Letters to the Editor
-
This is a little too much hope...
First off, I've been an Obama supporter for the last year, and I'm working hard for him in Texas, so this is not a criticism of him at all, but rather of oversold expectations of this letter.
Wouldn't it be a fantastic world if we could just get everyone to look at the research and go with what works? Unfortunately, when Big Oil is willing to pay millions of dollars for a researcher to say that there is no direct evidence of human culpability in global warming, there are plenty of them willing to take that check and write that article, and in consequence, it takes us a good ten years longer than it should have to come to an agreement that global warming is a bad thing.
Now apply that process to all of the problems we'd like to fix. School vouchers? Sure. How difficult do you think it's going be be for the other side to find the research that says it works? I haven't googled it yet, but my guess is that it already exists. Health care, gun control, rebuilding the American education system, establishing a thoughtful energy policy that looks long-term. We need to move forward on all of those, and now. Not in ten years, when the battle of the researchers has finally been won and we've reduced the opposition to a small, lunatic fringe (the same fringe that is still either disclaiming global warming, or claiming that it will actually be a positive thing).
So yes, use the approach you've just presented, but don't be shocked when the people working against positive change are able to muddy the findings of the research more than you ever thought possible, and try to bring things to a halt. Give them every opportunity to get on board, but don't let them force the train to leave late. We're running short on time.
-
School vouchers only work if...
... private schools have to take their fair share of the "problem" kids. Sure, I could build a fabulous school with fabulous test scores if I can cherry-pick only those kids who do well in school. The ones with brains that just fit traditional teaching methods to a T, the kids who read easily, the ones who can sit still, the ones who will sail through ANY school, anywhere, by virtue of their innate learning styles.
I'd challenge any private school accepting voucher money to take their fair share of dyslexic kids... kids with all sorts of learning disabilities, kids with various impairments... kids with Down Syndrome, autistic kids...
Now we'll talk about the beauty of vouchers and about sending public money to private schools. And you'll see those very same private schools heading for the hills. Um, no thanks on the vouchers. We only want the easy kids. We don't want the ones with Tourette Syndrome who have "inappropriate outbursts" every day. We don't want the kids who need occupational therapy just to hold a pencil. They'll... um... be too hard... we don't have the facilities... (aka they'll bring our test scores down).
-
Church vs. State
So Obama would ignore the separation between church and state if he thought school vouchers would work? That's nice to know.
-
Which research?
Yes, I also wonder whose research counts as valid in this scenario. Research is a term that has been bandied about by commercial interests in recent years, making it hard to trust "research" without a few disclaimers -- who is funding the research, in particular. So I'd feel more comfortable if he'd specify what KIND of research would convince him that it works. I trust his intelligence enough to suspect that he wouldn't be swayed by any old research, but I think he's unfortunately opening himself up to accusations of having made false promises if he doesn't accompany this statement -- probably intended to defuse the issue -- with a few caveats.
-
The Basic Question at Hand
In a way, the author of the letter is raising the fundamental question of the election, and what should be the fundamental difference between the parties: Do we Americans want to do what works, or what feels good and validates our biases?
Part of the point of research is that much of what we think is true in the world is not; much of what we assume will work does not. Nowhere is this more true, and ignored, than in the "debate" over "torture." Here's why we should oppose torture, in a nutshell: IT DOESN'T WORK. Period. If the technique gets anything out of the victim at all, it's going to be what the torture wants to hear, not what's true. But boy does if feel good for people to imagine that some bad guy is getting his nads zapped!
Go down the list of Republican priorities in the last 7 years, and you'll see why we're so screwed. Time after time, the emphasis has been on what makes Republicans feel good, not what works. Abstinence education? Doesn't work! Pre-emptive war to enhance national security? Doesn't work! Tax cuts to aid middle class families? Not if most of the money goes to the top 1%! Laissez-faire government? Ask New Orleans how this is working for them.
A line from Bill Clinton's campaign in '92 I'll always remember was in one of the debates. He said to Bush, "You've done it your way, and it hasn't worked. It's time for someone else to try." Hillary would certainly have reason to adopt this theme, but I think Obama has a better chance of selling it AND meaning it.
-
A basic law of research
It's not good research unless it supports your opinion.
You're willing to say 'let's do abstinence only education if the research supports it' because you already know it doesn't. Seems pretty disingenious if you ask me.
Also, how do you get the research without doing the program?
-
yes, as others have stated, chosing whose "research" much less "advice" you are willing to entertain,
much less listen to, much less fund ... oh, that's all political too. (oh, and those you refuse to listen to and fund, see those decisions as political as well ...)
Look at "No Child Left Behind" ... best intentions, hailed as a cornerstone of bipartison cooperation ... seriously, look at it, study it ...
There is an underlying cynicism in this letter which is not constructive, imho. Most people most of the time believe they are "doing the best they can" working under the constraints of the system as they see it ... and keeping the homefires burning and getting reelected (keeping one's constituency happy) are very reality-based considerations. The rather sanctimonious (jeez, what if we used research????!!! to make decisions) tone is not "helpful" either.
Yes, getting down from the ivory tower and mixing it up in the trenches is the only "solution" ... Like John McCain's apparent belief that he was "above question" wrt lobbies and lobbyist, that sanctimony is a genuine pitfall ...