cultural contradictions of Clintonism, The

Policy Review, Nov/Dec 1996 by Meyerson, Adam

For nearly 40 years, my grandma taught poor immigrant first-graders in Brooklyn to read. She also taught remedial reading to teenagers who had somehow never mastered the written word. She was a marvelous teacher who combined patience, affection, and phonics, which she always said was the best way to learn. And at her funeral, many of her former pupils showed up to honor her memory.

'"Your grandmother gave me a gift I will never forget," one of them told me. "When she taught me to read, she changed my life. She opened doors that had slammed shut on me. She made it possible for me to succeed."

I thought of my grandmother when I heard President Clinton's stirring call for a national literacy campaign at the Democratic convention in August. "Let us set a clear national goal," Clinton said. "All children should be able to read on their own by the third grade." Yes, I thought, the president is right on target: Literacy is the key to all other learning. Unless he can read, a child is doomed. And Grandma would have applauded Clinton's infectious, can-do spirit. She always insisted that every child could be taught to read.

Grandma also would applaud the precise, measurable standard the president set for his campaign. This is not some slippery, Goals 2000-type call to raise self-esteem or ensure children enter school "ready to learn." This is a real test measuring essential knowledge, the kind of test that good teachers prize. Either a child can read or he can't, in which case some other way to teach him must be found. And it's a badly needed test because, as President Clinton reminded us, 40 percent of eight-year-olds have serious reading difficulties.

The president's literacy proposal is attractive for other reasons. It calls not for a new bureaucratic program but rather a volunteer army of 1 million reading tutors. This is consistent with Clinton's appreciation of civil society and the American tradition of citizens stepping forward to solve the problems of their communities. So far so good.

But wait a minute: Where's the accountability for teachers? Just what are they supposed to be doing, if not teaching our children to read? If 40 percent of eight-year-olds have trouble reading, what's wrong with our public schools? Shouldn't we hire better teachers who can teach reading the way Grandma did? And why aren't problem readers helped by the $30 billion-plus we spend each year on special education?

The literacy proposal is typical of Clinton at his best and at his worst. He has a brilliant knack for focusing the nation's attention like a laser beam on a profound problem. He laces his solutions with culturally conservative notions such as rigorous testing and volunteerism rather than bureaucracy. But he totally ignores the need to reform existing institutions that are already expected to address the problem; in this case, he absolves the schools of their failure to teach. President Clinton uses the language of personal responsibility to promote and perpetuate government irresponsibility.

Clinton has defined himself as a cultural conservative. There are a few issues where he is on the cultural left: abortion, where he defends even a grisly procedure bordering on infanticide, and civil rights, where he defends racial preferences that violate the principle of equality before the law. On gay rights, he sends mixed signals. But on most social issues, Clinton is the most culturally conservative Democratic presidential nominee since Hubert Humphrey, perhaps even since Harry Truman. Consider the Clinton record: He has issued guidelines calling for more teaching about religion in public schools; during his presidency, National Public Radio and PBS have finally begun treating religion with respect. He has promoted the V-chip for TV sets to give parents more control over what their children watch.

Over the objections of the American Civil Liberties Union, he has signed "Megan's Law"-style legislation to keep parents informed of convicted sex of fenders living in their neighborhoods. He has endorsed youth curfews and school uniforms-seemingly small measures, but a significant rebuke to "children's-rights" activists within the Democratic party who oppose any restrictions on the freedom of minors. He has said Dan Quayle was right about the irreplaceable benefits of the two-parent family.

He and the First Lady have spoken out frequently about the importance of adoption, and, over the objections of the National Association of Black Social Workers, the president signed GOP legislation overturning barriers to transracial adoption.

He has embraced the principles of the Founding in defining what it means to be an American: "If you believe in the values of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, if you are willing to work hard and play by the rules, you are part of our family."

He has signed legislation protecting states from being forced to recognize homosexual marriages.

He says that the three central principles of the Democratic Party in this election are "opportunity," "responsibility," and "community."