I Answer “Is Conservatism Out of Gas?”

It’s my turn.  My essay for The Wisconsin Interest is online.  I answer the question, “Is Conservatism out of gas?”  It looks like I took a little different take than the other folks, so far. 

Check it out.

1. I too wonder why conservatives have given up on education. An educated populace is not only the best defense against tyranny, it is essential to economic development. As to health care, I’ve seen some interesting hybrid proposals that combine national catastrophic coverage with greater emphasis on market forces for wellness and mundane health issues.

   Posted by Charlie Hillman on April 26, 2007 at 0832 hrs




2. Good piece—in terms of government-run health care, people don’t see the irony of complaining about what the government all does wrong but then saying the government needs to take over more and more of our lives.

   I too have been frustrated with the Republican Party and have been taking a good look at the Constitution Party, but don’t agree with their whole platform either.  If the Republicans would stay true to who they are and would worry less about making everyone happy (which so far has resulted in driving people away), they could get a coherent platform together and articulate it successfully.

   Posted by Jodi on April 26, 2007 at 0834 hrs




3. I wouldn’t say your answer is all that different than Rep. Ryan’s.  You do touch on different aspects of “what next” than he (and Charlie and Rep. Sensenbrenner), however.

   Posted by steveegg on April 26, 2007 at 0908 hrs




4. Would That Be Rep. paul Ryan??

   Quite an eye opening story today in the JSonline’s
   no quarter column.

   Funny Owen spent so much time and effort on the
   Doyle/Troha money allegations, but has yet to
   call out Paul Ryan for selling his soul!!

   That’s the guy many true conservatives thought was a future
   leader? Ryan’s just Duke Cunningham and Rep. Jefferson
   in a holier than thou MASK!!

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2007 at 0914 hrs




5. I love your remarks about education.  As a teacher, I can tell you that you remarks were right on target. 

   I would love to see the Republican party speak louder about school choice.  Unfortunately, people still don’t understand that it is the democrats, funded by the teacher unions, that constantly fight the choice program.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2007 at 0930 hrs




6. I’m with RIP!!

   Owen is oddly selective in those he castigates!!

   If he were a real man, he’d rip anyone of wrong doing regardless of political affliation!!

   I’ve yet to see him even mention the Army’s treatment of Pat
   Tilman and/or Jessica ;ynch!!

   Is that the new conservatism??

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2007 at 1243 hrs




7. “people still don’t understand that it is the democrats, funded by the teacher unions, that constantly fight the choice program.”

   Do they understand yet that it’s the Republicans, funded by the private school and religious lobbys, that constantly push the choice program?  It’s pretty childish to paint this as greedy democrats following the whim of the evil teachers union while altruistic republicans just want to hug every child.

   Do they wonder how Debi Towns found a job so quick?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2007 at 1447 hrs




8. The choice program allows parents a choice between public schools that are failing or private schools that outperform the public schools.  Sometimes they are religious, sometimes they are not.  It has to do with giving parents an option to get their kids out of bad schools. 

   Shouldn’t that be the “platform” all political parties?  Ahh, but it can’t be for the democrats because of the heavy support they get from the teacher unions.

   My point was that the conservatives are on the right side of this issue and they need to be more vocal in their support of it.  Sadly, it is those on the left who don’t want to give parents the option of a better education for their child.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2007 at 1500 hrs




9. So KT..if school choice is so great.
   Why have the Republicans refused to force them to submit to
   the same tests and standards that the pubs forced upon
   public schools?

   Bob…It’s Owen’s Blog…

   Don’t expect anything that deviates to far from the Party Line.
   But hey..it’s his blog..he makes up his own Rules!!

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2007 at 1625 hrs




10. I disagree that conservatives are on the right side of this issue (I don’t know if you intended a pun, but I do not).

    Best case scenario, school choice is overwhelmingly successful and takes most of the students from public schools.  What about those students in rural areas who don’t have access to a choice school because the population is too low and dispersed to support commercial education?  What about those kids who choice schools won’t enroll because their handicaps or behavioral problems make them unprofitable students?  What about the kids whose parents are negligent and won’t take the steps to enroll their kids because they couldn’t care less about how or where they are educated?  We just going to abandon those kids?

    Eventually, in a choice school system, a tipping point for public education will arrive where it’s just not feasible to continue to have a public school system because the enrollment is too low and they can’t bargain with suppliers or vertically integrate any more.  It will happen; it’s an economic inevitability if school choice is as popular as proponents claim.  Which is really why conservatives are all of a sudden concerned with the poor kids they’ve done so much to hurt in the past.  It will save tax dollars for residents, and it will repay campaign contributions for politicians. 

    So what happens to those kids who private schools have, while completely within their rights, turned their backs on?  Will we have a nation of educated kids in one group and kids who didn’t even have access to education in the other?  That doesn’t sound like the right side to me, but that’s a natural outcome of this “concern for poor kids”.  Please.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2007 at 1626 hrs




11. Let’s be honest. School choice is an intellectually dishonest means of extracting the teacher’s unions out of the education system (no, I don’t belong to one).

    As far as the greedy charge, anyone who has a bachelor’s degree should be making $40,000 grand or better. The dirty little secret behind “choice” is the costs are lower because they pay people lower.

    What big business has in mind for all of its employees is what it desires for teachers. Busting unions happens to be one of the hallmarks of fascism.

    Furthermore, many of it’s supporters (Sykes for sure) could give a rip about minority kids.

    This is yet another gimmick that conservatives pass of as an “idea” that doesn’t solve anything.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2007 at 1736 hrs




12. BTW, conservatism is indeed full of gas—it gets passed all the time in the form of their “ideas.”

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2007 at 1737 hrs




13. Ahhh….you guys are so blinded by hate debating isn’t even an option anymore.  I wonder what life if like, knowing all the answers?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2007 at 1753 hrs




14. Furthermore, many of it’s supporters (Sykes for sure) could give a rip about minority kids.

    On what evidence do you base this charge?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2007 at 1753 hrs




15. Owen- I liked your piece.  Contained some excellent ideas.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2007 at 1754 hrs




16. kr/jason - you seriously need to explain how spending over $10K per child in MPS is not providing enough for them?

    When looking at the results of the kids in the choice program (see Messmer) I’m not sure how you can continue to argue abandonment of minority children.  At least choice gives them a chance.

    With the “gimme-more” spending philosophy and continuously failing, I would argue that MPS and the teacher’s unions are those that have abandoned the minority children.

    As long as you also bring up the accountibility card, seems several choice schools have been shut down due to lack of performance.  I don’t recall that ever happening to a public school.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2007 at 1800 hrs




17. Jason, Your point about kids in rural areas… How far is it to the next church that likely would be offering a school, plus there is publicly paid for busing.  Plus, rural area public schools generally are better performing than those like MPS in the big city where the idea of parental involvement is getting a cell phone call to come join the fight/riot at school.

    You write, “Will we have a nation of educated kids in one group and kids who didn’t even have access to education in the other? “

    Last time I checked all children in this country have an opportunity for education, it is there for the taking, in fact with the choice program they have even more access to many good schools.  The question is:  Do we have parents and kids who want it and who are willing to even show up. 

    As far as the public schools, if the public schools are so worried that all the kids will leave and go to private schools, shouldn’t you be asking why?  What is it that they can get over there that we can’t give them here? 

    I think you know the answer to that.  A good education.  Ever wonder why so many public school teachers send their own kids to private school?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2007 at 1922 hrs




18. #10: What about those students in rural areas who don’t have access to a choice school because the population is too low and dispersed to support commercial education?

    People would probably do the same thing they have been doing in metro-Milwaukee for the last 50 years - get in the car, drive to a community that appeals to them, find a house, and move.  West Bend, Saukville, Waukesha, Hartford, Richfield, Germantown, etc all grew because of the Milwaukee GTHO effect - “get the hell out”.  Those communities did not grow because of existing population growth - one of the drivers has been people fleeing Milwaukee schools.  In 2000, 35% of West Bend’s population have lived somewhere else in 1995.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 27, 2007 at 1204 hrs




19. I agree that the public school system is in shambles and the teachers union probably has something to do with that.  The question is, what’s the solution?  Is it essentially doing away with public education and hoping for the best from businesses with no vested interest or legal obligation to help kids, or is it trying harder to fix public schools.

    Also, Public Service, I can’t begin to explain to you how hilarious I find it that your only rebuttal is that I’m blinded by hate and not worth debating.  I agree with you in general that it’s a waste of time debating people who’s interests are emotional (or selfish) instead of rational, but the only hate I see here seems to be directed at the teachers union, so who’s really dodging who?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 27, 2007 at 1209 hrs




20. Jason, You ask, “What’s the solution?” 

    I believe that part of the solution is school choice. 

    Think of schools as a business.  If you have a company that is underperforming, turning out a bad product, has a bad reputation, etc.  What will happen?  People will stop going to that business and go to the competiton (choice schools).

    The business must take notice and make some drastic changes to perform better, improve the “product” and repair its reputation.  If it does that, people will come back to them, if they don’t people will continue to leave and with those people, the tax money will follow, and when money leaves, people (administration, school boards) take notice.

    Competetion makes business better.  It forces companies to strive for excellence and efficciency.  Two things school districts need to also strive for rather than know they have a guaranteed money tree regardless of their performance.

    School choice IS part of the solution.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 27, 2007 at 1306 hrs




21. I understand the theory behind privatization KT, but I think it’s a impossible to compare a private, for profit business with only the barest of regulations, little oversight, and complete freedom to selectively deny service with public schools that have to operate under strict guidelines and serve who ever shows up.

    In any event, that does nothing to ease my concerns over those students who don’t end up in choice schools and have no public school system to attend (see my tipping post comment above).  I agree that competitiion between differently situated education providers will indeed leave the one with less regulation standing, but we seem to disagree about whether that would be a good or bad thing.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 27, 2007 at 1316 hrs




22. KT said: School choice IS part of the solution.

    I agree, and the operative word in that statement is “part”.  It is illogical to take and extrapolate support for the concept of school choice into support for the demise of public schools.  There will always be a constituency for both, and using the business model, similar companies can & do serve different markets and customers, because in America people exercise choice when they have options.

    In my perfect world, I would envision school choice money being available to help families partially offset the costs of private education (now they double-pay: they pay property taxes and private tuition).  Public schools would continue to educate students from families that don’t want to subsidize any part of their child’s education, students from families that like what the public schools offer (assuming public schools can adopt customer focused practices), and difficult-to-educate students (that would be the “niche” market for public schools, an area of expertise that might not be met by other providers, and justification for needing a different type of funding).

    This would be an efficient way to spend tax money for education - it would utilize existing capacity of both public & private schools, could encourage partnerships to share resources and facilities, and encourage a spirit of competiveness that results in better practices.

    Most importantly, it would certainly cause more people to have a vested financial interest in education.  Does anyone think that families bearing the total cost of private education for their children at this time really care if the public school system is under-funded or not?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 27, 2007 at 1331 hrs




23. Again fascinated by those shiny objects known as tax cuts.

    First off, free public education is the principle that built America for a million reasons, but one of the chief being it is one of those things that binds us together as a country. But hillbillies out in the suburbs don’t care about those things.

    And in your perfect education world that private school education won’t stay cheap for long. Few people would get a degree to teach based on what you have to pay, so to finally attract competent talent the wages would have to go up. You seem to think that people would be lining up to teach your kids at $30,000 a year and no benefits.

    As one moderate Republican told me, the difference between the GOP of the last generation and this one, is that your elders believed in the greater good.

    You have a handle on that txmesommore like you probably do on Mandarin Chinese.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 27, 2007 at 1836 hrs




24. kr,
    You say, “Few people would get a degree to teach based on what you have to pay, so to finally attract competent talent the wages would have to go up. You seem to think that people would be lining up to teach your kids at $30,000 a year and no benefits.”

    Many teachers choose to teach in private schools because they: 1. Want nothing to do with the unions and the crap that they demand. 2.  Cannot in good conscience teach the indocrination material that is in today’s curriculum (Owen referenced this in his essay).  3.  Strongly believe in teaching Christianity or another religion as part of the curriculum.  4.  View their teaching as their calling or service.  And they do this knowing full well what the pay is.  In my book this does not make them less competent but even more compentent and maybe more committed.

    In fact, I believe that less competent teachers would be more likely attracted to public schools where they know that they can’t get fired and and sit back and ride to their retirement pension without any accountibility for their job performance.  The fact that incompetent teachers in the private schools will be fired for poor performance proves my point. 

    Look at the numbers.  Students that come from private schools generally test above where the public school students do.  Oh, and by the way they often do that without the Taj Mahal buildings and higher paid teachers.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 27, 2007 at 2007 hrs




25. KR - I’ll admit that I don’t have a handle on Mandarin Chinese - Do you?  What did I say about tax cuts or private education being cheap?  I’m talking about a system where more people have a vested interest in funding for education because they are getting something for the money that they are putting out.  I’m for money being spent effectively.

    “hillbillies out in the suburbs” are the ones who built the public school system throughout the nation.  Some of my ancestors donated farmland, labor, and materials to build one & two room schools & later consolidated them into larger districts and this is what made public education universal in America - if they had waited for the big city school districts to come and establish educational facilities and programs, well, it just would not have happened.

    So, let’s continue to do it your way (I assume you are part of the public education system - you see to make a lot of assumptions yourself).  Continue to pour massive amounts of money into the “establishment”, knowing that there is nothing to suggest that outcomes will improve (other than theories).  Continue to stifle and reject any creative suggestions.  Continue to demand quiet obedience from people who are funding the system.  I care because I have a daughter in the public school system (we did consider parochial, by the way, and did private for K-4 & Kindergarten).  But I’ll tell you something - most people I know really don’t give a rip about the financial needs of the public school system - they are pretty much disconnected and their financial input is “demanded”, not respected or valued.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 27, 2007 at 2030 hrs