The original article, “How to be an American Citizen: The Relationship between the Represented and the Representative,” was published in The Cultivated Patriot.
There is a lot of confusion these days (and dare I make us all nauseous and use the word “misinformation”), drowning the American citizen. We don’t always know what is going on, but even more than that, we haven’t been trained in what to do about it. The battle cry of our generation is “Just DO something!” If that doesn’t make you snicker a wee bit, this installment might be for you.
Republic or DemocracyâWhat is the difference?
As American citizens, we live in a republic, meaning we have a representative government. Most often, though, the United States is falsely described as a democracy. This distinction could fill up this entire paper, so instead, I will summarize. In both systems, the ultimate power is held in the hands of the voter.
Direct Democracy
In a direct democracy, however, the voter would literally vote on every issue. There is no assurance that what the voter votes for is moral or just. It is truly an expedient representation of the will of the people. Thomas Jefferson, who was initially endeared to this style of governance, was disenchanted by it over the course of his service as Governor of Virginia. While unverified, he is credited with saying, “Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.” So, while mob rule is expedient and gives ALL the “power to the people” ALL of the time, it can potentially be very dangerous. Consider the unbridled mob-like mentality of the past several years on ALL sides of the political arena.
“Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.“
RepublicâRepresentative Government
A republic is still organized with the citizen as the highest authority. However, a republic is less efficient and expedient. Our power as citizens is vested in those we choose to represent us. We vet, we interrogate, we debate, and then we select. Our selection is our seal that the individual we’ve chosen is the best person for the job that we could find within the population for that office. This process is THE exercise of the citizen’s authority in the framework of a republic. This description is by no means a marginalization of the citizen’s role. In the “Just DO something” age, it’s essential first to define what we should be doing.
The exercise of this role is much more complex than scribbling in an oval with ink a few times a year (much less every four years!).
Who are our Representatives?
Our representatives represent us in the office and exercise authority on our behalf.
Ideally, how should you select a representative?
Find someone with sufficient knowledge, who understands that knowledge, and has wisdom in applying that knowledge. Another way of articulating the qualifications: do they possess true principles? Building on those principles, can they reason well? Lastly, could they strategically apply those principles to any potential circumstance? That is how we ought to select our representative.
Two Seasons of a Representative
This process has two seasons: first, the selection (a primary and general election), and then theterm in which they do the representing.
During the representative’s term, we should support and encourage the candidate the majority thought was best suited for the role.
Support means we consider the principles we base our decisions on. These become the mechanisms of conversation and sometimes persuasion. We winsomely advocate for applying these principles on issues based on the merits of goodness, justice, and wisdom (or lack thereof). We thereby partner with those representing us.
Terms have different lengths, but they all have limits. Like all healthy assignments, there are seasons of assessing, or “performance reviews,” if you will.
Who performs the reviews, you ask? The voters. Can we all agree that there are qualifications for the heavy responsibility of giving performance reviews? You would need to know the standard or “ideal,” and you would need to know the merits on which the representative was selected in the first place. And you would also need to be engaged enough to know what transpired during the term and WHY. The assessment is a layered puzzle that will take more than a yard sign, a piece of literature, or a social media post to perform. But as the sovereign in this great nation, “We, the people,” have this high calling and responsibility to rule our country well. We need to hold ourselves individually accountable to the measure this office deserves.
“We, the people,” have this high calling and responsibility to rule our country well.
Our Responsibility as an American Citizen
Juxtapose the calm, calculated, time-consuming, discipline-requiring paradigm as stated above with the suggested playbook of our age. Verbs enlisted to the cause include yell, scream, e-blast, force, fight, rally, bully, protest, and “make your voices heard.”
If you don’t join the mob, this will mean to others that you aren’t yet awake enough. If the wicked have succeeded in this vein, isn’t it time we “borrow a page from their playbook”? And if your representative doesn’t bow to your beck and call, he’s “forgotten who he works for.” After all, “We the people” make our demands. If enough people want something, a representative should be bound to give it to them. And if our representative doesn’t, we choose vindication over virtue.
Which Playbook do we use?
If the stakes are high (as the last commentator I listened to told me they were), ought we use the most effective playbook for the task? Yes and no. I am not confident we have a modern example of a diligent, virtuous approach to politics by which to form a fair comparison. Perhaps there still is wisdom in the path of diligence, and, to a degree, we can generally anticipate that we will reap the seeds we sow.
Additionally, the wicked have always prospered, and they will until the end of this age. So, to take a page from the wicked’s playbook to achieve a moral end is inconsistent and incompatible. Also, is it just those “other” people who are tempted to be tiny tyrants?
Tyranny is All Around Us
If dominance is how the team moves the football down the field, would they give up their tyrannical ways once they reach the end zone? Victory would mean nothing less than a regime change where one tribe steals the scepter to wield how they see fit. To quote my colleague, “Tyranny is awful except for my tyranny⌠whichis ok.“
To get back on track, I am not assuming that we will always see eye-to-eye with those who represent us, especially if we are “on-ramped” into this cycle somewhere in the middle. It would be imperative that we identify what season we are currently in with each individual representative.
Do our Research!
As an American citizen, we need to do our research, and then enter into a relationship with these civil servants who represent us. We can get to know them, their background, and their priorities. Like any new relationship, we ought to find what principles we have in common. Then, when we meet a division of opinion, we appeal on the merits of goodness, justice, and wisdom. We build our reasoning on something timeless, outside of mere opinion, on some truth that both can identify. Provide authoritative sources. And then be professional!
When this fails, it will, at some pointâwe need to evaluate. What level of division is it? Is it a deal-breaking disagreement? Should it be? Or is it an area of minor consequence? Review season is coming, and you will take your role more seriously this time. After you have made your appeal to your representative, and once primary season is at hand, it’s time for the community to reevaluate if they (and, more importantly, truth) are best represented by the current representative. This can not happen in a vacuum.
The constituents must compare notes, events, circumstances, choices, and actions. They must focus on winsomely persuading their neighbors to vote based on what is good, just, and wise. They must consolidate their voting power to find the best representative for their community.
We will Reap what we Sow
As American citizens, we vet, we interrogate, we debate, and then we select our representative. We remember that our selection is our seal that the individual we’ve chosen is the best person for the job we could find within the population that is being represented by this office. And from the last term, we realize we will reap what we sow.
When the primary season is over, what’s done is done. And it’s back to the season of civil relationships.
Lauren Gideon is the Director of Public Relations for Classical Conversations. She co-leads and teaches through an organization committed to raising citizenship I.Q. on U.S. founding documents. She and her husband homeschool their seven children on their small acreage, where they are enjoying their new adventures in homesteading.
âWhat began as a movement with the principled intention of equality for women has turned into an abstract ideology that is seeking to overthrow all traditional structures under the guise of women empowerment.â
I wrote this over a year ago for a thesis project, which I titled “Behind the Veil of Feminism.” My goal for the assignment was to look beyond the boss babe propaganda and the gender pay gap debate to answer the deeper question, âWhat is the ideology of feminism?â
After researching its ideology and those who have historically promoted it, I firmly concluded, and still believe, that feminism is, in fact, âan abstract ideology that is seeking to overthrow all traditional structures under the guise of women empowerment.â
However, I excused first-wave feminism, arguing that feminism fell short of its original, righteous design during the third and fourth waves. It wasnât until recently when I revisited the first wave, that I became convinced that feminism has never been âa movement with principled intentions.â
Feminism, from its conception, has always been a dangerous ideology, designed to destroy all traditional structures and ways of life.
The Origin of Feminism
The ideology of feminism was born out of the minds of women like Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. These women were discontented with the status of women in 19th century America. They worked to revolutionize the relationship between women and the broader society.
The movement was officially conceived in 1848 at the Seneca Falls Convention with the signing of the Declaration of Sentiments. The first wave ended in 1920 with the ratification of the 19th Amendment.
This period of feminism is largely looked upon with approval by both conservatives and progressives because it resulted in a womanâs right to vote, which in turn led to educational, vocational, and political equality between the sexes. Surely, with these results, we must conclude that first-wave feminism was principled and beneficial. Before we come to this conclusion, we must challenge ourselves with the question, why didnât feminism dissolve after these political wins? Why have we continued to see a second, third, and fourth wave (each more radical than the last)?
Because the feminist mission was not complete after the ratification of the 19th Amendment. The amendment was only a means to an end to the early feminists. So, what then, is their end? Thankfully, we do not have to ponder this question long because the early feminists clearly laid out their radical intentions in the Declaration of Sentiments. After examining exactly what the first feminists wrote, I believe it will become clear that the end of feminism has always been social revolution through the reproach and replacement of men and the rejection of the family.
Social Revolution
Leftist movements always have a shared value of revolution. Whether it is climate change, critical race theory, or the LGBTQIA+ movement, all progressive movements call for the dismantling of the past to prepare for the restructuring of the future. Feminism is no exception to this rule.
