The above is truly a bizarre comment as the entire two-part review is extremely complimentary of Gatto's ideas.

Mike, the combination of your two comments here makes it clear to me that there’s not really that much difference between your views and mine. I’ve never once advocated for a “parroted and uncritical” view of American history. I encourage you to read what I’ve written over the last several months and see if you can find such a view on my part. Every time I write about this topic I say as much. See my post citing Patrick Deneen’s ideas about the critical patriot: https://schoolleader.typepad.com/school-leader/2020/07/e-pluribus-unum-another-essential-principle-of-patriotic-american-history.html Nor will you find me “absolving” our ancestors of any of their past sins. I think perhaps you assume things about my position that simply aren’t true. It sounds to me like you do actually believe in America’s Founding principles. You just believe that many of our ancestors failed pretty spectacularly to live up to those principles. And here you are correct. They did. You are also right that the rich and powerful got the first blessings of all those principles. They did. That’s usually the consequence of being rich and powerful. But it’s also true that a full reading of our national story is the steady and relentless expansion of those principles to be applied to more and more people. Why were we able to end slavery less than a century after the founding? Because the moral order written into our founding documents made slavery impossible in this republic, something that many of the founders precisely intended. Our progress has been messy and not linear but inevitable nonetheless, so much so that millions of people have come to this land and still do seeking the freedom and opportunity that is our national birthright. There’s still so much progress to make, but the very fact that we know what to keep striving for is because our core values have made us, as Wilfred McClay calls his beautiful new textbook on American history (review coming soon), the “Land of Hope.” That’s what I want to restore in our teaching of American history: temporal continuity. Which means memory (of both the bad and the good) and hope that we can continue to strive to be a City on the Hill. More here: https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2020/08/memory-hope-restoring-teaching-american-history-gary-houchens.html

Mike, thank you for taking the time to comment in depth. I especially appreciate you acknowledging my sincerity. I can tell that you are also sincere in your concern about and commitment to justice. I have many thoughts but also would like to pose a few questions if you don’t mind? Your comment came in response to a tweet thread I posted about Robert Reilly’s book America on Trial. It sounds like you find America “guilty” in this trial, at least guilty of many sins, and perhaps believe that America was not, in fact, founded on ideals of equality and freedom for all. You also say that you nevertheless love America. Can you say just a bit about WHY you love America, if she is not, in fact, and never has been the beacon of hope that I believe she is? And also, what kind of political system would yield the kind of justice you think America has been systematically lacking? Are there examples that you would point to that are better alternatives? Thanks. If the comment box is too unwieldy for this feel free to email me instead: gary.houchens@wku.edu.

I disagree. The question itself implies that income inequality is a problem and that it should be reduced. That is an ideological assumption. Income inequality is a fact. Whether that is a problem or not is a worthy topic of inquiry. What if we framed the question in a number of ways: "Where does income inequality come from? What are its consequences? What would be the reasons for, and potential problems with, various strategies to address income inequality?"

Different sticks, but this horse is still very much alive!

I don't think that's true, but I also don't care if it is. I don't make my judgments based on what's popular. It's quite possible for the majority - even a majority of teachers - to be mistaken.