Glenn Reynolds reviews Ron Paul’s new book
May 12th, 2008 by Brendan SteinhauserGlenn Reynolds has an interesting post up about Ron Paul’s new best-selling book The Revolution: A Manifesto.
Socialist candidate Eugene Debs, after all, never got elected President either, but within a few decades much of his platform was adopted by the Democratic Party. May Paul enjoy similar influence on the future of national politics.
Professor Reynolds notes his disagreements with Rep. Paul, especially on national defense. But as he points out, there is much he agrees with.
Paul is surely right that the federal government has expanded its powers far beyond anything the Framers contemplated, involving itself in things, like public education, that are best left to the states and to private entities. He is also right that the federal government’s massive expansion is both the cause and the symptom of government corruption, with politicians favoring big government as a source of additional patronage and graft, and with efforts by interest groups to pursue their agendas leading to the creation of new, self-perpetuating bureaucracies (like the Department of Education).
May 12th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Ah, the “scourge” of public education…started way back in 1643 by the Town of Dedham in the Massachusetts Bay Colony…nearly 150 years before the establishment of the United States. Also, it’s chief proponent in later years, often called “the father of American public education”, was Horace Mann…who was none other than…a Republican!
May 12th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
I would have to agree with Glenn Reynolds.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
@Mister Guy:
Public education does not mean federal, and removing the federal department of education does not mean an end to public locally run institutions of learning. Certainly you can see the difference.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Let’s not speak in code here. We all know what the “conservative” agenda is when it comes to education. What do you think the above “private entities” mention is all about? It’s about privatising schools…charter schools, vouchers, public funding for religious institutions, de-unionization of education professionals, and, in general, less public money spent on education, period.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:03 am
We should spend less money on public education. All the public education system has managed to do is lower education standards and increase the number of useless classes, teachers and administrators.
When a business wants to improve a subsidiary, they go back to basics and focus on their knitting. Perhaps that would be a good lesson for public education.
Maybe the best outcome would be to stop listening to egghead PhDs and EdDs and get a private equity turnaround manager into the mix.
And university-level education is even worse.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Hey,
Every time there is a debate about education, someone mentions that some parties want less money to go there, inferring that money somehow equals results- ALL of the countries that are KICKING OUR ASS in this sphere SPEND LESS PER PUPIL THAN THE US. Obviously dollars spent do not have anything to do with the end product.
Let’s at least start being honest about this fact.
If you don’t have at least a 3.00 GPA -YOU DON’T HAVE TIME to play high school athletics, to play video games, or to watch TV!!!!!. We are too soft on our children and do not make them apply themselves to their studies. That’s why the end product of our educational system is not acceptable. We are all to blame, but money isn’t the reason.
India spends one tenth per pupil and has a much better end product.