Hope Street Group

2 Posts tagged with the 2008_presidential_election tag
0

Over the course of the last few weeks and months, I have admittedly found myself swept up in the excitement and allure of the 2008 Presidential election. Like a moviegoer enraptured by the thrill and fantasy of a Dreamworks feature, I was glued to my television screen during the conventions, a bowl of popcorn in hand, utterly captivated by the script unfolding before me. The vivid rhetoric rolling off the tongues of our national leaders and echoing through the convention hall allowed me to feel for a moment that I was, in fact, watching something of a dream, or something of, perhaps a fantasy. And this, from both Democrats and Republicans.

 

In the past week, however, as the fireworks and balloons are no longer clouding the air surrounding the presidential platforms, I am beginning to wonder whether I have been duped, whether the Hollywood magic did get me on more time. No, I am not simply trying to allude to Sarah Palin's jab at the Democratic campaign's show-stopping display at Denver's Invesco Field. I am speaking here about a general sense of concern regarding the potential behind each of the candidates' impassioned assertions.

 

Given my background, it is no wonder that I will continue to wonder whether the candidates' education action plans contain any action at all. In his convention speech, Senator Obama claimed that he will allow our nation to "finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education," and that he "will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance." The Democratic nominee for president said he plans to "invest in early childhood education," "recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support," to "ask for higher standards and more accountability," and finally to "keep our promise to every young American - if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education." In his voting record, Senator Obama has certainly shown his willingness to provide fiscal resources for education initiatives, and if this is true with regards to early childhood education, the Chicago leader will help the nation's youth to make major gains.

 

While Senator Obama is certainly on the right track with his plan to attract more teachers with higher pay, however, he has not pushed the limits and requirements that would tie teacher pay to teacher performance rather than simply using a traditional credential scale. Unlike Washington D.C.'s chancellor, Michelle Rhee, Obama seems unwilling to address one of the biggest flaws in our system: the unnecessary and harmful protections provided by teachers' unions. In essence, it seems as though Senator Obama has committed to putting more money into the school system as it already is, even as recent reports show a call for increased budget allotments to charter schools.

 

On the other side of the aisle, Republican nominee John McCain has called education the "civil rights issue of this century," stating that competition and choice would be the keys to improvement of our schools. Senator McCain voting on education has been consistent with stance, following the hard line that throwing money into failed systems will only cause more waste, and only in school choice through state-run education will our children succeed. The Republican claims that his plan will do more to shake up education than his opponent's platform, as McCain claims that he intends to get rid of the typical bureaucracy at the helm of education in a system that systematically retains failing teachers in the nation's neediest districts.

 

Unlike Obama's plan, however, McCain's outline does not call for an increase in federal funding for pre-k education, despite the call from reputable sources documenting the importance of such an endeavor. In fact, proving that he is not looking towards newly expanded programs in early childhood education, at least one writer has discovered that most of ideas have already been passed in the most recent Head Start Act reauthorization.

 

Ultimately, though the idealist in me would love to trust every word spoken by our candidates, I am not inclined to do so. Even if the intentions are there, neither Senator Obama nor Senator McCain has provided substantive proof for just how their proposals will improve upon education.  Instead, their rhetoric merely reassures the public that both candidates understand the urgency of the issue but that neither of them will act "too rashly" with the future of America. While there does not have to be one right answer for how we change the educational system, the options must at least provide clear and concise direction for actual results. Neither of the candidates has given us such a blue print, causing at least this one voter to feel that in the game of politics, educational reform is simply a pawn and not the game piece at the center of the action. Thus, opportunities for candidate debate and dialogue regarding their projections for their why, when, and how on education have turned in to personal attacks on each candidate. These are clearly missed opportunities for all of us.

 

As our financial markets continue to fall into disarray, I can only hope that both Senators Obama and McCain will truly get to the root of how we will fix our future through the overhaul of the American educational system, for this truly is our best hope for a prosperous future.

727 Views 0 Comments 0 References Permalink Tags: education, economic_opportunity, 2008_presidential_election
0

With the economy emerging as the central issue in the presidential primaries (cited by an overwhelming 55% of Republican voters in Michigan as the most important issue, with the war in Iraq and immigration coming in at distant second and third places, respectively), "anxious" has become the adjective-du-jour to describe how middle-class Americans are feeling about the future. Sluggish wages, rising health care costs, the mortgage crisis and an uncertainty about the benefits of globalization are all contributing to a widespread sense of unease that candidates are trying to address through various economic policies.

 

And although Democrats and Republicans often differ fundamentally about what the role of government should be in supporting Americans going through tough times, the frontrunners are remarkably aligned in their positions on one particular source of this anxiety: Americans who have lost their jobs due to outsourcing. Mitt Romney
John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama all support some version of worker education and retraining programs for those displaced by trade.

 

The positions of the Republican candidates, however, were lambasted in the New York Times today in "What to Expect When You're Free Trading," an Op-Ed by Steven Landsburg, a professor of economics at University of Rochester who dismisses the argument that worker retraining is a moral issue the government should put resources into, writing, "Even if you've lost your job, there's something fundamentally churlish about blaming the very phenomenon that's elevated you above the subsistence level since the day you were born." While I believe that his argument does indeed exhibit a lack of moral imagination for the plight of displaced American workers, the question at the core of his piece is nonetheless an important one: "What do we owe those fellow citizens?"

 

Putting aside the broader issue of the social contract for now, even if you do not believe we have a moral imperative to help Americans who have lost their jobs due to forces beyond their control, the economic imperative is undeniable. Put another way, what does our country lose by NOT retraining workers, many of whom have lost jobs in the prime of their lives? Years of lost productivity. Declining house values in communities abandoned by industry. Strained public services. Families breaking apart under the strain of unemployment. And so on. That an economist would argue against worker retraining programs boggles the mind.

 

This is a rare instance in which all the major candidates are united on an important domestic policy issue. And while their ultimate policies may differ, the impulses behind them--that everyone deserves a second chance, that American workers need skills that allow them to be more flexible in the job market, and that government should invest in its workers--should be embraced as economically, but also morally, correct.

 

Putting aside the broader issue of the social contract for now, even if you do not believe we have a moral imperative to help Americans who have lost their jobs due to forces beyond their control, the economic imperative is undeniable. Put another way, what does our country lose by NOT retraining workers, many of whom have lost jobs in the prime of their lives? Years of lost productivity. Declining house values in communities abandoned by industry. Strained public services. Families breaking apart under the strain of unemployment. And so on. That an economist would argue against worker retraining programs boggles the mind.

 

This is a rare instance in which all the major candidates are united on an important domestic policy issue. And while their ultimate policies may differ, the impulses behind them--that everyone deserves a second chance, that American workers need skills that allow them to be more flexible in the job market, and that government should invest in its workers--should be embraced as economically, but also morally, correct.

558 Views 0 Comments 0 References Permalink Tags: job_creation, economy, domestic_policy, 2008_presidential_election


Recent Comments

No recent comments.

Popular Blog Posts