"Education Matters"

 According to the Julian calendar, then in use, George Washington was born on February 11, 1731. However, in 1752 Britain and its colonies adopted the Gregorian calendar, which had the result of moving Washington’s birthday forward by one year and eleven days. Growing up, this day was always a school holiday, as was February 12, Lincoln’s birthday. While I recognize the value of a three-day weekend, I have always thought we lost something in not celebrating the actual birth dates of these two remarkable men and presidents.

 

This essay was particularly difficult to write. The subject is so large and there is so much information. But there is, perhaps, no more important issue facing us. Why do so many politicians allow teachers’ unions to hold back the education of our youth? I suspect most teachers are devoted to their cause. The fault lies not with them, but with the leaders of their unions and the politicians who place more value on their money than on the needs of children.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Education Matters”

February 22, 2025

 

“I look to the diffusion of light and education as the resource most to be relied on for

ameliorating the condition, promoting the virtue and advancing the happiness of man..”

                                                                                                            Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

                                                                                                             Letter to Cornelius Camden Blatchley

                                                                                                             21 October, 1822

 

“Student academic achievement is the cornerstone of national success and security. This

makes a lack of academic progress today a direct and urgent threat to our collective future.”

                                                                                                            Patrick Kelly

                                                                                                            National Assessment Governing Board Member

                                                                                                            On release of Nation’s Report Card

                                                                                                             January 29, 2025

 

A recent editorial in The Washington Post, lamenting threats to close the Department of Education, referred to a “landmark” 1983 Reagan Administration report, “A Nation at Risk.” The editorial divulged “that 13 percent of American 17-year-olds – and up to 40 percent of minority youths – were functionally illiterate” at the time. The editorial claimed the United States had been falling behind its adversaries, which caused businesses and the military to spend millions of dollars on “costly remedial education and training programs.” The editorial added: “Test scores have improved (apart from an alarming slippage in recent years), and presidents from both parties have worked to make American schools more accommodating for children with disabilities, and to improve low-performing schools.” But has that been true?

 

Today, the Department of Education spends approximately twenty-two times as much per student as it did forty years ago, yet the results are dismal. According to the recently issued report from the U.S. Department of Education – the bi-annual National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), commonly referred to as the Nation’s Report Card – 60% of fourth graders scored below what the NAEP deems a proficient level in math. 8^th Graders fared worse, with 75% performing below proficiency. In reading, almost 70 percent of students scored below the NAEP proficiency level. In the report, the author Stephaan Harris quoted Governing Board member Patrick Kelly of Columbia, South Carolina: “Student academic achievement is the cornerstone of national success and security. This makes a lack of academic progress today a direct and urgent threat to our collective future.” It does; education is the foundation on which our democracy is built.

 

Internationally, our students are not where they should be. According to the 2022 to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests, American students did best in reading, ranking 9^th overall, behind Macau and Canada. In science, however, they ranked 16^th, behind Slovenia and the UK. And in math, the ranked 34^th, below the average and behind Norway and Malta.  The scores, according to Education GPS, “…are among the lowest ever measured by PISA in mathematics. In reading and science, results confirm a long-term stability in result,” albeit at a mediocre level for a nation that prides itself on its schools.

 

These tests foretell a depressing story. We are a nation that has been the technological, medical and science leader of the world; and some might argue its cultural leader. Yet our public schools are a disgrace, with minorities and the poor suffering the most. 

 

School choice is the obvious answer, but it is widely opposed by teachers’ unions, and therefore by most Democrat politicians. Open Secrets reported that, for the 2024 election cycle, the two largest teachers’ unions, National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), gave a combined $32 million to candidates, with 94% going to Democrats. That dollar amount was up from $4 million twenty years ago. In the meantime, a Heritage Foundation survey (2023) found that 47% of House members and 51% of Senators enroll their children in private schools. In a February 1 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, Michael Bloomberg wrote: “In New York, the teachers union has fought to maintain a cap on the number of charter schools, [schools that] have dramatically raised achievement levels, even as student waiting lists grow longer.” Hypocrisy thrives. 

 

The world faces many problems, and it is not simply the threat of foreign powers, like China with its Belt-and-Road initiatives, a revanchist Russia wishing to reclaim its lost empire, a Middle East under the threat of Iran and Islamic terrorism, or African Christians having to live with daily threats. Artificial intelligence and quantum computing are in their infancy. We must, as J.D. Vance warned our European partners in Munich, confront “the enemy within.” We must not allow fear of censorship prevent us from speaking out. We should, as Noah Rothman wrote in the January 2024 issue of National Review, “summon the courage to repudiate what passes for sophistication in the academy and renounce the trite moral relativism that cannot distinguish between the Western world and its enemies.” Western liberalism, which dates back two-hundred-and-fifty years to the Enlightenment, is under attack. One consequence has been the divisiveness of our political parties. Another is manifested in the current crop of political leaders from both parties.

 

The best antidote is an educated populace. “Education is the movement from darkness to light” is a quote attributed to Allan Bloom, author of The Closing of the American Mind. Martin Luther King believed that the purpose of education was to help people “to think incisively and to think for one’s self.” This is particularly true as it applies to our roles as citizens. Our youth must read our Constitution, understand what makes our government unique, and how rare it is in the annals of mankind. All public school students should have some familiarity with the canon of classical liberal Western thought.     

 

Recently, Jason Riley, writing in The Wall Street Journal, noted: “Given the strong correlation between educational achievement and life outcomes, a society that allows such a large fraction of its youth to fall by the wayside academically is asking for trouble down the road.” We cannot allow this decline in education to be the “canary in the coalmine,” predicting a decline in our nation’s democracy and its global leadership. Education trains the mind to question assumptions, to challenge authority, to think, to be open to new ideas. It is the resource, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, that “most to be relied on…for advancing the happiness of man.” 

 

For forty-five years, Congress has shoveled increasing amounts of money into public school education. By itself, that money has not worked. Like other businesses, our schools need competition – not just the private schools primarily available to the wealthy – but charter schools and voucher programs that allows all parents to choose the best alternatives for their children. They need home-schooling and Catholic schools that once educated many of the nation’s neediest. Albert Einstein is alleged to have once said that the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. Yet that is what has become of our public schools. The poet William Butler Yeats once said that education is the lighting of a fire, the instilling in young students a passion to question, to learn. That is what our future demands. 

 

Yes, education does matter.

"Changing Demographics and Brief Thoughts on the Election"

 Tomorrow is Veteran’s Day. It is celebrated on Armistice Day, the day World War I ended in 1918. Approximately 25 million Americans served in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. Another two million served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of those 27 million, about 400,000 gave the ultimate sacrifice. The number of battle-scarred veterans is dwindling. It is for all of those, including the millions more from around the world, both living and dead, who served in those wars, that tomorrow is celebrated as a day of remembrance.

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“Changing Demographics and Brief Thoughts on the Election”

November 10, 2022

 

“Now, this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end.

But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

                                                                                                                  Winston Churchill, House of Commons

                                                                                                                  November 10, 1942

                                                                                                                   Following Montgomery’s defeat of Rommel

                                                                                                                   at El Alamein, Egypt

 

No “red wave” appeared on election day. While my immediate response was one of dismay, on reflection I think it may have been a “blessing in disguise.” Our nation has been divided – and still is – but it has not been the division that has been harmful, but the lack of respect for differing opinions. Mr. Trump, repudiated in this election, has been one cause. His ego-centric self-promotion engulfed what good his administration had accomplished. And he has become more disagreeable in his post-presidency. But also responsible for the division are the “goody two-shoes” who hypocritically call for diversity, equity, and inclusion. They see differences only in race and gender. Their calls have never considered diversity of opinions, inclusion of those who do not think as do they, or that both liberals and conservatives should be treated equitably.  

 

As well, the election highlighted changing demographics of our two political parties. On October 20, at a campaign event for John Fetterman, President Biden spoke a truth: “This is not your father’s Republican Party.” He spoke correctly; it is not, but neither is the Democrat Party the same one Mr. Biden joined almost sixty years ago. Mr. Biden’s words were intended as a slap at “MAGA” Republicans, who he claims are a “threat to democracy.” But is that fair? Our democracy is protected by our Constitution: separation of powers, an independent judiciary, states’ rights, due process, personal freedom, and rule of law. When those principles are threatened, democracy is threatened. When government is seen as the answer to all problems, democracy is at risk. When citizens are complacent, democracy is in danger. Agencies in Washington, when manned by men and women who forget they are servants to the people, become threats to democracy.

 

Demographics and time have changed the two parties. I have lived in Connecticut for fifty-seven years. I have witnessed this state – the sixth wealthiest in the nation, but 36^th in terms of freedom as measured by the Cato Institute – migrate from red to purple to blue. Fifty years ago, members of my country club were mostly Republican. Today, the majority are Democrats. According to Ballotpedia, in Presidential races between 1900 and 2000, Connecticut voted Democratic 48.4% of the time and Republican 51.6% of the time – a balanced approach. However, since 2000, the state has voted for the Democratic candidate for president 100% of the time. 

 

For seventy years following the Civil War, the Democratic party was composed of two distinct groups: working class union members, small business owners, immigrants – the “have nots” – and wealthy, southern Democrats. Republicans were the party of the “haves” – the landed gentry, college educated, bankers, and industrialists. Because of the long coattails of Abraham Lincoln, they also included African Americans. With Franklin Roosevelt’s election in 1932, northern Blacks began to vote for Democrats. Around 1948, Dixiecrats – white, southern, segregationist Democrats – began to switch to the Republican party, culminating in Richard Nixon’s 1968/72 “southern strategy.”

 

Today, the tables continue to change. Democrats have become the party of the “haves,” while Republicans are more the party of the “have nots.” Republicans were once the party of “big money,” but that mantle is now worn by Democrats. According to OpenSecrets, which follows money in politics, in 2020 Democrats received $514 million in “Dark Money” (political donations from non-profit organizations that do not have to report their donors) compared to $200 million that went to Republicans. Including campaign funds for House and Senate, as well as President, a total of $14.1 billion was spent on political campaigns in 2020, $8.4 billion by Democrats and $5.7 billion by Republicans. If one subtracts the $1.3 billion in personal funds spent by Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg, Democrats still out spent Republicans by almost 20%. 

 

The consequence is a barbell approach. One end consists of the college educated, suburbanites and moneyed elites, from tech company CEOs and union leaders to Wall Street honchos, from college professors and administrators who thrive on government grants, to media company bigshots, and Hollywood and sports stars. On the opposite end are those dependent on government handouts, a group which includes the truly needy, along with those who take advantage of government largesse, whether because of a lack of work ethic or the natural desire to have college debt forgiven. 

 

One can trace Democrats’ losing their traditional base – “blue collar” workers, the middle class, Hispanics, Blacks, and others with traditional family values; those concerned with inflation, crime, education, illegal immigration, and who aspire to the American dream – to their pursuit of radical goals: defunding the police; open borders; injecting fear about man-made climate change; disallowing school choice and promoting transgenderism. Republicans are beginning to gather in these disillusioned voters. 

 

Ironically, with all these tech CEOs in their fold, Democrats have ignored the changing workplace where more and more people have assumed responsibility for their own success. An example of the kind of individual Democrats have abandoned: A few years ago, my wife and I were picked up by an Uber driver at the Buffalo airport. He was a pleasant young African American from Buffalo, with a wife and young children. He was enterprising, anxious to improve his situation. The “gig economy” served him well. He had a job as a flight attendant, which paid his health insurance, flying from JFK to Los Angeles and back. As an Uber driver, he worked hours he could. He also was an Uber driver in Queens when there was too little time between flights to get home to Buffalo. In Los Angeles, he was a free-lance driver for Amazon. If Democrats succeed in getting Uber and like companies to unionize, they will eliminate the need for contract workers and opportunities will disappear for self-starter individuals.

 

Much has been written (and even more will be written) about this election. In my mind, it was clearly a repudiation of Donald Trump – not a rejection of conservativism. A grandson, a rational conservative spending the semester in England, texted me yesterday morning: “Fundamentally, I am delighted at the outcome.” I replied that his words were stronger than I might have used, but that I was not unhappy. Both political parties have been captured by extremists. The right wing of the Republican Party, now under the spotlight, has been called out. Will moderate Democrats call out extremists in their Party? Most Americans are nearer the center, leaning left or right to varying degrees. It is not personalities we should debate but issues. Perhaps election day saw a “purple wave?” Reading election results, Churchill’s words in the rubric came to me – maybe I am Panglossian – when I thought of possible positive effects of the election. An op-ed in yesterday’s The Wall Street Journal by Princeton’s Allen C. Guelzo reminded readers of the importance of the three words near the end of Lincoln’s address at Gettysburg, of our government being “of,” “by,” and “for” the people – words that assure us, no matter our philosophical differences, that as long as we understand them, our nation will remain free. Now, will those elected on November 8 listen?

"A Strategic Mistake?"

Sydney M. Williams

30 Bokum Road – Apartment 314

Essex, CT 06426

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“A Strategic Mistake?”

February 27, 2020

“Hope is not a strategy.”

                                                                                    Attributed to Vince Lombardi (1913-1970)

The strategic mistake to which I refer was the one made by Michael Bloomberg to enter the Democrat primary for President, rather than to run as an independent. At least, that is my belief. The error was understandable in that no third-party candidate has won the Presidency, since the current two parties began competing in 1860. But, to use those over-worked and dangerous words, this time is different. The incumbent is a man who has never received more than 50% approval, despite the fact that the economy and employment are doing well. At the same time, Democrats have moved decidedly leftward, leaving their center undefended.

In his recently published book, A Time to Build, Yuval Levin wrote, “…[political] parties have been de-professionalized, cannot control their own internal processes, and are increasingly exposed to the power and pressure of political celebrity culture.” What he wrote is visible to anyone with eyes to see. The 2016 presidential election changed the Republican Party. The old way of doing things no longer applied. The 2018 midterm elections, which brought Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Ilhan Omar (D-MI) to the House, changed the Democrat Party, swinging it far to the left. Optimism for the future was replaced with hatred of the past. In both cases, the change reflects the fact that elections have become less about policy and enacting bi-partisan legislation, and more about platforms for radical ideas. Traditional party members, on both sides of the aisle, have become as isolated from real concerns of the people, as they are distanced from the victorious radical newbies who joined their party. In part, this has to do with the mathematical fact that our national legislature is less representative of the people than it once was. In 1800, the House of Representatives consisted of 106 members; in 2020, there were 435 House members. So, while the overall population has grown by a factor of 72, the number of Representatives has increased by just over four times. In other words, legislators are less representative – in sheer numbers – than they were two hundred and twenty years ago. But these changes also reflect a cultural shift that demeans family, history and tradition. Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have taken advantage of the fact that many voters feel that politics as usual no longer applies.

Mr. Bloomberg is a different breed of cat. After a successful career on Wall Street and then founding an enormously successful, eponymous firm that services Wall Street and the world, he began his mayoralty at a difficult time, January 1, 2002. The attack on 9/11 was less than four months in the past. The stock market, which had peaked in March of 2000, would have another year of decline before finding bottom. He weathered the credit collapse of 2008 and a greatly altered financial industry, a mainstay of employment in the City. Despite some nanny-like instincts, like proposing a ban on sweetened drinks of more than 16 ounces and a grandiloquent decision to seek an unprecedented third term, Michael Bloomberg was a successful mayor of New York. The City’s GDP rose about 25% during his tenure, from approximately $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion. He turned a $4.7 billion deficit into a $2.4 billion surplus. New York City’s population declined somewhat after 9/11, but by 2012 was above where it had been when he was sworn in as mayor. Crime rates, which had already fallen in the 1990s, declined further during his tenure: Major felonies were down 40% and murder rates dropped 35% during his tenure. High school graduation rates increased. Mr. Bloomberg, during those years, was more pragmatic than ideological.

His pragmatism could be seen in his party affiliation when he first ran for mayor. Instead of competing in the Democrat primary, he switched parties and ran as a Republican. As Mayor, he expanded the “Stop, Question and Frisk” policy begun by his predecessor Rudy Giuliano. As a consequence, streets were safe and crime rates continued down. He took on the teachers’ unions, especially the United Federation of Teachers, in ending social promotion for students, instituting merit pay for teachers, closing low performing schools, opening more, smaller ones and championing charter schools. He confronted labor unions when policies were harmful to the city’s economy. All of these actions are now an anathema to a Democrat Party that has lurched far to the left; so, he has apologized.

Instead of standing by his record of success, Mr. Bloomberg joined the chorus of leftist progressivism, donning a uniform that ill fits and is unsuitable to a majority of Americans. Theirs is a platform that promotes redistribution over wealth creation. In a column last December, titled, “I Was Once a Socialist. That Changed.”, David Brooks wrote: “Capitalism is really good at doing the one thing socialism is really bad at: creating a learning process to help people figure stuff out.” Capitalism creates a learning process in which the participants – a country’s millions of citizens – make even more millions of decisions every day. Together, we are the system. More than a billion people have been lifted from extreme poverty in the last forty years thanks to capitalism. Socialism, on the other hand, impoverishes the people, while enriching a country’s small band of political leaders. In the best cases, Socialism has had to be modified, to become more capitalist, as those in Scandinavia have discovered. In the worst cases, like Cuba and Venezuela, it leads to tyranny. There is no question about Mr. Bloomberg’s capitalist leanings, but why won’t he defend the system, as Nikki Haley did so well in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed?    Is it because of the rise of political correctness, which has even infected the Business Roundtable who now call for “stake-holder” capitalism? Without profits, companies fail, owners suffer. But, so do employees who lose their jobs, suppliers who lose business and the communities in which they operate forego the benefits of a prosperous business. The message from a moderate Democrat who wants to look after the working poor and the disadvantaged, but who recognizes that capitalism is critical to our country’s survivability, is the one Michael Bloomberg should have run on. He is his own best example.

The opportunity he had, in my opinion, was not to get into the mudhole with myriad Democrat contenders, but to run as a third-party candidate. It is true that third-party candidates have not had success in our two-party system, at least at the top of the ticket. The last to attempt was Ross Perot in 1992. But this year is different, if I may again use those dangerous words. In 1992, George H.W. Bush was running for re-election against a moderate Democrat, the former Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. Voters felt safe with either man. This year, Democrats have moved far to the left, and the incumbent, Donald Trump, is a polarizing figure whose poll numbers, while now at their highest, have never been above fifty percent. Should Mr. Bloomberg have decided to run on his success as Mayor of New York – and avoided the political correctness that is swamping the Democrat Party – he might well have become the 46^th President of the United States. He would have attracted Republicans who like Mr. Trump’s policies but who are uncomfortable with his character, as well as Democrats who realize that their Party has spun far away from the mainstream.

It could be that I am mistaken (it has happened before!), and that Mr. Bloomberg is motivated by principle, not power. But I doubt it. The Office of the President of the United States is the most powerful in the world, so serves as a magnet. China and India have more people. Russia has more nuclear weapons. But when one lists nations by wealth, GDP, defense spending or simply the most desirable destination for immigrants, the United States stands alone. Further, the Presidency of the United States has been strengthened over recent years by a Congress that has abdicated much of its responsibility to the Executive and Judicial branches, choosing to walk away from contentious issues like abortion, gun laws and immigration. The Presidency of the United States is the ultimate crown of the politically ambitious, and there are few people more ambitious than Michael Bloomberg.

"Connecticut: Does it Have a Future?"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Connecticut – Does it Have a Future?”

September 24, 2019

“I’m just a Connecticut country boy. The people I’ve known,

 the changes of the season, the call of the Blue Jay – when I’m away, all of them haunt me.”

                                                                                                Gary Burghoff (1943-)

                                                                                                American actor

The title of this essay is silly. Of course, Connecticut has a future. The question is, will it be one that strengthens economic development and reassures residents, especially the retired, to continue to live within its borders. Will it still have, as Mr. Burghoff asks, “the people I’ve known,” or will my family and friends move to more favorable environs. Connecticut has been in the vanguard of those states marching to the tunes of “woke” progressives, who put identity politics and income and wealth distribution ahead of personal liberty, opportunity and individual responsibility. The consequence has seen an exodus of people and businesses, a slow-growth economy and per-capita state debt that is fourth highest in the nation.

Hatred permeates the political landscape: The ugly language of those in the media who have called for the decapitation of the President; elected Representatives who use their office to pursue personal vendettas against Mr. Trump and their influence to enrich themselves; presidential candidates who call for an end to all fossil fuels; the promise of free college, a basic income and socialized medicine – in short, President Obama’s 2012 “Life of Julia” – all to be paid for with a wealth tax and higher income taxes, which would stifle innovation and hamper economic growth. Is it possible progressives have overplayed their hand?

There have been signs of spring’s renewal against this bleak, wintery landscape. Michael Bloomberg recently penned an op-ed in the New York Post, “Rage is Destroying Us”: “…political rage seems to be crowding out political engagement.” His column concluded: “Restoring the ability to disagree without becoming mortal enemies is a new and urgent civic imperative.” Richard Cohen, a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post, wrote a week ago that he felt “marooned” within the Democratic Party, that he was “…stuck with a party that would replace the segregation of the past with the segregation of the present.” He wrote of his ideal: “My political party would embrace the uniqueness of every individual and not consider him or her (or any other pronoun)[1] a member of a group first, an individual second and use the excuse of past prejudices to create a racial or ethnic patronage system.” My sentiments exactly; yet both he and Mr. Bloomberg are liberal Democrats who have soured on the progressive tilt of their Party.

……………………………………………………

There are other reasons for optimism. Twenty years ago, in Colorado, a group of citizens, concerned about the direction their state was headed, formed the Leadership Program of the Rockies. Its purpose: to train emerging leaders in America’s founding principles – why those principles were important then and how they apply to the challenges we face today. Over two decades, fifteen hundred men and women have graduated, serving their communities in political office, on school boards, but most importantly as well-informed, articulate, influential citizens. That movement has now come to Connecticut.

Last Friday I was invited to attend and observe the inaugural meeting of the Charter Oak Leadership Program for Connecticut. Forty-two invitees, ranging in age from late 20s to late 60s, from twenty-eight Connecticut towns and cities (and two towns in Massachusetts) spent a full day listening to instructors, including former U.S. Congressman Bob Schaffer from Colorado Representative; Thomas Krannawitter, author, professor of history and Director of Defenders of the Declaration; and Michael J. Williams, Director of Defenders of Capitalism.  The meeting was led by president of Leadership of the Rockies, Shari Williams Feese, who I had met in Vienna last April, at a conference organized by the Hayek Institute and the Liberty Fund of Indiana. 

The purpose of the meeting was to instruct the class on the timeless principles that underlay the work of the founding fathers, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence: that individual, natural rights are inherent in our humanity, not derived from government; that government power comes from the consent of the people; that to ensure the limitation of power, the Founders created a government of three separate and equal branches; that the people, in order to fulfill their responsibilities, must be educated, active and engaged; that “refereed” free-market capitalism works best for the people; that property rights, rule of law and mutual respect underlie person-to-person, business-to-business and person-to-business relations; that family is the most important unit in American society; that moral precepts, derived from Plato’s four virtues – justice, prudence, temperance and fortitude – are necessary to maintain our Republic. The premise and the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was explained in intense, word-by-word detail. The role of slavery, at the time of the founding, was discussed in depth. That it was a blight on the founders there is no question, but it must be considered within the framework of the time. That it was even debated and recognized as a concern at the time was unique – and exceptional. For, at the time, slavery was common in all other parts of the world. But in no other country was slavery seen as a problem to be addressed.

We were told that the focus of the Charter Oak Leadership Program must be on the long view. For over eighty years, the United States has moved away from Republicanism – a limited government where ultimate power is embedded in the people, with property rights and rule of law, where minority rights are protected and where the primary role of government is to ensure the sanctity of our natural rights. As society has become more complex, government has assumed more responsibilities, some of which may be necessary. But we must never forget that each time we grant government an additional mandate, we excise some personal freedoms. How much individual freedom are we willing to relinquish? In its desire to be compassionate, government has trivialized the concept of family. In the modern politician’s desire for power, he has given up civility. In our desire for equality of outcomes, we have given up meritocracy. We accept, as we should, immigrants from all cultures, but in our desire to woo them we have embraced multiculturalism rather than values based on cardinal virtues and on our Judeo- Christian heritage. In our rush to be accommodative, we forget what it is about America that attracted immigrants in the first place. 

The fate of our state (and the nation) relies on citizens being knowledgeable of our past – the founders and the form of government they created – and a willingness to assume the responsibilities that come from self-government. In his recent memoir A Republic, If You Can Keep It, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote: “Self-government is a hard business and republics have a checkered record in the court of history.” Ours has lasted almost two and a half centuries. Education is the foundation on which it stands. “Education,” in a quote often attributed to Socrates, “is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.” Without the ability to think for one’s self and without knowledge of history and civics, that foundation risks crumbling. The Charter Oak Leadership Program, like the one it replicates in Colorado, is a keystone in the bridge that connects the past to the future and allows our Republic to persist. We cannot allow it to become a haunting memory. We must all do our part. The first thing we must do is consider these issues when next we head to the ballot box.

                                                                                                -

---

[1] The parenthetic phrase struck me as gratuitous, but then tigers never completely lose their stripes.