TO BE RESPECTABLE, YOU MUST MAINTAIN LIBERAL DENIAL | 2001-05-05
No one remembers today that almost every "intellectual" in the 50s and 60s said that the only way to economic EFFICIENCY was to have all industry owned and run directly by the government. Back then, "socialism," which represented the Inevitable Future of Social Progress, was defined as "government ownership of the means of production."
This idea is so stupid it is hilarious, so no conservative is allowed to remind anyone of what was once Inevitable and Efficient. You will never see that anywhere but here.
Likewise, the fact that integration was supposed to lead to improvements in the statistics on illegitimacy, drug use, crime, and so forth has been flushed down the Memory Hole of every respectable conservative.
O'Reilly on the Fox Cable News Network gives the justification for busing that is popular today. The purpose of busing, liberals say, is to take hostages: If you have white students forced into ghetto schools, their parents will be forced to vote for more ghetto school money.
Liberals never put it this way, of course. But their ORIGINAL argument for busing was that it improved education, and nobody will dare remind them of THAT nonsense!
The other argument liberals NOW use for integration is Holy Diversity.
The 1960s justification for integration was the exact OPPOSITE of Diversity. With integration, "Negroes" would be just like whites, "except for the color of the skin."
On one program, O'Reilly was discussing home schooling with William Bennett. Bennett said that home schooling worked great, but he guiltily admitted that it does not provide Holy Diversity.
Bennett is one of our leading respectable conservatives. To be a good one of those, you have to be genuinely too stupid to see reality. So Bennett is honestly puzzled that Holy Diversity doesn't seem to be necessary to a good education.
It would never occur to Bennett or Jack Kemp or other respectables that the exact opposite is always the case.
So when Bennett said this, O'Reilly dutifully jumped in and said, "That is what I like about public education. Diversity is good." But he did not stop there. His next sentence, without a break, was, "I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE KEEP PUMPING MORE MONEY INTO PUBLIC EDUCATION AND IT KEEPS GETTING WORSE."
A routine respectable conservative could say that and believe it, but O'Reilly is no fool. Surely he can see that his second sentence answered the first!