AEI: Frederick M. Hess: The Right Way to Start Fixing No Child Left Behind

AEI: Blog: Frederick M. Hess: The Right Way For Conservatives to Fix No Child Left Behind

Source:The New Democrat

There’s obviously not a lot that I agreed with President George W. Bush on and not much I liked about his presidency. And I even consider him to be the worst president of my lifetime. I actually like his father as president even though I would’ve voted against him twice if I was eligible to vote in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But one thing that I liked and respect about President G.W. Bush was his push for real education reform and push to deal with poverty in America.

President Bush saw education as the civil rights issue of the 21st Century and said things like the dangers of soft-bigotry of low expectations. Now I don’t like No Child Left Behind, because as the late great Progressive Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone said back in 2002 when the laws was past, “NCLB has mandates in it that Congress will never fund and will devastate states and localities that have to try to make up for the lack of funding to deal with these new federal mandates.” But at least the effort was there from the Bush Administration to deal with education and poverty in America.

A new federal education bill should be about fixing low-income and low-performing schools. Where a lot if not most of our low-income students attend school every year and eliminating the school to prison pipeline in America. Build off of Race to The Top and Common Core from the Obama Administration and reward schools that have high standards. And support things like public school choice including charter schools. And set up a new federal funding stream to help finance public schools in America. So states and localities can move away from regressive property taxes to finance schools. And so we can get adequate funding into low-income schools.

The teachers unions say that the problem with public education is that we underfund it and spend too much on corrections in America. And what they would do is essentially spend more money in a the current bad system that doesn’t produce enough high school graduates let along college graduates. And the school choice crowd on the Right will say the problem with public education is that government is involved in the first place. At least at the federal level and with Libertarians saying the problem with public education is that it is public in the first place.

They are both wrong and with lets say the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party they are completely wrong. Spending more money on a bad system will just make that system worst because the people in it won’t feel the need to reform. Eliminating federal funding and standards will mean low-income schools in America won’t even get the resources that they are currently getting for education. And they are already underfunded. Education is one of the top three sectors of the American economy and that alone makes to a federal issue. We have to have people with the skills to do well in America. And need to know what is working and what isn’t.

This is not about spending more money on a bad system or eliminating public education funding even at the federal level all together. It is about making public education as strong as it can in America with the feds playing their limited part and seeing that public schools are as good as they possibly can be. You do that with more funding for low-income schools. Paying good teachers more and well and encouraging highly qualified people to go into education and teach in low-income areas. And giving parents the option to send their kids to the best school for their kids. Instead of the central office doing that for them. So public schools know they need to do a good job in order to get new students every year. So public education works for everyone in America who goes through it.

The Hill: Kevin Cirilli: New Democrats Looking to Strike Against The Warren Wing

Source:The New Democrat

Blogger Andrew Sullivan about a year or so ago wrote a piece called something to the effect “where is the liberal Tea Party”. Where is the liberal alternative to the Tea Party. And he was talking about Occupy Wall Street and how it failed because it doesn’t have the resources an and doesn’t tend to like money anyway because it is more of a Far-Left socialist oriented group to begin with. And he was talking about OWS as if it was supposed to be the left-wing Tea Party.

This blog wrote a piece arguing that the liberal Tea Party doesn’t exist yet. But there center-left Democrats and center-left Democratic groups who more than have the resources to create a group that could take on Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to give Democrats an alternative agenda to look at. That would prevent us from going back to the McGovern days when the hard left if not Far-Left of the Democratic Party was in charge. And as a result costs the Democratic Party 5-6 presidential elections with four of those losses being landslides from 1968-88.

Because mainstream center-left Democrats like Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis were forced to take such hard left positions in order to get the support of these groups that they had to have to be able to compete. Which is something that Democrats need to have to avoid again as we have put ourselves in position especially with the growing younger and minority voters and have brought working class voters back into the party of being the governing party in America for years to come. The New Democrats, the center-left liberal wing of the Democratic Party could be the faction that prevents the party from going back the McGovernism of the 1970s and 80s.

Groups like the New Democratic Network, Progressive Policy Institute, Third Way and the New Democrat Coalition in the House of Representatives could save the Democratic Party from the Far-Left. That wants to return the party back to 1970 or something when the New-Left emerged on the scene. And take the party that not just believes in the safety net for people who truly need it, but make us a party that is about the welfare state and big centralized government regardless of income level. That would be big enough to take care of everyone in the country. They would want to revamp if not rewrite the U.S. Constitution and take us from a Federal Republic that is a liberal democracy. And turn America into a Scandinavian social democracy.

But the New Democrats like America for what it is and what we represent and our form of government and way of life. They just want more people to have the freedom to be able to live their own lives. Which is where Americans tend to be both right and left. They don’t want government to take care of them, but for people who need it they want the freedom to be able to take care of themselves. Which is why I call the New Democrats center-left, because they are on the Left, but they are about where Americans tend to be politically. People who like both economic and personal freedom and don’t want government trying to manage their lives for them from either an economic or personal perspective.

The New Democrats are both business and worker friendly. They are not anti-business, anti-capitalist and certainly not anti-private enterprise. They are also anti-worker or anti-union. They are in favor of all of these things as long as they are good for the country and are not unaccountable and they are also well-connected online. And because of these things could build the network or networks, organization or organizations, the movement that could lead the Democratic Party for an indefinite period. Because they are where Americans tend to be and where a lot of Democrats tend to be who are not political activists. And could save the Democratic Party from the Far-Left. Unlike the Republican Party that is run by the Far-Right.

C-SPAN: Video: Al Franken at The 1996 White House Correspondents Dinner

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

Going back about twenty-years here to 1996, this was I guess March of 1996, but they were already counting votes for the 1996 presidential election between President Bill Clinton and Leader Bob Dole. They just decided to wait eight months to tell everyone. Because this presidential election was already over because Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich had to sit in the back of Air Force One. And threw a temper tantrum and stopped doing his impersonation of a middle age adult. And went back to being a thirteen-year old little boy who was just told he can’t have ice cream and cake for dinner. And as a result decided to shut down the U.S. Government.

The 1996 presidential election was one of the quickest in American history. Not as quick as 1984 with Walter Mondale and Ronald Reagan. Where Vice President Mondale decided to concede the election at 3PM EST on Election Day, but still a very quick election. Bob Dole was stuck between Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Bill Clinton. And was trying to get Newt’s fat ass off of his back and take on the best politician in America at least since Ron Reagan. In a country where the economy was booming and where we were essentially at peace with the rest of the world. Other than being peacekeepers in the Balkans.

And I think that was the major motivations of these political investigations in the Republican Congress against President Clinton. Especially with Senator Al Damato’s Banking Committee investigation into the so-called Whitewater story. Bob Dole is a very good if not great man who has given a lot to America and one of the most distinguished people who has ever served in Congress and who accomplished a lot there in his thirty-five years in Congress. Including being Senate Republican Leader for eleven years. But he wasn’t going to beat Bill Clinton and all of Washington knew that including the Republican Leadership.

The Merv Griffin Show: Video: Jack Lemmon & Jane Fonda on China Syndrome in 1979

Source:The New Democrat

Jack Lemmon to me at least and I bet a lot of other people who knew him and are familiar with him would say was that he was a professional comedian who didn’t do standup. At least on a regular basis, but his sense of humor, timing and spontaneity when it came to humor and his improvisation was great and gave him comedic abilities. That are about as good as we’ve ever seen in Hollywood. The man deserves to be in Comedy Hall of Fame if there is such a thing. And you see a lot of that in this interview without a script. Merv Griffin giving him questions that aren’t even intended to have humorous responses. And Jack answering the questions seriously, but using humor to make his points.

I covered China Syndrome last night, but they really did a great movie and made a great movie about a subject that by 1978 and early 1979 I’m not sure a lot of Americans were thinking about and were worried about. Which was nuclear power and what could happen when nuclear power plants aren’t managed well enough and where profits are put ahead of safety. Which is about as progressive or socialist even as you’ll ever hear me talk. But this was movie that had to be done and let people know about this issue. And again Three Mile Island happens just a month after this interview was conducted in early 79.

China Syndrome wasn’t saying that nuclear power was bad or that corporations were bad. What they were talking about was the dangers of nuclear when it is not managed properly and the potential consequences that can come when it is not managed properly. And in an area like Los Angeles with roughly fifteen-million people with four-million of the city and eight-millions in LA County that is a lot of people who could potentially be seriously injured with injuries that they’ll never recover from. If not killed if you have a major nuclear power accident. And that is what this movie was talking about.

The Tonight Show With Jay Leno: Bill Maher (2012)

Source:The New Democrat

Going back three years here so I have to dig deep into my memory bank and see what is still there. Oh wait 2012 was an election I lived through and was somewhat active in it as a voter and blogger. So I guess this shouldn’t be so difficult. But the fact that someone like Rick Santorum could actually challenge someone like Mitt Romney tells you have screwed up the Republican Party is. If this was 1980 or 84 Rick Santorum would’ve been taken as seriously for president as Don Knotts or Rich Little or Artie Lang, some comedian like that. Because he would’ve been seen as a joke who probably needs to finish high school and grow up before he tries to do anything big.

If I’m Barack Obama I’m not hating my opposition, but getting down on my knees and thanking God everyday for the opposition that I do have. And writing them a check everyday for all the stupid and outrageous things they do and say. Like with defunding of Homeland Security to use as an example. Because when the GOP’s support goes down, President Obama goes up and even if Americans regardless of race and party are not in love with the man as President. But he looks like God in comparison to especially the Tea Party wing of the GOP. Because Americans have basically said that “yea Barry is not great and makes mistakes. But look I’m glad he’s there instead of Ted Cruz or the House Tea Party.”

But with the Tea Party in power especially in the House of Representatives and with the economic recovery now feeling like it is real with solid economic and job growth and with the falling deficit and with President Obama having the country on his side against ISIS, he looks pretty good. But without the Tea Party, perhaps President Obama is still Senator Obama sitting in on Senate committee hearings about agriculture spending or looking into the spending on school lunches and how much protein kids get from them. Which I’m sure is important, but a big step down from being President of the United States.

Daniel J.B. Mitchell: Ronald Reagan Campaigns For Harry Truman in 1948

Source:The New Democrat

If you just saw or met Ronald Reagan in lets say 1978 or so and had no idea who he was other than Governor of California and looking to run for President in 1980 and someone told you that Reagan was once not only a Democrat, but a Progressive Democrat who voted for both Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman for President, you might think that you were seeing same-sex marriages being performed at the Southern Baptist Convention, or looking at Martians with four eyes or something. And I’ll give you one more thing that might send you into shock therapy because I’m an evil bastard. Ron Reagan was not only a supporter of organized labor in the 1940s and 50s, but he ran the actors guild in Hollywood.

There’s plenty of evidence that Ron Reagan wouldn’t fit in very well in the Republican Party today at least as a national candidate and leader. Who would still do very well in California and probably could rebuild the Republican Party by himself out there. But today’s GOP at least the hard right believes that it should still be 1930 and things like the Great Society and New Deal should’ve never of happened. And that organized labor or even having the right to decided if you should join a union or is Un-American if not immoral as well. But that was the type of Democrat that Reagan was up until 1960s or so. A Cold War Progressive Democrat who was concerned with working people. Who was against American elitism.

Reagan was an FDR/Truman Progressive Democrat. Not a left-wing far-lefty radical, but a mainstream Progressive who believed in things like national security, national defense, liberty is worth defending, the right to organize, protecting the working class and even civil rights. Which is why he did very well with working class Democrats in the 1960s and 70s in California and won working classic Democrats over when he ran for President in 1979-80, while also being able to win over white-collar Republicans because wanted to cut taxes and regulations. What other Republican could do that today and win over a coalition like that and even be able to win over Latin and African-Americans and even women? Don’t see another Republican like that right now.

Presidential Fan: A&E Biography of Bill Clinton

Source:The New Democrat

Just to start off, you should know that I’m a big fan of Bill Clinton and a lot of my politics and own liberalism comes from him. And following his own career and he would’ve been someone I would’ve been more than happy to vote for twice for president if I was eligible. At risk of sounding overdramatic Bill Clinton I believe at least saved the Democratic Party. The country was moving right and moving away from Progressive Democratic centralized government designed to take care of people. More towards individual freedom especially as it related to the economy and was tired of seeing their taxes going up especially as the debt and deficits were going up as well.

Congressional Republicans at some point probably in the 1990s was going to win back Congress both the House and Senate. Just because of where the country was and Republicans starting to dominate the South and continued to do well in the Midwest. Now that didn’t have to be 1994 and President Clinton’s first two years probably sped up the Republican takeover of Congress. But that was going to happen in the near future if not 1994. And had it not have been for Bill Clinton the Democratic Party wouldn’t have been in ready with any message to respond to Conservative Republicans who came to power in the Reagan and Gingrich revolutions.

Without Bill Clinton the Democratic Party would’ve still been dominated not by FDR Progressives who are actually pretty practical mainstream leftists, but McGovernites from the New Left who came of age in the late 1960s and early 1970s and got organized inside of the Democratic Party. People who were anti-military, anti-law enforcement, anti-establishment in general from the Right and Left. People who wanted to essentially tear down the American liberal democratic form of government and private enterprise system. And transform America into Scandinavia economically, politically and everything else. Going up against Conservative Republicans who thought the current government was already too big with the political backers and resources to support them.

What Bill Clinton did what was called the Third Way was give Democrats and Americans an alternative to the Reagan Revolution in the Republican Party that essentially want to tear down everything that was built up from the New Deal and Great Society. And the McGovernites the New Left in the Democratic Party that wanted to expanded everything that was built up in the New Deal and Great Society and turn America into a Scandinavian social democracy. And to say there was a third way that center-left New Democrats could take to offer Americans to bring the Democratic Party back to power. That wasn’t about big government or small government, but using government in a responsible limited way to empower people in need to be able to also live in freedom.

Bill Clinton saved the Democratic Party that has basically been running and governing under his vision of government, or something very close to it since 1993 when he became President of the United States. The days of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and George McGovern are over. And now the Democratic Party at least at the leadership level has been about saving the programs that people need and work well. Empowering people at the bottom and near bottom to be able to move up in life and not have to live on government dependence indefinitely. A party that will defend the country both through law enforcement and with the military. That won’t try to overtax the middle class and respect their incomes and will be responsible with Americans tax dollars. And that to me at least is the legacy of President Bill Clinton.