the rights of others.
I suspect that most readers will agree that all four of these are a good idea. But I see them as much more than a good idea. I see them as my personal responsibility. I believe I have an obligation, a bounden duty to live by these values; but, I sometimes lack the discipline to do so, and I need my family and my church to guide and remind me – to be my outer vocal conscience when my inner conscience succumbs to temptation. Many of my progressive friends also feel a bounden duty to live by these or other similar standards, but, rather than see them as moral standards, they believe the government should enact them into laws to ensure that everyone lives by them. Whether standards or laws, the issue is not whether morality is important – it clearly is. Rather, the issue is who establishes our morals: the government, or families and churches (temples, mosques, ashrams ... whatever).
So, should morality be legislated? Some legislation does have a moral foundation. For example, laws that redistribute wealth or limit the right to bear arms or require affirmative action are all intended to right perceived moral wrongs. In all three cases, some folks are in favor and some are opposed to the laws. Here’s the problem: many or even most people may disagree with any given moral stance, but once it is pressed into law, all are bound by its tenets. When the government is in charge of morality, everyone has to toe the line, whether they agree or not, and those who do not agree or comply are judged to be evil or corrupt or unethical, if not criminal. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want some professional politician or bureaucrat lecturing me about right and wrong, or censoring my speech, or dictating what food I eat, or deciding whether I should or can have a colonoscopy.
Absent government control, people are free to establish and live by their own standards, which will no doubt differ from those of many others. I am free to eat cheeseburgers even though they are bad for my health, and I am free not to get a colonoscopy even though my doctor thinks I should. Many people will disagree with my choices, but they cannot force me to cater to their judgment about what is the right thing to do. We must learn to get along in spite of our disagreements, remembering Oliver Wendell Holmes’ caution that “the right to swing my fist ends at where the other man’s nose begins”. If my choices, e.g., vulgar tatoos or failure to bathe, are repugnant to others, they are free not to hire or even associate with me. My repugnant choice may condemn me to live apart from others – my choice. Freedom is complicated and unruly, but it is far superior to government interference in our daily lives. I would much prefer to deal with an uncouth or nasty neighbor than a bureaucrat enforcing political correctness. We do not need the government to specify right and wrong.
Traditionally, American children have learned about right and wrong from their parents and their church. This seemed to work well enough for a long time, but America is becoming increasingly secular and the nuclear family is no longer the gold standard. Nowadays, many people rely more and more on laws, regulations, schools and the government to establish, teach, and administer moral codes. As people become increasingly reliant on the government to be their conscience, they become less generous with their time and money, and less participatory in their family and church lives. It’s just plain easier to let the government handle it - you don’t have to get personally involved. The rationalizations are endless: it’s the government’s job to care for the poor; I pay taxes so I don’t have to be personally concerned; belonging to a church ties up Sunday mornings and interferes with other discretionary time; everyone in the family is on a different schedule, so sit-down family dinners and discussions are just not practical; it’s the school’s job to discipline the kids; religion is for the ignorant; I live a modern lifestyle; I’m not stuck in the past; marriage is just a piece of paper; I’m just too busy.
So, how’s it working? As the influences of parents and churches have waned, gangs, violent videos, vile music lyrics, teen-age pregnancy, and poverty stricken single mothers are all on the rise. Cheating in school, in business, and in marriage, are an acceptable nuisance - troublesome, but tolerable as long as they don’t “get out of hand”. Lies and dishonesty are tolerated and even expected from our politicians and our government officials. A sense of entitlement pervades, and any sense of accomplishment is watered down in the name of “self-esteem” or “diversity”. Pride, personal integrity, loyalty, honesty, politeness, manners and decency, are often regarded as naive or even pretentious. Need I go on? Isn’t it time to return to our time-honored reliance on families and churches to establish and bear our moral standards?
We need family and religion. As everyone knows, both can be messy, sometimes unfair, and occasionally a huge pain in the ass; but, family and religion have traditionally provided an excellent foundation and purpose for our moral and ethical being. Families and religion are often problematical, but they are also the source of much of the sweetness in life. They bring us delight, they cause our spirits to soar, and they bless us with profound joy and love. I don’t know exactly how family and religion fit into economic theory and a free market economy, but they damned sure make us nicer people and the free market a nicer place.
• to provide for and protect our families;
• to care for those who cannot care for themselves;
• to protect our environment and use our resources wisely; and,
• to respect the rights of others.
I suspect that most readers will agree that all four of these are a good idea. But I see them as much more than a good idea. I see them as my personal responsibility. I believe I have an obligation, a bounden duty to live by these values; but, I sometimes lack the discipline to do so, and I need my family and my church to guide and remind me – to be my outer vocal conscience when my inner conscience succumbs to temptation. Many of my progressive friends also feel a bounden duty to live by these or other similar standards, but, rather than see them as moral standards, they believe the government should enact them into laws to ensure that everyone lives by them. Whether standards or laws, the issue is not whether morality is important – it clearly is. Rather, the issue is who establishes our morals: the government, or families and churches (temples, mosques, ashrams ... whatever).
So, should morality be legislated? Some legislation does have a moral foundation. For example, laws that redistribute wealth or limit the right to bear arms or require affirmative action are all intended to right perceived moral wrongs. In all three cases, some folks are in favor and some are opposed to the laws. Here’s the problem: many or even most people may disagree with any given moral stance, but once it is pressed into law, all are bound by its tenets. When the government is in charge of morality, everyone has to toe the line, whether they agree or not, and those who do not agree or comply are judged to be evil or corrupt or unethical, if not criminal. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want some professional politician or bureaucrat lecturing me about right and wrong, or censoring my speech, or dictating what food I eat, or deciding whether I should or can have a colonoscopy.
Absent government control, people are free to establish and live by their own standards, which will no doubt differ from those of many others. I am free to eat cheeseburgers even though they are bad for my health, and I am free not to get a colonoscopy even though my doctor thinks I should. Many people will disagree with my choices, but they cannot force me to cater to their judgment about what is the right thing to do. We must learn to get along in spite of our disagreements, remembering Oliver Wendell Holmes’ caution that “the right to swing my fist ends at where the other man’s nose begins”. If my choices, e.g., vulgar tatoos or failure to bathe, are repugnant to others, they are free not to hire or even associate with me. My repugnant choice may condemn me to live apart from others – my choice. Freedom is complicated and unruly, but it is far superior to government interference in our daily lives. I would much prefer to deal with an uncouth or nasty neighbor than a bureaucrat enforcing political correctness. We do not need the government to specify right and wrong.
Traditionally, American children have learned about right and wrong from their parents and their church. This seemed to work well enough for a long time, but America is becoming increasingly secular and the nuclear family is no longer the gold standard. Nowadays, many people rely more and more on laws, regulations, schools and the government to establish, teach, and administer moral codes. As people become increasingly reliant on the government to be their conscience, they become less generous with their time and money, and less participatory in their family and church lives. It’s just plain easier to let the government handle it - you don’t have to get personally involved. The rationalizations are endless: it’s the government’s job to care for the poor; I pay taxes so I don’t have to be personally concerned; belonging to a church ties up Sunday mornings and interferes with other discretionary time; everyone in the family is on a different schedule, so sit-down family dinners and discussions are just not practical; it’s the school’s job to discipline the kids; religion is for the ignorant; I live a modern lifestyle; I’m not stuck in the past; marriage is just a piece of paper; I’m just too busy.
So, how’s it working? As the influences of parents and churches have waned, gangs, violent videos, vile music lyrics, teen-age pregnancy, and poverty stricken single mothers are all on the rise. Cheating in school, in business, and in marriage, are an acceptable nuisance - troublesome, but tolerable as long as they don’t “get out of hand”. Lies and dishonesty are tolerated and even expected from our politicians and our government officials. A sense of entitlement pervades, and any sense of accomplishment is watered down in the name of “self-esteem” or “diversity”. Pride, personal integrity, loyalty, honesty, politeness, manners and decency, are often regarded as naive or even pretentious. Need I go on? Isn’t it time to return to our time-honored reliance on families and churches to establish and bear our moral standards?
We need family and religion. As everyone knows, both can be messy, sometimes unfair, and occasionally a huge pain in the ass; but, family and religion have traditionally provided an excellent foundation and purpose for our moral and ethical being. Families and religion are often problematical, but they are also the source of much of the sweetness in life. They bring us delight, they cause our spirits to soar, and they bless us with profound joy and love. I don’t know exactly how family and religion fit into economic theory and a free market economy, but they damned sure make us nicer people and the free market a nicer place.
11 October 2010
Government V: Education
Like most folks, I believe that parents are ultimately responsible for the basic (K–12) education of their children. Whether parents choose to educate their own children or send them to public or private school, it is they who are responsible for ensuring their children receive a good education. Even though I recognize that many parents do not live up to that obligation, I remain confident that most parents want the best for their children and care very much about their education.
Parents naturally trust our public schools to deliver a good education, but American public schools are now subject to so much pressure from government agencies, teacher unions, and the education industry (ranging from colleges of education to textbook manufacturers) that parents no longer have much influence on school policies or programs. Government regulation and a pervasive liberal agenda in the education industry have displaced parental judgment on virtually all school matters, including which courses are taught, textbooks, and even value judgments on controversial issues. American parents have slowly but inexorably lost control. Instead of public schools being responsible to the parents, the schools have taken charge, and it is government employees and elected officials, not the parents, who are empowered to make the critical educational decisions.
Nearly 90% of American kids attend government controlled public schools, some of which are public charter or specialty (math, science, music, etc.) schools. The remaining 10% of children are home schooled or attend church or private schools. Home education has always worked reasonably well for those families with the means to hire tutors or a parent who is willing and able to teach, but this option is either out of reach or too overwhelming for most parents. For the most part, church schools provide a fine education, and non-church private schools almost always deliver a good, if not superior, education. Allowing that charter and specialty public schools generally provide a better education than the traditional public school down the street, I conclude that neighborhood public schools are at the bottom of the quality of education scale. With some notable exceptions, they are the least effective at accomplishing the primary goal of all schools – educating kids.
Many intervening forces plague our public schools: a regulated, legally established government controlled monopoly on education; school districts and administrative hierarchies that choke on their own bureaucracies; colleges of education which produce teachers who are committed to a progressive agenda and revisionist curricula; and, teachers unions that are focused more on themselves than the students. The result: our children are being educated by a public school monopoly that is failing to provide even minimally adequate, much less good education. Public schools are not preparing our children to compete in either the local or the global markets. Businesses continually complain that young people entering the work force have poor reading, writing, and mathematical skills. A recent widely publicized report on education concluded that American students rank 25th when compared to kids from other countries, even though American spending per student was the highest in the world. Ugh.
So, nearly everyone agrees that our immediate goal must be to improve education in America, but, what do we mean by a good education? Certainly, education should be open and available to all, providing every student with the same opportunity to excel and succeed. Most of us would agree that a good education must provide competency in core subjects like math, science, reading, writing, history, geography, and citizenship. (Some might argue about the last one, but this is my essay.) A good education should also offer an opportunity for students to explore their own interests and to honestly discuss opposing views on societal issues (without being coerced by their teachers); but make no mistake, education is first and foremost about the core subjects. All other goals, however important, are secondary. In the end, the overriding goal of education is to prepare students to provide for themselves and their families in an increasingly competitive world.
Let’s look at the big picture. The fundamental notion underlying education in America is that all students are equal. How silly. Certainly all students are equally valuable, but they are definitely not equal. Their abilities and interests vary immensely. The problems faced by the top 10% of each class are totally different from those of their peers in the bottom 10%. All the kids have problems and issues, but it is the lowest performing students that capture our attention. For example, consider “No Child Left Behind”. The name itself implies that we will concentrate on keeping even the lowest performing students in school, and nearly everyone seems to concur that this is an admirable goal. Admirable perhaps, but, should it be the primary goal of American education? How about broadening the emphasis to include all the students? How about, “No Child’s Potential Left Behind”? This would suggest that we should educate every child to the best of their individual abilities. It would suggest that top performing students are as important as their less gifted or less motivated classmates (oh, my ...). Of course we need to keep low performing students in school – the alternative is to condemn them to scratching for a living, or even gang life. That having been said, it is equally important to support and celebrate the top performers – our country and our future are in their hands.
Private schools do not ignore the top performers. We often hear that private schools offer the best educations, but they are too expensive for most of us ... or are they? We cannot know how expensive private schools really are because we have never allowed them to compete on the open market. Recent studies have shown that, in open competition, many private schools would be cost competitive with public schools. This is not too surprising considering that inflation adjusted spending for public school students has increased more than 300% in the past 40 years. Think about it. How can anyone reasonably justify a nearly quadruple increase in per student spending while student performance has remained flat or decreased? Any way you look at it, and regardless of the money spent, most public schools are doing a poor job of educating our kids.
Isn’t the answer obvious? If public education isn’t working, then eliminate the government monopoly. Open education up to competition in the free market. Allow public and private schools to compete for tax dollars. To do this, we must remove control of the money from the government and empower those who are responsible for the children – the parents. Instead of giving public schools tax dollars for each student, give the parents an equivalent amount in school vouchers and allow them to spend the vouchers at the public or private school of their choice. In order to be eligible for vouchers, schools would not be allowed to discriminate by race, ethnicity, etc., or to limit enrollment for any reason other than capacity, but they could advance students on different or even individual competitive tracks, based on student performance. Note that I suggest vouchers, not cash, be given to the parents. The vouchers could only be cashed by schools, thus ensuring that the money is spent on schooling. No doubt, some private schools would continue to charge more, some less, than the voucher amount, and parents would be free to pay the extra amount themselves or choose the less expensive school. All schools, public and private, would then be eligible to compete for the tax money. Top performing kids from even the poorest families would have an opportunity to attend the best schools, public or private.
Teachers unions, government bureaucrats, and their progressive friends often become apoplectic at the very suggestion of competitive education. Sadly, their opposing arguments are often more concerned with teacher benefits and teacher issues than with the quality of students’ educations. Their ongoing mantra is that they need more money, even though the last 40 years have clearly demonstrated that more money is not the answer. Even when they do set teacher issues aside and address educational quality, their arguments are related to equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. They prefer to teach all children the same, regardless of gender, drive, intellectual capacity, academic interest, or ability. Hogwash. This is classic dumbing-down.
Another commonly heard progressive argument against educational competition is that all the best students will leave and the public schools will be left with only the most difficult students. What a silly argument. If it is true that the best students will leave, it must be because they are leaving for better schools, including, by the way, some public schools. Yes, there are some public schools that will immediately attract the best students, because they are good schools. Obviously, it can and is being done, so why aren’t all the public schools providing a good education? Could it be because, absent competition, public schools have no incentive to change or adapt or improve? Competition works, and some healthy competition would force the rest of the public schools to adapt and become good schools themselves, to close their doors, or to change their educational emphasis.
Here’s a thought. How about a renewed interest in vocational education? At the risk of committing a huge politically incorrect faux pas, not every kid is college material. Many kids despise classroom academics, but are intrigued by mechanics, electronics, computers, construction, and other trades, and there happens to be an increasing dearth of young Americans who are qualified in the skilled trades. How often do we waste tens of thousands of dollars trying to cram a college education into a kid who hates school, will very probably never graduate from college, and, even if he/she does, it will be with a degree of doubtful value that is unlikely to ever generate enough income to pay back their student loans? Instead, why not convert some of our schools into work-study Vo-Tech schools that will graduate valuable, income producing, skilled trades-persons? They will become productive and enter the workforce at an earlier age, with the potential for a good income, and with no student loan debt hanging over their heads.
As long as our public schools remain a monopoly, and, as long as our teachers are protected by union contracts and tenure, neither the schools nor the teachers have any incentive to improve or even change. It is time to concentrate on every student’s potential, and to match their education to their abilities. It is time to provide access to good academic schools for students with academic potential, vocational training for those who dislike academics, and everything in between. It is past time to:
o institute a voucher system that will allow all schools, public and private, to compete,
o make each school an “open shop” where the teachers have an option whether or not to join the union,
o abolish tenure,
o provide nation-wide access to vocational training, and
o adjust each public school’s educational emphasis to the local demographics.
Call it what you will – our public schools are controlled by a government monopoly that is steeped in a liberal agenda. The result has been a system of “educational socialism” that is failing miserably.
I believe most Americans, given the choice, would chose the free market, thank you, and our children and our country would be so much better for the experience.
Parents naturally trust our public schools to deliver a good education, but American public schools are now subject to so much pressure from government agencies, teacher unions, and the education industry (ranging from colleges of education to textbook manufacturers) that parents no longer have much influence on school policies or programs. Government regulation and a pervasive liberal agenda in the education industry have displaced parental judgment on virtually all school matters, including which courses are taught, textbooks, and even value judgments on controversial issues. American parents have slowly but inexorably lost control. Instead of public schools being responsible to the parents, the schools have taken charge, and it is government employees and elected officials, not the parents, who are empowered to make the critical educational decisions.
Nearly 90% of American kids attend government controlled public schools, some of which are public charter or specialty (math, science, music, etc.) schools. The remaining 10% of children are home schooled or attend church or private schools. Home education has always worked reasonably well for those families with the means to hire tutors or a parent who is willing and able to teach, but this option is either out of reach or too overwhelming for most parents. For the most part, church schools provide a fine education, and non-church private schools almost always deliver a good, if not superior, education. Allowing that charter and specialty public schools generally provide a better education than the traditional public school down the street, I conclude that neighborhood public schools are at the bottom of the quality of education scale. With some notable exceptions, they are the least effective at accomplishing the primary goal of all schools – educating kids.
Many intervening forces plague our public schools: a regulated, legally established government controlled monopoly on education; school districts and administrative hierarchies that choke on their own bureaucracies; colleges of education which produce teachers who are committed to a progressive agenda and revisionist curricula; and, teachers unions that are focused more on themselves than the students. The result: our children are being educated by a public school monopoly that is failing to provide even minimally adequate, much less good education. Public schools are not preparing our children to compete in either the local or the global markets. Businesses continually complain that young people entering the work force have poor reading, writing, and mathematical skills. A recent widely publicized report on education concluded that American students rank 25th when compared to kids from other countries, even though American spending per student was the highest in the world. Ugh.
So, nearly everyone agrees that our immediate goal must be to improve education in America, but, what do we mean by a good education? Certainly, education should be open and available to all, providing every student with the same opportunity to excel and succeed. Most of us would agree that a good education must provide competency in core subjects like math, science, reading, writing, history, geography, and citizenship. (Some might argue about the last one, but this is my essay.) A good education should also offer an opportunity for students to explore their own interests and to honestly discuss opposing views on societal issues (without being coerced by their teachers); but make no mistake, education is first and foremost about the core subjects. All other goals, however important, are secondary. In the end, the overriding goal of education is to prepare students to provide for themselves and their families in an increasingly competitive world.
Let’s look at the big picture. The fundamental notion underlying education in America is that all students are equal. How silly. Certainly all students are equally valuable, but they are definitely not equal. Their abilities and interests vary immensely. The problems faced by the top 10% of each class are totally different from those of their peers in the bottom 10%. All the kids have problems and issues, but it is the lowest performing students that capture our attention. For example, consider “No Child Left Behind”. The name itself implies that we will concentrate on keeping even the lowest performing students in school, and nearly everyone seems to concur that this is an admirable goal. Admirable perhaps, but, should it be the primary goal of American education? How about broadening the emphasis to include all the students? How about, “No Child’s Potential Left Behind”? This would suggest that we should educate every child to the best of their individual abilities. It would suggest that top performing students are as important as their less gifted or less motivated classmates (oh, my ...). Of course we need to keep low performing students in school – the alternative is to condemn them to scratching for a living, or even gang life. That having been said, it is equally important to support and celebrate the top performers – our country and our future are in their hands.
