AUSTIN, Tex. — Even as a panel of educators laid out a vision Wednesday for national standards for public schools, the Texas school board was going in a different direction, holding hearings on changes to its social studies curriculum that would portray conservatives in a more positive light, emphasize the role of Christianity in American history and include Republican political philosophies in textbooks.As an educator myself and someone who holds a master's degree in American history, I don't necessarily find it all that troubling that Texas largely controls the content of history books for school children. I also don't see anything wrong with their board wanting to highlight conservative achievement. But without stepping out of reality, what is it this board wants to do in order to showcase such conservatism? Hummm...let's see:
Conservatives argue that the proposed curriculum, written by a panel of teachers, emphasizes the accomplishments of liberal politicians — like the New Deal and the Great Society — and gives less importance to efforts by conservatives like President Ronald Reagan to limit the size of government.Efforts by conservatives to limit the size of government?
Seriously, this is basic 5th grade stuff we are talking about here. Conservatives, not even Reagan, never ever shrunk government. They have never controlled spending. They have never shrunk the deficit. They have never even so much as limited the scope of government into our every day lives. What efforts could they possibly want highlighted in a history book? Bush's tripling of national debt? Or how about this one:
References to Ralph Nader and Ross Perot are proposed to be removed, while Stonewall Jackson, the Confederate general, is to be listed as a role model for effective leadership, and the ideas in Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address are to be laid side by side with Abraham Lincoln’s speeches.Oh my. Jefferson Davis side by side with Lincoln? It's on the far side of crazy to equate Lincoln with a traitor that waged war against the federal government in order to protect slavery. Why don't they just include some speeches from the KKK and label it as examples in freedom fighting?
I don't have anything against acknowledging conservative influence on this country. But we can't just make stuff up. There is not one example of a conservative administration ever leading an effort to shrink government. And it's nothing short of tragic to include someone who committed high treason against this country along side Lincoln. If you want to include conservative achievement on this country look at Eisenhower. Or even Reagan is fine but to suggest he led an effort to shrink government is historical balderdash.
How about conservative effort at fighting and winning the Cold War? Not neoconservative effort but actual conservative ideology that led presidents Nixon and Reagan to effectively bring an end to the Cold War and ultimately the demise of the Soviet Union. That's a huge accomplishment. There's no reason to have to make anything up on something like that. To include efforts at limiting government would require nothing but lies, however. It's not that hard to come up with conservative leadership to highlight for the future. To me it would be more of an effort to lie about it.
