I studied the processes of government for three years in Washington, but I never imagined that one of the most insightful examples of the current state of affairs could be uncovered at a post office here in Birmingham. All those who purchase stamps likely heard news of the new proposed increase to 46 cents in early July. I always knew that the Postal Service could provide insight into the way government does 'business,' but I was surprised to learn that it also showed something about resilience and change within the American body politic.
It was a sweltering summer afternoon, and I waited in line almost half an hour to mail a simple manila envelope to an address only several miles from where I lived. Over a dozen other people were waiting in line for a single attendant, and minds were clearly growing increasingly frazzled. Walk into any private business today--a UPS or FedEx store, a bank, or even a Wal-Mart--and these lines would be non-existent. I have shipped packages across the country from a private carrier far more quickly than simply mailing a large envelope across town at the Post Office.
Thus, from the Post Office, we learn about how the government does business. Although there is technical accountability in terms of law, there is no 'real' accountability. Government agencies do not have to play by real rules of supply and demand. Regulations prevent the Postmaster from handling actual money, making it impossible for him to alleviate the line. The 'manager' is basically a machine, controlled so heavily by regulations that he cannot actually see a need and address it on his own. 'Customer service' has gone out the window in the new era of the bland, faceless government employee who has typically both a union and all sorts of regulations to protect his job, regardless of performance. There is a perverse structure which allows the Post Office to actually raise prices in times of diminished demand. Imagine the irrationality of that; for doing a bad job with customer service or the product they produce, the government can simply raise prices for the consumer. Anyone who thinks that government can do big things well should walk into a post office more often. Perhaps if President Obama had done so, he would have thought twice about healthcare.
On this particular afternoon, I also learned something about the American people. For once, the individuals in line did not take this situation sitting down. A man ultimately asked to speak with a manager, and the manager eventually surfaced from 'the back' (for us to learn that he couldn't handle money). A local business owner was clearly furious, describing how he knew his business from the ground up and would expect the government to know the same. It was at this point that I learned something about speaking up, and I also learned something about the benefits of local business leadership.
This business leader was proud of his craft and his ability to solve problems on his own. He noted that he knew his business from the ground up and could typically solve any problem himself. It was an air of independence which gave him the confidence and knowledge to speak on behalf of others. Local communities have long benefited from these pools of talents and suffer now that so much talent is clustered in the form of mid-level corporate executives in major cities. Unlike BP CEO Tony Hayward who seemed to never actually participate in the decisions of his company, this gentleman took pride in his craft and his ability to solve problems.
Of course, the most telling lesson was the end, when the business owner asked who he could call to make a complaint about the postal service itself. The Postmaster's response: "It won't do no good." As the Obama administration prepares to spend even more on elaborate government programs meant to provide services to taxpayers, that is all Americans really need to know when it comes to accountability. For the individual taxpayer, it 'don't make no difference' what we think.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Education and the Crisis of Local Government
Alexis de Tocqueville, one of the most famous early students of the American republic, once praised the small towns of early America as evidence that "the government really does emanate from the governed." Several decades later, English theorist John Stuart Mill extolled the benefits of local government, including an opportunity for large numbers of the citizenry to participate in the democratic process. Since the early days, America has placed a lot of faith in local governments, allowing local entities to control their own affairs. Democracy emanates in many ways in America, from local PTA meetings at schools across the nation to county commission and school board meetings.
In recent years, as society has become more urbanized, politics has become more centralized. The rise of cable media has given politics a national focus, and Americans have become far more interested in the 'horse race' approach to congressional and presidential politics. Additionally, as more top performers in small towns across the country have moved to larger cities, there have been crises of local leadership. A number of modern social theorists have traced the evolution of rampant political corruption in rural areas to declining population in the face of fewer opportunities in small towns and the exclusive opportunities of large cities. As social commentators debate the consequences of this centralization of American life, it appears to have been exacerbated by the economic crisis.
Marie Leech of the Birmingham News reported yesterday that the Alabama Board of Education voted to take over the finances of Coosa and Sumter county schools, two rural Alabama systems. Five other systems in predominately rural counties also reported having to borrow money, and 25 additional systems reported anticipating a need to borrow money in the near future. Thus, of 103 responding school systems to a statewide financial survey, at least 32 or almost a third of respondents were experiencing some form of significant financial distress.
What is the result? The result will be more state control, and ultimately, more federal control, at the expense of local control. Some are quick to say that local control is a thing of the past, and we should embrace this new era of centralization. However, America's republic is based on the idea that each geographic region of the country needs strong local leaders. The next generation of governors, congressmen, and senators will most likely cut their teeth on local school boards, county commissions, and city halls. Additionally, citizens benefit when they have a direct say in local affairs. There are fewer bureaucratic channels and fewer stakeholders to take into consideration. For generations, small towns have served as a buffer against the aggressive federal government set up against our constitution. Now, as citizens leave for the cities and the economic crisis threatens the country, this system of local government will be called even more into question.
Conservatives should consider stepping up to defend this way of life. The best way to reduce spending in Washington is to empower local communities to take charge of more of their own affairs. Additionally, America's system of representation depends on cultivating strong talent locally. Over decades, local control has begun to evaporate, something Tocqueville also anticipated. However, with that goes a piece of our history and tradition which should not be lost entirely without a fight.
In recent years, as society has become more urbanized, politics has become more centralized. The rise of cable media has given politics a national focus, and Americans have become far more interested in the 'horse race' approach to congressional and presidential politics. Additionally, as more top performers in small towns across the country have moved to larger cities, there have been crises of local leadership. A number of modern social theorists have traced the evolution of rampant political corruption in rural areas to declining population in the face of fewer opportunities in small towns and the exclusive opportunities of large cities. As social commentators debate the consequences of this centralization of American life, it appears to have been exacerbated by the economic crisis.
Marie Leech of the Birmingham News reported yesterday that the Alabama Board of Education voted to take over the finances of Coosa and Sumter county schools, two rural Alabama systems. Five other systems in predominately rural counties also reported having to borrow money, and 25 additional systems reported anticipating a need to borrow money in the near future. Thus, of 103 responding school systems to a statewide financial survey, at least 32 or almost a third of respondents were experiencing some form of significant financial distress.
What is the result? The result will be more state control, and ultimately, more federal control, at the expense of local control. Some are quick to say that local control is a thing of the past, and we should embrace this new era of centralization. However, America's republic is based on the idea that each geographic region of the country needs strong local leaders. The next generation of governors, congressmen, and senators will most likely cut their teeth on local school boards, county commissions, and city halls. Additionally, citizens benefit when they have a direct say in local affairs. There are fewer bureaucratic channels and fewer stakeholders to take into consideration. For generations, small towns have served as a buffer against the aggressive federal government set up against our constitution. Now, as citizens leave for the cities and the economic crisis threatens the country, this system of local government will be called even more into question.
Conservatives should consider stepping up to defend this way of life. The best way to reduce spending in Washington is to empower local communities to take charge of more of their own affairs. Additionally, America's system of representation depends on cultivating strong talent locally. Over decades, local control has begun to evaporate, something Tocqueville also anticipated. However, with that goes a piece of our history and tradition which should not be lost entirely without a fight.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Education Reform: A Prescription for the Doctor
No acronym had the same resonance as AEA in the tempestuous run-up to yesterday's GOP run-off for the gubernatorial nomination. By election day, it would be impossible for most voters to avoid the somber pictures of AEA leaders Paul Hubbert and Joe Reed plastered in television ads, specters meant to haunt Dr. Robert Bentley's bid for the GOP nomination. Well, as I recommended, Dr. Bentley has won, and it is time for the GOP to start putting its house together again in order to make a strong showing in November.
I suppose I ought to begin with the positive. All the scuffling over AEA has placed education at its rightful place at the top of Alabama's political discourse. For all the debates over gambling and facilities like Greene Track, education is the real means of economic development and advancement. Better-educated people are able to earn more, participate in more diverse job offerings, and increase the overall quality of life in this state. Unfortunately, Alabama has long lagged behind in education like many other states in the Deep South. Perhaps with this new-found focus on education, the time has come for that to change. With some innovative thinking, it is more possible than people think. The economy is struggling, and even though some communities are willing to go to gambling and other 'get rich quick' schemes, a strong case can be made that investing in education now will pay far more lasting dividends in our state than gambling casinos.
Education must also now be important to Dr. Bentley, as he has to demonstrate to skeptics in his own party that he can be trusted on education. In order to do this, he should take the lead in unveiling new and innovative ideas on education. To help the GOP's nominee, I have come up with ten ideas of my own. I think Dr. Bentley should give my blog a shot on education reform. Despite my relative youth, I do have the unique experience of having gone through K-12 public schools in Alabama my entire life. Having completed this experience far more recently than many of our public officials, I tend to think I have at least a fresher perspective on many of the problems in our schools and conservative reforms which can fix them. It's worth noting that these reforms aren't necessarily controversial. These ideas can change Alabama schools and strengthen our state's conservative values without unleashing the total war against AEA which has led almost invariably to gridlock in the past. Here are my 10 Prescriptions for Alabama Schools:
(1) Create an ACTION program to provide funding for extracurricular activities in rural schools.
One of Gov. Riley's most successful education reforms has been the creation of the ACCESS distance learning program which allows top students in rural schools to take advanced-level coursework not available in their own school. Although enabling students to take these courses is a step in the right direction, Alabama should provide more grants and training for teachers to start debate, quiz bowl, environmental team, science olympiad, and other academic competitive programs in rural schools. As I can attest from my days in high school debate, these programs are invaluable in teaching research, study, and competition skills needed to both get into college and to do well when in college. ACTION would be a logical extension to ACCESS, encouraging the development of dozens of more innovative programs like the Speakfirst program which brought speech and debate to a number of inner-city students in the Birmingham area. This program would serve a conservative purpose by empowering students to think and reason on their own, instead of giving them handouts later in life.
(2) Increase the number of university partnerships with secondary and primary schools.
When I went to college at Georgetown, I was amazed by how many students described their high school experiences. Many were able to take university classes in university settings or at least participate in special university programs. Although these exist in Alabama, they can be far wider in their reach, including more class offerings for students and more innovative lab days and shadowing days for students. Universities throughout the state, such as West Alabama in Livingston, Troy in Southeast Alabama, Jacksonville State University in East Alabama, and other community colleges could be especially helpful in reaching out to students in rural areas. Existing programs at Alabama and Auburn should be given broader reach to give students exposure to higher learning from a young age.
(3) Create a Community-Based Learning Program for students.
As conservatives, we have a vested interest in retaining strong communities, because strong communities build strong values. Conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet once marveled at small Southern towns which provided what we today call 'social welfare' to people through churches or other organizations without needing the government. Today, communities still have much to teach young students. Students can learn science through local streams and ecologies. They can learn civics through attending town council meetings, and they can learn from others in their communities. A number of Alabama leaders have been pushing for more community-based learning programs for a number of years, and in a tight economy, these opportunities would give students 'field trips' which are a mere walking distance from the classroom. This program would play a crucial role in teaching students to be creative learners and also beginning to develop a connection to the community which could entice more top students to choose to remain in Alabama as professionals and leaders.
(4) Re-emphasize Civics as an integral part of the curriculum.
No issue is more important to the future of our Republic than a strong foundation in civic literacy. Students need to be able to read newspapers and interpret media biases accurately. They need to understand the wisdom of America's Founding documents and the importance of the governing process. Despite this necessity, Alabama students traditionally perform worst on the social studies portion of the Alabama High School Graduation Exam. That must change by emphasizing civic literacy throughout the curriculum and at elevating grade levels so that students are equipped with the skills to become good citizens.
(5) Introduce more Southern literature and themes with an Alabama focus.
As a Southern conservative, few things sadden me more than the lack of focus on local history and culture. While at Georgetown, I encountered many peers from New England or the Pacific Coast far more fluent in great Southern authors like Faulkner than I. The same could be said of their local state histories. Students should be exposed to the distinctive and interesting, albeit tenuous, histories of Alabama and the South. Not only could this aid in student retention, but it also helps students make sense of the world around them and use that world to understand even broader concepts.
(6) Develop new mentoring/community interaction opportunities.
Although no community leader could replace a teacher, community leaders and active professionals should be brought more actively into the school setting to integrate students into the community. Since students will one day be entering the work force, they should get experience early in interacting with adults. By providing students shadowing opportunities or elective options with non-profit agencies, science labs, and other options, students have more opportunities. Alabama should take the lead in allowing top high school students to earn elective credit through such community interactive projects.
(7) Introduce the study of financial literacy and planning.
As conservatives, we should care very deeply that future students are educated in the basics of financial literacy. Not only will this help them one day with more stable families, it will teach them the importance of hard work combined with sound budgeting. Last year, I had the opportunity to hear the Shelby County Board of Education consider adopting more programs to encourage financial awareness among students. This would be a smart program to adopt statewide.
(8) Prioritize Gifted Education.
As stated previously on this blog, gifted education is of paramount importance for our state's future, and it should be a top priority for our next governor.
(9) Promote Cross-curricular learning with the inclusion of art and literature.
One of the biggest problems in education today is that many students find what they study in school 'irrelevant.' Math seems never to connect to history, and history never connects to science. Alabama should take the lead in connecting the curriculum while also adding more art and music appreciation into subjects such as history and literature. William F. Buckley was one of the greatest conservative figures of the 20th century, and he always exuded a strong appreciation for the fine arts. Russell Kirk had views on art which reinforced the 'permanent things,' and many great conservatives were truly 'men of letters' who appreciated art, literature, and the humanities. Alabama students deserve at least to be exposed to these ideas while also seeing how these areas of study link to the broader curriculum.
(10) Institute a High School Service Project Requirement for Graduation.
Finally, there is no greater conservative principle than community service. It is the most basic example of the individual finding a need and addressing it without the presence of the state. In preparation for this duty of citizenship, Alabama high school seniors should be required to design, complete, and present a service project as a requirement for graduation. Far more useful than other federal proposals, this would require students to start actively thinking about needs in their communities. Many systems like Shelby County have already developed programs to get students thinking about and performing community service. This program would take it to another level by encouraging students to be more creative and more innovative.
As Dr. Bentley can see, there are plenty of creative ideas out there on education. He just needs to know where to look, and who to trust. To that end, I hope at least he can trust me because these basic ideas could move Alabama and its people forward. If we do not use the contention and discord of the recent primary to begin a productive open and honest discussion on education reform which begins with bringing people together, we'll always be forced to look to the bottom of the list to find 'Alabama' when it comes to education.
I suppose I ought to begin with the positive. All the scuffling over AEA has placed education at its rightful place at the top of Alabama's political discourse. For all the debates over gambling and facilities like Greene Track, education is the real means of economic development and advancement. Better-educated people are able to earn more, participate in more diverse job offerings, and increase the overall quality of life in this state. Unfortunately, Alabama has long lagged behind in education like many other states in the Deep South. Perhaps with this new-found focus on education, the time has come for that to change. With some innovative thinking, it is more possible than people think. The economy is struggling, and even though some communities are willing to go to gambling and other 'get rich quick' schemes, a strong case can be made that investing in education now will pay far more lasting dividends in our state than gambling casinos.
Education must also now be important to Dr. Bentley, as he has to demonstrate to skeptics in his own party that he can be trusted on education. In order to do this, he should take the lead in unveiling new and innovative ideas on education. To help the GOP's nominee, I have come up with ten ideas of my own. I think Dr. Bentley should give my blog a shot on education reform. Despite my relative youth, I do have the unique experience of having gone through K-12 public schools in Alabama my entire life. Having completed this experience far more recently than many of our public officials, I tend to think I have at least a fresher perspective on many of the problems in our schools and conservative reforms which can fix them. It's worth noting that these reforms aren't necessarily controversial. These ideas can change Alabama schools and strengthen our state's conservative values without unleashing the total war against AEA which has led almost invariably to gridlock in the past. Here are my 10 Prescriptions for Alabama Schools:
(1) Create an ACTION program to provide funding for extracurricular activities in rural schools.
One of Gov. Riley's most successful education reforms has been the creation of the ACCESS distance learning program which allows top students in rural schools to take advanced-level coursework not available in their own school. Although enabling students to take these courses is a step in the right direction, Alabama should provide more grants and training for teachers to start debate, quiz bowl, environmental team, science olympiad, and other academic competitive programs in rural schools. As I can attest from my days in high school debate, these programs are invaluable in teaching research, study, and competition skills needed to both get into college and to do well when in college. ACTION would be a logical extension to ACCESS, encouraging the development of dozens of more innovative programs like the Speakfirst program which brought speech and debate to a number of inner-city students in the Birmingham area. This program would serve a conservative purpose by empowering students to think and reason on their own, instead of giving them handouts later in life.
(2) Increase the number of university partnerships with secondary and primary schools.
When I went to college at Georgetown, I was amazed by how many students described their high school experiences. Many were able to take university classes in university settings or at least participate in special university programs. Although these exist in Alabama, they can be far wider in their reach, including more class offerings for students and more innovative lab days and shadowing days for students. Universities throughout the state, such as West Alabama in Livingston, Troy in Southeast Alabama, Jacksonville State University in East Alabama, and other community colleges could be especially helpful in reaching out to students in rural areas. Existing programs at Alabama and Auburn should be given broader reach to give students exposure to higher learning from a young age.
(3) Create a Community-Based Learning Program for students.
As conservatives, we have a vested interest in retaining strong communities, because strong communities build strong values. Conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet once marveled at small Southern towns which provided what we today call 'social welfare' to people through churches or other organizations without needing the government. Today, communities still have much to teach young students. Students can learn science through local streams and ecologies. They can learn civics through attending town council meetings, and they can learn from others in their communities. A number of Alabama leaders have been pushing for more community-based learning programs for a number of years, and in a tight economy, these opportunities would give students 'field trips' which are a mere walking distance from the classroom. This program would play a crucial role in teaching students to be creative learners and also beginning to develop a connection to the community which could entice more top students to choose to remain in Alabama as professionals and leaders.
(4) Re-emphasize Civics as an integral part of the curriculum.
No issue is more important to the future of our Republic than a strong foundation in civic literacy. Students need to be able to read newspapers and interpret media biases accurately. They need to understand the wisdom of America's Founding documents and the importance of the governing process. Despite this necessity, Alabama students traditionally perform worst on the social studies portion of the Alabama High School Graduation Exam. That must change by emphasizing civic literacy throughout the curriculum and at elevating grade levels so that students are equipped with the skills to become good citizens.
(5) Introduce more Southern literature and themes with an Alabama focus.
As a Southern conservative, few things sadden me more than the lack of focus on local history and culture. While at Georgetown, I encountered many peers from New England or the Pacific Coast far more fluent in great Southern authors like Faulkner than I. The same could be said of their local state histories. Students should be exposed to the distinctive and interesting, albeit tenuous, histories of Alabama and the South. Not only could this aid in student retention, but it also helps students make sense of the world around them and use that world to understand even broader concepts.
(6) Develop new mentoring/community interaction opportunities.
Although no community leader could replace a teacher, community leaders and active professionals should be brought more actively into the school setting to integrate students into the community. Since students will one day be entering the work force, they should get experience early in interacting with adults. By providing students shadowing opportunities or elective options with non-profit agencies, science labs, and other options, students have more opportunities. Alabama should take the lead in allowing top high school students to earn elective credit through such community interactive projects.
(7) Introduce the study of financial literacy and planning.
As conservatives, we should care very deeply that future students are educated in the basics of financial literacy. Not only will this help them one day with more stable families, it will teach them the importance of hard work combined with sound budgeting. Last year, I had the opportunity to hear the Shelby County Board of Education consider adopting more programs to encourage financial awareness among students. This would be a smart program to adopt statewide.
(8) Prioritize Gifted Education.
As stated previously on this blog, gifted education is of paramount importance for our state's future, and it should be a top priority for our next governor.
(9) Promote Cross-curricular learning with the inclusion of art and literature.
One of the biggest problems in education today is that many students find what they study in school 'irrelevant.' Math seems never to connect to history, and history never connects to science. Alabama should take the lead in connecting the curriculum while also adding more art and music appreciation into subjects such as history and literature. William F. Buckley was one of the greatest conservative figures of the 20th century, and he always exuded a strong appreciation for the fine arts. Russell Kirk had views on art which reinforced the 'permanent things,' and many great conservatives were truly 'men of letters' who appreciated art, literature, and the humanities. Alabama students deserve at least to be exposed to these ideas while also seeing how these areas of study link to the broader curriculum.
(10) Institute a High School Service Project Requirement for Graduation.
Finally, there is no greater conservative principle than community service. It is the most basic example of the individual finding a need and addressing it without the presence of the state. In preparation for this duty of citizenship, Alabama high school seniors should be required to design, complete, and present a service project as a requirement for graduation. Far more useful than other federal proposals, this would require students to start actively thinking about needs in their communities. Many systems like Shelby County have already developed programs to get students thinking about and performing community service. This program would take it to another level by encouraging students to be more creative and more innovative.
As Dr. Bentley can see, there are plenty of creative ideas out there on education. He just needs to know where to look, and who to trust. To that end, I hope at least he can trust me because these basic ideas could move Alabama and its people forward. If we do not use the contention and discord of the recent primary to begin a productive open and honest discussion on education reform which begins with bringing people together, we'll always be forced to look to the bottom of the list to find 'Alabama' when it comes to education.
Bentley Wins: Reflections
As I write this evening returns continue to pour in but upstart candidate Dr. Robert Bentley appears to have handily taken the GOP gubernatorial nomination against establishment-backed Bradley Byrne. Political analysts will be quick to analyze issues such as crossover voting, AEA support, and advertising strategy in coming days. Republicans will have to begin licking wounds and mending fences if they hope to win in November. As I argued before the election, Dr. Bentley should be just the man to mend those fences. In the wake of Dr. Bentley's victory, it is worth considering what should be important as the GOP begins to pick up the pieces and focus on November.
It's worth taking a moment to analyze why Dr. Bentley ultimately won and Mr. Byrne ultimately lost. There will be lots of speculation about what happened, but there are several clear trends. First, Byrne's pugnacious style gained him few allies among the electorate or even among his fellow candidates. However, the most surprising fact is that the Birmingham News predicted this result back in June, and no one ever seemed to listen. The News warned that Byrne could win the I-65 corridor while losing the state itself. It appears, as ABC 33-40 just indicated, that Bentley made even more inroads in these rural areas after his initial surprising performance June 1.
From this win, Dr. Bentley should draw key lessons which would serve him well both as a candidate and as a governor. Bentley won the GOP nomination by carefully crafting a coalition of disaffected voters dissatisfied with the 'business as usual' approach down in Montgomery. However, one notices that these types of protests often end simply in protest. Bentley managed to do something more--he convinced these people that he could be a viable candidate who could represent them fairly in Montgomery. He was so persuasive that they showed up at the polls, made their stand, and have placed him in surprising position to be Alabama's next governor. Bentley's strategy should guide him through November, and should he win, it should guide him through his first four-year term.
Dr. Bentley must also remember the constituencies which carried him to the nomination. Bentley won the hearts of rural Alabama, and that is where true southern conservatism was born and continues to reside. It was the South described by Richard Weaver when he noted that the South, unlike the North, retained a strong Burkean since of tradition. These small towns are struggling these days, and they voted for Dr. Bentley from the hope for a new way forward.
Throughout his campaign ads, Dr. Bentley promised not to forget these people and to 'never profit from his office.' I hope Dr. Bentley will keep this promise and raise it to the next level, by promising to bring real reform to these parts of Alabama. By bucking the GOP establishment, Dr. Bentley has the opportunity to provide a distinctive voice for these parts of Alabama. It is my hope that Bentley will promote real economic development in these parts of Alabama instead of unreliable fixes like illegal gaming. I hope Dr. Bentley will promote more innovative education programs like Gov. Riley's ACCESS program designed to bring more academic opportunities for Alabama students in rural areas (more on that soon). The opportunities are endless for Dr. Bentley to create a Comprehensive Plan for Alabama's Future. I have every hope that he will do so.
Students of Alabama politics will be studying this election for many years. Dr. Bentley has undergone a meteoric rise from underdog to top dog. Now, he has to prove that he is a real leader and not a fluke. Many GOPers are skeptical at the moment, but I have confidence that Dr. Bentley can overcome these skeptics and prove a capable candidate and reliable governor. Conservatives can at least take heart that he is attuned to the small town voters where Southern conservatism traces its truest roots.
It's worth taking a moment to analyze why Dr. Bentley ultimately won and Mr. Byrne ultimately lost. There will be lots of speculation about what happened, but there are several clear trends. First, Byrne's pugnacious style gained him few allies among the electorate or even among his fellow candidates. However, the most surprising fact is that the Birmingham News predicted this result back in June, and no one ever seemed to listen. The News warned that Byrne could win the I-65 corridor while losing the state itself. It appears, as ABC 33-40 just indicated, that Bentley made even more inroads in these rural areas after his initial surprising performance June 1.
From this win, Dr. Bentley should draw key lessons which would serve him well both as a candidate and as a governor. Bentley won the GOP nomination by carefully crafting a coalition of disaffected voters dissatisfied with the 'business as usual' approach down in Montgomery. However, one notices that these types of protests often end simply in protest. Bentley managed to do something more--he convinced these people that he could be a viable candidate who could represent them fairly in Montgomery. He was so persuasive that they showed up at the polls, made their stand, and have placed him in surprising position to be Alabama's next governor. Bentley's strategy should guide him through November, and should he win, it should guide him through his first four-year term.
Dr. Bentley must also remember the constituencies which carried him to the nomination. Bentley won the hearts of rural Alabama, and that is where true southern conservatism was born and continues to reside. It was the South described by Richard Weaver when he noted that the South, unlike the North, retained a strong Burkean since of tradition. These small towns are struggling these days, and they voted for Dr. Bentley from the hope for a new way forward.
Throughout his campaign ads, Dr. Bentley promised not to forget these people and to 'never profit from his office.' I hope Dr. Bentley will keep this promise and raise it to the next level, by promising to bring real reform to these parts of Alabama. By bucking the GOP establishment, Dr. Bentley has the opportunity to provide a distinctive voice for these parts of Alabama. It is my hope that Bentley will promote real economic development in these parts of Alabama instead of unreliable fixes like illegal gaming. I hope Dr. Bentley will promote more innovative education programs like Gov. Riley's ACCESS program designed to bring more academic opportunities for Alabama students in rural areas (more on that soon). The opportunities are endless for Dr. Bentley to create a Comprehensive Plan for Alabama's Future. I have every hope that he will do so.
Students of Alabama politics will be studying this election for many years. Dr. Bentley has undergone a meteoric rise from underdog to top dog. Now, he has to prove that he is a real leader and not a fluke. Many GOPers are skeptical at the moment, but I have confidence that Dr. Bentley can overcome these skeptics and prove a capable candidate and reliable governor. Conservatives can at least take heart that he is attuned to the small town voters where Southern conservatism traces its truest roots.
Monday, July 12, 2010
My Vote Tomorrow: For Robert Bentley
For some time, I have hesitated to make an endorsement in the contentious GOP race for governor, for several reasons. First, I have such immense respect for many of my friends on both sides of this race, and second, there has been little evidence of a true visionary in this race. Bradley Byrne has, for the most part, made this a referendum on his opponents and AEA, using vitriol and negativity at every stop in order to attack those who criticize them, whether those attacks are real or assumed. Bentley has run a positive campaign, though he has also dodged on specifics. Bentley's public campaign has largely focused on issues like his willingness to refuse a salary which are, at best, cosmetic fixes to the state's problems.
Despite these reservations, I believe Bentley is the clear choice for the GOP in tomorrow's primary, and I will be voting for him. Looking at the ads which have recently run, they actually do provide some evidence toward who could be a better leader of our state. Recent history shows that governors have been shaped by how they have dealt with failure instead of success. Gov. Don Siegelman ran in the 1990s on an education lottery, and after his program was denied by voters, his administration spiraled into ultimate failure (and corruption). Gov. Riley proposed Amendment 1 to raise Alabama's taxes for education, and this also failed miserably when put to a statewide vote. However, Gov. Riley responded by working around his failings to create real change in Alabama. On education, he worked around the AEA to pass responsible budgets and develop innovative programs like the ACCESS Distance Learning Program, the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI), and other programs to encourage better education in Alabama. He has worked tirelessly to bring economic development to the state, reaching out directly to Europe and Asia to promote investment opportunities in Alabama. Most importantly, he has worked with Alabama's leaders in Washington, notably Sen. Jeff Sessions, on proposals such as the ThyssenKrupp steel development near Mobile and the ever-controversial Airbus proposal for a new military tanker to be built near Mobile. Gov. Riley has done this while fighting for real ethics reform without clear results and reaching what could largely be considered a stalemate on gambling. Gov. Riley has fought issues where he knows the odds are against him, but he has also been willing to select issues where he knows he can succeed, building a better state along the way.
Although Gov. Riley has endorsed Byrne, I think Bentley is clearly the better successor to Riley's legacy. Humility as an over-used term in politics which rarely applies to candidates, but Mr. Byrne has taken political hubris to a new level. Byrne adopted an 'every man for himself' tactic of negativity in the initial crowded primary, and he has brought a similar level of negativity to the runoff against Mr. Bentley. Bentley, on the other hand, has adopted a positive campaign, and positive campaigns can build coalitions. By making fewer enemies, Dr. Bentley has a better chance to actually gain results in Montgomery, and by all accounts, Bentley is also a true conservative candidate. Bentley offers the possibility for addressing health care needs in this state, economic growth, and improved education. The gentle touch which he has applied during the primary will serve him well in Montgomery, allowing him to work around difficult issues while still improving the state. Mr. Byrne has not shown that he can deal with individuals and build coalitions around those who disagree with him. By all accounts, many of the GOP rivals in the initial primary have supported Bentley. If Byrne can't play well with his fellow Republicans, what makes voters think he can get results when fighting against hostile Democrats who may well retain control of the legislature heading into 2011?
Like many in the GOP, I dislike the AEA. Top gun Paul Hubbert has often been a force against reasonable change in Alabama, on education reform like charter schools and on ethics reform like double-dipping rules for legislators. Hubbert is a major reason why Alabama has failed to move forward in recent decades. That said, the level of GOP posturing on the issue, including a forced resignation of an ALGOP local official with ties to Hubbert, has reached the level of a laughable and irresponsible witch hunt. Anyone who has ever read Arthur Miller's Crucible knows that witch hunts rarely end well, and by voting against a candidate for assumed ties to Hubbert or his friends, GOP voters are still allowing the AEA undue influence over their party. Meanwhile, though Byrne has criticized Bentley's ties to AEA, few have questioned Byrne's ties to large numbers of PAC contributions, highly wealthy independent donors, and large businesses like Alabama Power. Traditional conservatives were equally critical of big government and big business. Byrne's contributions from a who's who of wealthy Alabama donors total far more than Bentley's contributions from AEA, and this is certainly a problem.
Meanwhile, Byrne's connections do cause concern. In recent days, Byrne has received support from major Republican officials, namely Governor Riley and Congressmen Spencer Bachus and Jo Bonner. To some, this may be an awe-inspiring show of support for Mr. Byrne. To me, it reeks of the political desperation of a well-connected candidate. Instead of 'wowing us' with his views, Byrne is trying to 'wow us' with his wealthy and powerful friends. Having to resort to this type of campaigning does not speak well of his ability to deal with the hurly-burly of Montgomery politics as a top executive.
Thus, to me, there is a clear choice on election day, and I'll be voting for Bentley. It should come as no surprise that when the generally conservative Rasmussen Reports provided a poll on the Alabama race, Bentley performed better against Democrat Ron Sparks than Byrne. Both beat Sparks, though Byrne won 49-40 and Bentley won 56-37. Thus, Bentley gives the GOP both a better chance at victory in November and Alabamians a stronger assurance of a better next four years. Bentley deserves praise for his work in elevating himself from a likable candidate to a serious candidate, and GOP voters would be smart to reward him tomorrow with their vote to be the next governor of Alabama.
Despite these reservations, I believe Bentley is the clear choice for the GOP in tomorrow's primary, and I will be voting for him. Looking at the ads which have recently run, they actually do provide some evidence toward who could be a better leader of our state. Recent history shows that governors have been shaped by how they have dealt with failure instead of success. Gov. Don Siegelman ran in the 1990s on an education lottery, and after his program was denied by voters, his administration spiraled into ultimate failure (and corruption). Gov. Riley proposed Amendment 1 to raise Alabama's taxes for education, and this also failed miserably when put to a statewide vote. However, Gov. Riley responded by working around his failings to create real change in Alabama. On education, he worked around the AEA to pass responsible budgets and develop innovative programs like the ACCESS Distance Learning Program, the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI), and other programs to encourage better education in Alabama. He has worked tirelessly to bring economic development to the state, reaching out directly to Europe and Asia to promote investment opportunities in Alabama. Most importantly, he has worked with Alabama's leaders in Washington, notably Sen. Jeff Sessions, on proposals such as the ThyssenKrupp steel development near Mobile and the ever-controversial Airbus proposal for a new military tanker to be built near Mobile. Gov. Riley has done this while fighting for real ethics reform without clear results and reaching what could largely be considered a stalemate on gambling. Gov. Riley has fought issues where he knows the odds are against him, but he has also been willing to select issues where he knows he can succeed, building a better state along the way.
Although Gov. Riley has endorsed Byrne, I think Bentley is clearly the better successor to Riley's legacy. Humility as an over-used term in politics which rarely applies to candidates, but Mr. Byrne has taken political hubris to a new level. Byrne adopted an 'every man for himself' tactic of negativity in the initial crowded primary, and he has brought a similar level of negativity to the runoff against Mr. Bentley. Bentley, on the other hand, has adopted a positive campaign, and positive campaigns can build coalitions. By making fewer enemies, Dr. Bentley has a better chance to actually gain results in Montgomery, and by all accounts, Bentley is also a true conservative candidate. Bentley offers the possibility for addressing health care needs in this state, economic growth, and improved education. The gentle touch which he has applied during the primary will serve him well in Montgomery, allowing him to work around difficult issues while still improving the state. Mr. Byrne has not shown that he can deal with individuals and build coalitions around those who disagree with him. By all accounts, many of the GOP rivals in the initial primary have supported Bentley. If Byrne can't play well with his fellow Republicans, what makes voters think he can get results when fighting against hostile Democrats who may well retain control of the legislature heading into 2011?
Like many in the GOP, I dislike the AEA. Top gun Paul Hubbert has often been a force against reasonable change in Alabama, on education reform like charter schools and on ethics reform like double-dipping rules for legislators. Hubbert is a major reason why Alabama has failed to move forward in recent decades. That said, the level of GOP posturing on the issue, including a forced resignation of an ALGOP local official with ties to Hubbert, has reached the level of a laughable and irresponsible witch hunt. Anyone who has ever read Arthur Miller's Crucible knows that witch hunts rarely end well, and by voting against a candidate for assumed ties to Hubbert or his friends, GOP voters are still allowing the AEA undue influence over their party. Meanwhile, though Byrne has criticized Bentley's ties to AEA, few have questioned Byrne's ties to large numbers of PAC contributions, highly wealthy independent donors, and large businesses like Alabama Power. Traditional conservatives were equally critical of big government and big business. Byrne's contributions from a who's who of wealthy Alabama donors total far more than Bentley's contributions from AEA, and this is certainly a problem.
Meanwhile, Byrne's connections do cause concern. In recent days, Byrne has received support from major Republican officials, namely Governor Riley and Congressmen Spencer Bachus and Jo Bonner. To some, this may be an awe-inspiring show of support for Mr. Byrne. To me, it reeks of the political desperation of a well-connected candidate. Instead of 'wowing us' with his views, Byrne is trying to 'wow us' with his wealthy and powerful friends. Having to resort to this type of campaigning does not speak well of his ability to deal with the hurly-burly of Montgomery politics as a top executive.
Thus, to me, there is a clear choice on election day, and I'll be voting for Bentley. It should come as no surprise that when the generally conservative Rasmussen Reports provided a poll on the Alabama race, Bentley performed better against Democrat Ron Sparks than Byrne. Both beat Sparks, though Byrne won 49-40 and Bentley won 56-37. Thus, Bentley gives the GOP both a better chance at victory in November and Alabamians a stronger assurance of a better next four years. Bentley deserves praise for his work in elevating himself from a likable candidate to a serious candidate, and GOP voters would be smart to reward him tomorrow with their vote to be the next governor of Alabama.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Next Stop: Gay Marriage?
Some who follow politics will remember the debates over gay marriage in the Senate during the summer of 2004. At that moment, President Bush encouraged senators to preserve a traditional definition of marriage and family by means of federal amendment. Senators wrangled over the issue of the Federal Marriage Amendment in July, and it ultimately failed due to the wayward votes of a handful of Republicans, including one-time GOP nominee John McCain. Looking back on that debate, we receive an intriguing lesson in failed promises. At that time, Democrats and moderate Republicans opposed a federal amendment because they claimed the issue was already resolved by the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed overwhelmingly by Congress during the Clinton Administration. This law, they claimed was more than sufficient to protect a traditional definition of marriage, and social conservatives ultimately lost that battle.
Now, we fast-forward six years. After a number of amendments protecting marriage were passed during the 2004 and 2006 elections, a reverse trend has begun to occur. States like Iowa have allowed for same-sex marriage, but that paled in comparison to a decision made by a judge in Massachusetts yesterday. Judge Joseph Tauro struck down DOMA as unconstitutional, noting that marriage is to be strictly defined by the states. The decision was hailed as a major victory by same-sex marriage advocates, and the DOMA case will likely be heard by the US Supreme Court, prompting a nationwide look into the issue. This court battle will likely occur alongside the fights in federal court in California over Proposition 8.
The end result confirms what social conservatives feared in 2004, which was that the only way to protect marriage was to define it constitutionally through the purpose of amendment. In many ways, marriage in some shape or form deserves some sort of constitutional clarification. Family was clearly important to the Founders, but the definition of family was taken for granted and not called into question. Although the State has taken over many responsibilities over the course of time, the family remains an important element of American civil society, culturing children toward playing a productive role in society. Whatever the definition of family that exists, it needs to be set and acknowledged by the state. In the increasingly mobile American society, it's difficult to conceive of a permanent solution of different states with different actions. In many ways, liberal states simply won't allow it. Look at issues like same-sex marriage and healthcare. Once Massachusetts has adopted a particular position, they seek to have their interpretation adopted one way or another by every other state. The end result is that marriage will be defined, either by a legislator or a court, at the federal level.
I, for one, want to see Congress tackle the issue. For too long, Congress has simply exported difficult issues to the court system. When difficult issues like abortion have surfaced, Congress has often willingly taken a backseat to justices who have never been subjected to a popular vote. This has given the court a power never anticipated by the Founders. The Founders actually thought the courts would be the weakest branch, since they could neither raise armies or curry popular favor. They were only supported by the power of their judgments, though the courts are now considered 'untouchable.'
I also hope that conservatives will stand together and attempt to resurrect the American family by giving it a traditional definition. Although homosexuality itself cannot and should not be made illegal, marriage is a social institution and social institutions are a reflection of a society's values. America's clearest way to reflect its social values is by defining marriage as a traditional home between a man and a woman. American families are suffering, given the high divorce rates and technological changes of the present day. It's difficult for parents to retain control of their kids who are increasingly in touch with the outside world from an early age, and families often are breaking apart. Instead of simply adopting resolutions which could (and likely would) make these problems worse, we should take the initiative to improve this institution. Without the family, children are only left with the State to culture them into society.
Thus, the recent court ruling on DOMA provides conservatives with several lessons. One is that same-sex marriage will likely have to be resolved, one way or the other, at the federal level. It cannot simply be engaged at the state level through state amendment protections. Another is that the moderates and liberals misled the public on the strength of the DOMA law. No law of Congress is protected from an increasingly activist judiciary. If social conservatives care about this issue, they would be wise to not be fooled again.
Now, we fast-forward six years. After a number of amendments protecting marriage were passed during the 2004 and 2006 elections, a reverse trend has begun to occur. States like Iowa have allowed for same-sex marriage, but that paled in comparison to a decision made by a judge in Massachusetts yesterday. Judge Joseph Tauro struck down DOMA as unconstitutional, noting that marriage is to be strictly defined by the states. The decision was hailed as a major victory by same-sex marriage advocates, and the DOMA case will likely be heard by the US Supreme Court, prompting a nationwide look into the issue. This court battle will likely occur alongside the fights in federal court in California over Proposition 8.
The end result confirms what social conservatives feared in 2004, which was that the only way to protect marriage was to define it constitutionally through the purpose of amendment. In many ways, marriage in some shape or form deserves some sort of constitutional clarification. Family was clearly important to the Founders, but the definition of family was taken for granted and not called into question. Although the State has taken over many responsibilities over the course of time, the family remains an important element of American civil society, culturing children toward playing a productive role in society. Whatever the definition of family that exists, it needs to be set and acknowledged by the state. In the increasingly mobile American society, it's difficult to conceive of a permanent solution of different states with different actions. In many ways, liberal states simply won't allow it. Look at issues like same-sex marriage and healthcare. Once Massachusetts has adopted a particular position, they seek to have their interpretation adopted one way or another by every other state. The end result is that marriage will be defined, either by a legislator or a court, at the federal level.
I, for one, want to see Congress tackle the issue. For too long, Congress has simply exported difficult issues to the court system. When difficult issues like abortion have surfaced, Congress has often willingly taken a backseat to justices who have never been subjected to a popular vote. This has given the court a power never anticipated by the Founders. The Founders actually thought the courts would be the weakest branch, since they could neither raise armies or curry popular favor. They were only supported by the power of their judgments, though the courts are now considered 'untouchable.'
I also hope that conservatives will stand together and attempt to resurrect the American family by giving it a traditional definition. Although homosexuality itself cannot and should not be made illegal, marriage is a social institution and social institutions are a reflection of a society's values. America's clearest way to reflect its social values is by defining marriage as a traditional home between a man and a woman. American families are suffering, given the high divorce rates and technological changes of the present day. It's difficult for parents to retain control of their kids who are increasingly in touch with the outside world from an early age, and families often are breaking apart. Instead of simply adopting resolutions which could (and likely would) make these problems worse, we should take the initiative to improve this institution. Without the family, children are only left with the State to culture them into society.
Thus, the recent court ruling on DOMA provides conservatives with several lessons. One is that same-sex marriage will likely have to be resolved, one way or the other, at the federal level. It cannot simply be engaged at the state level through state amendment protections. Another is that the moderates and liberals misled the public on the strength of the DOMA law. No law of Congress is protected from an increasingly activist judiciary. If social conservatives care about this issue, they would be wise to not be fooled again.
Irondale Acts: Making Sense of Immigration
Immigration has been in the national news a lot in recent weeks. President Obama recently made a speech calling for immigration reform while offering few specifics, and the Justice Department run by Eric Holder announced its intention to challenge the constitutionality of the Arizona immigration law which made national headlines throughout the spring. On national news programs, those who oppose immigration 'reform' are cast as nativists, racists, and jingoists, referring to the early 1900s. This week, Irondale, a Birmingham suburb, waded into the issue when the city council there passed 4-2 a resolution allowing officers to look into the immigration status of individuals who are stopped by the police or are under investigation. All of these situations, taken together, pose questions on immigration and state's rights.
There is a very simple question: can conservatives oppose illegal immigration without being racists, nativists, or 'uncivilized' in the face of our changing world? My answer is a resounding yes, and it is time to separate the emotion from this issue and look at both difficult moral questions and questions of national security. Those who listen to many so-called 'Republicans' who support immigration reform will lament that the party has been hijacked by angry racists, and it is true, there are people in the world who have backward views on race and class. That does not mean that all (or even most) people who oppose immigration reform are doing so out of racism.
Considering the immigration bills recently debated in Washington, there have been plenty of concerns. Several years ago when the Senate became embroiled in a bitter debate over immigration, there were questions over whether an amnesty proposal would actually work. The Senate bill at the time was projected to stop at most 13% of illegal crossings over the border while providing amnesty for those already here. Thus, there was little guarantee that the Senate plan would actually address the border-crossing crisis and prevent the need for another amnesty in 10 to 20 years. That was the case after the 1986 amnesty which ultimately failed to solve the border problem.
Let's face it, the border in our country is a major problem. It is a human rights issue because Hispanic laborers seeking a better life in the US risk their lives attempting to cross through miles of hot desert or in the backs of trucks. At the very least, American and Mexican officials should have a shared interest in shutting down this risky, dangerous, and illegal form of human movement. Additionally, it is a security issue in a number of ways. The border is a major passage point for drugs and other unsavory sorts of criminal activities, and this should be shut down. Finally, it's also a highly dangerous national security issue. If al qaeda and those who wish to do Americans harm see a weakness in this country, it's naive to believe they won't try to exploit that weakness. It is past time for America's leaders to devote significant resources to protecting Americans at home instead of just fighting them overseas.
Finally, there are other aspects of recent immigration 'reforms' which should cause concern, beginning with the idea of the 'guest worker program.' The term sounds benign, but it has some significant potential consequences worth considering. Most of us could not begin to count the times we have been called a 'nation of immigrants' in recent years, and that is very much true. Most Americans have arrived from other nations and brought skills, cultures, and dreams to the United States. However, those who came to America often sought citizenship. They came with their families and over the course of decades became permanently integrated into American society and culture. They voted in elections, ran for office, founded corporations, attended churches, and invigorated American civil society in dynamic ways. Under a 'guest worker program,' though, America's new immigrants would be temporary workers whose families would stay at home. They would work in the most menial jobs to send money home and then leave in several years. In essence, many Americans would support an 'imported underclass' to perform the jobs they do not want to do themselves. Perhaps this is simply an adaptation to changing circumstances, but it is worth of significant debate. Should America be comfortable with temporary workers, and could these workers exist without the sorts of unrest we find in European countries like France?
For a variety of reasons, the federal government has failed to solve the immigration policy, and now states have gotten desperate enough to try their own hand. Back when I was in grade school, I learned that the role of the president is to enforce the law. For President Obama, he is not enforcing the law, and he is actually attempting to prevent others from enforcing the law. He is shirking the law. Perhaps the Irondale resolution is not the perfect step, but it is a step toward enforcement of the law. The next step is to send lawmakers to Washington this November who will get this issue resolved and allow America to remain a nation of immigrants while also protecting those who are here and the dreams of those who wish to come here.
There is a very simple question: can conservatives oppose illegal immigration without being racists, nativists, or 'uncivilized' in the face of our changing world? My answer is a resounding yes, and it is time to separate the emotion from this issue and look at both difficult moral questions and questions of national security. Those who listen to many so-called 'Republicans' who support immigration reform will lament that the party has been hijacked by angry racists, and it is true, there are people in the world who have backward views on race and class. That does not mean that all (or even most) people who oppose immigration reform are doing so out of racism.
Considering the immigration bills recently debated in Washington, there have been plenty of concerns. Several years ago when the Senate became embroiled in a bitter debate over immigration, there were questions over whether an amnesty proposal would actually work. The Senate bill at the time was projected to stop at most 13% of illegal crossings over the border while providing amnesty for those already here. Thus, there was little guarantee that the Senate plan would actually address the border-crossing crisis and prevent the need for another amnesty in 10 to 20 years. That was the case after the 1986 amnesty which ultimately failed to solve the border problem.
Let's face it, the border in our country is a major problem. It is a human rights issue because Hispanic laborers seeking a better life in the US risk their lives attempting to cross through miles of hot desert or in the backs of trucks. At the very least, American and Mexican officials should have a shared interest in shutting down this risky, dangerous, and illegal form of human movement. Additionally, it is a security issue in a number of ways. The border is a major passage point for drugs and other unsavory sorts of criminal activities, and this should be shut down. Finally, it's also a highly dangerous national security issue. If al qaeda and those who wish to do Americans harm see a weakness in this country, it's naive to believe they won't try to exploit that weakness. It is past time for America's leaders to devote significant resources to protecting Americans at home instead of just fighting them overseas.
Finally, there are other aspects of recent immigration 'reforms' which should cause concern, beginning with the idea of the 'guest worker program.' The term sounds benign, but it has some significant potential consequences worth considering. Most of us could not begin to count the times we have been called a 'nation of immigrants' in recent years, and that is very much true. Most Americans have arrived from other nations and brought skills, cultures, and dreams to the United States. However, those who came to America often sought citizenship. They came with their families and over the course of decades became permanently integrated into American society and culture. They voted in elections, ran for office, founded corporations, attended churches, and invigorated American civil society in dynamic ways. Under a 'guest worker program,' though, America's new immigrants would be temporary workers whose families would stay at home. They would work in the most menial jobs to send money home and then leave in several years. In essence, many Americans would support an 'imported underclass' to perform the jobs they do not want to do themselves. Perhaps this is simply an adaptation to changing circumstances, but it is worth of significant debate. Should America be comfortable with temporary workers, and could these workers exist without the sorts of unrest we find in European countries like France?
For a variety of reasons, the federal government has failed to solve the immigration policy, and now states have gotten desperate enough to try their own hand. Back when I was in grade school, I learned that the role of the president is to enforce the law. For President Obama, he is not enforcing the law, and he is actually attempting to prevent others from enforcing the law. He is shirking the law. Perhaps the Irondale resolution is not the perfect step, but it is a step toward enforcement of the law. The next step is to send lawmakers to Washington this November who will get this issue resolved and allow America to remain a nation of immigrants while also protecting those who are here and the dreams of those who wish to come here.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Reaching Alabama's Top Students: Problems in Education
Three years ago, I left Alabama after attending public schools all my life and headed to Washington to attend college at Georgetown University. Last month, I was able to walk across the stage as a college graduate. The experience taught me several lessons about the educational world in which we live. Having the ability to look at my undergraduate education as a completed whole, I realized that two major factors allowed me to graduate ahead of schedule and actually excel in college--the ability to take advanced coursework in high school and numerous opportunities to excel in extracurricular academic activities. I also saw firsthand one of the great problems that many states face, that being the issue of retaining top students who leave their home states for college. Most of my peers at Georgetown have either remained in Washington or gone on to work in large cities. In the graduating class before me in 2009, over 60% of graduating seniors who participated in the school's exit survey worked in either Washington, DC, or New York. More students reported working in China (8) than going on to work in over 40 US states. Although these records are just the results of one university, they reflect a broader ideal that graduates from America's top universities stay concentrated in major cities and do not return to the communities from which they come. Thus, states like Alabama have a two-fold problem. They must equip students to excel at top colleges to participate in an increasingly global economy, and they must also work at keeping those top students in Alabama.
Here in Alabama, our education policy often emanates from Paul Hubbert and the AEA, the teacher's lobby. For a long time, conservatives have been pitted against AEA, for many valid reasons. However, I think what has been lost in the debate over the AEA's impact in state politics is an actual debate over how to improve Alabama schools, and that's what we desperately need today. Conservatives believe in facilitating excellence--government is doing its job in part if it can empower individuals to act in their own best interest. Too often, Alabama's education policies have favored the median and not the extremes. In recent years great advances have been made in what is commonly called 'special education,' or the education of students with learning disabilities. While I laud these advances, it is well past time for Alabama to start emphasizing the other end of its educational spectrum and creating more opportunities for its top gifted students.
Gifted education needs in this state break down into two areas--opportunities inside the classroom and opportunities outside the classroom. Inside the classroom gifted students benefit from advanced and honors courses in a wide variety of subject areas taught by experienced faculty as well as opportunities for internships, college course offerings, and innovative programs. Outside the classroom, students benefit from extracurricular activities which include competitive academic clubs and teams, shadowing programs and internships, and other opportunities to reinforce and enhance skills learned inside the classroom. In April 2009, the Department of Education noted a general correlation between students who took Advanced Placement courses in earning higher college GPAs, completing more credits, and attaining higher graduation rates than those who took non-AP courses in particular subject areas. To that end, Governor Riley and Superintendent Morton deserve credit for making Advanced Placement programs more accessible. In 2008, the College Board found that Alabama was outpacing the national average in both participation and performance. Programs like A+ College Readiness, the ACCESS Distance Learning Program, and the Math and Science Initiative have had great success in increasing the ability of students to participate and excel in advanced-level coursework.
Despite these gains, that doesn't mean the state can't do more. During my school years, I often witnessed qualified teachers retiring and new inexperienced teachers taking their place. School systems across Alabama need to develop better systems to guarantee that experienced teachers are ready to take over advanced-level courses and that schools continue to develop better course offerings for top students. From a young age, the state would also benefit from increasing accessibility to and effectiveness of gifted programs. According to the Department of Education, 4.8% of Alabama students participated in gifted programs in 2004 and 5.5% participated in 2006. This is below the national average of 6.7% in both years. Additionally, students who participate in those programs receive different levels of effectiveness. Some enterprising schools have worked out opportunities for high school gifted students to opt out of some elective coursework to pursue internships, lab experience, or other opportunities and projects in their communities. These programs which tie students to their communities play a critical role in student retention, but they should be more widely accessible across the state. Businesses, labs, universities, and other entities across the state should work in closer cooperation with public schools to offer these opportunities to top students.
Finally, Alabama must commit itself to providing students with ample opportunities in competitive academic teams and must invest resources into these programs. The Department of Education noted that student participation in sports in the South region increased from 38.6% in 1994 to 42.1% in 2004. However, participation in academic clubs in the South region decreased from 28.4% in 1994 to 23.5% in 2004. Relatively few high schools in Alabama have competitive academic quiz bowl teams, debate teams, or other programs. During my high school years, I was fortunate to travel across the state and region competing in debate contests. Through that process, I learned the most significant skills which allowed me to excel in college. I spent long nights assiduously researching, learned to present information in a persuasive and organized fashion, and developed an ability to think quickly. Had it not been for these experiences I would have still gone to college, but I would significantly lost on skills needed to succeed while in college. During my years, roughly a dozen Alabama high schools had successful debate programs. Stephen Black of the University of Alabama developed a SpeakFirst program to make debate competition accessible to students from a number of inner-city high schools. The Birmingham News touted the young program in a 2007 piece on accessibility of education resources to top students in Birmingham city schools. Alabama needs more programs like SpeakFirst in counties and towns across the state, and innovative programs such as this one should become more of a reality and less of an exception for Alabama students.
For decades, Alabama politicians have campaigned on the platform that Alabama must race to the top and cannot be last forever. To his credit, Gov. Riley has worked to pursue a number of these objectives at the state level. Back in 2007, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions successfully sponsored and passed a law called the Striving Readers initiative to increase literacy programs across the spectrum at the K-12 level. Frankly, both Alabama and America desperately need now a "Striving Strivers" initiative, for lack of a better term, providing more resources and opportunities for those students who have the strongest love to strive for more learning. As the statistics show, there is a lot of room for educational improvement in this state, and it is time at long last to make the top students a priority. If not, more of our top minds will continue to leave our state and eventually our nation in pursuit of greener pastures overseas.
Here in Alabama, our education policy often emanates from Paul Hubbert and the AEA, the teacher's lobby. For a long time, conservatives have been pitted against AEA, for many valid reasons. However, I think what has been lost in the debate over the AEA's impact in state politics is an actual debate over how to improve Alabama schools, and that's what we desperately need today. Conservatives believe in facilitating excellence--government is doing its job in part if it can empower individuals to act in their own best interest. Too often, Alabama's education policies have favored the median and not the extremes. In recent years great advances have been made in what is commonly called 'special education,' or the education of students with learning disabilities. While I laud these advances, it is well past time for Alabama to start emphasizing the other end of its educational spectrum and creating more opportunities for its top gifted students.
Gifted education needs in this state break down into two areas--opportunities inside the classroom and opportunities outside the classroom. Inside the classroom gifted students benefit from advanced and honors courses in a wide variety of subject areas taught by experienced faculty as well as opportunities for internships, college course offerings, and innovative programs. Outside the classroom, students benefit from extracurricular activities which include competitive academic clubs and teams, shadowing programs and internships, and other opportunities to reinforce and enhance skills learned inside the classroom. In April 2009, the Department of Education noted a general correlation between students who took Advanced Placement courses in earning higher college GPAs, completing more credits, and attaining higher graduation rates than those who took non-AP courses in particular subject areas. To that end, Governor Riley and Superintendent Morton deserve credit for making Advanced Placement programs more accessible. In 2008, the College Board found that Alabama was outpacing the national average in both participation and performance. Programs like A+ College Readiness, the ACCESS Distance Learning Program, and the Math and Science Initiative have had great success in increasing the ability of students to participate and excel in advanced-level coursework.
Despite these gains, that doesn't mean the state can't do more. During my school years, I often witnessed qualified teachers retiring and new inexperienced teachers taking their place. School systems across Alabama need to develop better systems to guarantee that experienced teachers are ready to take over advanced-level courses and that schools continue to develop better course offerings for top students. From a young age, the state would also benefit from increasing accessibility to and effectiveness of gifted programs. According to the Department of Education, 4.8% of Alabama students participated in gifted programs in 2004 and 5.5% participated in 2006. This is below the national average of 6.7% in both years. Additionally, students who participate in those programs receive different levels of effectiveness. Some enterprising schools have worked out opportunities for high school gifted students to opt out of some elective coursework to pursue internships, lab experience, or other opportunities and projects in their communities. These programs which tie students to their communities play a critical role in student retention, but they should be more widely accessible across the state. Businesses, labs, universities, and other entities across the state should work in closer cooperation with public schools to offer these opportunities to top students.
Finally, Alabama must commit itself to providing students with ample opportunities in competitive academic teams and must invest resources into these programs. The Department of Education noted that student participation in sports in the South region increased from 38.6% in 1994 to 42.1% in 2004. However, participation in academic clubs in the South region decreased from 28.4% in 1994 to 23.5% in 2004. Relatively few high schools in Alabama have competitive academic quiz bowl teams, debate teams, or other programs. During my high school years, I was fortunate to travel across the state and region competing in debate contests. Through that process, I learned the most significant skills which allowed me to excel in college. I spent long nights assiduously researching, learned to present information in a persuasive and organized fashion, and developed an ability to think quickly. Had it not been for these experiences I would have still gone to college, but I would significantly lost on skills needed to succeed while in college. During my years, roughly a dozen Alabama high schools had successful debate programs. Stephen Black of the University of Alabama developed a SpeakFirst program to make debate competition accessible to students from a number of inner-city high schools. The Birmingham News touted the young program in a 2007 piece on accessibility of education resources to top students in Birmingham city schools. Alabama needs more programs like SpeakFirst in counties and towns across the state, and innovative programs such as this one should become more of a reality and less of an exception for Alabama students.
For decades, Alabama politicians have campaigned on the platform that Alabama must race to the top and cannot be last forever. To his credit, Gov. Riley has worked to pursue a number of these objectives at the state level. Back in 2007, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions successfully sponsored and passed a law called the Striving Readers initiative to increase literacy programs across the spectrum at the K-12 level. Frankly, both Alabama and America desperately need now a "Striving Strivers" initiative, for lack of a better term, providing more resources and opportunities for those students who have the strongest love to strive for more learning. As the statistics show, there is a lot of room for educational improvement in this state, and it is time at long last to make the top students a priority. If not, more of our top minds will continue to leave our state and eventually our nation in pursuit of greener pastures overseas.
Alabama Goes Green: What Renewable Energy Means for the Deep South
Last week when President Obama addressed the nation on the Gulf coast oil spill, he chose to devote significant time in his speech to push for the development of renewable energy. Many on the left seem to see renewable energy as an environmental panacea which will replace the evil carbon-producing big oil, coal, and gas industries. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and liberals will always be sorely disappointed. Columnist George Will criticized liberal environmentalism in an intriguing 2007 column on "fuzzy climate math." Will notes that everyday activities such as the shipment of food an average 1200 miles to the average American plate can consume more energy than can be saved by renewable fuels. He also notes that new technology such as hybrid cars create new environmental problems even as they help address older ones. Will notes that the Toyota Prius Hybrid requires 1,000 tons of zinc mined in Canada for the motor, and that zinc must then travel 10,000 miles to Wales for refining, China for more refinement, and a final destination in Japan.
Thus, it's time to finally dismiss the panacea of the liberal environmental agenda. That doesn't mean, however, that Alabamians should shy away from the production of clean-burning renewable energies. Fossil fuel reserves will slowly become smaller over the course of decades, meaning that Americans need to begin to develop technologies to produce fuels at home. Additionally, since so much oil comes from the Middle East, there is a security incentive to produce renewable energies. Finally, there is also an interest in developing cleaner fuel sources which are easier on the environment and manage to preserve the state's natural wonders.
All of these reasons are good ones, but Alabama should take interest in going green because it offers an opportunity for new economic development, especially in rural areas. Last week as I was leaving Tuscaloosa, I drove through the small town of Moundville, Alabama, a few miles south of Tuscaloosa in Hale County. On the surface it may look like little is going on down in Moundville, but in May, Westervelt Co. announced plans for a biomass unit to produce enough electricity to serve 3,000 people. The plan would work through Alabama power and use Westervelt biomass.
As it turns out, the Moundville development is part of a string of recent developments to add more renewable energies to Alabama's energy mix. Many of these developments are bringing new technologies and new jobs to rural Alabama communities. In February, the Andalusia Star-News reported that Southeast Renewable Energy was investing in a $55 million biomass plant which would produce energy from wood waste and employ approximately 16 employees. Another company, Gulf Coast energy, recently built a 70-acre industrial site near Livingston in rural Sumter County, Alabama. The most recent maps from the Department of Energy also depict significant opportunities for the development of biomass in forest and crop residue in large parts of rural Alabama.
What does all of this mean? Alabamians should embrace the opportunities of renewable energy, but they have to do so for the right reasons. Renewable energies offer rural communities many opportunities to use wood waste, agricultural waste, and other products to produce energy as part of a diversified energy strategy for the nation. If Alabama steps up and takes the lead, encouraging these businesses, our state could be positioned to play a major role in shaping national and even international policy in these areas. Alabamians should take this step because of the economic opportunities it affords the state. These renewable sources are cleaner than fossil fuels, but they are not an environmental panacea. What they do offer are opportunities for new jobs in a dynamic sector in rural parts of the state.
Thus, it's time to finally dismiss the panacea of the liberal environmental agenda. That doesn't mean, however, that Alabamians should shy away from the production of clean-burning renewable energies. Fossil fuel reserves will slowly become smaller over the course of decades, meaning that Americans need to begin to develop technologies to produce fuels at home. Additionally, since so much oil comes from the Middle East, there is a security incentive to produce renewable energies. Finally, there is also an interest in developing cleaner fuel sources which are easier on the environment and manage to preserve the state's natural wonders.
All of these reasons are good ones, but Alabama should take interest in going green because it offers an opportunity for new economic development, especially in rural areas. Last week as I was leaving Tuscaloosa, I drove through the small town of Moundville, Alabama, a few miles south of Tuscaloosa in Hale County. On the surface it may look like little is going on down in Moundville, but in May, Westervelt Co. announced plans for a biomass unit to produce enough electricity to serve 3,000 people. The plan would work through Alabama power and use Westervelt biomass.
As it turns out, the Moundville development is part of a string of recent developments to add more renewable energies to Alabama's energy mix. Many of these developments are bringing new technologies and new jobs to rural Alabama communities. In February, the Andalusia Star-News reported that Southeast Renewable Energy was investing in a $55 million biomass plant which would produce energy from wood waste and employ approximately 16 employees. Another company, Gulf Coast energy, recently built a 70-acre industrial site near Livingston in rural Sumter County, Alabama. The most recent maps from the Department of Energy also depict significant opportunities for the development of biomass in forest and crop residue in large parts of rural Alabama.
What does all of this mean? Alabamians should embrace the opportunities of renewable energy, but they have to do so for the right reasons. Renewable energies offer rural communities many opportunities to use wood waste, agricultural waste, and other products to produce energy as part of a diversified energy strategy for the nation. If Alabama steps up and takes the lead, encouraging these businesses, our state could be positioned to play a major role in shaping national and even international policy in these areas. Alabamians should take this step because of the economic opportunities it affords the state. These renewable sources are cleaner than fossil fuels, but they are not an environmental panacea. What they do offer are opportunities for new jobs in a dynamic sector in rural parts of the state.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Byrne, Bentley, and Five Promises
Here in Alabama, politics isn't complete without a good recount absolutely laden with intrigue. Tim James is arguably entitled to his recount, though it appears the 'common-sense businessman' has spent an awful lot of his money, some $200,000, recounting these votes. Now, I'm just a poor student, but if I had $200,000, I probably wouldn't elect to spend it on that.
Underneath the surface of all this, there is a whole lot of political intrigue. By this, I'm not referring to Dale Peterson's increasingly hilarious videos relating to the Ag Commissioner spot on the GOP side. I'm referring instead to the intrigue of the governor's race, most of which has gone unnoticed due to the attention focused on the recount. Underneath, things sure are getting exciting. The Birmingham News reported yesterday that a shake-up in Dr. Robert Bentley's staff in favor of political consultants from a San Francisco consulting firm has raised some questions. Bentley's new campaign manager is Bryan Sanders, a consultant and son-in-law of Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas. One thing sure is clear, the good Doctor sure has raised a lot of money to be splurging on a new campaign staff.
Like a whole lot of Alabamians, I like Dr. Bentley's story, precisely because it's intriguing. He seems to be an outsider who has come into politics at an interesting time, and a lot of voters clearly liked 'that Tuscaloosa doctor' who has pledged not to take a salary as governor until the state reached full employment. I am also intrigued by the Bentley-Byrne matchup which some have compared to the Winton Blount-Fob James GOP matchup in 1998 which pitted the so-called 'country club' affluent elements of the GOP along the I-65 corridor against the rural GOP elements throughout the state. In that election, Blount represented the I-65 corridor, and Fob James represented the other. Blount handily garnered the most votes in the initial primary but eventually lost the run-off to James who used the rural vote to gain victory.
All of these political shakeups are interesting stories, as is the sudden involvement of the AEA using the GOP's outdated primary rules in order to crossover and vote to defeat Byrne. It looks to me like there will be plenty of time for name-calling and mud-slinging once this recount wraps up and the gloves can really begin to come off.
That said, count me among those folks who actually hope to see this election come down to issues, and I have Five Promises I think the GOP candidates should make which voters should consider in deciding who should represent their Party on the ballot in November.
(1) Commit to Tougher Campaign Finance and Accountability. Governor Riley deserves considerable credit for his efforts each year to pass tougher campaign finance and ethics regulation in Alabama. Frankly, Alabama has an awful lot of problems when it comes to accountability. The state received an F on disclosing lobbyist spending in 2003. Lots of amounts under $250 are not reported, and many legislators have had questionable histories in submitting proper ethics disclosures. If you think about it, the reporting of campaign funds has been an issue with a number of candidates in almost every election. Riley has proposed projects which have included disclosure of all gifts over $25 and caps on expenditures for things such as meals. He along with other groups like the Alabama Policy Institute have called attention to the shell game of PAC-PAC transfers, where political committees give money to each other to hide support from interests such as gaming, trial lawyers, and utilities. Alabama voters have a right to know who is bankrolling their political candidates. In 2009, Gov. Riley called for "a war on corruption." It's hard to fight, though, when the legislature continues annually to balk at meaningful ethics reform. Will the next GOP nominee commit to continuing this war, even when it is tough sledding?
(2) Commit to education innovation. Bradley Byrne has centered a whole lot of his campaign around education. I applaud Byrne for promoting ideas like Charter Schools which are past due in Alabama. Back in 2009, the Mobile Press-Register noted that some 5,043 charter schools exist nationwide serving 1.5 million students. Thirty-nine states have charter school laws, making Alabama one of the last to get on board. The AEA worked to defeat charter schools earlier this year, but it's high time for a governor to commit Alabama to the issue of education reform. On top of that, we also need to prioritize gifted education as a state and federal priority to guarantee that top students receive a top education in Alabama and are encouraged to remain in Alabama after college to work here in this state.
(3) Commit to strategic planning on economic growth, especially energy. Alabama has made great strides in recent years under Republican leadership in encouraging new businesses and industries to settle in Alabama. The next governor needs to commit to growth in areas such as renewable energy. New forms of biomass facilities and other energies could allow Alabama to play a major national role in renewable energy development. A lot of this development can also affect Alabama's rural and disadvantaged communities in a positive way. It is also fundamentally conservative, as it uses business and innovation instead of government to improve lives and communities. Recent governors have used the government's resources to help empower these individuals, and the next governor needs a concrete plan of attack to continue growing Alabama.
(4) Commit to resolving the gambling issue, once and for all. After decades of squabbling over the matter, it's time to resolve the gambling issue. Many like me want to see casino gambling stopped, once and for all, and the decisions of the Alabama Supreme Court honored. That said, what I want most is clarity. Alabamians have paid too much for expensive elections on gaming, and legislators have wasted too many legislative days in session gridlocked on the gambling issue. It's time to resolve this issue so that it is no longer the centerpiece of political debate in Alabama.
(5) Commit to the renewal of Alabama's small towns and communities. One of the great travesties of recent years has been the decline of Alabama's small towns which dot the state and provide it an essential local flavor and culture. The next governor should speak to this issue and step up, promoting growth, tourism, and sustenance in rural areas across this state. Driving through the Alabama black belt, one sees both the promise and the strength that is Alabama. In an age of strip malls and major retailers located along interstate highways, the next governor should develop more plans to get Alabamians back off the main roads and exploring more of our state's amazing back roads. Working with existing federal programs, a concerted effort could lead to significant gains for some of Alabama's most disadvantaged communities.
Alabama politics today is too driven by concerns of intrigue. We are not electing a personality--we are electing a leader who can improve the state over the next four years. These improvements come down to issues. In my view, these five commitments make the election about issues again and are a vital first step in building a better Alabama.
Underneath the surface of all this, there is a whole lot of political intrigue. By this, I'm not referring to Dale Peterson's increasingly hilarious videos relating to the Ag Commissioner spot on the GOP side. I'm referring instead to the intrigue of the governor's race, most of which has gone unnoticed due to the attention focused on the recount. Underneath, things sure are getting exciting. The Birmingham News reported yesterday that a shake-up in Dr. Robert Bentley's staff in favor of political consultants from a San Francisco consulting firm has raised some questions. Bentley's new campaign manager is Bryan Sanders, a consultant and son-in-law of Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas. One thing sure is clear, the good Doctor sure has raised a lot of money to be splurging on a new campaign staff.
Like a whole lot of Alabamians, I like Dr. Bentley's story, precisely because it's intriguing. He seems to be an outsider who has come into politics at an interesting time, and a lot of voters clearly liked 'that Tuscaloosa doctor' who has pledged not to take a salary as governor until the state reached full employment. I am also intrigued by the Bentley-Byrne matchup which some have compared to the Winton Blount-Fob James GOP matchup in 1998 which pitted the so-called 'country club' affluent elements of the GOP along the I-65 corridor against the rural GOP elements throughout the state. In that election, Blount represented the I-65 corridor, and Fob James represented the other. Blount handily garnered the most votes in the initial primary but eventually lost the run-off to James who used the rural vote to gain victory.
All of these political shakeups are interesting stories, as is the sudden involvement of the AEA using the GOP's outdated primary rules in order to crossover and vote to defeat Byrne. It looks to me like there will be plenty of time for name-calling and mud-slinging once this recount wraps up and the gloves can really begin to come off.
That said, count me among those folks who actually hope to see this election come down to issues, and I have Five Promises I think the GOP candidates should make which voters should consider in deciding who should represent their Party on the ballot in November.
(1) Commit to Tougher Campaign Finance and Accountability. Governor Riley deserves considerable credit for his efforts each year to pass tougher campaign finance and ethics regulation in Alabama. Frankly, Alabama has an awful lot of problems when it comes to accountability. The state received an F on disclosing lobbyist spending in 2003. Lots of amounts under $250 are not reported, and many legislators have had questionable histories in submitting proper ethics disclosures. If you think about it, the reporting of campaign funds has been an issue with a number of candidates in almost every election. Riley has proposed projects which have included disclosure of all gifts over $25 and caps on expenditures for things such as meals. He along with other groups like the Alabama Policy Institute have called attention to the shell game of PAC-PAC transfers, where political committees give money to each other to hide support from interests such as gaming, trial lawyers, and utilities. Alabama voters have a right to know who is bankrolling their political candidates. In 2009, Gov. Riley called for "a war on corruption." It's hard to fight, though, when the legislature continues annually to balk at meaningful ethics reform. Will the next GOP nominee commit to continuing this war, even when it is tough sledding?
(2) Commit to education innovation. Bradley Byrne has centered a whole lot of his campaign around education. I applaud Byrne for promoting ideas like Charter Schools which are past due in Alabama. Back in 2009, the Mobile Press-Register noted that some 5,043 charter schools exist nationwide serving 1.5 million students. Thirty-nine states have charter school laws, making Alabama one of the last to get on board. The AEA worked to defeat charter schools earlier this year, but it's high time for a governor to commit Alabama to the issue of education reform. On top of that, we also need to prioritize gifted education as a state and federal priority to guarantee that top students receive a top education in Alabama and are encouraged to remain in Alabama after college to work here in this state.
(3) Commit to strategic planning on economic growth, especially energy. Alabama has made great strides in recent years under Republican leadership in encouraging new businesses and industries to settle in Alabama. The next governor needs to commit to growth in areas such as renewable energy. New forms of biomass facilities and other energies could allow Alabama to play a major national role in renewable energy development. A lot of this development can also affect Alabama's rural and disadvantaged communities in a positive way. It is also fundamentally conservative, as it uses business and innovation instead of government to improve lives and communities. Recent governors have used the government's resources to help empower these individuals, and the next governor needs a concrete plan of attack to continue growing Alabama.
(4) Commit to resolving the gambling issue, once and for all. After decades of squabbling over the matter, it's time to resolve the gambling issue. Many like me want to see casino gambling stopped, once and for all, and the decisions of the Alabama Supreme Court honored. That said, what I want most is clarity. Alabamians have paid too much for expensive elections on gaming, and legislators have wasted too many legislative days in session gridlocked on the gambling issue. It's time to resolve this issue so that it is no longer the centerpiece of political debate in Alabama.
(5) Commit to the renewal of Alabama's small towns and communities. One of the great travesties of recent years has been the decline of Alabama's small towns which dot the state and provide it an essential local flavor and culture. The next governor should speak to this issue and step up, promoting growth, tourism, and sustenance in rural areas across this state. Driving through the Alabama black belt, one sees both the promise and the strength that is Alabama. In an age of strip malls and major retailers located along interstate highways, the next governor should develop more plans to get Alabamians back off the main roads and exploring more of our state's amazing back roads. Working with existing federal programs, a concerted effort could lead to significant gains for some of Alabama's most disadvantaged communities.
Alabama politics today is too driven by concerns of intrigue. We are not electing a personality--we are electing a leader who can improve the state over the next four years. These improvements come down to issues. In my view, these five commitments make the election about issues again and are a vital first step in building a better Alabama.
What We Won't Hear at the BP Hearings
Watching today's oil spill hearings in Washington with Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, raises some questions for me which members of Congress are frankly not willing to ask themselves. Two come to mind between Hayward's answers that he "cannot recall" or decisions he "was not privy to." In the rush to score political points with anxious constituents back home, I tend to wonder if Congressmen will possess the courage to inquire as to the effects of the spill far beyond the coastline and, more importantly, about how corporate size has led to a lack of accountability. Can capitalism as we know it survive in an age of global corporations?
Although the scenes here in Alabama largely focus on the oil collecting on the Gulf, the effects of the spill will be far-reaching in the state. State Superintendent Joe Morton stated back on June 10 that the declines in tourism revenue will impact the Education Trust Fund of Alabama. As tourism has declined by as much as 50% at places like orange beach, some of the taxes which are collected to pay for the fund will also decline. This means that local governments and state governments will be strapped for cash as restaurants, tour boat businesses, hotels, fishermen, and other locally owned enterprises either temporarily close or go out of business. For these individuals, the loss is a travesty, but it is also a travesty for the entire state.
I cannot help but wonder if BP will be committed to truly cleaning up this spill in terms of the financial damage caused throughout the Gulf Coast. Perhaps BP will honor it's commitment of $20 billion to the Gulf Coast, and perhaps BP will manage to stay in business and avoid bankruptcy long enough to honor those commitments. However, I wonder if BP is aware of the local and state governments which will be suffering to provide services during these difficult times on the coast.
However, the bigger question here is the question of regulation and the size of the corporation. Many in Congress may not be aware, but the age of multinational conglomerates who provide many essential goods and services to a worldwide consumer base has created corporations which in 2008 we called 'too big to fail.' The BP crisis demonstrates that they are also, in many senses, 'too big to regulate.'
Capitalism in the traditional conservative sense is based on consumer choice. A business can offer products, and a consumer can decide whether or not to purchase said product based on a series of criteria. When capitalism was smaller, government regulation was far less needed because individuals held corporations accountable. As David Brooks once noted in a column, half a century ago the leading banker in a Tennessee town would have lived in that city instead of far off, in New York, Charlotte, or Atlanta. The same is true of Alabama towns--residents knew the store owners and the producers of products. By contrast, the owners and manufacturers knew their consumers personally--their children went to school with them, and they went to church together. They knew then that in the face of crisis the residents would hold them accountable because they, too, were parts of the community.
Those days are long gone. Today's corporate leaders live far away from the communities they utilize to produce resources, and the size of these corporations makes it virtually impossible for consumers to hold them accountable themselves. Consider the people currently boycotting BP gas. Although this boycott hurts the local franchisees who are only tangentially connected to BP, it does little to undermine BP as a company which owns a vast array of networks such as CASTROL, ARCO Alumnium, and many other companies which produce a wide array of products. As corporations have grown bigger, it has become impossible for consumers to keep corporations accountable. Additionally, corporate leaders only maintain accountability to shareholders who are far removed from communities like the Gulf Coast.
What is the answer? Increasingly the answer has been obtrusive amounts of federal regulation which have been rather ineffective at actually solving problems. Yes, there is a massive federal bureaucracy which we have come to know as the Minerals and Mining Service, but I seriously doubt that even under new leadership this regulatory agency can manage to oversee such massive corporations. Even if they can, the answer seems to be in a government structure so large and so obtrusive that smaller, innovative firms would be crushed by the size of the federal rulebook. It's a sad and unfortunate state of affairs which bears little resemblance to the America we once enjoyed, based on freedom and consumer choice.
Thus, the BP oil spill teaches us two lessons about Federalism, that oldest of American principles. Today when a disaster occurs, it crushes state and local governments which are already struggling for their survival. As conservatives, we should care about local governments because they provide citizens the most direct control over their own lives, instead of exporting that control to a distant place like Washington. It also demonstrates that the size of modern corporations has created a conundrum. Consumers can no longer hold the corporations accountable, and the task now lies with federal regulators. This, too, has consequences. Congressmen may not ask these questions, but Americans should consider them, because in many ways, the future of the nation hangs in the balance.
Although the scenes here in Alabama largely focus on the oil collecting on the Gulf, the effects of the spill will be far-reaching in the state. State Superintendent Joe Morton stated back on June 10 that the declines in tourism revenue will impact the Education Trust Fund of Alabama. As tourism has declined by as much as 50% at places like orange beach, some of the taxes which are collected to pay for the fund will also decline. This means that local governments and state governments will be strapped for cash as restaurants, tour boat businesses, hotels, fishermen, and other locally owned enterprises either temporarily close or go out of business. For these individuals, the loss is a travesty, but it is also a travesty for the entire state.
I cannot help but wonder if BP will be committed to truly cleaning up this spill in terms of the financial damage caused throughout the Gulf Coast. Perhaps BP will honor it's commitment of $20 billion to the Gulf Coast, and perhaps BP will manage to stay in business and avoid bankruptcy long enough to honor those commitments. However, I wonder if BP is aware of the local and state governments which will be suffering to provide services during these difficult times on the coast.
However, the bigger question here is the question of regulation and the size of the corporation. Many in Congress may not be aware, but the age of multinational conglomerates who provide many essential goods and services to a worldwide consumer base has created corporations which in 2008 we called 'too big to fail.' The BP crisis demonstrates that they are also, in many senses, 'too big to regulate.'
Capitalism in the traditional conservative sense is based on consumer choice. A business can offer products, and a consumer can decide whether or not to purchase said product based on a series of criteria. When capitalism was smaller, government regulation was far less needed because individuals held corporations accountable. As David Brooks once noted in a column, half a century ago the leading banker in a Tennessee town would have lived in that city instead of far off, in New York, Charlotte, or Atlanta. The same is true of Alabama towns--residents knew the store owners and the producers of products. By contrast, the owners and manufacturers knew their consumers personally--their children went to school with them, and they went to church together. They knew then that in the face of crisis the residents would hold them accountable because they, too, were parts of the community.
Those days are long gone. Today's corporate leaders live far away from the communities they utilize to produce resources, and the size of these corporations makes it virtually impossible for consumers to hold them accountable themselves. Consider the people currently boycotting BP gas. Although this boycott hurts the local franchisees who are only tangentially connected to BP, it does little to undermine BP as a company which owns a vast array of networks such as CASTROL, ARCO Alumnium, and many other companies which produce a wide array of products. As corporations have grown bigger, it has become impossible for consumers to keep corporations accountable. Additionally, corporate leaders only maintain accountability to shareholders who are far removed from communities like the Gulf Coast.
What is the answer? Increasingly the answer has been obtrusive amounts of federal regulation which have been rather ineffective at actually solving problems. Yes, there is a massive federal bureaucracy which we have come to know as the Minerals and Mining Service, but I seriously doubt that even under new leadership this regulatory agency can manage to oversee such massive corporations. Even if they can, the answer seems to be in a government structure so large and so obtrusive that smaller, innovative firms would be crushed by the size of the federal rulebook. It's a sad and unfortunate state of affairs which bears little resemblance to the America we once enjoyed, based on freedom and consumer choice.
Thus, the BP oil spill teaches us two lessons about Federalism, that oldest of American principles. Today when a disaster occurs, it crushes state and local governments which are already struggling for their survival. As conservatives, we should care about local governments because they provide citizens the most direct control over their own lives, instead of exporting that control to a distant place like Washington. It also demonstrates that the size of modern corporations has created a conundrum. Consumers can no longer hold the corporations accountable, and the task now lies with federal regulators. This, too, has consequences. Congressmen may not ask these questions, but Americans should consider them, because in many ways, the future of the nation hangs in the balance.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
A Message to Alabama Voters: Selecting Statesmen
Like many, I have been inundated with the ads for different political candidates in recent days. With all the mudslinging which occurs on both sides of the aisle, it is easy to lose focus on what is important. Although many Alabamians see only these ads, those who attend the local Republican meetings which candidates frequently attend and offer 2-3 minute speeches on their candidacy witness a different perspective on politics. Having attended a number of these meetings, I have been struck several times by candidates or representatives who use the word 'statesmen' to describe themselves or the candidates they represent. This lends itself to the question, what is a statesman, and how does such a person differ from a mere politician?
Recently, I came across a great definition of statesmanship in the works of Edmund Burke, one of the earliest conservative thinkers. Writing in England in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Burke worried about liberal revolutions such as that in France which uprooted communities and destroyed traditional ways of doing things. It was in this vein that he said: "A disposition to preserve and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of a statesman." These words ought to have strong meaning for Alabama voters going to the polls in the July run-offs and the November general elections.
Richard Weaver, one of the great Southern historians and theorists of the 20th century noted that Southerners were the American Burkeans because they valued traditional ways of doing things. They valued small towns which provided help to individuals without the need of massive federal 'welfare' programs. They valued social relationships such as churches and the friendships they had made in their communities. Conservatives should also respect Burke as one of their earliest thinkers, a man who understood very early on the dangers of liberalism. Burke indicated like no others in his time the dangers of a government which continues to centralize and increase its power, growing bigger and bigger as it grows less responsive to the people.
His words would also have meaning, even if the source were unknown, because they reflect a basic principle of thoughtful good government, something the ancient Greeks called eunomia. Burke's definition defends conservatives against the charge from the Left that they are mere 'reactionaries.' Weaver himself in the mid-20th centuries attempted to develop a justification for Southern values which did not justify racism and discrimination. Burke's definition welcomes the need for change and reform while cautioning against throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. Certain traditions are bad and must be rectified, but tradition itself can also be a good thing which benefits society. A tradition of reciprocity, for instance, or helping one's neighbor, is good and should be maintained for society to function without big government.
What does this mean for Alabamians? I recommend asking the following questions of candidates:
(1) Will you start with the bare minimum of what government must do, focusing on passing a budget instead of passing new spending?
(2) Will you always be attentive to small ways to change problems, particularly ways which rely on the people themselves, instead of the government?
(3) Will you acknowledge a distinction between party and principle, and choose your principles over your party?
(4) Will you be committed to having the government do only what it can do instead of supporting spending where the government may not be able to do what it sets out to do (like healthcare)?
(5) Will you be committed to looking toward long-term solutions to problems instead of merely focusing on your short-term interests for re-election?
These are good questions to ask of any question on a ballot. It's clear that in Alabama today, we need statesmen and politicians. Politicians always focus on polls and short-term fixes for their own aggrandizement. Statesmen are willing to solve problems for generations, possibly resolving them eternally. They may be considered slow to act, but they act appropriately and decisively to solve problems which they know they can solve. They realize that society is complex and cannot be changed easily, and if they act badly, they may make a problem worse.
Recently, I came across a great definition of statesmanship in the works of Edmund Burke, one of the earliest conservative thinkers. Writing in England in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Burke worried about liberal revolutions such as that in France which uprooted communities and destroyed traditional ways of doing things. It was in this vein that he said: "A disposition to preserve and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of a statesman." These words ought to have strong meaning for Alabama voters going to the polls in the July run-offs and the November general elections.
Richard Weaver, one of the great Southern historians and theorists of the 20th century noted that Southerners were the American Burkeans because they valued traditional ways of doing things. They valued small towns which provided help to individuals without the need of massive federal 'welfare' programs. They valued social relationships such as churches and the friendships they had made in their communities. Conservatives should also respect Burke as one of their earliest thinkers, a man who understood very early on the dangers of liberalism. Burke indicated like no others in his time the dangers of a government which continues to centralize and increase its power, growing bigger and bigger as it grows less responsive to the people.
His words would also have meaning, even if the source were unknown, because they reflect a basic principle of thoughtful good government, something the ancient Greeks called eunomia. Burke's definition defends conservatives against the charge from the Left that they are mere 'reactionaries.' Weaver himself in the mid-20th centuries attempted to develop a justification for Southern values which did not justify racism and discrimination. Burke's definition welcomes the need for change and reform while cautioning against throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. Certain traditions are bad and must be rectified, but tradition itself can also be a good thing which benefits society. A tradition of reciprocity, for instance, or helping one's neighbor, is good and should be maintained for society to function without big government.
What does this mean for Alabamians? I recommend asking the following questions of candidates:
(1) Will you start with the bare minimum of what government must do, focusing on passing a budget instead of passing new spending?
(2) Will you always be attentive to small ways to change problems, particularly ways which rely on the people themselves, instead of the government?
(3) Will you acknowledge a distinction between party and principle, and choose your principles over your party?
(4) Will you be committed to having the government do only what it can do instead of supporting spending where the government may not be able to do what it sets out to do (like healthcare)?
(5) Will you be committed to looking toward long-term solutions to problems instead of merely focusing on your short-term interests for re-election?
These are good questions to ask of any question on a ballot. It's clear that in Alabama today, we need statesmen and politicians. Politicians always focus on polls and short-term fixes for their own aggrandizement. Statesmen are willing to solve problems for generations, possibly resolving them eternally. They may be considered slow to act, but they act appropriately and decisively to solve problems which they know they can solve. They realize that society is complex and cannot be changed easily, and if they act badly, they may make a problem worse.
About This Blog
Welcome to the Alabama Political Review, a blog meant to offer thoughtful conservative commentary on public issues with an Alabama focus. I have set up this blog as a resource for voters, legislators, and other policymakers who are interested in thoughts and research from one young Alabamian who wants to make a difference in this state.
As my biography indicates, I have lived in central Alabama almost all my life. I was born in Birmingham, then raised in Wilsonville and the Birmingham suburbs of northern Shelby County. I graduated from Oak Mountain High School in 2007 and then left the state for three years to attend Georgetown University in Washington, DC. I stayed connected to many things Alabama while away, working in Senator Sessions' office for two years. In 2008, I traveled across Alabama in the sweltering days of summer working for Senator Sessions' re-election campaign. Traveling the state and meeting so many people confirmed my lasting interest in Alabama politics and Alabama issues. It also inspired my desire to serve the state by offering thoughts on local, state, and national issues.
While I was at Georgetown, I became interested in the precise issue, what makes a conservative? One of my professors taught me that conservatism is a disposition, or a way of looking at things. It involves a respect for the past, which led me to major in history, and a knowledge of society and its institutions, which led me to major in government. It also requires an interest in thoughtfulness and a willingness to consider ways to govern well in limited fashion. I now hope to use these principles which I studied to contribute in a small way to making this state a better place to live and work.
I hope that you will find these posts informative.
As my biography indicates, I have lived in central Alabama almost all my life. I was born in Birmingham, then raised in Wilsonville and the Birmingham suburbs of northern Shelby County. I graduated from Oak Mountain High School in 2007 and then left the state for three years to attend Georgetown University in Washington, DC. I stayed connected to many things Alabama while away, working in Senator Sessions' office for two years. In 2008, I traveled across Alabama in the sweltering days of summer working for Senator Sessions' re-election campaign. Traveling the state and meeting so many people confirmed my lasting interest in Alabama politics and Alabama issues. It also inspired my desire to serve the state by offering thoughts on local, state, and national issues.
While I was at Georgetown, I became interested in the precise issue, what makes a conservative? One of my professors taught me that conservatism is a disposition, or a way of looking at things. It involves a respect for the past, which led me to major in history, and a knowledge of society and its institutions, which led me to major in government. It also requires an interest in thoughtfulness and a willingness to consider ways to govern well in limited fashion. I now hope to use these principles which I studied to contribute in a small way to making this state a better place to live and work.
I hope that you will find these posts informative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
