Copyright © 2011 by P. A. Ritzer
15 November 2011
Instead of the government-student-loan approach to college financing, I propose the Knute Rockne approach, dramatized in the 1940 film Knute Rockne: All American, in which, fittingly, Ronald Reagan became the Gipper.
Rockne wanted to study at the University of Notre Dame. So, in order to do so, he worked four years at the Chicago Post Office and saved his money. And he continued working. Besides climbing up from a scrub to captain of the football team, he graduated magna cum laude and was offered a job at Notre Dame as a graduate assistant in chemistry. He accepted, as long as he could also help coach the football team. From 1918, when he took over as head coach, he compiled a record of 105 wins, 12 losses, 5 ties, 6 national championships, an .881 winning percentage, highest ever in college or professional football, before he died in an airplane crash at the age of 43. He once said: “The best thing I ever learned in life was that things have to be worked for” (www.knuterockne.com).
On the other hand, today we hear of “jobs Americans won’t do.” What! Jobs Americans won’t do! Since when? Since they could rack up tens to hundreds of thousand of dollars in government-backed or -provided student loans while immersed in youthful ignorance that does not appreciate the trap it sets until they are caught in it, or liberal arrogance that does not care who picks up the tab for their indulgence. And since, in 2009, President Obama and the Democrats engineered a federal take-over of the student-loan business, the president now claims the right to slash the amounts students will have to pay back to the taxpayers. Here’s one more tool liberals can use to turn Americans into effete, dependent, disgruntled, thoughtless voting machines ever ready to pull the lever for the liberals who will do their best to keep them that way.
I think of some of the jobs I had from the age of ten or so that helped pay my way through college and keep the student-loan monster from growing out of control: pulling weeds, delivering papers and collecting payment, mowing lawns, sweeping floors, cleaning bathrooms, installing drain tile, flipping burgers, painting, hanging sheetrock, laying concrete block, striking joints between bricks, and just plain hauling by hand: brick, mortar, block, sheetrock, shingles, plywood, beds, windows, you name it. And most of my friends and family worked similar kinds of jobs.
And from that background I look with disgust upon the display of covetous malcontents–the Occupy Here, There, and Everywhere set–squatting on Wall Street and other public and private properties across the nation. And here is where the sluggish old gray matter churns up a solution. I will run the risk of assuming that these Occupy folks are Americans. And I can think of nothing that would better cure their ills than work.
Sooooo–I know you’re way ahead of me here–take away the student loans, (and dismantle other liberal devices, like the minimum wage, designed to protect a self-serving elite and limit the number of people who can find work) and suddenly we would have a vast number of people who would have an incentive to do the jobs Americans hitherto would not do! Think of the advantages. Instead of the spoiled Occupiers content to wallow in the filth and stench of their own sloth and discontent, we could have industrious citizens energized to wash off the dirt and smell earned from a day of honest hard work. Most would strive for something better and leave the entry-level work for the young workers who would follow in their footsteps. And their hard work at entry-level jobs would give more of a value to the reasonably priced education no longer artificially inflated by government student loans.
And having worked for their money, these young people would likely take a more mature and responsible approach to how much they would be willing to spend on their education and what they would expect to receive for their expenditures. Consequently, they would in all likelihood be less willing to spend what they had earned on much of the nonsense now taught at institutions of higher learning, and for that matter, would be more likely to identify the nonsense for what it is. This would help bring down college costs even more. And with a mature, responsible student population better able to identify and less likely to abide nonsense, liberalism and its attendant political correctness would naturally waste and slink away, and institutions of higher learning could once again freely and honestly search for and explore knowledge and truth as in days gone by.
But what if some natural genius of humble means cannot earn enough to attend Ivy League U? Well, he could apply his genius to studies at Local U and perhaps help raise the standing of that institution–rather than sacrifice himself to the liberal god of the status quo–and leave Local U a better place for those who would follow in his path.
Where does illegal immigration fit in? Bear with me.
(to be continued in Part Three)
The Republican Convention and PBS
© 2012 by P. A. Ritzer
29 August 2012
As I watched one speaker after another intelligently and engagingly put the lie to the Obama and Democratic Party record and talking points, I had to wonder at the PBS team covering the event. First of all, I would have rather heard and seen Janine Turner and Nikki Haley and anyone else I missed when the PBS team deemed that their . . . what? . . . “commentary” and “analysis” should take priority over the contributions of the real players in this one-time event. Among other things, I wondered if the amply seasoned partisan commentators Gwen Ifill, Judy Woodruff, and Mark Shields, and their token conservative–so suited to the role that he writes for the New York Times and was once inspired to prophesy about an inevitable Obama presidency while staring at the crease in Obama’s pants–David Brooks still made a pretense of objectivity.
Regardless, I thought back to an earlier time when I was glad of PBS Republican Convention coverage. It was 1984, and I had finally landed on PBS after hurriedly clicking through the four available channels. Why the rush? Well, because I had noticed that, off in the distance behind John Chancellor droning on to Tom Brokaw, it appeared that Jack Kemp was speaking. No, the networks would not talk over one of the most dynamic and popular Republicans of the day. But, sure enough, when I landed on PBS, there was Kemp. But they would not do that to Jeane Kirkpatrick, the keynote. Sure they would, and at least John and Tom did. Again, I found her on PBS. So, two of the brightest stars of the night, including a brilliant woman who was at the time still a Democrat who would switch to the Republican Party the next year, were kept from the view of the public by tedious liberal commentary. I remember that Paul Harvey–this was still a few years before Rush Limbaugh burst onto the scene and signaled the beginning of the end of the liberal media monopoly, for now–the next day mentioned this abuse of power by the networks and how he would tune to PBS from that time on for coverage of the Republican Convention.
So, I did just that, as well. And during a later campaign, when MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour was the only news program that, despite its liberal bias, would at least bring on guests representing the opposing point of view, I watched their campaign coverage. I remember the glowing backgrounder report on the Democratic Party, stretching well past Martin Van Buren and Andrew Jackson and the Albany-Richmond Axis all the way back to Thomas Jefferson. No mention of slavery, the Dred Scott Decision, the Ku Klux Klan, lynching, the black codes, disfranchisement, Jim Crow, opposition to women’s suffrage. Huh. All right. Well, anyway, I looked forward to the backgrounder on the Republican Party. I believe it was Judy Woodruff who delivered it. As I remember, it started out with how “the modern Republican Party” started with Richard Nixon. What? Not conceived as a reaction to the Kansas-Nebraska Act and its extension of slavery? No Ripon? No Abraham Lincoln? No Emancipation Proclamation? No Frederick Douglass? No Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments? No civil rights laws? No Ulysses S. Grant? No Susan B. Anthony, women’s suffrage, and the Nineteenth Amendment? No Theodore Roosevelt? No Calvin Coolidge? No Dwight D. Eisenhower? No century-long battle against the Democrats to secure civil rights for African-Americans? No, it was Richard Nixon. The “modern” Republican Party started with the most discredited, rightly or wrongly, Republican president in history. How convenient.
But people are beginning to know better today. The new media is shredding the monopoly of the liberal media, though many–including the Republican establishment–have not yet fully realized it. And thus people have access to sources that belie what was spoon-fed to the public by the old media. And the media did look old on that PBS panel. Nevertheless, they still try, and feisty old Mark Shields thought he had really got one of the guests when he pointed out that the Morrill Act and the Homestead Act, both first passed in 1862, were Republican “government programs.” Yes, but these were not liberal Democratic programs like those of the New Deal and the Great Society designed to create dependence on an ever-expanding government. To illustrate my point, I refer to the following excerpt about the Homestead Act from Seven Ox Seven, Part One: Escondido Bound, pp. 55-56:
In the case of homesteading, the government made available public property, not confiscated from its citizens, to those citizens who could benefit from it and were willing and able to improve the land and bring forth its produce to augment the production of the nation. The government did not retain ownership of the land, but turned over ownership to the private citizen after the citizen had earned it and, in the process, proven himself suited and worthy to own it, benefiting the nation in the process. Thus, whereas through an income tax the government confiscated private property, through homesteading the government created private property by distributing parcels of the public domain to those who earned them. And, after all, was not the United States of America a nation of people in a geographic area with a system of government devised by that people: “We the people of the United States of America.” The land did not belong to the government: it belonged to the nation, a nation of people. The representative government of that nation, that “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” merely fulfilled the role of administering the nation’s public land. Since the land of the nation belonged to the people of the nation, and since the land in question did not belong to any particular citizens, why not make it available to the greatest number of citizens or potential citizens (especially those without the capital to purchase it) who would earn ownership of it by improving that land and making a living from it, toward the end of making them productive, propertied citizens? Why not, where it was feasible, open the land to ownership by those citizens who would prove their worthiness to so own through their commitments of time and effort and their achieved improvement of the land? If an applicant could not improve it, could not make it, then he did not earn the property. The property would be open for another to attempt to earn. This process would continue until those who earned ownership of the land were those most suited to inhabiting and making a living from it. It was an investment of the nation in itself, to place upon the land those most suited to bring forth its produce. Was it not in the best interest of the nation to place upon the nation’s land the greatest number of deserving people who could benefit from it, rather than allow the land to be concentrated in monopolies by persons or entities? Did it not give more citizens a stake in the nation, give them more reason to participate as free citizens? And this was not a giveaway. It was a sale, in which those with little or no capital could purchase land through their labor by “proving up.” And it would not contribute to dependence but to independence, as those who earned it were awarded ownership. And it was Republican. Though the roots of homesteading were older than the Republican party and could be traced back to a proposal by Thomas Hart Benton in 1825, and even further back to Thomas Jefferson, who had said, “as few as possible should be without a little parcel of land,” it was the Republicans who had made it law. It had been a plank in the Republican party platform, and Republican Galusha Grow of Pennsylvania had authored the homestead bill that President Lincoln had signed into law in 1862. Lincoln had succinctly said of the policy, “I am in favor of cutting the wild lands into parcels, so that every poor man may have a home.”