Ara Rubyan, in response to my Still More Good News comments, has raised some questions that the recent victories for school choice have brought to his mind. He specifically quotes Jonathan Rauch at length about how "liberals" should be pro-voucher and conservatives should be against them. He also proposes that the Democrats might well be able to remake themselves by embracing this issue, while trying to get to Bush's right on the war. He asks for comments. Here are mine. Fair warning, some of them are pretty "inside baseball" and some are personal.
The very first thing that began my long slide away from the Democratic Party was when I came to the stunned realization that these people were more than skeptical of school choice: they were in frenzied opposition to it. It was the first in a string of realizations that eventually led me to leave in disgust. For a while, I was a registered independent, and then for a while I was a registered Libertarian.
Eventually I did register as a Republican, in part because of my support for major portions of Gingrich's Contract With America and in part because I came to believe that, in a two-party system, you should register as one or the other. Besides, I'd lost my silly youthful fear and loathing of Republicans; there's very little wrong with the GOP that you can't say about the Democrats. And there's much in the GOP to admire.
One of the people who made be begin to respect Democrats again was...
...Joe Lieberman. Once, he was a maverick who bucked the party establishment, speaking on behalf of school choice and against the race discrimination, sex discrimination, and anti-religious bigotry now embraced by so many in his party. It was horrifying to watch him sell so much of that out in order to be a loyal member of the 2000 Gore campaign. (I don't know what was more vomit-inducing; watching Joe Lieberman sing "Happy Birthday" to the hate-merchant Maxine Waters, or watching Al Gore claim that his segregationist father lost his Senate seat because of his "progressive" views on race.)
Jonathan Rauch's comments (as quoted by Ara) seemed a little odd. Rauch is an intelligent and knowledgeable writer, and probably second only to Andrew Sullivan for his ability to advocate gay-rights issues in a way that draws respect from all over the political spectrum. I'm just not sure who his intended audience was here, because he seems either unaware of history, or intentionally not mentioning it. Knowing how smart Rauch is, I imagine it's the latter.
If you know anything about the school choice movement, you know it started as a purely non-partisan idea. You also know that it was people on the political Left, mostly '60s hippie types, who first made it a political movement. It was a natural for them--power to the people all the way!
But the '60s radicals who first embraced it wound up choking in the dust when the Democratic Party co-opted/was co-opted by most of the radicals. Because the Democrats are slavishly funded by and devoted to the teacher's unions, the radicals who championed school choice wound up abandoned. Those who still believed wound up disillusioned and bitter. (That happens to people on the Left a lot, by the way. It's why so many of us turn turn to the conservative movement, which, surprisingly, turns out to be a classical liberal movement anyway.)
Rauch should also know that school choice has long had conservative skeptics. They do, indeed, fear that free choice will pollute the private schools. They worry that private schools will be crippled by the kind of choking bureaucracy that has done so much damage to public education. They tend to be of the "give up, put your kids in private schools or just home school them" mentality.
Rauch's comments about competition, however, are just plain bizarre. I almost felt like I was tripping on acid again when he said, "In almost every sphere of life, liberals have championed the notion that competition is good for consumers."
Aheh. Heh. Heheheh. No. Let's remember things how they really were:
The promotion of free market competition has been a Republican mainstay for most of the last century. It has been most especially been a Republican issue since the Goldwater revolt of 1964, and was, along with the fight against Communism, a central theme to the Reagan revolution. It is the defining trait of today's conservative movement, the main thing that binds the members of the conservative coalition together.
Until the 1990s, the people we today call "liberals" were mostly opposed to competition. They were in a tizzy for years over the breakup of the phone companies. They excoriated Reagan for bringing deregulation and free competition into the airline, oil, and other industries. Hell, it wasn't that long ago that the most hard-core "liberals" were arguing that we should nationalize things like the phone companies, oil companies, and airlines. Most of them still instinctively blanch if you propose truly privatizing the postal service (it's only half-private now) or allowing free choice in K-12 education. Their standard argument for generations was that free market competition would result in higher prices and worse service and a terrible economy.
Yes, the "New Democrats" tried to reform all that after a string of losses in the 1980s. The result was Clinton, who arguably did a good job reforming his party. But then Gore abandoned almost all of that New Democrat rhetoric in 2000, running on emotion and a crop of stale ideas that were mostly about letting government make choices for people. It was Bush who was all about ideas to bring more free-market competition to the system: to the schools, to Social Security, to Medicare, and even to the Welfare system.
Meanwhile, the even more strident parts of the Left voted for Nader. Nader being, of course, both a "liberal" hero and an old-line lefty, demonizing business and arguing that government should control almost everything that doesn't involve the pelvis (and that it should pay for it all one way or the other).
If Rauch thinks of the "liberals" as the people who have "always" fought for competition, what he's really saying is one of two things:
1) The true liberals are the people we now call conservatives, or,
2) More and more "liberals" are joining the conservative movement.
Either of which is fine by me. But then, as I've said many times, I don't really care which party is in power, I only care that the issues I believe in move forward. And today's conservative movement is really a classical liberal movement anyway.
So yeah, I suppose the Democrats could try once again to re-embrace free market competition. They could also give more than lip service to the values they so cynically espouse, stop pandering to the teacher unions' paranoia, and get behind School Choice. It would be nice to see. If they got on board the Social Security Choice bandwagon, so much the better.
They could also try to become the war party to try to trump the Republicans, as Ara proposes.
But to do all that, not only will they have to abandon that segment of the left that hates the free market, they'll also have to abandon the McKinney/Hillary conspiracy axis, the Berkeley-style uber-doves, and the anti-corporate, anti-globalization youth movement that they've been trying to woo.
They'll also have to contend with their growing anti-semite problem.
If a New New Democrat can do all that for his party, it would be a magnificent achievement. It does leave one wondering, however, what exactly would happen to the two-party system as a result. How would Republicans differentiate themselves? Would Democrats be able to compensate for the almost-certain revolt from their left flank, and avoid a greater surge toward the Greens? Would Republicans try to embrace some of the people the Dems abandoned in their quest to recapture the center? What would that look like? It's all possible; that's how political history is made. But make no mistake: any New Democrat who tries what Ara proposes faces risks as big as the rewards he hopes for.
By the way, here's an alternate scenario: Republican gubernatorial and Senate candidates start campaigning hard in black communities, pushing issues like school choice, a renewed respect for the role of religion in democratic politics, and more business-friendly policies for high-poverty areas, all of which would play well in the black community. Republicans might even be able to re-establish at least a small base in that community which, until the 1960s, was a key constituency for them anyway (and which is increasingly conservative, affluent and suburb-bound).
Meanwhile, Jews, that small but influental part of the Democratic coalition, begin noticing in greater and greater numbers that the Bush administration is the most pro-Israel and anti-Arafat in history. They also start to notice that all of the out-of-the-closet anti-Semites in politics today are in the Democratic coalition. They also start to notice that Fundamentalist Christians don't hate them, but respect them very deeply.
Gay people continue to become more and more mainstream, and start to wonder why anyone thinks that being gay means you have to support high taxes and bad schools. Some of them come to the realization that being gay doesn't mean should mean you oppose missile defense and Social Security Choice. They also start to realize that George W. won't be throwing gays into concentration camps after all.
As a result, Democrats begin to see some of their most valuable shock troops losing steam or even trickling away, and they begin to start losing momentum on the ground.
Meanwhile, Cheney decides due to health issues that he wants to bow out in 2004, and Bush makes either Colin Powell or, better yet, Condoleeza Rice his running-mate. He increases Republican advertising and outreach to the black and latino communities, pushing not just issues like school choice but also missile defense, lower taxes, Social Security Choice, and bringing free-market improvements to Medicare, all of which should play well in those communities.
While all this is going on, Democrats continue to flail about, smugly convinced of their own moral superiority and resentful that no one else can see it. They continue to demagogue against School Choice, missile defense, tough security measures, and Social Security Choice, while continuing to pander to the education establishment, the McKinney/Hillary axis, and the anti-war, anti-Israel, anti-business crowd. Ossified in their own self-righteousness, they are unable to see that they're on the wrong side of history on most of the major issues of the day. Instead, they wind up trying to make up for their losses with even more race-baiting (if such a thing were possible) and eco-hysteria.
Under that scenario, I think they'd better be praying to God that a severe double-dip recession hits and unemployment goes through the roof. If that doesn't happen, they may well wind up marginalized for the rest of the decade, much like the Republicans were from 1960 to 1968 and from 1973 to 1980.
Well, it's at least another scenario to consider. There are others, of course.
Personally, I don't give a damn either way, as long as the policies I believe in move forward. Otherwise, I couldn't care less if the Republican party imploded tomorrow. Out of curiosity, would Ara or those on his side really care if the Democrats imploded? If so, why?
