Can conservatives and classical liberals be allies in the fight against woke?
Plus defining the four strains of modern political ideology
A very belated Happy New Year to all! My apologies for a bit of radio silence, the result of a lot of travel, distraction from a book I’m writing on the woke takeover of education, and our daughter’s applications to boarding schools in the U.K.
On that third note, those of you that listen to my podcast, Take Back Our Schools (thank you!), know that I have, very sadly, come to the conclusion that there is not a single academically rigorous and liberal arts focused K-12 school, public or private, left in the United States. I’m not sure there is one left anywhere in the world, but we’re going to give England a shot. I’ll keep you posted. Now, onto today’s topic.
There is a disturbance in the force. Or at least in the anti-woke movement.
The fissure between conservatives and the non-conservative anti-woke crowd seems to be growing, especially as my new home state of Florida has taken the lead on a number of aggressive anti-woke initiatives. These initiatives, led by Governor Ron DeSantis and activist Christopher Rufo, have been cheered by conservatives but strongly criticized by many who self-identify as classical liberals or political centrists.
To put my own cards on the table, I consider myself a classical liberal (though not a centrist) and I strongly support DeSantis & Rufo’s efforts to rid Florida’s education system of CRT and DEI. This has caused me to think hard about the differences between conservatism and classical liberalism, and I believe I finally understand it enough to articulate it. In my estimation, there are four main strains of modern political ideology: conservatism, classical liberalism, modern liberalism, and wokeism/progressivism, and they can be described as follows:
Conservatism: Bad ideas and bad behavior should be outlawed. What is considered good and bad is usually defined by religion (though it could also be defined by tradition or custom) under the assumption that God gave us the rules by which to live.
Classical liberalism: All ideas and behavior should be allowed, but bad ideas and bad behavior should be naturally discouraged and punished by market forces. What is considered good and bad may be defined by religion (infrequently), or by custom and tradition (more frequently) as they reflect "tried and true" wisdom.
Modern liberalism: All ideas and behavior should be allowed because there is no good and bad and we must respect all people's ideas and behaviors equally. Bad outcomes brought on by bad ideas and behavior should be supported and subsidized in the interest of fair outcomes.
Wokeism/progressivism: Bad ideas and bad behavior should be outlawed. What is considered bad is everything that has made society good.
Before you yell at me, let me make a few clarifications. First, when I refer to bad behavior in all but the wokeism category, I don’t mean obviously criminal behavior like rape or murder. What I mean is behavior like drug use and divorce, laziness and narcissism, bad parenting and poor neighboring.
Second, and crucial to the moral of this piece, there is substantial overlap between the conservative and classical liberal viewpoints. Essentially, conservatism says what is old is good. Of course, when we start the clock (Adam & Eve?, Greece & Rome?, 1776 & 1789?) is no small matter of contention. Classical liberalism also says what is old is good, except by not mandating or prohibiting behavior, it leaves room for experimentation, and thus progress.
DNA replication is a reasonable analogy. Classical liberalism, unlike conservativism, allows mutations. And while the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, every once in a while we get a good one. The key to making this work, however, is that there must be downsides to bad mutations. In our modern debt-fueled welfare state (represented by modern liberalism), we’ve completely lost the societal mechanisms to reward the good (what we call virtue) and to punish the bad.
This vast overlap between conservatism and classical liberalism is something that few appreciate. Many prominent conservative intellectuals, such as Yoram Hazony, author of Conservatism A Rediscovery, wrongly assume that classical liberalism is valueless, and mistakenly group it along with modern liberalism and wokeism/progressivism under the umbrella of Enlightenment liberalism. As I’ve tried to articulate, classical liberalism has little in common with modern liberalism, and is, in fact, a near exact opposite of wokeism.
Which brings me to my third point of clarification - what do we really mean by the term woke? Most define woke as a belief that our society is fundamentally unjust and racist, that certain minority identity groups are oppressed, and that activist social justice policies are required to address this structural oppression.
However, I've come to the conclusion that woke is far more than a belief in oppression and systemic racism. Wokeism or progressivism is fundamentally a rejection of what I believe to be the five core classical liberal principles: free speech, free markets, individualism, objectivity and the form and purpose of democratic government. These five ideas, implemented in the West, have resulted in freedoms, prosperity, life expectancy and scientific progress unprecedented in human history. This is why I said earlier that the woke consider bad what has made society good.
Having spelled out what I believe to be a reasonable categorization of modern political thought, I want to circle back to what is happening in Florida and the spat between conservatives and classical liberals.
Florida has led the country in pursing anti-woke policies including its Parental Rights in Education bill (aka the “Don’t Say Gay Bill”), which mostly forbids inappropriate sexual education and gender ideology in kindergarten through third grade, the Stop W.O.K.E Act, which aims to prohibit the application and teaching of Critical Race Theory in K-12 schools, universities and corporations, the takeover of the very progressive and DEI dominated New College of Florida, and an objection to the A.P. African American studies curriculum on grounds it is ideologically unbalanced and includes objectionable ideas based in CRT, queer theory and intersectionality.
As I expressed at the outset of this piece, many classical liberals and centrists object to most or all of these initiatives, citing two general sets of rationales. First, that what Florida is doing amounts to right-wing censorship and an attack on academic freedom. Second, that Florida’s actions represent an overreach of government interference in the marketplace of ideas, in higher ed, and in the private sector.
Before I address those criticisms, let me state the obvious. There’s a lot of cowardice and virtue signaling from classical liberal and centrist camps, especially among the public intellectuals. Many are fearful of being labeled far-right or conservative, love to play both-sideism in an effort to maintain intellectual purity, and vastly underestimate the dangers of woke ideology. Some do, however, have what seem to be reasonable, if erroneous gripes. Let’s debunk them.
First, and most obvious, eliminating pornography and inappropriate sexual content from the curriculum of children aged five to eight is perfectly reasonable, and popular education policy, and should in no way, shape or form be considered censorship.
Perhaps less obvious is the discussion around CRT. Contrary to the incessant rebukes from the left, critical race theory is not simply the teaching of black history, and thus, banning CRT is not banning black history. In fact, since 1994, Florida has mandated the teaching of African American history in schools, a point that the DeSantis administration has repeatedly made.
CRT, properly understood, is two things. First, it is a lens with which to interpret not just history, but our present society. That lens being systemic racism and oppression on the surface, but anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism at its core. So yes, schools don’t teach CRT; they apply CRT. They apply the lens of CRT to all discussions of history and current events. Moreover, other subjects, including English, math and science, are used as props to foster those discussions. Florida is as justified in banning CRT in public schools as it would be to prohibit public schools interpreting science and evolution through the lens of religion and God.
Second, and even more importantly, CRT, like all offshoots of Marxist-inspired critical theory, including queer and radical gender theory, is praxis. This is a fancy way of saying that the goal of CRT is not simply to educate children on systemic racism and oppression but to groom them to be activists for radical social change. CRT reflects a fundamental transformation to the purpose of education, and it is perfectly reasonable (and correct) for Florida to try to preserve the traditional mission of schools and to prevent schools from being used to indoctrinate children in progressive politics and radical political activism.
Let’s now turn our attention to higher education. Clearly academic freedom is a different issue in colleges and universities than it is in K-12, and the implementation of woke ideology takes a somewhat different form. The primary issue affecting higher ed is how the CRT informed bureaucracy of DEI has taken over all aspects of university administration and college life, including influencing curricula and reading lists, dictating hiring decisions, and enforcing speech codes.
Once DEI permeates an organization, academic freedom can no longer exist. For an institution to be inclusive (the “I” in “DEI”), it must be a “safe space” for all minority identity groups. A “safe space” is one where any speech that might be perceived as harmful is prohibited and punished. DEI commissars, key members of the bloated administrative state of universities, exist to perpetuate those safe spaces, and serve to shut down free speech and open discussion.
The classical liberal critique of Florida’s actions on the grounds of squashing academic freedom is thus spurious. As long as DEI runs our universities, there can be no marketplace of ideas. The same is true in the private sector, where HR departments serve the same purpose as political commissars, and threaten the jobs of those who fall afoul of speech codes, including on social media outside the office. We call this cancel culture. As Chris Rufo is fond of saying, we will not win the culture war with podcasts. Nor will we win with rational debate because far too many of us are silenced by the DEI regime. Only with the eradication of DEI, can widespread democratic debate be resurrected.
Lastly, let’s talk about whether Florida’s actions reflect government overreach, as some claim. It goes without saying that both public K-12 schools and public universities are state entities. Elected officials, representing the will of their constituents, have a right and a duty to uphold the proper mission of those institutions.
However, I would very strongly argue that Florida has very legitimate rights, both legally and morally, to try to eliminate CRT, DEI and other woke ideologies from private universities and private business as well. The primary reason for this is that these ideologies are encouraged, subsidized and in many cases mandated by the federal government, proxies for the Democratic party (e.g. the teachers unions), and by Civil Rights case law. In other words, what Florida is doing is not interfering with the private and education sectors, but trying to counteract the illiberal, monopolistic, and anti-American policies of the federal government and its surrogates.
To my fellow classical liberals and to the political centrists out there, I say this. There is no center position in the culture war. Woke ideology reflects an existential threat to our freedoms, to our country, and to western civilization. We are supposed to stand for individual liberty, and our individual liberty is at stake. Wake up, think harder, and grow a pair.
To my conservative friends, and to Ron DeSantis and Chris Rufo, I say godspeed, with one very minor caveat. By all means attack the cancers of DEI, CRT and radical gender ideology. By all means attack the woke, the progressive left and the media that serves as their mouthpiece. But please don’t attack potential allies in the war against woke. It serves no purpose. Recognize their shortcomings, use them if useful, and ignore them if you must. The culture war cannot be won by conservatives alone, and classical liberals are natural ideological allies. God knows we need all the allies we can get.
As always, I want to share with you the latest episodes of the podcast I co-host with Beth Feeley, Take Back Our Schools, available on all major podcast outlets, including Apple, Google, Spotify and Stitcher.
What is Wrong With Our Schools?
On this episode of Take Back Our Schools, Beth and I welcome teacher and author, Daniel Buck. Daniel talks about his new book, What is Wrong with Our Schools, and shares his own experiences as a student in the progressive echo chamber of education schools and as a teacher. Daniel describes his journey away from progressive education and towards knowledge-based traditional education, especially classical literature. We discuss the importance of student behavior in the classroom and the deleterious impact of restorative justice programs. Daniel also interprets and criticizes progressive buzzwords such as “critical thinking” and “child-centered learning.”
Daniel Buck is a middle-school English teacher, having taught at both public and private schools He is also senior visiting fellow at the Fordham Institute, and his writing has been featured in many publications including The Wall Street Journal and National Review.
Can the Classic Learning Test Replace the SAT?
On this episode of Take Back Our Schools, we welcome classical education innovator Jeremy Tate who talks about his experiences teaching in inner city New York City and what led him to found the Classic Learning Test, a standardized test for classical education that aims to compete with the SAT and ACT. We discuss the differences between classical education and progressive/modern education and Jeremy shares his views on the history of progressive education and of standardized testing in the United States. We also discuss the recent news of Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis’s led takeover of the New College of Florida.
Jeremy Tate is the founder and CEO of the Classic Learning Test (CLT). Jeremy is also the host of the Anchored Podcast that features discussions at the intersection of education and culture. Prior to founding CLT, Jeremy served as Director of College Counseling at Mount de Sales Academy in Catonsville, Maryland. He received his Bachelor of Science in Secondary Education from Louisiana State University and a Masters in Religious Studies from Reformed Theological Seminary.
The Collapse of Parenting
On this episode of Take Back Our Schools, Beth and I welcome family physician and author, Dr. Leonard Sax, who shares his views on how both parenting and children have changed over the 30+ years he has practiced family medicine, particularly how the scourge of cell phones, social media and pervasive pornography have impacted our nation’s youth.
He also talks about the exploding social contagion of gender dysphoria and trans ideology, especially among girls. Sax passionately implores parents to reclaim their proper role vis-à-vis their children, and to find a better schooling environment if the values of their children’s schools aren’t consistent with their family values.
Sax has a PhD in psychology and an MD, both from the University of Pennsylvania. He has practiced family medicine for over 30 years and has also led workshops and given keynotes based on his visits to more than 460 schools over the past 21 years. He is the author of four books for parents: Why Gender Matters (Doubleday), Boys Adrift, Girls on the Edge, and the NY Times bestseller, The Collapse of Parenting (Basic Books). He has been a guest on many television shows, including The Today Show, and his essays about a wide range of child and adolescent issues have been published widely. Videos of some of his TV interviews, and some of his articles, can be found at www.leonardsax.com.
Britain’s Strictest Headmistress
On this episode of Take Back Our Schools, we interview “Britain’s Strictest Headmistress,” Kathrine Birbalsingh. Kathrine speaks about the state of education in the U.K., which we compare with our own experiences in the U.S.
She discusses what led her to a career in teaching and to forming her own school in London, Michaela Community School. She also shares her views on woke education and how a culture of victimhood is harming children, especially lower income and inner city children. She explains what being “strict” really means and discusses the challenges of hiring and training teachers in a school environment that values knowledge, discipline and responsibility.
Katharine Birbalsingh is Headmistress and co-founder of Michaela Community School in London and Chair of the Social Mobility Commission. Katharine read Philosophy & Modern Languages at The University of Oxford and has always taught in inner London. She has made numerous appearances on television, radio, podcasts and has written for several publications. Katharine has also written two books and edited another two, the last of which is The Power of Culture, about Michaela. Katharine was appointed Honorary Fellow of New College, Oxford in 2021 and Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in 2020.
I hope you enjoy these episodes of Take Back Our Schools. As always, please subscribe and share any ideas or suggestions, including for podcast guests. You can contact me through the website: speakupforeducation.org or email me at andrew@speakupforeducation.org. I am also on Twitter @AndrewGutmann.
It's interesting how history repeats itself. In the mid-'70s my parents considered the UK option for me as it seemed there was nothing but pot and revolution fomenting on US boarding school campuses. I ended up at Milton, and now I receive countless breathless invitations to view their Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice (DEIJ) lecture series.
Thank you for writing this article, I enjoyed reading it. I agree with the premise of your article that conservatives and classical liberals interests align intellectually and in outcomes in reversing woke ideology. Yet I was surprised that you felt that things are so far gone that you felt compelled to send your children to England to educate your children. It seems excessive from my view point, surely there are many pockets in the state with great school districts, but I may be missing something. I will continue reading your articles, hopefully I will gain some insights.