By Kevin D. Williamson
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Necessity drives invention. In the field of military
innovation, all sorts of inventions — the Maginot line, the flame fougasse,
trench warfare, the Vickers machine gun — were rooted in the same urgent
necessity: keeping Germans out. War is evil and ugly, but Europe experienced a
worse horror when that necessity was inverted, and the totalitarian movement
that controlled half of the continent decided it needed a way to keep Germans
in. And so utopia’s jailers built the Berlin Wall and any number of similar
fortifications. The ideologue may say that a wall is a wall is a wall, but in
the case of a wall, intent matters: A society with barriers to keep out
invaders is protected; a society with barriers to prevent exit is imprisoned.
HBO has a series called Togetherness, a comedy about
foundering middle-aged hipsters in Los Angeles, which has turned its attention
to the issue of charter schools, and the writers have committed the
unforgivable cultural sin of being not entirely hostile to the prospect. The
ritual denunciations are under way.
Joshua Liebner, who lives in Eagle Rock, the Los Angeles
neighborhood in which the show is set, is among those shouting “J’accuse!” in
HBO’s direction, abominating the “white privilege and entitlement and, yes,
racism and classism” that surely must be motivating charter-school families who
have the audacity to go about “defining what constitutes ‘good’ for them,” and
acting on it, as though they were in charge of their own lives and responsible
for their own children. “Charter-school dogma has made it to the Big Time,”
Liebner complains.
On behalf of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, I’d like to
extend a warm welcome to HBO.
Charter schools are public schools, albeit public schools
that are given the teensiest bit of regulatory relief. Some do very well, some
don’t. When families are given attractive options and — this must be emphasized
— given a choice, their demand frequently dwarfs the supply of charter
alternatives. This is perceived by progressives as an all-out assault on the
traditional government-school monopoly, its unaccountable administrators, and
its insulated unions. And in an important sense, it is.
And therefore, as the Left sees things, it must be
stopped. People cannot be permitted a choice, because, being captive to the
“white privilege and entitlement and, yes, racism and classism . . . defining
what constitutes ‘good’ for them,” they will choose the wrong things. So
charter schools must be held illegitimate and, if possible, stopped.
There are worse threats, of course. Real school choice
would give parents the ability to opt entirely out of the government-school
monopoly, which of course gives the Left night terrors. What progressive policy
might put an end to that?
“Let’s ban private schools,” Gawker cheerily suggests.
Writing in that esteemed journal, John Cook argues that “there’s a simple
solution to the public-schools crisis.” If people make choices that complicate
the Left’s agenda, then ban those choices: “Make Rahm Emanuel and Barack
Obama’s children go to public schools,” Cook writes. “From a purely strategic
and practical standpoint, it would be much easier to resolve the schools crisis
if the futures of America’s wealthiest and most powerful children were at stake.”
The Left’s heart is still in East Berlin: If people want
to leave your utopia and have the means to do so, then build a wall. If they
climb over the wall — as millions of low-income parents with children in
private schools (very commonly Catholic schools) do — then build a higher wall.
If they keep climbing – and they will — then there are always alternatives.
Homeschooling? That’s basically a crime against humanity
so far as our so-called liberal friends are concerned.
But then, standing in the schoolhouse door when the poor,
the black, and the brown want to enter is an ancient tradition for Democrats.
It isn’t just education, of course. In much of Canada,
private health insurance is effectively banned. The existence of private
insurance is a very strong indicator that there are some people who are not
entirely pleased with Canada’s single-payer system. (Monopolies rarely have
happy customers.) So they opt out, at least in part, exercising the right of
exit that is the most fundamental of civil rights. This is an affront to
progressive values. Solution? Ban private health insurance.
Of course, that’s Canada, and we conservatives know
instinctively to sneer at Canada. (Except . . . ) But try opting out of Social
Security or Medicare and see how long it takes for Uncle Stupid to put you in
prison as a tax evader. Those metaphorical prison walls are almost always
political veneers for actual prison walls.
It’s a funny old world when being “pro-choice” means that
people who object to abortion will be forced at gunpoint to pay for them. But
that’s progressivism: a purportedly secular movement with a whole lot of “Thou
Shalt” and “Thou Shalt Not.”
There are two ways to organize a polity. You can have a
society in which people are empowered to make their own decisions when it comes
to their lives and livelihoods, their health care, and their children’s
educations. Or you can have the alternative: an endless series of Checkpoint
Charlies.
The Democrats haven’t got that Pink Floyd song quite
right — in their version, the chorus goes: “You don’t need no education.”
All in all it’s just another brick in the wall.
No comments:
Post a Comment