Does this election matter?

NEA Today, Nov 1996 by Chase, Bob

After the last speech is given, the last television ad aired, what really is left of a political campaign? Usually one very fundamental idea over which the candidates disagree, fundamentally.

Politicians sometimes highlight the difference between themselves and their opponents. Other times, they blur the difference because they aren't confident the public will accept their idea. Franklin Roosevelt did this in 1932. He thought the federal government should intervene in the depression-wracked economy. Roosevelt campaigned, however, on the politically safer idea of balancing the budget. By 1936 Roosevelt had no qualms about running on the idea of an activist federal government. And this year, we see the Congressional class of '94, which stormed into office talking about orphanages and cutting the school lunch program, toning down its extreme positions.

What about campaign 1996where's the great intellectual divide?

I think, for the first time in our history, it is over education. On one side are politicians who believe public education is a failing monopoly that needs a good healthy dose of market-style competition. On the other side, are those of us who believe our public schools are doing well under difficult circumstances, but must improve by putting "the public" back into public education. Milton Friedman's name will not appear on a single ballot this election day, yet it is his idea that Americans will be voting on.

For more than 30 years, this Nobelprize winning economist has been arguing for a transition from what he calls "government schools" to a market system of education.

It's a truly radical idea, running counter to Thomas Jefferson's idea that providing "common schools" for the children of all classes is one of government's loftiest functions. Friedman sees parents and students as consumers in a marketplace; Jefferson saw them as citizens in a community. The Friedmanites seek to abolish federal aid to education and the Department of Education-"they only serve to prop up the government school monopoly."

Also, the Friedmanites are big supporters of vouchers-government pays consumers to send their children to private schools-although Friedman reminds his followers that vouchers are not an end in themselves, but a means of marketizing education.

The Jeffersonians oppose vouchers for three reasons: ) They will punch a gaping hole in the constitutional wall separating church and state, a wall that has served us well for over two centuries. 2) Vouchers will provide taxpayer money to well-to-do people who are already sending their children to private schools. And 3) Vouchers will siphon funds away from public schools, "helping" a few at the expense of many.

The Jeffersonians are convinced that public schools that are failing need more community, not more competition.

There is an ironic twist in this battle of ideas. Friedman, unlike many other conservatives, is deeply concerned about growing income inequality in our country. He has written: "Such stratification is a recipe for social disaster." Which is exactly what Jefferson warned us about.

Only Friedman thinks public schools have contributed to this stratification, while Jeffersonians see public education as the great equalizer.

The Jeffersonian idea has withstood the test of time, and I believe it will prevail again. But even if it does, that still leaves the Jeffersonians with a serious problem.

There are some big city school systems, such as the one in our nation's capital, that are failing many children. It took years of racism, public apathy, and political corruption to make such systems the failure they are today. To turn them around will require enormous effort-an time.

What do the Jeffersonians have to offer the inner-city parent desperately concerned-and rightly so-about her child's education right now, today?

We've an awful lot of work to do after November 5.