How did the Republican Party get to where it is? The much-misrepresented “Don’t Say Gay” bill in Florida, or more properly the “Wait ‘Til They’re Eight” bill, is a lesson to the right.
I’ve had right-wingers come at me occasionally for being more aligned with libertarians (especially the Mises Caucus, who are on the right-wing of the Libertarian Party) than the Republican Party.
Some of their points are legitimate. The Republican Party has a power the Libertarians just don’t have, and there’s probably some room for entryist infiltration.
However, the argument that the Republican Party would be superior is laughable.
Florida Man’s Failure
We see Florida emerging as the Republican equivalent of California—that is, it seems likely to be the breeding ground of the political elite cadre, even if not all of the ruling elite will come from the state.
Being dominated by Republican lawmakers and executives, and Republican lawmakers and executives loyal to the primary party platform rather than the mediocre pseudo-leftist neocons and social democrats with red ties of the McCain and Romney movements.
Florida is, to borrow a term, MAGA country.
So I’m choosing Florida as a case study here for the parental rights bill.
There is one thing about the bill which is good—that it requires a certain amount of transparency from the robbery-funded state indoctrination centers. This is not, from what I can tell, limited by any grade.
But then we get to part I don’t like.
“Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate…”
Now, there are two things I don’t like here.
First, the reason it’s called the “Wait ‘Til They’re Eight” bill (a slogan I’ve heard other people use, but can’t remember the origin of). The age at which I want classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity occurring is never, not fourth grade.
Of course, there is the “age appropriate” caveat. The first problem here is that it is entirely undefined (and perhaps undefinable) and will lead to people arguing that they believed what they were doing was age appropriate.
The second problem here is that the people who traditionally define what is age and developmentally appropriate, in the field of education, would be the mainstream academic field.
If you want to get an even more bitter taste in your mouth, you could do well to remember that the major education journals have at least a tangential relationship with the unions, which have an extreme affiliation for the political left and queer theory.
You’ll see places like CASEL, the social-emotional learning folks, whip out neat studies on official stationery that say that actually, yes, it is developmentally appropriate to talk to an eight-year-old about anal sex (and more lurid things I won’t write about here).
Barring the obvious perspective—from someone who has been in the classroom—that any endeavor to talk about sex outside the least sensational elements of reproductive biology in the school environment is fraught with major pitfalls, this still has failed to get to another point.
Teachers are not good people. I’m not trying to slur them here. Dock-workers are not good people, firefighters are not good people, cops are not good people, nurses and doctors are not good people.
There are good people in the population, and bad people in the population, that makes up all these professions.
As a result, you need to think about something. You’re handing children over to teachers, who are going to be the teachers who seek the job or are forced into it with all the additional x-factors those two paths bring, to have over-interested or under-interested individuals teach minors about sex.
If you know, as I do, how awful the schools are at dealing with things like sexual abuse, you might hesitate a little before endorsing that plan.
Whichever way it pans out, you’ll wind up with queer theory-laced content delivered to impressionable minors (because that’s what’s in the pre-made curriculums). Even if the teacher’s intention is not indoctrination, the system always goes that way.
Why Did This Happen?
We don’t need to look far.
The Republicans are a fundamentally “conservative” party. They do not have an underlying principle other than a fear of change.
This is stupid. Change is inevitable.
A morally positive change is good.
A morally negative change is wicked.
The Republicans have never met a reform they liked, and never fought for a principle that had gone out of vogue.