Pogo Called it Accurately. He Said, “I Have Seen the Enemy and He is Us”
Have We Outsmarted Ourselves?
Those of us who identify as liberal/progressives like to believe that we are fully aware and cognizant of much more than ordinary unenlightened or preoccupied working people and especially much better informed than those who are conservative, reactionary, or at either far end of the spectrum. We are balanced. We are reasoned and reasonable. We are typically well-educated, objective, science-minded, and consistently rational. Yet, no one is perfect, and some of us have apparently grossly over-estimated our own insight and intelligence.
The truth is that none of us has all the answers and all of us are quite fallible in many respects. The truth is that enlightened liberals, progressives, moderates, or somebody somewhere long ago should have sounded the alarm about the impending threats to our precious democracy and to our liberties, protections, and safety valves, as well as to our way of life. Subsequently, there should have been an immediate and comprehensive robust response to such an alarm. Something has gone terribly wrong, and we need to finally get to the bottom of things, post haste.
It is not as though there was no one at all issuing urgent warnings, all along. Certainly there have been those rare few observers, commentators, and sage analysts, better known as intellectuals and thought leaders, who understood the dangers from the gradual slide towards ignorance, apathy, and incivility. Even some ordinary workers and scholars without a platform could see the writing on the wall.
The specifics had been spelled out in some detail and with great clarity by numerous struggling authors and actors, by academics, and even a few politicians, usually in obscure publications. Why then, has no one in a position to make things happen ever followed up and paid heed? Why were the flashing red warning lights which were always there not enough to provoke passionate people to action and to stimulate intense conversation and debate among the people much more broadly?
One answer to that question is surely the manufactured tendency for all kinds of media to have shifted from informative and in-depth reporting and analysis to frivolous entertainment. Various media interests have phenomenal capabilities to mold perceptions, emotional feelings, popular trends and ideas, and passionate beliefs. They have largely sold out and catered to the lowest instincts for profit.
Another answer might explain declining trends in awareness as the result of an ever-shrinking attention span caused by information overload, busy-ness, and new technologies with myriad sources and inputs. No one has the patience or the intensity of interest to concentrate on the big picture when it requires hard work and a hard look at unpleasant facts.
Thirdly is an intentional and directed (nefarious?) campaign by wealthy and powerful individuals to distract and propagandize with extremist, narrow, religious, or ideologically based views and conceptualizations which focus on fear and anxieties, on economic or conspiracy theories, on superstition, on grievances, and on simplistic beliefs and supposed solutions or panaceas. The movers and shakers are moving and shaking to shake up the bitter divisions between groups and interests as they compete for power and resources. They divide; they conquer, and we all lose.
Meanwhile, those on the right imagine a powerful group of liberal influencers pushing their agenda, which influencers are not to actually be found in any disciplined search and who are more imaginary than real. Liberals are not usually inclined to proselytize, and no one other than other confirmed liberals seem interested in their fearless views.
One other even more significant inquiry, however, is to ask who are the influencers who have the greatest impact and the greatest opportunity to manipulate thinking and perceptions widely and broadly over time? Priests, preachers, ministers, evangelists, Sunday school teachers, and other religious figures are missionaries with the obvious, if not the stated, mission of implanting dogmatic or exclusionary beliefs and ideas which tend to suppress curiosity and awareness. They cannot be discounted as important agents for conservative, constricted, and circumspect populist or guarded cognitive processes.
One should not forget parents and grandparents as compelling influencers, either. Older people have immense power over children and they typically see it as their right and their obligation to teach their progeny the lessons they have (ostensibly) learned, often the hard way.
But there is an army of influencers which we nearly all tend to take for granted as innocuous and benign. They are visible but not especially conspicuous as the people primarily impacting public opinion among adults far and wide. Public school teachers, as well as all other teachers have the attention of students for approximately 180 days annually for twelve highly consequential years. How much more influence could anyone hope to have? Many parents do not have direct access to their children for that long during their entire childhood.
The assumption has been that teachers focus primarily on academics, that they are limited in their range of influence by institutional and legal guidelines, and that their influence is positive, socially oriented, and purposed for encouraging good behavior, self-control, and effective citizenship. Like most assumptions, those seldom prove to have much validity. Or, when they are valid, the outcome is too often grossly tilted toward pathology.
Teachers, with few exceptions, are loving toward most or all of their students. Some students prove exceptionally difficult to love, and teachers are often the only ones reaching them. Teachers are known for the incredible sacrifices they make for their students. Most are highly capable, professional, and extremely diligent. They are underpaid, under-appreciated, and under immense pressure to perform, produce, and motivate their wards. However, they are far from perfect, either. More importantly, they are being micromanaged and forced into roles which compromise their relationships with students.
If we take a closer look at what is actually taking place in classrooms and how students are affected, we can see the nuances and some of the nuisances. Teachers have a unique opportunity to influence children for all the obvious reasons. But, for many, their original choice to enter that field reflects a clear desire to instill in the generations which will follow them certain ideas, ideals, and values, not all of which are pure and perfect.
Some teachers have a powerful sense of responsibility. In attempting to carry out that responsibility they commonly weigh students down with sensations of obligation, duty, guilt, shame, or inadequacy. Things that might have come naturally or that are of little or no real significance, such as academic exercises and trivial markers of “progress” are proxies for the things which are imagined to loom large in their future.
Neurosis has an open invitation under the circumstances of traditional schooling. Any sign of a lack of enthusiasm or willingness on the part of students to endure the drudgery, boredom, or casual abuse is a mark against that student and a reason, however unconscious or unintended, for the teacher to have and express reservations about that individual.
School is a game and a contest as much as a chance to incorporate new information and knowledge. What is being measured is what cannot realistically be evaluated with any precision and has as much to do with attitude, control, and fitting in or filling in blanks as it has to do with coherent knowledge as part of a holistic view and contiguous, continuous, integrated whole.
The more significant influence which teachers exert, however, typically comes from the dark matter which fills the school ether. It is the inescapable notion that the student is in urgent need of what the school offers, and that one will fail if one falters in any way in the “educational” mission. It is the presumption that the student is ignorant, naïve, and incapable of making good decisions without the leadership and guidance of the teacher (and the “system”). It is the irrational belief that all of the material and classwork, homework, and lectures will somehow add up to a meaningful total, and that the student’s perception of the process or his or her feelings about it are of little or no relevance.
There is a pervasive faith in the school as the vehicle for success, happiness, and education which is simply not based in reality or sound logic. There is a moral imperative that is superimposed upon students which binds them to the ideas of the school and the institution and which ignores their complex natural needs and inclinations, as well as their vulnerability. The teacher has a phenomenal influence over impressionable children and is encouraged to use manipulation and intimidation in the interest of compliance and conformity. The curriculum is God, and God is dead.
Traditional is Synonymous with Conservative in This Context
In talking about schooling we distinguish between “traditional” schooling and “progressive” or “alternative” schooling. Traditional schooling is just that. It is based in customs, familiar practices, attitudes, rituals, beliefs, and philosophy which are traditional. The traditions have to do with expository teaching methods, disembodied knowledge being delivered and received via selected or specially designed media (i.e., textbooks, workbooks, hand-outs, etc.) and lectures. Rigorous study of prepared and standardized material, repetitive drill and exercises, evaluation via periodic testing and monitoring by teachers or others, and indoctrination into the culture by the strict reinforcement of codes, rules, and behavioral standards spelled out in repeated direct statements accompanied by explicit consequences for non-compliance are all found in a traditional environment. All of that stems from laws requiring attendance and delegating (arbitrary) authority under state auspices.
Traditional is synonymous with conservative, particularly in this context. There is much to be said for tradition, of course. We want to keep what we have created and have chosen as things or customs and practices with value.
Most people value predictability. Order, structure, and organization contribute to stability, safety, and security, and true progress is not possible without those things. Traditions provide continuity and a measure of peace, optimally. They allow for a systematic and controlled process. Traditions are emotionally gratifying and reassuring.
Unfortunately, in schools where groups of children are congregated for the supposed purpose of training, preparation, and education within a hierarchical framework, tradition becomes compulsive and obsessive. In schools where children are subservient to the alleged processes and procedures, with enforcement and monitoring by authorities with overwhelming power over them and the demand for full attention, compliance, and uniformity, things become institutionalized and formalized which would be better left to independent decision-making and autonomous inspiration, initiative, and habit.
Included among the original stated purposes for mandating universal public schooling was NOT the need to educate astute, well-informed, and heavily engaged voters or to create exceptional scholars, intellectuals, and academic wizards. Schools for the general public were NOT meant to educate in the way that practical scientific exploration, philosophy, scholarly debate involving brilliant and inquiring minds, and the classical knowledge of the Enlightenment had advanced the cause of education in improving society and the human condition. The original purposes of school reformers was instead to condition the public for the vagaries of the Industrial Revolution and the “modernization” of a rapidly developing society.
Today, the ostensible mission of schooling is directed more at increasing knowledge among the entire population and making people into better and more independent and capable citizens. We have become our own worst enemies by reinforcing a ubiquitous belief that schools can work these impossible miracles. The mission has morphed and crept from what it was originally into something of a Utopian fantasy. We have expected way too much from schools and irrationally hoped that they would eventually be perfected as vehicles to perpetuate democracy and civility.
The law mandates attendance. The fact of law as an official formal requirement creates a nearly omnipotent superstructure of rules, restrictions, definitions, parameters, and conditions which allow little or no deviation. Under these controlling laws, spontaneity and creativity, personal autonomy, and expansion of thought and freedom of expression must quickly fall by the wayside. This paradigm creates a universal dead end. Attendance law creates the best excuse ever for an unresponsive bureaucracy.
They are just kids, after all. They have no voice and no ability to effectively convey a message or register complaints. Their parents are not likely to back them up except in the most egregious or abusive circumstances. The “system” will remove or pacify those who are too reticent or defiant.
This explains why conditions have not recognizably changed in well over a century. This tells us why rates of literacy are low, why intellectual acumen is minimal, why authoritarian ideas are popular, why critical thinking is unknown, why apathy and cynicism prevail, and why curiosity has left the building.
But do not ask the teachers. They have continued to believe that they are dispensing gold knowledge and silver advice. They cannot relinquish the belief that the formula for improvement is just a matter of the right combination of methodology and motivational technique. Optimism is their stock in trade and hope is their anesthetic.
Endless school happy talk endlessly renews and bolsters the spirit of teachers, parents, and especially energetic students. Nothing needs to change because everyone shares the blithe happiness of the bubble, (except for the losers who rejected the Kool-Aid or who just could not keep up with the frenetic pace to nowhere).
We, the adults, and especially we the liberals and progressives, are expected to see through the smoke and mirrors. We are the watchdogs who are supposed to bark. Yet, for decades there has been hardly a sound and no warning of impending danger.
Sadly, the most famous, brilliant, and progressive TV and radio talk show host and prolific author (who shall remain nameless and shameless) has spoken of schools in shambles, referring to the maintenance of the bureaucracy, low teacher pay and low levels of competence, and the physical structures, while still giving them an AAA+ rating! He routinely complains of the cessation of civics classes as if they were once truly useful, while seventy million people, many who did indeed have civics classes, are ready to vote again for a self-confirmed fascist.
Here is what he wrote on February 7th:
“Breaking our schools and students: Reagan began the process of breaking our educational system, which was once the pride of the world. He … gutted civics…”
One cannot argue with most of what he says. Still, I protest against calling our schools our “educational system” and I question whether our “systems” have ever deserved such glorified status given the harm done to substantial numbers of their wards. Schools are most definitely not “educational systems” because education can never be systematized. Where did we ever get that nonsensical idea? Education encompasses much more than any school can deliver.
But my chief criticism is that, assuming that “civics” having been gutted is the decisive factor in the failures of schools is ludicrous. Classes in civics in schools which themselves are often not civil and where freedom and democracy are abstract ideas have never remotely been adequate for educating more than a fraction of most classes to be “well-informed” and fully competent participants in democracy.
Educators generally take great umbrage at any suggestion that they have participated in anything that might be classified as indoctrination. However, if one were able to record and catalogue the frequency with which they admonish students to “pay attention”, “sit still”, “make a greater effort”, “complete the assignment”, “stop talking”, etc., or the fact that grades are more a reflection of attitude and demeanor than of comprehension and intellectual achievement, one would be forced to acknowledge that the term “brainwashing” seems less and less strident. Blind obedience is the rule, rather than the exception, whether it is a stated demand or just the common understanding.
If civics classes, history classes, including world history, and “critical thinking skills” classes are established when fascists and fanatics such as DeSantis, Abbott, and Nikky Haley are the executives with the all-encompassing power over the curriculum because state attendance laws grant that power by default, does anyone think schools will become places of educational excellence, truth, and love for all people? Will teachers be able to influence students to be discriminating and well-informed citizens likely to participate in democracy and to make the most appropriate choices for the benefit of the people? Will pigs take flight?
I have seen the enemy. The enemy is our own mass and massive denial and delusion. The enemy is the law which purports to create educational opportunities but fails to account for the fact that authentic opportunities by definition do not need to be forced upon people.
The enemy is the mythology that manages to overshadow reams of scientific evidence because schools have a built-in PR apparatus, because media is incapable of recognizing lies and fantasies about school failures, and because the public is indoctrinated for 12 years. Also, parents are powerless and quite logically forego their responsibilities taking a bystander posture, while students are thoroughly persuaded in many cases that they are the ones who have failed by virtue of their withdrawal, physically or psychologically, thanks to their intuition informing them that the whole exercise is a monumental charade.
It takes courage and determination to be the first and only person to speak out in support of an unpopular cause and against a revered institution and an entrenched but inherently flawed paradigm. The taboo against even suggesting that compulsory attendance laws should be struck down brings ridicule and the taint of heresy.
Who will be the one in high places who will stop pretending that it is acceptable to write off one third of our students and to compromise democracy? Who will use their professional status and sterling reputation to present the facts, instead of continuing to defend schools which have never delivered on their outrageous promises? Who can abandon the erroneous consensus for the sake of sanity and children?
I am thoroughly, profoundly, disgusted with the people calling themselves educators and with those claiming to know something about education who pontificate freely about everything having to do with schooling, yet who adamantly refuse to see what is squarely in front of them. There is simply no excuse for standing by imperiously while children are miseducated, neglected, and abused in an authoritarian system which pretends to operate out of love, concern, and respect. Love, concern, and respect invariably materialize only for the academically inclined minority.
Speak up for democracy in schools where voluntary attendance sends the core message of democracy. Demand change that can only come when the paradigm changes to one without arbitrary authority. Insist that children be protected, respected, and honored rather than enlisted into the service of the bureaucracy and the deadening capitalist monolith.