I’ve been
reading a new book called Does God Make a Difference? Taking
Religion Seriously in our Schools and Universities. Though I’m
only halfway through, the message is rather inspiring for the advancement of
liberal free education. Initially when I started the book, I was confronted
with reservations about Nord’s thesis that religion needs to be taught as live,
viable options to cultivate a comprehensive understanding of worldviews around
the world. The book was spurred on by
the secularization thesis, which was posited during the 60s, that eventually
the idea of “God” would become marginalized to the point of irrelevance. Nord’s
thesis contends that the secularization hypothesis has been thoroughly
nullified due to the increase in spirituality around the world. You might have
noticed my use of the word “liberal free” education. This is in reference to
Nord’s distinguishing between two schools of thought that provide the backbone
of western education: Liberal Arts education and Liberal Free education. The two schools underscore the advancement of
what we would recognize today as progressive and conservative arts education. Isocrates
(I believe this is the man Nord references, though I have had some beers and
the book is still at the office) understood the importance of classics and
their value to education. This would be reflected in earlier schooling models
when students would learn Greek and Latin, girding their education with the
cornerstones of Western philosophy and epistemology. (It would be akin to studying drama and
emphasizing the importance of classical acting methodology, replete with
Shakespeare and Greek classics over more modern, experimental acting models
like method acting.) Liberal Free, the second of the two is emphasized by
Socrates, who argued that uncertainty in self-knowledge compels the individual
to continually learn and reform their education; hence the progressive
tone.
All this talk in Nord’s book got
me thinking about the difference in conservatism and progressivism.
The US election this year is
very chaotic. Much of the conflict has been poured out on the existential
meaning of America. (As in the 50 territories that constitute the United States
of America.) The two party system, a broken system in my opinion, has created a
cultural divide across the US between two very unrealistic extremes:
Conservatism and Progressivism. There are many touting the return to a
greatness of America. This is vague and needs definition. What made America
great exactly? America is the product of political experimentation. It is
constantly changing, reforming to compliment the current state of affairs. The
contrarian voice in this is that of Progressivism, which was the zeitgeist of
the 1890’s to the 1910s. Teddy Roosevelt ran on a platform of social reform to
improve the quality of American lives in the workplace and at home, and bolstered
America’s presence on the world scale. (By invading Cuba and building the
Panama Canal.) Progressivism works by momentum. (America was sick of the
rampant political corruption of the post-Civil War period.) Consequently, it is
paralyzed by inactivity and the quagmire of modern American politics.
Progressivism only works so far as the freshness of its ideals. Progressivism
and Conservatism both lack a full solution to social and political issues in
the modern day.
I covet my identity as a
political moderate. I think that it helps me see with steady eyes. When the
past is worshiped with such ferocity, impregnated with nostalgic pandering, we
are waging a hopeless battle to live in the past and not be forward thinking
and anticipatory. It is better to understand the past so that it will inform
our future. There are great lessons to learn from classical literature. The
foundation of Western Civilization is important and the specters of Classical
Learning still haunt us. There is value in understanding where we come from.
Humanity is static in its desires. We really haven’t changed much in the last
10,000 years. Men and Women to this day love and kill. They are proud and
arrogant. They fight for what they love and appeal to others to join them on
crusades against enemies real and ideological. There is still plenty to
encounter there.
My only issue with those that
keep looking forward is that they unfairly caricature the past. Fresh ideas
promise change but have no baseline to test against. There is also an
assumption of positivism, that progressivism is fundamentally idealistic.
Idealism lays the path for change, but it does not establish it. Establishing
change requires brokering deals and compromise. Change also takes time and
thoughtful execution. I am not surprised at all that Obama Care did not do what
it intended. A government funded health plan works only so much as the people
are willing to pay into it and our reticence to adopt a Northern European
healthcare model underscores the painful reality that our economy thrives on
selfishness. Consequently, we are also not Northern Europeans, or possess the
requisite cultural beliefs that are unique to their Socialist States. Perhaps a
slow, continual movement towards that ideology would bring more fruitful
changes?
I am not convinced that voting
for Hilary Clinton will bring about the revolutionary Golden Age that we
envision. Every hopeful presidency begins with the promise of some form of
political activism or Executive strong-arming. But I am certain that voting for
Trump will usher in a dangerous new era of politics that will not overthrow the
free world, to the extent predicted by the Huffington Post-esque outlets, but
initiate a steady erosion of our already waning power. The line between
conservatism and progressivism is now thin and collapsing due to the decrease
in election ethics of either side. That is what I’ve noticed. Now, each side is
an extreme and their proponents, extremists. Our only hope is a return to the
fold of reasonable discussion. I would encourage my readers to read the news of
foreign nations to gain a holistic and outside perspective of our country’s shenanigans.
Even if the news is churned out by propagandists, supposing that we as readers
have the acumen for sorting out truth from fiction, it is all worthwhile to
ingest, even if we have to hold our noses. Food for thought.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need
to read up what I’m going to vote on tomorrow.
XOX
No comments:
Post a Comment