PERSPECTIVErnOn Liberal Educationrnby Thomas FlemingrnMy definition of liberal education as the education ofrnliberals no longer sounds provocative. Liberalism, havingrnfailed and failed disastrously in all its political experimentsrnfrom church disestablishment to women’s suffrage to foodrnstamps, still reigns triumphant, with hardly a rival, in the emptyrncorridors of the Western mind. How failed? The church isrndisestablished, after all; women do vote; and the urban poor stillrnclip the coupons that enable them to lead the life of the idlernpoor. But the announced intent of these policies was not tornchange a law or set up a program. Liberal projects always aimrnat the reformation of society and the amelioration of the humanrncondition, and when the results turn out to be the oppositernof the announced intentions, some group of dissident liberalsrnon the make can always be found to criticize thern”unintended consequences” of schemes they once favored.rnFood stamps, most people will grant me: a program supposedrnto wean the poor from dependency and teach them thernvalue of money has only succeeded in creating the class of welfarernslaves who well might envy life on the old plantation. Butrnthe same conclusion can and ought to be applied to everyrnother liberal policy of the past two centuries. Church disestablishmentrnwas to give us freedom of conscience and enablerna more spiritual religious sense to grow. In fact, we have replacedrnthe grave and beautiful superstitions of our ancestorsrnwith the coarse and stupid vulgarities of advice merchants likernDr. Susan Forward, and for the ceremonies of the church wernhave substituted the rituals of self-abuse: drugs, pornography,rnand advertising. Women’s suffrage—and all the other women’srnliberation policies—have reduced women to the lowest socialrnand moral plane on which human beings are known to havernexisted, and in the name of equality we have virtually decriminalizedrnrape.rnSo far from admitting failure, liberals celebrate their defeatsrnas victories. Their triumphalist mentality is not all hypocrisy,rnbecause it is the genius of liberalism to insure that each succeedingrngeneration is dumber and less-educated than its predecessor,rnand after 100 years of liberal education the result isrnthe so-called Generation X, whose historical sense has beenrnshaped by Brady Bunch reruns on Nick at Nite and the oldiesrnstations their almost equally obtuse parents listen to as theyrndream of golden days in the sunshine of their 60’s youth.rnTo plumb the shallows of the liberal mind does not requirernany extensive research. You do not have to take the trouble tornread the editorial pages of the New York Times or Wall Streetrnjournal. Just find a newspaper with the only section worth readingrn—the funnies—and look at “Doonesbury,” the scleroticrnepitome of 60’s liberalism. The past few weeks, Mr. Trudeaurnhas been boosting the work of a Yale professor who claims tornhave discovered evidence for homosexual marriage in therneady Church. What, you are shocked? Everybody knows thatrnthe Old Testament Jews abhorred buggery and that St. Paul regardedrnthe practice of sodomy not so much as a vice in itselfrnbut as a terrible punishment visited upon idolatrous pagans.rnWhat sort of “evidence” could stand against the unanimousrnsentence of Christians everywhere at all times? Since, accordingrnto heterosexual historians, these queer marriages were onlyrnpledges of friendship and loyalty, a well-known practice inrnmedieval Europe, such a perversion of scholarship should standrn12/CHRONICLESrnrnrn