They both hinge on the past, I now see. Conservatives want to maintain what is left of the past and restore what has been lost. Progressives want, it seems, to run a fine-tooth comb through everything about the past and dismantle and repurpose anything that looks like a workable job with their tools (rationalism and science; universal human rights; tolerance; etc.).

This is just wrong.

conservatism... and what now seems to be exclusively called "progressive"... are two sides of the same coin. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

You could say they are two sides of one coin; that's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is that they are quite close on the continuum of political views. A third way of putting it is that they are both in the same ball park playing the same game.

The conservative and progressive groups certainly don't share the same rhetoric, and they do have separate interests (the conservatives representing entrenched capital, the progressives representing social insurgents). Conservatives are rabidly against ObamaCare (the ACA) while progressives are currently obsessed with transgender and BLM.

It is, frankly, hard for many people to find their group on the political continuum--partly because the range of political opinion that is expressible has been extremely compressed and shifted rightward by media, which by and large is owned by conservative financial interests.

I want to see a single payer system of health care finance which would essentially deal insurance companies out of their business. They are nothing but parasites and serve no useful purpose. There are people who agree about single payer, but disagree about a lot of other similarly left of progressive views. Where is my group?

As you pointed out, we do indeed have many social and economic problems to tackle.

None of this would be a problem if conservatives, progressives, libertarians, etc. were open-minded and respectful of diverse viewpoints. But if there ever was a political climate like that it doesn't seem to be anywhere to be found now. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

If political views matter -- I think that they do -- and if there is anything at stake -- there is -- then conservatives and progressives, statists and libertarians, etc. have little reason to work together. You can get people of various opinions to sit down and explore their differences, and that's fine -- nothing is a stake there. If a 2 or 3 trillion dollar budget is at issue, there is absolutely no reason why these disparate groups would cooperate -- the interests they represent are very antagonistic to each other.

If conservatives represent the interests of capitalist health care businesses (a very big financial block), they aren't going to cooperate with any group which wants to deal insurance companies out of the game and forces medical businesses to abide by cost caps. Conservatives can't stand even the relatively minor restrictions of ObamaCare, let alone the progressive Single Payer plan.

Because "The People" have been largely shut out of any meaningful role in politics (except to vote for Mr. Twidleedee or Ms. Twidlydum and not riot in the streets) there are only the well organized and corporate funded ideologues playing the game -- whatever political stripe they happen to be, and their stripes tend to be all rather similar.

"The People" don't stay out of the game because they are indifferent; they are locked out of the game. As a result, the common interests of "The People" are pretty much unrepresented and malignantly neglected.

Things like dismantling a millennia-old patriarchy would not even be on my radar. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Right. It wouldn't be on mine either. I don't even buy the patriarchy vs. matriarchy crap. But some people can really get into this issue because there is absolutely nothing at stake. One can immerse one's self in identity politics without risking anything. It's perfectly safe to express outrage over the disadvantages transgender people face. No one will penalize you for marching around carrying a sign saying "Smash Gender Stereotypes today!" or "Down with Binary Gender Identity Now!" No one of any importance cares about your views on gender, one way or the other. And most people of no importance don't care either.

Most activists are risking nothing by their activism--I say this as a retired activist. Most of the time nothing of value was at stake. Peace activism, religious activism, gay activism, labor activism -- all fairly safe dilettante amusements.

Now, actual transgender people do have something at stake, and they take real risks to be open about their identity. Newly self-identified transgenders are often ridiculed in public because they haven't gotten very far on the opposite-gender learning curve, and they may, frankly, look quite ridiculous. It takes balls to put together women's outfits on a shoestring and take the show on the road for the first few months. But... this isn't your average demonstrator's situation.

If political views matter -- I think that they do -- and if there is anything at stake -- there is -- then conservatives and progressives, statists and libertarians, etc. have little reason to work together. You can get people of various opinions to sit down and explore their differences, and that's fine -- nothing is a stake there. If a 2 or 3 trillion dollar budget is at issue, there is absolutely no reason why these disparate groups would cooperate -- the interests they represent are very antagonistic to each other. — Bitter Crank

I believe that a leader with the right skills could get enough people to work together to resolve problems.

It probably happens all of the time in school boards; university meetings between the president, the governing board, and faculty and students; legislative committees in statehouses; negotiations between the White House and Congress; and between various actors in international relations.

Conservatives, progressives, libertarians, etc. could all probably better realize their seemingly disparate goals by being diplomatic rather than divisive.

But I think that they all thrive on having the most divisive elements--Christian fundamentalists, radical feminists, anti-government gun enthusiasts, anti-business environmentalists--in their camps.

It increasingly looks like the only way to get anything permanent and good accomplished is to have the skill to work around labels like "conservative" and "progressive".

I believe that a leader with the right skills could get enough people to work together to resolve problems. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Leadership IS a critical issue, absolutely, and there are a fair number of skilled leaders out there -- in the school boards, universities, and so on up the line. Even Congress has some good leaders.

One of the big problems in decision making, though, are agents with lots of money, very narrow agendas, and no responsibility to the Congressional or legislative leadership: lobbyists, political pressure groups, NGOs, and so on In Congress, for instance, there are all of these groups leveraging resources to sway votes on appropriation and policy. They give congressmen the money they need to meet fundraising quotas for the parties and to fund their own campaigns for office. These same groups provide expertise services to Congressional committee people, which may be even more influential than money. These various background players have their own leaders, some of whom are very competent.

In state houses, all these players can be even more influential, because state legislators have fewer resources on which to draw.

It takes a major, looming-up-over-the-capitol-building crisis to get cross-party line consensus--hence the expression, "Never waste a major crisis."

It increasingly looks like the only way to get anything permanent and good accomplished is to have the skill to work around labels like "conservative" and "progressive". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Leaders need to find kernels of common vital interest in their constituent and opposition groups. That's how leaders get around those divisive labels. But if some blocks, like the Tea Party extremists, would rather destroy the process than fail to achieve very narrow goals, the leadership is up against a brick wall. The same goes for the extremists at the other end of the political spectrum. There too rigid goals and do-or-die approaches can scuttle cross-boundary agreements.

Given all that, you are still right in saying leadership is critical.

practical, resolvable problems — WISDOMfromPO-MO

You're a traditional, mainstream liberal. Be proud!

Someone once described liberals as conservatives who can't resist tinkering. Another way to look at it would be that liberals focus on stuff that has practical solutions.

Remember Obama's bit about Hillary's campaign slogan: "Trudge on up that hill!" That's liberalism. You leave the revolution to someone else and just fix shit.

I think there are potentially some very progressive policies that could be sold to the conservative camp, at least on some major aspects. For example, Universal Basic Income would give ordinary citizens a degree of security and a whole heap of flexibility. But it could be pitched alongside freeing up bureaucratic employment legislation and cutting the need for lots of admin jobs in welfare.

The "old progressive"/left approach is to encourage full employment, and perhaps there are vested interests in the Unions etc that propagate that view point, but it's no longer where ambitious and potentially successful policy sits IMO.

Another potentially massive leap forward could be made by freeing up education along the lines of personal growth and development, and distributing the delivery of education more widely, away from institutions somewhat. That would appeal to a lot of conservatives. Chucking money at education is the old progressive way. Surely it's time to rethink education lock stock and barrel?

Chucking money at education is the old progressive way. Surely it's time to rethink education lock stock and barrel?

First of all, there is no "old" progressive way, since Millennials are the most progressive generation we have, and they--to their credit--greatly embrace traditional, Humanist, progressive values. Secondly, providing a decent education for all of one's children is what an Enlightened First World country does, to the benefit of those receiving the education and the rest of the nation's citizens. So, providing that education is not "chucking money." Wasting it on wars and military actions like our current ones in Syria are.

So, the only way to re-think education is to better make sure enough money is provided for public education, all the way throughout college, and that the educational system is run well with excellent teachers and administrators.

Surely it's time to rethink education lock stock and barrel? — Jake Tarragon

Education has, periodically, been rethought -- lock, stock, and barrel. The American public school was a rethinking (probably with big European contributions). The public school has, at different times, taken on a number of tasks, never succeeded 100% at any of them (nobody else did either), and has always been somewhat troubled (collecting 10, 100, 500, 1000... sometimes squirrely, resentful, playful, bored, confused children and adolescents in one stuffy building was never easy).

Parochial schools spread across the country, run particularly by Lutherans and Catholics, and taught religious doctrine along with the 3 'R's, reading, riting, and rithmetic, though they almost certainly didn't spell it that way.

The 'open' school has been tried, and used some good ideas and had a following.

Trade training was tried for high school--very good idea for some students.

Military academies and imitations of the English upper class system have been tried.

Charter schools are the latest nostrum.

One of the functions of the school is to prepare citizens to be effective economic units, one side for production, one side for consumption. Schools are no longer needed for teaching consumption. Mass media has taken over that task, totally. Production requirements have changed radically in the last 40 years. It isn't that school staff aren't aware of these changes, but the institutions are still working on old theory -- some of it quite old.

Lock, stock, and barrel describes the degree of experimentation that is needed. Let there be radical experimentation. (Hey, the results couldn't be any worse than what we're getting.)

Let there be no-holds-barred discussions about what education is supposed to do, now -- 21st century.

Another potentially massive leap forward could be made by freeing up education along the lines of personal growth and development, and distributing the delivery of education more widely, away from institutions somewhat. That would appeal to a lot of conservatives. Chucking money at education is the old progressive way. Surely it's time to rethink education lock stock and barrel? — Jake Tarragon

End credentialism.

We could still have institutions that award diplomas/degrees. But education should be a constant process, not something confined to schedules at formal institutions and the awards they give (grades, credit hours, etc.).

People can acquire knowledge and develop skills a variety of ways. For example, I have never taken a formal course in public speaking. I don't have grades and credit hours to show with respect to public speaking skills. But I do have those skills--I developed and practiced them through doing volunteer work.

A good idea would be tests/assessments in which every person could demonstrate the knowledge and skills he/she has, no matter how they were acquired and developed.

Let's end the monopoly that formal, accredited, degree-awarding institutions have on the packaging, distribution, presentation, serving and accounting of learning.

First of all, there is no "old" progressive way, since Millennials are the most progressive generation we have, and they--to their credit--greatly embrace traditional, Humanist, progressive values — Thanatos Sand

Certainly the "rights revolutions" have been embedded in the education system to a large extent, but unfortunately progress in rights has not been matched by progress in economic emancipation and social equality. The education system has tended to deliver "success" to some but "failure" to others. The result is large scale disaffection amongst whole halves of populations, as witnessed by the election of Trump in the US, Brexit and other nationalist leaning movements in Europe. The rights revolutions are actually under a degree of threat because at half the population have been overlooked while the other half has prospered.

End credentialism. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I think you are on the right track with that idea, though I think there is a place for it in very specific career related areas. But as part of a young person's general education they are distracting and damaging,

Certainly the "rights revolutions" have been embedded in the education system to a large extent, but unfortunately progress in rights has not been matched by progress in economic emancipation and social equality.

I have no idea what you are talking about since the only "rights" I know that are taught in school are the Bill of Rights, which are a key part of our constitution. Do you not want those taught?

The education system has tended to deliver "success" to some but "failure" to others.

All systems do that; that is not a problem of having a public educations system funded by the government.

The result is large scale disaffection amongst whole halves of populations, as witnessed by the election of Trump in the US, Brexit and other nationalist leaning movements in Europe.

No, these are not a result of having public education systems, and you haven't shown how they are.

The rights revolutions are actually under a degree of threat because at half the population have been overlooked while the other half has prospered. — Jake Tarragon

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.

End credentialism. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

A good many post graduate degree programs (MA in Public Administration, MA in Educational Psychology, etc.) are nothing but credentialing mills, even though they are part of distinguished universities. They aren't frauds, they're just not hard core. Students go for these credential mill degrees for purposes of salary advancement or job opportunities.

People with inquisitive, information-hungry minds keep learning after they finish their college degree, whether they gain any additional credits or not. They keep reading, they learn on the job, they find ways to acquire enriching experiences. Of course there are college graduates who never read another book after college, which for some reason, they think is worth a boast.

High school graduates could do this too. Some student's get a good enough k-12 education to build on after they graduate, without going to college. Whether HS grads can duplicate the benefit of even a moderately good undergraduate program... I kind of doubt. The function of education is to confront the individual with information that they didn't know existed--whole fields of information. It's hard to engineer that experience on one's own.

You're a traditional, mainstream liberal. Be proud!

Someone once described liberals as conservatives who can't resist tinkering. Another way to look at it would be that liberals focus on stuff that has practical solutions.

Remember Obama's bit about Hillary's campaign slogan: "Trudge on up that hill!" That's liberalism. You leave the revolution to someone else and just fix shit. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't know about the liberals you refer to, but the people I hear today identifying as "liberal" or "progressive" seem to have a really bad case of tunnel vision.

Healthcare reform? Insurance! Insurance! Insurance!

Education? More money! More money! More money! (higher salaries for teachers; more loan and grant money to give away like Halloween candy; etc.)

Inequality? Anti-discrimination laws! Anti-discrimination laws! Anti-discrimination laws!

Climate change? Tax emissions! Tax emissions! Tax emissions!

If I had authority/power, I would have the antithesis of that tunnel vision. I would utilize every resource available to generate and implement solutions immediately with as little political fighting as possible.

Healthcare reform? Create health savings accounts that people can start contributing to and earning interest on right away while the ideologues continue their decades-long fight over insurance. Replace junk food vending machines in all government facilities with vending machines that dispense produce and other fresh foods, and encourage private businesses to do the same. Do some administrative maneuvering to see to it that all future public works projects include bike racks and bike paths in the design. Etc.

Education? Create tests/assessments that people in the labor market can use to demonstrate the knowledge and skills that they have. When trying to attract business to the area, look for employers who have liberal hiring practices and consider the complete package, not just the degree listed (or not listed) on a resume. Facilitate the creation of public and/or private museums, clubs, events and other cultural infrastructure that create an environment that encourages learning. Etc.

Inequality? Identify things in the culture and environment that are obstacles to peoples' success and find creative ways to overcome them. If a criminal past is keeping certain people from being hired by employers, give them the resources and support to find and be successful in entrepreneurial opportunities as they work on making their criminal record less of a liability (having them expunged, for example). Are family responsibilities limiting women's choices in the job market? Provide mobile nursing rooms at workplaces where the employer does not provide nursing rooms. Facilitate the creation of neighborhood associations where families can provide daycare for each other; and help them with the logistics, such as by creating a website with software to help them schedule daycare assignments around each other's work schedules. Etc.

Climate change? See healthcare reform about bike racks and bike paths--killing two birds with one stone. Create a website with software to help people organize carpools. Provide secure, well-lighted spaces so that people can walk, run, play basketball, etc. at all hours instead of burning petroleum driving their cars to a gym. As for the real polluters--industry--craft economic development policy that seeks to attract businesses that minimize emissions. And plenty of other actions that can lead to reduced emissions without long, drawn-out ideological battles over liberty, the size of government, environmental justice, etc.

I don't know what my approach to leading and governing would make me--a political pragmatist, perhaps. But I sense that the people who now identify as "liberal" and "progressive" probably would not like it. It would refocus men and women on the solidarity between them and take their focus away from some fault line called "patriarchy". It would encourage environmental-friendly behavior from everybody, not vilify big business. It would encourage innovation in education, not use a bully pulpit to shame the American public for not being more like Scandinavian countries. Etc.

I think there are potentially some very progressive policies that could be sold to the conservative camp, at least on some major aspects. For example, Universal Basic Income would give ordinary citizens a degree of security and a whole heap of flexibility. But it could be pitched alongside freeing up bureaucratic employment legislation and cutting the need for lots of admin jobs in welfare.

The "old progressive"/left approach is to encourage full employment, and perhaps there are vested interests in the Unions etc that propagate that view point, but it's no longer where ambitious and potentially successful policy sits IMO. — Jake Tarragon

An idea that I have had for several years now is to end the firms/households binary and treat all economic actors the same. No longer would anybody be an "employee" who is "working" for somebody else. Every non-government economic actor--individuals, small organizations, large organizations--would be a business producing and selling a product. Every non-government economic actor would be treated the way we now treat the economic actors we call firms. Every economic actor would be taxed and regulated the same way. I would not be an "employee" of anybody. I would be a business selling a product: labor. I could give my business a name--"The Cook On Demand", if I was a cook, for example. Instead of posting a resume, I would buy airtime and other space and "advertise" my product. The money that it costs me in gas, vehicle maintenance, vehicle insurance, etc. to get to where I sell my product could be deducted from my taxes as a business expense.

Everybody would be an independent contractor, basically. Instead of being "hired" by one employer, individuals could bid on and be awarded many different contracts of many different durations at the same time. So somebody who is a cook could work for one business for an hour, another business for an hour, etc. depending on demand. So the restaurant that is going through a slow period with little traffic doesn't have people on "payroll" that it does not need and the restaurant across town that is understaffed because somebody didn't show up can get the help it needs from the independent contractor cook who might otherwise be standing at the other restaurant with no work to do. And instead of being paid "wages" the cook would send everybody he worked for a bill.

It would be a much more flexible, fluid, efficient market for the sale and purchase of labor.

And it would make every economic actor equal and gradually eliminate the whole capital vs. labor problem--everybody would be capital.

Most importantly, it would give every individual the status of being a business and eliminate the "worker" label and all of its sociological ramifications.

I don't know if any of that qualifies as conservative, progressive, or neither.

I think that it is further evidence that change that is permanent and good won't be generated by thinking within any small box, even if that box is labeled "progressive".

All systems do that; that is not a problem of having a public educations system funded by the government. — Thanatos Sand

It is certainly possible to conceive of an education system , or stages of it, where competition between students is absent or minimized by design, and that would be a Good Thing, imo.

An idea that I have had for several years now is to end the firms/households binary and treat all economic actors the same — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I have been thinking on those lines too. But for it to work it's got to be very low on admin as well as offering a degree of economic security. Modern technology is beginning to look like it could cope with very flexible working patterns and administration of payments and taxes and so forth, so this sort of "big thinking outside the box" is looking technically feasible I would say...

I don't know what my approach to leading and governing would make me--a political pragmatist, perhaps. But I sense that the people who now identify as "liberal" and "progressive" probably would not like it. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Your approach is essentially liberal. Conservatives would hate it because of the degree of political and economic manipulation it would require.

Apparently, conservatives believe that a free market is self-regulating or self-correcting, despite historical evidence, such as the great depression and the 2008 recession, to the contrary.

I think there are many ways in which the words are used. And especially many ways in which people come to identify with their own conception of what either of the terms mean. The terms could simply be used to divide between those in moral conflict and those in moral agreement with the way things are happening / being done. It probably usually cuts across many subject domains. But trying to determine the similarities and distinctions between the two terms by speaking of groups of people (progressives, conservatives) instead of sets of ideas opens things up to a seriously wide range of complex
cultural and personal factors. I think the distinction between old and new is pretty serious today. Shouldn't be taken lightly. Rambling perhaps. To conclude, I personally try to avoid guiding my perspectives by identification with political labels. Work from the ground up, so to speak, from specific subjects. It requires you impossibly to be aware of very global affinties with concepts like (either) circles or spirals, rest or movement, the individual or the collective, because they prestructure your interpretation.

Your approach is essentially liberal. Conservatives would hate it because of the degree of political and economic manipulation it would require... — praxis

And conservatives' biggest hero, private business, would probably love it because it would treat businesses as equal partners in solving problems, not vilify them and treat them like enemies to be regulated and taxed.

Apparently, conservatives believe that a free market is self-regulating or self-correcting, despite historical evidence, such as the great depression and the 2008 recession, to the contrary. — praxis

I would be looking for ways to cut costs, cut waste, cut spending, reduce debt, etc., so I doubt that any conservative would play the "unregulated free market" card against me.

But what conservatives would probably not like is that instead of saying that government is the problem and encouraging people to be selfish individuals I would be trying to get government, businesses and households to work together for results that benefit everybody.

And conservatives' biggest hero, private business, would probably love it because it would treat businesses as equal partners in solving problems, not vilify them and treat them like enemies to be regulated and taxed. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Of course there's no such thing as a truly free-market, but conservatives generally want an absolute minimum of governmental intervention in business. I can only imagine the thought of being "equal parters" would be rather unappealing.

I would be looking for ways to cut costs, cut waste, cut spending, reduce debt, etc., so I doubt that any conservative would play the "unregulated free market" card against me. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Some specific items in your proposed approach:

"When trying to attract business to the area, look for employers who have liberal hiring practices and consider the complete package, not just the degree listed (or not listed) on a resume."
Businesses are usually attracted with tax breaks and other incentives, or a well funded public sector, which is all costly.

"As for the real polluters--industry--craft economic development policy that seeks to attract businesses that minimize emissions."
By economic development policy do you mean regulations?

I don't know what my approach to leading and governing would make me--a political pragmatist, perhaps. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

On a second look your position seems to be more towards the center than left.

Of course there's no such thing as a truly free-market, but conservatives generally want an absolute minimum of governmental intervention in business. I can only imagine the thought of being "equal parters" would be rather unappealing... — praxis

I wouldn't say, "This administration wants to reduce gang violence in the community. Therefore, business, we are going to tax you more so that we can hire more police officers; we are going to give you incentives​ to hire convicted felons; etc."

That is government intervention.

I would say this: "Business, we need to reduce gang violence in the community. Everybody, including you, will benefit. Can you help?"

That is not government intervention. It is government and business being equal partners, not one controlling the other.

Businesses are usually attracted with tax breaks and other incentives, or a well funded public sector, which is all costly.

By economic development policy do you mean regulations?... — praxis

I am assuming that we would not be beggars. I am assuming we could choose what industries and companies to target.

It wouldn't be regulations. It would be targeting businesses with certain characteristics, such as good work/life balance for families, a minimal ecological footprint, etc.

On a second look your position seems to be more towards the center than left. — praxis

I wouldn't be reducing spending to cut taxes on the wealthy--I am not a supply-sider.

I would be reducing spending to be frugal and try to live within our means.

There are other ways to meet people's needs besides government spending. Recruiting volunteers is an example.

Conservatives want things like reduced spending for ideological reasons. I would want them for practical reasons.

I would say this: "Business, we need to reduce gang violence in the community. Everybody, including you, will benefit. Can you help?"

We pay taxes for this service; It's called the police force. It's anti-business and anti-citizen to expect them to pay anything further. Also, putting more money into education and raising the minimum wage, making jobs more attractive than being in gangs, will help.

There are other ways to meet people's needs besides government spending. Recruiting volunteers is an example.

And since we pay taxes, government spending should be expected. Volunteers cannot do good police work and would be likely to get themselves killed or to kill someone else. Again improving the quality and funding of education, including free college, will be a huge help to lessening gang membership.

all energy — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Vague.

all focus — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Vague.

all capital — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Ah, money and property.

all solidarity — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Vague.

all creativity — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Vague.

all passion — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Vague.

We have crumbling infrastructure to repair — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Which will cost money. From whom?

We have public debt to reduce — WISDOMfromPO-MO

What do we cut from the budget to do this?

We have alarming rates of incarceration to reduce. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Why would this be a bad thing, if criminals are being brought to justice? Are you saying that we're producing too many criminals or that we need to punish them less?

We have non-renewable resources to conserve — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Are not all resources non-renewable? What do you have in mind?

We have inefficient elementary, secondary and higher education systems to reform. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

How are they to be reformed? Throwing money at them?

We have epidemic levels of obesity and opioid dependency to intervene in. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

How are they to be reduced? Throwing money at them?

That makes me a political pragmatist, maybe? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

No, it makes you vague, an increasingly disillusioned progressive, and, for the moment, a purveyor of platitudes as a way to deal with that disillusionment.

And right now nobody seems to be more intolerant than people who identify as "progressive". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

You are correct here.

We have inefficient elementary, secondary and higher education systems to reform.

It's funny how people think you can't improve a military without throwing immense amounts of money at it, but they think you can improve an education system without using taxpayers money, as if you could do it with just good will.

Getting talented people to teach and/or administrate in public schools costs money. If you pay poor, you get poor. The same goes with facilities, computers, books and other programs helping students and our society as a result.

And tax money going to public education is much better spent than on bombs, missiles and drones.

Then you face the empirical problem of how the ever increasing billions spent on education hasn't translated into students being better educated.

Then you face the empirical problem of how the ever increasing billions spent on education hasn't translated into students being better educated. — Thorongil

No, you face the empirical problem of how the--"ever increasing" is a nebulous phrase--billions spent on education has translated into some success, but clearly hasn't been enough, so they need to spend more.