Why in the World Not?

WeThePeopleThumbby Deana Chadwell
Come back with me to my classroom. Average American high school. Classes have finished for the day. I’m just tidying up, shuffling papers, chipping bubblegum off the desks – teacher stuff, when one of my students comes flying through door, breathless and distraught. “Somebody just told me that you’re a conservative!” Her eyes bugged out in disbelief, hoping I would deny the accusation and set her world right again. I mean, I taught honors English and modern dance. She was used to me pouring tea and reciting poetry, perfecting her plies. It was a public school. How could I be conservative?!?

A couple of years later one of my students wrote her college application essay about me, and my being a conservative and how disturbing that was. I was nice, smart, well read – not at all what she had expected from a right-wing nut job. She didn’t put it that way – the essay was really quite complementary, but that’s where it came from – complete amazement.

And then this week I have had some interesting conversations (euphemism) with ex-students who have found my conservatism downright offensive and I decided that this week I’d write about why my politics are what they are. I am a conservative for a reason.

Several reasons, actually.

For one thing, I am a practical person. There is only so much time in this life and I refuse to spend it spinning my wheels. If any given procedure is more trouble than it’s worth I refuse to do it. I’m not going to wash my kitchen floor before 20 people come to dinner. I’ll wait until they’re done milling helpfully around my tiny kitchen and the dishes are done – then it’s worth scrubbing. Conservatives are practical. We do want to help people, but it seems silly to send the money to Washington where they run it through a half dozen agencies, each siphoning off a portion, before they send what little is left out to a few who need it and mostly to a lot of folks who don’t. That offends every ounce of the common sense I’ve learned to live my live by. Who is better off for it? Mostly the folks in Washington. The poor are still with us.

Secondly I’m conservative because I like freedom. I am an artistic person; I have a great need to express myself – through art, dance, and of course, writing. I want the freedom to continue to do so. I don’t want to be forced into hiding my religious beliefs, or my political opinions. I don’t want to have to hide what I really think about anything. I believe in the power of language and that if we take care with our language we should be able to say anything to anyone. I believe in telling the truth. Liberalism does not.[pullquote]As mere humans we cannot seriously think that we can rearrange the great truths of human history and have reality jump right in line with our wild imaginings.[/pullquote]

Which gets me to the point of Truth. This is the basic difference between my thinking and liberal thinking. I am very sure that there is such a thing as Absolute Truth. Not everything we think of as true is absolute; I’ll grant that, but outside of time and space Absolute Truth is alive and well, as solid and immutable as granite. It is the anchor to all thought. It is not always pretty, it just IS – like God and His “I am that I am.” As mere humans we cannot seriously think that we can rearrange the great truths of human history and have reality jump right in line with our wild imaginings. Human nature is what it is; we can pretend until we’re blue in the face that all people are basically sweethearts, that decisions no longer have consequences, or that all planets revolve in subservient reverie at our feet, but none of that will ever be true.

Conservatives know history. We know that FDR made the Great Depression much worse with his Keynesian bail-out policies; we know the rest of the world recovered from the Depression years before we did. We know that Calvin Coolidge cut the government in half and not only did the country recover, it flourished. We know that the progressive income tax, the federal reserve, the 17th Amendment have all robbed us of our freedom and our money. We know that no socialist nation in the world is a financially successful place, that no socialized medical system provides anywhere near what we’ve been used to. Conservatives believe in truth, therefore we learn things, we know things. We know enough history and economics to see patterns and we know enough to be able to tell what is good and what is evil.

Which brings me to another point: evil. It is real. Evil people aren’t sick; they’re bad. I didn’t say that sick people are evil; evil people are bad. There’s a difference. Evil people have evil ideas and their incarnation is horror personified. Only conservatives really face that fact. We look back on the “progressive” 20th century and see before us the 200 million people who were murdered by their own progressive, leftist governments. No thank you.

Not only is evil real, so is justice and our need for it. I love that TV ad where the little kids get tricked or lied to and they have a fit – they know instinctively that they’ve been mistreated. They want justice. It is abnormal to look at gross injustice and not feel infuriated. A few weeks ago a judge sentenced a high school teacher to a mere 30 days in jail after he seduced (statutory rape) a 14-year-old girl, who then committed suicide. A forty-year-old Muslim raped his 8-year-old “wife” to death. Nothing happened to him. Conservatives don’t stand for that kind of nonsense. We believe that evil should be punished.

