As always, when we’re deciphering arguments we must first define terms. So let’s look at the term “village” today. Every homeschooler would agree that it actually does take a village to raise a child. I’ve yet to meet a homeschooling family that is not heavily immersed and involved in the “village”. We go to great lengths in fact to do that. And one of the lengths we go to is to keep our children out of a fenced off, age-segregated institution that isolates them from our understanding of village and instead indoctrinates them into a redefined understanding of “village”, which is more akin to a commune, with powerful leaders and masses of worker-bee slaves keeping the masters comfortable. I don’t want any part of their “village”.
If you know anyone whose only answer to every problem involves ever more government power, spending, and taxation, you know a liberal. You can see them every two years marching around talking about how they’re going to soak the rich to make your life better. But they never deliver on anything but blame. Why don’t we just go ahead and admit that if the masters took every red cent of everything produced by the worker-bee class, it still wouldn’t be enough to fix what they’ve broken?
As is obvious by all the blame-throwing going on right now it’s campaign season again. And here they come in droves, promising us Utopia if only we’ll deliver up our children, resources, and liberty.
So here we have this article addressing Hillary Clinton’s “village”, which is no village at all but a perverted horror house complete with drag queens and a baby-butcherers.
This is from one of my favorite sites, National Review, and there’s a lot to unpack. I’ll let you do that. But a couple of excerpts of note:
What’s amazing about the child-care debate is how little attention the “party of science” pays to the complex and contested science surrounding child care and maternal work. As Jenet Erickson recently noted in Family Studies, when young children, especially infants, spend lots of time in child care, it poses behavioral and social risks, even when they are being cared for in high-quality centers.
If you haven’t figured it out yet, their “science” is fake and is used as a billy club. It works like this: they come to the conclusions they want to be true, then they reject all science that doesn’t agree with their “science”. Then you impugn those who are open minded enough to want to consider real science, and if evidence that their science is nothing more than hack politics begins to emerge you criminalize those who disagree with you.
Finally, new research by MIT economist Jonathan Gruber (and colleagues) indicates that one big experiment in expanding child care at the societal level — Quebec’s introduction of universal child care — did not turn out well. Their study found that “cohorts with increased child care access subsequently had worse health, lower life satisfaction, and higher crime rates later in life,” with “impacts on criminal activity . . . concentrated in boys.” In contending that Clinton’s policy agenda on this front will “make a huge difference to [children’s] lives,” Krugman seems to do nothing but betray his ignorance or indifference to the state of the science on child care.
Failure is never a good reason to try something different. But then again, these are arguments and so terms must be defined. We tend to judge, as does this article, success according to the subject matter. In this case, it would be the long-term well-being of the children. But Hillary doesn’t judge success and failure that way. For her, the question is two fold. First, are these children being indoctrinated to think that we elites can and will fix everything bad in their lives? Second, are they being indoctrinated to believe that ethe blame for everything that isn’t going right can be laid at the feet of her political enemies, whoever that may be? So for her, these programs are actually a great success.
But for me, success is defined as the spiritual well-being of my children, their character, and then academics. I can fail my children in academics and they’ll be just fine. But if I fail them in the other areas, no amount of academic training can make up for it. Liberals would do good to understand that. But that would mean that they would have to admit that they’re not little gods running around here on earth progressing the world under their control toward Utopia. That’s why I don’t want these people anywhere near my children. And it’s also the reason I think we should spend considerable time explaining what leftists believe to our children, and why they’re wrong. And the only place that’s going to happen is in your house.