Two contrasting stories on Michelle Obama’s school lunch fiasco show the real result of progressive ideology.
On the one hand, the USDA reports show fewer students buying school lunch | News From Cox Washington Bureau (www.wsbtv.com). This is the kind of lunch the Obama’s want to force on to the general school public.
Yet, this is what they see as appropriate for their own children: Chicken Wings and Chips for Lunch at Sidwell Friends (PJ Media).
So the question is who does this insanity actually hurt? Well, the wealthy can, of course, afford these elite private schools. So no harm there.
What about the middle class? Not much harm there, either. At least not in the long run. More and more homeschoolers mean that many are not impacted at all. Parochial and Protestant church schools insulate another large population. For the kids in public schools there is a very practical solution; bring your lunch. Most of the middle class can certainly afford that. The school lunch is more of a convenience than anything. Apparently, that is what is happening as the schools are losing millions due to lack of sales. True, there have been a couple cases where a school has tried to intervene and take away a child’s homemade lunch, but the backlash has been severe and those schools have quickly revised their policies.
That leaves the poor. They may well not be able to afford to send the kids with their own lunch. In these cases there is a choice between the child being hungry or being hungrier. A hungry child is almost by definition a poor student, so they aren’t going to do as well in their education, limiting their ability to improve their lives. What Michelle Obama has done is to perpetuate poverty. She has helped to institutionalize an indentured class.
This is the inevitable result of Progressivism and Socialism. By providing barely enough for subsistence, they create a self-perpetuating slave class. With no way out, the poor often feel they have no choice but to vote for the very people that enslave them. They are voting with their bellies, not their brains. Their perception of need is reinforced by being fed stories of conservatives holding them back. Yet the very images of the “Have’s” class they are shown are most often the very Progressives that keep them in servitude.
There is a positive out of this. This is a rare case where the Progressive, “Do it for the children,” message is for once not connected with spending more money. You
can must look at the philosophy of the policy on its own without there being the excuse of just needing more money. Seeing the stories like this coming out more and more frequently, Conservatives do not even have to work hard to get the message out. It is becoming self evident to the poor. Their so-called “caretakers” are actually their mortal enemies.