Schools

Charter schools are creating a class based education system where the affluent will  have access to a good education and the poor get second rate religious schools, although the ultimate dream of the far right is a totally minimalist education for the non elite, then the Murray’s of the world can explain how it’s the poor value system that makes them uninterested in education. School vouchers like all voucher schemes allows the steady de funding of government programs. That’s the plan for medicare , that’s the plan for education

Bob Zannelli

In his blog entry, “Straussian Social Conservatives and the ‘”Dangers of Contraception'” Julian Sanchez notes Santorum’s reference to Murray’s book and analyses the “virtues” of the cognitive elite. Just as Strauss preached that there were different “truths” for different classes of people, so there are different standards of virtue for them. The cognitive elite can get away with doing things that the masses can’t because they have the impulse control, ability to plan, and resources to avoid any negative consequences. Thus, they can enjoy sexual freedom until such time as they wish to settle down and start a family with a fellow elite within the traditional pair bond of matrimony. But the hoi polloi cannot handle such freedom and therefore should be indoctrinated in chastity and dissuaded from enjoying the freedoms of their social superiors. This has always been the attitude of the Catholic Church, which turns a blind eye to the sexual exploits of the elite (and, of course their own priests) while it bullies the hoi polloi with threats of hellfire for pre-martial sex, masturbation and whatnot. Knowledge of contraception should be withheld from the vulgar many since they cannot handle the freedom it brings.
I’m not sure where “virtue” and “morals” and “values” come into it. The elite have natural  advantages, which is fine, but why are Murray, Santorum et al so against the hoi polloi having advantages that are easily accessible, such a contraception?
Anne

http://www.juliansanchez.com/2012/02/24/straussian-social-conservatism-and-the-dangers-of-contraception/#more-4854

[excerpt]
The clue here is [Santorum’s] reference to Murray’s book Coming Apart—which if not exactly a work of high sociological rigor, is interesting and a quick enough read to be worth a look. Murray’s core topic is what he believes to be a growing cultural gap between the educated elite and the rest of America. While the elite profess the most socially liberal attitudes, Murray argues that they hew to “conservative” norms in some crucial respects—such as generally bearing children in the context of stable marriages.  Yet as Phoebe Maltz observes, this is hardly a thoroughgoing conservatism: Sure, the educated elite eventually settle down to marry and have children, but that’s routinely preceded by a decade or more of extramarital sexual activity enabled by contraception.

Here is one way to make sense of Santorum’s remarks. Elite sexual norms have transformed over the past half century, as a result of a combination of factors: Contraceptive technology; improved educational sorting that increases the frequency of romantic partnerships between highly educated professionals, and an economy that rewards longer periods of education and correspondingly delayed marriage and reproduction. Under the new norm, there’s no expectation of marriage or childbearing before one’s late-20s or early-30s,  but also no expectation that people will abstain from sexual activity or romantic cohabitation until that point. There is no stigma against premarital sex, engaged in strictly for the enjoyment and emotional satisfaction of the participants. For the cognitive elite—who are generally reasonably good at impulse control and long-term planning, have the social and economic resources to provide a buffer against youthful misjudgments, and have powerful incentives to avoid derailing their ambitious career plans—this works out just fine.

Nav pamata domāt, ka mūsu elites bērni (vidēji) tiek dzīvei daudz sliktāk  sagatavoti. Mūsu ‘avīzītes’ par to neraksta – tēma par sociālo slāņu atšķirīgām iespējām ir kutelīga. Bet tas neliedz iespēju izglītoties pašam. Protams, problēma ir tā, ka izglītoties spēj tikai tas, kas savu nezināšanu ir ieraudzījis…

Daži to ierauga tad, kad ir par vēlu (mūžs jau nodzīvots), daži ierauga, bet nevar nepieciešamo izglītību iegūt – nav sociālo apstākļu, bet vēl daži daži neierauga nekad.

Protams, ka dažādu sociālo slāņu indivīdu dzīves kvalitāte ir atšķirīga.