Good piece today in Salon about how many Democrats who think of themselves as Progressive are really just "liberals", and as such have been conned into supporting corporate ed reform:
Writing at the Huffington Post, experienced political insider Mike Lux observed that the “battle” for the soul of the Democratic Party “isn’t between progressives and centrists” at all, but “between the biggest special interest corporations in the world … and those of us who want to confront and rein in their power.”
As with economic policy, America’s education policy has largely been driven by the big money of Wall Street and private foundations.
But now the real impacts of the education reform agenda are starting to play out on the ground. Americans are awakening to the catastrophic effects of the “reform” movement. And they’re responding by making the fight for public schools another front in the broad grass-roots struggle for equality of all kinds.
How will leaders in the Democratic Party respond?
The problem of course lies in the way so many people who think of themselves as Progressives have been seduced into thinking that political reality is defined by the Neoliberal frame. They will go out and enthusiastically support Hillary Clinton as the Progressive choice, when there is nothing progressive about her (or her husband's) policies when it comes to economic issues. They are exemplars of the Neoliberal elite consensus.
The uninformed are lulled into voting enthusiastically for corporate Democrats because these Dems are more in line with their cosmopolitan cultural values, even if they are in the pockets of the one percent. Cory Booker is an exemplar of this kind of Democrat. He's black; he's charismatic; he's right on all the cultural issues. He's a win for the D column. But he's a corporate hack. And all these corporate hacks support corporate ed reform.
As the article points out, It's not even clear where Elizabeth Warren stands on ed reform. She is no corporate hack, but It wouldn't surprise me if she were an ed reform supporter if it's not something that has been a priority for her. Why? If for no other reason than because like so many other Dems, she has assimilated unconsciously the elite consensus about it (i.e, the consensus of elites whose kids go to privat schools) and doesn't understand its toxic effects. Obama himself doesn't seem to understand the implications of his own policy because he often says he's for things that are being directly undermined by his administration's Race to the Top policies. I see this all the time with local politicians here in Seattle who should know better. The Neoliberal frame is so strong, and it dominates the mindset of the local "donor class", whom they must take seriously. But they are educable.
A very interesting, but long an technical post, eviscerating ed reform as it has been implemented in NYC under the Bloomberg regime is laid out here. It's a good resource for readers here who are new to the subject.
Leave a Reply