Private schools do not ignore the top performers. We often hear that private schools offer the best educations, but they are too expensive for most of us ... or are they? We cannot know how expensive private schools really are because we have never allowed them to compete on the open market. Recent studies have shown that, in open competition, many private schools would be cost competitive with public schools. This is not too surprising considering that inflation adjusted spending for public school students has increased more than 300% in the past 40 years. Think about it. How can anyone reasonably justify a nearly quadruple increase in per student spending while student performance has remained flat or decreased? Any way you look at it, and regardless of the money spent, most public schools are doing a poor job of educating our kids.
Isn’t the answer obvious? If public education isn’t working, then eliminate the government monopoly. Open education up to competition in the free market. Allow public and private schools to compete for tax dollars. To do this, we must remove control of the money from the government and empower those who are responsible for the children – the parents. Instead of giving public schools tax dollars for each student, give the parents an equivalent amount in school vouchers and allow them to spend the vouchers at the public or private school of their choice. In order to be eligible for vouchers, schools would not be allowed to discriminate by race, ethnicity, etc., or to limit enrollment for any reason other than capacity, but they could advance students on different or even individual competitive tracks, based on student performance. Note that I suggest vouchers, not cash, be given to the parents. The vouchers could only be cashed by schools, thus ensuring that the money is spent on schooling. No doubt, some private schools would continue to charge more, some less, than the voucher amount, and parents would be free to pay the extra amount themselves or choose the less expensive school. All schools, public and private, would then be eligible to compete for the tax money. Top performing kids from even the poorest families would have an opportunity to attend the best schools, public or private.
Teachers unions, government bureaucrats, and their progressive friends often become apoplectic at the very suggestion of competitive education. Sadly, their opposing arguments are often more concerned with teacher benefits and teacher issues than with the quality of students’ educations. Their ongoing mantra is that they need more money, even though the last 40 years have clearly demonstrated that more money is not the answer. Even when they do set teacher issues aside and address educational quality, their arguments are related to equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. They prefer to teach all children the same, regardless of gender, drive, intellectual capacity, academic interest, or ability. Hogwash. This is classic dumbing-down.
Another commonly heard progressive argument against educational competition is that all the best students will leave and the public schools will be left with only the most difficult students. What a silly argument. If it is true that the best students will leave, it must be because they are leaving for better schools, including, by the way, some public schools. Yes, there are some public schools that will immediately attract the best students, because they are good schools. Obviously, it can and is being done, so why aren’t all the public schools providing a good education? Could it be because, absent competition, public schools have no incentive to change or adapt or improve? Competition works, and some healthy competition would force the rest of the public schools to adapt and become good schools themselves, to close their doors, or to change their educational emphasis.
Here’s a thought. How about a renewed interest in vocational education? At the risk of committing a huge politically incorrect faux pas, not every kid is college material. Many kids despise classroom academics, but are intrigued by mechanics, electronics, computers, construction, and other trades, and there happens to be an increasing dearth of young Americans who are qualified in the skilled trades. How often do we waste tens of thousands of dollars trying to cram a college education into a kid who hates school, will very probably never graduate from college, and, even if he/she does, it will be with a degree of doubtful value that is unlikely to ever generate enough income to pay back their student loans? Instead, why not convert some of our schools into work-study Vo-Tech schools that will graduate valuable, income producing, skilled trades-persons? They will become productive and enter the workforce at an earlier age, with the potential for a good income, and with no student loan debt hanging over their heads.
As long as our public schools remain a monopoly, and, as long as our teachers are protected by union contracts and tenure, neither the schools nor the teachers have any incentive to improve or even change. It is time to concentrate on every student’s potential, and to match their education to their abilities. It is time to provide access to good academic schools for students with academic potential, vocational training for those who dislike academics, and everything in between. It is past time to:
o institute a voucher system that will allow all schools, public and private, to compete,
o make each school an “open shop” where the teachers have an option whether or not to join the union,
o abolish tenure,
o provide nation-wide access to vocational training, and
o adjust each public school’s educational emphasis to the local demographics.
Call it what you will – our public schools are controlled by a government monopoly that is steeped in a liberal agenda. The result has been a system of “educational socialism” that is failing miserably.
I believe most Americans, given the choice, would chose the free market, thank you, and our children and our country would be so much better for the experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)