Blundering past the tombstones of apartheid

Ironic and sad that the very same brave critics of apartheid during that era now find themselves in the same position in this one.

For me the most amazing thing is how absolutely predictable all this is. Indeed I was one who predicted it, and hoped fervently to be wrong. Mandela saved the country from terrible bloodshed and dislocation. But his influence has finally faded away to nothing.

Black statism is no better than White statism and both are terrible for South Africa.

From: Lawrence Rosenbloom
Subject: Blundering past the tombstones of apartheid.

November 30, 2011 10:19 pm.

Blundering past the tombstones of apartheid.
By André Brink

South Africa is no longer the place of new hope introduced by Nelson Mandela. Over the past week, after a number of chilling premonitions, the country abruptly turned away from his footprints, preferring instead to blunder past the tombstones and debris of the apartheid era.

The adoption of the Protection of Information Bill by the African National Congress in a parliament shaken with shock and revulsion, cancelled in a single crude stroke the Freedom Charter which – even while wilfully denied for half a century – had guided the country through the murky years of D.F. Malan, Hendrik Verwoerd and the other apartheid leaders towards the new dawn brought by Mr Mandela in 1990.

It dented the proud new constitution built on a foundation of human rights admired all over the world, besmirched the legacy of Mr Mandela and Desmond Tutu, and insulted the legacy of millions who had dedicated their lives to the construction of a future built on the hope of a new beginning. It glorified the myopia, greed and selfishness of a handful of third-rate politicians focused only on their own gain and advancement.

Masquerading as legislation aimed at protecting crucial military and state intelligence, this bill is conceived in such a way as to protect the corruption that has now infested South African public life for years; and the absence of a public interest clause leaves it open to flagrant criminal abuse and self-serving manoeuvring. The vagueness and evasions that persist in the bill after extensive discussion in parliament and by the public suggest that these are not accidental problems or the results of carelessness. Rather they are part of a very deliberate strategy to develop the bill as a measure for covering up corruption and protecting political criminals – which, in due course, may make it a useful tool even in censoring public discussion and the arts, including – particularly – literature.

We should, of course, have been warned. The signs were there for anyone to see when the ANC turned the election of a new president into a mere insulting spectacle or changed their Youth League into a blunt instrument of mass entertainment, only to see how the League in its turn began to dictate ANC policy and manipulate its leadership, or when the Dalai Lama was first denied a visa and a senior minister in parliament petulantly asked: “Who is the Dalai Lama?”

It has never been a requirement for political leadership to be measured by moral integrity. And yet those leaders who have managed to leave an indelible imprint on their time have always brought more than political acumen to the exercise of their functions. Not all US presidents have been Washingtons or Lincolns. But even with their blemishes, an FDR or an Ike could leave a more lasting mark on their time than a Johnson or a Ford.

Perhaps the ANC has been too lucky, or too spoilt, for its own good. How could one expect any leader to step into the shoes of a Mandela. Still, perhaps his radiance could outlast even an ordinary successor, and Thabo Mbeki was not to be scorned (even if, admittedly, his father would have added more gravitas to the role). But Jacob Zuma? Had he not brought with him the shadow of unfinished business in the shape of allegations over a corruption scandal all might not have been as distressing as it now is.

I know that in the years before our political changeover, whenever I met the ANC leadership in exile I could always return with a profound faith in the quality of that leadership. There was always, of course, Mr Mandela. But there were others, and behind them, the shining shades of Albert Luthuli and Oliver Tambo, political leaders imbued with moral force and philosophical depth. But today? Who are the leaders in the ANC who, truly, think?

There were possibilities at an early stage but money or prudence saw them fade from view. With Mr Zuma, it seems, the streetfighters have taken over. Next year the party will be celebrating its centenary. How the mighty have fallen. How the Bright Morning Stars have tumbled into the sulphurous pit! We are back where we started when we believed we had finally freed ourselves from the blindfolds of censorship, and suspicion, and witch hunts, and restrictions on writing and speech and brave unfettered thought.

It could have been a tragedy, but regrettably our play lacks the stature that is indispensable for tragedy. There have indeed been men and women who bestrode the narrow stage like colossi. But it seems that South Africa no longer has space for real actors, only for clumsy and unfunny marionettes.

The writer has with Nadine Gordimer led a protest of South African authors against the new security legislation. 

An interaction fable

Tom, Dick and Harry are in an interactive space. Tom and Dick live there, close by each other. Harry does not. Harry is a “friend” of both, a patron interested in the helping to organize peaceful coexistence between Tom and Dick. Harry is powerful and rich.

Tom is industrious, but fearful, having had bad experiences in his childhood. Deep down he wants to live in peace with Dick – indeed is keen to the possibilities for mutual gain by trade and investment. But he is also paranoid and suspicious, needing credible reassurances, because, although he is a well-trained and well-armed fighter, he is much smaller than Dick. Tom's ancestors have lived in this space on and off for three thousand years. In the last hundred years they founded many small, successful economic ventures on land purchased from the local landlords, Dick’s ancestors.

Dick is much less sophisticated than Tom and economically much poorer. He too is suspicious and paranoid. Deep down he probably would accept a peaceful existence with Tom, but his emotions are very much influenced by the conviction that Tom has no right being in this space as an equal with him. Dick is susceptible to the conviction that this space, having once been under the religious authority of his ancestors, can never legitimately be ruled by any other authority.  So he is much less focused on co-operation and much more focused on domination.

Harry does not really understand these differences – does not want to consider them intractable. So he is very insistent that Tom and Dick sit down and talk with a view to coming up with a peaceful agreement on how to share this space. Because Harry is powerful, Dick pretends to go along, indeed uses the opportunity to get financial support from Harry, but never misses an opportunity to discredit Tom so as to avoid the need to make any real progress toward such an agreement. This makes Tom all the more suspicious and reluctant. Tom is not so good at pretending and so is seen as the obstacle to progress.

Harry keeps on pushing this ridiculous agenda.

To simplify, Tom wants peace, real peace. Dick want domination, no matter how long it takes and how many lives it costs. What does Harry really want?

Obama and Israel again: domestic principles and foreign orientations.

"Whatever the AJC and ADL say, Mr. Obama can expect to pay a substantial political price in 2012 for his antagonism toward Israel and feckless courting of its enemies."

I certainly hope so. But where will the Jews be on this?

The editorial below, by Douglas Feith, is correct as far as it goes. It fails, however, to point out that one cannot completely separate a president's attitude towards Israel (or any other foreign society) from his general principles. Obama's position on Israel is consistent with his comprehensive leftist agenda - big government, pro-union, cradle to grave entitlements at home; and pro broadly anti-American groups abroad (anti-American closely translates as anti-market, anti-business). At this point in its history Israel is a symbol of the achievements of individual diligence and ambition in a market environment. In this it is the antithesis of every other society in the middle east - save for the small Gulf states. Instead of admiration it evokes resentment and envy, not only in the middle east, but throughout Europe and elsewhere. Obama shares in this, sympathizes with it. His record reflects that.

The American Jewish (predominantly "liberal") establishment is sadly out of date on this. They do not know how to respond to the fact that politically Israel's support has shifted from the left to the right of American politics. They have been abandoned by their leftist allies. Some American Jews have chosen to go along and have turned on Israel. I distinguish between criticisms of the Israeli government - which clearly should not be labeled as anti-Israel as such - and criticisms of a more fundamental nature that mask an hostility to the very existence of Israel as a nation state. - In some cases they brazenly express that hostility.

The message of the ADL and the AJC, addressed here by Feith, is that Jews should not abandon their liberal orientation and reflexive, slavish support of the Democratic party. Rather they should use their considerable power to turn Obama-like hostility into support for, or at least acceptance of, a firm American-Israeli alliance. A glaring example is the carefully crafted pronouncement in support of Israel by Obama at the UN -  something produced as a clear response to the recent loss of a key Democratic/Jewish congressional district in New York. Mr. Obama felt the tug of the purse-strings and the swing-votes and he responded.

As Feith points out, the Israel issue was fair political game until the recent shift from left to right. Now, all of a sudden, it's inappropriate?

No! I could not disagree more. Jews should reject Obama's entire agenda, of which the Israel-issue is only a representative part. And they should do so with conviction and pride.

·                 OPINION

·         NOVEMBER 2, 2011

Israel Should Be a U.S. Campaign Issue

Major Jewish groups are trying to shield Obama from legitimate criticism.

By DOUGLAS J. FEITH

Pro-Israel organizations have long been active in American politics, promoting friendly relations between the U.S. and Israel. Jewish groups, in particular, have helped ensure that candidates' attitudes toward Israel would be an important element in congressional and presidential elections. Yet now, two venerable Jewish organizations, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), are saying that it is improper to do this in the case of President Obama. They have taken the initiative to shield Mr. Obama from the political consequences of his cold treatment of Israel.

The AJC and ADL are jointly promoting a "national pledge for unity on Israel." Its essence is that "America's friendship with Israel . . . has always transcended politics" and that "U.S.-Israel friendship should never be used as a political wedge issue."

Explaining this effort, ADL chief Abraham Foxman lamented that presidential candidates have recently "challenged their opponents' pro-Israel bona fides" and "questioned the current administration's foreign policy approach vis-à-vis Israel."

True, every political movement wants unity in support of the common cause. But since when have American supporters of Israel believed that a candidate's attitudes toward Israel should be kept out of electoral politics? Since never.

In 1984, pro-Israel groups exerted themselves to block the re-election of Illinois Republican Sen. Charles Percy, the prominent chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who was an outspoken critic of Israel and champion of U.S. engagement with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Percy lost and, in an election night interview, attributed his defeat to the Israel lobby. Other politicians who met a similar fate include Reps. Paul Findley (R., Ill.) and Cynthia McKinney (D., Ga.).

When running against President George H.W. Bush in 1992, Bill Clinton took full advantage of Mr. Bush's testy relationship with Israel. As the New York Times reported in March 1992: "Some leaders of American Jewish groups predicted today that President Bush would pay in the November election for his demand that Israel freeze settlements."

One such leader spoke of the "anger and dismay in Jewish communities over Bush Administration policy that is increasingly perceived as one-sided and unfair against Israel," adding "I imagine it will be translated into an unwillingness to vote for this Administration or contribute funds." By the way, the speaker was Jess Hordes, Washington director of the ADL.

President Obama came into office determined to distance the U.S. from Israel and to portray Israel as the impediment to Middle East peace. He insisted on an unprecedented Israeli settlement freeze, exceeding the demands at that time of the Palestinian Authority itself. And he went along with the PA's refusal to renew direct negotiations with Israel, agreeing that the Palestinians could use U.S. officials to conduct indirect talks. Meanwhile he offered "engagement" to Israel's Iranian and Syrian enemies, a vain policy that failed as the courted regimes rebuffed the offer and brutalized their own pro-freedom demonstrators.

Mr. Obama also orchestrated a public imbroglio with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, walking out of a White House meeting with him in 2010 and refusing to be photographed with him. Quarrels between the men this year have been openly bitter.

This vexed Mr. Netanyahu and the Israeli public in general, which overwhelmingly views Mr. Obama as anti-Israel, and it antagonized not only the president's domestic political opponents but also many Democrats in Congress. When Mr. Netanyahu addressed Congress in May, most Democrats, including the leadership, joined in the numerous standing ovations that were obviously intended to contrast the affection for Israel on Capitol Hill with the bad feeling emanating from the White House.

So anyone truly intent on preserving unity among Israel's friends could do so by building on the substantial bipartisan opposition to Mr. Obama's policies on Israel. Instead, the AJC and the ADL are working to protect Mr. Obama.

These organizations exist in large part to defend the Jewish state from unfair criticism, pressure and attacks. But they are defending President Obama from well-grounded charges that he has subjected Israel precisely to that.

If the AJC and ADL want to defend Mr. Obama straightforwardly, they could do so. They might argue that his record on Israel is not unremittingly hostile. They could try to balance some of the healthy features of the U.S.-Israeli relationship—for example, the continuation of defense cooperation—against the bad parts. But it's not a strong argument, which explains why they are claiming to uphold a venerable (though previously unheard of) principle of unity that precludes criticism of a president's position on Israel.

Whatever the AJC and ADL say, Mr. Obama can expect to pay a substantial political price in 2012 for his antagonism toward Israel and feckless courting of its enemies.

Mr. Feith, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, served as under secretary of defense from 2001 to 2005.

Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Addendum to "Rosh Hashana and the Jewish Atheist"

See Rosh Hashana and the Jewish Atheist.

Israel-Palestine: Some observations.

Two speeches at the UN, one by each leader. Netanyahu gets 14,500 views on YouTube, Abbas gets 32,000.

Netanyahu is a politician. Those who share his presumptions will love his speech, those, like some of my friends, who don't, will hate it - especially the reference to biblical lands. I like him because, in spite of the transparent shtick, what he says has truth to it - not all of it, but enough. (And he understands how markets work a whole lot better than Bozama does.) The skeptics and the hostiles should look past the shtick and listen to the details of what he says about Israeli security. The speech is remarkable for the detail, the substance that he provides, along with the slogans. Attention to the security needs suggests that some sort of agreement is not impossible if the Abbas faction really wanted it.

His dramatic and impassioned appeals to Abbas to negotiate now, genuinely, will be seen by most as a PR attempt - but, in truth, I believe he would do it if Abbas took him up on it. He must know that there is no chance of that. There is no chance of genuine negotiations on the basis of "you look at me and tell me what you really want, and I will do the same," because what Abbas really wants, what his faction has always wanted is to undo what was done in 1948 when Israel was established. How can you negotiate about that?

If there is any hope it lies not with this ossified Palestinian leadership, but with younger, more pragmatic, leaders who reject the role that the Arab world has condemned the Palestinians to play. Apparently prime minister Fayyad is one such leader (see the link below); and it lies in the quiet business and social connections and partnerships that are developing between private Israelis and Palestinians. Let's hope that the Abbas faction (and their noxious patrons) fail in their attempt to squash such initiatives.

Salam Fayyad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org 

Salam Fayyad (Arabic: سلام فياض, Salām Fayāḍ; born 1952) is a Palestinian politician and one of two disputed Prime Ministers of the Palestinian National Authority, the matter being under political and legal dispute. His first appointment, on 15 June 2007, which was justified by President Mahmoud Ab…

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's UN address to General Assembly Sept 23 2011

www.youtube.com

Binyamin Netanyahu addresses UNGA "Palestinians want a state without peace," PM tells UN General Assembly after Palestinians submit UN request to become members ...

A Palestinian state? What kind of state?

I support the creation of a Palestinian state in a comprehensive two-state solution. More than 70% of Israelis do so as well. Not that I put much faith or value in the bureaucratic machinery of the political entity we call the nation-state for the achievement of human rights and prosperity; but given the realities of the world today, a two-state solution may be a substantial improvement.

So, what would a comprehensive two-state solution look like? There are some key ingredients that the new state of Palestine should have if it is to have a chance of peaceful coexistence with Israel. The most essential is that it should be a liberal democracy; by which I mean a state (a society) in which the rule of law prevails and not the rule of thugs and corrupt bureaucrats. This is a huge leap from where Palestinian society is now, but one senses it is one that would be welcomed by many, especially the incipient Palestinian business community. Perhaps if we turned negotiations over to the businesspeople on both sides we would have a practical solution in short-order.

Such a state would necessarily entail the acceptance of the existence of the Jewish state of Israel as legitimate. In an ideal world there would not be Muslim states, Jewish states or Christian states. In fact, in an ideal world there would probably not be states. We would all be free "citizens" of a peaceful world, free to practice whatever religion or lack thereof we chose as long as we allowed the same to all others. In a substantially less ideal world, but one better than we have, states would all be officially secular and religion would be a private matter. But this is not the reality of the Middle East today (nor has it ever been). In fact the "Jewish" state of Israel is probably the closest to a secular liberal democracy existing in the region. The "Jewish" aspect is an ill-defined cultural and ethnic aspect of Israeli society that comes from the history of its peoples and is essential in defining their individual identities, their values, their literature, their language, the tacit presuppositions by which they live their lives. The same dynamic is at work in the "Muslim" countries. The tension that this presents for Israel as a liberal society is real, and it is a tension that is continually been confronted and resolved in different ways. But the Jewish character of the society is not-negotiable. To demand that Israel give up its "religious" identity in favor of a secular state encompassing all peoples of the region (Muslim and Christian) is a disingenuous demand for cultural and most probably physical suicide.

So, if we are taking about a two-state solution, in the current context, we are talking about a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian one (in which predictably Muslim culture and values and laws will be prominent) - two states coexisting with mutual acceptance and respect.

Is this what the current initiative to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state in some forum of the United Nations portends? Not even its most ardent and charitable supporters would claim this. I confess I don't know exactly what the motivation for this high-profile initiative is, but I know it is certainly not about establishing the kind of co-existence described above. It certainly contains no change in the official and de facto position on Israel as an illegitimate occupier of Arab land. (I am not talking about the so-called occupied territories, I am talking about the whole of Israel.) It is clearly not about peace, co-existence and co-operation. It is not really about power to the Palestinian people either. Their miserable lot will not change. It seems to be about leverage of some kind. It is most probably about political leverage for the cynical and corrupt Palestinian leadership. They, in uneasy partnership with the principle jihadi groups, like Hamas, would most probably use such state recognition to try to further isolate Israel and in the process obtain international aid and support for their corrupt (or extremist) organizations. In other words it is really a strategic step in the 63 year old war to undo what happened in 1948.

I have blogged before about the sorry state of the Palestinians and how they have been used as pawns by their leaders and other leaders in the region - condemned to inter-generational refugee-status in a poverty-stricken, terror-sponsoring, welfare-state in which any economic initiative is stifled and any constructive cooperation with Israelis discouraged (for example here). Changing the official status of this territory to a "state" will not improve their situation. It could conceivably make it worse if it leads to an escalation of hostilities.

So, should the U.S. veto the initiative in the UN? As bad as this will look, I would still probably say yes, it should. But my purpose is not so much to urge this, as to confront the ill-considered rush of support for the initiative (including by many American Jews). This is yet another example of how Israel is struggling in the public relations war. After all, why should we deny the Palestinians a state when Israel has one? What well-meaning thoughtful person could be against that?

But, of course, as I am trying to show, things are not what they seem. Not all "states" are alike. What if we added the qualifier "terrorist" to the state that the Palestinians are seeking? We would no doubt be accused of shameless provocation. OK, but can we use the qualifier "peaceful" instead? How about "all-inclusive"? Are there no conditions to be demanded for support? Whether or not the U.S. vetoes the proposal is ultimately less important than establishing an accurate realization of what is really going on here.

Peter Lewin Interview

| Peter Klein |

Adrián Ravier has put together a nice collection of Spanish-language interviews with economists of the Austrian school (volume 1, volume 2). The leading modern figures are all included: Mises, Hayek, Machlup, Lachmann, Rothbard, Kirzner, fellow travelers such as Buchanan and Shackle, and contemporary Austrians such as Garrison, Block, Hoppe, Higgs, Ebeling, Salerno, Boettke, and more.

Guest blogger Peter Lewin’s interview is coming out in a third volume, to be published later this year, and Adrián has given me permission to post the English version here. You’ll find Peter’s intellectual odyssey very interesting!

The Third Way

Many, if not most, people reading this will already know everything I am going to say. I am writing it, however, for those, however many, who have never heard it. They constitute the majority among the population at large and, more significantly, the majority among the population who think at all about political affairs. I am frustrated by how often I encounter these immovable presuppositions, so I am offering this in a modest effort to change some, maybe just a few, minds.

What has become the conventional wisdom, the common mode of thinking, imagines a political spectrum with the liberals on the one end (the left) and the conservatives on the other (the right). Anyone on either end is usually labeled an extremist, which means you don’t have to listen to them. This is true for both extremes, but it is especially true for the right, hence such terms as “hard right.” As a general rule the left end of the spectrum is more urbane, sophisticated, eloquent and educated. The right wing is often shrill, crass, repetitive, uninformed and transparently stupid. Like all generalizations these are not true characterizations of everyone who fits the label. Just impressions. The people somewhere in the middle to the slight right or left of the center are regarded (regard themselves) as the reasonable and normal majority. They vilify and demonize the extreme right and patronizingly dismiss the extreme left (who are to be admired for their idealism but discounted for their lack of realism). Perhaps you recognize this story.

This traditional dimension from liberal to conservative that I just described is deficient. It neglects to break down the liberal or conservative mindsets along two relevant sub-dimensions, social affairs and fiscal affairs. The following pictures will help illustrate.

Figure 1 below illustrates the traditional political spectrum.

Figure 1 - The Traditional Spectrum – Social and Fiscal
Left-wing liberal	Right wing conservative

Some clear issues divide the traditional left and right on the question of limiting or using the power of the government, the state. For example, the left believes in free speech, is pro-choice, supports  recognizing gay marriage and liberalizing immigration and perhaps decriminalizing drugs. The right vigorously opposes these advocating state power to restrict these choices. But there are other issues that divide them on the basis of whose state-sponsored agenda should be implemented. On the left we have anyone who wants to use the state to achieve a “liberal” social agenda (income redistribution, entitlement programs, socialized health-care, consumer regulation). On the right we have anyone who opposes these programs in the name of fiscal prudence, and maybe some other reasons, but who believes in using the state to achieve other agenda items like a strong defense, wholesome family values, a prominent role for religion and so on. Where do we put someone who opposes both of these agendas on the basis that they involve unwarranted, dangerous and inefficient uses of the state? There is no place for them in this spectrum. 

Figure 1 is a one dimensional spectrum. it combines fiscal and social issues. So it mixes the issues.  In Figure 2 we introduce a distinction between fiscal and social issues

Figure 2 - The Third Way – breaking it down
	Fiscal
Social		Liberal	Conservative
	Conservative	( Spindrift for socially conservative issues?)	Right wing conservative
	Liberal	Left-wing liberal	Libertarian – Classical Liberal

The traditional spectrum portrayed in Figure 1 now lies across the diagonal of Figure 2 from bottom left (left-wing liberal) to top right (right-wing conservative). The most significant additional information is provided by the third alternative to these two, namely the Libertarian or Classical Liberal in the bottom right cell. This characterizes my own perspective. It puzzles people. When I talk to traditional left-wing liberals they want to put me in the top right and are, therefore, puzzled by my support for gay marriage, decriminalization of drugs and liberalization of immigration. When I talk to right-wing conservatives they want to put me in the bottom left and are therefore puzzled by my support for limiting government spending, deregulation of business, a limited military and freedom of religion. They are confused because they are thinking in terms of a constraining spectrum.

But once understood, the expanded framework is very simple. It is based on the key question of the appropriate role of power, hence of the state. In fact "liberal" as commonly used is a distortion of its original meaning. Originally “liberal” meant someone who believed in individual liberty and supported policies to guarantee it especially limiting government power. It retains much of that meaning in European political discourse. I am not sure what “conservative” means in this context, but the other end of the spectrum is anyone who supports using the state for their social agenda whatever it is, so we can them the a “statist.” So if we were to re-collapse Figure 2 into a one dimensional spectrum we would get the picture depicted in Figure 3

Figure 3 – A better conceptualization
Classical Liberal	Statist

This is how I think of it. The statists are dangerous because they either support the use of state power for their agendas and don’t care about freedom (like fascists, Nazis, Soviets, etc.) or else they are naïve in thinking they can use the state for noble ends and still preserve individual freedom (like democratic socialists, some anti-poverty activists, most environmentalists, etc.). They tend to underestimate the power for good of the free market and overestimate the power for good of the state. Much of what I and like-minded friends and colleagues are trying to do is to shift the debate to this spectrum.

School Vouchers - Ivry Man (IM) asks Dr. Know (DK) for Guidance

Ivry man finds himself in the park and, as expected, sees Dr. Know seated on his usual bench looking agitated.

IM.	Dr. Know, how are you? I was hoping to see you here. It has been too long since we spoke.
DK.	[Warm smile] Indeed it has my dear friend. The responsibility for this lies with the guy who writes this dialogue. Apparently he has been very busy with other things and could not find the time to bother with the likes of us. Who am I to argue with that?
IM.	As you said the last time we met. But you seemed to be a bit preoccupied a moment ago. Is something worrying you?
DK.	How perceptive you are. Yes, in truth, I am very frustrated. For years I have been arguing the case for school vouchers – of course I am not alone in this – yet such little progress has been made. Support is growing, especially among low income families in the worst school districts in the United States, but the educational establishment is very powerfully against them; even now when the current president has a real opportunity to get behind them, he refuses to do so.
IM.	I see you are upset. I am not sure I understand this issue very well. My intuition tells me that vouchers are a threat to the whole idea of public education and all it stands for. But perhaps you can help me understand better.
DK.	Indeed. I will be happy to. After all, that must be the reason that this dialogue is being written, right?
IM.	I am not sure I understand.
DK.	Never mind. Actually your intuition is shared by many people. One might say it is the conventional wisdom. Although the public school system is only about 150 years old, the notion of public schooling runs very deep in the American psyche. Many believe it is a key, indispensible element of American democracy.
IM.	Yes. How are they wrong?
DK.	They are tragically wrong. While public schooling may have been a good experience for many children, for the majority of children today it is at best very mediocre and mostly a disaster. The public school experiment is a failure. In terms of its own goals and principles it has failed. It is time we disabused ourselves of mindless prejudices in its favor and started to look hard at the facts and at the logic.
IM.	I am sure you can elaborate for me.
DK.	I’ll try. The goals of public schooling as an ideal are probably noble, admirable. To provide every American child with certain minimal educational opportunities – who can argue with that? It is seen as a way to implement basic democratic principles, allowing children of poor families, as well as of middle class and rich families, access to that great solvent of American society, education – and thereby to break down persistent and dysfunctional racial, ethnic and economic barriers.
IM.	Yes, indeed!
DK.	Actually the original impetus for the public school system was not so noble. It was basically a question of Protestant paranoia over Catholic private education and an attempt to negate the subversive progress of the latter. But this not so relevant now.
	The voucher system I have in mind is one that would provide parents a choice of where to send their children to school by providing them with the equivalent in vouchers (or tax credits, or some such refund scheme) of the cost to the taxpayer of educating their children in the public schools. So it is not an argument for getting the state out of the business of subsidizing education. It is an argument for getting the state out of the business of producing education. Or, since I could imagine a dual system (such as we have in higher education), it would remove the monopoly of the state in producing education. A voucher system would closely resemble the GI bill.
IM.	Yes I follow that.
DK.	Note, vouchers or tuition credits or something similar is provided rather than cash because of the standard liberal objection that parents can’t be trusted to use the money for education rather than booze or drugs. Liberals love humanity, it’s just people they have contempt for.
IM.	Nice Dr. Know. Now that you have that off your chest, what are the objections to vouchers?
DK.	It seems to me there are two main arguments against vouchers, the "church-state separation argument" and the "social responsibility argument".
IM.	I am more interested in the second.
DK.	Mostly the reluctance to even consider vouchers seems to come from the conviction that a voucher system will be harmful to the cause of "social equality" (as I mentioned a moment ago). There is the perception that vouchers will destroy the public school system and that this will exacerbate or perpetuate poverty..
	This is a very bad argument. It is now pretty much undeniable that, as I asserted earlier, the public school systems are, in general, failing in their overall mission to provide all elements of the population with at least an "adequate" education. The public school system as an institution is supposed to advance the aims of "equality of opportunity" for all Americans regardless of gender, race, national origin or other educationally irrelevant characteristics and of provide opportunities for those who have different learning styles and approaches as well. It has been thought that schools that were segregated by ethnic group could not deliver on these aims and so the aim of desegregation has evolved along with our national educational policy.
IM.	Yes you pretty much said as much already. So what is the reality?
DK.	If you will be patient I will get to that soon enough.
IM.	A thousand pardons Dr. Know.
DK.	Very well. As it stands now, seen in the light of these aspirations, I believe we should be bitterly disappointed. There are some very good public schools, even some superlative ones. These are few in number and they are located primarily in the affluent suburban areas. They are attended mainly by children from upper income families, mostly white. But, most of our public schools are substandard, overcrowded and bureaucratic. Many of those in the inner-cities are downright dangerous - they are breeding grounds for the drug-traffic, for teenage-pregnancy, for gang-warfare and much else besides. And they do not educate the children who attend them, who are mostly poor and from minority families. The worst nightmares of those who oppose segregated schools are fulfilled by the public school system as it now operates. At best we have institutionalized mediocrity. At worst we have exacerbated the cycle of poverty and deprivation. It is no exaggeration to say that the public school system is perpetuating and exacerbating the very problems it was apparently designed to solve!
IM.	So how would vouchers solve this?
DK.	Well. Vouchers would provide at least the potential of a way out for some, maybe many, maybe most families. That is why, I believe, many families and leaders from minority communities are now actively and vigorously supporting them. As I said earlier, the proposal I am considering, and which all leaders in the field of education should actively support, is one which provides to parents the equivalent of the cost of educating their children in the public schools. At least this way parents would have a choice and schools would start to be accountable to them.
IM.	I think I see where this is going.
DK.	Well, there are two usual objection at this stage. One, those parents who could afford to "top up" (add to) the value of the voucher would take their kids to private schools in the more affluent areas, and this would exacerbate inequality. Two, even the poorer parents armed with a voucher will pull their kids out of the public schools, so the public school system would collapse. There would be nowhere for some kids to go, especially those with special learning needs.
IM.	And what do you say to that? You have an answer I am sure.
DK.	In answer to the first objection: I wonder how much more segregated the system could become than it is now. I suspect actually that with a voucher system schools would become less segregated, not more segregated, as kids from the poorer neighborhoods take their vouchers to schools of their choice. In any case, it is one more spurious argument in favor of the sacrifice of individual economic and social advancement in the name of equality – as Milton Friedman pointed out; those who try to achieve equality by sacrificing freedom of choice end up sacrificing both.
IM.	Aha! And what about the second objection, precipitating the collapse of the public system?
DK.	If the public school system is that fragile that, at the earliest opportunity, its clients would abandon it for preferred alternatives, one might wonder why it is indeed worth saving at all. To the supporters of public schools as an ideal in itself, I would ask how bad do the public schools have to get before you will consider that perhaps they are not worth saving? There are currently a variety of private scholarship programs that provide 50% of the tuition of private schooling for the child, the other 50% being provided by the parents. Parents are invited to apply. The programs are incredibly oversubscribed – by many hundred percent. In other words, hundreds of thousands of families, many of them very poor, are prepared to pay 50% of a private school tuition in preference to the “free” education their kids could get in the public schools. What does that tell you about the value to them of each of these alternatives? This is not hypothetical, this is fact!
	Of course “free” public schooling is not really free. Right now the state and local governments are spending a fortune per child in the public schools, actually much more than is generally known and much more than in the private schools!! The sums are actually breathtaking, and the worst school districts are spending the most! All or most of this money would be available for vouchers, implying a substantial sum in the hands of parents when choosing among educational options for their children. This makes the schools accountable to parents – not to administrators, to unions or to government committees.
IM.	Yes, but what about those who are left in the dysfunctional public school system, and what about those kids with special needs?
DK.	I thought you might say that. And it brings me to perhaps the most important point of all – pay careful attention to what I am now going to say.
IM.	Yes sir, Dr. Know. You know I will!
DK.	When schools are accountable to parents, who have many thousands of dollars of potential revenue for the them, the extent and type of response that might develop is literally unimaginable. The variety of schools of many types, sizes, qualities and specialties (including those for special needs children) is likely to be very large. There is likely to be a high degree of innovation in educational styles (responding to parents who have different opinions and desires in relation to aspects of educational philosophy), and a high degree of dynamism in educational development. Schools will most likely be smaller, safer and more enjoyable. There will be fewer administrators per child, more (and better-performing) teachers per child.
	Educational experts don’t like this at all. They have all sorts of objections based on their own visions of how they think an educational system should be structured, based on their “expert” knowledge. So they are willing to denounce and condemn the very idea of a state- or nation-wide voucher system on the basis that, for example, it might imply the segregation, rather than main-streaming of special-needs kids, or the teaching of subjects not to their liking, etc. The arrogance of this amazes me. Because of their ideological commitments, these people are prepared to sanction the holding of our children hostage in failing American schools and foreclose fantastic opportunities for them in order to be able to try to achieve the doubtful benefits of their visions – many of which have already been tested and found wanting.
IM.	But what if these experts are right about their arguments for a good educational system for all and the deprivation of some?
DK.	Even if there were any merit to the very dubious argument that unfortunate minorities like special-needs families, or kids of dysfunctional parents, or who knows-what, would suffer as a result the introduction of a comprehensive voucher program, it does not follow that one should sacrifice the considerable benefits of the majority in order to preserve the status quo for the special minority. Surely not! A better argument would be to accept vouchers with the proviso that this apparent shortcoming be attended to if necessary by special provisions.
IM.	Hmm! So are you telling me that but for the opposition of these educational elites, the facts and your logic would prevail?
DK.	Sadly no. If it were just the opposition of the educational elites, who are, to be sure, powerful, I believe the arguments for choice in education would have prevailed long ago. It is, rather, overwhelmingly the power of the teachers’ unions that stand against rationality, progress and real reform in education. The teachers’ unions are self-serving, politically very powerful, unmovable bureaucracies. They are in bed with many parts of the executive and Congress. Introducing choice in education would remove protection for bad teachers, would spotlight unnecessary administrative positions and would take away educational decisions from the bureaucracy and put them in the hands of parents. The survival of the unions is threatened by vouchers and they are able and willing to use whatever opportunistic means they can to oppose them. Their opposition is not a principled one! It is based on their vested interest. In my book what they are doing to America’s youth is basically criminal. Yet, thus far they have been able to hide the consequences of their actions from most of us.
	Recently, however, the realization has dawned on parents in the most miserable school districts – in Wisconsin, in DC, in Florida and some other places. And there is a growing groundswell in favor of parental choice in education. This is a non-partisan, non-class issue. Poor minority families are rising up against the teachers’ unions. The outrage is growing. It is heartening, but also frustrating. These are low-income minority families appealing for the right to send their kids to charter schools or voucher-accepting private schools of their choice. The president has a real opportunity to do something really different – to bring real and beneficial change now. But, so far, he has not had the courage to oppose the teachers’ unions and I doubt he, or any other president, ever will. If a breakthrough comes it will probably be in the courts and maybe also in the Congress. It is long overdue.
IM.	What about the church-state separation argument?
DK.	It’s really hard to know if this is a genuine argument, a real worry, or simply another strategy. Many who oppose vouchers assert that they violate the constitutional separation of church and state "because state money can be used for religious education." I believe the logic is faulty. Right now the state is involved in the choice that parents make regarding their children’s religious education. That is because the state makes the price of a non-religious education much cheaper, at the margin, than a religious one. An education containing, or based on, a religious tradition has to be obtained in a private school. This implies that those parents who choose this option end up paying twice. Once, through their taxes, for the public school they don’t use, and again, from their after tax income for the private tuition. Saying that the state is uninvolved adopts the myth that an education that is devoid of religious content is somehow to be considered "neutral". It is not neutral. It discriminates against those who, at equal prices, would have chosen a positive religious content. It discriminates against those who would rather have their tax money educate children in a religion of their parents’ choice. Can a case not be made that the only neutral situation is one that gives the parents a choice, that is to say, is non-coercive with regard to both imposing or depriving religious content?
	In any case, as a practical, legal matter, the argument seems to be wrong. A number of current supreme court decisions indicate that, as does the fact that under the GI bill veterans can choose religiously based universities. The money goes to the parents, not to the schools. And then the parents decide. There is no violation of church-state separation. These are private choices.
IM.	Is that it?
DK.	Pretty much. I would finally add this. Apart from anything else, as a fundamental moral question, on what basis can one support the denial of educational choice to parents?
IM.	So every argument to the contrary you consider to be soundly refuted. Are there any valid arguments against vouchers?
DK.	Yes, indeed, there is one. But it comes not from those who support the public school system. It comes rather from those who oppose any kind of government involvement in education, it comes from those who regard vouchers, or any educational subsidies, as dangerous insofar as they may extend the power of government over the private education sector. Schools qualifying for vouchers would be state-certified thus extending state discretion. This has obvious potential for abuse. One could hardly think of anything more dangerous than giving power over education to powerful governments. The power to command huge resources for the education of young minds is indeed an awesome and dangerous power that one should keep out of the hands of potentially opportunistic bureaucrats. And vouchers would extend this power over private schools who chose to accept the vouchers. We can already see the corrupting influence of this type of thing in our higher educational systems – in the runaway tuition costs and in the state discretion over aspects of the curriculum that they fund.
	I have no argument against this objection. I accept it. I too am against the involvement of government in education at any level. I firmly believe that educational quality and achievement at all levels would be better without it. But my strong advocacy of vouchers is based on the judgment that a comprehensive voucher system would be infinitely better than what we now have, infinitely better. And the probability of achieving a comprehensive voucher system (or even an expanding piecemeal one) that would bring so much benefit to so many children being introduced soon, is so much higher than the probability of achieving a more ideal (from my point of view) system. So my argument is also a strategic one. I judge the benefits of subsidized parental choice to be worth the risk of its very really pitfalls and dangers. I would hope that if ever there were a comprehensive scaling back of the size of the state at all levels, education would be included, whenever such a remote possibility ever arrives.
	I strongly prefer parental choice to what we have now because I believe that, in general, parents want the best for their children and that competition through the educational market will work to give it to them. But even if, as you hear this, my dear friend, you have lingering doubts, ask yourself "how could it be worse than it is now?!!" How could it be worse?! The standard to hold any proposed alternative to is not perfection, it is relative improvement. I don’t see how giving parents of children a choice between schools could make them (their children) worse off.
IM.	As usual Dr. Know, this has been a most enlightening discussion. But I have a few questions for you on another subject if you don’t mind.
DK.	Ah, I wish I could. Unfortunately that will have to wait for our next meeting. So good to see you. Until next time.

Upon which he rises and ambles off in the direction of the library.