Yesterday, I saw a commentary from the Arizona Republic by EJ Montini about two leading Republican politicians in the state who brought out their inner-Trump and made monumental tirades against...teachers. (Yes, on teachers. Perhaps they thought that attacking puppies and goldfish would be going too far) One came from Republican State Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita who called teachers "educational terrorists." (Again, yes, you read that right.) The other, by Matt Salmon who is running for governor, called the teachers union "a scourge on our society." (As far as I can tell, Mr. Salmon believes that, as apparently "educational terrorists," woefully underpaid teachers dedicating their lives to the growth of children shouldn't have anyone defending their working conditions or rights.) Mr. Montini begins his article pointedly" "Why do Arizona Republicans hate teachers? It's like they're having spitting contests with venom." He notes that what the Republican-led Arizona Legislature has done to the state's public school system over the past several years is "wreck it." And he makes clear that that's not hyperbole -- pointing out that a recent national survey showed that "Arizona had the worst public education system in the nation." The worst - 50th. If it's any consolation to Mr. Montini, the issue isn't why Arizona Republicans hate teachers. It's that the Republican Party in general, the party overall, seems to hate education. And no, that's not hyperbole either. Let me explain. When I read the commentary, I flashed back to a couple of articles I wrote on the Huffington Post over a decade ago, about the Republican Party's long-running "War on Education." I was a bit taken aback by how fresh the two articles each read, since they both touch on issues that we're exactly dealing with today, or some that are cousins. (In fact, to my great surprise because I didn't remember writing it, the second of the articles even references -- 11 years ago -- Trump. Not to mention it also has an incredibly prescient, fresh quote from historian Will Durant...written 50 years ago.) The GOP War on Education has only gotten worse since then, as we've seen most recently in the attacks on doctors and science over things like Climate Change, vaccines, pandemics, and far-right violence and outrage at school board meetings over curriculums teaching that there was actually racism in America, and to ban books and GOP-backed state laws to ban book and sue schools for teaching things that make children uncomfortable. and more. (Fun fact: Math, history, English, and science tend to make most students uncomfortable. Recess is one of the few things at school that does not. Even lunch makes some kids uncomfortable at school when cliques form.) I thought it would be good to revisit those articles to make bluntly clear that this is not a new phenomenon in the Republican Party that will pass - because it's been going on for at least 70 years. (When the article notes "60 years," remember that this was written more than a decade ago.) I wasn't sure which of the two I should re-post, since they overlap one another. But I realized that they address slightly different points, so they serve as companion pieces, written eight months apart. And so, I figured it best to post them both the next couple of days. Here's the first, from March 29, 2011. Every Child Left Behind Several years ago, I had a realization: conservatives don't care about education. It's a generalization, I admit. And sounds outlandish. Yet for the past 60 years, conservatives have made crystal clear their utter disdain for education. Hoping to convince others. It began in 1952. When Dwight Eisenhower ran for president against Adlai Stevenson, the contemptuous attack Republicans made was that Stevenson was "an egghead." Someone who was really - smart. And you just can't trust those smart people. In 1960, when Richard Nixon ran against John Kennedy, the Republican blast was that JFK was advised by his "Harvard Mafia." Smart people. So smart that they were dangerous. And you can't trust those smart people who go to good colleges. When Richard Nixon was elected president in 1968, he hated those smart people who go to colleges so much that students made his Enemies List. And later his "get tough" policies on student dissent (including wanting the Secret Service to beat up protestors) resulted in Republican governor Jim Rhodes sending armed troops sent the campus of Kent State University -- and four "enemy" undergraduates were killed. In 1988, George Bush claimed to be "the Education President" - yet on an campaign stop in Los Angeles told a rally of service employees that not everyone had to go to college. A valid sentiment, certainly, but for a candidate supposedly promoting education, it leaked his true feelings. And in 2000, George W. Bush failed to fund his "No Child Left Behind" education program. It's continued for 60 years, as conservatives have demeaned public education, pounding away at the national consciousness that learning for the masses is a bad thing to be scorned and mistrusted. There's an understandable - and historic - reason for this, of course, because the less educated the public is, the more it relies on authority figures, rather than question anything. And the more that education is disdained, the less that inconvenient facts will be believed. And so, instead, we get an attitude that challenges any assertion of education with a contemptuous, "So, you think you're better than the rest of us??" - conditioning people to wear with pride that they know less. In all other areas of life, we want the best. We want more riches, more success, to be faster, stronger, cooler - better at everything. Except, after 60 years of conservative pounding against education, not to be as smart as we and our children can be. And while this conservative effort has been surreptitious over the past 60 years, it's finally released itself: open, unrelenting Republican attacks in Wisconsin against teachers - teachers, for goodness sake! - and a widespread Republican war against education. In Florida, $3.3 billion has been cut from education over the next two years, almost 15% from the education budget to our children. While $1.6 billion has been given in corporate tax breaks. Texas has proposed $9.8 billion in cuts in education assistance to school districts. (Bringing a loss of 100,000 jobs.) Wisconsin cut $834 million from state aid to K-12 education over the next two years. That's 20% of the proposed cuts in the budget. And cuts to teacher pay and pensions. We have always heard the praise that teaching is the most important job. That teachers are preparing our most precious resource, our children, for the future. How teachers are underpaid heroes. But from the other side of their hypocritical mouths, conservatives will slam teachers as lazy slackers with three months of vacation, overpaid plunderers of public pensions - and for 60 years desensitize the public for stripping away public education. And now, they couldn't be any more clear: Last Wednesday in Iowa, three prospective Republican presidential candidates bluntly stated their condemnation of public education at a home schooling rally. "The public school system now is a propaganda machine," said Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX). "And they condition them to believe in so much which is totally un-American." Like, apparently, the Pledge of Allegiance. "It is not up to a bureaucrat to decide what is best for your children," insisted Michele Bachmann (R-MN), who home-schooled five children. "We know best." Except about U.S. history. Home teacher Bachman recently placed the cornerstone of the American Revolution - Lexington and Concord - in the wrong state. "That's all we want," said Herman Cain, a prominent businessman testing a GOP presidential run. "For government to get out of the way so we can educate ourselves and our children the old-fashioned way." Note: "the old-fashioned way" included one teacher for six grades in one room, few women and minorities, and teaching math with an abacus. But it was left to the event's host, Justin LaVan, to explain plainly how so many conservatives truly see education. "Talking about our Creator. Our rights that came from our Creator, acknowledging that and giving Him the glory." Of course, that's why God invented church. For educating children to succeed in a global community where others are learning science, history and geography, it's a disaster. If prayer worked in school, every kid would get straight-A's. And in the end, that disaster is what conservatives have long wanted from education. No need to learn anything. No public education. Just private schools and home schooling. Which is the end of an educated nation. Private schools limit education to those who can afford it. Home schooling limits education to families where one parent can afford to stay home. While hoping that the parent completed high school. This is known as every child left behind. But for conservatives, that's okay. The wealthy and privileged will get their children a great education. And the rest of America? You're on your own. Public education is what helped make America the envy of the world. A nation of well-informed citizens. Leading the way in the space race, technology, finance, and medical advances. But conservatives? They want to go back to "the old fashioned way." Like the Dark Ages. Where kings and the aristocracy ruled. And you peasants, obey thy overlord. Make no mistake, this is nothing new. The attack against education is the drug that conservatives have been pushing through history.
0 Comments
He's ba-ack. John Oliver has returned. And if you missed Last Week Tonight on Sunday, his main story was on the far-right reaction to the teaching of Critical Race Theory. The report was smart, funny, thoughtful and too often depressing. Within a matter of about five minutes, I came across three tweets yesterday from high-profile Republicans trying to make President Biden the “bad guy” against Putin and Russia. And bizarrely, they not only ranged from thoughtless to reprehensibly egregious, but all three were just point-blank wrong.
But this all goes far-beyond only three tweets. I'll get to that in a bit, but first the three which set the foundation of it all in their empty, shameful and almost infantile efforts to match their words to America's enemy. The first came from Liz Cheney, who for all her truly noble efforts working on the House Select Jan. 6 Committee is still, at heart, a rock-solid conservative who voted with Trump about 95% of the time. She wrote – “Pulling our Embassy out of Ukraine is a disgraceful abandonment. America cannot defend our own freedom and security if we betray our allies and commitments around the world. Full and crippling sanctions must be implemented against Putin and Russia immediately.” First of all, there is already there is already discussion of President Zelensky's government being forced to leave the country and become a government in exile. So, moving the U.S. embassy for their safety in order to not get killed, hardly seems "disgraceful." Second, how soon the GOP forgets their Benghazi faux-outrage at Hillary Clinton for not having strong enough security (for which Republicans had actually cut the budget) such that four Americans died. But third, and most of all – the U.S. is not moving its embassy out of Ukraine! It is moving it to another city in western Ukraine, which is safer. The next tweet that came by moments later was from the ol’ standby Newt Gingrich, he of the House ethics violation, who can always be counted on for some kneejerk (heavy on the “jerk”) reaction against pretty much anything Democrat, no matter how mindless his response. In this case, Gingrich wrote – “The Biden Administration talks and Putin acts. This is such a clear replay of Chamberlain trying to deal with Hitler that it is more than a little frightening. Putin is pushing day by day and has no fear of NATO because he has no fear of the United States or its President.” One is tempted to wait before reacting to see how Gingrich then justifies Trump in Helsinki saying that he trusts Putin and doesn't trust U.S. intel services. Further, reading what Gingrich is saying here seems to suggest that it means he wants to send U.S. troops into Ukraine!! Because that’s pretty much the only physical “act” that that President Biden could do that isn’t just the Gingrich version of “talk.” But far more to the point, making a comparison of the U.S. forcefully uniting our NATO allies against Russia and pressuring Putin to Neville Chamberlain appeasing Hitler discredits Gingrich’s past as a "history professor." It’s utterly foolish. And my heart is heavy for his former students. It's helpful, too, for perspective to add an old quote from Nobel Prize-winner Paul Krugman: "Newt Gingrich is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." And the third and final tweet, scrolling by my screen about a minute later, may have been the weirdest one of all, which considering the other two is quite an accomplishment. It came from former Trump Secretary of Defense and dreaming presidential hopeful Mike Pompeo. He wrote very simply – “American weakness always creates risk for our friends and our interests.” The depth of his near-total lack of self-awareness is spectacular. Reading his words, it’s like he’s begging everyone to assume he’s referring to Trump in Helsinki (man, do Republicans have a brain cloud over that, forgetting it ever existed) saying that he trusts Putin and doesn't trust U.S. intel services. Or perhaps Mr. Pompeo means instead his own photo op with the co-founder of Afghan's Taliban, before signing the country back over to them without pretty much any conditions. Because he’s most certainly not talking about President Biden strongly uniting our NATO allies to put pressure and sanctions against Russia. The man is a disgrace. In fairness, none of the three did themselves proud. Almost falling over one another to say things so foolish against America’s best interest. I understand criticism of an opposing Administration’s policies. I have less understanding when it’s the result of that criticism essentially provides accidentally or knowingly aid and comfort to our long-time adversary as a war seems imminent. But mostly, I have little understanding when, in expressing that criticism, is so…weirdly empty and demonstrably wrong. Flailing in desperation, when you’re a party with no policy foundation is such an easy thing to spot. And such a galling thing when its against the country’s best interests. The thing is, as I said above, this isn't really just about three tweets, no matter how high their profile. It's about this is pretty much what we're seeing swirling around the far-right. Because that's today's Republican Party. Enabling and supporting an insurrection to overthrow democracy seems the starting position for virtually doing the same in the Ukraine, ultimately taking the side of Russia to overthrow Democracy. All of which includes the far-right media. Which includes the Tucker Carlsons of the world on Fox "News" going almost All Pro-Putin that in some intel circles, as national security expert Malcolm Nance explained, he's known now as "Tuckyo Rose." I'm quite sure that the allusion is perfectly clear. But even if "Tokyo Rose" doesn't slip under any cracks, it's a good enough one to drill down further, being such a great play on words about an American citizen parroting the foreign