Critical Mass

Student trustees at Orange Coast College in Costa Mesa, California, voted Wednesday to drop the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance from their meetings.  Why, you ask?  Well, that depends on who you read.  According to CNN, "Board member Jason Ball argued that the pledge inspires nationalism, violates the separation between church and state with the phrase "under God," and is irrelevant to the business of student government."  The CNN version also focuses on "one flag-waving pledge supporter [who] berated [the trustees] as anti-American radicals."

However, the Reuters version of the story tells a slightly different tale, saying the student trustees voted as they did because they "see no reason to publicly swear loyalty to God and the U.S. government."  From the article:

The move was lead by three recently elected student trustees, who ran for office wearing revolutionary-style berets and said they do not believe in publicly swearing an oath to the American flag and government at their school. One student trustee voted against the measure, which does not apply to other student groups or campus meetings. [. . .]

"That ('under God') part is sort of offensive to me," student trustee Jason Bell, who proposed the ban, told Reuters. "I am an atheist and a socialist, and if you know your history, you know that 'under God' was inserted during the McCarthy era and was directly designed to destroy my ideology."

Bell said the ban largely came about because the trustees didn't want to publicly vow loyalty to the American government before their meetings. "Loyalty ought to be something the government earns through performance, not through reciting a pledge," he said.

First off, it was apparently too difficult for the reporters to get the student's last name, unless there is both a Jason Ball and a Jason Bell on the board.  Secondly, though both versions of the story are attention grabbing, the information from the latter seems to point to perhaps the real reason for the ban: to spark up a new debate on the propriety of saying the Pledge in schools, and possibly to get it eliminated.  As the CNN story notes, Ball/Bell "cited a 2002 San Francisco federal appeals court ruling -- later dismissed by the Supreme Court on a technicality -- that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools."  This story seems to be more about a second shot at that case than about the students' actual desire to be freed from the bonds of pledged government allegiance.

Oh, and just in case you were wondering, the Reuters story too had its kooky America-loving student protestor.  According to the story, the ban "has infuriated some of [the trustees'] classmates -- prompting one young woman to loudly recite the pledge in front of the board on Wednesday night in defiance of the rule."

"America is the one thing I'm passionate about and I can't let them take that away from me," 18-year-old political science major Christine Zoldos told Reuters.

"The fact that they have enough power to ban one of the most valued traditions in America is just horrible," Zoldos said, adding she would attend every board meeting to salute the flag.

Gotta hate those college students who still support their country, rather than claiming to be Canadian or some such nonsense.

Dan Lips of the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation has a piece over on EdNews.org looking at the facts regarding federal spending on education.  According to Mr. Lips, despite Democratic claims to the opposite federal spending on both lower and upper level education has increased tremendously under the current Republican administration.  "Annual U.S. Department of Education spending on elementary and secondary education has increased from $27.3 billion in 2001 to $38 billion in 2006, up by nearly 40 percent," says Lips, and spending on special education will have increased by 59% percent between 2001 and 2007, yet "student performance has not markedly improved,"  in that time period or from 1970 to now.  Higher level education spending grew even more, as "annual Department of Education spending on federal Pell Grants grew from $8.7 billion in 2001 to $13 billion in 2006, nearly 50 percent growth," and "federal funding for higher education in 2004-2005 totaled $90 billion, a real increase of 103 percent over ten years."  Despite this fact, student improvement is minimal, and "college tuition costs increased by 295 percent between 1982 and 2003, a growth rate higher than health care costs (195 percent), housing (84 percent), and all items (83 percent)."  Says Mr. Lips:

These are important lessons that policymakers and taxpayers should keep in mind during the 110th Congress. Calls for more funding for public schools and subsidies for college tuition may be popular on the campaign trail, but simply increasing federal funding for education is not the answer. If it were, we should have seen better results by now.

College newspapers are all a-twitter following Tuesday's election.  Our own Daniel Gelernter has a piece on the Phi Beta Cons website in reaction to the Yale Daily News' response Wednesday; the same newspaper today lauds the number of Yale alumni who entered office this election, as well as mourns the losses of those who didn't.  The University of San Franciso's Foghorn questions four students about whether they voted and if it is important to do so; perhaps the best quote in response was from Zoey Jones, a senior Politics major, who said "Yes. It’s important. Most of the problems in our political system are rooted in the fact that people don’t participate and just complain. Even if you don’t agree with the structure or system, you should still vote."  Good call.  UCLA's Daily Bruin polled students who voted to compare their demographics against those of the state; not surprisingly, 55% of UCLA students consider themselves Democrats, compared to 42.48% of Californians as a whole, while only 11% consider themselves Republicans, compared to 34.33% of registered Californians.  Despite the 61% of UCLA students who voted for gubernatorial candidate Democrat Phil Angelides, Republican incumbent Arnold Schwarzenegger won "by a landslide."

And for those of you in need of a smile following Republicans' defeat in the election, there's this: one Columbia student blames strange growths on the campus's trees on President Bush, reports the Spectator.  

Theresa Swink, who works in the Columbia greenhouse, accounts for the growths' presence with an all-purpose explanation: "With George Bush as president, it comes as no surprise to me that our trees are cancerous."

Granted, tree experts who have inspected the trees say that the growths are disease free, but I doubt that really matters to Ms. Swink.

In reaction to a group of students who "wore blackface" to a party mimicking this season's cast of "Survivor," who were originally broken into racial tribes, officials at Whitman College in Washington cancelled classes today "so students and faculty could attend a diversity symposium," reports the Associated Press.  From the article:

"This is a day that is dedicated to a campus-wide discussion of issues that are important to our Whitman community," the 1,450-student private school in Walla Walla said in an e-mail to students. [. . .]

An agenda for the symposium includes sessions on the biology of race, a history of race and civil rights, a curriculum discussion and a film discussion.

Obviously, I am disappointed with the outcome of the election. However, there are a few consolations for me, and they are unrelated to the current issues.
 
At one level, regardless of the issues specific to this election, a turnover of power in Congress is no surprise; indeed, it was somewhat expected. This is simply the ebb-and-flow of politics. The Republicans controlled Congress for 12 years, before which the Democrats controlled it for a long while. The 2004 election was historic partially because the party of the incumbent president maintained (even grew!) its electoral advantage in Congress. That almost never happens. Totally separate from the issues (because I definitely believe Republicans are far more capable of running this country than Democrats), and looking at it from a purely institutional/structural/theoretical standpoint, I am actually somewhat glad that the ruling party of 12 years has been traded in for another. It's democracy at its finest, and it re-asserts an incredible truth about this country--that every two or four years a new government comes into power, and it is always-- always!--peaceful. Even in 2000, when Democrats were crying foul and whining like infants, nobody was ever actually worried about someone lobbing a grenade into a crowd of Bush supporters or storming the U.S. Supreme Court. It's quite another story in many other countries around the world.
 
The way I see it, the Republicans have in some cases reaped what they have sown. And make no mistake, the Democrats will reap theirs as well. Hopefully they will screw their heads on tight for the next couple years and make some good leadership decisions. Thankfully, the democratic process lives on, and even though we have lost an election, we have not been defeated.
 
James Taranto, editor of the Wall Street Journal's opinion page website, has an analysis of the election results. It's quite good, and he gives some reason for optimism. Read it at the link below.
 
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009215

Former Bush speechwriter David Frum spoke here at Northwestern a few weeks ago, and he said that a GOP loss on November 7th would be "good for the party, but bad for the country." I think this is spot-on analysis.

The Republicans turned their collective back on the very conservative principles that propelled them to victory in 1994. Rather than acting as the party of limited government, they seemed content to settle in as the party of entrenched DC power-brokers. They abandoned social security reform, they failed at meaningful immigration reform, they spent like drunken sailors, and they allowed several bad strategies to continue in Iraq unchecked.

They also shot themselves in the foot by way of multiple high-profile scandals (Delay, Cunningham, Ney, Foley, etc). More than 40 percent of voters said that corruption played a significant role in their voting decision yesterday. Republicans also failed to sufficiently tout the strong economy and issue of judicial nominations in the immediate lead-up to their big loss. Now, thanks to a loss of 27+ seats in the House, and the likely loss of the Senate (once the recount is over in Virginia), Democrats will narrowly control the legislative branch of government. This is where the "bad for the country" part of Frum's statement comes in. The Democrats ran an anti-Bush, anti-war campaign, espousing few new or productive ideas. By tapping into voter anger, the Democrats find themselves back in power--which seems to have been their primary goal in and of itself. The trouble with having power is that you have to do something productive with it, which I predict will not occur under today's Democratic "leadership."  The Democrats' irresponsible and incoherent position(s) on Iraq are much worse than the ill-considered "stay the course" strategy, and their fiscal policies could be disastrous to our humming economy.  The Republican minority and the President must hold the Democrats in check and not allow the Dems to dismantle some of the best policy victories Republicans have wrought.

The good news in all of this is that the GOP has been delivered a much-needed wake-up call. Republicans must learn from their mistakes and return to their 1994 legacy in order to win in 2008.  Additionally, this election was primarily a repudiation of the Bush Administration's strategy in Iraq.  It was certainly not an endorsement of the Democrat agenda for America, partially because no such agenda was presented to the American people.  To steal a quote from bitter Liberals from years past, there is no mandate here.  I believe this loss will ultimately serve the function a time-out for a child.  The GOP has behaved badly, and in many ways deserves a time-out in the corner.  Once Republicans have repented from their political sins, they stand to once again be embraced by the American people.  If they stubbornly refuse to acknowledge their mistakes and modify their approach, the time-out could last much longer than any of us would hope.

Another piece of good news is that the American people will now get an unattractive preview of what a Democrat-run country could look like in 2008.  Aside from correcting their own errors, Republicans will now accumulate policy ammunition against the Democrats heading into the next major campaign--an advantage that should not be overlooked.

Finally, last night's Democratic win was aided largely by a bevy of (D) candidates running as if they were (R) candidates.  When Congress reconvenes, there will be a substantial number of pro-life, socially conservative Democrats who will need to adhere to those traditionalist principles if they want to retain their seat in 2008.  San Francisco Liberal Nancy Pelosi might have a hell of a time maintaining party discipline thanks to these newly-elected "Blue Dog" Democrats, and Republicans may successfully win their votes on a number of key issues.

If Republicans can refocus their efforts on a positive, conservative agenda for the country, they will come out of this loss stronger than ever in 2008.  In the meantime, it is also their duty to limit the damage Democrats could wreak on our national security and our economy.

Read my piece on the Yale Daily News' take on the election at the Nation Review's Phi Beta Cons blog.

-Dan Gelernter 

I'm predicting that at the end of the night, votes will break down as follows:

In the Senate, Republicans will hold on to a tight lead, holding 51 seats to Democrats' 49.

In the House, Democrats will take a slight majority, holding 223 seats to Republicans' 212.

In Gubernatorial races, Democrats will take a majority, holding 27 states to Republicans' 23.  (Granted, only 36 governorships are up for grabs, but this is the final breakdown.)

These predictions are nothing but conjecture, so feel free to leave your guesstimates in the comments section.

They did it.  Have you?

 (Image taken from the Economist)

Among many other places he is stumping for candidates, of course, but Seth Simmons and I, along with my fiancée, plan on going to see the President.  Hopefully more on that later.

EdNews.org's Christina Asquith had a interview with Iraq's new Minister of Education, Dr. Sami Al Mudhaffar, in which the two talked about the current situation in Iraqi education, teaching democracy in schools, and how to handle the Saddam topic, among other things.  Al Mudhaffar's key quote:

"I have lived here for years and I've been a professor for 37 years and I got used to the daily problems and since we love our country we have to live in it. We can't change countries. Education is important. We have to put students in our class. Eliminate dropouts. Increase the needs to the labor market. Separate education from politics. Involve the community. Promote human rights and freedom of expression and national unity. All of this goes through education.

Democracy is not an easy job. You can't say: 'Be democratic." Ok? They have elections coming and they have to know how to deal with it. The candidate will have to face another opponent. How will they do this? Time is the drug of choice. It's very early right now and we hope for help from the outside.