In the fall of 2000, shortly after 9/11 I was having a discussion with an honors English class and I found myself surrounded by young minds who thought that the hijackers were completely within their rights to fly planes into our buildings and kill our people because they believed they were doing right. Oh. My. Gosh. They got a lecture that day. These beautiful young people had been so trained to be “culturally diverse” that their natural outrage was completely stunted. Those were real people jumping out of the World Trade Center that day, our people, and the students weren’t moved at all. I was stunned. Conservatives can call a spider a spider and kill it when they need to. I guess that gets us back to practicality.

And practicality brings up capitalism. I am conservative because I want things to work. I want people to have jobs they can live comfortable on, jobs they enjoy. I want kids to have a great education. I want research and development, innovation, and creativity. None of that happens with socialism. What was the last great invention to come out of Sweden, or Greece? What nation achieved the highest standard of living the world has ever seen? Wasn’t North Korea. The reality is that there are economic laws that function just as surely as scientific laws. If I drop a pomegranate, it will fall. Gravity. If government gets out of the way, the economy always flourishes. If the government gets involved in private business then the only way business can survive is to get in bed with government and you have the mess we’re in now. It happens that way as surely as the mango drops. Why pretend otherwise?

Pretend is the key here. This isn’t a fairytale. It’s life or death. Which brings me to my final point –

I’m a conservative because God is a conservative. “Jesus Christ, the same, yesterday, today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8). God is immutable; His characteristics don’t change. He has, throughout history, occasionally changed the way He deals with man, but the essentials have always been the same. “Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Genesis, and quoted again in Romans, Galations, and James, all written about 2500 years later.) and He is not like Allah, who at the beginning of the Koran urged love and kindness, occasionally, and then by the end is all kill-kill-kill. Always, from the time Adam and Eve left the garden until today the issue has been to believe in the Messiah and you would be rewarded with eternal life. Always. That kind of rock bottom consistency is what we need in an evil world. We need no social experimentation – God knows what will work and what won’t; He designed us. Let’s stick with that. Wendell Barry ends one of his poems in “Sabbaths” with this stanza:

For all His creatures were His pleasure

And their whole pleasure was to be

What He made them; they sought no gain

Or growth beyond their proper measures,

Nor longed for change or novelty.

The only new thing could be pain.

That’s why I’m a conservative. How can a thinking person be anything else?

__________________________________________________
Deana Chadwell blogs at ASingleWindow.com. • (2850 views)

Share
Deana Chadwell

About Deana Chadwell

I have spent my life teaching young people how to read and write and appreciate the wonder of words. I have worked with high school students and currently teach writing at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. I have spent more than forty years studying the Bible, theology, and apologetics and that finds its way into my writing whether I’m blogging about my experiences or my opinions. I have two and a half moldering novels, stacks of essays, hundreds of poems, some which have won state and national prizes. All that writing — and more keeps popping up — needs a home with a big plate glass window; it needs air; it needs a conversation.
I am also an artist who works with cloth, yarn, beads, gourds, polymer clay, paint, and photography. And I make soap.

This entry was posted in Essays, Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Why in the World Not?

  1. Pokey Possum says:

    A+

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    That was a very interesting write-up, and a depressing look at the state of young minds today. It reminds me of a hymn I recall from my days at a Catholic school in Greece, which I later read about further in an article in (I think) Smithsonian about the songwriter and his attempts to rescue people from the Nazis: “Once in every man and nation comes the moment to decide/In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side.” Good and truth, evil and falsehood — the linkage is natural, and it requires making my own judgments — another thing modern liberalism has no room for because of its replacement of individualism with collectivism.
    This unwillingness to judge others doesn’t just apply to jihadists. Many years ago I read a column that dealt with the reluctance of similar students to condemn the Holocaust. After all, the Nazis no doubt had their reasons — and if you read, for example, Julius Streicher’s comments to Dr. Gilbert at Nuremberg (reported in the latter’s diary, published later), you realize that they did indeed.

    • Very interesting comment. I know that song. I have lately wondered whether or not the German resistance to Hitler was as strong as the backlash we’re seeing here against Obama. Are there 10 righteous men?

  3. Glenn Fairman says:

    Oh Deana……..Bravo….

  4. faba calculo says:

    “we know the rest of the world recovered from the Depression years before we did.”

    Or not. http://phoenixwoman.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/delong-march2009.jpg
    Countries like Japan and Britain pulled up ahead of us, while Germany started up about the same time we did, and France followed on well after (if at all, before it was conquered). And note the red arrows on the graph. Those are when the countries in question went off the gold standard, which was a New Deal action.

    “We know that Calvin Coolidge cut the government in half and not only did the country recover, it flourished.”

    Except that the recovery you are speaking of was the one from the downturn that came with the demobilization WW1. It was just logical to think that that one would end as the economy got back onto a peace footing. Nor was it difficult to match tax cuts with budget cuts, again, with the war being over. Finally, there’s the actions the Federal Reserve took to aid the economy by cutting the discount rate. Lots of moving parts here.

    “We know that the progressive income tax, the federal reserve, the 17th Amendment have all robbed us of our freedom and our money.”

    I would have thought that, if the progressive income tax robbed us of our money, then all taxation would be robbery, simply as a flat rate. Furthermore, our taxes aren’t actually all that progressive. Also, I fail to see how allowing the voters, rather than state governments, to elect our senators has robbed us of our freedom. Quite the opposite, it would seem to me. The Federal Reserve is a more difficult matter. Certainly its regulatory powers are great, and the previously stable price level headed for the stratosphere soon after it’s creation. Then again, soon after its creation, we had WW1, the beginning of the end of the gold standard, WW2, and the end of the end of the gold standard. It’s hard to see prices remaining stable in the face of such events whether the Fed existed or not.

    “We know that no socialist nation in the world is a financially successful place, that no socialized medical system provides anywhere near what we’ve been used to.”

    I guess it depends on ones definition of “socialized”. I mean, is Sweden a socialize country? Is Norway? Does Canada have “socialized medicine”? Does Switzerland?

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Faba, you strike me as the sort of person who would stand before the Mona Lisa and the only thing you would remark on is the slight chip in the frame. You seem to be tilting at windmills, looking for ways to raise yourself above what is clearly excellence by simply criticizing it, in whatever contrarian means you can dredge up.

      I would think the best reaction to this great article by Deana Chadwell would just be to sit in place and applaud. I read this and learned something. And what I learned is that I have a lot to learn.

      • faba calculo says:

        Brad, you may be right, at least to a degree: I may focus too much on where I disagree than where I agree. I could (and probably should) have gone more into where I agreed with the author (the insanity of a world in which students are shocked, SHOCKED, I TELL YOU, to discover that their teacher is a conservative, or, even worse are willing to excuse terrorist attacks). I try to let little, unimportant things go (e.g., that the fall that was “shortly after 9/11” wasn’t that of 2000 but of 2001).

        But to claim that “conservatives understand history”, and then to go on to make a series of claims, many of which range from being questionable to being just flat out wrong, is basically leading with your chin. And it wasn’t some minor goof like the 2000 vs. 2001 thing above. In order words, this isn’t just a chip on the frame. It’s more like someone taking a pen knife and poking three or four penny-sized holes in the lower part of the picture: you can still admire the image, but ignoring the damage becomes impossible.

        But, I promise, I will work on seeing and commenting on the good as well as the bad.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          But, I promise, I will work on seeing and commenting on the good as well as the bad.

          The bone of contention is not just your contention but your parsing things through a Leftist lens. At StubbornThings our job is to try to convince other people that socialism is a bad thing. It seems that we have some home-grown advocates as well.

          All of your points are simply superficially argumentative or are talking points acquired from the Left. If we need to take you to school (as others have done) to show you how and why the 17th Amendment was so harmful (and why “popular vote” is not an inherent good, nor the end of the story in self-government), then we can do so. But I thought you were here because you had these basics under your belt.

          Apparently not. My mistake.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Properly speaking, socialism is government ownership of the means of production, and certainly whenever one calls Obama a socialist, liberals (such as Bob Beckel on Fox) will deny the accusation on that basis (even though it’s quite reasonable to believe that Obama would prefer it, regardless of whether or not he’s able to bring it about). On that basis, the Scandinavian countries are not socialist.
      Kevin Williamson, in his Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, defined it as government CONTROL of the economy (which obviously is easiest when the government actually owns it). In that sense, Sweden would NOT be such a socialist country, he argued, because the government doesn’t control things as much as people think (probably not as much as Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were, in fact).

      • faba calculo says:

        Good analysis. By the more strict standards of defining socialism, the original article is correct: it’s a disaster to the country so foolish as to behave in this manner.

      • I get a kick out of the fact that socialists want to use the Sweden and Norway as examples of countries who have made socialism work, when 1) they are not strictly socialist and 2) when they were — I’m thinking Sweden pre-1993 — things didn’t work so well at all.

    • LibertyMark says:

      Oh, Mr. Calculo, there is so much here to take issue with. Brad has done a good job of it at a general level; I’ll take one of your points only.

      The 17th Amendment shifted power from the State legislatures to popular elections, making the two houses of congress more “democratic”. A wonderful Populist “tune up” to the Constitution in an age where populism brought such lovely Progressive constructs such as the income tax. In California, it manifested itself as a State constitutional amendment to allow “Propositions” to be added to the ballot.

      The 17th Amendment was a structural change to the design of the Constitution, not a fix. It made us more of democracy than a republic, abrogating the power of the States to control representation at the Federal level. Madison spoke of this in the Federalist Papers.

      On democracy vs republic, Madison said this in Federalist 10: “Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths…A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

      On election of Senators, Madison said this in Federalist 45: “The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures… Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel dependence.”

      Hamilton said this about the importance of State legislatures electing Senators: “When you take a view of all the circumstances which have been recited, you will certainly see that the senators will constantly look up to the state governments with an eye of dependence and affection. If they are ambitious to continue in office, they will make every prudent arrangement for this purpose, and, whatever may be their private sentiments or politics, they will be convinced that the surest means of obtaining reelection will be a uniform attachment to the interests of their several states.”

      And finally, you said: “Also, I fail to see how allowing the voters, rather than state governments, to elect our senators has robbed us of our freedom.” Perhaps more research and thought on your part about this matter is in order? I realize your viewpoint is very “popular”, and I’ve heard it a bunch of times. Indeed, I thought this way too, until I read why the Constitution was written the way it was on this matter.

      The famous quote attributed to Ben Franklin: “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for supper.” By making the Senate just another House of Representatives, the 17th weakened the influence of the States over the Federal and aided the centralization of power in the Federal. Perhaps this is why the author said “…the 17th Amendment (has)…robbed us of our freedom and our money.”

      • Kung Fu Zu says:

        Thanks Mark for your insightful analysis.

        People too often forget that there are historical reasons for our institutions. Virtually everything involving politics has happened before. The modern scale on which things now happen may be different, but human nature isn’t. There are historical reasons societies have evolved they way they have.

        At the most basic level,there are physical reasons humanity has developed they way it has. Utopians zealots throughout history have tried their best to deny human experience and history to fit their particular prejudices, but reality always comes calling at one time or another.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The precise Franklin quote (according to a t-shirt I picked up at an SF convention a few years ago) is: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well-armed lamb.”

      • Good points all. I’ve recently been reading Mark Levin’s new book and his discussion of the 17th Amendment and its affect on the very tenor of our system is profound. I think very few Americans think of their state as a sovereign unit, but rather as just a place where they live. We have lost that concept of “united states” and that was at the heart of America’s beginnings. Most of the mess happening now can be traced back to that loss.

  5. Kung Fu Zu says:

    “Or not. http://phoenixwoman.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/delong-march2009.jpg
    Countries like Japan and Britain pulled up ahead of us, while Germany started up about the same time we did, and France followed on well after (if at all, before it was conquered). And note the red arrows on the graph. Those are when the countries in question went off the gold standard, which was a New Deal action.”

    Your graph does not refute what Mrs. Chadwell stated. In fact, Japan and Britain were ahead of the USA in economic recovery. Even Germany was in a somewhat better position that the USA. And it is highly likely that Germany would have been in a much better position had they not been forced to pay huge war reparations.

    You will note that the recoveries of Germany and the USA are similar. To a large degree, at least on the German side, that is because of the special cooperation between the USA and Germany at this time, particularly regarding the gold standard. Germany did everything it could to stay on the gold standard due to the high war reparations it was forced to pay. And it needed a relatively strong Reichs Mark as Germany was dependent on imports.

    There was a lot of cooperation between the USA and Germany in this and other economic areas after the war. Much of this cooperation was aimed at France and Great Britain. H. Schacht wove an extremely complex fiscal web to do everything he could to keep the Reich’s Mark strong and Germany from defaulting on its war debt.

    As to Japan and the U.K. going off the gold standard, that was really a beggar thy neighbor approach to the problem of exports.

  6. Kung Fu Zu says:

    “Or not. http://phoenixwoman.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/delong-march2009.jpg
    Countries like Japan and Britain pulled up ahead of us, while Germany started up about the same time we did,”

    I checked a little further and using the same benchmark as that of the chart you attached, Italy also did significantly better than the USA.

    I also looked at the data for 1938 and 39 and the USA had a big drop off. Great Britain had a smaller decrease, but the others countries kept growing. So the chart is a bit misleading in this instance.

    And there is a factual error in your chart. Germany did not officially go off the gold standard until after the war. Currency exchange controls were imposed in July 1931. This may have been the equivalent of going off the gold standard. But your graph indicates Germany went off the gold standard in mid/third quarter 1932. As such it purports to show that Germany’s economy started to improve almost immediately from this point. In fact, the economy continued to shrink for about a year after imposing exchange controls. So the chart is wrong.

    Now I am not going to get into a big argument about the Great Depression and recovery therefrom. This is a very complex subject. But for you to accuse others of not knowing history when you have made a complete hash of the facts you have presented and claim to know, is a bit rich.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      It is indeed a complex subject. But some aspects are not.

      Forgotten, too, in this issue is that whatever late recovery other countries had, their economies were certainly influenced by what was going on in the U.S.

      And even if this wasn’t the case, is the case really that FDR’s alphabet soup of agencies and spending actually helped? Does Keynesian “priming the pump” really work? And in the case of central planning in practice, does government really know how to build cars better than Ford does?

      At some point America and Americans jumped the shark when they came to believe that all economic downturns could be controlled and that government bureaucrats knew better how to run your life (or just make things) than free Americans.

      Government is necessary, but it is not (or should not be) the organizing principle of our lives and society. And whatever imperfections we have, life is not subject to being micromanaged by bureaucrats. Those who claim to be able to do so will always have a following. But in America we found a better way. It’s called freedom. And people are forgetting this and are selling their nation and their souls for snake-oil salesmen who promise that government can cure all ills.

      The one lesson we should learn from FDR, Coolidge (positively), Nixon, Reagan (positively) and now Obama is the government intervention in the market is destructive. This is so if only because of basic information theory. Who knows best what to do with a dollar, an experienced businessman or a government bureaucrat? If one can’t clearly and cleanly answer that question then one is simply a propagandized socialist.

      • Kung Fu Zu says:

        Never forget the Left often gets into excessive detail, because they hope to buffalo and confuse people. Harry Truman said, “if you can’t convince them with facts, baffle them with bullshit.” Given the amount of bullshit the Left shovels out, there should be enough fertilizer to feed the world.

        Much of the time, it is simply best to let Leftists babble on with their nonsense. Sometimes it can even be entertaining, almost like listening to Sir Humphrey Appleton. But sometimes a person has to respond in kind in order to swat down the ignorance and downright dishonestly or it gets out of hand.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I would recommend Williamson’s PIG to Socialism (which I mentioned in an earlier post in this series). It goes into why (such as the lack of sufficient information), and also looks at examples of failures and even the supposed success, Sweden.

  7. faba calculo says:

    “Your graph does not refute what Mrs. Chadwell stated. In fact, Japan and Britain were ahead of the USA in economic recovery.”

    If she had said “we know Japan and Britain recovered from the Depression years before we did”, I’d agree with you.

    “And it is highly likely that Germany would have been in a much better position had they not been forced to pay huge war reparations.”

