From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:36:30 GMT

mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>Nathan Engle writes:
>>    What the Clintons are doing for their daughter is only hypocritical 
>>if you accept the initial Rush-thought that Democrats always have to act 
>>based solely on symbolism and that not doing so contradicts their stated 
>>goals.

>(As usual?) You've got it backwards.  Clinton is NOT being criticized
>for acting rationally.  Rush never claimed "that Democrats always have
>to act based solely on symbolism".   The point is that Clinton is rich
>enough to be able to make a choice, but he does not support money
>for school vouchers to allow less rich people to make such a choice.

    You know, the last couple of days have really opened my eyes. I used 
to think (because of what Rush has told me) that Democrats were the ones 
who always complained about the terrible unfairness of our capitalistic 
system, but it's really warmed my heart to read so many posts by so many 
obviously compassionate conservatives. In part it warms my heart because 
it reaffirms my belief that conservatives have compassion, but mainly it 
warms my heart because it indicates yet another case in which one of 
Rush's generalizations is demonstrated to be basically worthless. You're 
correct that Rush has never said that Democrats "have to" always act on 
symbolism, but Rush has said repeatedly that Democrats *do* act based on 
symbolism rather than substance.

>The question is:  would both public and private schools and their
>students be better off if money (say $2000) in the form of government
>vouchers were avaliable to someone of modest income (say <$30000)
>to move their child from a public school to a private one?

    Or how about this scenario? Let's say the government gives these 
vouchers out and a bunch of parents decide to opt for home schooling 
instead. That way the parents could pocket their $2000 voucher (partly 
paid for with my tax dollars) and their kids could get a top notch 
education by reading Bible verses and getting hands-on computer training 
on a sleek new C-64.

    I dunno how much I like that.

>Rush does claim that many times Democrats propose actions which
>are based on symbolism and are unlikely to achieve the desired
>effects.  They say that $80,000 per class is not enough money
>to hire competent teachers and maintain discipline and actually
>teach students.  But they "ignore" the fact that many private schools
>achieve much better results on a similar budget.  Then the question
>becomes:  why are private schools more successful?

    When private schools are confronted with irrascible kids with behaivor 
disorders they can punt the problem kids back out into the public system.
Let the private schools operate under the same compulsion to deal with 
every child and then tell me how successful they are.

>Rush's claim then becomes: more money for public schools is not
>really going to help.  If that is true and that is what Clinton
>proposes, then his proposed action is merely symbolic.  If Clinton
>really believes that more money won't really help, then that action
>becomes hypocritical.

    Ok, let's carry on through with the rest of the possibilities. If 
Rush's claim is wrong and more money really is required, then Clinton's 
opposition to Bush's school choice plan is both substantive and essential. 
Rush certainly has his own opinion about what's necessary for public 
education to succeed, however I would note that his opinion is not shared 
by very many of the teachers and administrators who have to deal with the 
system every day. Under this possibility I don't think that it would be  
nearly as easy to make a charge of hypocrisy stick to Clinton, but we run 
into the very real chance that Rush either has no idea what he's talking 
about when it comes to education, or that he's adopted his position in 
order to say what he knows his audience wants to hear.

    The next possibility (that Rush is wrong but that Clinton doesn't 
believe that the money will help) should probably be mentioned just to 
complete the list, but I don't think that it's very likely. From Clinton's 
record in Arkansas I would have to say that Clinton *does* believe that 
more money will help; after all, it did result in improvements in test 
scores in Arkansas.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu