The Hooey of Hope

Is Barack just another liberal, or if given the presidency would he actually try to move his party, responsible for so much that is wrong in America today, toward some new and successful policies. David Brooks explores the question in the Times today.

That question is surprisingly hard to answer. When you listen to his best speeches, you see a person who really could herald a new political era. But when you look into his actual policies, you often find a list of orthodox liberal programs that no centrist or moderate conservative would have any reason to support.

Brooks examines Barack's education positions to see whether he is a reformer or, instead, part of the vast majority of Democrats who work to make sure that education is locked forever in failure through loyalty to the teachers unions.

The status quo camp issued a statement organized by the Economic Policy Institute. This report argues that poverty and broad social factors drive high dropout rates and other bad outcomes. Schools alone can’t combat that, so more money should go to health care programs, anti-poverty initiatives and after-school and pre-K programs. When it comes to improving schools, the essential message is that we need to spend more on what we’re already doing: smaller class sizes, better instruction, better teacher training.

This is the model for the party - it's the money sieve approach - all of our policies would work fine if only we had endless amounts of money to spend.

The reformists also support after-school and pre-K initiatives. But they insist school reform alone can make a big difference, so they emphasize things the status quo camp doesn’t: rigorous accountability and changing the fundamental structure of school systems.

These ideas, vital to education reform, are DOA with Democrats. Their partnership with the unions simply won't allow policies to improve education to take hold. As proof, take a look at this examination of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who, a couple of years ago, was an education candidate for Governor, and now is just another sold out Democrat. Writes Scot Lehigh in the Boston Globe today:

DURING THE 2006 gubernatorial campaign, Deval Patrick said he favored raising the cap on charter schools once the funding formula was reworked to ease tensions between traditional schools and charters...

Did he follow through? Of course not. Teachers unions hate education reform.
A governor with a true sense of urgency would at least call for lifting the charter cap in those cities where kids are stuck in repeatedly failing schools. Certainly if the state's first African-American governor were to advocate that, his would be a powerful and important statement. Instead, Patrick has left the field before the first real shot in the battle over the charter cap has even been fired.

What's the big deal, you ask, if the Governor of Massachusetts is guilty of mass child abuse and institutional racism like all Democrats? Deval is different - he is Barack's political soul mate - a guy who is Harvard educated, black, charismatic and inspiring, who got elected on the same Hooey of Hope that has propelled Barack from grade school to grad school without doing the years in between. Deval selling out minorities and the poor is, thus, significant, as he is the only precedent we have for Barack, and his record is one of inexperience promising hope but delivering failure.

So, which side is Barack on - the bad guys (mainstream democrats), or the good guys (education reformers)?

His advisers run the gamut, and the answer depends in part on what month it is. Back in October 2005, Obama gave a phenomenal education speech in which he seemed to ally with the reformers. Then, as the campaign heated up, he shifted over to pure union orthodoxy, ripping into accountability and testing in a speech in New Hampshire in a way that essentially gutted the reformist case. Then, on May 28 in Colorado, he delivered another major education speech in which he shifted back in a more ambiguous direction.

The conclusion? Hope.

He’s politically astute — giving everybody the impression he’s on their side — but substantively vague. Change just isn’t that easy.... In Washington, Mayor Adrian Fenty has taken big risks in supporting a tenacious reformer like (Washington School Chief Michelle) Rhee. Would President Obama likewise take on a key Democratic interest group in order to promote real reform? We can hope. But so far, hope is all we can be sure of.

The reality is, Democrats will continue to leave urban and rural minorities, a primary base, stuck in horrible, violent schools because to do otherwise would mean losing teacher union support, and thus, elections. The party of Compassion just isn't prepared to do what's right, so they leave society's powerless in schools that assure their permanent dependence on handouts. Which also plays to the Democrats strength.

Whether intended or not, it's an evil construct that goes largely unnoticed by voters.