government propaganda of our war-time adversary to convince Americans to forget their country’s interest, and who was someone convicted of treason. Meet today's fascist Republican Party. Doing what it can to bring down democracies here at home and around the world. Okay, yes, I know the Olympics are over, so some people might be having withdrawal systems. Therefore, I thought I would help out with a wonderful video that's about the Fish Olympics. Yes, you read that right. The Fish Olympics. It’s a real thing. This is a weird, fun, absolutely adorable, remarkable and unexpected story about the age old tale – a girl and her fish. Last week, I wrote several articles about how the far-right was making gleeful, but totally unsubstantiated claims about how special counsel John Durham’s court filings supposedly exposed wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton and Democrats, despite the reality that Durham actually made no charges, but only raised allegations – and also specifically noted that any events he referred to had actually begun during the Obama Administration and not Trump. This didn’t sit well with some far-right readers here and on social media, who insisted to the contrary, that the proof was now "established" despite the total absence of any such inconveniences as, for instance, evidence and reality. So, it was wonderful to see the other day that even John Durham himself felt he had to distance himself from how his court filing about supposed hacking was being misinterpreted by far-right media and supporters. (A filing that, it’s important to repeat, contained zero evidence, only allegations, about events his report said began during the Obama Administration, not against Trump.) While stating in a new court filing that charges of his own partisanship were not valid, Durham also took a step back by removing his personal responsibility for how far right media had interpreted his initial filing. Indeed, the only thing he defended was that it was reasonable to include the material, even if it was being misinterpreted, and didn't say what was being claimed. “If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the government’s motion," Durham wrote to the court, "that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the government’s inclusion of this information." And since it was being misinterpreted, even didn't want that happening again, and therefore said that any future filings he might make would be done under seal if they contained “information that legitimately gives rise to privacy issues or other concerns that might overcome the presumption of public access to judicial documents.” In other words, “Man, I am not doing that again!!” You can read a full article about it from the NY Times here. Then came a fascinating follow-up. On Saturday, former Republican Party spokesperson Kurt Bardella (who apparently is so repulsed by the party he used to be officially speak for and now advises the DNC) appeared on MSNBC and suggested that Trump, the far-right media and his acolytes are exaggerating Durham’s a report to distract from the last week. "Well, it's very clear when you look at the timing," Bardella explained. "Donald Trump is in trouble. He's in legal jeopardy, court filings are going against him left and right all week long." He then went into more detail about the huge legal trouble that Trump is now facing – not just from the legal rulings, but the monumental challenge Trump himself will face having to testify truthfully under oath. "His kids are going to have to testify under oath, he's going to have to testify under oath in the SDNY stuff and that's pretty much game over because he's a walking perjury case all to himself,” Bardella noted, “and here comes this great conspiracy theory from the same chorus that brought Hillary's e-mails, pulling nonsense stuff, language that doesn't actually exist, and it's clear misdirection, an effort to take any attention away from what's going on with Donald Trump and put it on somebody else." But it was one other factor he explained which pointed not only to one possible reason Durham felt compelled to distance himself from how his filing was being misinterpreted, but also to evidence of how the far-right media itself was pulling back from its totally-erroneous claims, which shows they themselves likely know they went too far in lying about Durham’s report. And that factor is when Hillary Clinton gave a blistering (and well-covered) speech about Durham’s filing and even suggested she was considering a defamation lawsuit, "It says a lot, by the way,” Bardella explained, “that after Hillary Clinton called it out, and pretty much laid out how it's defaming her, and could be a legal issue for those propaganda outlets that carry John Durham's water here, that all of a sudden yesterday there was hardly any mention of it on Fox. It went away when they realized, 'Oh, crap, we may be breaking the law by defaming Hillary Clinton.'" Short version: as I noted – no, even John Durham himself has now said that any claims his filings proved wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton and Democrats were misinterpreting what he wrote. And now even the far-right media appears to be backing off, after being threatened by Ms. Clinton with defamation. Go figure. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|