"In Greece, schoolmaster Plato maintained that cities will never have rest until schoolmasters become kings. All through the ages schoolmasters seem to have had the delusion that they could order society as readily as they could a classroom. But it is probably the twentieth century that will be seen in retrospect as the golden age of the schoolmaster."
--Eric Hoffer, "August 16, 1958," Working and Thinking on the Waterfront, 1969

What a great quote.

Since the early republic schools were seen as institutions to prepare young people for citizenship in a republic. This used to mean individual responsibility, respect for the rule of law, and other values compatible with and essential to liberty.

When the Progressives successfully transformed education, they discarded, along with these ideals, the idea that man is inherently corrupt. They traded that idea for the notion that man is inherently good and it's only Big Bad Society that makes him bad. Therefore it's only since the Progressives took over that schools came to be viewed as vehicles of the all-wise and all-knowing State in its noble endeavor to create a Utopia, where "equality" is enforced, competition is outlawed, and we all collaborate as a community of diverse learners and sing Kumbaya.

The school used to be a mechanism for perpetuating American culture; it is now an instrument for undoing it. The school has replaced the family, an offshoot of the reality that the state has become the nanny.

What a silly quote. The term 'schoolmaster' is poorly chosen (apparently, by someone who should know better) because it obscures the difference between sophists and philosophers. Plato, of course, would deny that the 'schoolmasters' of the 20th century (not to mention, most of the 'schoolmasters' "all through the ages") were philosophers.

After saying that philosopher kings is the solution to the human problem, Socrates in the Republic denies that he himself is a philosopher, so the obvious question is whether anyone exists who could be the "philosopher king" that Socrates so praises in speech. It is not hard to think that the answer is "no." One thing Plato is right about in all this, of course, is the tendency of intellectuals to think that is people like them were in charge, there would be an end to human problems.

One of the most misused lines in the history of history.

I'd chalk that line up to the famous irony of Socrates. It's noteworthy that Plato tried to philosophically educate the ruler of Syracuse to bring about the philosopher's rule. The basic point is this: wise rulers ought to rule, and wisdom is the product of a truely philosophical education. Whether or not 'intellectuals' have misapproriated this Platonic principle is beside the point. Or rather, it is the point given Hoffer's uncareful use of 'schoolmaster.'

Does it matter that Plato distinguished between sophists and philosphers, when we fail to?

It matters if the author mentions Plato.

Sorry, my last comment was a bit dismissive. Here's why it matters. If we fail to make the distinction that Plato's Socrates makes, then we are likely to see, e.g., both Aquinas and Marx as 'intellectuals.' Seeing them as the same, our rejection of Marx is also a rejection of Aquinas. That is, through a flase association, our rejection of some theorists becomes a rejection of theory as such. This is a mistake, and it is encouraged by statement's like Hoffer's

The quote is correct. Not because there is no difference between Sophists and Philosophers. Ralph was correct about that. But because no man, no matter how wise, is wise enough to rule.

Should the ignorant rule, then? Or perhaps no one should rule. Complete anarchy. Sounds like a wonderful place to live.

You know that I am a market anarchist, so yes, I believe the best society would be a stateless society.