Soviet Propaganda.

"The easy worker is on the hot seat. Fear has occupied his soul: he would have looked good otherwise, but next to him is a perfect worker!" -Soviet propaganda poster

I was completely intrigued by the posters and artwork in the gallery of Soviet Propaganda. First of all, I had a hard time grasping that this movement took place so recently; that my parents and grandparents were alive while this was going on really put things in perspective. It is also made me realize how any ideology, no matter how noble its intentions, has the potential to be used to devastating effect. In theory, Communism is ideal and if such a society could exist, I would love to be a part of it. However, like many ideologies, Communism has given birth to countless sects and sub-sects and his been used to legitimize and facilitate the much less noble conquests of leaders like Lenin and Stalin.

It disturbed me that there was such a correlation between the depiction of members of the Communist party and religious icons. The gallery had multiple Soviet images presented side by side with a religious painting with an undeniable resemblance. It is understandable, albeit unsettling, that they took this approach because Lenin and Stalin wanted there cause to feel comfortable and familiar, so they used iconography that the public would be used to. It brings about the startling idea that members of the Party were trying to put themselves on par with gods and saints. The uniformity and blind obedience that Stalin and Lenin strove to create made me realize how close we really were to a third World War; if this movement had not been diffused, I'd rather not think of where we might all be today.

Revolution and Conservatism.

I think my biggest problem with Burke's idea of conservatism (and conservatism in general) is its relationship with the past. According to Burke, retrospection should be used to maintain the status quo rather than as a way to study and build upon the past. While I absolutely agree that you can't move forward without having first looked back, I absolutely disagree that the reason we look back to the past is to imitate it. The idea that backwards is the way to look is just that: backwards. Moving forward needs to be about moving forward, not about dragging outdated policies and ideologies along with us.

Burke says that people "should not think it amongst their rights to cut off the entail, or to commit waste on the inheritance, by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric of their society." He claims that, if we had this right, "the whole chain and community of the commonwealth would be broken." But what if it needs to be broken? I wonder how much suffering and oppression Burke would be willing to allow at the expense of keeping alive this "original fabric." The very nature of humans it trial and error; to touch fire and realize that it hurts and not touch it again. If a society is functioning properly, there won't be an issue of rebellion. If a society fails to serve its people, however, than no ancient order should prevent them from changing it.

Getting Schooled.

I have never really been to aware of issue about schooling, mostly because I have always taken schooling for granted. The concept that education is a right guarenteed to everyone as opposed to a privilege reserved for the wealthy is one of the greatest successes that can be achieved by a cooperative society. While I agreed with aspects of Andrew Coulson's argument for the privatization of education and of John Covaleskie's counterargument, I left the articles with a respect for public education, and a distaste for the idea of its privatization.

More than anything, my problem with the idea of privatizing funds for schooling has to do with the idea of making education into a business, and knowledge into a product. While Coulson notes that competition is the basis for a capitalist market (which it is), I would hate to think that schools would to behave themselves like a Tanning Salon or a car company in order to be successful. Maybe I'm just skeptical of Coulson's discussion of "advertising"--fairly or not, I have always associated with advertising with old men in suits sitting around a boardroom table trying to make their [possibly useless] product seem enticing. I would hate to think that school principals would resort to the tactics or advertising executives; namely, that they would learn what the public wants to hear and start saying it. The introduction of advertising into the education system could also lead to buzz-words that really offer no indication of the quality of a school. Signs like "HIGH SAT SCORES GUARENTEED!" and "HIGHEST MATH SCORES ON THE EAST COAST!" say nothing about a school's commitment to the personal development of its students or its concentration on teaching students to critically think for themselves. In short, advertising schools would cheapen education into a product that seeks to please its consumers

I also had a serious problem with Coulson's proposed voucher system. As a college student, I couldn't help but be reminded of the days of filling out my FAFSA and applying for Financial Aid. A voucher system would have the same shortcomings of our Financial Aid system: it does not make it financially possible for any student of any background to attend any school. Yes, vouchers are helpful and would be a commendable practice, as is Financial Aid. However, they are too far from perfect to achieve what they should be achieving. If the government assesses the financial situation of the Jones family, and determines that they will receive a voucher for one eighth of the school's tuition, this does not guarantee that any of the Jones' children will actually attend that school. If the Jones have a choice between attending a high quality school whose tuition is high even with a voucher and a school whose quality may be less but has a more affordable tuition, the Jones may well choose the latter. Instead of a voucher system, government should concentrate its funds on ensuring that all public schools are of high quality--this is a much more worthy use of money.

I am in full support of the public schooling system. It has its shortcomings, obviously, in that not every school is of the same quality and not everyone can agree on what should be included in the curriculum. Still, I think that public schools are one of the finer examples of the imperfect yet commendable successes of democracy.