Skip to main content

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Public Education in the United States

The midterm election cycle of 2018 was one of the more tumultuous in recent memory, which is saying something!  In the end there was only a moderate amount of upheaval as some new faces and new ideals replaced old ones and the House went to the Democrats.  One of these new faces, one that has been both news-worthy and meme-worthy, is that of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  As has been the case with her face, her name and faux pas have basically been unavoidable for the last few months.

Ocasio-Cortez's election is significant because her victory represents more than just the triumph of a particular political campaign in New York's 14th congressional district; her victory signals a new political epoch.  She represents the rise of a generation fully willing to embrace political and economic ideals that directly contradict the principles upon which this country was founded.

There is much that is compelling about Ocasio-Cortez, both to Millennials and previous generations of liberals.  For starters, being relatively good-looking, she is TV-friendly and Internet-friendly.  She offers the kind of youthfulness (I was surprised to discover that she is exactly two months my senior)  and passion for change that are so refreshing and got Obama elected.  Even to those of us who find her election mind-boggling, she certainly seems to be sincere in her beliefs.  She genuinely wants to change the world, which is noble enough.  Add to this the fact that she comes from a working-class, minority family and you have a like-able, sell-able political candidate. 

But...

She seems to have a way of putting her foot in her mouth.  There's an adage that says, "It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." With all due respect, she may want to consider this saying.  Now, to her credit, she's new to this game.  She isn't used to having microphones shoved in her face and having every word dissected.  It's hard to feel too bad, however, for someone who is putting herself out there so pervasively, doing numerous interviews and posting videos on social media.  Avoiding the likes of Ben Shapiro is probably her smartest move yet!  Perhaps her most unfortunate gaff was when she was unable to articulate properly the three branches of the U.S. government.  You'll note that this is a personal video, not an interview where she was caught off guard.  There have been a number of other moments where her knowledge (or, more properly, her ignorance) of civics, economics, history, and international affairs, to say nothing of logic, have made her appear to be under-qualified for the position to which she has been elected. 

Another trait that makes her so compelling, and what makes her ignorance so difficult to fathom, is that she is an "educated" woman, particularly for her economic class.  She has a history of academic excellence and holds a bachelor's degree in economics and international affairs from Boston University.  However, knowing that she received such a degree tells me more about the academic institution she attended than it does about her.  Ocasio-Cortez is so important because she is a microcosm of the failed education system in America.  Our education system teaches propaganda instead of history (maybe it hasn't failed in its intended purpose after all).  It reinforces tolerance instead of morality.  It encourages environmental activism instead of stewardship and political activism instead of civics and economics.  Ocasio-Cortez is in every way a product of the system; she is the epitome of what our educational system produces.  If there were ever any doubt, it is now apparent that being educated is not the same thing as being well-informed.

Alas, we have an entire generation of "educated" people embracing political, moral, and economic ideals that would make our founding fathers turn over in their graves.  You see, Ocasio-Cortez represents a generation of young people who are openly endorsing and proclaiming the moral superiority of Socialism and its sister ideologies.  Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.  A decade ago when Obama was accused of being a socialist, he vehemently denied it.  If he had been running in '16, he wouldn't have had to do so.  Hillary, even with a last name like Clinton, had to rig the primaries in her favor to keep Bernie Sanders, another open socialist, from representing the Democrats against Trump in the general election (an election Sanders had a good chance of winning).

The ideals of Socialism, explicit or implicit, are becoming more and more palatable with every election, and this has everything to do with the public education system in our nation.  You see, public education is fundamentally socialistic.  That children should leave their parents to be trained in irreligious, cookie-cutter schools for 40-50 hours a week is, and always has been, a socialistic ideal.  Replacing the family and the Church with the State, creating a secular community with a secular head, is the goal of Socialism, Communism, and Fascism alike.  Compulsory education is a cornerstone of any good socialistic society.  The design of our educational system, in imitation of those in Europe and Scandinavia, was to create citizens, not thinkers.  That Ocasio-Cortez holds a degree in economics and international affairs, and remains a socialist, tells me that her education provided her with more indoctrination and propaganda than knowledge and critical thinking skills. 

Ocasio-Cortez is a name you should probably get used to hearing.  Depending on how her first term goes, she could be set to make the kind of meteoric rise Obama experienced.  She is the most dangerous type of politician--marketable, sincere, educated, and ignorant.  Corrupt politicians are certainly a plague to any constituency, but they are no match for misguided zealots who believe that more government is the answer to society's problems.  Ocasio-Cortez appears to be the latter.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, let me clarify what I mean when

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary