How Progressive Education and Bad Philosophy Corrupted The People & Undermined The Constitution of The United States

Throughout human history, the prevailing belief system changes from time to time & place to place; most people unthinkingly absorb whatever happens to be the prevailing dogma of their time & place. Here, I will show the radical differences between the philosophy of our Founding Era and the philosophy of today. And when I have done so, you will understand why our Country is declining and what you can do about it. In a nutshell, the Enlightenment philosophy of our Founding Era, which was based on Reason and the recognition of the existence of Fixed Principles, was taken away from us; and replaced with the subjective philosophies of Pragmatism & Existentialism, both of which reject Reason and deny the existence of Objective Truth & Fixed Principles. These are now the prevailing dogma of our Time; and unless we promptly repudiate them, we will fall.

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, & John Jay (authors of The Federalist Papers), and others at the Federal Convention of 1787, embodied the best aspects of The Age of Enlightenment. They were well educated, exquisitely knowledgeable in statecraft & political philosophy, embraced the concepts of Objective Reality & Fixed Principles, knew Logic, and could think. George Washington, a man renowned for his Moral Character, which was based on Judeo-Christian ideals, presided over the Convention.

The Fruit of the Philosophy, Religion, & well-trained Minds of our Framers was a Constitution which ordained and established a Federation of States which united only for THE LIMITED PURPOSES enumerated in the Constitution: national defense, international commerce & relations; and domestically, the creation of an uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, and mail delivery. 1

Progressive “Education” & the Conditioning of the American People

But during the 19th Century, Progressives took control of public schools & teachers’ colleges. They then conditioned teachers and children to abandon our Founders’ Enlightenment philosophy of Reason, Fixed Principles, & Judeo-Christian ideals; and to accept a new ideology which replaced Reason with “feelings” and denied the existence of an Objective Reality & Fixed Principles. They thus primed the objects of their conditioning to accept whatever attitudes the Progressives chose to instill in them. And the objects of this conditioning did not – do not – know what was done to them!

Samuel L. Blumenfeld explains the two opposing philosophies of education:

the “progressives”…viewed public education primarily as a tool for social and cultural reform to be achieved through the remaking of human nature; and the traditionalists …viewed education, public or private, primarily as a development of an individual’s intellectual skills in combination with moral instruction based on Judeo-Christian ideals. ["Is Public Education Necessary?", Ch. 12]

Thanks to the traditional education they received, our Framers knew history, political philosophy & statecraft, Logic, Judeo-Christian moral ideals, and could think!

Thanks to progressive “education”, Americans have been so dumbed-down that they can’t read, 2 know nothing, and can’t think. After the Progressives ripped moral instruction based on Judeo-Christian ideals out of the public schools, and replaced it with the view that morality is a matter of subjective personal opinion or group consensus, 3 we became an amoral people who kill babies, reject altogether the concept of personal responsibility, insist on a claimed “right” to live at other peoples’ expense, and believe that the only guide for our conduct is our own likes, dislikes, & “feelings”: “I like it” or “I don’t like it”; “I feel like it” or “I don’t feel like it”. We became so shallow and morally blind that we elect fools & tyrants to high office. Thanks to “self-esteem” classes, we believe that our views & “feelings” on subjects of which we have no knowledge whatsoever are as important as anybody else’s.

With our untrained & empty minds and instilled amorality, we were rendered incapable of resisting the conditioning of the Progressives. And this, Folks, has been the purpose of public “education” ever since the Progressives took it over.

2000 years of Western Philosophy on Metaphysics & Epistemology 4 in One Paragraph

So! In Western Civilization, we had the Age of Faith (There is an Objective Reality & Truth 5 and they are revealed in the Bible & Works of Creation); the Enlightenment (There is an objective Reality & Truth and we discover it by use of Reason); the Age of Romanticism (“Truth” is found in your emotions & feelings); and now, Pragmatism & Existentialism (There is no Objective Reality; “Truth” is a concept which has no meaning; there are no fixed principles, there is only “opinion” and one man’s “opinion” is as good as another’s).

Pragmatism & Existentialism

During the late 19th century, the philosophy of Pragmatism (William James, Charles Saunders Peirce, John Dewey) arose. It rejected the concept of an Objective Reality with its Timeless Truths. Instead of concerning oneself with the question of whether something is “True”, the pragmatist asks, “What difference will it make in my life whether I believe it or don’t believe it?” So one looks to the “utility” of believing it or not believing it. If it has a good result for me, it is “true”. If it has a bad result for me, it is not “true”. What is “true” for me may not be “true” for you, so an idea can be “true” for some and not “true” for others. Furthermore, what is “true” for me today may not be “true” for me tomorrow, so “truth” evolves.

Do you see? They tossed the concept of Objective Truth – Objective Reality – Fixed Principles & Standards – out the window.

Pragmatism morphed into Existentialism (Jean-Paul Sartre). Existentialism rejects an objective basis for life in favor of a subjective basis: 6 Humans are merely biological organisms living meaningless lives, making “choices” on the basis of no criteria whatsoever other than their own likes or dislikes. Since there is no basis for any external Principles or Standards to which we must conform, people are free to do whatever they want.

Again, it was the Colleges of Education and the public schools which were the vehicles for dumbing-down the American People and conditioning them to reject the Philosophy of our Founders, and to accept the pragmatist & existentialist mind-set.

A friend recalls an incident which happened around 1960 in English class in an American public high school. The students read a story. The teacher asked each student to say what the story meant to him. Whatever a student said was praised by the teacher. But my friend said, “It doesn’t matter what it means to me. What matters is what the author says.” The teacher was most displeased with that remark.

Do you see? Under the pretext of teaching literature, the teacher indoctrinated her students into rejecting the concept of Objective Reality & Fixed Principles, and accepting a subjective world-view devoid of objective meaning. The teacher most likely had no idea what she was doing – she was just following her teacher’s manual. She was thus one of the millions of useful idiots who graduate from our Colleges of Education and set about assisting in the destruction of the minds & morals of the American People. 7

Do you not remember hearing over & over in your public schools, “There is no black or white, there is only gray.” “What’s true for me may not be true for you”. “If it works, it’s right.” “What does it mean to you?” And when one is facing a moral decision, one is asked, “How do you feel about it?” One’s “feelings” are set up as the criterion for making moral decisions! There is no appeal to objective standards of Right & Wrong. That was ripped out of the public schools by the Progressives. And we are mystified by the high crime rates among our children? 8

Most Americans are now existentialists, even though they never heard of John Paul Sartre. We see our own “likes”, “dislikes”, & “feelings” as the only standard. We just want to “feel good”. That our personal likes & dislikes are irrelevant when they conflict with objective Standards of Good & Bad, Right & Wrong, is unthinkable. I’ll illustrate: It is painful, but we have no time left to pussy-foot:

Standards of Conduct: What’s Right By Objective Standards? Or, What do I like?

Talk to an obese person about what he eats: He will most likely say something like, “I’ll eat what I like.” He thus follows a subjective standard: his likes & his dislikes. Because he is an existentialist (though doesn’t know it), he rejects the idea that there is an objective standard by which one can decide what to eat and what to avoid: That of health – Is the food healthy? Or unhealthy? And if you tell him of this objective standard, he’ll say, “I don’t care – I’ll eat what I like.” The essence of the existentialist mind-set is that the existentialist sees no reason why he should set anything above his own “feelings”, likes, or dislikes.

There was a stay-at-home Mom. When her young children were hungry, she tossed them a box of crackers or cookies, or took them to a fast food joint.. Why? Because she didn’t like to cook. That she had a DUTY to provide her children with healthy food, never entered her mind. She didn’t “like” cooking, she “felt like” going to the mall instead, and that was the end of the matter.

Couch potatoes don’t exercise because they “hate” exercise. They reject the objective fact of Reality that exercise is necessary to be healthy.

Pragmatism, Existentialism & Federal Judges

So! With the rise of Pragmatism & its conception of evolving and subjective “truth”, American lawyers abandoned the concept of Law as a body of fixed principles (set forth in The Declaration, The Constitution, Blackstone’s Commentaries, Natural Law &/or the Bible), and embraced the concept of an “evolving” law and an “evolving” Constitution which means whatever they – the judges – say it means! Remember! To the pragmatist, “truth” evolves. 9

So THIS is the philosophical basis for judges on the supreme Court tossing out The Federalist Papers as the objective standard of the meaning of The Constitution; and substituting their own opinions. When they were in school, they were conditioned to reject the concept of Objective & Fixed Standards, and to accept Pragmatism & Existentialism; and I bet you few (if any) of them ever thought it through. They did not resist the conditioning – they just accepted what their Manipulators instilled in them.

We teeter on the brink of disaster. YOU must rise to the occasion. Our Country & our Posterity depend on YOUR repudiating the destructive philosophies your conditioners foisted on you; and reclaiming the rational Enlightenment philosophy & Judeo-Christian morality of our Framers. We can not save our children unless we close the public schools. 10 Education must be privatized, and we better do it now. PH

Postscript added July 22, 2011: Melanie Phillips shows how the abandonment of the concept of Objective Principles & Standards and the embracing of moral relativism & multiculturalism is leading to the islamization of England: Watch it!


My friend, Nancy Coppock, understands also how relativism is destroying Our Country.



1 Our Constitution follows the Biblical model: a civil government with defined powers which is subject tounder – the Law. Civil government is not the source of Law! The law comes from a higher authority: God is the source of Law in the Bible; The Declaration of Independence & The Constitution are the Source of Law in our Country. Acts of the three branches of the federal government are lawful or unlawful depending on whether they are consistent with the Declaration & authorized by The Constitution. These are the standard of what is “lawful” – NOT the fiat of the brain-washed judges who sit on our courts.

Lex, Rex by Rev. Samuel Rutherford (1644), is a masterwork of which modern American pastors are ignorant. Rev. Rutherford proves that civil authorities have legitimacy ONLY to the extent they obey The Law. We see all around us the results of our pastors’ ignorance of these Biblical teachings.

2 Two/thirds of Wisconsin 8th graders can’t read proficiently! Yet their teachers are screaming for more benefits to be paid for by the taxpayers, while lying about being sick. With the public schools, we have financed our own destruction. And most Americans who can read, are unable to read The Federalist Papers. Yet The Federalist is essential for a correct understanding of the objective (genuine) meaning of our Constitution & they were published in Newspapers in 1787-88!

3Values clarification” is the version of “moral guidance” foisted in the public schools on our children since the 1960′s. Public school teachers are telling children that they are “… free to choose ethical and moral behavior that resonates with them.” They thus “liberate” children from “authoritarian” teachings on morality.

4 “Metaphysics” deals with the nature of Reality; “Epistemology”, with theories of Knowledge. The Ayn Rand Institute has an excellent lexicon for philosophical terms. Rand was a non-theist; PH is a Christian theist. Hence, there are some differences. But both see “Natural Law” (Physics, Mathematics, Logic, Morality, Politics, etc.) as woven into the Fabric of Reality. Both see the Universe as governed by LAW; and that the duty of man is to learn & to obey these Laws.

Thus, the Great Divide is between those who accept the concept of Divine or “Natural Law”; and those, such as Progressives, Libertarians, Pragmatists, & Existentialists, who reject it. They deny the existence of any standard other than their own “feelings”, likes & dislikes.

5objective reality” means this: “Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.” In other words, things are the way they are regardless of what you like, don’t like, agree with or don’t agree with.

6subjectivism” is “…the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver—i.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims. It is the doctrine which holds that man—an entity of a specific nature, dealing with a universe of a specific nature—can, somehow, live, act and achieve his goals apart from and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality, i.e., apart from and/or in contradiction to his own nature and the nature of the universe…”

7 In “The Abolition of Man“, C.S. Lewis illustrates how the concept of “objective value” was ripped out of the hearts of British school children by their teachers. He also discusses the “Natural Law” and how it has been universally recognized. His book is only 113 pages, double-spaced, & one of the most important books ever written. Read it. Outline it. Tell all in your spheres of influence.

8 But at least we can take comfort in the knowledge that our children are not being taught in public schools such things as, “thou shalt not kill”, “thou shalt not steal”, “thou shalt not bear false witness”, “thou shalt not covet”, and other such “authoritarian” & offensive rubbish.

9 In “The Second American Revolution“, attorney John W. Whitehead (Rutherford Institute) writes of this. This is a valuable book which shows how bad philosophy corrupted our judges.

10 Glen Beck and others are showing that under the pretext of teaching reading, progressive “educators” are now telling our children the Lie that our Constitution institutes socialism!

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Print pagePDF pageEmail page



About Publius Huldah
Lawyer, philosopher & logician. Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. Passionate about The Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay), restoring constitutional government, The Bible, the writings of Ayn Rand, & the following: There is no such thing as Jew & Greek, slave & freeman, male & female, black person & white person; for we are all one person in Christ Jesus. She also writes legal and Constitutional commentary at her site: Publius-Huldah
  • Seeking_Truth

    Wonderful article, but it's preaching to the choir.
    The article says "close the public schools". How? We can't get people to get off their dead couch to do anything.

  • D. Jones

    The author states that it was the biblical principles that the Constitution was based upon. Not true. Hence, the separation of church and state and the freedom of religion. A number of the Founding Fathers believed religion to be dangerous (the settlers have just escaped the religious tyrany and intolerance of Europe) and were vehemently against a state religion. Thomas Jefferson would even refuse to use the Bible in public ceremonies. To imply that this country was intended to be a Christian nation is a blatant lie, targeting those who did not study history. To lie blatantly in an essay that accuses others of lying and brain-washing is not only unethical but also unwise and discrediting. Since I will be most likely removed from posting on this website again after pointing out the obvious facts, I want to encourage everyone to really think for themselves, as people often have hidden motives.

    • Shadow_58

      You Sir, need to go back and study you're history closer. The Founding Fathers were very much religious and did believe in God. This was and has been proven in their writings and personal letter to friends and family.

    • Susan

      Ignorant statements. There is only "separation of church and state" in Stalin's Constitution. All our Founders stated that a Free Republic is not possible without a Religious people. Even Socrates stated that for Freedom (and civil societies) it is necessary to teach Virtue (excellence). True---they did not recognize anything other than Judeo-Christian Ethics as valid and they inserted it into all schools along with the Bible which wasn't removed until the evil Progressive pragmatist----Fabian Socialist, John Dewey, did. He wanted to "reshape" human nature---and kill God.

    • D. Jones

      Stalin did not use constitution. I suggest you do a refresher course of history yourself. Most founding fathers believed in God, but not in the same way today's evangelicals do. Thomas Jefferson was a Unitarian, along with a number of others. Revisionist movement that seeks to change the history is a very dangerous thing. When people do not know from where they came, they experience a crisis of identity. I challenge you to study the documents, letters and testimonies to find for yourselves, as you might discover that you have been lied to. Of course, you can always choose to remain in the darkness.

    • Susan

      You're such a liar. Look up the 1936 Soviet Constitution, also known as "Stalin's Constitution". Most Founding Father's were devout clergymen, there were only two or three "Deists" or none Trinitarians. There were 56 signers--you do the math!--You are Right in one respect---the Founders were NOT like today's homosexual worshipping Protestants who endorse killing babies and contraception and a 'Right to Sodomy" which eminates from Satan----not "Rights from the Creator".

    • D. Jones

      Susan, we have a difference of opinions. Without getting technical, Soviet constitution does not have the longevity and respect The US Constitution has. Again, check you sources. The freedom of religion includes any religion, wouldn't you agree? Now, you seem angry at the homosexuals, and I assume you have your personal reasons. But whatever reasons you have, you must agree that freedom of religion by definition would include people who do not believe the same way you do. There are plenty of theocracies in the world. The USA is not a theocracy. It was not meant to be. So I do not understand your argument or your intolerance of other diverse opinions. If it is democracy and pluralism you are rejecting, by insisting that everyone should adopt your brand of religion or your interpretation of the divine scriptures, then there are other geographical options available.

    • Susan

      Truth is Truth. Google Stalin's Constitution. Get "technical". No, the freedom of Religion was defined by Ben Franklin. It couldn't have polygamy or child sacrifice or depraved sodomy orgies. Again, Indian religion was not recognized and missionaries were paid by our government to "convert" them to Christianity. Jefferson had Christian services in the White house every Sunday. No Voodoo services. You think Mormonism was embraced and "allowed freedom" in America---it conflicted with our Supreme Law. Just like Sharia Law should be unconstitutional, but then, as Mark Levine states the Marxists on the court threw out our Constitution years ago.

      You really need to study history---not Marxist revisionism and the Howard Zinn's of warped history where it is good to "sodomize" other people and we need to take "pride" in such depravity and condition little boys to think like those little boys in Afghanistan where they live in harems to be used by men.

      Religion is NOT supposed to conflict with the Supreme Law of the Land (and Natural Laws). There is no 'Right to Sodomize others" since it is a Vice and Justice is a Virtue. Our government is required for "Just Law" to promote Virtue---NEVER Vice. It is unconstitutional.

    • D. Jones

      Susan, very unorthodox view of history, I must say. Now, I'm glad it's not up to you to determine what's vice and what's virtue. Fundamentalist Christianity, just like fundamentalist Islam, has proven to represent more of the former. I agree with you, however, on the issues of sexual immorality, etc., when it is forced upon the unwilling or minors. The rest may not be up to us, whether we find it gross, immoral, or wrong. Whatever we have to say about it is, and will always be, merely our opinions.

    • Susan

      You're thinking is so bereft of Common Sense. Natural Law Theory is embedded in our US Constitution (philosophy of John Locke which is 80% of the Constitution---the Supreme Law of the USA. Moral Law is in the "Laws of Nature and nature's God" statement and the term "Bill of Rights" comes from Natural Law Theory. Sodomy is a Vice because it is unnatural (provable), it is dysfunctional and disease-causing (provable), and it is AGAINST God's Laws, which are part of our Constitutional Ethics--which is based on the Ten Commandments (on our Supreme Court Building for a reason.

      To state something is natural that is nihilistic and disease-causing and reduces longevity in man, leaves logic and reason in the toilet. Reason is necessary for Just Laws. Sodomy has been declared a Vice for centuries and listed as a felony even recently. That the APA was forced to take homosexuality OFF of their list of mental illnesses---was political. There was no "science" for doing so. In fact, science proves it is not genetic and caused by emotional damage by caregivers. (Moberly).

    • D. Jones

      Susan, your reasoning is illogical and weak. It is extremely unsubstantiated, especially in light of the overwhelming scientific evidence. You can quote pseudo-scientific studies that seem to prove your point and hold on to them if you want. If the Constitution was initially so beyond reproach, then, according to you, blacks are not supposed to have the right to vote, interracial marriages should be outlawed, etc., etc. Is it what you believe anyway? Diseases? I suppose cancer, malaria, and bird flu are caused by sodomy as well? You can choose to remain in the 19th century if you want. I think you are afraid of the progress and change. Change is inevitable. Even your notions of God are so fundamentalist and archaic. Who do you think you are to claim that you know what the mind of God is?! Or, for that matter, talk about things you must know very little about, like Stalin's Constitution. Have you lived that regime? I have. Look up the definition of "fascism." Your views fit very nicely into that definition. I resign. Nevertheless, I wish blessings upon you and God's mercy. I hope one day you will see the light and reconsider your pompous, self-righteous views, because what you need is more humility before the Great Mystery which is God. All the best.

    • Susan

      The Laws of Nature are fixed---they don't "evolve" as you Marxists want to believe.

      Your arguing with John Locke's reasoning---not mine. Oh---are you arguing sodomy doesn't "cause" disease?????? Why are condoms recommended for anal cavities? Do body parts belong in anal cavities? Can anything be "wrong" to you? Not even the Laws of Nature?

      Have you ever talked to a proctologist?---you idiot. You don't perceive "pregnancy" possibility, do you?????---but then again, your pea brain has never read any Classical works, so you have no understanding of the ideology of the Founding Fathers and "Good and Evil". All of them thought that sodomy was so vile, and creepy, that they hardly couldn't even mention it----but they certainly made laws to eradicate the dysfunctional unnatural activity.

      By the way---you want to return to the pagan/sodomite cultures of Ancient Greece where Zeus was praised for his lust for Ganymedes--the pretty little boy. Please get educated and out of that ancient/pagan/occultist Ba'al worshipping Culture of Death.

      My concern are little boys---you do not put sick, evil ideas into their heads that go against Nature and teach them that such evil, vile use of their body is "normal". You haven't read "Sugar Keynes at Harvard" or have you seen inside the warped mind of a sodomite. "The eye that alters, alters all." Such an evil way to "look" at other human beings which removes all dignity from humans. As dehumanizing as Marxism. Reduces the sex act to a meaningless, ugly, fecal thing. Disgusting.

    • D. Jones

      Susan, what's vile is your language. You spew out hatred without much understanding. You've classified the world, dissected it into tiny parts, and put them on the dusty shelves of your close-minded consciousness. You are an angry person, full of incorrect assumptions and judgements. You have called me names, let's see... idiot, Marxist, and the likes. What a mess, Susan! :-) Has our conversation degraded to name calling? I thought we were exchanging ideas. Are you that intolerable of anyone who may have different life experiences and, therefore, different ideas than yourself, that you are willing to destroy them and mix them with dirt? Thank God I'm not too sensitive 😉 . What a lonely, fearful existence, Susan. Are you actually a Christian? Rather than sending me to Classical literature that I have already read, you need to revisit the Bible. Your anger is evidence that your arguments are lacking. If you know anything about classical literature, you should know about the power of reason. You could not refute my points; so you chose to avoid them and started name-calling. No, I do not condone sexual exploitations of minors; I thought I made it clear. And yet, you seem stuck on it. Have you been sodomized against your will? If so, I can understand your pain. I really have no desire to continue this conversation, as I think it has degraded beyond salvaging. I wish you peace, Susan, and freedom from fear. God can see your heart, Susan, and I cannot. I know you must have something good in your heart. I would like to think that you see yourself as a fighter for what's right. But you are not without "sin;" so why are you casting stones? Your perception is fixed, and your mind is closed. I bet you're proud of it, but you shouldn't be. I know you will be tempted to leave the last word in this. Please, forgive me for not responding any further: by doing this, I'm allowing you to continue thinking that you are right and that your arguments are superior. After all, this is what you seem to need at this point in your life. Blessings.

    • Susan

      Abomination (from the Bible) is more "vile" than any of my language. If you are such a Bibliophile, then you understand how evil misusing the body that God designed actually is--- and how evil it is to throw out his Decalogue. Whose the "name caller"? Your irrational rants are annoying---and it is time you realize you are devoid of all Common Sense---which if you have taken a semester of Natural Law Theory (which I have), you will realized that the Laws of Nature are where Common Sense originates. Without Natural Law Theory we would have no understanding of anything--no science--no Newton---no Laws of gravity or physics. You call me names? Intolerant? I obey God's Laws and revel in Truth and Natural Law. You obvious think God needs correction or maybe you are a follower of some cultist, where sodomy rites are the norm--or do you read the Queen James Bible? Ha...that is really devoid of sexual morality. There can be no "sexual morality" in any book, if you say that anal sex is "normal" like the Queen James. Ha---such lack of Logic and Reason. You remind me of talking to a little 3 year old---oh, take that back---my 3 year old boys (4 of them) would have vomited at the idea of playing with fecal material.

  • Ken Bowman

    Muslims are FASCISTS as are Liberals at heart. Winston Churchill warned against trusting Adolph Hitler and he was not believed. Until Chamberlain made a treaty with Her Hitler which proved worthless even as Chamberlain proclaimed Peach in Our Time.

    Lesson learned, never ever trust a Fascist. Obama and his fellow travellers are FASCISTS!

  • G. Macher

    There is no point in talking with Muslims because they are commanded to deceive and to dominate. Muslims must be removed from civilized countries if we do not wish to be subjugated by barbarians.

  • Germeten

    Let's not forget the position business had to play in dumbing down workers. In the beginning of the 19th century, a letter was found issued by the US Dept. of Education, that agency did not find it to be its job, to create more statesmen, scientists artists, engineers, doctors, lawyers or men of industry; "...those will arise from their own ranks. Our job is to create better workers." Also at that time (around Henry Ford) it was felt that higher education created greater dissatisfaction in later life, presumably because there wasn't enough room at the top.