Editorials / Opinions

Historian Rick Atkinson distinguishes healthy disagreement from destructive polarization by focusing not on how strongly people disagree, but on how they behave while disagreeing. Healthy disagreement rests on three civic commitments that allow a divided republic to endure. Accepting a shared reality means agreeing on basic facts, evidence, and outcomes – even when they are inconvenient or difficult – so debate occurs within a common truth rather than competing fictions. Respecting constitutional limits means recognizing that power is bounded: leaders are constrained by law, elections have consequences, and no victory justifies tearing down the rules that make self-government possible. And treating political opponents as legitimate participants in the same civic experiment means seeing rivals not as enemies, but as fellow citizens whose rights and voices are equal, even when their ideas disagree.

Destructive polarization begins when factions reject common facts, elevate loyalty to leaders or tribes over loyalty to institutions, and frame political loss as intolerable or illegitimate. Drawing on the Revolutionary era, Atkinson reminds us that America survived fierce division not because consensus prevailed, but because restraint did – because citizens and leaders alike chose the republic over victory and allowed American democracy to survive intense conflict without collapsing into authoritarianism or violence.

The American Revolution succeeded because despite deep polarization, Leaders accepted limits on power, Losers of elections often stood down instead of fighting and Institutions were treated as more important than personalities. Institutions – like the Constitution, courts, Congress, elections, and a free press – were understood as guardrails. No matter how admired, powerful, or charismatic a leader was, they were expected to operate within those rules, not above them. From George Washington to Ronald Reagan, the enduring lesson has been the same: institutions matter more than individuals. Both men accepted that the presidency was a temporary trust, not a personal possession.

Sincerely,

Joan Reading, Union Dale, PA

Affluent progressives have the ongoing challenge of maintaining their wealth and status while keeping up appearances of benevolence and compassion. Regarding race, in post-WW2 America, as the old use of intimidation by Democrats to manage black people receded more subtle strategies were needed. These were mentioned by then Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, D-TX) who, in discussing the 1957 Civil Rights Bill with Sen. Richard Russell (D-GA) said, "These Negros, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppitiness. Now we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference..."

To put it another way, Johnson and his peers had to find a way to keep black people disenfranchised while appearing to empower them, and ultimately ensure they voted Democrat in perpetuity. Fooling and manipulating a targeted demographic is certainly not unique in history and this progressive approach proved to work spectacularly: it remains ubiquitous almost 70 years later. Autonomous and competent people are not amenable to manipulation, hence it became necessary to make the targeted demographic embrace the opposite: helplessness, dependency, and victimization.

An important step was for the establishment (white) Democrat powers to choose emissaries to black culture in the form of black "leaders" who would reliably promulgate the desired message, i.e. you are helpless, dependent, and can't be held responsible because you are victims. At this point it's necessary to mention the premier black leader of the time, Martin Luther King, Jr, along his relationship with LBJ. Today MLK's name is exploited by the racialist black elite as Jesus' is by corrupt televangelists: they need them to legitimize their behavior but also need to marginalize these towering figures because what they stood for is at odds with their personal lust for power, money, etc.

Just like the current "equity" obsession among the progressive left is the antithesis of equality, many of the exhortations of MLK are contrary to today's leftist dogma: work ethic and personal responsibility, education and family and, of course, "...not (be) judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." In many ways MLK was the "uppity" black man with political pull that LBJ feared and, while there were intersections of common interests between the two, LBJ used King when politically beneficial, but otherwise disparaged him (Salon is a rabidly leftist on-line magazine but published a fascinating article in 2018 detailing LBJ's duplicity in regards to MLK).

Post-MLK "black leaders" acceptable to the white Democrat powers had to be both controllable and able to turn on faux righteous anger like a light switch to incite susceptible black audiences on cue. Jesse Jackson emerged as the post-MLK prototype and was quite adept at soaring, emotional rhetoric that assured black people not only were they victims but that, no matter what, they always would be. The goal was never to truly elevate black people but to make them malleable: actually empowering them would be diminish Jackson's status and influence.

In a general way, power can be obtained by either advancing people or by perpetuating discontent. The former is difficult and requires effort, the latter requires only words and the ability to fool people: empty promises, appealing to greed, sowing division, finding scapegoats for their failures. This was aptly discussed in a 1911, 6,000 word essay by Booker T. Washington. Washington (1856-1915) was born a slave, went on to write the seminal book, Up From Slavery, and was heralded as the preeminent black spokesman of his time. His 1911 essay, Intellectuals and the Boston Mob, included the following observation: There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs–partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, be-cause they do not want to lose their jobs.

