Regime Change Begins at Home

Originally posted Friday, October 22, 2004:

In some fields you can identify clear experts with strong records of success. Like him or not, Bill Gates knows software. Warren Buffett knows investing. Alan Greenspan knows money. Steven Hawking knows, well, a lot. Unlike these examples, nobody really has much of a track record with national security in the past few years. Nobody has been able to pacify the Middle East, halt nuclear proliferation, or bring religious extremists into the modern world.
I’ve already stated that I believe that this campaign has overemphasized national security to the exclusion of other issues. But there’s no denying that national security is an important issue; so since, judging by results, national security is Amateur Hour, I might as well have a turn.

I. The wartime President

In the wake of 9/11, I agreed with the President that the terrorist act on the United States was an act of war. Since that time, we have seen civil rights curtailed by the administration’s use of wartime powers. But is this wartime? Article I, section 8, paragraph 11 of the Constitution says that only the Congress has the power to declare war, and Congress hasn’t done that yet. The War Powers Act of 1973 authorized the President to introduce the military into hostilities in “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces,” and that clearly was the case, but a declaration of war would have been worthwhile. The President should have sought it; Congress should have insisted on it.

Because this is not a war but an “introduction of armed forces into hostilities,” I find it hard to give the administration what it seems to want: an understanding that 9/11 excuses everything. If the closest parallel to 9/11 was Pearl Harbor, then the closest parallel to George W. Bush as a wartime President was Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDR’s supporters used the argument that you don’t “change horses in midstream,” but he himself tried to pass off the Democratic Presidential nomination to someone else. And both in peace and in war, both in his lifetime and after, he was viciously attacked by his enemies, who typically referred to him simply as “That Man.”

Judging from their rhetoric, the Bush administration clearly believes that it should get the benefit of the doubt on all its actions, reelection in a walk, and the right to condemn critics as disloyal. (The code for this is contained in a current Bush campaign ad that says, “After September 11th, the world changed.”) If we really believe as a nation that wartime requires special rules, we should amend the Constitution to suspend Presidential elections during declared wars. Until that time–and until we have a declaration of war–the people who question the administration are patriots.

II. Respected abroad

The Kerry-Edwards campaign calls for the United States to treat foreign nations with respect. That’s easily characterized as weakness or waffling, but it just makes sense. Obviously we can’t let foreign countries dictate our foreign policy: George Washington said as much, and every President since has known it. But the Bush policy seems calculated to lose allies. If elected, Kerry may not get allies to join us in Iraq, but he might at least soften the hatred observed by many Americans as they travel around the world today. Given an American government that doesn’t insult them at every turn, foreign governments might just decide that they want to find ways to work with us.

III. Flip-flop, or just wrong?

The Bush campaign likes to find inconsistent Kerry quotes and use them against him. For some time, with its usual flair for dramatic campaign tactics, the campaign dispatched demonstrators waving flip-flops to Kerry speeches. That’s a pretty effective bit of ridicule, but it denies reality.

I’ve held some elected positions; my votes on issues changed all the time, depending on the exact language and the circumstances of proposals being considered. To simplify a candidate’s record distorts the truth. But what if Kerry’s votes have actually been inconsistent? Isn’t that better than being wrong?

Consider what almost no one questions seriously. Faced with a truly horrendous national crisis, the Bush administration selected the most extreme intelligence assessments available and overreacted to them. Outside the administration there was almost unanimous agreement that invading Iraq would make a dangerous situation more dangerous, that the peace would be harder to win than the war, and that the invaders needed to invest the resources necessary to plan the peace. The Bush administration jumped into war.

There is a major Washington industry of helping Presidents to make decisions; presidents don’t always have people around them to tell them when they’re wrong. Good leaders seek out divergent opinions: it makes decision-making harder, but better.

I’m willing to concede that John Kerry has trouble making up his mind on complicated issues; most of us do. President Bush’s problem is that he doesn’t.

Kerry’s decision-making may have frustrated people; the President’s has gotten them killed.

The Old Deluder

Originally posted Thursday, October 21, 2004:

I’m not quite a single-issue voter; but I have to admit that of all the issues, I care the most about public education. That puts me in a distinct minority during this election, when national security is the issue of the year.
And yet really, education is a national-security issue. Americans have an almost mystical belief in education. We know that education is the key to a brighter economy. For generations, education has been the key to upward mobility for immigrants and the poor. We claim to believe that education is a good in and of itself, and not just for its economic benefits. Surveys say that Americans trust school employees, especially teachers, more than almost any other profession. A quality public education system offers hope for national prosperity, reduced crime, increased opportunity for all, and yes, national security.

Free universal public education is one of America’s gifts to the world. Public education as we know it got its start in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1647, which passed a law commonly known as the “Old Deluder Satan Act.” The Act gets its name from its famous first line: “It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, . . . It is therefore ordered that every township in this jurisdiction . . . shall forthwith appoint one within their town to teach all . . . children . . . to write and read . . . .”

Public education today is an embattled institution. Americans have a healthy skepticism about institutions, but for the past generation the very concept of public education has been questioned by a chorus of public school critics. Since the eighties, vouchers, charter schools, education service providers, tuition tax credits, and home-schooling have all been touted as alternatives to public schools. Its proponents call it “educational choice,” and I don’t know anybody who seriously argues against school choice; but when that choice takes money away from the public schools, it amounts to the privatization and defunding of public education.

Instead of making public schools as good as they can be, tax support for private educational alternatives drains resources needed by public schools. Some ask, if the alternatives are better, what’s the problem? One problem is that while privatization rewards unaccountable boutique schools with tax dollars, it postpones the serious business of real educational improvement for all. Another, perhaps more serious, is that privatization siphons public dollars to entities that have virtually no accountability to the taxpayers.

To be fair, this divide reflects a real cultural difference. Public school advocates view education as a societal responsibility; privatization proponents view education as a commodity. Most citizens and taxpayers are neither privatizers nor advocates: they sincerely try to make difficult choices for themselves and their families. How should they make up their minds? I believe they should consider the following four points.

1. Our nation’s future will be determined largely by the quality of the education received by the majority of our children. Outstanding education for a few won’t help society much if most children aren’t well-educated.

2. Your property values are determined largely by your community’s public schools. Having great private schools won’t attract buyers if your public schools are poor.

3. Not all improvements require money; some improvements do. Suggestions that better management, administrative efficiencies, reorganization, or employee sacrifices can solve school funding problems without taxpayer support are either misguided or dishonest.

4. Public schools are, first and foremost, the public’s schools. Yet most studies indicate that today, the percentage of families with children in school is at an all-time low. The title of one recent book asks the question, “Is there a public for the public schools?” As citizens, we need to remember that our public schools are ours whether or not we have children there. If it takes a village to raise a child, all of us–not just the parents, and certainly not just the parents of public school children–must be that village.

Further into the ludicrously misnamed “No Child Left Behind” law–long after the end of the term of this President–penalties are scheduled for schools that can’t meet arbitrary standards set by people who don’t know a thing about education. The Bush platform calls for those penalties to include private school choice.

The law was passed with promises of unprecedented increases in federal funding for public schools. The federal contribution to funding public education has increased, all right–from 7% to 8% of the total cost. But the burdens imposed by federal interference constitute far more than 8% of the cost of schools doing business. The impact far outstrips federal support.

NCLB is based on misguided principles, and it consists of unfunded mandates that lead toward privatization on the sly. That’s why I support John Kerry for President: at least he recognizes that NCLB needs to be fixed and funded, while the President and his minions are convinced that it’s just fine, thank you. It’s a pity the issue isn’t getting more attention from the candidates themselves, but I can’t help that. I’m giving it all the attention I can.

Politics and Religion

Originally posted Wednesday, October 20, 2004:You have perhaps noticed that we are in the election season. Most observers agree that this has been a tough campaign; most expect the election to be close. Political organizations of all political persuasions have worked to register voters, and some signs point to increased voter participation this year. Political signs, buttons, bumper stickers, and other displays of affiliation are sprouting up everywhere. Citizen participation is what the American political system is all about, and we should all be proud and pleased to see it happen. Unfortunately, many signs indicate that our nation is bitterly divided; and after next month’s re-enactment of this most fundamentally American tradition, we are likely to find ourselves more bitterly divided than ever. Experts anticipate that election results will be contested in several states. Republicans accuse Democrats of fraudulently packing voter rolls, and Democrats claim that Republicans are trying to disenfranchise opposing voters. Even disaffected partisans who profess reservations about their parties’ candidates believe, and are prepared to repeat, virtually any accusation about the opposite party’s candidate. There are real differences between the parties and the candidates, and what I am saying isn’t meant to minimize those. The stakes are indeed high: I tend to agree with those who argue that this year’s election is the most important in my lifetime. And yet, despite the importance of this election, our political discourse seems to be calculated to produce more heat than light. One of the key reasons for this division is the “echo chamber” effect: people on each side talk among themselves, but neither side talks with the other. On both the right and the left, members of the political class talk among themselves, changing no minds but hardening their own attitudes toward their opponents. (Alert: serious elitist reference coming. Avert your eyes.) One thing enabling this phenomenon is that many thoughtful people take seriously the idea that it’s impolite to talk about politics and religion. When you do hear casual conversation about either, it tends to be remarkably uninformed, because the very people who could add something valuable to the conversation are too well-mannered to join in. I’ve been as guilty of this as anybody. So, for the next few days, I’m going to change my ways. I’ve decided that what America (at least that portion of it that I know) needs is some of my political observations, and so I’m going to share some thoughts. Unlike most of the wienies we read on the Internet, I’ll sign my work. This may offend a few relatives, but family members tolerate each other’s rantings; it may upset a few friends, but most of my friends already know that a certain amount of didacticism is part of my charm. Feel free to use the “reply” button–although chances are that in the weeks ahead, I’ll fall behind in reading replies. Whether you like or hate what I have to say, remember that the beauty of the Internet lies in judicious application of the “forward” button and the “delete” key. You’ll figure out what to do.