Forging a political agenda in good economic times - Brief Article - Column

USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Nov, 1997 by Robert J. Bresler

For the children of mid-century America who grew up against a background of permanent crisis--war, cold war, economic uncertainties--tranquility seems against the laws of nature. If times were prosperous at home, there usually was an international crisis to fray one's nerves. Governing in those years inevitably meant making unpopular decisions. Most presidents saw their popularity dwindle as their terms wore on. The two presidents of the Cold War era who never really wore out their welcome with the public--Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan--were admired for their strength of character even by those who didn't agree with their policies. Now, with prosperity at home and peace abroad, the public supports a president whose private behavior they wouldn't tolerate within their own family. His sexual indiscretions and fundraising scandals barely garner a yawn.

The explanation is simple. The economy has been growing at more than three percent a year; unemployment is below five percent; inflation stays at around two-three percent; pension funds increase with the bull market; and the Federal deficit, at least for now, virtually has disappeared. Pres. Clinton and the Republican Congress have created a budget agreement that promises to produce a surplus by the year 2002, cut some taxes, and even provide a new health care entitlement for children.

Underlying the agreement is an optimistic assumption that America has found the formula for uninterrupted economic expansion. The key elements are new information technology, the globalization of the economy, deregulation of industry, and continuation of monetary stability and fiscal restraint. Together, so is the hope, they will expand markets, hold down costs, develop industries, and create jobs.

Nonetheless, a current of dissatisfaction remains. Even if this formula works, it still leaves many social dilemmas untouched. Good economic times alone can not reduce certain social pathologies. They constitute a familiar litany--the tabloidization of culture and debasement of popular tastes; a high divorce rate and single-parent families; teen-age pregnancy and illegitimacy; declining standards of discipline and poor educational performance; drug usage and violent crime. The public worries about these problems, but is less likely to hold politicians at the national level responsible.

Such public resignation holds within it the seeds of wisdom. People have come to appreciate that solving these problems is not the same as balancing the budget. No national legislative program can ennoble individual standards of behavior or elevate popular cultural tastes.

Still, political action, under certain circumstances, can make a difference. White attitudes on race changed significantly in the years following Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Law of the 1960s. Racial discrimination and bigoted thinking were not eradicated, but unapologetic forms of overt prejudice no longer became socially acceptable. Clearly, Federal pressure altered the intractable practices of the white South. Getting people registered to vote, requiring that they be served in restaurants, eliminating the dual (two-race) school system, and breaking down employment barriers seemed daunting at the time.

As difficult as that was, it may have been easier than getting teenagers to end irresponsible behavior toward sex, drugs, liquor, tobacco, and alcohol; pressuring young fathers to care for their wives and children; and reducing society's appetite for entertainment riddled with sex and violence. To alter such behavior, we will not find an equivalent to the civil rights laws.

These issues, rooted in individual and community patterns, are difficult to solve by national legislation. Some solutions may work on the margin. For example, the recent welfare reform bill places much of the responsibility for policy innovation with the states. Since we have yet to know the extent to which welfare dependency discourages marriage and fosters illegitimacy, such a devolution of authority makes sense. As we grope for answers, we must allow the states to experiment.

Despite the efforts to make education a national issue, it remains a local matter. Federal aid to education, begun in the 1960s, did not fulfill its promise. It may not have been responsible for the deterioration of the public schools, but few can argue it has made them better. The same may be said for Clinton's proposals for national education testing. As Monty Neill, the associate director of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, put it, "You don't fatten cattle by weighing them more often, and you don't improve student learning by giving more low-quality tests."

We were reminded again in the spring of 1997 how unlikely it is that educational reforms will come from Congress or the President. Due to the hold of the teachers' union, Congress could not even pass a mild voucher plan for the beleaguered District of Columbia public schools. The energy for reform currently is coming from the states and municipalities with new charter school laws and even some voucher plans.