Posted by
Mark Holt on Friday, September 12, 2008 1:57:42 PM
For a social and fiscal conservative, Obama represents many things that are downright scary. Vast expansion of entitlement programs. Rising taxes. An almost insane dedication to abortion rights. But the scariest thing I've ever heard come out of his mouth happened just this week, and no one noticed.
On Tuesday, Obama uttered these words, in the broader context of discussing No Child Left Behind:
"Let's finally help our teachers and principals develop a curriculum
and assessments that teach our kids to become more than just good
test-takers."
To understand why this is such a scary statement, let's examine it a moment. The most telling phrase is "develop a curriculum." If you're not scared yet, let me tell you why you should be. In order to do so, I will quote from the book Nazism: A History
in Documents and Eyewitness Accounts, 1919-1945, J. Noakes and G. Pridham, editors. Page numbers are in parentheses.
In every modern totalitarian regime, leaders have used education to cement their own power. Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Hirohito all had as a priority deciding what went into schools. Why?
"The Nazi leadership appreciated the difficulty of indoctrinating the older generation.... They were all the more determined to mold the new generation along Nazi lines. As the leader of the Nazi Teacher's League, Hans Schemm, put it: 'Those who have the youth on their side control the future.'" (416)
Does this mean I am likening Obama to Hitler? No. But Obama is creating (or rather, finishing) a machine that he won't control forever. I ascribe the highest goals to Obama in this regard. I (somewhat) believe his only desire is to create a better educational system. But the effect will be quite the opposite. Once the federal government is setting the curriculum for students, will they dictate subject matter only in the 3 R's (reading, writing, and ... 'rithmetic)? I think not. The Nazis had this to say about curriculum:
"German youth must no longer... be confronted with the choice of whether it wishes to grow up in a spirit of materialism or idealism, of racism or internationalism, of religious or godlessness, but it must be consciously shaped according to principles which are recognized as correct...according to the principles of the ideology of National Socialism." (432)
In other words, once the system is in place, it can (and, inevitably, will) be used to teach ideology. Nazis used their educational system to teach "principles" which they deemed "correct." Our system would be used to do the same. If you don't believe me, look at California. Already, it is mandated that, statewide, gay marriage must be discussed on a level with heterosexual marriage. Couple this with the state's decision to restrict a parent's right to homeschool, and you have mandatory indoctrination. Parents who can't afford private school and who don't wish their children to receive this sort of "education" have one option: leave the state.
But what if there was no other state? What if every state had the same curriculum, informed by the same agenda? Even if you agree with all of the doctrines of political correctness today, you have to recognize that a system which implements a federal curriculum will be in place for the foreseeable future. And anyone who's been alive since the 80's has to admit that political correctness is a rapidly moving target. What will be "correct" 10 years from now? Eugenics and euthanasia? Sovereignty of international law? Forced abortion? Many things that are "correct" today were once as unthinkable as all of these.
Never before in our history have we lived under a federal government that dictated curriculum to schools. That is because many citizens in the country still understand the concept of federalism, which means that while the central government undertakes the tasks only it can do (such as regulate defense and trade), the rest of the job is left up to the states. It's even in the Bill of Rights (amendment 10, in case you don't believe me). But Federalism (with a capital "F") now means something much different. Now it includes the concept of a vast "safety net," which will catch every person who makes a mistake, and lift him back up.
Pardon me, but I happen to believe mistakes are part of learning. I want businessmen to take risks, and profit from their innovations. But I don't want to share all of those risks with them, and bail them out when they fail, if I don't get anything when they succeed. I want schools to be able to try new approaches to education, if the parents of those being taught agree with it. I don't want to be fed a line of bullcrap about "school choice," when the only choice is how well the school implements federal mandates.
In addition to setting a national curriculum, Obama also expressed a desire to turn kids into "more than just good test-takers." This makes me ask what, pray tell, he would make them? Good citizens, presumably. I hope you will forgive me, but I don't want anyone in Washington determining what turns my child into a good citizen. Especially not one Barack Obama. If he wants to sell a DVD course on public speaking, I'm sure I'd be happy to show it to my kids. Other than that, I can't imagine what educational content he might offer that I'd want them to see.
Both candidates have failed to speak out against the Department of Education or No Child Left Behind. This is lamentable, because I believe they place us on a slippery slope to totalitarianism. However, only one has voiced his desire to set a nationwide curriculum. And that's more than a dime's worth of difference.