Either Kevin's clock is whacked...or this idea is not resonating.

I think it's set to Eastern time. It's the Washington Monthly, don'tcha know.

Conservatives espouse "rugged individualism" - whatever than means. They don't recognize that the environment that creates opportunity to accumlate wealth, only occurs because we all agree to play by certain rules. There can be no capital without self-sacrifice and the aggregation of labor. Until we can all agree that rhis fundamental thing is true, can we proceed from there.

Any program of broad reform that does not capture the hearts and minds of America's practicing religious majority is a non-starter, and the Democrats' paranoia about "creeping theocracy" as well as their beholdenness to public employee unions (not to mention corporations) is the chief impediment to their ability to build a new progressive majority coalition (and of course on the national level there is the issue of security, and their weak support for political reform in the Arab-Muslim world).

Support for school vouchers, faith-based funding, and far reaching campaign finance reform requiring both corporations and public employee unions to get member and shareholder support (as in an opt-in law) before donating to political campaigns may well not be the keys to a Hillary Clinton victory in 2008 (in fact given the beholdenness of Democrats to public employee union money support for these things would be liable to give her great headaches from her own party).

But at least school vouchers and faith-based funding for social services are the future (I hope far reaching campaign finance reform is as well, but one can never be sure about that) - the Christian right's consolations prizes in losing the culture war - and their serious entry in the political stew will help to make possible more progressive taxation (hopefully a progressive consumption tax) and a fairer deal for the middle and working more generally (universal health care, and perhaps more liberal union laws), a more humane criminal justice policy and prison system, as well as same sex marriage (or the privatization of marriage) and possibly drug decriminalization.

Progressives don't seem to understand that school vouchers and faith-based funding aren't inherently illiberal in a post-secular society. The Netherlands, which is both the most liberal country in the world and has one of the largest populations of evangelicals in the west, has had both of these things for years. And the left's indefensible protection of America's failing, authoritarian public school system, as well as their opposition to anything that smacks of religious symbolism or aid to religious charities is preventing the passage of a progressive agenda (their opposition to democracy promotion in the Arab-Muslim world isn't helping either).

Yeah, but that was like 20 minutes without a comment. I am never 'frist'.

Sadly, the silence reflects a vacuum at the core of the Democrats. The precincts may demand it, but the party is not going to call for the legalization of pot, with the huge monetary savings that would entail. They are not going to call for slashing the military budget to a reasonable level. They are not going to call for a national program to restore rail transportation spines, funded in part by high taxes on the sale of gas-guzzling vehicles.

In fact, they're not even going to say that if Republicans want the architect of NSA spying to be confirmed, they can do it themselves.

Democrats, get real- the average guy is not going to say "You voted against Michael Hayden, you're not serious about security." The average guy is going to say "He was confirmed by a large bipartisan majority, so there's nothing to worry about." We've all been there. It's the poultice we apply to stinging defeats.

After all the B-S we heard about Nader voters putting Bush in the Whitehouse, does anyone see the irony in Gore saying "Well, you know, the Greens were right about the environment- and it's really important."

It's like a marriage- just because you want to save it doesn't mean you'll be better off if you do.

The stock markets need to be nuked and rebuilt from the bottom up. Companies seem to be retooling to maximize their market position (or avoid from being killed for not performing to the market's expectations) rather than keeping their workers happy.

To me this is one of the reasons why the golden parachutes have gotten so outrageous, and normal workers suffer. Better to make it seem the CEO is happy than having a "bloated" wage structure in the lower rungs.

Democratic Party Platform: "Republicans are scum."

Republican Party Platform: "Win the war, cut the taxes, control the spending, confirm the judges, secure the border."

Frequency nailed it!

"Republicans are scum."
Well, said but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

On the short list of things which are "inherently illiberal" school vouchers, if not at the very top of this list, is certainly in the top 5.

People talk about "education" all of the time, and much of that time they are conflating a couple of issues.

One issue of "education" could be defined as "as a parent, how much do I have to worry about my child scoring at (for the sake of argument) the 75th percentile on the SAT."

To tie this in with the post below on median income. The answer for my parent's generation to that particular question was pretty much not at all.

Today, although you realize you children as adults will choose their own path, as a parent you want to give them the chance to secure an "education based job" (like lawyer, doctor architect, engineer, etc.) That chance typically requires not only college, but graduate school. As a result, the top quarter of graduating seniors is not enough. Well, it might well ACTUALLY BE ENOUGH in a given situtation, but in terms of what you have control over as a parent it is not an acceptable goal.

So, parents who view "education" as synonymous with "how can I ensure my child does't have to go into sales if they don't want to" are only intersted in the public school system if they can get into one of the very, very elite public schools.

For these parents, "vouchers" are irrelevant, except to the extent you are fundamentally cheap.

For the concept of "education" as it applies to the bottom 80% of all students, the majority of which may not go on to an education based job, any public policy that weakens the overall public school system is a bad policy.

For the bottom 50% of students, their parents are not helping them out now, and they would not help anymore, vouchers or no. The only chance the bottom 50% have (and that is a lot of kids) is a good public school system.

My take on health care:
The uber-class in this country opposes nationalized health care, even though it would benefit business, because their goal is to destroy the security of the middle class, making them desperate for work as well as disorganized and impotent as a political force.
The bankruptcy "reform" bill, in tandem with Greenspan's earlier exhortations for people to get ARM's and his attempted trillion dollar SS heist are other parts of this program.
What I find funny is that there is really no secret about the agenda of the business hard right: they say they want to take the US back to the 1890s, which ties in exactly with my interpretations.

Whatever raises productivity. It does no good to grow the economy without productivity improvement. Nor does moving from private sector services to government services help without productivity gains.

Matt: Productivity growth isn't of any use if only 10% of the population benefits from it.

Conversely, even if our economy never grew another penny, national healthcare would still be better and more efficient than our current system.

Ah, opposition party reactionism or real leadership. Which do you want? I watch Edwards talk on poverty and he opens up a new language space in which there are movements across political lines. I watch Gore talk on the environment, and he touches on a space that again crosses political boundaries. These are positions of leadership and they are places of realignment. I expect one of the two to be the 2008 nominee of the Democratic party, since they lead where others (including Kevin) adjust within the status quo.

I remain mad that Clinton was hamstrung by the Democratic Congress and unable to carry out a major realignment in the early 90's. Community, opportunity, responsibility. Those Democratic themes still resonate, and they are a sound of leadership, not opposition.

In one respect, the challenge of the future is not hard. Probably about 2% of the GDP would finance a conversion to solar, an amount we could easily find by cutting military and prison budgets and instituting universal healthcare.

In another respect, it's very hard, because Dems won't talk about any of these topics.

And really, that just about says it all.

The Republican Party fought for the South twice and won. Once over slavery. Once over Civil Rights.

Neither victory benefited the South, only Northern Carpetbaggers, in their current incarnation of military installations and Defense Contractors.

Religion, tradition, bigotry, predjudice, patriotism, economic insecurity, fear, isolation, and poor education are only some of the techniques used to keep the masses in line.

I had ocassion to view a map of the electoral vote in the 1952 election. The only states carried by Stevenson are those deep Old Suth states, now entirely red.

I think Digby is right, but the issue is more complicated. The image has ben created and cultivated to be point of being artfully and psychologically used for political control and subjucation. I think the long term answer is to expose the charlatans.

I have lived and worked in the South, and the biggest fear of the powers thet be is that the poor whites and the poor blacks will figure out that they're in the same boat and start rowing together.

So what kinds of things would really help working families

Freedom from the specter of gay marriages and adoptions.

Freedom from the specter of faceless government agents taking their guns.

Knowing that gays and liberals and women and foreigners and people who had too much education or travel too much will be kept far from the levers of power.

Knowing that if we just have the courage to keep electing Republicans, all change will stop, just like that.

Those are the kinds of things that will help working families, and if living under a highway bridge in a cardboard box is the price that must be paid, then I say it's a fair deal.

The implicit and explicit bargain between business and labor that came into being after WW2 was the result of the UAW-CIO holding the Big Three automakers' feet to the fire. We did it by obtaining alternating contracts that expired every three years. Our question to them was Do you want to sell any Fords/Plymouths/Chevrolets this year? Each year a contract was upgraded and improved over the one we had negotiated the year before with the competition. In this way we introduced health care, cost of living increases, pensions, etc. to the American working class. All other unions followed in our wake. There were no city, state, government or teacher unions before WW2. It was the UAW that changed America's business and labor relationship. When Big Auto fell to foreign automakers it all began to tumble down. And it isn't over yet. It won't be complete until the last collective bargaining union is destroyed. (Teachers, you're next!) The goal is a 19th century relationship between business and labor, and the triumph of wage slavery. What Labor has given, Capitalism will take away.

"Productivity growth isn't of any use if only 10% of the population benefits from it."

No problem there.

Remember quoting this statment from Zeke:

"Removing these [health care] costs from their [corporate] balance sheets "

And your response:
"This is music to my ears"

Explain how the executive class, paying 50% of government taxes will benefit by shifting almost 100% of their health care expenses to government? Seems to me a productivity gain for the 10%, not the 90%.

The only way you can get everyone, illegals included, to purchase a high deductable health insurance is with a VAT tax, which has to be accompanied by higher progressive income taxes.

Or else, foget the illegals and implement a fixed medical insurance payroll tax.

Otherwise you are stuck back in the optimization problem, as you raise progressive rates, keeping health insurance in house becomes more appealing to the executive class.

Even with a VAT you would have to coordinate the policy with Mexico, for as Europe discovered, variable sales taxes across common borders cause enormous problems. In our case we would end up providing medical services for anyone crossing the border.

Or you could use a federal mandate to simpilfy all benefit coverages into three major groups, each group having a fixed coverage and let the market alter the variable and fixed payment costs to compete. At least this simplifies and streamlines the paperwork for medical offices and would be a first step in your direction. But it does not provide universal coverage.

You are stuck, you can only improve things on the margin. The transition costs to implemting a VAT are huge and would take years. A fixed payroll tax would cause an uproar in the Democratic left.

the senate just passed a bill that automatically gives a green card to foreign students who graduate with maaster's or doctor's degrees in science and engineering.

last nail in the coffin of the middle class.

that's what the republicans stand for,

either you manage a hedge fund and make at least $1M.

or compete with the masses from bangalore and new delhi for low paying insecure jobs.

"For these parents [of students in the top 20th to 25th percentile], "vouchers" are irrelevant, except to the extent you are fundamentally cheap."

Not so. What we can say about private schools with some certainty is that they *are* good for gifted kids - academically, culturally, socially - and that gifted kids have an appalling drop out rate (Mr. Drum posted about it not too long ago). None of these kids should be dropping out, and all should be going on to college, but too many are falling through the cracks of a system that cares more about its vacation time and pension benefits than young people.

"For the bottom 50% of students, their parents are not helping them out now, and they would not help anymore, vouchers or no. The only chance the bottom 50% have (and that is a lot of kids) is a good public school system."

I will concede that the data on private school perfomance for lower-scoring and underprivileged kids is inconclusive, not least because most existing private and even parochial schools cater to upper-middle class and wealthy families. But we should make a distinction here between those kids who may never become president or CEO, and those who for perhaps one or a constellation of reasons are simply underperforming. There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence, and an emerging pool of empirical research to suggest that any number of these kids would benefit from the private school experience.

Also, there are other reasons - as a liberal, or otherwise decent person - to be concerned about the culture and state of public schooling.

Have you spent much time a public school over the past quarter century? What about private schools?

The paddle and old school marm may have been consigned to the dustbin of history, but even in richly funded suburban public school districts they have been replaced by metal detectors, armed guards, barbed wire fences, video surveillance, and "lockdown." All that is missing are orange jumpsuits and strip searches.

As maverick conservative Robert Kaplan observed in his great book "An Empire Wilderness" one of the crucial distinctions perhaps between the developed and developing world is simple maintenance. We can say the same thing about the difference between public and private schools in America today. It tells us something about what people value. It tells us something about what American citizens value.

I attended public, private, and parochial schools growing up. I remember the restrooms in the final public school I attended (in an upscale suburb) before fleeing the system for good. The toilets were perenially clogged, and overflowing. The places smelled of shit and piss almost every hour of every day of the week. It reminded you of a prison in El Salvador or Mexico.

People *volunteered* to come to school on weekends at the private schools I attended, paint railings, raise money; you could eat off the restroom floors (though - you know - not like I would).

And then there is the culture of public schools, especially our middle and high schools. Often the most vapid and cruel (sometimes even sociopathic) get elevated to the top of the social hierarchy, the dumb, asshole jocks, and mean, pretty girls. These are not places where creativity and intelligence and critical thinking are overly valued. These are not in any number of cases liberal places.

A multicultural country like America or Britain or the Netherlands (which as I pointed out has had school vouchers for decades) will never have the lavishly funded public school systems of mono-ethnic countries like Finland or Japan; they're false comparisons. The American and British elites send their own kids to Andover and Eton or the good day school down the road; they know what they value.

As countless people have pointed out (some of them liberals), state schooling in America has tended to be about producing good, obedient workers and consumers. As Henry Adams said, "all State-education is a sort of dynamo machine for polarizing the popular mind; for turning and holding its lines of force in the direction supposed to be most effective for State purposes."

America's founding liberal Thomas Paine supported school vouchers, and opposed state schooling. Why don't liberals today?

"Universal healthcare" will never fly. "Universal health INSURANCE," aka "Medicare for everyone," is a much better bet. We're not gonna take away your doctor, we're gonna take away your insurance hassles. Business will support it, doctors will support it, consumers will support it. The only people against it will be insurance companies -- who are easy targets -- and sheltered wingnut Libertarians who believe silly market-uber-alles theories because they've never really known need.

A relaxation of anti-unionization regs would be a good thing, but I don't really think that's what's holding back unions. If workers want unions, they'll create unions. The problem is that the standard Republican policy of keeping unemployment high enough -- and hiring illegal immigrants and other powerless workers easy enough -- is working just fine to keep potential union members scared and in line. Unless and until the average consumer gets it through his/her head that effectively full employment does not necessarily mean runaway inflation, we're not gonna have policies that do anything except to keep labor flat on its back. Tinkering with regulations isn't gonna change that.

And as for pandering to "America's practicing religious majority," puh-LEEZE. Has anyone looked at figures for regular church attendance? How many people SAY they go regularly vs. how many actually DO? Come off it -- all you gotta do is sound a little pious, and you connect with all those church-wannabes; you don't need to establish a de facto theocracy (as the fundies would have it).

Oh, and as for school vouchers, I got one word for those of you who are willing to do some serious research about your (horrible, awful) policy prescription: RED-LINING.

You see red-lining in insurance, in consumer marketing, in investing, everywhere you have a mostly or completely unregulated market. It is one of the basic modes of MARKET FAILURE. And because adequate public schooling for EVERYONE is a fundamental pre-requisite for a functioning democracy (not to mention a moral imperative), market mechanisms imposed by vouchers -- even ones that work, which none of the experiments in the US have come close to doing -- would be disastrous for public schools.

And please, spare us the "well look how bad they are now" argument, as though that justified making them worse. They're bad because they're drastically underfunded, and because such funds as are allocated are spread highly unevenly and unfairly.

The solution to a lot of the ills of public schooling is to THROW A TON OF MONEY AT IT. Conservatives are perfectly happy to embrace that when it comes to the military, despite its horrendous record of accountability. (How many billions are completely unaccounted for in Iraq? How many have gone down the Halliburton rathole?) It's high time we throw a lot of money at the schools, and see what good comes of it.

Conservatives — especially cultural conservatives — mostly want to fight the moral relativism and assaults on traditionalism that they believe are rife among liberals.

But moral relativisim and assaults on traditionalism rife among conservatives -- as personified, say, in the Bush Cultists apologizing for -- indeed, approving of -- the Administration's use of torture -- is fine and dandy.

"The solution to a lot of the ills of public schooling is to THROW A TON OF MONEY AT IT."

As I pointed out in the above post, that will never happen in a multicultural country like America. The elites of monoethnic, monocultural nations like Sweden and Japan send their own kids to public schools, and demand they be lavishly resourced. In America, like Britain, the CEOs and senators and Hollywood producers send their kids to private and parochial schools. Their only interest in public schooling is producing compliant employees, consumers, and voters. They reserve the instilling of creativity and critical thinking for their own.

The only thing that can help us is a platform that actively recognizes the Republican party as a criminal organization and corporate personhood as the root of it.

And then there is the culture of public schools, especially our middle and high schools. Often the most vapid and cruel (sometimes even sociopathic) get elevated to the top of the social hierarchy, the dumb, asshole jocks, and mean, pretty girls. These are not places where creativity and intelligence and critical thinking are overly valued. These are not in any number of cases liberal places.

Oh, puh-lease. I attended both public and private schools myself, including a private, Catholic high school, and if you mean to imply private schools are any different, all I can say is, pull the other one. (Well, okay, my high school was all-boys, so we didn't have to worry about mean pretty girls on a day to day basis, but still...)

At best Linus desccribes high school in general. But more aptly, Linus is trying, and failing, to support his assertion of "America's failing, authoritarian public school system." He dies touch on one key point -- parental participation is key. Aside from that, assertion is all he offers, and it's far from persuasive.

linus: Progressives don't seem to understand that school vouchers and faith-based funding aren't inherently illiberal in a post-secular society.

A "post-secular society"? On what are you basing that conclusion? Cause, effect or something else?

from,

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller on Friday urged telecommunications officials to record their customers' Internet activities, CNET News.com has learned.

In a private meeting with industry representatives, Gonzales, Mueller and other senior members of the Justice Department said Internet service providers should retain subscriber information and network data for two years, according to two sources familiar with the discussion who spoke on condition of anonymity.

I think by 'post-secular', he means 'sufficently relaxed about religion as to tolerate gracefully and without comment the de facto domination of the public sphere of US life by evangelical Christians, included taxpayer dollars going to support this domination'.

Frequency Kenneth: "Republican Party Platform: 'Win the war, cut the taxes, control the spending, confirm the judges, secure the border.'"

You forgot "mislead the voters, defraud investors, fleece the public domain, peruse private lives, defame the critics, deflect responsibility, control the uterus, blame the beaners, smear the queers, bankrupt the country, and cover our asses."

linus -- Never mind. I see from your previous post where you're coming from. So it is not so much a question of the greater good, but acceptance of a fait accomplis by those elites for our own benefit--that we accept the inevitable prescription (for our own good of course). "Post-secular society" my ass. Fuck that and the horse you rode in on.

Frrrrrrrrrrp!!

bleh: "Conservatives are perfectly happy to embrace that when it comes to the military, despite its horrendous record of accountability. (How many billions are completely unaccounted for in Iraq? How many have gone down the Halliburton rathole?)"

I believe that some $9 billion is still unaccounted from the period of misrule by the Iraq Provisional Authority -- and the president gave Iraq Viceroy Paul Bremer the Medal of Freedom for that singular accomplishment.

Nice work if you can get it.

Geez Kevin. You describe yourself (I think) as a moderate, but when you get down to policy prescriptions, you sound like a goddam social democrat. What makes you a moderate, having (briefly as I recall) supported the Iraq war? You mean only raving lefties opposed it from the git-go?

"I attended both public and private schools myself, including a private, Catholic high school, and if you mean to imply private schools are any different, all I can say is, pull the other one."

Size is a factor, but even large private high schools tend to be more humane and free places than their public counterparts, and even small, allegedly cohesive public schools tend to have many of the same problems as large public schools (one of the most recent school shootings happened at a Native-American school with only a few hundred kids).

I graduated from an independent, nominally Episcopalian (the chaplain was an Anglican priest) private school with less than 100 students. They were by and large smart, polite kids. It was a place where critical thinking, ideas, and creativity were valued, where kids respected adults, and adults respected kids. If you needed an afternoon off to sit on the beach and read, you got it. The art teacher once "caught" me drawing, and became my personal mentor, making me come in an hour early for school every day; that would never happen at public schools. If something was wrong at home - your parents were fighting, your coke-addled older brother had been kicked out of his third college and was now living at home and your family was in complete denial - you went home with someone: a teacher, a headmaster, another student. At public school they call social services and fuck up your life for possibly good. Real communities look after their own.

"But more aptly, Linus is trying, and failing, to support his assertion of "America's failing, authoritarian public school system.""

At the very least you'll concede that our public schools are failing racial and ethnic minorities. At the very least you'll concede that gifted students should not have a 10-20% dropout rate from public high schools. At the very least you'll concede that many parents and students would like to go to private and parochial schools for any number of reasons but can't afford it.

I can furnish you with some statistics about the explosion of metal detectors, armed guards, video surveillance, and athlete (now increasingly student) drug testing in public schools, about the persistence and omnipresence of bullying in public schools, about the great success of the voucher system in the Netherlands, but I suspect you will remain unconvinced.

A strong majority of evangelicals (who make up 40% of the populace) support school vouchers. A strong majority of African-Americans support school vouchers. Majorities of generation x (those born in the 60s and 70s), and generation y (those born in the 80s and 90s) support school vouchers. They are the future, ready or not.

"So it is not so much a question of the greater good, but acceptance of a fait accomplis by those elites for our own benefit--that we accept the inevitable prescription (for our own good of course). "Post-secular society" my ass. Fuck that and the horse you rode in on."

Politics is the art of the possible, but it seems to me the greater good is giving every kid a shot at not only the best education possible, but the best educational *experience* possible. Education is not simply about sawing off the tops of kids' heads and filling them with facts and figures, but the kind of place you go to learn, and I simply don't understand how anyone can think that young people spending eight hours a day, five days a week, nine months a year, for years on end in places that have come to resemble medium security prisons is okay. Where is the greater good in that?

Linus, I just don't buy the notion that the "elites" WANT a dysfunctional public-education system.

Yes, there will always be elite institutions, some of which will be open to all comers with sufficient cash. And even if we should prevent that -- which I don't buy for a minute -- there's no way to do so, any more than there is to shut down Nieman Marcus stores offering the same products as their competitors across town, only for three times the price.

But it does NOT follow that those who would put their kids in First Class want the kids in Coach to be inadequately served. Setting aside the obvious pitchfork-brigade argument, both the success of the elite AND their standing among their peers (never a factor to be overlooked) depends materially on their having productive minions. And right now, the minions are so unproductive that it's costing money -- real MONEY, for Adam Smith's Sweet Sake -- to make up for their deficiencies.

Productive sufficiency is very different from class consciousness sufficient to overcome class barriers; I'm pretty sure even Marx would agree. And the sad fact is, our public schools are failing at the former, much less even aiming at the latter.

It's in (almost) EVERYBODY's interest to have high-quality public education. It's a classic public good. That we do not have it today is imho only a political accident -- a casualty of beggar-thy-neighbor Republican doctrine, the absurd local control of education that functions as nothing more than a springboard for local politicians, and our waning good fortune of having a generation of dedicated women teachers from a bygone economic era in which they could do work they loved for sub-par wages.

We have yet to realize anywhere near the devastating economic price that our idiotic education policy has wrought on our society, but the cracks are starting to show. When the issue is finally fully ripe, every politician and her mother will be jumping on it, and I predict -- with some satisfaction, although regrets for decades' worth of lost opportunity -- we WILL start throwing money at it by the ton.

"A "post-secular society"? On what are you basing that conclusion? Cause, effect or something else?"

This is not 17th century Massachusetts; John Cotton and Thomas Dudley remain quite dead.

America ceased to be a culturally cohesive society right about the time the first hippie burned her bra and Nixon took the country off the gold standard.

There is a consenus in America about the right of women to go to college, enter the workplace, run for office, a consensus about no-fault divorce and access to contraception. There is even something like a consensus about reproductive rights (although you wouldn't know it with all the lingering huff and puff about abortion). And there is an emerging consensus about gay rights too (in their favor).

What has happened over the past forty years is the privatization of morality, and it is not by any stretch finished.

As I said above, school vouchers and faith-based funding are the Christian right's consolation prizes for losing the culture war.

In the post-secular world, you don't (or won't) have to send your kids to a Christian school with state support, or a Buddhist or New Age drug treatment program, anymore than you'll have to marry another man, but you'll have the option of doing any or all of these things.

The bulwarks of Christian theocracy are not evangelism or even public displays of faith, but a legal and social order founded on the exclusion of women from many aspects of political, cultural, and economic life, and the repression of homosexuality, if not also the systematic exclusion of people of color and non-Christians. That order is gone. It isn't coming back.

Linus -- You mistake ends with means. You do not ask why can't public education be the equal, bur skirt the issue with the "politics is the art of the possible". We did it in the not-so-distat-past, why not now? Yet you retreat to time-worn cliches decades out of date. Find a new excuse or rationale and maybe you'll find an audience. Until then, adios.

"Linus, I just don't buy the notion that the "elites" WANT a dysfunctional public-education system."

If I implied dysfunctional that is not quite what I meant.

What I meant was that they would never actively support a richly funded, world class public school system, only a baseline, minimalist one designed to produce good workers and consumers, not creative giants.

And it is naive to believe that their support (or absence of support) does not matter.

What is in everyone's interest is not a state school system but universal prrimary and secondary education that instills in young people creativity and critical thinking, not cruelty and tolerance for authoritarianism.

I repeat: America's founding liberal Thomas Paine supported vouchers. Why don't you?

"You do not ask why can't public education be the equal, bur skirt the issue with the "politics is the art of the possible"."

As I said, I do not believe a multicultural country can ever have a world class public school system, and you provide me with no examples that might change my mind.

In fact, I suspect that as presently mono-ethnic countries become more diverse even they will begin to embrace vouchers.

You also never answer why you believe only the state can provide a good education to young people. I don't accept this idea as a matter of faith.

Our best primary and secondary schools by more or less all measures are our private, non-profit independent schools. Why shouldn't we seek to expand the number of private, non-profit independent schools, and extend access to them, rather than seek to improve a model that is in many ways failing, and illiberal?

Gee it must be nice living on planet Kevin mustn't it?
Meanwhile we here in the real world have to deal with periodic freeping Gooper crime waves. Regular as clockwork the savages ride in and burn down the town, rape all the women and build their pyramid's of skulls.
Pre-op political vegetables like Kevin Drum are the answer? Que? I just have to ask then what was the fucking question?

So what kinds of things would really help working families?

What makes you think that conservatives give a shit about that? Certainly, I see no evidence of this.

Kevin:

Do you honestly believe this claptrap?

"All of these things used to be part of the explicit and implicit bargains between business and labor that defined the postwar era: if you work hard you'll make enough to raise a family on one salary; you'll get decent healthcare for you and your kids; and as the economy grows, we'll all get richer and more prosperous together."

America's labor movement bought those compromises with blood in the '20's and 30's. Nearly the whole industrialized world had to be driven into poverty by the greed of the industrialists to get the government to back the union movement. No benevolence on the part of the wealthy gave the US the "Social Pact that created the middle class prosperity of the middle class from the 40's through the 70's.

And, Kevin, that balence will never return to the US economy by the will of the wealthy, either.

So long as the candidates are all millionaires and multi-millionaires, none of them can credibly claim to be in it for the working families or the middle class. It is this fundamental contradiction between the economic status of the democratic party leaders and the lot of the people that these leaders are supposed to represent that will always be the sticking point for the democrats in an affluent society such as ours.

"...if you work hard you'll make enough to raise a family on one salary; you'll get decent healthcare for you and your kids; and as the economy grows, we'll all get richer and more prosperous together. That bargain broke down long ago, but nothing has since taken its place."

"Long ago"... as in 1973?

Wasn't that the year that Clinton and his penis was born?

Linus: I don't support vouchers, any more than I support any market-based system, for public education, because of market failures.

Thomas Paine was writing for a time in which the economics were materially different from our own,

Public education is a public good, in the strict economic sense. It should be fully publicly funded, and rigorously publicly regulated, in the same way as any equally necessary public function, e.g., the licensing of pharmaceutical drugs, or the inspection and approval of proposed high-rise buildings.

If public education becomes prey to profit-seeking private enterprise, we're all screwed worse than any resident of Baghdad.

I give Linus a point on the multicultural issues.

Americanism has always been a deal where each to his own. Not that we melted, but that we readjusted the common goals to satisfy a multi-variate culture. No one was required to join the ranks, the ranks sort of loosened up to accommodate new cultures. People came here to retain and preserve their cultures.

Government as melder and mentor has a hard sell. Goverment has to prove it can do marginally better than the individual cultural conservatisms.

An effort to get government to close in on a common ground often gets diverted by special interest groups. Neocons are not new, they were around for the Mexican American war and the Civil War. The unions sometimes grab the reigns, sometimes the leftists control higher education. We go through periods like we had under FDR or LBJ where gvernment experimentation results in a proliferation of programs, that have to be whittled down at a later date. The we go through periods of imperial goverment or do nothing government. Often it is war time government.

The federal goverment is a huge clongomerate with multiple groups pushing to develop and sell new services to a massive population. Taxes are raised, lowered, flattened depending on what is being sold, or what is being discarded.

We all have this pervasive fear that if we let government experiment, just a little, then some tenacious special interest will grab the experiment, lie about its capability and push it for a generation at enormous cost.

but does the Left has anything to promise to get anyone there other than class warfare

Bzzztt! Bumper sticker alert!

Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

What good will making it a campaign platform do? If wages were to inch up more than a fraction of a percentage point in this country, the Fed would just scream "INFLATION!" and slam us into a recession.

Linus: As I said, I do not believe a multicultural country can ever have a world class public school system...

Start with France. Private schools in the US which use their model cirriculum demand a premium.

You also never answer why you believe only the state can provide a good education to young people.

Your strawman. A voucher-based system is no more or less statist than a system directly funded by the state. It is substance, not funding, which is of concern.

Our best primary and secondary schools by more or less all measures are our private, non-profit independent schools.

False. There are as many or more great public schools, whether by number or number of students.

Why shouldn't we seek to expand the number of private, non-profit independent schools, and extend access to them...

Yes, let's magnify the charter school and NCLB fiascos.

You focus on a funding mechanism that fits your bias while ignoring everything of substance. Try again.

I don't support school vouchers because it further isolates religious maniacs from any association with society at large.

Also, I don't support school vouchers because, outside the well-organized religious fruitcake academies, there is no realistic private alternative system. And I don't support school vouchers going to religious academies in any event, even if they were available to non-religious private schools, because a bible college has the same relation to a real college that a dead plague victim has to a live healthy person.

And Republicans will surely insist that some huge amount of money going into vouchers for fruitcake academies means they're doing something about education, while ensuring that as many people as possible are as stupid as possible.

Bringing up Thomas Paine in this context is like claiming that the founders meant for every baby to be issued an assault rifle at birth.

We may well be able to create a private, publicly funded school system, perhaps modelled on the Federal Reserve Board, or in the context of Universal Health Care, but it could only work if any religious thing were, you might say, devotedly excluded.

As Thomas Paine said,

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

"Whenever we read ... the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize humankind. And, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."

I have to ask, why is the time on my last post six minutes faster than the time on my computer?

"You focus on a funding mechanism that fits your bias while ignoring everything of substance."

I spend a half-dozen posts at least hijacking this thread to explain in excrutiating detail (at least by blogospheric standards) what I object to about the culture of public schools, their authoritarianism, lack of caring, and yet you still think I'm some kind of market fetishist. I am in no sense a conservative, not even a libertarian. I'm a progressive, and what I care about is that as many kids as possible have access to a genuinely liberal education, and a genuinely liberal educational culture, and I don't believe that is possible in state schools, middle and high schools especially. Vouchers just strike me as the only logical way to achive this aim. They should be progressively funded (and teachers should be able to form guilds to protect wages, job security, and pensions [I assume there will be universal health care by then]), but they should be.

I get the same half-blank look from liberals when I start to rant about the inhumanity of our prison system. I'm beginning to think the liberal unwillingness to recognize America's state schools for what they are and their unwillingness to recognize just how *bad* our prison system has become (let alone give a crap about it) may be related.

As the often irritating Mickey Kaus would say: back to Plame!

That would be excruciating, not excrutiating but you knew that.

Linus -- No, you started with an assumed solution and tried to justify it using demonstrably false examples.

I can sympathize with some of your issues, but vouchers alone are not The Answer; if that's where your solution begins and ends, it's no wonder you get "half-blank" looks.

p.s. cld -- Maybe because the webmaster for the site set the time from his/her wristwatch, or maybe couldn't tell the big hand from the little hand. (Another failure of our education system, unless of course the site is managed offshore. For shame, for shame. Don't they teach people about NTP these days? :)

"Linus -- No, you started with an assumed solution and tried to justify it using demonstrably false examples."

I'm inclined to wonder which of my examples were demonstrably false, but I'm guessing I'm wasting my breath.

Believe me when I say that a generation or two from now vouchers will be general, or don't believe me. It really doesn't matter.

The right thinks they can hold back gay marriage forever, some of them that they can turn back the clock on reproductive rights. The left thinks the public school monopoly is forever, that Arab-Muslim democracy is not inevitable. And so on...

Well, whatever: back to Plame!

Linus -- As a personal aside, I am a product of Asian, European and US education. While I was fortunate(?) enough to be beyond reach of most of the fallout, I watched younger siblings who were years beyond their cohorts on return from overseas stifled and marginalized by both private and public education in the US. What an excruciating and painful waste. Suggest a viable way to fix that, so that no child has to suffer the same, and I'm all ears.

'Linus' posted:

"Progressives don't seem to understand that school vouchers and faith-based funding aren't inherently illiberal in a post-secular society. The Netherlands, which is both the most liberal country in the world and has one of the largest populations of evangelicals in the west, has had both of these things for years."

The key word is "HAD".

The Netherlands tried school vouchers nationally, they were a dismal failure, and were scrapped. Scotland tried school vouchers nationally, they flopped, and were repealed. School vouchers have failed everywhere they have been tried in America.

Leave it to the RightWing to cling to failed public policies. Tax rate cuts anyone ?
.

Don't mean to intrude, but, by Nyarlothetep's tendril, which part of this puff piece on Bill Frist is more demented?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301380_pf.html

Is it where,

In medical school, Frist cut out a dog's heart and held it in his palm. It continued to beat for a slippery minute.

"Watching it beat, the beauty of it," Frist recalled. "I decided I would spend my life centered around the heart."

or is it where his wife falls in love with him at first sight while he's covered in blood; or where it reveals that he occasionally jets off to Africa for some extracurricular surgery, or where he's suiting up at the zoo and,

He unbuttoned his business shirt, revealing jungle-pattern surgical scrubs and a pair of hairy, toned biceps.

