Mediaboss Marketing

It wasnt all that long ago that it would have seemed impossible for anybody who labeled the U.S. public education system a dead end to be nominated as U.S. Secretary of Education, much less get support to be confirmed. Not anymore.

Betsy DeVos, a Republican billionaire from Michigan who public school advocates see as hostile to Americas public education system, is likely to be confirmed despite a rocky Senate committee hearing, where, under caustic Democratic questioning, she seemed not to know basic education issues.

[Betsy DeVos apparently confused about federal law protecting students with disabilities]

If DeVos does become education secretary, Democrats will of course blame the Republicans. DeVos is, after all, a Republican who has donated millions of dollars to Republicans, was selected to be education secretary by a Republican, and would win confirmation thanks to the Republican majority in the Senate.

[Six astonishing things Betsy DeVos said and refused to say at her confirmation hearing]

But the record shows that Democrats cant just blame Republicans for her ascension. It was actually Democrats who helped pave the road for DeVos to take the helm of the Education Department.

Democrats have in recent years sounded and acted a lot like Republicans in advancing corporate education reform, which seeks to operate public schools as if they were businesses, not civic institutions. (This dynamic isnt limited to education, but this post is.) By embracing many of the tenets of corporate reform including the notion of school choice and the targeting of teachers and their unions as being blind to the needs of children they helped make DeVoss education views, once seen as extreme, seem less so.

Historically, Democrats and Republicans have looked at public schools differently.

Democrats have traditionally been defenders of public education, seeing it as the nations most important civic institution, one that is meant to provide equal opportunity for marginalized communities to escape poverty and become well-informed citizens so they can become part of Americas civic life. Public education was seen as a civil right.

Republicans have looked at public schools less as vehicles of social equity and more as places that are supposed to prepare young people for college and careers, an endeavor that should be measured with the same types of metrics businesses use to gauge success. Some Republicans have looked at public schools with suspicion, in some cases seeing them as transmitters of liberal and even godless values.

Thats why it was unusualwhen, in 2001, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat, gave critical support to the new conservative Republican president, George W. Bush, in passing a new education law called No Child Left Behind (NCLB). A bipartisan, they said, was to make sure public schools attended to the needs of all students, but the law actually became known for creating new accountability measures for schools based on controversial standardized test scores.

Despite the bipartisan NCLB stance, pushing school choice (first mentioned in a major party platform in 1992) was still not a popular idea. That was clear in a Dec. 3, 2002, speech given by DeVoss husband, Richard, with whom she had worked to push through Michigans charter school law in 1993.

Richard DeVos, at the conservative Heritage Foundation, spelled out a state-by-state strategy to expand vouchers and school choice by rewarding and punishing legislators. He told supporters to call public schools government schools but urged that they be cautious about talking too much about these activities so as not to call attention and garner opposition.

But that began to change as school choice and other corporate school reform measures began to spread, with then-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, elected in 1999, leading the way. His administration:



The accountability system Bush supported and other states embraced in turn created environments in whichcharter schools could spread without much or any oversight. While some charters have been successful and some perform better than traditional public schools the wider charter sector became riddled with failing schools and scandals involving for-profit charter operators. But school choice became a mantra.

The Democratic Party was undergoing structural changes as their traditional bastion of support, labor, was diminished by the changing economy. Democrats began looking more to Wall Street and the superwealthy for funding. During the past three decades, asthis PostEverything article explains, the wealthiest Americans have shifted their donations, giving more to Democrats than Republicans with young technology moguls leading the way.

[Tech billionaires like Democrats more than Republicans. Heres why.]

These tech leaders believed in big data and the notion that just about everything can be measured and that love for data took hold in education policy. Economists offered up value-added measurement models to evaluate a teachers impact on students academic achievement by using a complex mathematical formula to tease out every other factor on a child, including how violence in their community affects their test scores. And the Obama administration loved it.

