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
Every four years, Americans gather at the ballot box to voice support for our desired presidential candidate. Sadly, in recent decades, this exercise of our republic has been intensely polarized due to political unrest and institutional distrust. This is a serious problem because the “government of the people, by the people, for the people…” [1] cannot stand if we, the people, don’t trust our representatives or the system that elected them.
So, it is vital that, regardless of who you vote for, we all find a common ground of trust in the election system, which Samuel Adams once called “one of the most solemn trusts in human society.”
The most fundamental aspect of trust is understanding. You do not trust someone you do not know; likewise, it is difficult to trust a system of government that you do not understand. Americans must fulfill their responsibility to know how the presidential election works and realize why the founding fathers ordered it as they did.
The presidential election is divided into two main stages: the primary and the general elections. These elections are similar in their structure (the campaign, the people’s vote, and the delegates’ or electors’ vote) but are very different in their methods. This article will explore the first stage of the election, the primary.
The Process of the Primary
During the primary, presidential candidates fight to become their party’s nominee for the general election. It is a ruthless cycle of endorsements, eliminations, and elections, and it is easiest to understand this process in three stages or “rounds.”
The Campaign Trail
Primary Vote and Caucuses
The National Convention
The Campaign Trail
Round one of the primaryâthe campaign trailâusually starts at the beginning of the election year. This primary stage is when candidates promote their political intentions, their reasons for running, and their public image to voters and sponsors.
During the campaign trail, candidates will give speeches, air campaign ads, do interviews, kiss babies, and talk about their favorite ice cream.
While this process can seem trivial to the average voter, it is a brutal battle for the candidates fighting to gain public and financial support to sustain their campaign through inauguration day.
The candidates, who have established a public image and a potential path to victory, are then pitted against each other in debates and the polls. This happens so that each candidate can attempt to persuade the voters and sponsors to support themânot the other guy.
These debates force many candidates to drop out of the race before voting even takes place, as they lose support to their more popular competitors. Once this occurs, the remaining candidates turn their attention to the vote.
Primary Vote and Caucuses
There are two methods by which states conduct voting in round two of the primary. Some states use a primary vote, and others host caucus events.
The primary vote is similar to the general election. With this method, voters individually go to their designated voting location to cast their ballot.
On the other hand, the caucus method is much more public and involved. A caucus is an event held by the state’s party, where members of that party gather to persuade others to their candidate publicly and cast their votes at the end of the night.
Interestingly, caucuses were historically the main voting method in the United States until the 20th century when states decided that the primary voting system would be “fairer” and “more democratic.”
It is easy to recognize the vast differences between these methods.
Primary voting is individualistic
Caucuses are communal
Primary voting allows you to ignore other opinions and opposing arguments
Caucuses require you to engage with different sides of the political debate and defend your candidate
Another distinction is that the state government runs primary voting, while the political party runs the caucus event.
Primary voting can be open, semi-closed, or closed, depending on your state. In an open primary, voters registered with any party can vote for any political party candidate. Semi-closed means that registered voters can only vote for the party they are registered to; however, independents can choose whichever party they wish to cast their vote to. A closed primary means that each voter must vote for a candidate in their registered party.
Closed caucuses require you to register for the party you will vote for ahead of the caucus.
Common Misconception about the Primary
We must now address a significant misconception about the American presidential primary. Some people believe that when they vote in the primary, they vote directly for the candidate they choose. However, this is not the case. The people do not nominate the candidate; the party does.
When you vote in the primary, you are not voting to nominate the candidate; you are actually voting to award your candidate the delegates of your party, who will be the ones to nominate someone at the National Convention, which is round three of the primary.
The National Convention
Simply put, each state has delegates for both Democrats and Republicans, and candidates earn delegates based on the results of the people’s vote. The method of distribution depends on the state’s election laws. Some states reward the candidate with the majority vote with all the delegates, while others divide them based on percentage.
This process is different in each state, so I recommend researching how your specific state awards candidates with delegates.
One thing that is standard across the board is that for each party, some delegates must vote in alignment with the result of the people’s vote in their state, while others may vote for whomever they see fit. Democrats call restricted delegates “pledged” delegates, and Republicans call them “bound” delegates. Those who are not restricted to the results of their voter’s primary are “unpledged” according to Democrats or “unbound” according to Republican delegates.
In addition to these titles, many other distinctions exist between how the Democrats and Republicans run their conventions. Learn more about the Democratic method and the Republican procedure.
No matter how your state and party conduct the specifics of the delegate’s role, at the National Convention, each delegate votes for their party’s nominee, and at the end of the night, the nominee is announced.
The Founder’s Concern & The Power of the Primary
All these different steps and complicated methods beg the question, why not just establish the simpler method of a nationwide popular vote?
“The people is a great beast.” âAlexander Hamilton
The founders rightly feared the tyranny of the majority in a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Alexander Hamilton famously said, “The people is a great beast.” They knew it was easy to convince large swathes of a population to support the most exciting politician in the room, but that politician wasn’t always fit for the Oval Office. Just take a moment to consider that Adolf Hitler was a fan favorite among the German population when he was appointed as chancellor in 1933.
So, in their wisdom and foresight, the founding fathers established what could be considered “indirect elections.” They created a system where the power of the elections is held by each state rather than being centralized in the federal government, where the people have their voices heard and taken into account without the majority overpowering the minority, and ultimately, where trusted and educated delegates and electors stand between the people, the federal government, and the White House.
Vote!
“On average, the primary turnout rate for all these states combined wasâŻ27%,âŻwhile the general election turnout wasâŻ60.5%. This means thatâŻless than halfâŻof the voters that cast a ballot in the general election turned out for the primary.” [2]
These numbers are very disheartening because it means that Americans have forgotten the power of the primary.
We must engage in our elections because they are the bedrock of our republic. So now that we understand how the primary works and why the founders established it the way they did, let us vote so that “government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”[3]
Not only must we engage in our elections, but we must pray for and communicate with our elected officials regularly. Here are some resources for you.
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical Conversationsgraduate. 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!
[1] Lincoln, A. (1863, November 19). The Gettysburg Address [Speech]. https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm
[2] (2022, July 28). Turnout in Primaries vs General Elections since 2000. States United Action. Retrieved January 30, 2024, from https://statesuniteddemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/historic_turnout.html#Overview
[3] Lincoln, A. (1863, November 19). The Gettysburg Address [Speech]. https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm
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.
Gen Z males are leaning more right than left, a recent survey shows. When it comes to political momentum, it is easy to feel intimidated by cultural forces. Especially for younger generations, we are persistently told that revolutions come from youth, and the cultural tides are shifting because of young voices.
Moreover, when touted from the left, this can be disheartening, knowing that Gen Z fills the voter pool with indoctrinated principles planted by far, far leftist public academia.
Is there hope for Gen Z?
However, as politicians, Hollywood, and mainstream media bully conservatives with these empty talking points, the data shows the opposite. And this is especially the case with Gen Z males.
In episode 71 of Refining Rhetoric, Robert explores why Gen Z males are leaning conservative twice as much as liberal, as discovered by a recent survey that contradicts the widely held narrative that Gen Z has a leftist bent. There is hope for Gen Z.
Robert Bortins is the CEO of Classical ConversationsÂŽ and the host of Refining Rhetoric. The company has grown from supporting homeschoolers in about 40 states to supporting homeschoolers in over 50 countries and has become the worldâs largest classical homeschooling organization under his guidance.
As a classical educator, I canât hide my enthusiasm when I find connections between the disciplines and realize the opportunity to practice the classical tools.
To set the stage, we are now walking full steam ahead towards securing the presidential party nominations and the November general election. If you are an active participant in politics or even just a spectator, you know that things arenât just as simple as team red vs. team blue. Even in our system, dominated by two major parties, itâs not as if weâre separated into giant circles, holding hands and singing Kumbaya.
Why not?
Factions.
Factions – What divides us
Factions are smaller groups within the larger group that often have robust disagreements with other factions based on their differences of opinion. They usually take a bad rap but are a strong indicator of freedom. Our copious evidence for diversity of thought (factions) affirms our political tolerance for freedom of thought, speech, association, etc.