"A little bit like Superman," said the dentist, Chuck Williams.

and shortly,

The stink of ape sweat and gorilla testosterone soaked his hair and clothes.

Finally, as if not able to take any more of this sudden view into the world of gods, the article, in a natural, stately way, finds closure and gentle grandeur,

Frist lifted Kuja's (the gorilla's) huge, leathery black hand. Williams, the dentist, said, "Take him with you to the Senate, so when Biden or Kennedy mouth off, you can turn him loose."

"He's on my side," Frist said, stroking Kuja's fur.

At 9:30 a.m., Frist opened the Senate, gripping the corners of the lectern, as he had the operating table. Across the city, rolling in a bed of hay, Kuja opened his eyes and grunted. The gorilla kept touching his tongue to his tooth. Something had changed inside of the beast while he slept. Frist smiled and spoke unremarkably from the lectern, reeking of silverback testosterone.

The Republican strategy of talking about how terrible Democrats are has worked. Many Democrats didn't even notice that Bush's main strategy in 2004 was to talk about what Kerry would do rather than talk about what a complete loser Bush is.

The proof that Republicans don't care about what they themselves do is the last six years. None of them feel bad about their complete and utter mismanagement of the country.

The 2006 election should be about what the Republicans would do if voters validated their evil ways. What would happen to our system of government if the voters stated that bribery with hookers is an acceptable way to move legislation?

Unfortunately, the 2006 election will be about impeachment hearings. Republicans always talk about what would happen if the Democrats won, and the Democrats are always happy to indulge them.

The Hayden hearings should have been about whether our nation shall remain free, but it instead was about how good Hayden is at bullshitting through hearings.

As to vouchers--I'm a teacher. Voucher talk is the Republican way of avoiding talk about their increasing use of federal control and standardized testing. Vouchers are a minor issue in education, and their effect would be only slightly destructive to our current system.

Any Republican want to defend NCLB? Want to talk about what Republicans have done for education during the past 25 years? Want to talk about what a Republican Congress would do for education in the next session? They would rather talk about golf vacations.

"I get the same half-blank look from liberals when I start to rant about the inhumanity of our prison system. I'm beginning to think the liberal unwillingness to recognize America's state schools for what they are . . . "

The reason you get a half-blank look from me about your rants against public schools is that I, my siblings, my wife, and my daughter are all gratuates of public schools. I got a Ph.D. in genetics at the age of 27. My wife got her Ph.D. in bacteriology at the age of 26 (she finished college in three years). My daughter is taking Latin and honors calculus as a high school junior.

You base your opinions on anecdotes. My mileage differs from yours. Why should your anecdotes be more pursuasive than mine?

OK. "graduates" not gratuates, and my daughter is not yet a graduate, but will be soon.

My typing skills (also learned in public school) do leave something to be desired.

In his article, Digby argues that policy positions don't matter as much as group identity. In The Republican Nemesis, James Kroeger explains it like this:

The Issues might actually be important to many Swing Voters early on in a political campaign, but when both sides start to pick apart each other’s facts & interpretations, the typical Swing Voter quickly becomes confused. As the debate over The Issues drags on, Swing Voters realize that they don’t understand the details well enough to make an informed decision, so they end up relying on their impressions of the candidates. Republican strategists see this clearly. That is why they continuously try to create doubts in the minds of the Swing Voters about the character of the Democratic candidate. They know that it doesn’t really matter if they can’t find any real flaws in their Democratic opponents. Accusations, insinuations, & innuendo will work just fine. They hope to encourage voters to question the motivation and dependability of The Democrats. They try to create the perception that Democrats are “defective” in a disturbing way. By accusing, the Republicans suggest to Swing Voters that they are not [defective like the Democrats]...

Republican strategists know they would rarely win if election results were always determined by a logical discussion of The Issues and nothing more (they know that most voters would benefit more from Democratic economic policies than from Republican policies). They know they must win the Image Campaign to have any chance of winning. That is why they are committed, now and forever, to negative campaigning. Republicans have never forgotten a key stratagem they perfected during the Reagan Era: DEMONIZING YOUR OPPONENTS WORKS. It works because Swing Voters are essentially “headline readers” & “sound byte nibblers.” When they see in the headlines that Candidate A accused Candidate B of having a certain personality defect, they tend to believe it. (Unless it is effectively answered.)

The most important reason why negative campaigning has worked so well for the Republicans is because their negative attacks on the Democrats create a positive impression of Republican candidates, who appear—in contrast—to be individuals who do not possess the defects that they have accused others of having. They define themselves [positively] by defining their Democratic opponents [negatively]. On a visceral level, what the Republicans actually “stand for” in the minds of Swing Voters on election day is that they are not Democrats—those defective people who seem to have been born to ruin everything. It’s simple, really. By bashing Democrats, Republicans present themselves as the desirable alternative. The negative character attacks also provide the Republicans with one more benefit. They know that the media will give priority coverage to their personal attacks and that it will distract attention away from any of the "substance" blather that Democrats always like to talk about.

In order for Democrats to win back the Swing Voters they've lost to the Republicans through these tactics, they are going to have to "define back." That doesn't mean that we need to simply bash the Republicans at every opportunity; that's something we already do. But for all of our arguing and complaining about the Republicans, we still tend to subordinate it to the ideals of "civil discourse." Unfortunately, that instinct is not enough to guide us; not when the other side has become a master of The Image Campaign. What Democrats need to do now is create an image of The Republican Politician that is threatening to Swing Voters, one that they will not ultimately want to identify with. That kind of campaign strategy takes some sophistication of thought.

It's a great, great read.

Republican Party Platform: Cut taxes mindlessly and leave our children the bill, gay marriage is the greatest threat to our civilzation, stop those Spanish-speaking darkies from crossing the border (except the ones who mow my lawn) and kill, kill kill our way to peace!

Democratic Party Platform: Universal health care for all, really improve education, not just test more, energy conservation and alternative fuels, repeal unnecessary tax breaks for the rich, improve diplomacy and rely less on bombs, targeted tax breaks for the middle class and poor, who really need them.

Republican Party Platform: Peace through strength, secure borders from all illegal immigration, fiscal responsibility (currently not being done), Limited government interference, free marketplace, personal responsibility, low taxes, recognition of judeo-christian values, America first.

Democratic Platform: Peace through acquiescing to enemies demands, open borders, government interference, socialist marketplace, higher taxation, recognition of no religion, America second to the UN.

Jay nailed it!

Republican Party Platform: torture, rape and murder, bribery, theft and treason and lying about it.

Democratic Party Platform: jailing Republicans. All of them.

So, Jay, why is recognition of Judeao-Christian values not part of the socialist market place?

And how does America first relate to global free trade.

And if America is second to te UN, then doesn't free trade make it second to the World Trade Organization?

Where does America first and the trillion dollar cost of democracy in Iraq fit?

If peace is through strength, then where is the strength in the nearly 8 trillion dollar deficit generated by 20 years of Repulicaism?

And, of couse, as all conservatives and libertarians, (and evidently you) now agree, how does low taxes, the cost of government, and big government Republicanism mesh?

Your myth as been shattered long ago. No one believes it anymore, not you, even the National Reveiw conservatives practically agree the Republicans are just another group of socialists.

The quote from Linette at 8:29 explains why people identify Republican and not Democratic. Continuing to believe that Magic Issues are going to be the key to get people to identify Democratic is folly. It's emotions and feelings. Not any particular issue or set of issues. Didn't we just learn this in the last election? When the rare candidate who is gifted rhetorically, articulate, genuine and persuasive enough to get voters to identify Dem comes along, like John Edwards, the party leaderhip muzzles them.

Issues are secondary, only a tool. You've got to get people on your side first.

Kevin Drum wrote, "Conservatives — especially cultural conservatives — mostly want to fight the moral relativism and assaults on traditionalism that they believe are rife among liberals."

Gregory responded "But moral relativisim and assaults on traditionalism rife among conservatives -- as personified, say, in the Bush Cultists apologizing for -- indeed, approving of -- the Administration's use of torture -- is fine and dandy."

I agree with Gregory, but moreover, I encourage Kevin to express skepticism over conservative mis-framing of the issue by puttng "moral relativism" in quotes when referring to their speaking point.

We liberals have a consistent moral view. Republicans say they have a consistent moral view, but their overarching moral principle is IOKIYAR, which is moral relativism writ large.

The Republican Party, a job well done!,

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/2863/bushkneel5nc.jpg

America wins with free trade. We have the best people, the best systems and the best products. Amercia first.

Democratizing Iraq demonstrates America's strength, compassion and willingness to help others achieve freedom. Democracies are, on the whole, peaceful societies. America first.

I agree the national debt is a problem, yet considering the spending that ensued from 9/11, the Iraq war, and Katrina it is mildly understandable though needs to be addressed very soon. The Democrats however seem a little disengenous about the debt with their push for UHC which would be a massive entitlement program that could triple the debt overnight.

Considering the left has lost 5 of the last 7 presidential elections and has not controlled congress for 12 years I would say our message has been resonating.

Chrissy, people typically vote "for" something rather than "against" everything, which has been the Democrat platform the last eight years.

Jay nailed it!

Then later, Jay nailed FK. Later, as they lay in bed having a post-coital ciggie, they dreamed of a three-way with Jeff Gannon/Guckart.

Whats really funny is how many of those fantisies of Jays have no basis in reality. Although to his credit he at least acknowledges one.(fiscal irresponsibility)

Try denying the Democrat platform, because that IS the reason the left continues to lose.

No Republican has won any election anywhere in the last fifty years except through fraud.

I'm Jay, the master baiter, getting a rise out of all of you!!

I stand corrected, cld, and that mindset, is the reason the left continues to lose.

Need more Stumptown Coffee - Still trying to determine who made the most sense - dany at 9:10, Alon at 9:21 or Jay at 9:31 - Close call, but am leaning to dany, but then Alon can be so convincing at times.

Jay, I would like to believe you, but, at this point, you have to prove that you are corrected. Every word that any conservative has ever said about anything is fraudulent.

How can I believe you?

Towards the end of this thread, we start to get it. Unfortunately, we are always coming to it too late.

What is "it'? It's the realization that people do not respond to politics intellectually. People see politics as a way to define themselves, and it is based on emotions and values. There is not now, and will never be, a Magic Issue (a phrase I totally love, by the way).

And we will never be able to talk our way into power. What we need is a Magic Candidate who in their very being exemplifies our values and the emotions which we believe in (hope vs. despair, love vs. hate, carrot vs. stick, group vs. one, and so on). Without a living, breathing personification of what we're all about, we will be braying at the moon for some time to come. And in all honesty, I do not see any such person on the horizon, let alone in politics right now. Maybe one of our current luminaries will decide to re-make themselves, like Sen. Obama or Feingold, or a "deus ex machina" will happen like "Everybody Loves" Al Gore or Bill Gates for Prez.

But without that, we're just laying groundwork for the day this Magic Candidate emerges.

Kevin's platform is excellent - Now, perhaps if we changed our voting system, we could inspire the younger set to vote - Change it to an American Idol approach - One Person, Many Votes.

Sort of a take off on the old Tammeny [sic] Hall, Daly or Pendergast Democratic manner of voting - or the currently popular Republican Diebold method.

'Linus' posted:

"I'm beginning to think the liberal unwillingness to recognize America's state schools for what they are..."

* High school completion rates, at roughly 90 percent in 2000, and college graduation rates are the HIGHEST IN HISTORY.

* One in four adult Americans has at least a bachelor's degree - the highest percentage IN THE WORLD.

* A larger percentage of American twenty-two-year-olds receive degrees in math, science, or engineering in the United States than in any of our nation's major economic competitors.
.

'Jay' posted:

"Considering the left has lost 5 of the last 7 presidential election"

A) There is no "Left" in American politics. There is exactly ONE federally elected official in this country who is a Socialist, and zero that are Communists.

B) The DEMOCRATS won at least THREE of the last FOUR presidential elections.
.

Further to Gregory and Joel Rubinstein on "moral relativism": The common denominator for conservatives is a deficit of emotional maturity which makes a coherent thought process extremely difficult.

Contradictory ideas simply bump each other out of consciousness because the discomfort of looking at them side-by-side is intolerable. That's what makes it OK if you're a Republican.

A proposed remedy: make an effort to have a respectful, constructive dialogue with a conservative near you.

A problem with forums like this is we're constantly succombing to provocation from clowns like Jay, McA, etc ad infinitum.

"What would really help working families?"

Start with asking a slightly different question: what do working families want? Working families want meaningful relationships. They want meaningful work. They want comfortable houses, safe neighborhoods, good educations. They want to stay warm in winter and cool in summer. At a basic level they want food & clothing and at a abstract level, they want purpose. They want time to spend with their children and friends and opportunities to enjoy their lives. They want to be treated fairly. They want to believe. They want to be able to transmit their cultural values to their children. They want to see their children grow up and start their own families. They want to be treated with respect. They want peace. They want love.

The things you mention--rising wages, full employment, healthcare--are just means. Public education is just a means.

The Democrats have had a dilemma ever since the 1960s when the party leadership realized that the blessing of our nation had been systematically withheld from a significant proportion of our citizens. In order to change those systems that discriminated against minorities or women, Democrats began to adopt policies that attacked the "right" of the majority (where majority is defined as white, male, heterosexual) to be treated fairly and transmit their white-centered male dominant, homophobic cultural values to their children. In addition, Democrats looked at poverty and thought that the way to end the injustice of poverty was to throw money at the poor.

Those that are suspicious of Democrats because they feel the Democrats attack their values and treat them unjustly won't be persuaded unless/until they realize that their interests are aligned with minority/women interests.

The good news is that policies endorsed by GWB & the modern Republicans have almost catalyzed that realization. The bad news is Democrats have still got to become "safe" to those who hold moderate white-centric, male, heterosexual values.

I think that the Demopublicans and Republicrats must be interested in big change in our government. They are dissing the middle class of America big time and it is well known that once a government loses the middle class, big changes are bound to happen.

They must all be big time union organizers as well. They seem to be creating all the right conditions for new, radical unions to form.

This immigration bill should fail. Too many poison pills contained therein. American citizens can no longer trust anyone in Congress (of either party) to represent their interests.

'Republican Party Platform: Peace through strength, secure borders from all illegal immigration, fiscal responsibility (currently not being done), Limited government interference, free marketplace, personal responsibility, low taxes, recognition of judeo-christian values, America first.'

--jay

What a pathetic bunch of meaningless slogans and falsehoods! "Peace through strength" - right out of Orwell's 1984. There will be never be any peace obtained from the wanton killing we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you knew a damn thing about those "Judeo-Christian values" you profess to value, you would understand that. Israel is arguable the "strongest" country in the Middle East, in terms of their military (which our tax dollars paid for), and they haven't seen any peace since 1948. Fiscal responsibility?!? Oh, I see, (not currently being done). When does the GOP plan to become responsible? After our country is bankrupt? Limited govt. interference?!? What planet are you living on? The GOP wants to be in your bedroom (e.g. anti-sodomy laws), in your phone records (NSA), in your bank accounts (BSA). You must be smoking some mean weed (and the GOP wants to interfere in that, too), if you think the GOP is the party of no governmental interference.

Jay, you are living in la-la-land. Oh, and while you are at it, why don't you have some of those Judeo-Christian slogans plastered on some public buildings? I recommend "Blessed are the peacemakers" in very large letters at the entrance to the Pentagon - and how about "welcome the strangers in your midst" at the Mexican border? What a buffoon you and the GOP are!!!

Interestingly, on this Remembrance weekend, Kevin used two military terms - trench warfare and rear guard actions - To me, trench warfare is simply slaughter warfare, usually resulting in long stalemates. Rear guard actions implies trying to stop the inevitable - They are delaying tactics used when one is either retreating or "strategically withdrawing".
In the case of trench warfare, MacArthur learned about the unneeded loss of life in France and used either leap frogging or ingenious sweeps behind enemy lines to either by-pass or entagle the enemy.
Trench warfare in politics is conducted by partisans on each side and become, as has been often demonstrated at this site, merely, to use a vulgarity, pissing contests.
What is needed is a combination of Kevin's excellent points and PTate's. Both are well thought out - We need to have coherent messages to reach the independents and rural America. I would suggest that much of the rural areas associate envirnomental policies with either taking of their land and/or occupations and gun control, of any sort, is merely a precursor to taking their guns. Combine these with moral issues and the task in rural America will not be an easy one.
However, it is time to have coherent messages and begin the flanking campaigns to win back America - Simply fighting the trolls and the partisans, head on in the trenches, will not suffice. Rear guard actions are designed to allow one to fight another day, not to win the final victory.

The good news is that policies endorsed by GWB & the modern Republicans have almost catalyzed that realization. The bad news is Democrats have still got to become "safe" to those who hold moderate white-centric, male, heterosexual values.

Which is why abortion and cultural issues have to be put on the backburner by the Democrats for '06 and '08. It's the economy and wage gap, stupid.

“and as the economy grows, we'll all get richer and more prosperous together. That bargain broke down long ago, but nothing has since taken its place. Sounds like a pretty good campaign platform to me.” Kevin Drum

Nothing will take its place, nor will it return, because all modern economic/political systems have and are dependent on more or less continuous economic “growth”, they only differ as to the means of dividing up the benefits of the “growth”.

But Peak Oil is coming, indeed, it is imminent (in fact there’s an article in to-day’s Post) and despite all the hype about alternate and renewable energies, these combined will come nowhere replacing our current petroleum useage. Economies worldwide will contract, if not crash, and will eventually stabilize at a far lower level, and by necessity organized around some sort of non-growth, steady-state paradigm.

Talk about how to reorganize economic activity to make it more “fair” will be irrelevant unless this reality is taken into account.

Antoinetta III

Kevin Drum: There's more, but that's enough for now. All of these things used to be part of the explicit and implicit bargains between business and labor that defined the postwar era: if you work hard you'll make enough to raise a family on one salary; you'll get decent healthcare for you and your kids; and as the economy grows, we'll all get richer and more prosperous together. That bargain broke down long ago, but nothing has since taken its place. Sounds like a pretty good campaign platform to me.
Varecia: Well, wasn't that essentially what John Edwards was attempting to address?

"The Netherlands tried school vouchers nationally, they were a dismal failure, and were scrapped. Scotland tried school vouchers nationally, they flopped, and were repealed. School vouchers have failed everywhere they have been tried in America."

I don't know what you're talking about. My understanding is that the Netherlands has provided state funds to open any kind of school anywhere in the country that serves the wider public good for almost ninety years, as well as vouchers based upon the income of families.

It has been a smashing success:

"For the past 87 years, the Netherlands has enjoyed a universal, nationwide school-voucher program. Dutch high school seniors and recent graduates score first in the world in mathematics, second in science and fourth in literacy."

The Dutch turned to vouchers because their own internal culture wars were tearing the country apart, and it appeared to them a peaceable solution; it was.

I see little reason to believe it wouldn't be as or even more successful here.

If there is trouble with Dutch multiculturalism today it has to do not with their education model but with their model of citizenship, which like most European countries remains founded on a common ethnicity and history rather than (as in America, and to a lesser degree the Commonwealth) shared values. If anything the European model of citizenship needs to become more American, even as we co-opt their good ideas (like vouchers, and universal health coverage).

"The reason you get a half-blank look from me about your rants against public schools is that I, my siblings, my wife, and my daughter are all gratuates of public schools. I got a Ph.D. in genetics at the age of 27. My wife got her Ph.D. in bacteriology at the age of 26 (she finished college in three years). My daughter is taking Latin and honors calculus as a high school junior."

Great! The wonderful thing about school choice is that if public schools are working for you and your family, you get to stay in them, but if they're not you get to leave.

Just waiting, after hearing Markos speak about his book and reading this post, for any Democrat, anywhere, to propose that the Federal contribution to, and response to, the flood disaster that enveloped New Orleans is itself a disaster, waiting for any Democrat to say that treating our brothers and sisters like this is the shame of a nation, and that his party will not be silent until the problems of the Corps of Engineers and FEMA are addressed systemically, intelligently and non-politically. I think I'm going to be waiting a long time.

Vouchers force citizens to subsidize religious indoctrination. Other bad things include that they don't actually guarantee access to private school, the way accesss to public schools is guaranteed. Elite private schools will simply raise tuition to keep poor children out, to cream off the top students, and to exclude kids with disabilities.

The little utopian dream of voucher libertarians depends upon unrealistic assumptions. To pretend that The Netherlands is a society with a structure and history modeling that of the US displays a profound ignorance of American education and American society. Please peddle your mindless propaganda elsewhere.

"Vouchers force citizens to subsidize religious indoctrination."

As many religious conservatives see it, the public schools indoctrinate their kids with values to which they're opposed, and they object to having to pay for them.

"To pretend that The Netherlands is a society with a structure and history modeling that of the US displays a profound ignorance of American education and American society."

Some of my colonial ancestors included Bogarts, Herrings, Rykers, Lossees....

As a matter of fact, the Dutch played a role in shaping the foundations of American politics, culture, and society second only to the English, with whom they share much in common.

"Elite private schools will simply raise tuition to keep poor children out, to cream off the top students, and to exclude kids with disabilities."

Were they to do so in the Netherlands, they would have to opt out of the voucher program altogether. Dutch schools that accept vouchers are not allowed to charge more than the vouchers themselves for tuition.

"Please peddle your mindless propaganda elsewhere."

Eventually liberals will see the wisdom of a voucher system. They may even take credit for it themselves someday.

"As many religious conservatives see it, the public schools indoctrinate their kids with values to which they're opposed, and they object to having to pay for them."

As the U.S. Constitution sees it, the obligation to subsidize religion is illegal. The absence of religion is not religion, nonwithstanding the attempts of the American Taliban to try to make it so.

"To pretend that The Netherlands is a society with a structure and history modeling that of the US displays a profound ignorance of American education and American society."

"Some of my colonial ancestors included Bogarts, Herrings, Rykers, Lossees....

As a matter of fact, the Dutch played a role in shaping the foundations of American politics, culture, and society second only to the English, with whom they share much in common."

What this has to do with validating any parallel between modern America and the present-day Netherlands, I can't even begin to guess.

"Were they to do so in the Netherlands, they would have to opt out of the voucher program altogether. Dutch schools that accept vouchers are not allowed to charge more than the vouchers themselves for tuition."

No such legal strictures have been imposed or advocated for vouchers in America. Please try to keep up.

"Eventually liberals will see the wisdom of a voucher system. They may even take credit for it themselves someday."

I'll await this news with the same eager anticipation that I await reports of porcine aviation.

Linus, you posted that you went to a small, Episcopal private school. I'm an Episcopalian myself, and we pride ourselves on open-mindedness and interest in learning and asking questions and exploration. Not that we always live up to this, and the upcoming general convention may change this openness.

So IMHO the denomination contributed to your school experience. Regardless of the denomination, your school sounds like an excellent school. So it seems like we need to make the kind of schooling you received more widely available. But is the answer charter schools with vouchers?

You also said that your school had less than 100 students. This size makes it feasible for teachers to give the kind of attention that you mention. But given the sheer number of students to be educated, I'm not convinced that 100s of 1000s of voucher-supported schools is the way to go. When you need to make a huge effort, and educating millions of young people is a huge effort, you need to take advantage of economies of scale.

So it seems to me that the answer (to the extent there is "the" answer, is to study what does work in elite private schools, in voucher schools, and in well-run public schools, and to see how what works can be made available more widely.

It's also clear that parental involvement is one of the most important factors. How to achieve that where parents are currently not involved, is a very huge question for which I haven't seen any good answers. And bear in mind that single parents holding down 2 or 3 minimum wage jobs are probably not going to have time or energy to be involved in their children's schooling.

The responses get ever more evasive and beside the point from certain people so I'm going to have to quit this thread.

But before I do:

"As the U.S. Constitution sees it, the obligation to subsidize religion is illegal."

Taxpayers have been providing funding to religously-based colleges and universities for a very long time. There are laws on the books at the state level that prohibit government grants to individuals for the purpose of religiously-based education, but I believe that those laws are discriminatory, and will either by overturned by the Roberts Court or else repealed by more enlightened lawmakers in the not-so-distant future.

"What this has to do with validating any parallel between modern America and the present-day Netherlands, I can't even begin to guess."

Nations and cultures do simply arise out of the ether. It is difficult to tease out which aspects of American politics, culture, and society were born of English origins, Dutch origins, etc, but America like the Netherlands has a long history of religious pluralism and multiculturalism. If the United Provinces was the first merchant republic, America was almost certainly the second. There is a pragmatism and libertarianism to American politics and life that is arguably as much Dutch as it is English (and other), and the American colonies would follow the United Provinces in discarding the old medieval caste system more completely than anywhere else in the West, including (obviously - I hope) class-and-title-obsessed England.

History matters. Culture matters.

"What this has to do with validating any parallel between modern America and the present-day Netherlands, I can't even begin to guess."

That's because the debate has been dominated by the market-obsessed libertarian right, the culture-obsessed religious right, and the anti-voucher left (which seems intent on defending a failing, authoritarian state school system and public employee union influence over policy at any cost).

Meet the pro-voucher left. There will be more of us in the years to come.

As I said, a majority of generation x and y supports vouchers. They can't all be conservatives...

"It's also clear that parental involvement is one of the most important factors."

Wolfdaughter nails it!

Vouchers are an attempt to hijack tax money to subsidize parochial schools and the tuition bills of affluent families. They will not cure the problem of parental involvement.

"After all the B-S we heard about Nader voters putting Bush in the Whitehouse, ..."

That wasn't BS. You're in denial.

Nader voters are totally responsible for everything that has happened on Bush's watch.

Have you learned anything about the TWO party system, Greenboy?

手机铃声 和弦铃声下载 手机铃声免费下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 mp3铃声下载 下载手机铃声 三星手机铃声 手机铃声 免费铃声下载 铃声下载免费 搞笑铃声下载 搞笑免费铃声 铃声下载免费 搞笑下载铃声 下载铃声 三星铃声 免费铃声下载 MP3铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 MP3铃声下载 手机铃声下载手机铃声 免费铃声下载 免费铃声下载 搞笑免费铃声 免费铃声下载 手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 免费铃声下载搞笑下载铃声 下载铃声 mp3手机铃声 三星铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 搞笑手机铃声 手机铃声免费下载免费铃声下载 铃声下载免费 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 免费铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 和弦特效铃声下载 文秘写作 竞聘演讲稿 个人工作总结 八荣八耻演讲稿 中国文秘网 治疗牛皮癣,阴虱特效药 免费歌曲铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 mp3铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 mp3手机铃声 免费手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 免费铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 搞笑铃声 免费手机铃声 免费铃声免费铃声下载 mp3手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 免费铃声 手机铃声免费下载 mp3铃声 免费手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 免费铃声下载 手机mmf铃声下载mp3手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声免费下载 铃声下载 免费铃声 手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声免费铃声 免费手机铃声 mp3铃声 mp3铃声下载 免费铃声

Wolfdaughter,

Thank you for your kind and conciliatory (as well as insightful) remarks. I do think charter schools could be part of the answer, and certainly however much I may have enjoyed the culture of my school, it may have been too traditional in some ways (uniforms, prayer, etc) for some people. Diversity strikes me as a good thing.

Peace.

'Linus' posted:

"I don't know what you're talking about."

That's obvious.

.

"My understanding is that the Netherlands has provided state funds to open any kind of school anywhere in the country that serves the wider public good for almost ninety years..."

Ah, yes.

But the government providing funds to construct and operate schools is not the same as giving vouchers to parents, now is it ? Besides, our American governments subsidize school construction and operation as well.

.

"as well as vouchers based upon the income of families."

If you're referring to aid to poorer families, true, but again, we also do that here in America. If you're referring to wide-spread nationwide school vouchers to the Middle-class. No. That program that was tried and scrapped. It was tried nationwide and scrapped in Scotland as well. And school vouchers have failed everywhere they have been tried in America.

What part of failed public policy don't you grasp ?

.

"I see little reason to believe it wouldn't be as or even more successful here."

Well, there's no accounting for gullibility.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, 'Americans always do the right thing, AFTER they've tried everything else first'. Why can't we learn from other countries mistakes instead of repeating them ?

'Ptate' posted:

"Democrats looked at poverty and thought that the way to end the injustice of poverty was to throw money at the poor."

Hysterical.

The only thing that's ever been thrown "at the Poor" is crumbs. The money, the BIG money, gets thrown at the Wealthy, the Corporate, and the Military Industrial Complex, none of which require it.

One of the largest budget items is Corporate Welfare. The vast majority of the massive federal deficits are due to tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate. Out of every one dollar you pay in federal income tax, almost two-thirds of it goes to fund just two areas: the Military Industrial Complex and interest on the Reagan/Bushies federal debt.
.

"But the government providing funds to construct and operate schools is not the same as giving vouchers to parents, now is it ? Besides, our American governments subsidize school construction and operation as well."

Harry Anthony Patrinos of the World Bank writes:

"One of the key features of the Dutch education system is freedom of education. That is, the freedom to found schools, to organize the teaching in schools, and to determine the principles on which they are based. Almost 70 percent of schools in the Netherlands are administered and governed by private school boards, and public and private schools are government funded on an equal footing. This allows school choice. Most parents can choose among several schools and there are no catchment areas. Some schools have developed a unique profile. Government policy requires schools to disseminate information to the public. Yet, debate has focused on how market forces can make the system more efficient and equitable, and less regulated. The school choice system found in the Netherlands is made possible by the system of finance.

A similiar system has been established in Sweden since the early 1990s with great success (that I did not know), and a quasi-voucher system has also been introduced in Denmark over the past couple of decades.

The point here is that the Netherlands (whose system some still describe as a "voucher system") and increasingly other countries provide state support to independent and parochial schools, and have high performing school systems, as well as a much higher degree of school choice than in America.

Clearly there are different mechanisms for introducing school choice (from direct funding of all schools that meet basic criteria to vouchers to tax credits) but you and it seems many Democrats don't seem open to any idea.

PS It was the left who introduced school choice in the Netherlands.

One final point:

Even in most voucher and "voucher" countries the state provides both foundational funding and per-student funding, so unless one is a literalist and requires vouchers to mean a yearly trip to the local Department of School Choice to pick up the proverbial gold ticket from the man in the blue uniform, per-pupil funding might generally be construed as a voucher.

So in some sense America already has a voucher system, just little (and in many places no) school choice. Your "voucher" is only good at the one school the government requires you to use it.

'Linus' posted:

"One of the key features of the Dutch education system is freedom of education. That is, the freedom to found schools, to organize the teaching in schools, and to determine the principles on which they are based."

We have that.

.

"This allows school choice."

We have "school choice".

You seem to be confused.

No nation on the planet still has the type of national school voucher system that the American RightWing is advocating. The ones that previously did have abandoned them.
.

"No nation on the planet still has the type of national school voucher system that the American RightWing is advocating. The ones that previously did have abandoned them."

The right has any number of concerns about the state of public schooling in this country, and so do any number of people in the center of the political spectrum, as well as on the left. It is just that we have heard from conservatives more loudly and extensively in recent decades.

The goal in my estimation should be a richly funded system with a great deal of choice. My own preference would be a four tiered system to achieve that end.

The first tier would be the public schools (conventional and charter), which would continue to be subsidized by taxpayers, overseen by local school boards, and regulated by states and the federal government.

The second tier would be foundational schools, which could be started by groups of parents, teachers, or anyone with abiding an interest in primary and secondary education. They would have to meet basic criteria (persuant to the public good), but could be affiliated with any religious denomination and based upon any educational philosophy. They would receive both foundational and developmental funding, as well as per-student funding, and be regulated by independent school boards at the local level with state and federal oversight.

The third tier would be progressive, partial (perhaps 3/4 at most) tuition remediation (as in vouchers) for students who attend accredited private and parochial schools. These schools (which currently have little to no government oversight, but must undergo an accreditation process even more rigorous in some respects than standards public schools must meet) would not receive foundational or developmental funding from the government, but middle and working class kids would have better access to them. Some of these schools are for the developmentally disabled or for kids from troubled families, but the bulk of them are of course relatively elite private and parochial. The latter are always going to accept for the most part only kids who score in the highest IQ and aptitude ranges, and gifted students from lower and middle income families (who may earn too much to qualify for aid and not enough to afford eight or twelve years of tuition) are the ones being locked out from these schools (which are for no small number of them their best hope of staying on the right path).

The fourth tier would be a modest tax credit (perhaps one or two thousand a year) for homeschool parents to help cover the cost of supplies, the basics. Taxpayers are never going to provide "foundational" support for homeschooling families so they can build a new wing on the house to educate their children, but they deserve a leg up too.

I believe a system like this would be so successful and wildly popular across the political spectrum the American people would be willing to fund it far more lavishly than they're willing to fund the current system.

When the downturns come today, music and art are the first things to go. With the kind of system I'm proposing the American people would allow cuts to happen over their dead bodies.

Pie in the sky.

There's a very SIMPLE reason why that kind of gibberish is not public policy in any nation on the planet. It's failed public policy. Anywhere on the planet where it had previously been adopted, it's been abandoned, and where it has never been adopted, they're smart enough to know it shouldn't.
.

Utopianism. We've seen utopian government policy before. Where? The USSR. The workers paradise.

Whenever you hear someone promise a utopia like the one Linus is preaching, run--don't walk--quickly in the other direction. And check your pockets. They want your money.

"Utopianism. We've seen utopian government policy before. Where? The USSR. The workers paradise."

I don't know man. It seems to me our current state school system is a bit more reminiscent of Soviet Russia. You can go to any school you choose as long as its the one the government tells you to attend (exceptions made for children of Politburo members and other elite).

Also: you make a silly analogy and get a silly analogy in response. It's only fair.

I really don't see your beef with American schools. As I previously posted:

* High school completion rates, at roughly 90 percent in 2000, and college graduation rates are the HIGHEST IN HISTORY.

* One in four adult Americans has at least a bachelor's degree - the highest percentage of ANY nation IN THE WORLD.

* A larger percentage of American twenty-two-year-olds receive degrees in math, science, or engineering in the United States than in any of our nation's major economic competitors.

* Where we are willing to spend the money and resources, we have the best public schools IN THE WORLD.
.

You get the last word.

I'll let the American people, and history, be the final arbiters.

Oh brother.

Now it's delusions of grandeur.
.

"Now it's delusions of grandeur."

Oh no I've always had delusions of grandeur.

But they have nothing to do with my conviction that the American people are sensible and pragmatic enough to eventually demand school choice.