May 1, 2017--The Perfect, The Good

I had quiet an argument with a friend the other day about just how big a tent Democrats should pitch and who should and shouldn't be be welcome in it.

It was provoked by something Tom Perez, the new chair of the Democratic National Committee, said about so-called right-to-life Democrats. Specifically, by clear implication he criticized Heath Mello, who is running to become mayor of Omaha, as being insufficiently pro-choice because back in 2009, as a member of the Nebraska legislature, he supported a bill that would require women to be informed that they could use ultrasound before getting an abortion.

Chairman Perez said--

Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman's right to make her own choices about her body and her health. That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state. At a time when women's rights are under assault from the White House, the Republican Congress, and in states across the country, we must speak up for this principle as loudly as ever and with one voice.

After a few days of awkward silence, Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren finally said it is all right for people who are pro-choice to be Democrats and that, if they run for office, Democrats should support them.

My friend disagreed.

"If we allow people who don't believe in a woman's right to have an abortion to be Democrats, what does it mean to be a Democrat?"

"Is that the only litmus test?" I asked.

"What do you mean?"

"I mean if someone believes in school vouchers can they be a Democrat?"

"I have no problem with that," my friend said.

"OK, how about someone who feels we should have American troops on the ground in Syria and that they should be actively supporting the Syrian rebels?"

"I'm OK with that too."

"So, is one's views on abortion the only litmus test that matters?"

"To me, yes. If you're antiabortion you can't be a Democrat."

"But what would be the fate of the Democratic Party if others had their own version of litmus tests about education or health policy? Of, for that matter, the environment or same sex marriage?"

"For me the issue that counts above all others is the right to choose."

"You're avoiding my question."

"Try me again."

"If we made a list of all the issues people could potentially turn into litmus tests for membership in the Democratic Party, I'm afraid we would doom ourselves to minority status and political irrelevance forever. I'm very concerned about that since I feel liberals have been acting in exclusionary ways for a long time and Republicans, as a result, are ascendant at every level of government, from small towns to cities to states and now most dramatically at the congressional and presidential levels. You can't possible see this as a good thing."

"I don't, but to me abortion is different."

"As to someone else are charter schools or healthcare exchanges."

"None of your examples are as important nor do they generate the same level of conflict. About everything else there can be compromises. You can agree to having some charters schools in the mix or allow states to set up various versions of the way people can acquire healthcare coverage. You can't be sort of for or against abortions. Just like you can't be a little bit pregnant."

"That's not how many people see things. To them you're either for or against fracking. No compromises. Or for or against charter schools. No compromising. Just ask Randi Weingarten the head of the teachers union. For all I know, from her perspective, if you're in favor of school vouchers you can't be a Democrat. No compromises."

"Republicans do the same thing. Look at the Freedom Caucus members of Congress. They won't compromise."

"Though Republicans also have 'moderates.' But, we're getting distracted. I don't care what they do. I care what we do. And I am totally opposed to any litmus tests. We need every vote we can muster. I want to win some elections. We're getting wiped out, especially at the state level. For example, Bernie Sanders raised questions about supporting Jon Osseff in Georgia who has a good chance to win a seat in the House for the Democrats. Bernie raised questions about whether he was progressive enough. He walked it back quickly but his initial position exposed what he really thought--that there needs to be a doctrinal purity test to receive his endorsement. That's crazy."

"But I want us to stand for something."

"How about inclusiveness and tolerance? Those feel like Democratic values to me."

"The next thing you're going to do is say that we shouldn't allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good."

"In fact, that's just what I was going to say."

"Isn't that what Ronald Reagan said?"

"A version of that. I think he said get 60 percent of the loaf the first time and then come back for the rest."

"So," my friend said, "It's come to that--Liberals quoting Ronald Reagan. The next thing we'll be doing is quoting Donald Trump. When that  happens, I won't need a litmus test to stop being a Democrat."

October 5, 2016--Hillary Clinton's Plan for Education

Over coffee yesterday, John, a lifelong liberal, said with some sadness, "Look, I know Hillary's going to win and that's a very good thing, but why is she running? I mean, in big picture terms, how would she summarize what she will do for America when our president?"

"She could say 'I'm not Trump,'" I quipped.

"Or, 'I'm a woman,'" Rona quipped.

"Though I can't stand him," John said, "Trump effectively sums up why he's running by saying, 'I'll make America great again.' Of course what he's proposing to do, if he is proposing anything more than tax cuts for people like himself, is either nothing or preposterous. But he's still attracting almost half the potential voters."

I said, "A lot of that has to do with the fact that he's not Hillary, not a woman, and is white."

"And not a politician," Rona added.

"She has a plan for this and a plan for that and then another plan for something else," John said. "I think she has at least 100 plans. But still, she isn't saying what she wants to accomplish. This may sound cynical, but I suspect that one reason she isn't ahead by 25 points is that many people, very much including those who would be eager to feel good about voting for her, think she's running for the presidency because she feels it's her turn and that she just simply wants to be president. Which is very different, obviously, than telling the public what she would do if she were elected."

"Maybe we're being unfair," I said. "I confess I haven't, but have either of you looked at any of her plans? She keeps encouraging people to look at them on her website. Maybe they're terrific and if enacted would accomplish good, progressive things. If so, the problem might be that she's not that great a communicator. She admits to not being a natural politician like Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan."

John and Rona indicated they hadn't read any of Clinton's plans and so I volunteered to look at the one for education and report back to them about what I think about it.

*   *   *  

Her plan for K-12 education says that--

As President, Hillary will: 

Launch a national campaign to modernize and elevate the profession of teaching.
Provide every student in America an opportunity to learn computer science.
Rebuild America's schools.
Dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline.

I scrolled down to see if there was more on her education agenda but there isn't. This is it.

Since the other's are self-explanatory, I took a closer look at priority 1--elevating the teaching profession.

Here it is in its entirety--

America is asking more of our educators than ever before. They are preparing our kids for a competitive economy, staying on top of new pedagogies, and filling gaps that we as a country have neglected--like giving low-income kids, English-language learners, and kids with disabilities the support they need to thrive. We ask so much of our educators, but we aren't setting them up for success. That's why Hillary will launch a national campaign to elevate and modernize the teaching profession, [sic] by preparing, supporting, and paying every child's teacher as if the future of our country is in their hands--because it is.

There is little new here but it is still good to remind people that we need to do better by our young people.

Of course it is true that the future is in teachers' hands. At least partly. Parents count even more and there are also significant roles for other service providers and programs such as school lunch programs and rich pre-school and after-school programs. Perhaps these are addressed in other Clinton plans.

"Supporting" teachers is fine as is paying them appropriate wages, but there is not a word here about holding teachers in any way accountable for how their students progress. Raising this gets us into the hot topic of using high-stakes achievement testing as part of the accountability process.

The kind of testing we do as part of the process of evaluating and rewarding teaching excellence is not the only way to do this. As someone who prides herself on her 30+ years of advocacy for children one could expect much more than is revealed in this skeletal plan.

We hold doctors and surgeons accountable for the outcomes of their work so why not teachers?

There is also not one word here about helping teachers learn and employ methodologies that have proven to be successful. There are many with excellent track records which could be endorsed and funded through vigorous and visionary presidential leadership.

Clinton's whole approach to education improvement is too soft and in effect a pander to the organized education establishment.

Her call for "elevating the profession of teaching" could have been written by one of Clinton's most fervent supporters--highly visible on the platform the night Hillary accepted the Democratic nomination--Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. In effect, the national teachers' union.

Weingraten has been a lifelong opponent of anything having to do with changing the existing teacher tenure system and has lobbied long and effectively to kill off the nascent accountability movement.

*   *   *

I suspect when I report back to John and Rona they will not be surprised. I only hope they won't ask me to read any other plans.

With Randi Weingarten