The word fraction is just one letter different and simply refers to a smaller part of the whole. These two words have much in common, but they are not related. However, our factions ARE fractions. It is human nature to form factions within our larger groups, like our families, churches, associations such as political parties, our nation, our world, or within all of humanity past and present, which are consequently fractions of different wholes. Madison discusses factions in Federalist No. 10, which explains the inevitability, the necessity, and the problems they can cause, but also how best to control their effects.
The conservative sphere is fraught with factions and, consequently, fractions. Now, what we know of political power in our republic is that when you divide your collective voice into smaller and smaller groups, it loses power and influence. Those concerned with efficacy are frustrated by these factions that fraction the influence of the whole. To consolidate influence, they cry for unity. Unity is nothing more than the combination of these fractions. And the fractions must combine to have any successful operations.
Combining fractions? Operations? That sounds like arithmetic!
Combining fractions requires the operation of addition. To add fractions, however, we must follow the rules of that operation. Step one is to attend to the elements. We know a fraction has both a numerator and a denominator. The denominator is also called the base.
Now, to combine fractions for the sake of an operation, we know that we must have a common denominator. How do we do that? First, we acknowledge that every denominator is the product of several factors. (I know I have yet to connect all the dots, but I hope you can see where this is going!) When we examine our denominator, we must do the diligence of sorting out all the unique factors. To get to a common denominator, sometimes we must let go of a factor and bring in a new one. Still, we must negotiate between fractions until we can develop a common denominator on which to operate.
Do we have to agree with everyone about everything then?
In short, âno.â You need to find a common base only to operate or TO DO something. That means the people or groups we work with can change based on the thing/things we are doing. For example, philanthropy is a factor/value of many groups that may disagree on theology or eschatology. But to operate on the base of philanthropy, we donât necessarily have to factor in values that we donât have in common.
Politically, we all have bases that are the product of several factors. We have analyzed some of these factors and clarified how and why they became part of our base. We still need to analyze others to have that clarity on their value. Only through this understanding (dialectic art) can we be fruitful in our rhetoric. Clarity helps us find commonality, the essential ingredient for successful operations.
Commonality vs. Distinctions
But commonality is not our nature. Factions are notorious for obsessing over our distinctions. While clarity can come through distinctions, without an appropriate value on commonality, we can kiss operating goodbye!
So why do we prefer to focus on our distinctions? Iâll answer a question with a question. If we focus on what we have in common, or what is the same value, how can we prove the value of our factor to be superior?
We canât. There is no foothold for our pride or ego when we seek to discover that which is shared or equal. Can it be pride at the root yet again? Surly not, and especially not within Christian conservativism. (I jest).
But before we all unify around the unity train, allow me this caveat
Our common denominator is only as valuable as the factors it contains. There will be those that cry out for unity for unityâs sake. Ignore their baseless cries. Unify on factors that are good, true, and beautiful. To do this, we must know these things, love them, and look for them in the world and people around us.
Philippians 4:8 ESV
8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
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. The Foundations curriculum brought their family together, provided a scope and sequence that was manageable, and always directed their attention to Christ. Lauren credits her experience as a home educator and as a leader within Classical Conversations for giving her the classical tools to tackle whatever opportunities come her way. 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.
Homeschool Days at the Capitol, Legislative Days, Capitol Days, Pie Day, and other similar events foster communication between parents and their elected representatives. Seize this excellent opportunity to teach your children the importance of the legislative process. Help them mature into civic leaders who will help protect American freedoms.
The chart below lists March and April Homeschool Days at the Capitol. You can also check your stateâs dates here if itâs not listed below.
âA refugee from the federal government,â Alexandra grew up in a home that prioritized politeness and viewed education as a lifestyle. Yet when she began working for the U.S. Department of Education, Alexandra soon discovered that her coworkers used politeness for corruption and also didnât care about education. How can civility save our nation?
