More on the Tepid TEA (Party)

Posted on May 29, 2011 by David S. Meyer

Every time I log on to the world, there’s more evidence that the Tea Party movement’s moment is passing.

We see the strength of American social movements in their organizations, their ideas, and their activities.  (We’ve covered much of this over the past few months, here, here, here, and here–and elsewhere.)

On this last point, the signs of decline are hard to ignore–and opponents are quick to point them out.

At ThinkProgress, Alex Seitz-Wall posts a list of Tea Party demonstrations, this year and last, noting much smaller turnouts and even fewer rallies.   Are we getting to the bottom of the tea pot?

(There’s a similar story, with numbers and sources, at there’s a similar story, with numbers and sources, at the anarchist site, Infoshopnews.)  And here’s a table Moveon posted:

Demonstrations and rallies are only part of a social movement’s repertoire, but for a movement, the  numbers game is unavoidable–and unwinnable over even the medium haul.

The frequent, and sometimes relatively large, demonstrations Tea Partiers staged over the 2010 set a baseline of comparison that activists will be hard-pressed to surpass.  Organizing large demonstrations takes a lot of time and money, and getting people to turn out requires a sense of urgency and efficacy.  It’s not always the appropriate priority for a social movement.

Republicans, expressing more and less credible fealty to Tea Party ideals (not always well-defined), made huge electoral gains in 2010, and now are trying to find ways to deliver on their promises.  Much of the politics has moved indoors.

Meantime, the Tea Party’s rather ill-defined agenda has allowed elected officials to run with it off in different directions.  Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget, which included the end of Medicare as an entitlement, is one direction that hasn’t commanded enthusiasm at the grassroots. Senator Rand Paul voted against it.  And Senator Paul, who claims, with some credibility to have been a Tea Partier even before the Party started, has been working against the renewal of the Patriot Act and funding America’s current wars–not positions that have generated much enthusiasm from his Republican colleagues in Congress.

When you have an institutional ally, taking to the streets seems less urgent, particularly when there are alternative ways to pursue politics, like lobbying and campaigning.  Right now, the most important alternative for Tea Partiers seems to be the unfolding campaigns for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination.  Most of the hopefuls are trying to find ways to demonstrate their commitments to Tea Party voters within the Republican Party primaries, without hampering their ability to tack to the center during a general election campaign.  It’s not pretty.

Most people try to find the most direct and least disruptive way to get what they want from politics.  For most of those who supported the Tea Party last year, it’s no longer through large rallies.  Organizers know this–or should–and try to find ways to take advantage of what their supporters do want to do.  Sometimes, it’s local politics; sometimes it’s national campaigns; sometimes it’s just giving money.  We’ll watch to see how much of any of these alternatives is actually happening.

When the turnout at the grassroots diminishes, the Tea evaporating, what’s left will be more intense, even bitter.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

You Can’t Count on the Courts to ________ Social Change

Posted on May 27, 2011 by David S. Meyer

“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question.” This is a tag from Alexis de Tocqueville’s monumental Democracy in America, published well over 150 years ago.

This is only half the story, however, as scarcely any judicial question arises that isn’t, sooner or later, turned into a political question.

Activists on the left and the right are often unduly focused on the courts, generally expecting far too much from judges, and then invariably overly outraged when they’re disappointed.  I think a lot of this has to do with a mythic misunderstanding of the most familiar Supreme Court decision in America, Brown v. Board of Education.

The most appealing way to understand that iconic decision is to see a Supreme Court, led by the politically savvy Earl Warren, recognized a social injustice (racially segregated schools) and an error in Constitutional interpretation (Plessy v. Ferguson), and fixed them both with a unanimous decision.

Activists love that version of the story, because it suggests that justice will prevail, even in the absence of popular support, political resources, or sustained activism.  This is the wrong reading of Brown and the history of segregation in America, and teaches exactly the wrong lessons to activists today.

Today’s lesson is that a judicial decision doesn’t end the political conflict.  (Steve Boutcher and I published this argument in longer form a few years ago.)

This week, courts handed down decisions that pleased and infuriated political activists.

Wisconsin circuit court judge Maryann Sumi struck down the extremely controversial provision in the state’s budget that eliminated almost all collective bargaining in the state.  It wasn’t about the content of the legislation; rather, in the haste to handle a resistant Democratic minority, the legislature’s Republican majority violated Wisconsin’s open meetings laws.  (On the political battle, see earlier entries, including here.)

But that case will percolate up through Wisconsin’s courts to an increasingly politicized state supreme court, which might rule differently.  Even if not, Governor Walker still enjoys substantial majorities in the state legislature–although recall elections are on the horizon–and can pass the bill again.  It’s not that the respite provided by the court doesn’t matter, it’s just that it doesn’t end the larger political battle.

Meanwhile, the United States Supreme Court upheld a provision in a 2007  Arizona law that provides strict penalties for employers found to hire undocumented workers.  They’re required to use E-Verify to vet their workers.  The 5-3 ruling turns on technical assessments of E-Verify’s reliability and interpretations of the text of the Immigration and Reform Control Act of 1986.  On these points, and on many others, the well-educated and well-intentioned Supreme Court justices differ.

This ruling IS NOT about Arizona’s more recent, and even more provocative immigration legislation, nor does it provide a reliable prediction of how the Court will rule on that issue–when it reaches the Court.  The laws are different, and the personnel and politics of the Court could easily be different by the time that case is argued.

Of course, it’s not just the immigration issue percolating up to the Supreme Court.  This week, a federal judge in Virginia ruled that corporations can make direct contributions to political campaigns.  Activists also wait, with a mix of optimism and dread, for cases about same sex marriage and mandatory health insurance to reach the Supreme Court, scrutinizing every sigh in oral argument and looking for signals.

No judicial decision on any of these matters is going to put the issue to rest; rather, it will provide a target and stepping stone for, uh, more politics.  Brown appeared at a relatively early point in the modern civil rights movement’s history–before Rosa Parks refused to move, and lots of contested politics followed.  And lots of schools remained (and remain) essentially segregated, if not by statute.  Nor did Roe v. Wade resolve the issue of abortion rights; it provided a basis for much more litigation, activism, and very polarizing politics–up to, at least, this point, nearly 40 years later.

The savvy activist knows that the judiciary is a place to make claims, and that a decision (good or bad) can be useful in raising money and mobilizing the base.  But it’s only one place.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

The Movement Veto and Medicare

Posted on May 25, 2011 by David S. Meyer

When Democrat Kathy Hochshul won a normally Republican Congressional seat in special election in upstate New York, all of the party regulars weighed in with their distinctive spins on what this means or doesn’t mean for the elections coming up in 2012.  (This is normal politics; take a look at the glee with which Republicans greeted the election of Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts.)

The Democrats are having an easier time of it, arguing that Republicans in competitive districts are going to have to spend a lot of time explaining their votes for Paul Ryan’s budget, particularly the conversion of Medicare into a voucher plan subsidizing private insurance.  Critics are quick to note that this will save money only if coverage is restricted and that most people are unlikely to be able to afford to buy the coverage Medicare now provides.

Understandably, voters–who generally support Medicare–are upset.  The Republican answers [a) we won’t change anything for anyone over 55; b) this is the only way to save Medicare; or c) the Democrats are worse] haven’t worked so far.  Rep. Ryan says this is because Republicans haven’t been clear and steady enough–and the Democrats are attacking them with tv ads.  (Shocking!)

The Republican Party’s leadership has so far enforced discipline on this budget–only four House Republicans voted against the budget; only five Senate Republicans voted against it.  But candidates will make their own calls as they interpret the tea leaves of this special election and the many polls that will follow.

Social movements in the US are closely tied to mainstream politics and parties.  The Tea Party reminds me of a number of movements on the left, animated by mostly middle-class, educated, white people who are normally engaged in mainstream politics.  I’ve made comparisons with the nuclear freeze movement in the recent past.

Over time, social movements can enforce something of a veto within a political party, most successfully in national elections.  Although a few Democrats who oppose abortion rights and a few Republicans who support them get elected to the Senate, it’s hard to imagine that a candidate for the presidential nomination could win with the wrong position for her party.

Many movements are easier for candidates to fudge.  In 1984, six of the seven Democratic candidates supported a nuclear freeze, in accord with a strong political movement and strong popular support (consistently over 70%) (much stronger, in polls, than the Tea Party).  But they coupled their support for a freeze with other positions that contradicted it–like advocating new nuclear weapons systems.  In effect, they defined a freeze they could support without alienating people who might otherwise vote for them.

Is the Tea Party really tagged with the Ryan Budget and the end of Medicare?  (In Orwell’s terms, this is ending Medicare to save it.  Or was that Lt. William Calley?)  If so, that’s a rough spot for the movement which expressed other, more popular, goals.  If so, candidates seeking to cultivate movement support in the primaries are going to have a lot to explain to independent voters once they win nominations.

While the freeze was organized around a specific policy proposal that institutional supporters redefined and diluted, the Tea Party’s core goals were never so sharply articulated–and there’s a great deal of conflict among national Tea Party groups–and between those organizations and grassroots groups–on just what the movement is about.  (Ask about immigration or social issues to see.)

By hanging the Republican Party and the movement on a very specific–and very unpopular–program, Paul Ryan and the Republican leadership have served neither very well.  I’m certain Democratic consultants are grateful.  The open question at the moment is whether movement activists or Republican regulars will be the first to defect from the proposal.  (I’d bet on the movement.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Divining Authority (Religious Endorsements)

Posted on May 20, 2011 by David S. Meyer

Many many many Christians, readers have pointed out, are not worried about the Rapture tomorrow–despite the confident predictions of some committed co-religionists.  While some of the faithful have quit jobs to prepare–and to alert others of the coming judgment, other committed Christians are expressly continuing to live their lives as before, going to school, work, or even church.  People within the same families have vastly different expectations about what’s going to happen tomorrow, and who’s going to be hanging around the house the day after.  (See the New York Times, “Make My Bed? But You Say The World is Ending.”)

By the way, New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg has announced that, in the event of Rapture, the City’s alternate side of the street parking regulations would be suspended.  It’s got to be a relief not to have to worry about towing in the event of the Final Judgment.

One easy point here: well-intentioned people can look at the same source material, in this case, the Bible, and come up with very different interpretations, even about something as fundamental as the Second Coming.

If organized religion doesn’t give clear guidance on this clearly critical matter, what about other contemporary issues?  How about the Federal Budget?

Before Speaker of the House John Boehner gave the commencement address at Catholic University, a group of professors sent him a letter, charging the the House version of the federal budget violated Catholic teachings by failing to take care of the neediest.  Laurie Goodstein reports:

The letter writers criticize Mr. Boehner’s support for a budget that cut financing for Medicare, Medicaid and the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program, while granting tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations. They call such policies “anti-life,” a particularly biting reference because the phrase is usually applied to politicians and others who support the right to abortion.

But it’s not just some, uh, professors.  The US Conference of Catholic Bishops also issued a letter challenging Congress to take seriously the Gospel charge of taking care of the “least of these,” paying particular attention to the poor, the hungry, and the unemployed.

Well, now that the Roman Catholic Church is on record, it’s pretty clear what a committed Catholic like Speaker Boehner should do.  Not quite.

Days later Archbishop Timothy Dolan, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued his own letter, supporting the Republican budget and the work of Speaker Boehner and Rep. Paul Ryan, who drafted the budget.  Responding to an inquiry from the House leaders, Dolan replied:

I commend your…attention to the important values of fiscal responsibility; sensitivity to the foundational role of the family; the primacy of the dignity of the human person and the protection of all human life; a concrete solicitude for the poor and the vulnerable, especially those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty; and putting into practice the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, here at home and internationally within the context of a commitment to the common good shared by government and other mediating institutions alike.

Thus, both supporters and opponents of the Ryan budget can claim cover from the Catholic hierarchy.  Don’t think for a second that the clerics in other religious traditions are less divided, or that other issues are less contested.

Committed Catholics who actually try to promote a consistent ethic of life, as Cardinal Bernardin advocated, oppose abortion, poverty, war, nuclear weapons, and capital punishment.  They have a difficult time maintaining political alliances–and therefore influence, of any kind.

Everyone else picks and chooses.

The mandate of heaven is claimed not discerned.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Rapturous Provocation

Posted on May 19, 2011 by David S. Meyer

People protest in opposition to something.  When those opponents promise something particularly egregious, it’s easier to convince your supporters of a real threat and the necessity of taking to the streets.

That’s why social movements activate their opponents.  Every potential success for one side is a cause of mobilization and fund raising on the other side.

When some evangelicals have determined that the day of rapture approaches, quitting jobs to get their lives in order, secular folks have seen an opportunity to put their views forward.  Ambreen Ali (Roll Call) reports that activists who want to take God out of government are using Harold Camping’s prediction of Rapture this weekend to demonstrate their claim: religion is a bad guide for decisions on matters of public policy.

If true Christians remain on Earth next week–or at least in the United States, the secularists will trumpet their superior judgment and try to build on their more accurate prediction (life on Earth will continue).  Odds are with the secularists this time; Camping predicted the rapture at least once before–in 1994.

In this case, it’s not an opponent’s threat so much as its foolishness that allows organizers to mobilize their base.

Is this also the case with Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget proposal?

Last week liberal activists appeared to heckle House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who was speaking at Virginia Commonwealth University.  They challenged his (and his party’s) support for a proposal that would turn Medicare into a voucher program.  Politically, this bill is likely to be as big an embarrassment as the specific prediction of the end of days.  Democrats are going to talk about it whenever they can.

Republicans are going to try, desperately, not to talk about it.  When former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich kicked off his presidential campaign by criticizing the bill, he was quickly and severely chastised by his party, from the leadership to the grassroots.  Gingrich had said that the Medicare proposal represented a radical change that wasn’t good for the country.  He was right, but he backed off the position quickly, seeing that he had hurt his chances at generating activist support at the grassroots and campaign funds from Republican interests.

One version of the Tea Party is becoming a veto force within the Republican Party, filtering out heterodox ideas that actually might play better with mainstream America than Tea Party orthodoxy.  This happens through the long long primary process, in which prospective candidates for the Republican presidential nomination have to demonstrate their vigorous attention to the most committed of the activist zealots at the grassroots.

Primaries for other offices are also a contest in which the issue activists can win.  Voter turnout is low in primary elections, skewed to the most committed in each party.  By launching primary challenges, movement activists can keep their issues visible, and can try to force conversions among elected officials.  So, Republican Indiana Senator Richard Lugar, a conservative in any other election (and he’s won six Senate elections), is facing a primary challenge from Richard Mourdoch, whose chief qualification is signing an anti-tax pledge that Senator Lugar has, thus far, refused to sign.

The primary challenge might convince Lugar to change his mind–or it might replace him with a purer alternative.   (Tea Partiers had already signed a letter asking him not to run for a 7th term.) Either way, it makes it easier for Democrats to play to the center of the political spectrum.  For social movements, it’s the purity versus pragmatism dilemma that social movements in America always confront.

For Democrats, the increased influence of electoral enforcers and filters within the Republican Party appears like an unexpected gift.

Posted in countermovements | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Celebrity politics: Eva Longoria and immigration

Posted on May 17, 2011 by David S. Meyer

When Arizona adopted SB 1070, a bill that would mandate police investigation of people suspected of being in the country illegally, Eva Longoria announced the bill was unconstitutional.  With MALDEF’s (Mexican American Legal Defense Fund) Executive Director Thomas A. Saenz, she briefed Hollywood professionals on the bill and its implications.

Longoria has a bachelor’s degree (in kinesiology, from Texas A&M Kingsville), but is not generally recognized as a constitutional authority.  She is better known as a television star, but lately, she’s been talking about a lot more.

Longoria is doing the promotion rounds, appearing on television, it seems, constantly, talking about her tv show, her cookbook, her cosmetics line, her divorce–and comprehensive immigration reform.  She describes growing up in a Mexican American family that has been in Texas since before it was an American state and learning the classic immigrant values: hard work and education.

Her politics aren’t really unusual.  She opposed Arizona’s anti-immigrant law and supports the DREAM Act.  She’s also crusaded against Texas Governor Rick Perry’s budget cuts for services to the mentally disabled (including her sister); most recently, she’s announced that she wants to be a voice for abused children in Mexico.  She’s produced Harvest, a documentary that follows the lives of three teenage Mexican migrant workers.

I  meant for this entry to be more about celebrities and politics than about Eva Longoria, but that’s the problem with celebrities and social movements: their stardom can eclipse the cause.  Although Longoria’s politics aren’t that unusual, the attention she is able to get for them is.  The celebrity advantage is overwhelming.

When Thomas Saenz wants to draw attention to the case against Arizona’s new law, its Longoria’s stardom that sets her apart from other committed individuals.  Press conferences draw more press, rallies draw more people (and press), and activists are better positioned to raise money and visibility for their concerns.  And stars can reach other stars–along with their access to media and money.

It’s an old story in America; we’ve discussed the attractions and risks of mobilizing celebrities before here, here, and elsewhere.  Celebrities are ubiquitous in American social movements and party politics, sometimes dipping into electoral politics themselves (e.g., Ronald Reagan, John Hall, Sonny Bono, Arnold Schwarzenegger).

The celebrity can bring visibility, money, and other resources to a cause.   But celebrities may be poorly informed, inarticulate, or transparently self-interested.  Career worries (read: the risk of alienating audiences) may steer them away from some issues, allies, or tactics.  And the presence of someone known primarily as an actor or athlete can undermine some sense of seriousness.

One obvious risk is ridicule from political opponents.  When President Obama made a public show of returning to the politics of immigration, he did so through a White House meeting.  At Redstate, a conservative blog, see Tabitha Hale’s reaction:

[President Obama has] chosen to prove that he’s serious about reforming immigration by inviting renowned immigration policy experts Eva Longoria, Rosario Dawson and friends to the White House to talk about immigration reform. Yes, that Eva Longoria.

First, how are Hollywood Hispanic celebrities at all a representation of Hispanic Americans? That’s like sending Britney Spears or Paris Hilton out into the world to represent the average American and shape foreign policy around the globe. Not only would it be humiliating, but it would produce no relevant information, since they are in no way representative of well, average Americans.

Second, is our President really this bereft of ideas? He repeatedly punts to celebrities on tough issues. I’m assuming that the strategy is to sway public opinion with star power in the absence of actual policy proposals, ideas, or facts. The reality is that this “strategy” will blow up when it comes time to implement some of these changes and there is no substance. His administration is already facing drastically falling poll numbers regarding Obamacare – it sounds a lot better in theory than in practice.

It seems unlikely that using Desperate Housewives stars and Oprah to help pull the country out of the ditch he likes to remind us we’re in will work much longer. It may be optimistic, but there’s mounting evidence that the American people are starting to see through the smoke and mirrors.

It’s time to get serious, President Obama. Let’s start by asking people who know something about policy what they think.

The vigorously anti-immigrant politician and radio host, Tom Tancredo, has blasted Obama for meeting with prominent Latino celebrities, including Longoria, America Ferrera, Jessica Alba, and Rosario Dawson, but not border state governors like Jan Brewer (Arizona) and Rick Perry (Texas), suggesting that this reflects Obama’s lack of seriousness.

Longoria has also been the target of advocates of comprehensive reform, who argue that Obama is using her as political cover to support his less than forceful efforts at reform.

Eva Longoria insists that she’s been doing politics well before she was famous.  Whether for gravitas or her own edification, she’s made a commitment to knowing the issues she engages.  In 2009 Longoria started a master’s degree program in Chicano Studies and Political Science at Cal State Northridge.  I wonder what she’ll do with it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 6 Comments

Freedom Rides, 50 years on

Posted on May 16, 2011 by David S. Meyer

Fifty years ago this month, the Freedom Riders put their bodies on the line to test their right to integrated interstate travel and accommodations.

Starting tonight, PBS is running a compelling documentary of the events, featuring interviews with many of the key participants, including heroes and villains.  It’s striking to watch the camera juxtapose interviews of seniors with old stills of their younger selves, changing the world.

We should  all know the  story; it fills a few paragraphs in many public school textbooks.  But seeing the veterans talk about their commitments and their fears produces an appropriately visceral appreciation of their courage.  It reminds us about how much the world has changed–and how much it can still change.

There’s much to think about here.  At the moment I want to raise only the issue of misguided optimism.

The  first Freedom Rides were a controversial tactic within the civil rights  movement, organized by the Congress of Racial Equality, a pacifist group that grew out of the Fellowship of Reconciliation.  The first Freedom Riders thought, mistakenly, that they might be taunted and suffer harassment, but that the most likely outcome was a symbolic demonstration of their right to travel anywhere in the United States.  In interviews, they now say they were unprepared for the extreme beatings, nor did they imagine that Southern whites would set a Greyhound bus on fire while police stood by.

Had the first Freedom Riders known just how dangerous it would be, might they have made another decision?

Nashville leader, Diane Nash

It’s hard not to think of the democracy activists in Tahrir Square, in Tienanmen Square, in the shipyard in Gdansk, and in the prison at Robben Island.  All were unduly optimistic about their prospects of changing the world, and about their personal safety.  Somehow, they continued after they were disabused of this optimism.

Once the first round of Freedom Riders had been badly beaten, taken off the buses, and ultimately sent home, subsequent waves of Freedom Riders followed, the first from Nashville, which had just seen a successful sit-in campaign that desegregated the lunch counters.  The Nashville activists boarded the buses with eyes open, having written their wills the night before.

The civil rights movement united around the Freedom Rides after the tactic had proven much scarier and more dangerous than CORE anticipated–just as other activists had feared.

It’s hard not to wonder how much important history starts with a fundamental miscalculation about personal danger and political efficacy.  Oddly, this courageous optimism can create new possibilities.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Fractious Politics of Education (III): Local Funding

Posted on May 13, 2011 by David S. Meyer

Tanya McDowell

Today, we start with the story of Tanya McDowell, a homeless woman charged with larceny and conspiracy in defrauding the Norwalk, Connecticut, public schools.  Ms. McDowell, facing conspiracy for possessing marijuana and crack cocaine in another case, allegedly used a false address to enroll her 5 year old in school.   Presently, McDowell faces the possibility of up to 20(!?)! years in prison, as well as being forced to pay $16,000 in restitution for the schooling her child wasn’t entitled to.

Parents trying to defraud public schools, particularly better public schools, isn’t all that unusual; criminal prosecution is.  McDowell is the only one of 27 parents accused of cheating to get their kids in school facing court charges.  Her case has become a cause for education activists.  Change.org has launched a petition campaign against prosecution that, at this moment, has more than 17,000 on-line signatures.

Kelley Williams-Bolar in court

Would a judge actually send a parent trying to look out for her kid to jail?  Yes.  Earlier this year, an Ohio judge sent teacher’s aid Kelley Williams-Bolar to jail for ten days after finding that she had falsified residency records to that her children could attend better schools.  The judge suspended the rest of the five year sentence.

Ms. Bolar-Williams, studying to be a teacher (a prospect that is now up in the air), was well aware of the vast inequality that characterize public schools in Ohio (and the rest of the United States), and wanted the best for her children–better than she could pay for.  She thought the Copley-Fairlawn district provided better and safer schools than those where she lived.

Her case has also become a cause.  Moms Rising organized a campaign for her pardon, and Governor John Kasich asked the Ohio parole board to consider expunging her record.

Could these dramatic cases become the spark that starts a national movement for real school reform?  Sometimes a visible injustice does exactly that.  Think of what the civil rights movement did with Rosa Parks.  But Williams-Bolar and McDowell weren’t looking to change the world, just the prospects for their children.  And the middle-class education-oriented people who often support social justice campaigns are worried about their own children.

These dramatic and disturbing cases underscore the obstacles education reformers face in America.  Parents looking out for their kids try to move into communities which offer the best public schools they can afford.  (This usually means higher local property taxes and higher real estate costs.  In California, it means extensive private fundraising.)  My parents did, siting off reputation; these days, we have test scores as well.

Parents want to get what they pay for, which generally includes better facilities, more diverse offerings and activities, and smaller class size.  Students from outside the district aren’t paying their share, and their presence, school administrators explain, strains the schools.  Does an additional child or two in a class really make that much of a difference?  How about nine?  How about when class size rockets from 20-31 residents (a result of school budget crises)?

These numbers are from my daughters’ first grade classes in Irvine, California–which has a reputation for very good schools.)  Every year, Irvine families must demonstrate residency for each child; it feels more frequent than that.

As Americans, we have an interest in providing a good education to all children.  Actually, it’s probably even more important for children whose parents are less competent (homelessness and crack cocaine are hardly educational advantages).

As parents, and as residents of local communities, we want to preserve what we can for our children and our neighbors, fighting against a tide of decline sweeping the state or country.

In Beverly Hills, local parents started an emergency fundraiser to prevent 11 layoffs in the district.  They raised more than a half-million dollars in a week, and the effort continues.  In Irvine, as in other affluent communities, a (private) public school foundation raises money to provide programs that the state no longer does.  They don’t criticize, or even mention, local legislators who vote against plans to fund the schools.  After all, opponents of fair taxation might make generous contributions.  And parents who can hire tutors and pay fees for special programs, so that their children don’t face the full consequence of our collective choices.

In effect, a drive to protect the local school works against adequately educating all our children.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Recurrent DREAM (Social movement effects)

Posted on May 12, 2011 by David S. Meyer

For the courageous young people who willingly disclosed their undocumented status last year, Congress’s failure to pass the DREAM Act was a devastating blow.   They had an overly optimistic view, as activists often do, that the justice of their cause, the intensity of their commitments, and the drama and risk of their efforts, would carry the day.  They were wrong, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t matter.

In the lame duck session following the 2010 elections, the Democratically- controlled House of Representatives passed the DREAM Act, but Democrats in the Senate were unable to generate the supermajority necessary to break a filibuster and vote on the bill.  Those who came out were politically disappointed–and personally at risk; they knew they were now visible and vulnerable to deportation.

The prospects for passing a new DREAM ACT, when the Republicans added to their numbers in the Senate and took control of the House of Representatives, are much worse than before.  The grassroots wing of the Tea Party movement has identified stopping any kind of immigration reform, aside from increased border security, as a key priority.  They’ve effectively held their legislators hostage to this position.