Recently, I wrote at Postmodern Politics about what happens now that the Supreme Court has blown a gigantic hole in the wall of separation between church and state. As bad as that decision was, it's over.
But I contend that the law of unintended consequences may yet influence the eventual outcome. For example, I think the decision may cause private schools that accept public money to become more, well, public.
This idea seems to cause anguish and confusion on both the left and the right.
My friends on the left accuse me of capitulating. They insist that we liberals need to keep fighting the original fight until we can bring another case before the Supreme Court and, this time, win. They cite Brown vs. the Board of Education; that ruling struck down the idea of "separate but equal" embodied in an earlier Supreme Court decision (Plessy vs. Ferguson). Problem is, it took over 50 years to reverse the earlier decision. We'd like to think that we could prevail in our lifetimes.
Those on the right question whether liberals can co-opt the school choice movement at all. Here, at Dean's World, Dean believes that the Democrats would have to transform themselves completely:
[T]he Democrats could try once again to re-embrace free market competition. They could also give more than lip service to the values they so cynically espouse, stop pandering to the teacher unions' paranoia, and get behind School Choice. It would be nice to see. If they got on board the Social Security Choice bandwagon, so much the better...
But to do all that, not only will they have to abandon that segment of the left that hates the free market, they'll also have to abandon the McKinney/Hillary conspiracy axis, the Berkeley-style uber-doves, and the anti-corporate, anti-globalization youth movement that they've been trying to woo.Not sure I know of any mainstream Democrats that are wooing the "anti-globalization youth movement." These folks are notorious no-shows on Election Day. Same with the "uber-doves."
The only constituency that the Dems would anger would be the teacher's unions. That would take some guts and leadership. But I believe it could be done.
For example, did you know that private school teachers are often represented by unions? Wouldn't it be logical at some point to promote the further extension of the unions into private schools?
I should point out here that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a lawyer. But I have been known to associate with large numbers of plaintiff's attorneys. I am also a parent and a teacher and a payer of taxes. I can connect the dots; I can do the math.
I think that the next phase in the voucher movement will be to establish the rules and regulations that govern private institutions that receive public monies. If this includes opening up a front wherein teachers unions can battle for position in private schools, so be it.
I also believe that there will be court cases testing the concept of acceptable community standards in private schools. After all, do you want your tax dollars being distributed (even indirectly) to a local madrassas? At worst, this concept is arguable. At best, winnable. You might think this outrageous; but stranger things have happened.
The bottom line is this: when public funds are re-distributed (even indirectly) to private parties, more (not less) strings will be attached.
Blown a hole in the separation of church and state? Or just blown a hole in the rabid religiophobic dogma of the past 50 years?
I note that there's never been a peep from the religiophobes about all those government loans and GI Bill and Pell Grant dollars going to Brigham Young, Southern Methodist, Loyola, or to enter the Jewish Studies department at Cornell.
The courts did exactly the right thing. When it is individuals making a free choice, there is no church/state conflict. In fact, denying them that choice is outright religious discrimination. Which any real liberal should recognize. Isn't that what the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was meant to address?
Without doubt, free choice will mean more opportunities for the teachers' unions, if they are smart. It also means some private schools will wind up changing to conform to state requirements--although most of them have to do that anyway. It also means some private schools will not accept government money because they don't want those regulations.
Freedom of choice, freedom of choice... such a horrible thing, when we grant the lowly peasants Freedom Of Choice!
As for uber-doves and anti-globalists being no-shows on election day--they gave Ralph Nader a few million votes in 2000, and they continue to help swing elections in congressional districts that include places like Berkeley and Ann Arbor. President Clinton and other DNC bigwigs have been giving speeches in to just such groups on college campuses this year.
Hey, I'd rather the Democrats ignore them too, since I think they're dangerous cretins who, if they got what they wished for, would only cause more poverty and suffering in the 3rd world. But I think it would be foolhardly for Democratic activists to dismiss them as irrelevant. If you're going to write them off, you'd better have a plan to pick up a few votes somewhere else.
Ara,
You really know how to strike a nerve in a common sense conservative. You liberals really do have quite a difficult time understanding the difference between government money and personal, private money.
Money the government does not touch can in no way be taxpayer money. The Supreme Court rightly made this distinction. Would you please learn the difference yourself? The justices simply allow individuals to keep the BEFORE TAX money to spend as they see fit on their own kids’ education.