In the Declaration of Sentiments, Elizabeth Stanton makes the case that in order for women to have the rights they deserve and the positions in society that they desire, a political and social revolution is required. Stanton writes that such a revolution âHas been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled.â
Stanton wrote revolution into the fabric of feminism. The ideology itself demands the overthrowing of systems, ideas, and traditions which constrain it. Revolutionâthe foundation of the philosophyâhas manifested itself largely in feminism’s insistence on the reproach and replacement of men in society and the rejection of marriage.
All progressive movements call for the dismantling of the past to prepare for the restructuring of the future.
The Reproach and Replacement of Men
We are never surprised today when we hear feminists complaining about the so-called âpatriarchyâ and expressing their disdain for men. However, this argument has been made since the founding of the ideology.
Stanton wrote, âThe history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.â She continues by saying, âHe has endeavored, in every way that he could to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.â
The brash claim that all men have âan absolute tyrannyâ over all women is not new. From the beginning, feminists have implanted a disdain for men into their followers. They have done this largely by convincing women of a long list of grievances that men have committed against them. Stanton included such a list in her declaration and used it to justify the destructive nature of the ideology of feminism against men. In short, she argued that men have conducted the government, conditioned society, and instituted religion in order to oppress women. You may be more familiar with this concept as it is known todayâthe patriarchy.
The feminist solution to this alleged problem is for women to stand up and overthrow menâs tyranny over them. Or as we hear it today, âwomen need to be empowered to rise up and overthrow the patriarchy.â The effects of this thinking have been women replacing men in almost all spheres of life. Husbands and fathers have been replaced by single mothers or unconventional family units, the universities have been dominated by women, the military has manipulated its standards to uphold women over men, and the workplace has been radically reworked to value women workers over men. The list goes on.
Whether you support these social trends is irrelevant. The fact that cannot be denied is we are seeing the replacement of men in society, and this is all by the first feminists’ design.
The Rejection of Marriage
The most destructive war that feminism has waged since its founding is the war against the traditional family. Some may be tempted to believe that the feminist attack on the family began in 1963 when Betty Friedan published her book Feminine Mystique. In it, Friedan argued that the station of a wife and homemaker is equivalent to that of a slaveâwhere the home is a prison, children the chains, and the husband the jailer. Sadly, this flawed thinking dates back much farther than the 20th century.
The most destructive war that feminism has waged since its founding is the war against the traditional family.
The Declaration of Sentiments reads, âIn the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her masterâthe law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.â From its beginning, feminism has ruthlessly attacked the institution of marriage by degrading and misrepresenting it.
Not only this, but the early feminists have always fought to loosen divorce laws to favor wives over their husbands. âHe has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce; âŚthe law, in all cases, going upon the false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.â
A world in which men âloseâ and women âwinâ in a divorce was the world that the early feminists were seeking to create. Thanks to legislation like no-fault divorce, we are living in the first feministsâ imagined utopia where marriage vows are easily broken, and families are routinely torn apart.
The Results of Feminism
Feminism is arguably one of the most powerful leftist movements in history. This is partially because it has had over two centuries to do its damage and also because it has wrongly been accepted as a societal good.
Feminism is arguably one of the most powerful leftist movements in history.
Whether you consider the decline of masculinity, the rise of âboss babeâ culture, the acceptance of abortion as a âConstitutional rightâ, the rejection of marriage, and the rise of divorceâit cannot be denied that we live in a society today that has been gravely affected by the ideology of feminism.
While we cannot attribute all these civil illnesses to feminism alone, we must recognize that this was the future that the first feminists envisioned. Elizabeth Stanton closes her feminist declaration with the words, âWe shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State and national Legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf. We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of Conventions, embracing every part of the country.â
Congratulations, Elizabeth, you got your wish.
It should not surprise us when we see modern feminism bent on destruction. The first feminists planted these seeds of destruction and revolution from the beginning. They only needed time to grow.
We need to stop excusing first-wave feminism as a âprincipled movementâ because once we accept that premise, we lose the fight. Feminism has always used corruption and destruction as its means to its endâand that end has always been a revolution of society, the reproach and replacement of men, and the rejection of marriage.
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical ConversationsÂŽ graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. She is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. As she continues her journey towards the Celestial City, she is determined to gain wisdom and understanding wherever it can be found. Soli Deo gloria!
Letâs be honest: to call the day of Jesusâ crucifixion âgoodâ is counterintuitive and sounds odd to the watching world. How can we call a day marked by suffering and mourning âgoodâ? How can we say that a bloody cross is âgoodâ?
Yet, this day most definitely is good, because it marks the most powerful and momentous weekend in history! This is the weekend that all of history points to – where the world was changed forever!
On this day a couple millennia ago, Jesus paid for our sins and rose from the dead, showing the world that the grave has no hold on him. Moreover, for those who are marked by Christ, his resurrection serves as an eternal receipt, proving that their debt is completely paid.
Without the cross, there is no gospel
You canât have Christianity without the cross. Sure, Jesus is a great teacher, whom we must learn from and model our lives after, but if we donât have the cross, we donât have the gospel. If we donât have a real resurrection of the eternal Son of God in bodily form, occurring in real-time history, then everything is meaningless.
âYou canât have Christianity without the cross.”
Spanning the gospels, one will find various angles recorded of the cross. Yet, in one account recorded by the apostle John, we see Jesus lifting the battle cry that Good Friday points to: âIt is Finished!â Not only is THIS the most relieving statement anyone has made in history, but itâs quite possibly the most powerful sermon ever preached, and only with three words.
ââŚSo they took Jesus, 17and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha. 18There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them. 19Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It read, âJesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.â 20Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek. 21So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, âDo not write, âThe King of the Jews,â but rather, âThis man said, I am King of the Jews.’â 22Pilate answered, âWhat I have written I have writtenâŚâ
28After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), âI thirst.â 29A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. 30When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, âIt is finished,â and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.â John 19:16-30 (ESV)
The Christianâs rest and relief extends into eternity
One of the hardest things Iâve ever accomplished in life was when I earned my masterâs degree. Of course, suffering is relative, but academics don’t come naturally to me. I had to work very hard to get to graduation. And I can still recall how I felt the day I walked across the stage to receive my degree and relish knowing it was finished! Whatever relative turmoil and trial any of us have faced in life to arrive at a proverbial finish line, Jesusâ âfinishingâ takes that temporal rest and relief, multiplies it by infinity, and extends it to eternity!
In our passage, one of the key things to focus on is the apostle’s recording in v. 28: “After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the scripture), ‘I thirst.’â
What does John mean when he says that this scene occurred to ‘fulfill the scripture’?
To answer this question, John alludes to Psalm 22 with Jesus’ reception of sour wine and his garments being divided. However, one of the most significant elements of this passage comes from John’s mention of the hyssop branch (v. 29).
Don’t miss the significance of these elements leading us towards Jesus’ final breath that Friday. With the hyssop branch, John points us to the primary aim of Christ’s mission. It reminds us of the atoning blood sprinkled during Israel’s Passover celebration: God required blood to cover his people, so that their blood wouldn’t be required as the cost for their sins.
In Exodus 12:22, we read about the first Passover. In order to escape the penalty of the final plague, God’s people were to “take a bunch of hyssop and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and touch the lintel and the two doorposts…” Additionally, this was likely David’s allusion when he confessed, “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be whiter than snow.” (Psalm 51:7)
At the Passover, the threat of judgment – a final plague – loomed over all the people, both Egyptians and Israelites. It didn’t matter which people group they belonged to. To escape wrath, the blood of an unblemished lamb was required by hyssop to paint the entrance to one’s house.
By turning to Jesus, you can look to that Friday and say, âIt is Finished! It is complete! My debt has been paid, and my sin is atoned for!â
There are only two options:
(1) You pay the penalty of the plague.
or…
(2) A substitute pays the penalty of the plague.
To put this another way, when Jesus received the sour wine with hyssop, the Lord of the universe proclaimed that he finished in real time what the Passover only pictured and typified.
You and I have an eternal debt that we cannot pay. We have sinned before the Holy Eternal Triune God of the universe, but Jesusâ proclamation is that he has finished his work, and the threat of judgment can be spared and atoned for if you look to him as your substitute. By turning to Jesus, you can look to that Friday and say, âIt is Finished! It is complete! My debt has been paid, and my sin is atoned for!â
And, keep in mind, Jesus doesnât say that it is potentially finished, but that it is actually finished! Elaborating on this would take a whole other series, but for now, it can be said that this is a beautiful mystery. Jesus fully atoned for the sins of his people over two thousand years ago, and on that day, when he said, âIt IS finished!â he declared this for all who ever have and ever will call on him.
“Believe this, rest in this, and proclaim this!”
The worst day in history was the best day in history
That Friday was good! And this coming Friday, when we look back to his crucifixion, we can mourn the sin of the world and the punishment it deserves, while at the same time proclaiming the goodness of that day.
Dear Christian, remember the truth this week. Believe this, rest in this, and proclaim this! At the cross, Jesus completed the task and proclaimed that it is finished!
And when youâre done remembering Friday, remember that he rose on the third day, which changes everything.
Edward Murray currently serves as Manager of Special Projects and Policy Research for Classical ConversationsÂŽ and The Homeschool Freedom Action Center. He is a native of Augusta, GA, and an alumnus of Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC, where he earned his M.Div. He lives in Newport News, VA, with his wife and three children.
