I cannot avoid adding my voice to the chorus of people who are extremely
impressed by the meaningful and knowledgeable discussion on the personal
choice of public education. As someone who does not have children, I
would resist passing judgment on individual parents' difficult decisions
about what is best for their children. At the same time, my strong
belief is that it would be best to send children to a public school with
a diverse student population for reasons already articulately explained,
including both to provide the most valuable possible education and to
support the larger public good. If I eventually have to make this
decision, I believe that many of these postings will help encourage me
to choose public school.
As to the question of whether this sort of personal decision of a
candidate for public office has political implications, I believe that
the answer is unavoidably yes. It seems that an influential factor used
to discredit the liberal domestic agenda in the 70s was the disclosure
of the personal hypocrisy of many liberal leaders who advocated busing
to achieve desegregation while simultaneously sending their own children
to private schools. 60 Minutes specifically ran a story about how Ted
Kennedy, Ben Bradlee, and other advocates of busing sent their children
to private schools. The realization that elites who advocated policies
to promoste racial and economic equality used their own ecoomically
priveleged positions to personally avoid the effects of their policies,
also made clear the class divisions between the liberal elites and most
working people of all races whose interests these elites claimed to be
advancing. The new right or neo-conservative movement took great
advantage of these divisions to arouse resentment against liberalism in
general and mostly defeat efforts to achieve more economic and racial
equality in this society. There are varied factors behind the
overwhelming success of the political right over the past 25 years, most
notably their backing by the monied interests combined with most
Democrats/liberals being brought off by these same monied interests. A
less discussed but still signifcant factor is the lack of a visible
honest equalitarian alternative. Most of those who have managed to be
recognized as leaders in efforts for progressive change are easily
exposed as being inconistent, too obviously benefitting from the same
system that they claim to be trying to change.
How does all this relate to the Minneapolis Mayor's race? We currently
have a Mayor who has been exposed to almost everyone as paying lip
service to a progressive agenda only until it is time to act, and then
virtually always selling out on issues where there are corporate
interests at stake and on any basic issues of racial inequality (e.g.
the "fight against crime" a/k/a CODEFOR, the demolition of public
housing and other low-income housing, the previous coopted NAACP lawsuit
challenging school segregation, etc). We now have a challenger to the
Mayor who actually got the support of more DFL delegates primarily by
convincing that constituency that he will be an honest fighter for
social justice. While many are eager to find a more progressive
alternative to the Mayor, RT still has a lot of work to do to prove he
is that alternative. Some of us continue feel discomfort that RT is too
vague and tries to be too slick.
For a non-insider, the revelation about this question about where this
candidate's choice not to send his children to public school at least
arouses curiousity. It would be a mistake to rush to any judgment.
There could be many good reasons for such a personal decision, and even
if the decision turned out have some hypocrisy, RT could still make a
genuine effort to follow through on his principles. Still, this
normally personal issue could shed some insight on whether a candidate
fits into a now old tradition of hypocritical elitist liberal
politicians, or will be part of a new tradition of more genuine
advocates for equality who are accountable to their stated
constituencies.
The first poster in this thread made the comparison between where a
candidate decides to spend his own money on political causes, and
whether a candidate decides that the publics school system is worthy of
his children. After demanding that Stenglein explain his decision about
where to spend his money, I would be hypocrtical not to request that a
candidate whom I supported at the DFL convention provide an explanation
for a possibly inconsistent decision about whether to rely on the public
school system. Since RT has often participated on this list to advance
his candidacy, criticize his opponent, and respond to questions, I await
his response on this issue.
Jordan Kushner
Powderhorn
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