A group called Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), founded and supported in large part by hedge fund managers, was formed before the 2008 election. It embraced corporate reform and pushed school choice. It turns out that it accepted some money from a group DeVos founded, the American Federation for Children. Vicki Ballagh, a DFER spokesperson, said in an email that the amount was negligible, and teacher and blogger Mercedes Schneider reported that it was in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Hurricane Katrina in 2005 gave school reformers an opportunity to remake the troubled New Orleans public schools as the city rebuilt, turning most of those schools into charters. Though the charter schools have struggled to excel and were accused of failing to properly serve students with disabilities the experiment was declared a huge success anyway, proof that choice worked.

[Obamas real education legacy: Common Core, testing, charter schools]

By the time Barack Obama was elected in 2008, it was clear to many that NCLB had been poorly written and had goals that were impossible for states to meet. During the transition between winning the 2008 election and taking office in January 2009, Obamas education team had been led by Linda Darling-Hammond, then a Stanford University professor who is an expert in teacher preparation and educational equity. Many in the education world thought she would be named education secretary and that Obama would continue in the Democratic tradition of supporting unions and making educational equity for all students a key goal.

But Obama was intrigued by elements of the corporate reformers tool kit; in his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope, Obama had already revealed his interest in how corporate reformers thought about policy. During his 2004 Senate campaign, he said:

Increasingly I found myself spending time with people of means law firm partners and investment bankers, hedge fund managers, and venture capitalists. As a rule, they were smart, interesting people, knowledgeable about public policy, liberal in their politics, expecting nothing more than a hearing of their opinions in exchange for their checks.

Instead of picking Darling-Hammond, he selected Arne Duncan. Duncan, a former head of Chicago Public Schools, talked about improving public schools to help every child, as traditional Democrats did, but his approach was in the corporate reformer model.

Under Duncan and Obama, the Education Department pushed the federal education agenda even further toward market-based reforms than Bush had. They used the promise of federal funds to push states to expand charter schools paying more attention to growth than oversight and to tie teacher evaluations to test scores, even though assessment experts said it was an unreliable method of evaluation.

They also pushed the Common Core State Standards, with the help and influence of people like Bill Gates,a movement initially embraced by members of both parties but that eventually became the object of scorn from all parts of the political spectrum, for a variety of reasons.

[How Bill Gates pulled off the swift Common Core revolution]

The two big teachers unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, both major supporters of Democrats, came to oppose Obamas education policy so much that members approved resolutions against Duncan in 2014.

George W. Bush, the Republican, had expanded the federal role in education and Obama went much, much further.

Democratic support for market forces in public education reform softened the ground for programs, such as school vouchers. Obama and many other Democrats dont support using public money for private and religious school tuition but Obamas opposition seemed like a policy asterisk compared to the Republican-sounding policy initiatives he did champion.

Some Democrats, such as Thomas McDermott Jr., the mayor of Hammond, Ind., came to agree with Republicans like DeVos who said that it was wrong to separate charter schools from vouchers as school choice measures (even if many states have constitutional bans on using public money for private education). For many Democrats, expanding charters was the priority, not forcing strong oversight over scandal-ridden charter sectors in some states.

On March 4, 2011, at Miami Central High School in Florida, an unlikely trio took the stage Obama, Duncan and Jeb Bush. The Democratic administration parted ways with Bushs agenda when it came to vouchers and tax credits, but the umbrella of school choice was embraced. So at Central High on that day, Bush said he was honored to welcome Obama and Duncan, and added: Mr. President, as you have said, education achievement is not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. It is an issue of national priority. Obama then praised Bush as a champion of school reform. While they were at Central High, thousands of people in Madison, Wisconsin, were protesting Gov. Scott Walkers attacks on unions and workers. Neither Obama nor Duncan went to Madison.

In 2013, DeVos gave an interview to Philanthropy Roundtable, noting:

We believe that the only way that real education choice is going to be successfully implemented is by making it a bipartisan or a nonpartisan issue. Until very recently, of course, that hasnt been the case. Most of the Democrats have been supported by the teachers unions and, not surprisingly, have taken the side of the teachers unions. What weve tried to do is engage with Democrats, to make it politically safe for them to do what they know in their heart of hearts is the right thing. Education should be nonpartisan.

I wouldnt underestimate the growing interest in educational choice among Democratic leaders. I think were going to see increasing numbers of Democrats embracing educational choice programs at a gubernatorial level. We are certainly seeing it happen at the state-legislator level.

Growing numbers of Democrats joined with Republicans in state legislatures to approve charter school laws and voucher or tax credit programs. When Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) was mayor of Newark, he was a strong corporate school reformer, supporting choice and vouchers. He appeared at the May 2016 policy summit of DeVoss American Federation for Children, which he called an incredible organization, and he urged the attendees to stay faithful to the work we are doing. Booker came out before DeVoss confirmation hearing saying he had serious early concerns about her becoming education secretary but that sounded to many as much about politics as DeVoss education philosophy.

But now some Democrats who were entirely or largely on DeVoss education reform page are having second thoughts. Booker said he had some serious concerns about the Trump education agenda. DFER, after initially putting out one statement that tried to separate their pleasure at the DeVos nomination from their dislike of Trump, issued a second one that said: From what we know about the education agenda of President-elect Trump and Mrs. DeVos, we are deeply troubled. Then, on Inauguration Day, it put out a statement saying it could not support her nomination.

So now we have Democrats worrying about DeVoss tenure at education, assuming she gets confirmed. They said at her confirmation hearing that they believe she is unfit for the office, someone who has never had anything to do with public education and isnt versed in major issues the department oversees. They arent worrying for nothing, but they cant put all the blame on Republicans.

[To Trumps education pick, the U.S. public school system is a dead end]

See the original post here:
Democrats reject her, but they helped pave the road to education nominee DeVos - Washington Post

Theres a pretty good chance that the future of the Democratic Party wasnt far behind President Trump during Fridays inauguration.

Within 50 to 100 feet of Trump, members of the U.S. Senate watched him take the oath of office. Inside that elite club are as many as a half-dozen Democrats who are considered ambitious rising stars, the type who might end up winning their partys nomination four years from now.

One by one, each of these potential candidates put their heads down Friday and vowed to get to work challenging Trumps administration. As she headed to the confirmation votes on some of Trumps Cabinet nominees, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) carried a laptop in hand and ducked into an elevator with a reporter.

How had she spent the first hours of Trumps reign? Working, she said. I went back to my office and sat and worked.

Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.) began his day by pouring out his political soul in a 500-word Facebook post, which by 6p.m. had been shared nearly 4,000 times. This is not a time to curl up, give up or shut up, Booker began. It is time to get up; to stand up, to speak words that heal, help, and recommit to the cause of our country.

Later in the day, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) forced a roll call on Trumps new defense secretary, James N. Mattis, so that she could cast the lone dissenting vote against his nomination because the retired general had left the Marine Corps a few years ago, breaking the tradition of keeping that post in the hands of someone who had been out of the military for at least seven years.

Those are just a few of the Democrats who might run for the nomination. None were preparing for a 2020 presidential bid. Instead, until the results came in Nov.8, these up-and-coming senators expected Hillary Clinton to defeat Trump and run for reelection in 2020, making 2024 the earliest possible national campaign for them.

Trumps victory has sped up the timeline theyll have to decide on running a presidential campaign in a little more than two years, needing to put together an operation that can run in the Iowa caucuses, probably in January 2020, and then all across the nation.

There is no guarantee that the Democrats will choose a senator as their next presidential nominee, particularly now that Trump, with no prior political experience, broke all the way through to win the presidency as a businessman outsider.

But in the past 16 elections, the party not holding the White House has nominated six sitting senators to be their nominee, two former vice presidents who had served in the Senate, seven governors and Trump.

Add to that the fact that Democrats now have few prominent governors. Californias Jerry Brown is the highest-profile Democratic governor, but he is 78.

One wild card in the Democratic sweepstakes is former vice president Joe Biden, himself a 36-year veteran of the Senate. Now 74, Biden would be 77 on Election Day 2020.

But the former vice president and Michelle Obama are the only two Democratic political figures with high approval ratings who are constitutionally capable of being president. Biden, if he continues to float a candidacy, would soak up a lot of attention in the next couple of years. (The former first lady has repeatedly said she has no interest in elective politics.)

Despite Bidens recent toying with the idea, many party strategists doubt he would ultimately run.

That probably makes the Senate, with its direct role in overseeing the Trump White House, the big proving ground for Democrats wanting to build a national profile to make the run.

Along with Booker, Gillibrand and Warren, Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.), who was Clintons vice-presidential nominee, and Sens. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio) are among those mentioned as potential candidates. Also not to be overlooked is Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif.), who is not even three weeks into her first term but is only the second African American woman to be elected in her own right to the Senate.

A former state attorney general, Harris recently hired two highly touted communications staffers from Clintons Brooklyn-based campaign to help build her media image. She was one of the first Democrats to announce that she would oppose the confirmation of John F. Kelly to be homeland security secretary, basing her opposition not on the popular retired Marine generals credentials but instead on Trumps immigration policies.

While Kelly sailed to confirmation by a vote of 88 to 11, Harris was joined by Warren, Booker and Gillibrand in voting against him.

Brown and Klobuchar, both elected in 2006, are the most senior members of this crop of potential candidates; the rest have served fewer than eight years in the Senate. Those two, along with Kaine, Gillibrand and Warren, must first win reelection in 2018 before they can truly think about mounting a presidential bid.

Once a moderate member of the House from the Hudson Valley, Gillibrand has transformed herself into a liberal firebrand. She, Harris, Klobuchar and Booker participated in Saturdays Womens March on Washington. Warren took part in the march in Boston.

Booker, a master of social medias many platforms, and Warren, known for her fiery anti-Wall Street speeches, have to broaden their profiles if they want to be considered as commander in chief. So this month, Booker joined the Foreign Relations Committee, and Warren secured a spot on the Armed Services Committee.

It is a new day, Booker wrote on Facebook. We love our country; we will serve it, defend it, and never stop struggling to make its great promise real for all. And no one gets a vote on that.

See the rest here:
Standing not far behind Trump on Friday? The future of the Democratic Party. - Washington Post

On Friday afternoon, Donald TrumpDonald TrumpTrump Jr. uses White House bowling alley Spicer trends worldwide on Twitter after first WH briefing Interior Dept. reactivates Twitter accounts after shutdown MORE became President Trump. While scores of Americans eagerly awaited Trump's inauguration, scores more undoubtedly dreaded the impending passing of the political torch. Consistent with Trump's tenure within the public sphere, controversy surrounded the coronation of the 45th President of the United States.

In an interview with a local media outlet a few days prior to the ceremony, Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee stated, "I would love to attend the inauguration. I'm a member of Congress through your votes. Thank you. I value our government. I appreciate it greatly. This president semi-elect does not deserve to be President of the United States. He has not exhibited the characteristics and the values that we hold dear."

To be certain, many of Trump's statements have been worthy of sharp condemnation. Moreover, his bizarre attack on the accomplishments and legacy of Representative John Lewis is certainly beyond the pale. To that effect, abstaining from participating in a ceremony for reasons of principle is commendable. However, it smells of horrendous hypocrisy to exalt one's admiration of a given political office, while overtly impugning the legitimacy of the person assuming the very same office.

We all know that politics is an inherently dirty game, that it's a profession which requires its practitioners to deviate from their ideological positions in support of the greater good. While we elect our politicians based on the public representation of their ideological positions, the reality is that we expect and demand effective governing. We know that no office-seeker will tow the ideological line we'd like them to, that results-driven governing requires an almost ruthless brand of pragmatism.

To that end, it's worth noting that there's a stark difference between a citizen exhibiting their political angst, and elected officials publicly voicing their dissatisfaction in a potentially unrestrained and counterproductive manner. Whether anyone enjoys such a prospect or not, Republicans will firmly control both chambers of Congress until at least 2018, and the White House until the dawn of 2023. The grim reality is that short of an unprecedented series of successful filibusters by Senate Democrats, the possibility of stifling the Republican legislative agenda within the Capitol's walls is highly improbable, at least for the next two years.

All of this means that the short-term survival of liberal ideals will rest at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They'll rest with a man more hospitable to liberal principles than his colleagues within the Republican hierarchy. As unlikely and unsavory as it may sound, the best option for mitigating the impending damage to the liberal cause, is through establishing a working relationship with President Donald Trump.

Let's not forget that a mere few months ago, then candidate Trump was lambasted by fellow Republicans as a "lifelong Democrat", and was almost universally denounced for holding views entirely inconsistent with modern conservatism. He's a man who donated money to Democratic leadership figures such as former Senate Majority Leader Reid and former Speaker Pelosi as they pushed for the passage of the Affordable Care Act. He's a man who takes no issue with marriage equality, is inherently more supportive of women's reproductive rights than any other Republican leader, and unlike virtually all of his prior Republican opponents, opposed the domestic manufacturing-crushing Trans-Pacific Partnership.

None of this is to say that Democrats need to condone Trump's transgressions, nor forge some sort of personal friendship with the man. However, their constituents undoubtedly expect them to safeguard American jobs, prevent millions from losing their health insurance, and prevent the Supreme Court from becoming further polarized and endangering decades of liberal progress. The citizenry can adequately handle the manifestations of protest and outrage, elected Democrats need to pragmatically work to contain the proverbial fire. Such a feat is difficult to accomplish when the party occupying the inferior bargaining position bogs itself down in the mud.

Jesse Heitz is a long time contributor of The Hill. He obtained his BA in History from the University of St. Thomas and his MA in War in the Modern World from Kings College London. He is also the author of, Fire Resistance in American Heavy Timber Construction: History and Preservation.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Read more:
Democrats and the boycott of Trump's inauguration - The Hill (blog)

What a difference a day makes.

Two of Iowa Democrats most preferred candidates for governor in 2018 if not the two most-preferred were removed from consideration with a pair of announcements on Tuesday.

Tom Vilsack, the former two-term Iowa governor and two-term U.S. agriculture secretary, announced he has accepted a position as CEO of the Arlington, Va.-based U.S. Dairy Export Council, and Iowa Sen. Liz Mathis of Cedar Rapids said that after giving it consideration she has decided against running for governor in 2018.

Vilsack and Mathis were two of the most popular potential gubernatorial candidates for Iowa Democrats. And in one day, both took their name out of the running.

Vilsack remains immensely popular among Iowa Democrats, but his gubernatorial candidacy was a long shot. Vilsack insisted multiple times he had no plan to run for public office again, and almost every Iowa Democrat I talked to had nearly the same response: It would be a dream come true if Vilsack decided to run for governor, but none believed he would.

Mathis was the more realistic potential candidate, and one many Iowa Democrats hoped would run. She has become a leader in the Iowa Senate, in particular one of the prominent critics of the states transition to privately managed operation of its $5 billion Medicaid program, a move made by Republican Gov. Terry Branstad without legislative approval.

And Mathis is popular in her district, where she was a former television news anchor. She has parlayed that popularity into impressive electoral success: She has been re-elected twice in a Senate district that has two Republican representatives.

But Mathis, citing the $10 million or more it is thought to be necessary to win Iowas 2018 gubernatorial race, said Tuesday she is taking a pass.

Having options 1A and 1B taken off the table in one fell swoop last week is cause for some disappointment for Iowa Democrats, especially given how crucial the 2018 election is for them after consecutive terrible elections in 2014 and 2016. In the former, Joni Ernst gave Iowa two Republican U.S. senators and Branstad cruised to re-election; in the latter, the GOP in a landslide took control of the Iowa Senate, giving the party full lawmaking control at the Statehouse for the first time in two decades, making the states delivery to President Donald Trump mere icing on the electoral cake.

The 2018 election gives Iowa Democrats their first chance to reverse that downward spiral and break up Republicans control. Having a candidate who can take back Terrace Hill is crucial for the party.

So to whom do Democrats now turn?

Only Vilsack would have cleared the Democratic primary field. Even with Mathis, a competitive and well-populated primary was likely. That remains the most likely case.

Rich Leopold, director of the Polk County Conservation Board and a former state director of the Department of Natural Resources under Democratic Gov. Chet Culver, already has announced his run.

Andy McGuire, whose tenure as state party chairwoman just ended last week, is all but a lock to run.

And other Democratic state legislators who may run include Jeff Danielson of Cedar Falls, Janet Petersen of Des Moines and Todd Prichard of Charles City.

Democrats in 2018 will not have to face the undefeated Branstad, who plans to resign this year in order to serve as the next U.S. ambassador to China. But Branstads understudy, Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds, will have a two-year head start at election, amassing experience and news coverage and the corresponding name recognition not to mention fundraising. Assuming Reynolds wins the Republican primary Cedar Rapids Mayor Ron Corbett may have something to say about that she likely will be a formidable opponent in 2018.

As would have Vilsack or Mathis. So its next man or woman in for Iowa Democrats.

Erin Murphy covers politics and state government for Lee Enterprises. His email address is erin.murphy@lee.net.

Read more from the original source:
Murphy: 2 top Iowa Democrats pass on governor's race - Quad City Times

As Democrats across the nation try to regroup from Novembers stunning losses, they take comfort in the realization in two years and if not in four the country will discover the errors of its vote and restore them to political power.

I doubt it. In fact, they may have to accept the fact they face at least a decade of minority electoral status if not longer.

This is true because while the Republican Congress, Republican-controlled states and the president move quickly to deliver a conservative legislative agenda, they will move just as swiftly to ensure Democrats face restrictions in the tools they use to organize and campaign.

For example, it is a fundamental principle of public voting the more affluent an individual is, the more likely it is that person will vote. Why not make it harder for less wealthy people to vote by, for example, shortening the time to vote, making it more difficult to register to vote, providing fewer voting sites in Democratic-leaning areas and requiring fees to obtain a proper ID to vote. Congress may act on these and other proposals. Some states already have, and Iowa is getting ready to follow suit.

Secondly, look for attacks on labor unions both public and private. Unions have, historically, been a source of both financial support and workers for campaigns. You can expect the National Labor Relations Board to make it far more difficult to form a union and far easier to decertify existing ones. Unions representing public employees will see their power to bargain for benefits reduced or removed. You need look no further than Wisconsin or to our Legislature in Des Moines to see this happening. If the union is powerless, so the reasoning goes, why would workers bother to join?

You can remove effective political opposition to existing government policies if you can destroy the sources of reliable information by discrediting them. Hence, the tendency of conservative groups to attack any criticism of their policies by simply shouting fake news. Expect further attempts to defame mainstream media.

State legislatures will continue to carve congressional and legislative districts so Democrats are limited in the seats they can realistically expect to win. In fact, it is a fair assumption that, contrary to historical patterns, the GOP will increase its numbers in both houses of Congress in 2018.

Finally, you can expect not to see the type of Congressional oversight and investigations both the Clinton and Obama administrations experienced. No Benghazi or e-mail scandals in the coming era. After all, you do not investigate the flaws of your own.

All this brings us to Sisyphus, the tragic figure of Greek mythology, who died and was sent to Hades. Pleading with the Gods, he convinced them he should be allowed to return to life, briefly, to attend to unfinished business. When completed, he failed to keep his promise. Albert Camus wrote that when Sisyphus had tasted again the warm sun on the sand, the sea and the stone, he no longer wished to return to the world of darkness.

The Gods were angry, captured him and returned him to the underworld. His punishment was to be sentenced for all eternity to push a very large bolder up a steep mountain. Each time he reached near the summit, the weight of the stone would overwhelm him and go crashing back to valley below.

Democrats lost this election on a massive scale. The gods of politics have decreed they should stand alongside our ancient Greek friend and undertake a task they cannot accomplish.

The followers of the donkey must understand, the next few elections will not be rigged. All ballots will be counted, but the playing field will be tilted and they are on the lower end.

But unlike the Greek gods of old, all political parties have a fatal flaw. They overreach, and when they do the boulder reaches the mountaintop. But it is going to take a decade or more to happen.

Dave Nagle is a Waterloo attorney and former U.S. representative.

Go here to read the rest:
Democrats must prepare to share fate of Sisyphus - Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier