The Definition of ‘Progressive’
February 19, 2012 3 Comments
Is homeschooling ‘progressive’? That is the question that plagues Dana Goldstein:
“Homeschoolers of all stripes believe that they alone should decide how their children are educated.”
Could such a go-it-alone ideology ever be truly progressive—by which I mean, does homeschooling serve the interests not just of those who are doing it, but of society as a whole?
This supplies us with a useful and informative definition of ‘progressive’:
progressive (n.): A political philosophy according to which individual human choices and behavior are only allowed if they ‘serve the interests of society as a whole’.
Of course, this requires a further definition:
the interests of society as a whole: stuff that people like Dana Goldstein likes and wants to happen.
We can finally simplify all this further by creating the associated thesaurus entry:
progressive: fascist
What a parodic definition. Analyzing progressive policies, it must follow then that all forms of sexual behavior are beneficial to society as a whole and not just the individuals, except of course for acts involving children, which are not simply harmful to the individuals but also to society as a whole.
Is it beyond comprehension that something which benefits an individual might inherently benefit society as a whole? What better example of that can you get besides education?
Homeschooling, even to counteract the poisons of the hopelessly reactionary public school system, is at root profoundly unprogressive. I am not surprised that some Progressives see this, and therefore sermonize and admonish their fellows. I am surprised (and quite pleased), however, to hear that more Progressive parents are nevertheless taking it up. And that single deliberate refusal to throw ones own (albeit few) children under the bus of Progressivism could be a major chink in Progressivism’s heretofore largely unassailable armor. It gives one hope at least that the edifice could one day come crashing down.