A brief complaint about the Times' endorsement of Clinton

As I understand primary endorsements, you're supposed to explain why one candidate is preferable over the others. In the same party. But today's New York Times' endorsement of Hillary Clinton seems more an exercise in bait-and-switch than a legitimate explanation of why her policies are preferable to those of Bernie Sanders. 

The Times argues that Sanders' ideas about breaking up the big banks and replacing Obamacare with a single-payer system aren't "achievable" or realistic, but they do praise Clinton for "achievable" goals. What a campaign slogan that would be. "Vote for my achievable ideals!" 

The Times also says Clinton has "responded well" to criticism about her ties to Wall Street, and they stress that her "ability to learn," "steeliness" and likelihood of using the military "with infinitely more care and wisdom" are all qualities that put her above the Republican candidates. And what the Republicans have to do with an endorsement that's supposed to explain a preference for one Democrat over another, I could not tell you.

Incidentally why does the Times, and virtually every other media entity, refer to Sanders as a "so-called" Democratic socialist? It would be nice if the same scrutiny were applied elsewhere in this farce we're calling a campaign. Like "Cruz, the so-called fiscal conservative" or "Bush and his self-described competency." But whatever. 

Sanders has the establishment running scared. If you don't want to endorse him because you disagree with him, fine, but when you dismiss him because his platform, which is widely shared by a lot of Americans, isn't "realistic," or when you waste time explaining how Clinton is unlike the GOP (exactly how many of the Times' readers need to have that distinction drawn out for them?), you're reiterating to the voters exactly why they should not trust corporate media. 

Well, I never saw this coming.

Why I'm worried about Hillary Clinton's education policies

So how liberal is Hillary Clinton? And in particular, are her education policies liberal as well?

Many theories abound. Maybe she’s liberal, but more liberal than we think. Maybe she’s more liberal than her husband, a centrist Democrat if ever there was one. Maybe she’s a Marxist.

Who knows? Who knows what “liberal” means any more, or what we’re supposed to think of it? 

Regarding the economy, Clinton states on her campaign page that she wants to “rein in Wall Street” and protect the Dodd-Frank Act. Since an overwhelming 91 percent of Americans want to see more financial regulation and not less, she’s probably on safe ground here. Though we’re doubtless in for a surprise about her definition of “reining,” considering her Wall Street connections.

Regarding defense, she brags that “Iran lost $80 billion in revenue due to sanctions” during her tenure as Secretary of State. Unsurprisingly, the impact of these sanctions on the population of Iran, with 40 percent of them living in poverty and 20 percent unemployed, is a non-issue with her, but then, with most Americans reporting an “unfavorable” view of Iran and preferring economic and diplomatic action to curb their nuclear ambitions, I’d venture to say she’s fine here too.

As far as a “liberal education policy” or even a “progressive” one, I’m not holding my breath.

After all, I live in a world where Democrats for Education Reform, a group that has pushed charter schools to the ruin of public ones and provided a constant drumbeat of opposition to tenure and promotion of merit pay, is described by the New York Times as “left-of-center,” so make of that what you will. The Democrats, even their most leftist candidates, are aligned with destructive standardized testing policies so much that they're virtually indistinguishable. 

Clinton was endorsed by the American Federation of Teachers this summer; how liberal are they? Randi Weingarten is still fighting for collective bargaining and tenure, and opposing vouchers and charter school expansion, but in 2008 she took a turn on merit pay. And since merit pay depends, for hard data, on test scores, this could be a bellwether of further cave-ins to come. Luckily I’m in the NEA, which scorns such capitulations.

To be fair, I was cheered by the remarks she made to the AFT last month. She reportedly said that it is "dead wrong to make teachers the scapegoats for all of society's problems. Where I come from, teachers are the solution. And I strongly believe that unions are part of the solution, too." I was also cheered by the Wall Street Journal's derisory snort in response, where they apparently equated her support for teachers with a corresponding disdain for poor children. 

Still, it would probably be a good idea if we junked the entire concept of the “liberal politician on education” anyway. Considering the current educational climate and media discourse, the question is meaningless. As a recent FAIR article pointed out, the debate has become so polluted with buzzwords and empty rhetoric setting up a false dichotomy between those who want “reform” and those who don’t.

After all, who in their right mind wouldn’t want reform? Well, those who question the accuracy of the definition. “Reform” is something that’s supposed to improve the situation, but the forces fighting against public education managed to hijack the term for themselves. The Opposing Viewpoints book on “Education Reform,” intended for secondary students doing research on social issues, sets up the issue similarly: on the one side, you’ve got hedge fund managers and private wealth yelling about how lousy our public schools are (in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary) and on the other you’ve got union leaders and leftist professors. Watch what this year’s crop of composition students do with the issue framed like that.

Clinton has said next to nothing about her policies on education, not even in the wake of her AFT endorsement, so progressives are watching warily and conservatives are ready to pounce. But the bit that she has said is telling. Her campaign page repeatedly calls for more funding and greater access to Early Childhood Eduation, which seems to be something few would argue against. The Times reported she took pains to distinguish her support of the issue from Jeb Bush’s, but did not explain what their differences were. Absent evidence, I’m forced to imagine the discussion: “He’s in favor of it, but not as much as I am! Yeah!”

So, big surprise. Early in the candidacy, you keep your views generic and pleasant-sounding, and avoid nuance and detail. The Great American Political Playbook.

Except there are a few hints of what actions on education could come under a Clinton presidency. Last spring, Ann O’Leary, former Senate aide to Clinton, told the Times that she thought “both the teachers’ union and the reformers will really feel like they have her ear in a way they haven’t. She believes we need to have some kind of ways that can measure student progress,” but is “also sympathetic that the test regime has become very burdensome in driving the education system in ways that many people think is problematic.”

There’s little here to cheer me up. Note first of all that, if O’Leary’s perception of Cinton’s views are accurate, she still sees the education conflict as one between “reform” and “unions.” Make that the meta narrative for this country and it’s little wonder my union card doesn’t get me a free ice cream at the DQ any more.

Second, the notion that the reformers haven’t had the ear of the federal government is just ludicrous. DfER is quite cozy with the White House; charter schools have expanded over the past six years, often against popular protest. The fact that we’re having this framed debate in the first place is testament to the inroads they’ve made, all while union membership continues to plummet and public sector workers, bizarrely, get blamed for the financial collapse and our underfunded pensions.

Why care about what O’Leary says? Because she’s now senior vice president at Next Generation, a group working on “education initiatives” with the Clinton Foundation. Most of their initiatives, at least those on their website, seem focused on early childhood education, which, again, everyone in their right mind is for (except perhaps Donald Trump).

But back in 2012, they reported on a poll they’d conducted with Lake Research Partners and Chesapeake Beach Consulting, which could give a hint as to the kinds of “initiatives” Clinton might pursue: “A 46 percent plurality of voters believe that the United States is behind other countries with growing economies— including China and India—when it comes to providing programs to help children get ahead…[Also,] A strong majority of voters across party lines say they would be willing to pay more in taxes and reduce spending in other areas if the funds were dedicated to K-12 education programs." (emphasis theirs)

Put aside the uselessness of reporting on what Americans believe (don’t we lead the world in number of people who believe they’ve seen an angel?) in favor of what we know. Americans may “believe” our schools are failing en masse, but they do not believe that about their own schools or their children’s schools (as the PDK/Gallup Poll on public opinions about education consistently shows), which tells a rational person that all the hysteria about the collapse of our public education system is being fed to the public, not generated by the public.

No, the troubling thing about this study is that it doesn’t specify what “K-12 educational programs” the group, or Clinton, would spend more money on.

Early Childhood Education? Not likely. That’s Pre-K.

Higher pay for teachers in challenging districts? Community outreach? Up to date lab equipment for inner city schools? More social workers to counsel troubled children and do something to knock down those onerous disciplinary measures in favor of something more effective?

Or vouchers? Charter school expansion? More testing and outside consultants from the private sector wielding whips and chairs, holding seminars about how schools can motivate their students by emulating the private sector?

Your guess is as good as mine. But we won’t hear from Clinton, or any of the candidates, on the specifics for quite some time. Improving education is like balancing the budget: everyone wants it done, but no one actually wants to do what it would take.

Still, maybe I’m jumping at shadows. After all, Obama was similarly mum at this point in his campaign. In the third Democratic primary debate, June of 2007, while Kucinich and others were yammering about reducing inequality and not starving public schools, the then-Illinois senator had this to say on the subject:

"But the most important thing is that we recognize these children as our children. The reason that we have consistently had underperformance among these children, our children, is because too many of us think it is acceptable for them not to achieve. And we have to have a mindset where we say to ourselves, every single child can learn if they’re given the resources and the opportunities. And right now that’s not happening. We need somebody in the White House who’s going to recognize these children as our own."

Upon election, Obama initiated Race to the Top, which went after "accepting underperformance" (read “soft bigotry of low expectations”) by dangling money in front of the states so they would accept charter school expansion, merit pay schemes and the growth of the standardized test machine.

But I’m sure Hillary will be totally different.