Archives for category: Democrats

I wrote this article for The New Republic.

https://newrepublic.com/article/142364/dont-like-betsy-devos-blame-democrats

It explains how Democrats set the stage for DeVos’ anything-goes approach to school choice by their advocacy of charter schools. Charters are the gateway to vouchers. We have seen many groups like Democrats for Education Reform try to draw a sharp distinction between charters and vouchers. It doesn’t work. Once you begin defaming public schools and demanding choice, you abandon the central argument for public schools: they belong to the public.

The political side to this issue is that the Democratic Party sold out a significant part of its base–teachers, teachers unions, and minorities–by joining the same side as ALEC, the Walton family, and rightwing conservatives who never approved of public schools.

Their pursuit of Wall Street money in exchange for supporting charters helped to disintegrate their base. To build a viable coalition for the future, the Party must walk away from its flirtation with privatization and support the strengthening and improvement of our public schools.

Please share this article widely.

Jennifer Berkshire (the writer formerly known as EduShyster) is one of the best education writers on the national scene.

In this article, she describes the evangelical roots of the present school-choice movement, as personified by Betsy DeVos.

You will meet some very peculiar people who loathe “government schooling” and prefer to home school their children. Some will be familiar to you, like the far-right billionaire Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, who bankrolled Steve Bannon and Breitbart News. Daughter Rebekah homeschools her children to keep them free from the contamination of both public and private schools.

Berkshire notes that the Mercers funded an odd Oregon politician named Arthur Robinson.

She writes about Robinson:

In Oregon, Robinson is known as a kooky Tea Party-ish chemist who has been stockpiling urine as part of his mission to improve health, happiness, prosperity — and boost student test scores. He’s also a perennial GOP congressional candidate whose long-shot bids have been mostly underwritten by the Mercers.

In Christian homeschooling circles, Arthur Robinson is a household name. The Robinson Self-Teaching Curriculum, developed by Robinson and his six home-schooled children, teaches children to “teach themselves and to acquire superior knowledge as did many of America’s most outstanding citizens in the days before socialism in education.”

Robinson fleshed out his views on education during his 2016 run for Congress, releasing an education platform called “Art’s Education Plan!” He called for a nationwide voucher program, providing every student in the United States with the “freedom and resources to apply to any school in our nation, public or private.”

There was also a bold plan for Congress to shut down the schools of Washington, DC, for three months, long enough to fire the “unionized deadwood” and create a model in which students and parents are customers rather than “vassals of school administrators.”

She describes the ultra-conservative financiers and their faithful political vassals who have turned Florida into a mecca for publicly funded religious education, even though the Florida Constitution explicitly forbids it, and even though the state’s voters turned down a Jeb Bush effort to strip the state Constitution of its anti-voucher language in 2012.

Yes, there are some far-right extremists in the school choice movement. But, notes Berkshire, it was not DeVos that put school choice into the mainstream. It was Democrats who called themselves “reformers.”


DeVos and her allies are aided in the efforts to dismantle public education by Democratic education reformers who’ve spent the past two decades doing essentially the same thing. It is “progressive” reformers, after all, who’ve led the charge to convince parents and taxpayers that there is no meaningful difference between a public school and one that’s privately managed. That parents don’t care who runs their schools as long as they’re good is a standard reform talking point, along with the reminder that “charter schools are public schools….”

School choice has been legitimized, not by DeVos et al, but by the likes of Corey Booker, Rahm Emanuel and other reform-minded Democrats. If saving public education is to be a key plank of the #resistance, Democrats will have to join the fight or be swept aside.

Mike Klonsky, Chicago activist, had a dream that was actually a nightmare.

It involved Arne Duncan running for mayor, Rahm running for president.

A nightmare.

It is baffling that there is a sector of the Democratic Party that aligns with far-right Republicans on education issues. The Republicans want nothing more than to turn education into a free market, a strategy that has no evidence behind it.

Steven Singer bemoans the fact that a group of Democratic legislators in his state of Pennsylvania are supporting the Republican push against public schools.

He writes:

“Democrats are supposed to be liberals, progressives.

“That means upholding the Constitution and the Separation of Church and State.

“So why are so many Pennsylvania Democrats sponsoring an expansion of the state’s de facto school voucher bill?

“A total of 11 out of 84 sponsors of HB 250 are Democrats. The bill would expand the Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) and Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit (OSTC) programs.

“The Commonwealth already diverts $200 million of business taxes to private and parochial schools. That’s money that should be going to support our struggling public school system.

“The new bill would add $50 million to each program for a total of $100 million more flushed down the drain.

“Pennsylvania has a budget deficit. We’ve cut almost $1 billion a year from public schools. We can’t afford to burn an additional $300 million on private and church schools.

“We expect Republicans to support this regressive nonsense. Especially in gerrymandered Pennsylvania, they’ve gone further and further right to please their Tea Party base and avoid being primaried.

“But the few Democrats left in the House and Senate are likewise in districts that would never vote Republican. You’d expect them to get more and more progressive. Instead, even here we see them taking steps to the right!

“Democratic sponsors of the bill are almost exclusively from the state’s urban centers – Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.”

He lists the Democrats who support corporate giveaways.

Don’t vote for them.

Adam Gentelson was an aide to Senator Harry Reid. He saw how Republicans put up obstacles to Obama’s
governance and were unafraid to employ every tool and strategy to stop what they opposed.
Democrats in the Senate could force Republicans to slow down and compromise if they have spine.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/27/democrats-in-congress-can-block-trumps-agenda-if-they-want-to-heres-how/

“As a Democratic Senate aide for the past seven years, I had a front-row seat to an impressive show of obstruction. Republicans, under then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, decided they would oppose President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at every turn to limit their power. And it worked: They extorted concessions from Democrats with threats of shutdowns, fiscal cliffs and financial chaos. I know firsthand that Democrats’ passion for responsible governance can be exploited by Republicans who are willing to blow past all norms and standards.


“Now we have a president who exemplifies that willingness in the extreme. Partly, this explains why he faces more questions about his legitimacy than any president in recent history and why he drew three times as many protesters as inauguration attendees last weekend. But in something of a mismatch, Republicans’ unified control of government means that the most effective tool for popular resistance lies in the Senate — the elite, byzantine institution envisioned by the founders as the saucer that cools the teacup of popular opinion.


“Senate Democrats have a powerful tool at their disposal, if they choose to use it, for resisting a president who has no mandate and cannot claim to embody the popular will. That tool lies in the simple but fitting act of withholding consent. An organized effort to do so on the Senate floor can bring the body to its knees and block or severely slow down the agenda of a president who does not represent the majority of Americans.

“
The procedure for withholding consent is straightforward, but deploying it is tricky. For the Senate to move in a timely fashion on any order of business, it must obtain unanimous support from its members. But if a single senator objects to a consent agreement, McConnell, now majority leader, will be forced to resort to time-consuming procedural steps through the cloture process, which takes four days to confirm nominees and seven days to advance any piece of legislation — and that’s without amendment votes, each of which can be subjected to a several-day cloture process as well.



“McConnell can ask for consent at any time, and if no objection is heard, the Senate assumes that consent is granted. So the 48 senators in the Democratic caucus must work together — along with any Republicans who aren’t afraid of being targeted by an angry tweet — to ensure that there is always a senator on the floor to withhold consent.
Because every Senate action requires the unanimous consent of members from all parties, everything it does is a leverage point for Democrats.

“For instance, each of the 1,000-plus nominees requiring Senate confirmation — including President Trump’s Cabinet choices — can be delayed for four days each.
 While the tactic works well, as we’ve seen for the past eight years, there remains the question of strategy. Should Democrats be pragmatic and let Trump have his nominees on a reasonable timetable, so as not to appear obstructionist? So far, this has been their approach to some of Trump’s Cabinet picks.

“
But it’s also fair to say that, by nominating a poorly qualified and ethically challenged Cabinet, Trump forfeited his right to a speedy confirmation process, and Democrats should therefore slow it down to facilitate the adequate vetting that Trump and Senate Republicans are determined to avoid by rushing the process before all the questionnaires and filings are submitted. Four days of scrutiny on the Senate floor per nominee, even after the committee hearings, is a reasonable standard for fulfilling the Senate’s constitutional responsibility of advice and consent.

“
Democrats can also withhold their consent from every piece of objectionable legislation McConnell tries to advance. With 48 senators in their caucus, they have the votes to block most bills. But even when Democrats don’t have the votes, they can force McConnell to spend time jumping through procedural hoops. This is the insight McConnell deployed against Reid to manufacture the appearance of gridlock, forcing him to use the cloture process more than 600 times.”

Will Democrats in the Senate dare to do to Trump what Republicans did to Obama?

Let the fighting begin!

 

Peter Dreier, professor of politics at Occidental College in California, proposes the names of 20 Democrats who might be contenders in 2020.

 

Of the names he lists, there are some that I would never support unless they had a conversion experience and abandoned their ties to the privatization movement. The ones who come to mind at once as too cozy with the privatizers are Andrew Cuomo and Corey Booker. I would also want to know whether Julian Castro agrees with his brother, the mayor of San Antonio, who gave one-quarter of the seats in his city’s public schools to charter operators.

 

I expect that readers in Ohio will have a few choice words for Sherrod Brown, who has not said much about the rampant charter corruption in his state.

 

Feel free to chime in.

Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee requested another opportunity to question Betsy DeVos about her financial conflicts of interest, but Republicans quickly rejected their request. 

 

She may may enhance her family fortune by holding on to stocks in her portfolio that her actions will affect. Please don’t believe that billionaires don’t care about making more money. Some do, some don’t. DeVos’s refusal to eliminate all her education investments shows which kind of billionaire she is.

 

DeVos was so ill-informed at her only hearing that her remarks turned her into a national laughing stock. Republicans are protecting her by not giving Democrats another chance to allow her to embarrass herself.

A friend in Indiana wrote to say “Not all Hoosiers are morons,” referring of course to one who is a leader on the national scene.

 

She linked to this article in The New Republic about the 35-year-old mayor of South Bend, Pete Buttigieg.

 

He participated in a recent debate among contenders for chair of the Democratic National Committee and impressed the audience.

 

Graham Vyse writes:

 

With their party now decimated at the national and state level, Democrats cling to one refuge for promoting progressive policies in the Trump era: Cities. They still control two-thirds of America’s biggest ones, and mayors nationwide are vowing to defy the new president’s agenda by shielding undocumented immigrants from deportation, pushing their own efforts to fight climate change, and working to preserve their citizens’ healthcare even as the Affordable Care Act faces repeal. Cities are where Democrats can still prove their muster, lead by example, and offer Americans an alternative vision under Republican rule.
That’s part of the appeal of Pete Buttigieg, the 35-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana (pop. 101,000), who was a late entry this month in the campaign to chair the Democratic National Committee. A gay Afghanistan veteran, Harvard graduate, and Rhodes Scholar, he says he’ll turn around his party like he’s turning around his Rust Belt city—promoting progressivism in places where it’s in short supply. Former DNC Chair Howard Dean calls him “the wild card” in this year’s race, and he’s a rising star nationally, promoted by President Barack Obama and hailed by New York Times columnist Frank Bruni as potentially the first gay president.

 

 

 

 

This is a very interesting article that appeared in the New York Times. It was written by Stanley Greenberg and Anna Greenberg. He, I recall, was a pollster and advisor to Bill Clinton.

 

They credit Obama with major accomplishments, but note that over 1,000 Democrats list office during his two terms, and Republicans took control of most states. His personal popularity did not help his party. Now Republicans will control the White House and both houses of Congress.

 

One of his great errors, they write, was neglecting his base.  As Republicans passed anti-union laws, Ibama remained silent.

 

The Greenbergs fail to mention that Obama s major effort in education was an extension of the GW Bush program of test and punish. Teachers, always an important part of the Democratic base, were repeated assailed as incompetent by Arne Duncan and alienated by his insistence on high stakes testing. Duncan and RTTT promoted privatization, worked closely with reformers like Jeb Bush noted for their hostility to public schools, sent millions to TFA to undermine the profession, and turned the Department of Education into a marketing arm of the education industry.

 

 

 

 

I attended a lecture recently at the New York Public Library and heard Paul Krugman speak. The general atmosphere was somber, as it was clear that he was depressed about the election, as were the 1,500 or so people in the audience. To all the pundits who extract lessons for the Democrats, Krugman pointed out that Hillary now has a lead of 2.7 million votes. But she lost because of the Electoral College, which was put into the Constitution to placate the slave states. He also talked about the carelessness of the media, which pushed Trymp’s trope about the emails, when there was nothing in them. He faulted the media for making a big deal out of Trump’s over-publicized deal to save 750 or so jobs. He pointed out that 75,000 people are fired or laid off every single day, so this was an insignicant blip.
His lecture reminded me of a post-election analysis by Nate Silver. He is a numbers guru who has an interesting website. I followed him during the campaign, and he was more cautious than other pollsters but still predicted a Clinton win. By analyzing voting patterns, he discovered that the best predictor of votes for Trump or Clinton was education. Where there were high levels of BA degrees, Clinton won. Where there were the lowest, Trump won. 
Trump was right when he declared during the GOP primaries: 
“I love the uneducated!”
Let’s watch and see what he does to their healthcare, their schools, and the economy.