There are liberal people with a similar view. Yes. Not as many as she (or you) are implying. But some. But they’re not the same view. They’re SIMILAR. As Michael Strauss pointed out. Paying attention to what she actually SAID its clear that she doesn’t understand the subtle nuances in what she’s saying vs. what they are saying. It feels like maybe you don’t see it either. And it’s actually fine if YOU don’t… you’re not the secretary of Education. SHE IS!
Like, I actually don’t have a problem with YOU as a private citizen having the concern you do. In fact, even though I made fun of him, I don’t have a problem with Jeffrey Kertis having the view he did. But neither of you are qualified to be Secy.Ed. Nor do you pretend to be.
She is Secy.Ed. but as Strauss pointed out, in the past 9 months she’s provided no evidence whatsoever that she understands the specifics of the workings of the department that she is supposed to be running. And in fact, quite often the exact opposite. Like he said, BEST CASE scenario, she’s “right on accident” here. And while that’s maybe slightly great if you agree with her, it’s super damaging because in that best case scenario, you have a person who doesn’t understand the issue they’re trying to fix, given the full resources of the government to just sort of willy nilly do whatever.
In my previous example… there are good reasons to use COBOL. It’s a fine programming language. Java is certainly not perfect. But if the person making the edict to switch from Java to COBOL is using the reasoning “because someone screwed up their semicolons in Pascal” then some shit is probably going to go wrong in the implementation.