A response to George Will's column, citation below.
If Sept. 11 had never happened -- if debate about domestic policy had not been drowned out by the roar of war -- the potential domestic ramifications of this election would give it unusual nation-shaping power. To understand why is to understand some of the Democratic rage about the specter of a second term for George W. Bush.
He has a multifaceted agenda for weakening crucial components of the Democratic Party, factions that depend on cosseting by the federal government. Consider trial lawyers and organized labor. ...
-- George Will
As professors of economics and business, we are concerned that U.S. economic policy has taken a dangerous turn under your stewardship. Nearly every major economic indicator has deteriorated since you took office in January 2001...
The data make clear that your policy of slashing taxes - primarily for those at the upper reaches of the income distribution - has not worked. The fiscal reversal that has taken place under your leadership is so extreme that it would have been unimaginable just a few years ago ... if transfers from the Social Security trust fund are excluded, the federal deficit is ... well in excess of a half a trillion dollars ...this year alone.
Although some members of your administration have suggested that the mountain of new debt accumulated on your watch is mainly the consequence of 9-11 and the war on terror, budget experts know that this is simply false.
-- top business school professors, including Nobel prize winner
Yeah, Mr. Will, the only reason why the Dems are against the guy's fiscal plans is because it threatens their special interests. As well as their fiscal integrity. Will again:
John Kerry's selection of John Edwards as running mate was a blunder, and not just because Kerry probably will lose Edwards's North Carolina. The Edwards selection ratifies a provocative fact: trial lawyers have become the Democrats' most important faction.
Now, some have argued that Edwards is a bad choice, which I don't quite understand. There might be various wild cards that would have worked better, but the likely alternatives (Gephardt?) really aren't too appealing. Maybe it's just me (not really -- loads o'Dems were/are excited about Edwards). Still, it is just fraudulent to suggest that he was picked because he is a trial lawyer.
I find the bias against that profession a bit crude (is a failed oil man or seller to terrorist nations a better profession? apparently many also forgot many of our former presidents were trial lawyers and common lawsuits are American as apple pie ... our very baptismal documents are basically law documents, and money was a key reason for our desire to be independent). All the same, clearly the charm of Johnny boy is charm and ability (or hoped for ability) to appeal to those swing voters.
[Jonathan Rauch is used by Will to prop up Bush's economic plans. One might note his book promoting gay marriage. Better yet, one might want to check out Running On Empty by Peter Peterson, Republican, Secretary of Treasury for Nixon etc., Perfectly Legal (David Cay Johnson), etc. to read about the basic emptiness of said economic plans. You know, if Krugman can't be trusted.]
Will also targets other typical targets:
The public education lobby -- one in 10 delegates to the Democratic convention was a member of a teachers union -- wants government to keep impediments in the way of competition. That means not empowering parents with school choice, including the choice of private schools, which have significantly lower per-pupil costs.
If one wonders why certain Democrats are "anxious" and "furious," rhetoric like this suggests a reason. It is not quite that the Republicans in power threaten their base. This is always a factor, but it's a bit deeper than that. It's the basic "full of shit" nature of the rhetoric, especially given the problems that must be faced daily.
For one thing, remember the recently downplayed report that charter schools aren't quite all that they were cut out to be? This might begin to suggest that "lower costs" is a simplistic way of looking at the problem.
I know this from my own personal experience -- I went to both public and parochial schools as did members of my family. Mixed bag, believe me -- depended on lots of factors. Private school is not always or even quite often some sort of godsend (and religion is a factor of course, First Amendment and all). Personally, the mosaic public school offers seems like a positive to me, something private school by its very nature cannot quite offer. But, I offer that as a personal opinion only.
Just one concern: private school voucher programs often are small scale, taking money from public schools, which still has to deal with a lot of the problem students. One answer might be to require the private schools to take their fair load (I'm sure a lot will love that), but this would probably require many "impediments" such as detailed regulations to ensure proper guidelines are met. The same applies to religious schools, especially if they receive public funds.
And, then we have the Republican plans such as No Child Left Behind. A perfectly handled program to be sure! Sarcasm aside, one sees the issue: no simple solutions and the Democratic side (though Republicans aren't totally against public schools either and many would be suspicious of [various] religious schools) address some important concerns.
Concerns for which the current leadership (Rod Paige anyone?) do not offer as a great alternative.
George Will deserves a degree of respect though for suggesting the counterintuitive -- the Bush domestic policy is really a strength. Still, the Jon Lovitz strategy of this administration of firm bullshitting is just a bit played.
Doncha think?