The scandal in our public education is most obvious in the schools of the “inner city,” but also bedevils most of the rest of the schools of comparatively affluent America. Why and how? Through the injurious effects of “niceness” and “educational egalitarianism.” Not only is no child to be left behind, he or she is to be given no honest evaluation of performance, attainment and progress. Instead, all are “rewarded” promiscuously for whatever the teacher can find to praise, be it some “alternative”intelligence, “empathic relatedness,” or just being there. By no means must the child ever be allowed to recognize that he or she has performed poorly on any  task or has not given enough effort or attention.

Thus, according to our guests, Herbert Walberg and Joseph Bast, have the teacher’s colleges and the two major teachers unions kept this country – which spends more on education than any other – at the mere middle of the educational attainment distribution, exceeded by virtually all western European nations plus, of course, China and Japan.

The answer is not to give up the uses of reward in education but to connect it to actual merit, to eschew false flattery for simple realism and honest evaluation. Strengthening the curriculum and raising standards would  also be –to say the least–helpful. All of this is well argued and elaborated in a new book by Walberg and Bast and in this episode.

That title is prompted by a great quotation that I only recently encountered: “Liberalism is the politics of kindness.” The source is Garrison Keiller, the sage of Lake Woebegone, and I found it in William Voegeli’s new book, “The Pity Party” by which he means  to convey his summary judgement of the Democrats.

His argument, most colorfully and baldly stated in the book, is that  the modern Democrats have been running a sort of extended con-game in which both their rhetoric and some of their vaunted legislation promise to relieve the disappointment, deprivation, suffering and humiliation of the “disadvantaged.” But, as he argues, in reality, things often get worse for those who supposedly benefit. Still, the counter-argument runs that conservatives don’t care about the burdens placed on working-class people – that being the operative meaning of “middle class” these days – or on minorities and the truly indigent. Conservatives, whether of the established party, Tea Party or Libertarian party, are seen as rather cold-hearted, lacking in empathy and blindly loyal to the near-religion of the free market.

This is one side of the politics  of mutual defamation. Voegeli has done half of the job and done it very well. Here he is in a conversation in which the proprietor required himself to take the role of the defender of the works and ways of liberalism.

Does Voegeli, a senior editor at the Claremont Review of Books, in fact hit the mark?

Here’s Bernard Goldberg, formerly of CBS television, and the author of various indignant (but funny) book-length screeds  We talked in 2009 at which time he had “nothing against Barack Obama,” but much against the press’s love affair with him. Apart from Goldberg’s contempt for his former colleagues, he conveys strong admiration (verging on secular apotheosis) for Obama at the very beginning of his presidency.

Between his fascination with Obama and his contempt for his erstwhile colleagues in the press (particularly “electronic”). But that was in 2008. From his grudging admiration for Obama shortly after the election and his continuing contempt for much of the print and electronic press,  he went on from this broadcast occasion, to became one of the most critical of the Fox News commentators.

Anyone who teaches in an American college or university and is over 50 knows – but may not admit or confess – that the average freshman is below, often far below, what was average even as recently as 20 years ago. The deficiencies are in math skills, history, knowledge of science and, of course, in the ability to write or comprehend real English. Nor are theses deficiencies necessarily corrected by the time the freshman has become a senior.

The “Common Core” movement is the latest panacea and is financially backed by the federal government. It is in operation in some states and debated with increasing anger in all of them.  Here, drawing from the recent book in which they debated whether the common core should be implemented or discarded, are two leading conservative observers of the educational scene. On the “pro” side is Sol Stern of the Manhattan Institute. On the “con” side is Peter Wood, President of the National Scholars Association. The disagreement is intense and the stakes are very high for a country that spends more than any other on education and yet is exceeded in educational attainment – and, perhaps even in the essential skills of literacy – by half of the rest of the world.

The question is very often asked and, of course, there is no answer. But a list of the top ten would have to include Peggy Noonan. Here she is in high form, articulate, candid and rich with political aversions and enthusiasms. The basis for this conversation in 2001 was her then new book, “When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan.”