The View From 1776

§ American Traditions

§ People and Ideas

§ Decline of Western Civilization: a Snapshot

§ Books to Read

§ BUY MY BOOK

Liberal_Jihad_Cover.jpg Forward USA

Wednesday, May 05, 2004

Prisoner-of-War Abuse and Progressive Education

Why should we be surprised at thuggery by some soldiers, when progressive education has taught students for three quarters of a century that the concept of right and wrong is an unscientific value judgment?

——————
Believers in spiritual religion and personal morality have every reason to be outraged at the apparent conduct of some American soldiers toward Iraqui prisoners-of-war.  But protests from liberals are rank hypocrisy and cheap-shot political opportunism.

Nothing allegedly done to Iraqui prisoners can approach the horror that liberals call a woman’s right to choose.  Liberals who celebrate the unilateral right of a woman to terminate the life of her child, without due process of law, have no standing to voice an opinion in this discussion. 

May we expect to see live TV coverage of Senator Kerry testifying before a Democratic Congressional investigation that he personally witnessed thousands of rapes, mutilations, and killings of innocent Iraqui civilians, done on orders from U.S. military officers?  Will he declare that he has the testimony of hundreds of (unidentified) veterans of the Iraqui campaign to back him up?  Will he tell us about (unidentified) foreign leaders who want him to win the election and bring the sort of liberal-socialist justice to Iraqui citizens that Pol Pot dished out after Kerry’s Vietnam War testimony? 

Let’s be clear.  Nothing justifies the alleged treatment of Iraqui prisoners. 

But let’s also be clear that, whatever their specific motivation, the soldiers engaging in this thuggery are merely doing what our public education system has been teaching us since the 1920s: there is no right or wrong, merely pragmatic choices that get us what we want or fail to do so.  If it works, it’s valid, according to John Dewey, the most prominent and influential liberal-socialist in the first half of the 20th century.

The philosophy of Pragmatism developed in the late 19th century by William James and John Dewey says that the end justifies the means, because there can be no moral standards.  Dewey lectured and wrote that Darwin’s secular and materialistic theory of evolution proved that everything, including human nature and human society, is continually evolving.  For that reason, Dewey said, it’s ridiculous to talk about timeless moral principles.  This is what is taught in our schools today in psychology and Situation Ethics.

Boiling it all down, whatever can be shoved down the public’s throat without regurgitation is the new standard of conduct.  Since limits of acceptable conduct are stretched every day in the media, liberals have to take a public opinion poll before they know whether they should condemn or welcome some new action.

We see this process of evolution in public standards on all sides: abortion, gay marriage, college courses in queer studies, drug abuse, high rates of unmarried pregnancy, reality TV’s blatant sex; and let’s not forget President Clinton’s sexual promiscuity, marital infidelity, and his perjury under oath before a Federal grand jury and a Federal Court.  Rampant cooking-the-books in corporations is merely an application of liberal-socialist Pragmatism.  It’s OK, so long as the corporate malefactors can get away with it. 

Note that all of this reprehensible conduct is by Baby Boomers who were the first generation widely corrupted by the religion of socialism in college.  We may not like what our colleges and universities are teaching, but we must admit that they are doing a thorough job of it.

There was a time, before the new Deal imposed socialism on us, when standards were higher.  In December 1776, George Washington’s troops made their electrifying two crossings of the Delaware River to wipe out the Hessian garrison at Trenton and rout General Cornwallis’s army coming to their rescue.  Washington demanded that his officers and men treat all their prisoners humanely, feeding and clothing them in the bitter winter, when American troops had little supplies of their own.  Hessian prisoners, who were marched off to western Pennsylvania for internment, were so favorably struck by American treatment that large numbers of them elected to remain in the United States after the war.

Washington, of course, was one of those ignorant, unscientific people who believed in God and moral conduct.

Posted by Thomas E. Brewton on 05/05 at 03:44 PM
Education • (0) Comments
Print this ArticleEmail A FriendPermalink