This analysis is as common as it is wrong. While vouchers may well be unconstitutional on church-state grounds, the decision is clearly helpful for education–including public education. And in the long run it’s probably a win for liberals, not conservatives.
To understand why, let’s back up and look at the last extremely contentious Supreme Court decision: Roe v. Wade in 1973, which legalized abortion in the United States. Before Roe, abortion rights were fought out in state capitals and through the democratic process; the anti-abortion folks were on the ropes, losing ground almost everywhere. After Roe, when abortion was viewed by the right as a matter of judicial fiat, a movement was born. In fact, the “pro-life” movement was a huge shot in the arm for the entire conservative enterprise–giving the right a moral urgency it had previously lacked. And the judicial (and thus less democratic) nature of the abortion victory hurt liberals.
The same thing is likely to happen in reverse on vouchers. Supporters say the defeat two years ago of voucher referenda in Michigan and California was the result of confusion over their constitutionality. This is preposterous. How many of the millions of people who rejected vouchers at the ballot box did so because of finely honed uncertainty over whether they would pass constitutional muster? How many will now say, “Oh, they’re constitutional? I’ll vote for ’em!” Very few.
The reason vouchers were defeated at the polls is that they are–and will continue to be–extremely unpopular among suburban voters who determine elections. There are two reasons for this, one understandable, the other a little ugly. The understandable reason is that most suburban voters are perfectly happy with their public schools and don’t want to do anything major to change them. The uglier reason is that they fear vouchers will allow poor minority students to come into their communities to go to school.
There is no reason to believe that voters in other states will disagree with those in Michigan and California. The politicizing of vouchers thus plays to the advantage of liberals and Democrats. The GOP understands this. George W. Bush didn’t use the word “vouchers” during the 2000 campaign except in front of small, very conservative audiences when the press wasn’t around. He knew it was a loser. In the New Jersey governor’s race last fall, Republican candidate Bret Schundler, a major voucher proponent, had to stop talking about his pet idea on the campaign trail; voters hated it. All the talk of making vouchers a big issue in the congressional elections this fall spells trouble for the Republicans.
There is, however, one way in which liberals can manage to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory on this issue. While vouchers are unpopular generally, they are quite popular in the inner city, and for good reason. Parents of urban students trapped in awful public schools are understandably eager to send their kids to parochial schools with the help of vouchers. If Democrats argue against targeted voucher programs in failing districts, they will be undercutting support within their base.
And there’s a moral dimension. Can wealthy white liberals–many of whom send their kids to private school–really say to poor parents: “We can have choices, but you must not.”? This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of liberal opposition to targeted vouchers. Already, polls show support for vouchers among blacks and Hispanics. Do Democrats want to get too far on the wrong side of that?
The hysterical opposition to vouchers also ignores the practical reality that the mere threat of vouchers is healthy competition for public schools. The renewed strength of the voucher movement will have it’s greatest effect in making public schools better. While the market does not work as perfectly in education as some conservatives maintain, it does work. The public schools in Milwaukee, for instance, have improved in part because of they are competing for student vouchers. Nothing succeeds in getting your attention like a threat to your existence.
Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education. They’re in bed with the teachers unions (as are Republicans in many state legislatures). This is not, by itself, a good political issue for Republicans. Few voters care about union politics these days. But if the voucher fight forces Democrats into a full embrace of union goals, they will suffer in the long run.
That’s because the union agenda is not the reform agenda, and while Americans don’t want to voucherize education, they do want to reform it. The best way to do that is through charter schools (public schools set up independent of local school boards), which introduce some competition into the system without vouchers. Without admitting it, the teachers’ unions are trying to undercut charter schools in state legislatures across the country. They fear losing their stranglehold. Democrats need to fight their long-standing allies on this, or lose any credibility on school reform.
After the Supreme Court decision, The New York Times editorialized: “What is holding the public schools back is not lack of competitive drive but the resources to succeed.” This is an example of exactly the kind of ivory tower thinking that is poison for liberals. The plain fact is that it’s not an either/or matter. Schools obviously need both more competition and more resources. The best answers for education are unfettered charter schools wherever parents want to start them, targeted vouchers in inner-city school districts that have otherwise utterly failed and adequate funding for education from state capitals and Washington.
The nation’s highest court has said that the battle over education reform should now play out politically, not in the courts. In a democracy, that’s healthy. Let the battle begin.