This is entirely right (no pun intended) due to the decreased importance of education to public schools these days. Just read your child’s textbook if you do not believe me. You will probably find it written years below grade level.
This is necessary since the federal department of Let-Me-Tell-You-What-To-Do increasingly dictates the content of local schools. Allowing parents discretion in where to send their kids only allows them some local control of their tax monies lost to increasing unresponsiveness of public schools.
You have noticed one liberal dream in your analysis, though. The feds WILL most certainly use this voucher thingy to dictate the content of the schools using vouchers. This means these private schools will be under the thumb of the Federal Department of Education as they never have been before. Therefore, if you want your private school to be independent the do not accept vouchers! This is a liberal’s dream. You should be happy with this decision, not upset.
What you lose in tax money you more than gain in control. I do not know yet whether this is by design or by accident, I mean de juris.
This conundrum illustrates the need for two badly need reforms. We must abolish the Department of Education. We must abolish the Sixteenth Amendment and with it the Infernal Revenue Code. Keeping the Sixteenth Amendment only gives politicians control over how you must spend you money, a most reprehensible thought. Keeping the Department of Let-Me-Tell-You-What-To-Do only ensures federal control over your local tax dollar, another reprehensible thought.
Respectfully,
Kevin Brehmer
Kevin, you may want to think about switching to decaf! The country isn't going to hell in a handbasket!
Like you, I think the income tax needs to go. I think that is going to happen, but I figure it'll take at least another 20-30 years to make it happen and maybe much longer. School choice has taken decades, and is still in its infancy. The movement to abolish the income tax is only just now finally gathering widespread support. The forces of reaction will prevent anything from happening overnight. It's that pesky divided-government two-party system business again. It makes needed reforms take a long, long time, but it also prevented us from making some of the worst mistakes of the 20th Century!
Similarly, anyone who's studied the issue knows that the Department of Education is a laughable ornament to make politicians feel like they're doing something and to reassure people who think problems get fixed by having government departments and throwing billions of dollars at every problem. Sure, it's a big suckhole that has never, in its entire existance, done anything to substantially improve education. But it doesn't actually harm public schools because it's also toothless: it has very little power to set policy for local schools.
But the government is full of boondoggle programs that exist to burn money and get nothing done. The Department of Education does not harm local schools, becuase it does not regulate them all that much! Any effort to get rid of it just results in frenzied reaction and demagoguery.
But look: it's a given, the beast isn't going away. Write it off as money thrown down a suckhole, just like so much else we send the government. So what? In the broad scheme of things, the burgeoning choice and homeschool and charter school movement is addressing the problem. Why be frustrated and upset just because we can't have everything we want right now?
Vern,
I still drink caffeinated coffee, but only four days per week now. I believe the Department of Education does do harm; and, it does dictate curriculum. I can give you one good example.
Gwinnett County School Board member, Louise Radloff, addressed the Gwinnett GOP on Saturday August 1, 1998 at their Saturday breakfast meeting held then at the Holiday Inn in Suwanee, GA. In that meeting she stated one reason change is sometimes difficult is due to interference from the Dept. of Education. She explained that the Dept. of Education dictates how Gwinnett must spend its LOCAL school tax dollars.
The one example she cited was one where the FEDERAL Department of Education expressly dictated that the Gwinnett County School system MUST SPEND $80,000+ YEARLY providing medical care to one school girl in a wheel chair who needed day long medical care and the attention of a lone nurse.
This is just one example of how the Dept. of Let-Me-Tell-You-What-To-Do dictates services unrelated to education at all! If they can force you to provide medical services out of your own local school budget then what else can they do? I have no problem with providing medical services; but let’s at least do this properly.
You provide medical services using dollars appropriated for that purpose. Slipping these services in the back door using inappropriate funding is dishonest. But fighting the federal government on this is worse than fighting city hall. If Hillary could not get Hillary Care in the front door in 1994, then they can just slip it in back door a few years later.
You are entitled to advise me on drinking coffee. However, I believe I should set this record straight. The Dept. of Education does harm local education by imposing unfunded mandates for things unrelated to education. In short, our public education system is just becoming another social program forcing training and social services on us at the expense of actual education.
I respect that our two party system sometimes moves slowly. But, I believe that you must reach some critical mass to change things, too. I just hope to reach that stage sooner by a instilling a sense of urgency today.
Respectfully,
Kevin Brehmer