First, an aside. I note you worked for Governor Romney. Wasn't it he who claimed to have been brainwashed about Viet Nam, and McCarthy who noted that a light rinse would have done the trick? Any question of fairness aside, that was a beautiful vitz.
Now: I interpret your remarks about the WSJ's bias toward market approaches as the discerning gentleman's alternative to reflexively nattering phrases like right-wing, or rabid right-wing. To my view, the WSJ editorial staff is economically literate. Were more of the electorate familiar with the layers of thinkers that inform their editorializing, we'd be doing a better job of building a more civil and prosperous society.
With regard to education, it is my understanding that when the Federalist Papers came out, they were a prime subject of conversation by the man on the street. I wonder how many public school teachers today could really dissect them.
I have read that in the first census, the population along the Atlantic seaboard was almost universally literate.
A few years ago, the WSJ reviewed a book on the Civil War. The author culled his material from letters written by the troops, many or most dirt-poor. He was astonished at the degree of literacy.
It is my understanding that the quality of a liberal education from a good high school at the turn of the century well surpassed that of a four year institution today.
All of that when schools were private or under very local control. To my mind, that brings into question your underlying assumptions.
I don't believe there is any way to bring about a utopian world, where every child is instantly guaranteed an excellent education. Instead, I think we have to learn to rely on market processes that constantly adjust toward that goal.
Incidentally, I'm not particularly anti-union. When not granted political power, they could function as non-coercive employment agencies and their apprentice programs could add great value. |