Do you want the state to determine what your children will learn and how they will live? In our eight years of homeschooling with Classical ConversationsÂŽ, my family has learned how our government works, how to construct well-written papers, how to present arguments well, and how to defend our beliefs. Of course, we’ve all heard the adage that “those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat it.” The past shows us just how easily freedoms can be lost. Can we expect others to defend and fight for our freedoms? As homeschooling families, what can we do? Political engagement and encouraging others to get involved are crucial so we do not lose our freedoms.
Only the Well-Informed Can Argue Well
All CC families will tell you that you can only argue well if you are well-informed. As a result, we now study the legislative process for our state and pay attention to the new legislation presented. Our family is actively involved in a grassroots movement to bring awareness to the bills that are a potential threat to parental rights, educational freedoms, and religious infringement.
Here is another family’s testimony about how Classical Conversations has prepared them for political engagement.
Use these resources to help your family to be well-informed and politically engaged this election cycle. And encourage others to get involved, too.
Valerie Ward is the Classical Conversations Sales Manager for the Texas Region. As a former college administrator turned homeschool mom who nerds out over learning new things, she is ardent about parental rights, homeschool freedom, and religious freedom. She married her high school sweetheart, now pastor husband, and they run a family farm with chickens, ducks, sheep, pigs, and goats. Her passion is to live as much as possible within the freedom the Lord provides from the land He has given.
I recently wrapped up a year leading Challenge A with Classical ConversationsÂŽ students. On the last day of community, the students took turns reading their assigned persuasive essays. While each student chose their topic, two had chosen the same topic.
But they chose different sides!
After the second student finished reading his essay, arguing opposite the first, do you know what happened? Absolutely nothing! The entire class sat unfazed. They didn’t rush to take sides; they didn’t vote against or ‘cancel’ the minority opinions⌠no name-calling, and no identity crises. These students haven’t been taught to be offended.
Look at the Merits of an Idea
They have been taught to look atthe merits of an idea as a distinct thing, regardless of the person, their character, their tribe, their emotions, their perceived urgency, and the many other distractions that keep us from discerning the idea’s own merit. We call these logical fallacies, and our students learn how to set them aside and ask, “Is this a good idea?”
The students’ non-reaction was profound. As adults in the classroom of the world, we know participants are almost always triggered. Public discourse revolves around every angle EXCEPT actual merit. If we want to be virtuous participants in this sphere, we must ask ourselves, “In what way do I need to remove similar logs from my own eyes?” With log-less vision, we can see issues more clearly.
Another hindrance to our clear vision is social cliques, is when everyone in our perceived tribe seems unified in their position, our objectivity becomes blurred. A prominent topic plagued with this emotional baggage is “school choice.”
School choice has nothing to do with providing more choices. Its singular operative action is to require taxpayers to fund alternatives to the state-provided option.
School Choice is Misleading
Some advocates of “school choice” begin their appeal through statistical arguments. A recent publication opened with the 2022 RealClear Opinion Research poll that argued that “72% of Americans support school choiceâthe ability of parents to choose the school that best fits their children’s needs.”1
Why is this significant? First, this communicates the sentiment that “virtually everybody agrees.” This says nothing about whether the viewersshould agree with this issue or not. If this premise were asserted to my Challenge A students, they would instinctively reply, “So what?” We call this a bandwagon fallacy.
Additionally, the term “school choice” itself suffers from equivocation. Presently, educational options are legal and available in all fifty states, meaning that proponents equivocate “school choice” with “taxpayer funding for free-market products.”
School Choice forces Critics to take an “Anti-Choice” Position
Can you think of another political movement that has led this way? This idea has nothing to do with providing more choices. Its singular operative action is to require taxpayers to fund alternatives to the state-provided option. The question that needs an honest answer is, “Should they?”
Should taxpayers be forced to fund the free market? Moreover, how do legislatures ensure that this money is spent on the type of quality education that is in the public’s best interest (or the government’s interest)? What accountability will ensure the money is spent the way these well-intended policies prescribe? Historically, how well has state government performed this task within their current educational jurisdiction? To what degree could this idea affect the cost and quality of educational options? Does the free market stay ‘free‘ once it is taxpayer-funded? Fundamentally, do we want to expand state-sponsored regulated education or expand actual free-market educational choice?
This IS about a Choice
As the emotions rise among voices on both sides of this issue, remember that the collective conversation does obligate participants to regard sides or emotional manipulation. This issue, like all issues, ought to be about ideas and not the people who hold them. This IS about a choice. Let’s lay aside these culturally acquired discernment liabilities and use those beautiful, classical tools from Challenge A.
Check out these blogs and this website for additional information on school choice and educational freedom.
Lauren Gideon is the Director of Public Relations for Classical Conversations. She has been a home educator since her first student was born 18 years ago. She came to Classical Conversations for support when the student count in their home grew beyond what she thought she could navigate on her own. In addition to homeschooling her seven children, she co-leads community classes that unpack our nationâs founding documents and civic responsibility. However, she is happiest at home, preferably outside, with her husband of 18 years, tackling their newest adventure of building a modern homestead.
“New Poll: Overwhelming Support for School Choice.” AmericanFederation for Children. Accessed on 3/19/2024. https://www.federationforchildren.org/new-poll-72-support-for-school-choice/ âŠď¸
The following was published in the Western Journal on August 27, 2022, and is a credible source for thinking through the issues surrounding âschool choice and education freedom.âThe views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author and are not necessarily shared or endorsed by the website owners.
In our current day, school choice is a popular topic for parents and voters to consider, especially with rising inflation, our current environment post-Covid, and the legislative-sessional season. We are all presented with various cases regarding government funding for education. But with the prospect of financial aid comes multiple elements that arenât being said.
Kevin Novak poses legitimate questions regarding school choice in the following article, including lowered taxes, privatized education, and educational freedom.
âConsider these inquiries. If a legislature has the present ability to pass âschool choiceâ legislation, why does it not instead pass legislation that lowers taxes? In conjunction, if a legislature has the present ability to pass school choice legislation, and it being the case that many children have escaped the civil government school system, why does it not instead decrease spending on civil government education? And how would passing more school choice laws produce more financial freedom for people or more thought freedom for children?â
Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) have garnered significant attention and debate in economic, social, and political circles in recent years. As governments and financial institutions explore the possibilities and implications of CBDCs, itâs crucial for individuals to stay abreast and engaged with the ongoing discourse surrounding this topic. To aid your understanding, here are 15 free resources covering various aspects of CBDCs, including expert opinions, analyses, and discussions.
Finally, navigating the realm of CBDCs requires a thorough understanding of the complex issues at play. By engaging with these resources, youâll be better equipped to grasp the implications of CBDCs on economies, financial systems, and individual freedoms. Stay informed, stay vigilant, and join the ongoing conversation surrounding the future of digital currencies.
Sadie Aldaya is the Research & Quality Assurance Specialist for Classical Conversations. Sadie and her husband homeschooled for over 20 years. She served as a Classical Conversations field representative for 15 years, providing community and support for other homeschooling families. Sadieâs passions are to stop government encroachment in areas where they have no authority or jurisdiction and to see Christians return to a biblical Christ-centered worldview.
Fascism. It is a term widely used but hardly understood.
Are you aware of the history and philosophy surrounding this term? Can you define it?
When these questions arise, men like Benito Mussolini are often accredited with the philosophy of fascism, and words such as âauthoritarianismâ and âright-wing extremismâ are frequently given as synonyms. Armed with these ambiguous and frightening words as arrows in their quiver, left-wing politicians commonly use the word fascism to attack their right-wing opponents. We are all familiar with CNN anchors referring to Donald Trump as a right-wing, MAGA fascist.
Where did this term originate? Is fascism really right-wing extremism? Are there fascists in America today?
By exploring each of these questions, we will come across three misconceptions of fascism that have distorted our understanding of this powerful word.
These misconceptions are:
Benito Mussolini founded fascism.
Fascism is a radical right-wing ideology.
The modern Left is anti-fascist.
Misconception One: Mussolini and Fascism
Contrary to popular belief, Benito Mussolini was not the founder of fascism. Instead, he explicitly recognized the real founder of fascism as Giovanni Gentile, and gave him the title, âThe philosopher of Fascism.â
Gentile lived from 1875 to 1944 and was an extremely prominent Italian philosopher, politician, and educator. He established the idea of fascism, and with his ideology, he paved the way for the dictatorship of Mussolini, which lasted from 1922 to 1943.
Gentile, like Marx, sought to create a form of government that resembles the family unit. What would this look like exactly? Wellâif you think of the family unit, who is the head of the household? Traditionally, it is the father. And what is the role of the father? It is to provide for and to protect his family.
Likewise, Gentile ordered his fascist ideology in such a way that the government would be the father of civilizationâits sole provider and protector. With this structure, personal responsibility and individual liberty, which Gentile condemned as âselfish,â are thrown out the window and replaced by slothful dependence and security through submission to Father Government. It is obvious why authoritarianism is so closely attributed to fascism; they have many similarities. Now that we understand Gentile’s philosophical intention, we can define his term.
Fascism is a political movement that seeks to establish an authoritarian system of government that resembles the family unit.
There is one final fact about Gentile that must be understood to have a well-rounded understanding of his philosophy of fascism. That isâGentile was a Leftist. This may come as a shock because fascism has been attributed to the right for many decades, but when we consider the philosophy of fascism in relation to the modern right and left, it begins to make sense.
Misconception Two: Fascism and the Right
As I said before, fascism has been viewed as the end game of radical right-wing politics for many decades. Republican politicians have seemed to accept this abuse of language and have allowed it to continue all these years.
However, a brief comparison of conservatism and fascism will expose the ridiculous claim that fascism is rooted in the right. Allow me to ask this simple question: Do conservatives want big government? The answer is an obvious and resounding no.
If there is one thing that has not changed in the Republican party, it is the desire for small government. To claim otherwise is folly.
Additionally, what true conservative wants to surrender personal responsibility and individual liberty to Father Government? The answer is none.
For fascism to work at all, liberty and responsibility must be discarded and replaced by a far-reaching, powerful, all-consuming government that rules its complacent society with an iron fist. That is what happened in Italy under Mussoliniâs fascist reign, and that is precisely what conservatives are actively fighting against.
Misconception Three: The Left and Modern-Day Fascists
So, if Republicans are not undercover fascist dictators, are there fascists in America at all?
I am not here to make the argument that all leftist politicians and Democrat voters are fascists. Because that is not the case, however, there are clear-cut agreements between the two political movements that we must acknowledge.
“At the 1984 convention of the Democratic Party, the governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, likened America to an extended family where, through the government, people all take care of each other.â
They continue bysaying,
âNothing has changed. Thirty years later, a slogan of the 2012 Democratic Party convention was, ‘The government is the only thing we all belong to.’ They might as well have been quoting Gentile.â
The left has taken Gentile’s idea of collectivism under Father Government and applied it to their political philosophy. We must be aware of the left’s implementation of this core fascist ideal in its policies and plans for our country.
Fascist Philosophy Embedded in Leftist Policies
Just to name a few, the Welfare system has resulted in a complete dependence upon the government by large swaths of the American public. In addition, the leftâs movement to ban assault rifles would instantly create a total dependence on Father Government for protection. These two examples prove that the left is furthering our dependence on the government for provision and protection; Gentile would be proud.
The most glaring example, however, of fascist philosophy embedded in leftist policies was the effort by Democratic politicians to instate federal mask and vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. This would have exponentially multiplied the scope and influence of the state and greatly increased our submission to it in the name of security. Gentileâs philosophy continues infiltrating institutions today, such as education and healthcare, through Democratic policies.
It is abundantly clear that there are extreme misconceptions surrounding the term and ideology of fascism. Thankfully, we can know the facts behind the philosophy. With a newfound clarity of the origin and political affiliation of fascism, we must now boldly oppose all efforts to instate Father Government in our fascist-free country.
You can read other articles written by Elise here.
Elise DeYoung is a PR & Communications Associate as well as a Classical Conversations graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. She is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. As she continues her journey towards the Celestial City, she is determined to gain wisdom and understanding wherever it can be found. Soli Deo gloria!
Recently, House Bill 4130 was introduced to regulate homeschool families in Oklahoma. Americans must strongly oppose this bill to restrict and regulate families, because its narrative of abuse in homeschools is fabricated. This bill would introduce extreme government overreach into the realm of home education.
Homeschoolers have the fundamental right of autonomy to educate and disciple their children apart from state overreach. A more detailed analysis of this bill is coming, but due to urgency of action, here are some reasons to oppose it:
Children do not belong to the state, but to the parents.
Therefore, the Civil government has no authority or jurisdiction over homeschooling.
The reasons for restricting and regulating homeschooling are baselessly supported, fueled by fear tactics.
If passed, the state will require social security numbers and background checks for the purpose of tracking every home resident.
If passed, parents may be subjected to home inspection visits.
For these reasons, weâd like to stand with our friends at HSLDA and oppose Rep. Amanda Swopeâs bill.
To join our efforts opposing HB 4130, please contact Rep. Amanda Swope to let her know that you oppose this bill.
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical Conversations graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. She is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. As she continues her journey towards the Celestial City, she is determined to gain wisdom and understanding wherever it can be found. Soli Deo gloria!
Currently, the World Economic Forum (WEF) is in session in Davos, Switzerland. WEF is an organization founded by Klaus Schwab in 1971 that âengages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.â 1
In other words, WEF annually hosts the worldâs elite businessmen, academics, and prominent politicians to decide how to run your life. They discuss what they deem the global crisis of our day and propose solutions to one another until they decide what direction they would like the course of history to take.
If you are interested in learning more about the history of the World Economic Forum, Ben Shapiro outlines it in his series, Facts.
Misinformation: The Global Threat
This year, WEF has determined that the number one threat to global security is âmisinformation and disinformation.â 2
Thatâs right; the greatest threat to the world is not the rise of an aggressive China and a looming World War, economic instability, or even climate changeâwhich is their favorite global crisis. The greatest threat to the world is you: your thoughts and your words, andwhen your thoughts and words disagree with them.
This is dangerous on many levels, the first being that the terms âmisinformationâ and âdisinformationâ are extremely vague and illusive. Without a clear definition, the Leftist elites at Davos have the power to classify any information they dislike as a threat to the global order.
However, despite their lack of definitions, the elites have made it clear exactly what information they are waging their war against.
Covid Misinformation
Perhaps the most outrageous example of information that was deemed more dangerous than nuclear war was information that claimed that the Covid-19 measures taken by our world leaders were harmful, not helpful. During the pandemic, voices that contradicted the propaganda of the elites were publicly scorned and instantly banned from the public square.
In 2020, The Verge published an article that detailed this phenomenon on Facebook. âFacebook has had to take more active measures to combat the fast-moving spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories in the months since, including banning anti-mask groups and placing anti-misinformation messages into the News Feeds of users who may have engaged with fake coronavirus stories.â 3 Recall that many theories once labeled âconspiracies,â and as such were shadow-banned, shamed, and demonetized, are now officially documented as âfact;â the most obvious example being the âLab-Leak Theory.â
Does anyone remember the infamous âTwitter Filesâ story? Letâs not forget that the warnings about the elusive, so-called âmisinformationâ police are increasingly becoming an actual bi-partisan issue! Matt Taibbi, who originally broke the âTwitter Filesâ story and was grilled before Congress for doing so, is not conservative.
Climate Misinformation
Another recent example is âclimate misinformation.â What is so-called climate misinformation? It is any information that promotes the idea that wind and solar will fail to power the world and that the world is not doomed to end within the next ten years.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH)4 reported that âclimate misinformationâ has become increasingly common on YouTube, and as a result, they sounded the alarms of misinformation and disinformation.
When asked about this report, a YouTube spokesperson told CNN that âdebate or discussions of climate change topics, including around public policy or research, is allowed.â However, âwhen content crosses the line to climate change denial, we stop showing ads on those videos. We also display information panels under relevant videos to provide additional information on climate change and context from third parties.â 5
January 6th Misinformation
Additionally, if you claim that January 6th was anything other than the most dangerous insurrection in our nation’s history, you are spreading misinformation and are, therefore, as the elites claim, a threat to the world.
To be clear, not everything that occurred on January 6 is defensible. For one, it is a crime to just walk into the Capitol, or any government building, without permission, and this isnât an offense to be taken lightly. Moreover, some people on January 6 did respond with violence or aggression, warranting a criminal response. All that to say, not all is excused or pardonable, and my words shouldnât be misconstrued to be a blanket statement of approval. However, there is still concern over the issue of policeable misinformation.
The Washington Post reported that 3 in 10 Republicans believe that January 6 was instigated by the FBI rather than by President Trump. What is the conclusion that the Post drew from this statistic? âThese results confirm that misinformation about January 6 is widespreadin the United States.â 6
Biden Misinformation
Hunter Bidenâs laptop, which exposed Hunter for his drug, sex, and firearm crimes and compromised the entire Biden family by detailing their corrupt business dealings, was aggressively classified as misinformation by the elites since before the 2020 elections. But just yesterday, the Department of Justice confirmed that the content of the Hunter Biden laptop is, in fact, real information.7 Yet, the list goes on.
Part of the issue is that there is no clear definition of misinformation and disinformation. Moreover, in my opinion, modern, popular (New Left), militant, fascist Liberalism has no possession of meaning for what is labeled âconspiracy.â Although we have a technical definition, there is no epistemic or qualifying justification for what constitutes âconspiracy.â
While there is no clear definition of misinformation and disinformation, it is abundantly clear which views the elites at Davos have decided are global threats. When they find an opinion, fact, or belief that contradicts their narrative, they mock, scorn, and will continue to ban both the information and the one who shared it to protect their utopian goals for the globe.
This isnât a warning for the future. It is and has already been happening.
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical Conversations graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. She is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. As she continues her journey toward the Celestial City, she is determined to gain wisdom and understanding wherever it can be found. Soli Deo gloria!