But President Obama is now pressing Congress to bring the DREAM back.  When Obama was interested in building a bipartisan coalition for comprehensive reform, he invested heavily in putting money and people on the border with Mexico, and dramatically increased the number of deportations.  He now knows–and even more importantly, says that nothing the administration does will buy Republican support for comprehensive reform.  The Administration’s key enforcement and deportation priorities, he has announced, involve removing convicted criminals without documentation from the United States.  This doesn’t mean that the students are now safe, just that they won’t be explicitly targeted.

Quite obviously, electoral politics are all over this move.  President Obama means to mobilize Latino enthusiasm and voters.  He also means to have the Republicans take full responsibility for catering to the anti-immigrant forces within their ranks.  And he must surely know that his efforts will provoke and mobilize nativist activists in opposition.

The DREAMers, denied a legislative victory, need to realize that none of this would have happened without their efforts.  Their demonstrations, press conferences, civil disobedience actions, and everything else, dramatized their cause and its political support.  President Obama thinks there are electoral advantages to be gained here because the DREAMers showed him their power and support.  And the DREAMers activated a vigorous opposition that has pushed Republican politicians away from a key mainstream Republican constituency: big business.

Businesses always want access to labor, and cheaper labor is better.  In response to President Obama’s recent immigration speech, the normally stalwart Republican US Chamber of Commerce announced enthusiasm and support for the president’s approach to comprehensive reform.  Ambreen Ali (Roll Call) reports:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has long supported immigration reform as a way to help American businesses remain competitive, gave the speech an “A” grade.

“We were quite pleased with the ideas he put forth,” said Randy Johnson, the chamber’s senior vice president of labor, immigration and employment benefits. “Now’s the time to get prepared for an economic recovery. This bill isn’t going to rush through Congress, so let’s get off the dime.”

Johnson said the president’s outline for immigration reform largely reflects the business group’s position.

A renewed campaign for comprehensive immigration reform could mobilize the Democratic base–and fracture the Republican electoral coalition.

The DREAMers made this move smart politics for the president.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

The Fractious Politics of Education, part II

Posted on May 11, 2011 by David S. Meyer

Hundreds of Huntington Park High School students walked out of class yesterday, and marched 7 miles to the Los Angeles School Board’s headquarters.  The Board of Education was discussing a radical reorganization plan for the school, which would include reassigning half of the teachers to other schools.  [The Board approved the plan yesterday afternoon.]

The student walk-out makes for a dramatic scene.  The students know that massive firings and hirings are going to disrupt their lives, and that the teachers they might like might be among those who leave for other schools.

The school’s performance, however, has been dismal by any measure that anyone could use to evaluate schools.  More than a quarter of the students drop out; less than half of the graduates post a record that makes them eligible to apply for a state university, and the results on increasingly important tests are pretty dismal: 5% rank proficient in math; 24% reach proficiency in English.

The teachers union asserts that the poor results reflect years of underinvestment and neglect, and with sufficient resources, things could turn around.  Teachers doubt that the massive overhaul, absent serious investment, is likely to make much of a difference.

The Board sees a history of failure and is understandably impatient about progress.

But what about the students?  If the overhaul actually turns around the school, it is still likely to create no discernible improvement for the students who are already there.  They’ll face the disruption, but if there are improvements, it will be their little brothers and sisters who see them.

The marchers’ crappy school experience is likely to get crappier.  Their protest makes sense.  The students are trying to stand up for themselves, likely guided by those adults who are closest to them.  Their perception of their interests is quite likely very different from those of adults charged with designing curricula and running schools.  (In my house, the necessity of math in a world with ubiquitous calculators is an ongoing discussion topic.)

So, here’s the problem: Everyone (students, parents, teachers, business) shares an interest in a strong public school system in the United States.  Everyone does not share a definition of what that would look like, how to get there, or who should pay for it.

We live with the results.

Note: This continues a theme from yesterday’s post, which was cross-posted at orgtheory.net, where there’s some interesting discussion in the comments section.  I’m cross-posting there this month.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment