My Personal Experience with the Liberal Education System by Peter Moon

There have been many past accounts of political bias in our national public
school systems. These have come in many forms, ranging from textbooks to
videos produced by Prager University. I, personally, thought these accounts
were either overblown or just overstated. I had personally, up until this year,
had only seen slight or short bursts of propaganda or bias. Nothing had ever
stood out to me, and only two teachers had shown their personal biases.
After this summer, however, my political senses seemed to strengthen.
Things in my textbook jumped out at me; past encounters with teachers
started to look more like speeches of the greatness of liberal-dom. I hope
my account tells you something, and serves as a warning to those who have not realized that there is  anti-conservative bias in our schools.

My 10th grade year was the 2016-2017 school year. Of course, this means
that the historic ‘16 election took place (for SJWs and Leftists, this was also
the year the world turned upside down). Both my English teacher and
History teacher showed their disdain after the election. My History teacher,
in particular, exploded on the class. He said “I have gay friends! I have
Muslim friends!” And followed up with expressions of sympathy for them. I
started to interrupt his virtue signaling, pandering, and emotionally-charged
rant, but he told me that it was his time right then. This made me very
uncomfortable. What he was telling the class, or inferring to them, was that
Trump would apparently target all of these people. Sound familiar? This
same rhetoric was used by liberals time and time again leading up to the
election. This Rant was really the only one he had that year. But, if he
exploded at an event like an election (which isn’t as monumental when it’s
a black man the second time around), then what would he do with smaller

Another event in his class was when Trump allegedly ‘silenced the press’
with his not-approving of their presence at an Oval Office meeting. My
English teacher drew a parallel to, get this, Julius Caesar and
my History teacher had us do a mock Supreme Court case over it. By the
way, my group voted 4-1 on it, if I remember correctly. I don’t know what he
expected: When you are politically inept (I don’t think even half the class
cared about politics at the time), and your teacher is saying things that lean
to the left, and especially when you’re bad-mouthing the president, what do
you think their vote will be? By the way, I’ll add this too: Obama silenced
and restricted the press more than Trump has. My proof is “Is Donald Trump a Fascist?: Change My Mind | Louder With Crowder’. Look it up on YouTube if you want him to say it.
Onto the textbook example.

On the surface, our 9th Grade History textbook is pretty moderate.
However, one needs to think not about what the text is saying, but what it’s
inferring. I have two prominent examples I have run across in my time
analyzing and thinking about the ideals.

The first example involves Richard Nixon. It states that in the 1968 election,
“Nixon narrowly won the election”. When you look at the data, indeed,
Nixon did “narrowly” win the popular vote (somewhere around a less than a
million vote margin). However, if you take a look at the electoral vote count,
the narrative suddenly changes to “Nixon wiped the floor with his opponent
in the 1968 election.” Why does this matter? Well, first off, the Popular Vote
doesn’t win elections (despite what Hillary Clinton says). It’s the Electoral
Vote which determines the true winner of the Presidential election. Second,
this presents the narrative that Nixon was not the brilliant and shrewd
politician that he was. Despite what the books may say, Nixon really did
work his way up in his life; he was a brilliant politician who was really skilled
in his field, but sadly very paranoid. Watergate and all of his other scandals
were just byproducts of this paranoia and power-crave.

It also states the Southern Strategy. Now, you may already be
groaning at this point, but let’s get through this one together. In 1968, Nixon
apparently “Targeted whites and Christians in the South.” On the surface,
this doesn’t sound bad, right? Sounds like Nixon knew where the real vote
counted, and that he was methodically going after a certain voter block
because they held all of the votes. But, this statement requires some
inferring. What is the statement doing and leaving out? Blacks, Non-
Christians, and everyone else. Again, this doesn’t seem bad on the
surface. Besides, Hillary Clinton targeted and tried to rally the Black vote in
the 2016 election, right? But, it further states that Nixon pandered to
Southern Whites by opposing Affirmative Action and school busing, which
he apparently thought would tear up the rural Christian population. Now,
personally, I don’t think Affirmative Action is the best thing for blacks.
Besides, it’s outdated. If someone were to discriminate against any minority
nowadays, their life would be destroyed. These statements sound bad,
because we are taught today that Affirmative Action is a good thing by our
mostly liberal professors and teachers. We are also told that the Federal
Government needs to be in charge of education, despite proof (in one of Sean Hannity’s books) showing that charter schools do better than public
schools. All of this was just the beginning to my realization.

Then this passage popped up:

“The Ideals and Goals of Liberalism: In the late 1970s, liberals tended
to believe that the federal government should play a significant role in
improving the lives of all Americans. They valued social programs
that helped the poor, unemployed, elderly, and others. They also
sponsored laws that protected the rights of minorities and women,
especially in the post-World War II period. They supported greater
government regulation of industry. In the foreign policy realm, liberals
tended to favor cooperating with international organizations like the
United Nations.

The Ideas and Goals of Conservatism: In contrast, one group of
conservatives felt that a large central government endangered
economic growth and individual choice. They sought to reduce taxes
and limit government regulation of industry in order to promote
economic growth. As conservative economist Milton Friedman and
his wife Rose Friedman wrote in their book Free to Choose, “The story
of the United States is the story of an economic miracle…. What
produced this miracle? Clearly not central direction by government.”

A second group of conservatives, neoconservatives or traditionalists,
warned about the dangers posed to society by abandoning traditional
values in favor of the new freedoms exemplified by the counterculture
and advertised by the mass media.” (Prentice Hall United States
History: Modern America, Allen Taylor,Pages 628-629, The Ideals and
Goals of Liberalism-The Ideals and Goals of Conservatism)
Notice who isn’t talked about? The Progressives, Socialists, and Fascists, as
well as the Alt-Right. The Left (Democrats) have just as many sects in its
own party (as it did back in the 80’s) today. The same goes for the Right.
While we do have Evangelicals and large swaths of Conservatives in our
movement, we also have numerous independents on our side. (“Our side”
is mainly the Right, but also means in ideology lineup.)

Also, another thing one can draw from this is the classic straw man-
generalization: “The Left cares about minorities, poor people, and the
downtrodden, while the Right believes in big business and low taxes.”
However, in the 1920’s, Republicans (“Conservatives”) voted overwhelmingly for the 19th Amendment, and also supported a bill to end polygamy, which the Right argued dis-empowered women and depicted them as objects, instead of valued human beings. (My sources are Carol Swain an Prager University’s many videos on the Democratic, Republican, and Political Parties in general). Also, the Republicans pushed the Civil
Rights Amendments through (after the Civil War) with little to no help from
the Democrats. Yet the Right doesn’t care about minorities and women?
-For this next section, “Liberals” will be interchangeably used with
“Democrat”, as well as “Conservative” with “Republican”, as a majority
resides in each respective party with their partner.

Again all of this has to be inferred. 9th Graders aren’t really known well for
their intuitive thinking or their critical thinking skills. And, not many students
really care about politics when they’re 12-14 years old. Looking at all of this
through the eyes of that age group is different than a senior (17-18 years
old) looking on it. Another interesting point is that the book leaves out the
fact that Liberals (or those associating themselves as Liberals) are usually
less charitable, less happy, and more prone to being locked in an
echo-chamber when they go to college. The first two claims are backed up
by videos done by both Steven Crowder and Paul Joseph Watson. I can’t
give you the titles, but I specifically remember the premises of the facts.
The last one is from several other PragerU videos. In these videos, the
presenter explained that on most college campuses, the liberal-to-
conservative professor ratio is 12-1. (Courtesy of Steven Crowder’s “U Of
M Takeover Live” video) In these college campuses, already-liberal
students are not presented an opposing viewpoint, which means these
students do not develop stronger politically ground beliefs. On the other
hand, already-conservative students are able to be challenged. Indirectly,
this either grows their political strength in their beliefs or they are

So, I’ll impart some hopefully helpful suggestions onto you. First off, with all
professors or teachers: Assume they’re either leaning Liberal, or full blown
Liberal/Democrat. This will help your shock subside faster when you figure
out that they don’t support the same ideals you do. Second, assume
whoever wrote your book is either a moderate center-left individual, or left-
winger. Again, accepting this will lessen your shock if and when you come
to the realization that, especially in the case of public materials, the
textbooks were mainly written by Leftists. Most of academia is left-leaning,
or support Left Wing stances. (Courtesy of Prager University’s video on
College Campuses). Third: In lower-grade classrooms, assume a majority of the students lean to the Left. In my experience, a majority of students in High School were not interested in politics, and would rather just focus on their schoolwork than worry who the current President was. Fourth: If you are a conservative, and know it, do not challenge the teacher to a political debate during class. Just assume you’re not as smart the the topic being presented. If you want to push back on a certain point, go ahead. But, if the professor then tries a red-herring attack, a false equivalency, or any of a hundred other misleading/off-putting techniques, just bite your tongue and move on. The worse thing would be to embarrass yourself.
Trust me, I’ve been there. You may feel you have won, but your victory is
small in the larger scheme of things.

And, if it turns out that you aren’t in the minority as a conservative in your
classroom, you’ll be completely shocked, surprised, or pleased. Trust me, I
know from personal experience.

Leave a Reply

Sign up for The UC Newsletter

%d bloggers like this: