Pre-K and the Right
In an otherwise solid piece about Oklahoma’s universal pre-K program -- the nation’s gold standard that also happens to be in a solid red state -- the Times’ David Leonhardt fumbles toward the end when he writes: “…preschool cuts across some of the usual ideological lines. Liberals like its antipoverty bent; conservatives prefer education to straight income redistribution….The biggest opponents tend to be religious conservatives worried about the creation of a nanny state.” Leaving aside that liberals support universal pre-K for all kinds of good reasons beyond its ‘bent’ (sic), the broad conservative movement – not just the religious right -- HATES the idea. Why? Not only because it’s an expansion of government, but because it’s an expansion of government that also works. Movement conservatives really hate stuff like that, because it makes their cerebrums itch.
The right has opposed Head Start since day one. And movement fortresses like Heritage, Cato, the Reason Foundation, the Pacific Research Institute, the Heartland Institute, and so forth have spewed out their usual intellectually bankrupt garbage for years attacking the idea of any new public investments in pre-school. At the state and local level, some Republican officials have indeed supported universal pre-school. But highlighting the broader conservative movement’s opposition to an increasingly popular idea that's effective is another way that our side can continue to isolate, shrink, and ultimately drown the right in a bathtub. They are running out of ideas, and no one should be confused that pre-K is in any semblance one of theirs.
Methinks you are too kind to the right-
I think that statement embodies more truth than the test scores. The conservatives hate it when their low-education, low-skill, low-wage labor pool is tampered with.
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
February 7, 2007 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conservatives would like nothing more than to destroy the public school system in this country. They prefer the totalitarian method of Red China - make the peasants pay for progress.
February 7, 2007 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Matt has previously pointed out on this site, conservatives favor equal laws. He referred to the famous bridge quote of Anatole France:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids both rich & poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, & to steal bread."
The modern restatement, is that both rich and poor should be free to pay for their children's education, health care, and to provide for their old age.
February 7, 2007 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gregg's post was very helpful for me in pinning down why the article bothered me. I couldn't figure it out. Why were they singling out the religious right for hating government, when one thinks of them as odd bedfellow with libertarians? Surely their motives differ in a very different way than the article states, more concerned for pre-K lest it send women back to work too soon (why liberals have no family values) or might introduce children to any nonsectarian form of education too soon (why liberals hate Christmas).
Conversely, education has not traditionally been a conservative priority quite apart from pre-K. Bush promised to be the education president precisely to distance himself from a traditional conservative image long enough to get elected. Otherwise, conservatism is about opposition to public education, opposition to investment in class sizes, and so on. If it had any advice for pre-K, it'd be to privatize it. So the article just didn't add up.
But Gregg's answer has to be it: that the article just couldn't deal with conservative opposition down the line. Heck, that wouldn't be fair and balanced, right?
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
February 7, 2007 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
John, I also make it a point to scrutinize everything Leonhardt writes very closely, because he is a former student and big fan of Martin Feldstein. As such, he often goes out of his way to present the right's perspective on things in a more favorable light than it deserves to be shown. --Greg
February 7, 2007 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of us Libruls, while supporting public pre-K, are nevertheless suspicious of it as part of a seemingly unstoppable juggernaut rolling toward all school, all the time for all kids. Longer days for public school kids as reported this morning on NPR. The frantic, panicky movement to reestablish America as a knowledge-workers heaven, as manufacturing jobs disappear overseas (and knowledge work too). The politically expedient education-as-social-policy panacea (we can't fix our society, so let's fix our kids). And meanwhile, the kids don't get to be kids anymore.
Granted, we don't want them out on the street in the early afternoon, killing each other while Mom works her 3rd minimum-wage job of the day. But there is more than one way to run a Nanny state; after-school basketball works better for some of us; or better yet, a living wage so Mom or Dad can be home at least part of the time.
February 7, 2007 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Despite all evidence that universal Pre-K is a solid investment, the Right Wing Think Tanks will always attack the program. They will modify their arguments to pander to all of the various right wing factions for one simple reason.
If Republican parents ever see the benefit of this program then there is a great danger that those right wing conservative parents will suddenly realize that there may be merit to a Democratic program. This would shake the foundations of the modern right wingers that universally condemn all Democratic proposals.
The right wingers are dangerously close to running out of fingers to plug the leaks in their idealogic dike. This barrier that keeps the middle and lower class from realizing that Republican policies are not in their best interest.
The religious right has recently begun to see the water leaking out of that right wing dike and if the suburban south ever sees the leaks there won't be enough votes to elect a Republican anywhere.
Therefore, the Republican leadership will become ever more desperate to stop any program, no matter how small, that may lure their base away. It's not about any specific Republican policy being better or any secret Republican money grabbing program; its just about maintaining enough of their voter base to stay in power.
February 7, 2007 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Greg really right on this? I haven't heard Republicans railing against pre-K. They do rail against public funds for teaching the kids of illegals all the time, and i would assume a lot of these Hispanic kids would be included.
February 7, 2007 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. One of the things that my family has enjoyed for the last 20 years is a week-long extended family vacation at the beach at the end of the summer. We got the props kicked out from under us this year, though, since my brother lives in North Carolina: Wake County has just adopted year-round schools, and his kids don't have vacation during the week we have reserved a cottage. It remains to be seen whether we'll be able to work it out for the future.
Sure, school is important, but isn't family important, too? We live in different states, and there's no other extended time that I can spend with my brother's kids. And what happens to all those things I remember learning in summer camp (and not just swimming and canoeing, but life lessons about responsibility and teamwork), when there's no longer a summer vacation in which to have a summer camp? Sad.
February 7, 2007 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
See posts at:
Blue State Conservatives
Right on the Left Coast
Illinois Review
National Review Online (Carrie Lukas)
Family Reasearch Council
February 7, 2007 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell ya what bothered me about Leonhardt's article - that throw-off line about the 200k house. you can move in next door to me in oklahoma city for 85k, and your kids can walk three blocks to a fine public school. But the families that go to that school can't afford to buy that house. They pay the same amount to rent something smaller.
Leonhardt's blindness to real life was like a gut punch to me. mary catherine reynolds
February 8, 2007 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink