An article in the Connecticut Post says that “Teachers Are Confused for Good Reason.”
The bottom line:
“If Democrats continue with their right-wing conservative educational policies, they will alienate the teachers and teacher unions that have traditionally been the party’s staunchest supporters. More importantly, these misguided policies and initiatives will deal a severe blow to public education and to the quality of the teaching profession as well as to the morale of our teachers. You cannot on one hand preach about the importance of teachers while implementing educational policies that are destroying public education in this country.”
It is indeed confusing and demoralizing to realize that Democrats have adopted Republican education policies of testing, accountability, privatization, and competition. No one expected that Barack Obama would abandon the party’s historic support of public education and equity. He has.
The Democrats–at least those in control of the party in Washington–have turned their backs on the unions, and most especially the teachers’ unions, which represent more than three million teachers. Since teachers have families, that represents many millions of votes.
President Obama is fortunate to be running against an extremist candidate, because had the Republicans put forward a moderate person (are there any left in today’s Republican party), teachers would be voting for him or her.
As I earlier stated unequivocally, I will vote for Obama, but it won’t be because of his disastrous rightwing education policies. Race to the Top is worse than No Child Left Behind. It takes the assumptions of NCLB (testing will fix everything) and applies them to teachers. Teachers will be fired, schools will be closed, and no problem will be solved.
I will vote for Obama because I fear the far-rightwing of the GOP. They will attempt to destroy public education, without delay or apology. And they will do the same to other social programs as well.
With Obama, there is some hope that he might change his mind once re-elected. There is some hope that he will no longer need the Wall Street hedge fund managers whose funds helped elect him and who demand testing and charters (but not for their children!). There is some hope that he will change course. There is some hope that other Democrats will hear the voices of parents and teachers and recognize that Democrats need their own education policies, not those of George W. Bush and Bill Gates.
With Romney, there is none. As his wife proudly boasted, it’s time to “throw out” the public education system.
No, it’s not.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The Democratic party has fallen in line with the radical right “reform” movement for a number reasons. One, that is where the corporate money is and Dems need it to get elected. Two, they don’t want to be seen as opposing “education reform.” Finally, they don’t want to be perceived as being “pro-union,” since unions have fallen out of favor with the public thanks to a relentless effort to demonize them by the right.
As far as I’m concerned there is no reason to vote for Obama. If you choose between the “lesser of two evils” you end up with one of two “evils.” I will vote for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein.
Diane, I love you but your “hope” reminds me of the hopes of an abused and enabling spouse. Obama’s history of lies and betrayals is clear enough. As today’s Black Agenda Report editorial puts it:
“If Obama succeeds in eking out a victory, the I’m disappointed but voting for him anyway’ crowd should be put on notice. They have been claiming an intent to hold his feet to the fire ever since 2008. They didn’t in his first term, and they probably won’t in a second term either. They will find a way to rationalize his utter disregard for them. Unfortunately, every one will suffer, including those of us who see Obama for what he has been all along. ”
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-obama-untouchable
I hope you will read the full editorial. Obama and Romney have few real differences, especially when it comes to cutting public support for housing, education, medical care, and nutrition. Those of us who want to preserve our public institutions and spaces have to vote outside the merged Democrat-Republican monolith that has been created by Wall Street and the 1%. The Greens and Justice parties support the reforms and values that are consistent with public education.
MnS,
Why do you think that it is so hard for folks to see the facts you have pointed out?
I wish I knew! 🙂 Thinking about Americans generally, and not Diane specifically, I see several factors at work:
1. As Richard Hofstadter pointed out, Americans have never been very comfortable talking about politics; so, we tend to avoid discussing the sorts of difficult moral and practical problems we face. I think that encourages people to stick with political parties. Of course, George Washington and the other founders didn’t like parties (or “factions”), and wanted Americans to vote as individuals, not party members.
2. Our genius political scientists and economists remind us to no end that the Constitution favors a two-party “system” of governance. Of course, they forget to remind us that while the structure of the electoral system may favor two parties, or two political “sides”, it certainly doesn’t forbid other parties or sides. As Chris Hedges has pointed out, third party insurgencies have been the driver for reforms of the two major political parties throughout our history. But the talking heads will never admit it.
3. American culture has always looked at political decisions in highly moralistic terms–we don’t do nuance. The underlying Puritanical history of our political culture tends to view decisions as reflecting a moralistic “good” vs. “bad”, rather than an analytical, practical, more amoral view. Thus, government budget deficits, even when useful, are simply “bad”; providing government assistance is “bad”, even when it boosts economic activity and reduces misery and crime, because it weakens independence; strength, in terms of defense spending and the value of the dollar, is “good”. Thus, our Manichean political discussions (see point 1.) lead us to looking at political questions in binary terms, and hence encourage two-party thinking. I think it’s hard to offer a third view.
4. Americans have exchange political discourse and decision making for “retail” politics, i.e., Americans tend to view political parties as offering goods as services, rather than acting as organizing units to express our collective political thoughts. The view of politics as shopping encourages the parties to create political “brands” that hide any real political discussion behind a smoke screen of marking slogans and images. Thus, we have a hard time abandoning a party to look at a new alternative. Worse, we become very vulnerable to stereotyping policies, parties, and voters, which retards our ability to think clearly and make honest, wise electoral decisions.
5. Related to points 4 and 3, we are bombarded with advertising and political “experts” who are heavily supported by the major parties, and who therefore have no incentive to discuss or consider third party alternatives.
Put all these together, and I think you see why it’s hard to consider voting outside the two major parties. The elites have honed their propaganda about this phony binary choice to a fine edge, which they use skillfully to keep dividing us while all the while pursuing their own agenda. Just consider that the vast majority of Americans favor cutting defense spending and maintaining Social Security and Medicare, all the while our political elites on both sides of the aisle have consistently affirmed their intention to do just the opposite.
Muchas Gracias. Excellent explication!!!
Moosensquirrels, I enjoy reading your comments and agree with many of them, but please do not make analogies between Obama supporters and abused spouses. I respectfully suggest the following: I support voting for Obama and have an analysis that backs up this decision. You may disagree with this analysis, but please do not intimate that the reasoning of Obama supporters is the result of “abuse,” not rational thought. I do feel there is a significant difference between the candidates and the party platforms. Issues that I find compelling include voting rights, access to healthcare for those with preexisting conditions, the Supreme Court, equal pay for equal work, marriage equality, women’s healthcare choices, strong governmental health & safety regulations, tax reform that would increase tax rates on the super rich who make money by investments rather than labor, immigration reform that is based on something other than “self deportation”, Medicare not Voucher-care, and the overturning of Citizens United. Others may not feel these issues are important or may support the Republican position on these issues. Nonetheless, my support for Obama is based on research, experience, and a thought process, not “abuse.” Do I disagree with his education policies? Absolutely. Strongly. I am also disappointed in his lack of leadership on gun control and tougher environmental regulations. I do not feel the Republican positions on these issues are better. In many respects they are worse. A third party vote might be an option, but if you are in a swing state recognize that your choice will have consequences. In my opinion, saying there is no difference between the parties seems to oversimplify a very complex set of policies.
MST, I was referring to Diane’s “hope” rationale and not Obama supporters generally. But I still think my analogy is fair. Arguing on “hope” isn’t an analysis. Supporting a candidate who has consistently lied and betrayed his stated views during the campaign on the “hope” that he (or she) will change after getting reelected reflects the sort of wishful thinking and denial that is commonly found among those who’ve suffered abusive relationships. I didn’t say that was the “result” of abuse.
Identifying with our captors is a sign of Stockholm not rationale analysis, Obama and Duncan and Emmanuel work for the corporate capitalist who hold this country hostage and pulled the trigger in 2008 on the American public. A huge transfer of wealth took place from the U.S. Treasury to parts unknown. Those corporate interests, Gates, Murdoch, et al., are frothing at the mouth for new revenue sources ala public education dollars. Both are failed businessmen who could only compete as monopolies that crushed other competitors. Think critically.
Wow. First it’s an abused spouse analogy, now it’s a captive suffering from
Stockholm Syndrome analogy. I listed 11 specific (non-education) issues which I believe are important and which provide a basis for voting for Obama. I would be interested in different perspectives on these issues (or others). I would be interested in arguments about why they are or are not important to consider when voting. What I don’t need are more analogies which do not foster real dialogue in that they are, I would respectfully suggest, a tad impolite.
I was trying to give context to why the current POTUS is not your friend on any of the 11 issues you referenced. He does not answer to you or I and virtually every thing he has done in office has benefitted his real constituents immensely. I do apologize for coming across impolite but other people care about these issues too. People have to be willing think critically which starts with examining every piece of information and that starts at the source of the information, the corporate controlled media and news outlets. Real education facilitates these processes which is why it must be avoided at all costs by the real shot callers who run this country, and if they can make a few billion in profits on top of that, well at least there is cake for the rest of us.
Interesting comment format…
” No one expected that Barack Obama would abandon the party’s historic support of public education and equity.”
Yes, at least one of us did. I didn’t vote for him the first time around as if you read anything at all about his record and what he said he was going to do you would have realized that he was a neoliberal, Chicago school of economics warmongering right winger.
Four years ago, I manned the phone banks for Obama. Yesterday, I got a call asking me to call people in Ohio. I had to decline. While I will vote for Obama, I just don’t have the passion to convince anyone else.
Diane, sounds like Santa’s wish list – that Obama will change. Maya Angelou states: When people show you who they are, believe them the first time. Applicable! Obama surrounded himself with nitwits and the $$$ is flowing out and rolling in. Teachers have done all they can to let all of us know the impact on them and their students. You have tweeted/emailed 24/7, still no change with our leadership. Only rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic! Beginning to feel hopeless. Obama does not deserve educator’s votes, neither does Romney. Remember, Ann will fix schools if Mitt is inmthe White House.
Glenn Greenwald had a few good links the other day making the case for voting third party. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/30/obama-first-term-racism-charges – particularly the links in items 2 and 4.
To expand on my previous post. I vote for third party candidates because they share my values and because they offer hope, however faint, that change might be possible. The impact of third parties, apart from forcing reforms on the two majors, is limited by the structure of our government. If we were a parliamentary system with multiple parties things might be different. As it is, both Dems and Repubs work at marginalizing all other parties. To be blunt, our system doesn’t deliver on its promise. Its actually quite broken at this point.
There’s that pesky “hope” word again.
As far as the linked article, I am loathe to call for a “war” on poverty. While we absolutely need to address and alleviate poverty, the last thing this country needs is another war. Just like the “war on drugs” is actually a war on drug users, a “war” on poverty will inevitably become a war on poor people.
DIenne, I understand your trepidation about using the term “war on poverty.” I don’t know you, so I don’t know if you are aware of this, but Lyndon Johnson declared a “war on poverty” and sought to eradicate poverty in the US. It only turned into a war on the poor when Ronald Reagan perpetuated the myth of the “welfare queens.” Personally, I’d rather a war on poverty than a war on drugs.
The times today are much more in sync with Reagan than with Johnson. I fear that any renewal of the “war on poverty” will be welfare queens (and worse) all over again.
We don’t “war” anymore; we “reform” and “privatize”.
Romney is, in fact, a centrist (in my perception), and will win because of it. As the economy recovers under his leadership, tax receipts at all levels will increase, and the public schools will become better funded than at present. A Romney administration is much more likely to get rid of NCLB and RTTT than Obama is likely to fire Arne Duncan. To save the public school system, it would be better to get the unions out of the schools, but that isn’t even necessary. What is necessary is for the teacher unions to reform themselves, as Karen Lewis is attempting in Chicago, to let teachers teach. I liked very much her interview in which she said she just ignores NCLB, RTTT, and Common Core in her Chemistry teaching. The Republicans with Romney will, I sincerely hope, surprise you by their common sense.
“I will vote for Obama because I fear the far-rightwing of the GOP. They will attempt to destroy public education, without delay or apology. And they will do the same to other social programs as well.
With Obama, there is some hope that he might change his mind once re-elected. There is some hope that he will no longer need the Wall Street hedge fund managers whose funds helped elect him and who demand testing and charters (but not for their children!). There is some hope that he will change course. There is some hope that other Democrats will hear the voices of parents and teachers and recognize that Democrats need their own education policies, not those of George W. Bush and Bill Gates.”
I’m surprised at the lack of connecting the dots in these statements. The corporate masters that Obama answers to, because it certainly isn’t the American public at large, knew that they needed to preserve the illusion of democracy without seriously threatening the best thing that happened to the GOP…Obama. The ACA was a gift to the healthcare industry, i.e., drug companies, insurers, as much as NCLB was to the testing companies, textbook publishers and charter school industry. Never mind education, Obama has been able to do everything that Bush couldn’t, escalate drone attacks and extrajudicial assassinations, complete the bailout of the banks in 2008, ensure retroactive immunity for the telecoms for allowing the NSA to wiretap citizens, launch proxy wars in Africa, institute a kill list and the list goes on. With Obama, what little restraint was shown in his first term will be gone and the bankers and billionaires will go full throttle. Educators must lead the way in thinking critically and be willing to face the reality of what is rather than in the abstract land of hope and change, Obama never was and never will be for the general public any more than Romney, they are two sides of the same coin.