I wonder if Washington could have foreseen this would persist, stronger than ever, 115 years later, where in 2026 black people worth billions and holding immense political and cultural power cling to the "business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the negro race before the public."

In 2007, Joe Biden, then in his mid-60s said (of Obama), "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." While this statement was both galling and patronizing, it did provide insight into the mindset of the post-modern Democrat party, prompting one to ask, "How is it even possible he could have lived 65 years and never encountered an 'articulate and bright and clean' black person?" The answer is simple: he and his political collaborators existed in such an isolated world that the only black people they knew were those as Washington described: buffoonish race hustlers.

Here are a few present day examples of what what LBJ envisioned when he talked about giving them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference: spelling black with a capital "B," giving them their own holiday, erasing Uncle Ben from rice boxes, and ending the use of the word "master" when referring to a large bedroom. Similarly, a significant part of the strategy is to immerse blacks in lower expectations: blacks are uniquely incapable of obtaining official ID in regards to voting laws, stop requiring SAT's because blacks can't score well, limit prosecutions of black criminals because they just can't obey the law, no longer require aspiring lawyers to pass the bar exam because not enough blacks are able to do so, etc. Convincing black people they are inherently incapable is an excellent way of keeping them from becoming uppity and, combined with giving them consolation prizes in the form of, for example, made-up professorships, is "just enough to quiet them down."

In August 2020 the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture released a graphic called "Aspects and Assumptions of Whiteness," basically a list of behaviors and attitudes black people shouldn't or can't be expected to share. Items included independence and autonomy, the nuclear family, objective thinking, hard work the key to success, planning for the future, and delayed gratification. Somehow the elite progressives and/or their black subordinates were too insulated to recognize its inherent and vile racism, but outcry from rationale people led to its withdrawal in Oct. Nevertheless, for two months we had on full display the Democrat's disdain of black people, and their strategy of keeping them from getting too uppity: degradation masquerading as "justice."

Sincerely,

Reid Fitzsimons, Thompson, PA

When some people think about K–12 school choice, they often picture families in large metropolitan areas touring dozens of schools in search of the right fit. That certainly happens, but education options for families in Pennsylvania and across the country are continuing to evolve.

A new survey shows that last year, one in five parents living in suburbs, small towns, and rural communities enrolled their children in new schools – the same rate as the national average. However, when asked about the year ahead, 43% of parents in small towns say they are likely to explore new school options, compared to 71% of parents who live in larger cities.

This gap is less about interest and more about a lingering perception that families in less populated areas lack opportunities to exercise choice in how and where their children learn.

In Pennsylvania, parents have more education options than they may realize, even in smaller towns and rural communities. In addition to assigned traditional public schools, the Keystone State has taken steps in recent years to give families more flexibility in choosing learning environments.

Within the public education system, public schooling options include charter schools (which are widely available) and theme-based magnet schools (available in several districts). In some districts, parents may also be able to send their children to traditional public schools outside of their zones or attendance boundaries, if seats are available.

Parents can also consider private schools, and Pennsylvania offers tax-credit scholarship programs that help eligible families make private education more affordable by providing scholarships that can be used toward private school tuition.

Many Pennsylvania families choose to educate their children at home, and homeschooling communities and learning collaboratives can be found across the state – including in smaller towns. Meanwhile, new options, such as community-based learning environments – called microschools – are opening and providing additional opportunities for families who may not have easy access to traditional brick-and-mortar schools.

Finally, Pennsylvania offers full-time, tuition-free public online schools. Far from the emergency remote learning of the pandemic era, these programs pair students with qualified teachers and provide structured instruction along with opportunities for students to interact with their classmates.

If you want to explore these education options in advance of the 2026–27 school year, the time to begin that process is now. National School Choice Week begins January 25, with 937 school events across Pennsylvania, including school fairs, open houses, parent nights, and information sessions.

Families in small towns may find that their education options feel more limited than those available in larger cities. But that does not mean meaningful choices do not exist. If you are considering a change – whether your child is entering a new grade level, you are looking for a better fit, or you simply want to understand what is available – taking time now to explore your options can be worthwhile. You may be surprised by what you find, and the right choice could make a lasting difference for your child's future.

To access a free guide to K–12 school choice options in Pennsylvania, visit https://myschoolchoice.com/pennsylvania.

Sincerely,

Andrew Campanella

EDITOR'S NOTE: Andrew Campanella is the CEO of the National School Choice Awareness Foundation, the nonprofit organization that coordinates National School Choice Week, Navigate School Choice, and Conoce tus Opciones Escolares. He is also the author of The School Choice Roadmap: 7 Steps to Choosing the Right School for Your Child.