Politeness vs. Civility
In this conversation, Alexandra Hudson, award-winning journalist, speaker, and author discusses:
her disillusionment with the Department of Education
how to respect someone while sharing hard truths
the difference between politeness and civility
why we need less politeness and more civility in the world
why the left and right donât share the same vision
Robert Bortins is the CEO of Classical ConversationsÂŽ and the host of Refining Rhetoric. The company has grown from supporting homeschoolers in about 40 states to supporting homeschoolers in over 50 countries and has become the worldâs largest classical homeschooling organization under his guidance.
The following is a modified and expanded version of Isaac Watt’s Behold, How Sinners Disagree, which was composed for the purpose of discipling our hearts into humility and grace.
Behold! How sinners disagree
The Publican and Pharisee
One does his righteousness proclaim.
The other owns his guilt and shame.
This one brazen rises near the throne,
Standing proud, sure, and alone
He thanks God to accuse the rest,
And vaunts the duties he did best
That one in humble posture stands
Pierced by holy, divine commands
Liable, he cries out in contrition,
And smites the chest in confession.
The Lord their different language knows
And different answers He bestows.
The humble soul He with mercy crowns
Whilst on the proud His anger frowns.
Dear Father! Let me never be
Joined with boasting Pharisee;
Scorn not the crimes of other men
nor from unjust lips my deeds defend.
With fear of God let me quake
And my offenses propitiate!
I have no merits of mine own
But plead the substitution of the Son!
And I go home by price blood-bought
Justly forgiven and faithfully washed
From the Advocate exalted on high
Who humbled Himself once-for-all to die.
Praise to the Father! Praise to the Son!
Praise to the Spirit! The Three-in-One!
O Praise all the heavens! Esteem Him Again!
Praise, O My Whole Soul. Forever and amen!
Paul Bright also contributed the blog “Swamp Fire: A Reflection” which was published on January 24, 2024.
Paul Bright currently works in the field of Biotechnology. He is a native of Evansville, IN, and an alumnus of Purdue University and The Master’s Seminary. Paul was a Systematic Theology and Ancient Hebrew professor in Samara, Russia. He and his wife, Jennifer, homeschooled their daughter all the way through high school and currently reside in Covington, Louisiana.
In recent months, Oklahoma and Michigan, two states that have historically had low regulation on homeschool freedoms, have sought to pass restrictive laws. These states both claim to be passing homeschool registration and oversight laws to prevent the abuse of home-educated children.
Since homeschooling became legal in 1992, many states have tirelessly attempted to oversee and regulate a parent’s right to home education. If you wish to learn about your state’s homeschool laws, you can do so by visiting HSLDAâs website.
You can learn more about the specifics of Michigan’s proposal and its problems here.
In Oklahoma, Rep. Amanda Swope has introduced HB 4130, which would require homeschool parents to send in a letter to the Department of Human Services requesting to homeschool their child, provide the information of every adult involved in the childâs education, and go through biannual background checks performed by the DHS.
While the intentions of Swope may sound noble at first (who wouldnât want to put an end to the abuse of children?), this bill is founded on a false premise and represents a trend of state aggression towards homeschooling. For these reasons, Americans, especially in Oklahoma, must strongly oppose Swope’s bill to restrict and regulate homeschooling families.
The Narrative is Fabricated
The entire reason for the bill rests upon the premise that there is an epidemic of abuse among homeschooled children, and we need new legislation to address it. Sadly, for Swope and her bill, the statistical facts strongly contradict this narrative.
First, all of the evidence available shows that âhomeschooled children are abused at a lower rate than are those in the general public, and no evidence shows that the home educated are at any higher risk of abuse.”(Ray, 2018) Whatâs more, a Gen 2 Survey found that homeschooled students are actually 257% less likely to be sexually abused than their government-schooled peers.
It is ironic that Swopeâs proposed solution to the fallacious low abuse rates among homeschoolers is government regulation. This has yet to help public schoolers who experience constant state oversight. What makes her think it will help the homeschoolers in any way?
Additionally, according to the statistics, if Swope were truly concerned with addressing child abuse in her state, she would turn her attention to the place where children suffer the mostâgovernment schools.
Even if there were high rates of abuse among homeschooled children, there are already nationwide laws on the books that protect all children from abuse, including homeschoolers.[1] There is no reason to pass another bill. Oklahoma simply has to enforce the ones it already has in place.
So why do Swope and those who support HB 4130 want to pass it so badly? The answer is increased government oversight and regulation on homeschooling.
Government Overreach
To understand the extent of the government overreach within HB 4130, we must examine the document ourselves.
Letters of Intent
Paragraph F. reads, “On or before the school district start date, parents making the decision to choose homeschooling, podschooling, or microschooling shall submit a letter of intent to the Department of Human Services.”
A Letter of Intent can easily be dismissed as “normal” because many states require homeschooling parents to write a letter outlining their intent to homeschool. However, most states require parents to submit it to their local school district or to their state. The purpose of this is to inform their state schools that it is not responsible for their child’s education.
The difference is that with this bill, Oklahoma parents must submit their letter of intent to the Department of Human Services. Later in the bill, the letter of intent is referred to as âa request to homeschoolâ and may be denied by the DHS. Denial of a fundamental right to educate one’s child is an egregious abuse of power. Since when did the DHS (the civil government) have the right to determine whether a family has the right to homeschool their children?
The bill continues by explaining what information parents are required to surrender:
The names of the homeschooling parents
The social security numbers of parents.
The names of all the homeschooled children
The home address of the family homeschooling
The names of all individuals living at the home address
The names of âany associated individuals or organizations assisting with the childâs or childrenâs schooling.”
Along with âA brief statement for the decision of schoolingâ
Furthermore, this bill requires you to âreapplyâ for homeschooling by sending in a âsubsequent letter of intentâ every time you make a change in your initial decision to homeschool, whether it is “a result of a move or otherwise.”
Background Checks
Paragraph H. says, “When the Department of Human Services receives a letter of intent, it shall perform an initial background check on parents, other adults within the home, and any adults assisting in the children’s schooling.”
The fact that the DHS wants to perform background checks on parents to decide whether or not they have the right to home-educate their children is Orwellian. It also begs a fascinating question:
Why does this bill not include background checks for the parents of public school students? Those students are home, with no government supervision, for three whole months. Why isnât Swope concerned about abuse in those homes?
Background checks on âparents, other adults within the home, and any adults assisting in the childrenâs schoolingâ is both a disturbing invasion into the homes of home educators and will also cause a multitude of issues for tutoring programs and independent educators who will now be subject to background checks by the DHS.
Biannual Checks
Moreover, parents must repeat all the regulations examined so far biannually. “The Department shall maintain a system to conduct biannual checks of the database and compile a database of individuals, facilities, and organizations that perform and assist with homeschooling, podschooling, or microschooling.”
This regulation means that by the time an Oklahoma homeschool student has graduated, the DHS will have made 24 reviews on that childâs security information, address, family members, homeschool organizations, and teachers.
The bill concludes that the DHS may deny “requests” to homeschool and will deny them if any adult involved in the childâs education has a âpending child abuse or neglect investigationâ against them.
Constitutional Home Educators explains the danger of this vague wording: “There are so many loopholes here that could allow DHS to deny your request to home educate. It does not say just an abuse or neglect conviction; it includes a pending investigation. All it takes is an accusation.â
Oppose HB 4130
This bill represents an outrageous abuse of government authority and power. First, it is completely unnecessary and will be totally ineffective. Regulation does not reduce abuse. Second, the bill is designed to empower government-run agencies to dictate a parent’s right to home educate and to regulate that right if it is “approved” by the state. This bill is a blatant abuse of power and must be ardently rejected by the citizens of Oklahoma before it is instated and enforced.
Homeschool freedom is a right that many before us have fought to win. We cannot allow the state to deceive us into surrendering this right for a fabricated narrative and a false promise. All Americans must stand in support of Oklahoma citizens as they fight on the front lines for educational freedom.
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical Conversationsgraduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. Elise 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!
[1] (n.d.). 2022 Oklahoma Statutes Title 21. Crimes and Punishments §21-843.5. Child abuse – Child neglect – Child sexual abuse – Child sexual exploitation – Enabling – Penalties. Justia US Law. https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2022/title-21/section-21-843-5/
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!
