• Can We Regain the Pioneer Spirit?
• Is the Welfare Problem Solvable?
• Strengthen Education Strengthen Homes to

Dr. Ralph Lynn is a retired professor of Modern European History at Baylor University.  Three of his brief commentaries on some ethical dimensions of the passing scene were carried in the last issue of Christian Ethics Today.  The three that follow in this issue were originally prepared for The Waco Tribune-Herald and are published here in somewhat revised form.

Can We Regain the Pioneer Spirit?

We cannot imitate our Founding Fathers by following their systems of thought and action in slavish, blind fashion.  To emulate them in worthy fashion we must be, like them, pioneers and revolutionaries.

      Three areas in which we have neglected to imitate them as faithfully as we should, and three areas which call for us to take the kind of intelligent, confident, courageous action they pioneered, seem to be worth examination.

      1.  First, in the most deplorable fashion, we have neglected to choose leaders of talent and culture to match the gifted men who established this nation.

          We have exalted too many basically ignorant, demagogic mediocrities who use the word “elite” in scorn.  We have forgotten that the Founders constituted an elite the likes of which cannot, perhaps, be matched save in the Golden Age of Athens.

      2.  Second, we need to imitate the Founders in the matter of religion in public life.  They did not oppose religion, but they rejected any idea of official government recognition or sponsorship of any religion.

          They refused to incorporate the topic of religion in political discussion since its use would polarize the voters and make good government difficult to achieve.

      3.  Honor among public servants is the third matter we have neglected.  The Founders risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” for the good of their society.  Our current leaders are in little greater danger than ordinary citizens, and many of them are avidly pursuing their fortunes instead of risking them.  The concept of honor seems to be degraded just now as thought and taste are degraded by television and MTV.  One must wonder if the mass concept of honor must be raised before the standard of honor among public servants can be improved.

      That we need to renew our emphasis on these three matters seems beyond dispute among informed, reasonable people. 

The problems calling for pioneering, revolutionary thought and action may seem controversial to a wide range of people.

      1.  The first of these has to do with the forty or so million among us who are essentially outcasts because they are without education, without marketable skills, without work discipline, without adequate health care, and without hope.

           Obviously, we must do what we can to help these outcasts and their children equip themselves for employment in competitive businesses, since only so can they develop self-confidence and dignity.  This seems to be the only way both they and the nation can escape the problems entailed in life on welfare.

      We can do this if we choose to do so but it will not be easy.  Unknown numbers of these outcasts are probably hopelessly unemployable in competitive enterprises.  We must keep them from starving and we must keep them from threatening the welfare of society.  This task will take at least one generation, but it will probably be cheaper to solve this problem than to try to ignore it.

      2.  Another challenge for pioneering is the reform of our health care chaos.

      Currently, two classes of people have adequate health care.  One small group is composed of relatively wealthy people who are able to pay the astronomical costs of physicians’ services, prescriptions, hospitalization and—perhaps—long-term nursing care.  The other—far larger—group is composed of middle-class people lucky enough to be employed by large, successful, stable firms able and willing to contribute to guaranteed pensions and insurance costs.

      It is obvious to most objective observers that we need to break the connection with employment and adopt some form of universal health care, as every other reasonably civilized nation has long since done.

      Former President Bush had it exactly backward when he said that “we have the will but not the wallet.”

      3.  The challenges to pioneering presented by our outcasts and our health care chaos are so intricately intertwined with our problem in education that one can hardly think of dealing with them separately.

      Three statements which may have some merit seem to sum up a view of this third problem.  First, good students come almost exclusively from homes which value learning.  Second, any school at any level which wishes to graduate good students must take in only good students—just as successful college football teams recruit only outstanding athletes.  Three, to make any significant improvement in any education system, we must improve the quality of the homes of our children.

      Can our vast, pluralistic, democratic society produce leaders comparable to our Founders, elect these elite people to office, and then engage in the generations-long program which alone could solve our problems?

      We have the intelligence but can we muster the confidence and the courage to be the pioneers our ancestors were?

Is the Welfare Problem Solvable?

Two developments on the welfare front bolster the thesis that we have never tried rationally to analyze this problem and to devise the practical, long-term programs which alone could rid the nation of the burden of continuing our minimal rescue operations of the losers among us.

      The first of these developments is that “ending welfare as we know it” may mean little more than shifting the responsibility for administration from the federal government to the states.

      The second is that some state legislatures, having no idea what to do and no stomach for making the desired reductions in services, have already contracted with some of our great private business corporations to do the job.

      The Arthur Andersen accounting firm, Electronic Data Systems, and (hold your breath!) the Lockheed Martin $30 billion defense corporation are among the leaders in this new opportunity for private profit off the taxpayers and the poor.

      That Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries have no slums and no underclasses is proof that our problems are solvable.  Granted:  these countries have advantages we do not have.  They have largely homogeneous populations; they have no third-world nations adjoining them and are therefore not easily invaded by hungry people.

      And—I say it softly—they do not have in their heritages our nearly religious allegiance to nineteenth century, laissez-faire economic dogma.

      Perhaps we should begin an approach to solving our problems by coming to terms with three probable facts.  One, it would be cheaper in purely monetary terms to solve the problem than to keep on with our current system—even with the changes now being suggested.

      Two, some millions of our underclass are so old, so ill, so retarded, so addicted to drugs or alcohol, or so immune to self-discipline that they can never be productive citizens.  But we cannot abandon them; we must be humane while maintaining order.

      Three, no program lasting less than a generation or more has any chance of being really effective.

      Assuredly we cannot solve our problem with quick-fix domestic version of the post-World War II Marshall Plan.

      Each of the European countries aided by the Marshall Plan had its own natural resources and the skilled, self-disciplined workers ready to make effective use of massive aid.  The realities of our inner cities could not be more completely opposite.

      Clearly, our task is to assure to our underclass the prenatal care, healthy food, adequate medical services, and the education and technological training they must have to cope with our complicated world.

      We must then arrange carefully regulated projects of cooperative corporation/government enterprises to furnish employment to millions of people with no work experience and little self-discipline.

      The aim should be to use government financing and supervision only until the new inner-city enterprises are established, competitive businesses.

      Nothing builds self-respect and responsible citizenship like the experience of making one’s own way as a productive person working in a competitive business.  “An honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay” is not to be despised.  It will solve more social problems than all our elaborate, overlapping social service machinery.

      Perhaps the most consoling aspect of the heated exchanges attending the political campaigns of presidential election years is that it makes so little difference which party wins either or both the White House and the Congress.

      What are some of the results of the irresponsible charges and counter-chargers?  How do I justify the claim that it makes little difference which party wins?  Why is it good, not bad, that little changes whatever the outcome?  What is the “little” difference which was just at stake, and why is this little difference important?  And what is the net result?

      Probably the chief reason it makes so little difference which party wins is that all of the candidates are patriotic citizens with good intentions.  Neither party has a monopoly on intelligence, wisdom, stupidity, cupidity, or ignorance.

      The presidential candidates spar like high school sophomore debaters.  They look frantically about for some inconsequential opening into which they hope to drive a “wedge issue.”

      Like staged debates in public schools, these presidential debates are wars of half-truths.  In the process, they are like Abraham Lincoln’s two struggling drunks:  each wrestles himself out of his own clothes and into those of his opponent.

      A final reason why it makes little difference which party wins:  they must appeal to the same voters.  And it is the general temper of this national constituency which determines who will win and what the winners will try to do once in office.

      That it is good, not bad, that the parties are so much alike seems easy to demonstrate.  Even when we have something like a total turnover, the losers suffer only the loss of power—and the chance to make money.

      It is good, also, in that we always know what to expect regardless of which party wins.  Even now, after Gingrich’s “revolution,” nothing much has changed.  The states will have the responsibility of administering a welfare system, which we cannot abandon.

      Despite these arguments, which party wins may make a significant difference to the forty or so million at the bottom of our economic heap and to the handful of the quite wealthy at the top.

      If the Gingrich types win, the masses of the poor may have a harder lot until our society is aroused once more to deal wisely with their problems.  Meanwhile, the rich will get still richer off their lower capital gains taxes.

      It seems unquestionable that the net result of these sad political campaigns is that the divisions among us will be deepened and sharpened.

      So irresponsibly do we conduct ourselves that any president must enter office with handicaps which make it difficult for him to discharge his duties in effective fashion.

      The partisan sniping, much of it uninformed and irresponsible, becomes so habitual that it is carried on after the election, not just in Washington but in every city, suburb, and town in the nation.

      Perhaps the net result does contain one comforting thought.  It may be that the widespread public apathy generated by the campaign is evidence that the masses of people—despite their endless griping—are relatively content with the status quo and have a modicum of confidence that the future will be much like the past and the present.

Strengthen Education Strengthen Homes to

The findings of the one state Education Association show clearly the chief reason for the high rate of student failure in the schools in danger of being closed.  It is not the presence of significant percentages of minority students but the pervasiveness of poverty and the problems associated with poverty.

      How is poverty likely to affect the academic records of children?  What are some of the popular suggestions for correcting the academic problems in the endangered schools?  What seldom suggested solution gives the most promise?  And what is the penalty for our failure to deal effectively with the problem?

      The child of poverty has likely lived all his life in a home without books, without newspapers, without magazines other than National Inquirer types, without good music, and without family conversation devoted to anything but sports, the weather, television, gossip, religion, bickering, and griping about hard times.

      If the child of poverty is lucky, he has one caring parent or he lives with relatives who do what they can for him.  He is likely to have to care for himself a good deal of the time since his parents or relatives must work as much as they possibly can in order not to get too far behind on the rent and the utility bills.  If he is unlucky his parents or relatives will resent his presence as an additional burden.

      He will be unable to take advantage of extracurricular activities partly because they usually cost something and partly because he has nobody to haul him around.

      In all his life he will have had no place of peace and quiet to study, and his school books will probably be stained with food scraps and syrup.

      A suggested solution both potentially helpful and harmful costs too much for poor people.  This was a video which advertised itself—and the ignorance of its sponsors—with the slogan, “Where there’s a will there’s an A.”  If the conscientious but slow learner took this slogan seriously, it would have driven him into depression and it may have led the parents to try to browbeat—or even physically beat—their slow-learning children into becoming geniuses, an exercise not destined for success.

      Another suggestion is that kids might be reshuffled to get fast and slow learners more equally divided among all of the schools in a given district.  This would tend to result in universal mediocrity; it would certainly arouse anger among the people associated with the better schools.

      Or perhaps gifted, industrious, imaginative, dynamic principals and teachers could be assigned to schools currently in danger of being closed—but with what results?  The constituents of the good schools would raise such a howl over the loss of good principals and teachers that school boards would have to beat a fast retreat.  Moreover, if the same students remained in the school to be rescued, the end results would be much the same.  Only a handful of the brightest students would show really significant improvement.  And the new, gifted staff would suffer early burnout.

      Still another suggestion is that the work of teachers currently employed should be improved by additional “workshops.”  This is laudable but ludicrous for all practical purposes, most teachers are already doing the best they will ever be capable of.  To enlist good teachers from the Junior League or the Chamber of Commerce would call for the firing of poor teachers; this is impossible.  To raise the academic requirements for entry into public school teaching would necessitate significant increases in salaries.  It would take many years before results would be visible—but a taxpayer revolt would be immediate.

      One thing, theoretically, could be done immediately:  mobilize intelligent, honest, thoughtful, public-spirited Christian people to pressure the state legislature to adopt an essentially fair system for the distribution of public funds.  But this, too, is impossible since no imaginable leadership could overcome our built-in traditional selfishness and intense local loyalties.

      An argument quite often made is that entrepreneurial competition among both public and private schools would solve the problem.  Parental choice, so the claim goes, would be available since government-issued vouchers would be good at any public or private school of choice.

      But experience indicates that many parents still wish to send their children to the closest school.  And the dollar amounts available for vouchers typically cover only about half the cost of private schools; poor families could not afford their share of the cost.  Also, the law of supply and demand would drive up the cost of private schools with the increase of applications.  In addition, the good public schools would likely be swamped with applications and would probably reject the program.  The private schools would almost certainly refuse the problem children, a pattern already well-established.  Finally, parochial schools would want to accept government-issued vouchers but would face the constitutionally mandated church-state separation barrier.

      Thoughtful readers will note that two assumptions underlie this line of reasoning.  One is that interest in and ability to do academic work vary in the general population just as any and all other human characteristics vary.  We have a few morons and a few geniuses with all the others ranged in between.  The other is that none of these solutions touches the basic problems entailed by poverty.

      Only one solution seems to make much sense.  It is seldom mentioned but is essentially obvious:  since good students come from good homes we must try to make a lot of good homes.

      This solution enjoys little popular support;  it would be expensive, it would call for radical changes in our social outlook, and it would take a generation for its results to be visible.

      Good homes have parents who are ambitious for their children; they have a degree of economic security and dignity.  They also offer books, magazines, good music, and civilized—even sophisticated—conversation.

      To make good homes out of poor ones, we would have to begin with full employment at wages which would allow even a single parent home to enjoy a degree of economic security and dignity.  We would have to educate our children to be good parents.  We would have to begin to educate current parents to supply the books, newspapers, and magazines which characterize the homes from which good students come.

      Such a program would meet Christian requirements and it would be effective in the course of a generation.  But it would likely also produce some inflation, it would frighten the business and financial communities out of their wits, and it would be opposed by the pillars of the churches, the luncheon clubs, and the Chambers of Commerce. 

      It would be damned as utopian and as too idealistic by all the self-styled “realists” who dislike the status quo but oppose effective changes in it.

      The penalty for failure to solve our current problem is that we will rob our nation of the brains and talents of literally millions of people presently ignored by our system.  All we know about such matters indicates that brains and talents are equally divided among all human beings.  As a nation, we cannot afford this continued waste.

      Failure to come to grips with and then to solve this problem would also deepen and widen the current division of our society between the affluent and the poor.  Those who oppose effective reforms in our present system should reflect that they may, one day, wish for a lot of healthy, well-educated soldiers from our presently submerged masses to defend their privileged positions.

      We are right to be dissatisfied with the performance of our public schools.  We are wrong to suppose that private schools are any better except that they take in only young people from “good” homes.

      All educators, from the kindergartens to the Ivy League are well aware that to turn out good students they must take in good students.  Aside from the wonderful fact that the human personality is sacred, educators would agree that schools are like computers:  garbage in, garbage out; treasure in, treasure out.

      We are also wrong to suppose that any quick fix is possible save for the handful of currently poor students who, given a chance, are so gifted that they can relatively easily overcome their handicaps stemming from poverty environments.

      We are, moreover, wrong to suppose that we can solve this problem without significant social changes since the conditions guaranteeing academic failure have long been built into the social-economic structure of our society

Updated Tuesday, April 17, 2001