Who Is the Party of the MOTR?

It appears from the conversations and so on that I've had with people who attended the Democratic and Republican Party district conventions that some didn't feel very well respected. Been there, done that. Political parties by their natures are fairly incestuous and are not really looking for new ideas, but rather new ways to sell the ideas they already have.

Let's talk about you and me. Most people are not party joiners, though we tend to affiliate to one or the other of the D or R parties at least once every few years. Every election we are told is decided by the "middle." And for this reason I would argue it is this way because the middle doesn't have a party of our own; hence the other two prevail.

Anyone who has tried to join one of these parties soon comes to realize that it is hard to accomplish substantial movement. Why? Because the parties' hierarchy know what has worked for them and, frankly, both major parties are arch conservatives when it comes to moving away from their sacred cows.

So why not just join an established third party? Once again, the doctrine is drawn. As John Mellencamp, Malcolm X, and Alexander Hamilton all sort of said, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." All parties stand for something, but none stand for what most people think is right. Hence we are a nation of flip-floppers who go back and forth generally between D's and R's.

Early in our nation's heritage, choosing between two was quite a step up from Monarchy. However, I think that many people agree that neither party really represents what main street or the mainstream think. In fact each party claims to feel our pain, but in reality, they are counting up our votes.

So why not join the Tea Party? Well, who is the Tea Party and do they represent mainstream values? According to the Tea Part Patriots' website they stand for:


Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.

Up to point number three, I could get behind those principles. In fact, taken with point number two, we really can't have a free market. Why, because the Constitution tells us we need taxes and those taxes are haggled over by those whom we elect. A so-called free market can't exist as long as we ask people to pony up money to have a government do things for us.

So, no Tea Party for me, and I doubt for many folks who are happy to have trash pickups, clean water, aid to families with dependent children, social security, etc. Also for those who aren't willing to lose arms and legs working in uncontrolled manufacturing plants and don't pay a living wage.

So what would the Middle of the Road Party look like? Beats the heck out of me. We haven't had our convention, chosen our leaders, or created our platform. There is not a party and so the climb is long and the odds are against us.

If I were to venture a guess, the MOTR party would place the future of kids at the forefront. It would tend to be hopeful, but cautious in what this country does both here and abroad. It would insist that rules were enforced, but the rules were fair in the first place. It would be a party that celebrates pragmatism--where some change would come fast and others a little at a time. It would not seek to win by putting the other parties down, but to win by articulating the things that people believe are in the best interest of the country, even if they aren't always in the immediate best interest to themselves. Yes, it would uphold the Constitution. And, of course, it would be fiscally responsible.

I also believe it would be hard to build. It would ask people to disengage from the politics they understand to be how things are done and engage in conversations with people in a way that doesn't make me right and you wrong. It would put us in a whole new place. It would be a bold venture to be sure.

Private Lessons

"Privatization does not mean you take a public institution and give it to some nice person...it means you take a public institution and you give it to an unaccountable tyranny."—Noam Chomsky

Often when people don't like what the government does they point to the splendors of the "private sector" who will make all things better. The only problem is, the private sector often is not equipped any better than the government and often only do things cheaper or worse.

Now before I go further I want to say that the private sector does a great job, for what it is capable of doing. You want a hot dog, the private sector can furnish you any number of them and at any price. You need a basic car, the private sector can do that too. However, if you want an education, or a highly fuel efficient car for that matter, the private sector is not necessarily the way to go.

With few exceptions, private education has not, on the average, produced better students. It is true that when better students go to better funded schools, these schools can (but not always) produce better student outcomes (e.g., students who graduate, are ready for college, do well in post-secondary studies, get good jobs). The same is true of public education. As a group, students who go to well-to-do suburban schools perform better than students who either attend rural or large urban districts. However, taking into account magnet and academy types of schools, students who go to rigerous schools, take tough/upper level courses no matter where, do well regardless of where the schools are located.

The issue is one of spreading the excellence around. This is where differences in students show up. If a student arrives at a school ready to learn, they learn. That is, if they aren't hungry, have done their homework, have foundational skills, and supportive parents who read to them, they succeed. There is no private company who can do this any better.

But we do not guarantee that our children have the same footing when they enter school. The single biggest detriment to our schools is poverty. Poor kids fare worse because they come from poverty. Unless the private sector wants to take over the poverty sector, it is likely that we will always have inequality in schools.

Think of it this way, if you were asked to bid on a contract to run a school and you had to feed kids not only lunch, but breakfast and dinner too, provide afterschool care, as well as tutoring and enrichment courses, how could you do that competitively?

Does public education fail our children? Yes, it does. But not for a lack of trying. Public education suffers from protectionism to be sure. There are teachers, principals, school boards, and parents who do a lousy job where students are concerned. Schools require change agents and failing schools don't have them. Why? You have got me. However, whether the government is doing the job or private concerns are, change doesn't come without a fight.

I believe that private concerns could help out a great deal in schools--feeding kids could be done better by private companies, so could cleaning schools and transporting kids. But when it comes to education of children, nothing will ever replace a highly skilled teacher--and we need a plan to develop more of them. Perhaps there is even an opportunity for private concerns out there to get into the teacher training business.

Often people want solutions to be simple and so to posit private concerns against public concerns is a natural debate. Perhaps the real debate should be what is best for our children and to find both public and private solutions that lead to a better educated nation.