    Certainly this requirement earlier on can’t have done Germany any favors, but war reparations stopped in 1931. Furthermore, the US never had any reparations to pay, yet we went off the gold standard at almost the same moment as Germany and continued to parallel her through 1933. It’s only after that that the slope of the lines diverge, and by then Germany was into its (Keynesian) rearmament program. It’s also worth noting that Britain’s rearmament program started in 1934, which is also the year it’s slope turns up sharply.

    Of course, none of this is to say that it was the rearmament programs that caused things to turn upwards, but it’s enough to show that:

    (A) Contrary to the quote, some parts of the world recovered after us. Note: if I had data on every country, and they all recovered before us except for France, then pointing out France would be kind of nit picking. But data from that time is hard to get, and getting for successive years is harder still, leaving us with just five countries.

    (B) There’s a fairly good prima facie case to be made that what triggered the starts of the recoveries for badly affected countries was, in no small part, dropping the gold standard. Nor, at least for Britain and Germany, is it hard to fit a story of Keynesian spending boosting incomes to the data. (Nor, for that matter, is it hard to fit one for Japan, given their large scale devaluation and resulting export boom in things like textiles and accompanying armament program of their own.)

    • Kung Fu Zu says:

      As I said, I am not going to get into a big discussion on the Great Depression. But to your points.

      ‘We know that Calvin Coolidge cut the government in half and not only did the country recover, it flourished.”

      Except that the recovery you are speaking of was the one from the downturn that came with the demobilization WW1.’

      The downturn from WWI ended in 1921. Coolidge became president in 1923.

      “If she had said “we know Japan and Britain recovered from the Depression years before we did”, I’d agree with you.”

      How about if we include Sweden, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands and others? Perhaps the word “most” could have been inserted before “the rest of the world” and you would be happy.

      “Certainly this requirement earlier on can’t have done Germany any favors, but war reparations stopped in 1931. Furthermore, the US never had any reparations to pay,”

      That was my point. Without this burden would have most likely have started recovering long before the USA started.

      “B) There’s a fairly good prima facie case to be made that what triggered the starts of the recoveries for badly affected countries was, in no small part, dropping the gold standard. “Nor, at least for Britain and Germany, is it hard to fit a story of Keynesian spending boosting incomes to the data. (Nor, for that matter, is it hard to fit one for Japan, given their large scale devaluation and resulting export boom in things like textiles and accompanying armament program of their own.)”

      I find this comment encapsulates your style of discussion which is why I don’t normally reply to you. This has nothing to do with my previous posts in response to you. I did not mention Keynesian economics at all. And my comments were specific to certain other claims you made.

      People can disagree on things, but certain ground rules apply if constructive, civil discourse is hoped for.

      When it suits you, you change the subject as you do in the above comments on Keynesian economics. Other times, when it suits your dogma, you become very pedantic. One can only speculate that you do this in hope of diverting attention from context and the bigger picture. On the other hand, you are very loose with facts and details when close study of facts and details would seem to go against your premise. Such a debate style is, at root, dishonest or at the very least not serious. Are you simply trying to score points, massage your ego or irritate people? If you are truly interested in convincing others or trying to shed light on a subject, I suggest you go about it in a more constructive manner.

  8. David Ray says:

    Interesting article.
    I had a “gasp!” conservative government teacher at Brookland Community College. I ran into her a few years later when I was waiting tables. She informed me that she had been pressured to step from government as her position was too controversial.

    But what was funny is no one knew her political position until after the class. (I had thought that she was conservative in that she didn’t call Reagan an idiot every other day.)

    I also remember when Professor Yeagly (a native American Comanche) was purged from OSU for his conservative position. He was too “extremist”.
    I somehow doubt if any of Kamau Kambon’s faculty sought to run him off after he advocated wiping all white people off the face of the earth . . . on video to boot.

    From your article Mrs Chadwell, I’d say we’ve had a myriad of Kambon types getting to this latest generation at a tender young age, so I hope you’re not the only sound mind in your school.

    • There are good, clear-thinking teachers still in the public schools — just not many. And where our liberal colleagues feel it incumbent upon them to spread their leftist thinking, and since they are government schools, that is allowed and encouraged, conservatives, as a part of our ethos, believe we have little right to proselytize. So the education of our youth tips ever farther to the left.

      I have, since the events I mentioned in my essay, retired and now teach at small Bible college. It is so wonderful to feel free to speak openly of my own personal viewpoints.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *