The Catholic bishop of Harrisburg, Pa., Bishop Joseph McFadden is being criticized for comments where he compares American public schools to the system that Hitler and Mussolini sought to create. I actually think that part of the criticism of McFadden is misplaced, though he is certainly worthy of criticism. McFadden’s controversial statements follow a call for Catholics to organize against President Obama and his health care program by leading Catholic leaders.
In an interview with the ABC affiliate in Harrisburg, McFadden was objecting to the lack of school vouchers in Pennsylvania and the lack of choice for many parents: “In the totalitarian government, they would love our system,” McFadden said. “This is what Hitler and Mussolini and all them tried to establish — a monolith; so all the children would be educated in one set of beliefs and one way of doing things.” The Anti-Defamation League has condemned the statement and said “he should not be making his point at the expense of the memory of six million Jews and millions of others who perished in the Holocaust.”
I understand the sensitivity to such a comparison, but I do not think that the Bishop was referring to the Holocaust. People should be able to make comparisons to aspects of prior totalitarian regimes without fear of being call insensitive to the Holocaust. The Nazi regime was a worldwide tragedy with many aspects and precursors that are the subject of historical and political discourse.
Where McFadden is wrong is that the comparison is wildly misplaced. First, Hitler was raised by a devout Catholic mother and many Nazis were taught in religious schools. Indeed, the Vatican was criticized by some for not doing more to confront the Nazi regime. Second, the fascists sought to use schools to indoctrinate children to accept narrow values to the exclusion of other values and the objectification of other people. American public schools do the opposite. They are motivated by pluralistic principles to help shape citizens who are tolerant and well-rounded. They are the antithesis of what fascists want from education.
Finally, this is about vouchers and whether the people of Pennsylvania should subsidize alternative schools, such as Catholic schools. With the church experiencing severe shortfalls in attendance and donations, they need more from the state more than ever. However, there are very good reasons for opposition to vouchers. I attended Catholic schools for part of my earlier education and I am very thankful for the education that I received in those schools. However, Leslie and I are committed to the model of public education. While we can afford a private education, we have kept our children in public schools where they are taught in a more diverse class. I have long been an advocate for public education, particularly in the elementary and middle school levels, as a critical part of shaping good citizens. While I have often been critical of the curriculum particularly on civics, I believe that the public schools have always been the key to maintaining a citizenry that is educated and tolerant.
The comparison to Hitler and Mussolini reflects less disrespect on the part of Bishop McFadden than it does a lack of understanding of the fascistic agenda on education: dogma and exclusionary learning. While I believe Catholic schools are excellent choices for learning, it is outrageous to compare fascistic systems to our public schools. Hitler and Mussolini would find our current curriculum in public schools to be a threat to their type of indoctrination model for children.
Source: ABC
Enter the enraged…..
Bron said:
“And that is the problem with big government, it really doesnt care what the individual thinks.”
My question: What does the church or other private sponsor care about what the individual thinks??? Not batshit!!! “Kiss my ring after……” says McFadden….
You will need a lot of help, Good place to get it, I know myself for a fact.
Elaine and Mespo,
I am sitting next to the window right now and keeping an eye out for those stones that you are talking about!
Mespo,
“People who live in glass priories shouldn’t throw stones.”
🙂
Gene,
“And that, Bron, falls under the category of ‘Duh.'”
Yuh!
“where he compares American public schools to the system that Hitler and Mussolini sought to create.”
Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. The NAZI’s encouraged young “Aryan” girls to get pregnant, from “Aryan” men of course, as a duty to The
“Fatherland” to increase “Aryan” population. The NAZI’s offered payments and support to those girls who did, both in and out of marriage. From this perspective what side does the Bishop find himself on?
“I cant think of a good analogy”
That would be because there isn’t one. What you are saying is the equivalent of “you can’t have rules in a system and then introduce a concept that requires no rules into that mix and not expect problems.”
And that, Bron, falls under the category of “Duh.”
Laissez-faire economics doesn’t work because unregulated capitalism? Is the same model black markets use. Markets with no rules but supply and demand. Who benefits most from black markets? Criminals.
Von Mises and his ilk are proponents of a methodology that will guarantee economic tyranny from and the oligarchical concentration of power to the most ruthless actors (who are always sociopaths).
Then again, that does explain why the Austrian School appeals to Objectivists.
Elaine:
“He acknowledged that he was wrong to take the advice of those advising him against regulating derivatives.”
The economy has very complex controls on it. At this stage how do you know what the impact will be? You cant take this economy and deregulate by presidential fiat, that would lead to chaos. The layers have to be peeled back a little bit at a time.
I would love to see a truly free market but it will take years of deregulation to set it right, a little bit at a time so as not to trash it.
You cant have a regulated market and introduce a non-regulated financial concept into that mix and not expect some problems. I cant think of a good analogy but maybe an engine which uses gasoline and the flow of fuel is controlled because you only want so much output and all of a sudden you throw in a couple of gallons of very high octane fuel. Boom. The high octane fuel could be used but you would need to find the right mix for the optimization of the engine.
Mea culpa, mespo.
I sometimes get carried away with that whole “justice for all” thing.
Gene H:
How dare you inject morality or the Rule of Law into economic theory. Don’t you know we’re all just dots on some demand curve?
There shouldn’t be a law against fraud because the market would take care of itself?
Wow. I mean really . . . just wow.
I knew Greenspan was a fool, but apparently he’s also crazy. I’ve said before that the fundamental problem with laissez-faire capitalism is the same fundamental problem with communism. Both ideas and their subsequent models are based on disastrously false assumptions about human nature.
That story only emphasizes the truth of that statement.
Thanks for the relay, Elaine.
Elaine M:
People who live in glass priories shouldn’t throw stones.
Prophet and Loss
Brooksley Born warned that unchecked trading in the credit market could lead to disaster, but power brokers in Washington ignored her. Now we’re all paying the price.
BY RICK SCHMITT
http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2009/marapr/features/born.html
Excerpt:
Shortly after she was named to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in 1996, Brooksley E. Born was invited to lunch by Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan.
The influential Greenspan was an ardent proponent of unfettered markets. Born was a powerful Washington lawyer with a track record for activist causes. Over lunch, in his private dining room at the stately headquarters of the Fed in Washington, Greenspan probed their differences.
“Well, Brooksley, I guess you and I will never agree about fraud,” Born, in a recent interview, remembers Greenspan saying.
“What is there not to agree on?” Born says she replied.
“Well, you probably will always believe there should be laws against fraud, and I don’t think there is any need for a law against fraud,” she recalls. Greenspan, Born says, believed the market would take care of itself.
For the incoming regulator, the meeting was a wake-up call. “That underscored to me how absolutist Alan was in his opposition to any regulation,” she said in the interview.
Over the next three years, Born, ’61, JD ’64, would learn first-hand the potency of those absolutist views, confronting Greenspan and other powerful figures in the capital over how to regulate Wall Street.
More recently, as analysts sort out the origins of what has become the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Born has emerged as a sort of modern-day Cassandra. Some people believe the debacle could have been averted or muted had Greenspan and others followed her advice.
As chairperson of the CFTC, Born advocated reining in the huge and growing market for financial derivatives. Derivatives get their name because the value is derived from fluctuations in, for example, interest rates or foreign exchange. They started out as ways for big corporations and banks to manage their risk across a range of investments. One type of derivative—known as a credit-default swap—has been a key contributor to the economy’s recent unraveling.
Bron,
Clinton: I Was Wrong to Listen to Wrong Advice Against Regulating Derivatives*
By Evan Harris
4/17/10
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/04/clinton-rubin-and-summers-gave-me-wrong-advice-on-derivatives-and-i-was-wrong-to-take-it/
Excerpt:
In my EXCLUSIVE “This Week” interview, I asked former President Bill Clinton if he thought he got bad advice on regulating complex financial instruments known as derivatives from his former Treasury Secretaries, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. He acknowledged that he was wrong to take the advice of those advising him against regulating derivatives.
“On derivatives, yeah I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take [their advice] because the argument on derivatives was that these things are expensive and sophisticated and only a handful of investors will buy them and they don’t need any extra protection, and any extra transparency. The money they’re putting up guarantees them transparency,” Clinton told me.
“And the flaw in that argument,” Clinton added, “was that first of all sometimes people with a lot of money make stupid decisions and make it without transparency.”
The former President also said he was also wrong about understanding the consequences if the derivatives market tanked. “The most important flaw was even if less than 1 percent of the total investment community is involved in derivative exchanges, so much money was involved that if they went bad, they could affect a 100 percent of the investments, and indeed a 100 percent of the citizens in countries, not investors, and I was wrong about that.”
Clinton also blamed the Bush administration for scaling back on policing the financial industry. “I think what happened was the SEC and the whole regulatory apparatus after I left office was just let go.”
Neil,
Do we have a nationalized curriculum? Is every state’s curriculum the same? Do you know who writes curricula in this country?
Who writes the curricula for private schools? For religious schools?
If you think that there should be no such thing as public education, how would you propose that all children be educated in this country?
Neil,
Once the big banks and brokerage houses do business honestly, then maybe we can talk about removing regulations. In light of the crap that caused the recession, I think the market needs regulating.
Mike,
The very definition of a free market means that there is no control by wealth or power. The market is free to function without the hinderances of government regulation and manipulation. American didn’t have a central bank until 1913, and prior to that it seemed to do just fine economically. Now, it is on the downward slope.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/birth-control-mandate-nazi-germany_n_1260184.html Nazi Germany seems to be a right wing talking point, now.
“Mike,
The very definition of a free market means that there is no control by wealth or power.”
Neal,
With all due respect that is Von Mises nonsense. No control on a market will lead inevitably to corruption, monopoly ad then totalitarian oppression.
Bron is correct. A nation which has a central bank that fixes interest rates and issues a pure fiat currency does not have a free market economy. Such a nation has a centrally planned economy, which is what all politicians with a lust for power desire.
“Such a nation has a centrally planned economy, which is what all politicians with a lust for power desire.”
As well as all people who don’t want to live in a survival of the fittest jungle controlled by wealth and power.
Elaine,
Public schools are in principle a bad idea because the government determines the curriculum. Evil governments will devise sinister propaganda with which to indoctrinate its pupils. For instance, I doubt you’d have been a proponent of public schools if you had school age children and lived in Germany in 1935.