Excerpt from: Background on American Anticommunist Propaganda

This reading really got me thinking about the differences between the Cold War and WWII and Iraq and the War on Terror. My parents, who are 56 and 64, have lived through the Cold War era and have mentioned many times about the differences between the wars of their generation and the wars of mine. My dad served in Vietnam so I respected what he had to say from a war veteran's experience, but it never really dawned on me what he was trying to say. 

I know that there is quite a bit of anti-terrorism propaganda out in the media today, but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as the propaganda that was produced during the Cold War. The part that I found especially interesting was the section that described the movies that were made during this time. The only two terrorism war movies that I can think of that have been produced lately are Stop Loss and The Kingdom (they were both excellent and I recommend both of them). The Kingdom had more to do with the culture and beliefs of Islamic extremists and Stop Loss was about how the US Military is poorly treating war veterans and the effects it has on soldiers. Neither one of them was overwhelmingly anti-Muslim or anti-terrorism. 

And then there's the movie W, which is about President George W. Bush's life. While it was a lot more compassionate toward him than I think he deserved, it did criticize the President during a time of war. I think that a movie like this would have never been made during WWII or the Cold War. It's interesting how things change. 

Berstein and Luxemburg

Overall, I found this reading pretty confusing, but I found one part of Luxemburg's passage to be particularly interesting. 

Luxemburg's writes: 

"The scientific basis of socialism rests, as it is well known, on three principal results of capitalist development. First, on the growing anarchy of capitalist economy, leading inevitably to its ruin. Second, on the progressive socialisation of the process of production, which creates the germs of the future social order. And third, on the increased organisation and consciousness of the proletarian class, which constitutes the active factor in the coming revolution." 

I find this quote to be interesting because any time in the past that I've heard the word "socialism," the word "revolution" seems to follow closely behind. Even now in the United States, conservative Republicans have "guaranteed" that if Barack Obama is elected as president, that the country will turn to socialism. However, as stated in the above passage by Luxemburg, the "scientific basis" of socialism rests on the anarchy of capitalist economy, leading inevitably to its ruin. While the economy is by no means doing well at the moment, I doubt that the recession that its going into will lead it its demise. 

Socialism by Heywood

This reading helped clear up a lot of questions that I had about socialism. Before I read this piece, I knew that socialists wanted equality among groups of people. I also knew that as a liberal, I wanted equality for others too. So did that make me a socialist? No. This quote helped clear up that misconception on my part. 

"Liberals, however, are committed to equality, but on the grounds that all individuals enjoy an equal moral worth and are therefore entitled to equal rights and respect... Liberals therefore favor the equality of opportunity, but see no reason why this should, or will, lead to social and economic equality." 

To me, this makes complete sense. There will always be classes in the United States. People should have the opportunity to move up in class if they work hard and receive an education. I realize that there are plenty of hard working people in the country now who are living in poverty. This greatly saddens me and I wish that there was a way that we could start everyone off on an "even playing field" so that people could move up in life if they work hard enough. Unfortunately, no one has found a way to do this without going socialist. I think that this is why some conservatives often call liberals socialists. 

Phyllis Shlafly and the "Positive Woman"

When I discovered that we were reading a piece by Phyllis Shlafly in class, I knew I'd hate it. Generally, I try to keep an open mind, but I saw her on a documentary last year called Running in High Heels. She spoke out against women being able to hold office and vote, so I knew that I wouldn't agree with a single word she wrote about in "The Power of the Positive Woman." 

I consider myself a feminist, so I really didn't appreciate being called a "militant" in this piece. I don't consider myself a militant by any means. In every political group there are some radicals, and Shlafly seems to constantly focus on them. I don't disagree with her that there are women (and men for that matter) who take the feminist movement to the extreme, but I am not one of them, and I would say that they're in the minority. Maybe it's just because the radical ones seem to be more vocal and outspoken about their beliefs. 

The most ridiculous quote in this passage is,"The 'liberated' Roman matron, who is most similar to the present-day feminist, helped bring about the fall of Rome through her unnatural emulation of masculine qualities, which resulted in large-scale breakdown of the family and ultimately of the empire." I don't even see the correlation here. I haven't taken European history since my sophomore year of high school, but I am pretty sure Schlafly's history is a little off on this one. 

 

Conservatism...

In my mind, when I picture the "traditional American conservative," I picture a crazy evangelical Christians, usually Southern, protesting gay marriage, abortion, or any other of the various "evils" liberal government has brought to the country. Images from the documentary Jesus Camp (which is a terrifying documentary to watch-- if you haven't seen it. Go rent it. You won't know whether to laugh or cry) immediately spring to my mind. I can hear the sound clips of interviews with the children saying that "fags" are sinners, that Harry Potter is evil, and that abortion is killing God's children. They also don't believe in evolution and want intelligent design and Genesis to be taught in public schools. All of these conservatives absolutely advocate change, and drastic ones at that, to the government. So, why are they called conservatives? 

In the Andrew Heywood reading on Conservatism, he starts out with the most commonly stated definition of conservatism that I've ever heard, "The fear or refusal to change." This is the working definition of conservatism that I've always used. Why, then, haven't I ever realized that the American conservatives that I always picture in my head don't follow that definition? They advocate for change. 

A more complex definition, for conservatism, therefore, must be used to describe American conservatism. 

Burke- Conservatism

Although Burke's piece, Reflections on the Revolution of France was confusing and tedious to read, I think that I managed to pick out the core beliefs that Burke was trying to explain. 

Burke emphasized the importance of family and family structure in this passage. He wrote, 

"But one of the first and most leading principles on which the commonwealth and the laws are consecrated, is lest the temporary possessors and life-renters in it, unmindful of what they have received from their ancestors or of what is due to their posterity, should act as if they were the entire masters; that they should not think it amongst their to cut off the entail, or commit waste on the inheritance, by destroying as their the whole original fabric of society; hazarding to leave to those who come after them, a ruin instead of a habitation- and teaching these successors as little to respect their contrivances, as they had themselves respected the institutions of their forefathers." 

This quote builds on the belief of conservatives that the tradition family is the cornerstone and the fabric of a society. Everything that the government does should ultimately be in the best interest of protecting the traditional families in a particular society. 

This belief is consistent with a book I read in one of my politics classes last semester called It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good by Rick Santorum, a conservative Senator from Pennsylvania. In his book, Santorum describes his beliefs on how important family is to a society as well as his politics that attempt to "preserve" the traditional family. 

School Voucher Reflection

The articles by Covaleskie and Coulson really got me thinking about the school voucher debate in the United States and my opinion on it. In high school I never really paid much attention to it because I figured nothing would have happened to drastically change the way I was being educated. And while I was right, I find this debate to be especially interesting now, probably because I am researching it with the mind set of a high school graduate. 

A little bit of a back story on the high school that I went to-- I live in a small rural area just south of Buffalo. My high school was awful. It wasn't awful in the "ghettoized" way that Covaleskie wrote about in his piece, but it was still bad. We had a beautiful, brand new library and gym, all the funding we could ever need, but our quality of education was atrocious. And by atrocious, I mean that when Business First Magazine rated the 100 high schools in Western New York, my high school came in 89. We were even considered worse than Buffalo City Schools who do not have adequate funding. When this ranking came out, school officials and teachers tried to brush it under the rug. 

However, I realized what such a poor education would do for my academics. Despite being at the top of my class, I knew that my high school was not properly preparing me for college. I applied to one of the most prestigious private schools in the area. However, I couldn't afford $10,000 a year in tuition and still have a prayer at being about to afford college tuition too. My family isn't poor, we live comfortably, but that was an added expense that we couldn't swing. So, I stayed at the awful public school, and when it came time to apply to colleges, I was told that as a graduate of my high school, community college would be my best option. There is nothing wrong with community college, but I aspired for more than that. I can say fairly certainly that my high school's poor reputation hurt me when applying to more prestigious universities such as Notre Dame and Cornell, but luckily enough, I did get into Ithaca. Ithaca's reputation helped me finally get into USC, my top choice, but it makes me wonder. 

If I had gone to a better high school and had the same grades, would I have gotten into more colleges? 

Probably. 

Would I have been better prepared for college once I got here?

Absolutely. 

So, while I think both systems have flaws, I wish I had had more of a choice when deciding where to go to high school. While there are great public schools out there, unfortunately, mine wasn't one of them. I don't think students should be judged on a financial basis when gaining admission to schools, but more on academics, involvement and willingness to work hard.