Perhaps a picture of Glenn Youngkin should appear next to the definition of "disingenuous" in the dictionary. I'm thinking of the old paper dictionaries of course. Those are a relic. We'd flip through the pages and occasionally see a little drawing of something. "Iguana."
"Disingenuous" means "not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does."
First off, do I really need to repeat the fact that Republicans or conservatives don't lose any sleep over cultural issues? Not even abortion? They come at us with bluster about the cultural stuff. The political folks in the Dakotas exemplify this. They recognize that it really "sells." It seals the deal for them getting elected and re-elected.
Want proof? When judges first started moving in the direction of erasing Roe vs. Wade, you would expect all the conservative folk to really be high-fiving it, wouldn't you? Instead they came out looking scared. A talking point was quickly established: this ostensible move was "just a narrow procedural ruling." They raced to the microphones to say this, even Donald Trump himself, the most grotesque monster in the right wing parade.
"Just a procedural ruling." Won't you even celebrate it as such, as a move toward hopefully getting abortion banned?
No doubt, abortion is a concerning topic, certainly not one to address in a glib or simplistic way from either side. I just happen to have the personal opinion that a ban is impractical and we should leave Roe/Wade alone. And you know what? Republicans may be saying a little prayer to themselves at the end of the day, hoping for same. Now that certain judges appear to be getting serious, the conservative crowd really would like to just whisper to them to knock it off.
Republicans want to reserve the right to have an abortion discreetly performed for their mistress. But the anti-abortion talk is important for them selling themselves to a certain constituency. A majority of churchgoers in Stevens County would appear to be in that constituency. I'd like to see the churches return to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
 |
| Glenn Youngkin |
And so Youngkin to no one's surprise has clamped down on "critical race theory." It emerged as a campaign issue. That's not because it deserved attention as a legitimate issue. It's because the barking dogs of conservative media saw it as sort of a prize. It helped their ratings with the reactionary element in society, and the politicians were paying attention.
Now, Youngkin I'm sure is an intelligent person. He knows full well that CRT is not some sort of pure propaganda from the so-called political left. I'm sure he realizes that it is benign if not fully well-intentioned. But. . . Youngkin signed an executive order Saturday that banned the teaching of critical race theory in Virginia.
"But it's likely to face legal challenges," "Axios" tells us. Well of course it will. But separate from that, aren't conservatives in league with libertarians? And don't libertarians feel that the nature of school instruction content should be managed locally, by locally-elected people? Not politicians in distant state government offices?
But Youngkin knew he could push some buttons with this. That's all he cared about, "cementing his base" as they say. Why be so calculating when you just ought to show your best judgment on behalf of the people? Sink or swim with your own best judgment? Wouldn't that allow you to sleep well at night? But that's not the nature of our political world today.
Are we all becoming transactional in a manner that reflects Trump? How would our Lord God judge us on this?
Beyond the concern I have already cited, there is the matter of Youngkin's executive order being overly broad, by a country mile. So, how would teachers even approach the subject of American history? How could they do it without taking undue risks now? How to explain about Manifest Destiny?
The subject of the so-called "Indian wars" of the late 19th Century would now be way too much of a hot potato. There were elements of pure genocide in that. Would it be OK to teach that, just a little bit? Historically we have approached that history with the idea that the Native Americans deserved at least some sympathy, that our U.S. government did some very cruel things. But would a teacher today dare even to imply as much? Would a teacher feel pressure to present "the other side," the other side that a degree of genocide was defensible? That would be the other side.
Have you ever read about the Washita massacre? There were other such incidents.
Let me boil all this down to one point: History is a messy story of the strong oppressing the weak. We cannot pretend to live in total harmony or that our history should reflect such a saccharine view. Republicans want to tamp down "divisive" topics in curricula. But how would they even justify the existence of Martin Luther King Day on Monday? Answer: they wouldn't.
America has changed. Here's a headline from Yahoo News this morning: "Laura Ingraham clapped in celebration while reporting that General Milley, a hated figure for Trump fans, has Covid-19." Stevens County is full of such "Trump fans."
When will the storm break? If Republicans don't really care about the cultural stuff like CRT, what then is their priority? It is siphoning ever more wealth into the hands of a sliver of people at the top. Mark my word. People like T. Denny Sanford, the guy who got rich off high-interest credit cards. He has a little investigation looking over his shoulder now. He's probably too rich to get nicked by it.
Also from Yahoo News: "Up to three-quarters of the $800 billion PPP flowed to business owners instead of workers, study finds."
Way to go, GOP. Just keep squawking about "critical race theory."
- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment