The Wall Street Journal - 03.09.2019

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. Tuesday, September 3, 2019 |A

‘T

ell the truth about

China!” has become a

rallying cry for pro-

testers in Hong Kong.

It is exactly what

demonstrators in Beijing’s Tianan-

men Square were saying 30 years

ago, before many of today’s protest-

ers were born. The truth is that for

all China’s economic advances, it re-

mains a brutal, dehumanizing tyr-

anny in which the ruling Communist

Party would rather destroy people

than give them a genuine say in

their government.

I was in Beijing in 1989. I wit-

nessed the Tiananmen uprising and

during the long night of June 3-

saw soldiers of the People’s Libera-

tion Army open fire on their coun-

trymen. By dawn, Tiananmen Square

had been cleared of the protesters

who had occupied it for weeks.

Tanks had supplanted their Goddess

of Democracy statue.

I also spent weeks in Hong Kong

this summer reporting on its pro-

tests, and I found the parallels chill-

ing. Yes, Hong Kong is a different

place in a different time under dif-

ferent circumstances. But in vital re-

spects it is the same showdown.

China’s dictatorship is once again

losing control of a major city to

people whose rallying cry is free-

dom. Rather than give in to their le-

gitimate demands, the Communist

Party is readying its guns.

Whatever comes next, the mil-

lions of protesters in Hong Kong

have been doing the world a heroic

service. Like their predecessors at

Tiananmen, they are exposing on a

world stage the brutality of the Bei-

jing regime. From the only place un-

der China’s flag where there is any

chance to speak out, they are shout-

ing the truth, day and night, in the

streets and from the windows—

while they still can.

During more than 13 straight

weeks of protest, Hong Kong’s peo-

ple have demanded the rights and

Socialism Is for the Incurious

I

was struck by a news report

this summer about Sen. Bernie

Sanders of Vermont. It has long

been known that he and his wife

chose to spend their honeymoon in

the Soviet Union. But it was news

that he never availed himself of the

opportunity to visit Alexander Sol-

zhenitsyn when the great writer and

moral witness was living as a refu-

gee in Cavendish, Vt., between 1976

and his death in 2008.

Some comments about that story

attribute Mr. Sanders’s negligence to

ideology, as if he, being a fan of the

Soviet Union, made a silent protest by

ignoring the famous anti-Soviet fig-

ure in his midst. But I think the

deeper reason for his neglect was a

quality of the socialist or communist

or revolutionary sensibility that is too

little remarked. I mean its ingrained,

indeed its programmatic, lack of curi-

osity about other people.

The philosopher Sir Roger Scruton,

in a thoughtful anatomy of the French

Revolution, is one of the few people

to underscore this feature of the to-

talitarian habit of mind. “This ab-

sence of curiosity,” Mr. Scruton notes,

“is a permanent characteristic of the

revolutionary consciousness.”

An important reason for this lack

of curiosity is the prominent role

that abstractions play in the mental

and moral metabolism of the totali-

tarian sensibility. This feature was

articulated with some poignancy by

Rousseau, who, at the end of his life,

sadly observed: “I think I know man,

but as for men, I know them not.”

Thus it should come as no surprise

that Rousseau, in an influential pre-

lude to totalitarian dramas to come,

insisted that true liberty consisted in

sacrificing all merely individual wills

to the imperatives of a “general will,”

whose dictates are as peremptory as

they were abstract. As he put it in

“The Social Contract,” anyone who

would undertake the creation of a

people must feel himself capable of

“changing human nature.”

In this view, human reality is

drained of dignity and becomes ma-

terial to be shaped and formed ac-

cording to the schemes of utopian

power. Hence the terrifying logic of

Stalin’s observation that a single

death is a tragedy, but a million

deaths is a statistic. Revolutionaries

do not trade in individuals, only

masses.

I was struck by the story of Mr.

Sanders’s curiosity deficit because it

seems to be such a widespread liabil-

ity of our political class. Absorbed by

their ideological battles, the political

actors of the establishment—and we

include here the army of consultants,

lobbyists, staffers, and pundits as

well as elected officials—seem to

have constructed an all but impene-

trable carapace that protects them

from the unwanted intrusion of em-

pirical reality. Their lives are given

up entirely to politics.

They thereby neglect the nonpolit-

ical, or prepolitical, reality that is the

end for which politics labors, or

should labor. The cruel and suffocat-

ing intrusiveness of those dystopian

“experiments against reality” are not

so seamlessly or so thoroughly im-

plemented in American society as

they have been elsewhere. But any-

one who looks around at the vast,

unaccountable, self-engorging bu-

reaucracy of the so-called adminis-

trative state, anyone who watches

the ignorant and vituperative grand-

standing of so many of our elected

officials, cannot help but mark the

parallels with the remorseless incuri-

osity that stood behind the totalitar-

ian juggernaut as it systematically

discounted truth for the sake of the

accumulation of power.

Mr. Kimball is editor and publisher

of the New Criterion, from whose

September issue this is adapted.

By Roger Kimball

Human reality is drained

of dignity and reduced

to raw material for the

schemes of utopian power.

OPINION

Can a State

Rewrite a

Movie Script?

By Jeremy Tedesco

Hong Kong and the Truth About China

freedoms—including free elec-

tions—that China, in a treaty with

Britain, guaranteed to Hong Kong

for 50 years after the 1997 hand-

over. At a press conference last

week held by Hong Kong’s Civil Hu-

man Rights Front, which has orga-

nized some of the biggest peaceful

protests, spokeswoman Bonnie Le-

ung observed that if the authori-

ties would simply keep those

promises, “the whole movement

will end immediately.”

Instead, President Xi Jinping and

his puppet, Hong Kong Chief Execu-

tive Carrie Lam, have defaulted to

threats, propaganda and force. Ms.

Lam’s administration has deployed

riot police, tear gas, rubber bullets

and water cannons. Officers have

made more than 1,000 arrests. China

has been pressuring Hong Kong

companies, including Cathay Pacific

Airways, to fire employees who join

the protests. Chanting “Stand with

Hong Kong! Fight for freedom!” the

protesters have refused to back

down. Some told me they are ready

to die for their cause. Many of their

predecessors did in Tiananmen.

Hong Kong police have begun fir-

ing warning shots with live ammuni-

tion. This weekend, police were

caught on video beating unarmed ci-

vilians bloody on the subway. China

has been conspicuously drilling

troops of its People’s Armed Police

across the border, and last week it

sent fresh army troops to its garri-

son in Hong Kong, labeling this a

routine rotation to ensure “prosper-

ity and stability.”

China itself is the only threat to

Hong Kong’s prosperity and stabil-

ity. These protests began with a bill

that would have allowed extradition

to the mainland. Hong Kongers saw

that such a law would expose them

to a Chinese Communist Party that

uses law as an instrument of dicta-

torship, not justice. In June, to op-

pose the bill, they held the biggest

protests Hong Kong had ever seen;

first one million strong, then two

million.

Ms. Lam suspended the bill but

has refused public demands to with-

draw it outright. Without free elec-

tions, Hong Kong’s people have no

institutional recourse. In 2014 China

imposed a rigged system in which

Beijing, not Hong Kong, effectively

“elects” Hong Kong’s chief executive,

who works with a similarly rigged

pro-Beijing majority in the Legisla-

tive Council. Hong Kongers have no

way to rid themselves of Ms. Lam,

and no way to oppose her—or her

bosses in Beijing—except by speak-

ing up and taking to the streets.

The repeated showdowns, which

China could easily have avoided,

have turned a thriving hub of world

commerce into a protest zone. Busi-

ness is stricken. Peaceful protesters

in huge numbers march week after

week through heat and rain. Violent

protesters attack the sites and sym-

bols of authority.

The authorities surround their of-

fices with huge, water-filled plastic

bulwarks. From these fortresses

they ratchet up the fear and coer-

cion. In Beijing that’s considered pa-

triotic. Under Mr. Xi, Chinese com-

munism is completing its evolution

into a more economically efficient

totalitarian system of techno-sur-

veillance, brainwashing and the en-

gineering of human behavior via a

digital system of “social credit,”

backed up by security squads, guns

and detention camps. For Mr. Xi,

who two years ago had himself in-

stalled as president for life, that

constitutes “modernization.”

With great courage and at inten-

sifying risk, Hong Kong’s people

have brought to the fore a lesson for

anyone dealing with China. For this

regime, which aspires to world dom-

inance, what matters most isn’t eco-

nomic development or international

treaties, never mind freedom or de-

mocracy. As in Tiananmen, the

prime imperative is absolute power,

whatever it takes.

Ms. Rosett is a foreign-policy fel-

low with the Independent Women’s

Forum.

By Claudia Rosett

RING YU/HK01 VIA AP

I was there this summer

and in Beijing in 1989. The

nature of the Communist

regime hasn’t changed.

Police pepper-spray Hong Kong subway passengers Saturday.

PUBLISHED SINCE 1889 BY DOW JONES & COMPANY

Rupert Murdoch

Executive Chairman, News Corp

Matt Murray

Editor in Chief

Robert Thomson

Chief Executive Officer, News Corp

William Lewis

Chief Executive Officer and Publisher

EDITORIAL AND CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS:
1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N.Y., 10036
Telephone 1-800-DOWJONES

DOW JONES MANAGEMENT:

Ramin Beheshti,Chief Technology Officer;

Natalie Cerny,Chief Communications Officer;

Kamilah Mitchell-Thomas,Chief People Officer;

Edward Roussel,Chief Innovation Officer;

Christina Van Tassell,Chief Financial Officer

OPERATING EXECUTIVES:

Kenneth Breen,Commercial;

Jason P. Conti,General Counsel;

Tracy Corrigan,Chief Strategy Officer;

Frank Filippo,Print Products & Services;

Kristin Heitmann,Chief Commercial Officer;

Nancy McNeill,Corporate Sales;

Thomas San Filippo,Customer Service;

Josh Stinchcomb,Advertising Sales;

Suzi Watford,Chief Marketing Officer;

Jonathan Wright,International

Barron’s Group:Almar Latour,Publisher

Professional Information Business:

Christopher Lloyd,Head;

Ingrid Verschuren,Deputy Head

Neal Lipschutz Karen Miller Pensiero
Deputy Editor in Chief Managing Editor
Jason Anders,Chief News Editor;
Thorold Barker,Europe;Elena Cherney,Coverage
Planning;Andrew Dowell,Asia;Alex Martin,Print
& Writing;Michael W. Miller,Features & Weekend;
Emma Moody,Standards;Shazna Nessa,Visuals;
Matthew Rose,Enterprise;Michael Siconolfi,
Investigations;Louise Story,Strategy and Interim
Product & Technology;Nikki Waller,Live
Journalism;Stephen Wisnefski,Professional News

Gerard Baker,Editor at Large

Paul A. Gigot,Editor of the Editorial Page;
Daniel Henninger,Deputy Editor, Editorial Page

WALL STREET JOURNAL MANAGEMENT:
Joseph B. Vincent,Operations;
Larry L. Hoffman,Production

Education Reform Will Weather the Left’s Assault

S

upport for ambitious school re-

form was broad and bipartisan

for more than two decades.

Higher standards, more testing,

stricter teacher accountability, char-

ter-school expansion and other

forms of school choice were sup-

ported not only by conservatives like

Jeb Bush, John Boehner and John

Walton, but also liberals like Bill

Clinton, Barack Obama and Bill

Gates.

Then very suddenly the left—in-

cluding Democratic presidential can-

didates and big-city mayors—closed

ranks against alternatives to conven-

tional public schooling. We are now

in the midst of a counterrevolution

against school reform:

• Two decades of explosive na-
  tional growth in charter schools—
  from zero to more than 7,000—
  coasted to a near-halt last year.


• In New York, Boston, Los Ange-
  les and other cities where alterna-
  tive schools have chalked up remark-
  able results, politicians are suddenly
  turning down applications for new
  charter academies, and blocking
  schools from procuring buildings.


• Pennsylvania, one of the top
  states offering needy children schol-
  arships usable in private and reli-
  gious schools, passed a bill in June
  to expand its popular and oversub-
  scribed program, only to have the
  governor veto it under pressure
  from teachers unions.


• Houston’s Board of Education, a
  pioneer of school reform, announced
  in May that it will no longer allow
  Teach For America volunteers to
  serve in the district.


• The aggressive teacher strikes
  that swept the country, from West
  Virginia to Colorado and Washing-
  ton, over the past two years have
  ratcheted up pressure to rescind
  school reforms.


• This summer a California panel
  appointed by the governor in re-
  sponse to strikes proposed many

new strictures on educational choice,

including giving local school-district

officials the ability to veto charters.

• Crucial reform concepts are in-
  creasingly watered down: the teeth
  taken out of teacher assessments,
  state tests of student learning loos-
  ened to avoid embarrassing laggard
  schools, zero-tolerance policies for
  classroom violence abandoned for
  fear of disproportionate impact on
  minorities, emphasis on hard STEM
  subjects blurred into “STEAM”—
  lumping art in with science, technol-
  ogy, engineering and math.
  “School reformers are getting
  punched in the face,” education ex-
  pert Chris Stewart said at a Philan-
  thropy Roundtable conference in
  April. “You poked the system in the
  eye many times, and now it’s fight-
  ing back with all of its resources, all
  of its bargaining units, all of its foot
  soldiers, its journalists, contracts,
  professors. They are coming for you
  now. You are in combat with a $
  billion organization with many en-
  trenched interests.”
  Nonetheless, there are reasons for
  education reformers to keep hope.
  For one thing, they have built a par-
  allel infrastructure outside the old
  education establishment for teacher
  training, curriculum development,
  building acquisition, classroom man-
  agement, etc. These institutions are
  durable enough to survive the cur-

rent hostility, and they’re producing

clear positive results.

Soon nearly a quarter of all new

teachers will come from alternative

certification programs. Comprehen-

sive assessments like those by Stan-

ford’s Center for Research on Educa-

tion Outcomes find that a typical

charter school gets better student

results. Catholic schools teach strong

character and boast high rates of

school completion. Thirty-one states

now offer parents funds they can use

to educate their children at private

or religious schools.

Another reason for reformers to

retain hope is the emergence within

their ranks of inventive and fearless

leaders, many of them backed by

equally inventive and fearless chari-

table donors. Eva Moskowitz steers

45 Success Academy charter schools

in the poorest neighborhoods of New

York. Astonishingly, Success is now

the top-scoring school network in its

state—outperforming even high-in-

come suburban districts.

A film coming this fall will draw

attention to the work of another her-

oine of education reform. Virginia

Walden Ford organized low-income

parents in Washington to demand

school-choice scholarships, which

were created in 2003. Her program

has since been used as an escape

hatch by 11,000 needy children, and

has inspired similar programs

around the country.

Ms. Ford’s tale will be brought to

life in “Miss Virginia,” a movie set

for release in October. Its moving

depiction of the real-life stakes of

education reform could spur fresh

thinking about schools in the same

way as previous films like “The Lot-

tery,” “Waiting for ‘Superman,’ ”

“Lean on Me” and “Stand and

Deliver.”

These are undeniably tough days

for education reform. But the cur-

rent backlash is all about power pol-

itics, rather than powerless children.

That can’t last, and the momentum

will reverse eventually, because par-

ents and capable leaders are still

crying out for something better than

the status quo.

Mr. Zinsmeister is editor in chief

of Philanthropy magazine, from

whose fall issue this is excerpted. He

advised Sen. Daniel Patrick Moyni-

han and President George W. Bush

on domestic policy.

By Karl Zinsmeister

Democrats are stifling

school choice, but the

movement has clear results

and durable institutions.

Y

ou’ve heard about state offi-
cials who try to compel florists
or bakers to violate their reli-
gious beliefs and participate in same-
sex weddings. In Minnesota the state
claims the authority to do the same
tofilmmakers.Last month the Eighth
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rightly
rejected this view.
Carl and Angel Larsen are profes-
sional storytellers. Clients hire their
firm, Telescope Media Group, to pro-
duce short documentaries. The client
typically has only a basic idea of the
story, so the Larsens have editorial
latitude. Their consciences as Chris-
tians require that every story honor
God, and many clients are religious
groups. One project was a documen-
tary for Radical, a Christian ministry,
about the spiritual and physical
needs of people in the Himalayas.

They decided to get into the wed-
ding business so they could use their
talents to promote their beliefs about
marriage. Couples would hire them to
produce videos celebrating their nup-
tials. Like everything else they do,
they’d only accept projects that align
with their convictions. But as they
planned to expand their business,
they learned that Minnesota officials
took the position, as a state website
declares, that “the law does not ex-
empt individuals, businesses, non-
profits, or the secular business activi-
ties of religious entities from non-
discrimination laws based on
religious beliefs regarding same-sex
marriage.” They sued in 2016, and the
state affirmed repeatedly in litigation
that they’d face punishment if they
declined to create marriage films that
violated their beliefs.
Minnesota antidiscrimination law
provides for criminal penalties, in-
cluding up to 90 days in jail. The
state argued that Telescope was a
public accommodation performing a
“commercial activity,” and that the
state’s regulatory power included the
authority to overrule the Larsens’ ed-
itorial decisions.
In rejecting the argument, the cir-
cuit judges noted that the First
Amendment protects not only Chris-
tians but all of us. By Minnesota’s
logic, nothing would stop the state
from compelling an atheist musician-
for-hire to play an evangelical church
service, a Muslim tattoo artist to in-
scribe “my religion is the only true
religion” on a Christian’s skin, or a
Democratic speechwriter to work for
a Republican politician.
The Supreme Court has often af-
firmed the “cardinal constitutional
command” that government cannot
force “free and independent individu-
als to endorse ideas they find objec-
tionable.” This line of cases runs from
West Virginia v. Barnette (1943),
holding that Jehovah’s Witness stu-
dents couldn’t be forced to salute the
flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance, to
the 2018 casesNifla v. Becerraand
Janus v. Afscme,which involved pro-
life pregnancy centers and public em-
ployees, respectively.
Also in 2018 the court decided
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado
Civil Rights Commissionin favor of
Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker who
conscientiously objects to same-sex
marriage. The justices didn’t reach
Mr. Phillips’s free-speech claim, hold-
ing instead that the process was un-
fair because officials were openly
hostile to his religious beliefs. Even-
tually a case likeTelescope Media
Groupwill give the justices a chance
to resolve the free-speech question
they left open and protect the rights
of all creative professionals.

Mr. Tedesco is a vice president of
Alliance Defending Freedom. He rep-
resented Telescope Media Group be-
fore the Eighth Circuit.

Minnesota tried to compel

Christian filmmakers to

celebrate gay marriage.