Practical Theory - Politics

#140Conf Talk and Telling Our Story

chris@practicaltheory.org (Chris Lehmann) — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:56:49 -0700

I had the opportunity to speak at the New York City 140 Characters Conference yesterday. #140Conf is the brainchild of Jeff Pulver and the conference explores the powerful effect of social media on the world today. Jeff asked me to speak about the power of social media to change education, and for me, the chance to talk about some of the ideas I am most passionate about to an audience that most educators don't often have access to. I'm incredibly thankful to Jeff for the opportunity to speak to the conference, and my only regret is that I had to zip in and zip out so that I could get back in time for Parent-Advisor Conferences. Here's the talk:

My take-away from the conference -- and from the reaction to my talk -- is that people really are passionate about education, and that so many people outside the "echo chamber" of education / ed-tech folks get that something is wrong with where we're going with school right now. There are some "Have To's" that yesterday taught me:

We in education have to continue to work hard to tell a better story than the current national story-line of "broken schools being taken over and teachers being fired."
We have to understand that it is no longer enough to do powerful work if no one sees it - and that's true for students and teachers.
We have to be willing to be activists as well as educators.

What #140Conf reminded me is how much non-educators want to believe in schools... and how deeply they care about what is going on in education. Let's have the courage to talk about what schools can be... about what keeps us from getting there... and about how we can involve the whole community in overcoming those obstacles.

Thanks again, Jeff, for allowing me to be a part of #140Conf... it was an amazing day.

Save the National Writing Project

chris@practicaltheory.org (Chris Lehmann) — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:48:09 -0700

As a former English teacher, and as someone who believes that programs that work should continue, I'm very deeply dismayed by the Department of Education's decision not to fund the National Writing Project. NWP has, for many, many years been an unequivocal good in education. There are few pure wins in education, but NWP is one of them.

If you need more convincing, SLA teacher Zac Chase has made the argument in a much more compelling fashion. Go read what he wrote. Here's a sample:

Were this simply an impassioned plea, I would have hesitated to write. The data speaks for itself, the National Writing Project has offered a significant return on investment in its 36 year history. Federal funding for the NWP must be maintained if we are to continue striving to meet the Projects goal of a future where every person is an accomplished writer, engaged learner, and active participant in a digital, interconnected world.

Then, when you're done, write to your Congressmen and Senators. Urge them to to sign Rep. Miller's Dear Colleague letter. The National Writing Project is an important organization that has created a national network of teachers who share a vision and a plan to help students find their voices, both on and off-line. They deserve our support, and we all benefit from their continued work.

What is the agenda?

chris@practicaltheory.org (Chris Lehmann) — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:44:05 -0700

At some point in time, I think we have to start asking ourselves what is going on at the US Department of Education. Just this week, Secretary Duncan (and his PR people via twitter) said ""We have to stop lying to children," in reference to the levels of achievement students reach. And then he supported a school district's decision to fire all its teachers at a high school. This is after he slammed teacher prep programs back in the fall.

(He did take time to praise a charter school organization recently, though.)

So what is the end game?

What is the point of attacking educators as liars, praising leaders who fire entire faculties and calling into question the way we teach teachers?

Can you imagine if another cabinet member did this? Could you imagine if the Secretary of Defense talked this way about the soldiers?

What is the point?

There's only one reason to erode public trust in public education -- to destroy it.

Seriously.

It was the the "we have to stop lying to children" line. Not "we need to do better." Not "we need to find better ways." Not "we need to change."

"We need to stop lying to children."

Think about that... Duncan is claiming that public educators are deliberately lying to children.

You only do that if you want to tear something down.

I think the Race to the Top push to expand charter law is only a first step. I think we're going to see a federal push for vouchers before the end of the Obama administration.

And lest you think I've got the tin-foil hat on, the email blast from EdWeek had as its lead a story about how Florida is expanding its voucher program and that Illinois and New Jersey may be soon to follow suit with more and more bi-partisan support for vouchers. (The article claims that Obama will not expand the DC voucher program, but we'll see.)

What I worry will happen over the next ten years, unless there's a movement to stop it, will be a federal push for state voucher programs followed by a massive explosion of publicly subsidized private and parochial schools where parents will be able to supplement the public voucher with their own monies. I think there will still be a "public option" for families, but they will probably be more underfunded and needy than ever before. There will always be a need for schools for the kids who can't take advantage of the new market-driven system, but in many places -- especially in our cities -- they will become the schools of last resort.

There is a lot of money and power lining up behind voucher programs, and make no mistake, vouchers will mark the end of public schools as the hallmark of the American democratic experiment.

And here's the thing... if this is what Obama and Duncan want, why aren't they saying so?

If we want something different, we are going to need to fight for what we believe in. We cannot expect the usual allies. We are going to have to retake the language of school reform from those who would tear down our work. We are going to have to partner with students and parents. We are going to have to listen deeply and create a new language of reform that is authentic... one that puts the best of what our schools can be at the front of every message.

We are going to have to lead.

I'll be there. Will you?

Anne Deveare Smith and the Voices of the Health Care Debate

chris@practicaltheory.org (Chris Lehmann) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:56:38 -0700

Anna Deveare Smith is one of my favorite American artists (and not just because she was on The West Wing.) She is a gifted actress, author and playwright, but even more importantly, her "documentary theater" style of writing and performing displays a respect for the diversity of voice and opinion that makes up the American mosaic. (See her TEDTalk which is a piece from her show "On the Road: A Search for American Character for an example.)

So it should come as no surprise that she has the ability to capture the range of the debate on health care in this country in an OpEd piece in today's New York Times. Here is her introduction:

Over the last few years, in preparation for a new play, I interviewed doctors, patients and healers about the human body, its resilience and its vulnerability. Although our conversations were not primarily about the health care debate, they do reveal many of the feelings and thoughts of the people in the audience President Obama will address tonight.

The unruliness that now animates the conversation stems from our passions, hopes and discomforts -- about life, death, who should (or should not) take care of us and whom we should take care of. The president's audience has a million and one perspectives, some of them clumping together like blood platelets under one political roof or another. The following excerpts (not all of which are in my play) reflect the range of views.

At a time when civility and rational discourse seem to be at an all-time low, her ability to listen so intently and bring across the myriad voices of the debate without irony and without judgment is so important. We all can learn from her ability to listen for the humanity in our voices.

Go read.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: anna_deveare_smith, health_care

Change I'm Struggling With...

chris@practicaltheory.org (Chris Lehmann) — Tue, 26 May 2009 21:49:39 -0700

Today, President Obama nominated a very experienced center-left jurist for the Supreme Court. The nominee is a Hispanic woman. If confirmed, she will be the first Justice of Hispanic descent to serve on the Supreme Court.

Today, the Supreme Court of California ruled that Proposition 8 -- the ballot initiative that outlaws gay marriage -- was legal under the California Constitution.

Today when White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about President Obama's reaction to the California decision, he responded with a very politic non-answer:

This was a moment when President Obama could have spoken out. He could have spoken about how his desire to nominate someone who represented the diversity of our country was reaffirmed by a cowardly decision made on procedural grounds by the California Supreme Court. He could have spoken about how decisions like that one were why he felt that compassion and empathy why he has talked about compassion and empathy as necessary qualities for a Supreme Court justice.

He didn't. And as a result, he missed an opportunity to speak about real change. He missed a chance to speak out for policy change that affects millions of Americans. Instead, he leaves himself open to criticism -- from the left and the right -- that his pick of Judge Sotomayor is (from the right) tokenism and (from the left) empty symbolism.

A year ago, I went to my friend Jason's wedding in San Francisco. I was able to return the favor he paid me nine years ago by standing with him as he married the love of his life. For Jason and Kevin, it meant that the state could claim that their love was any less meaningful, valuable or powerful as the love another couple may share. It was a wonderful day, and as his friend, it meant the world to me that he was able to have that day.

Several months ago, I stood with my friend Steve as he had to bury his husband after a horrible accident. We spoke at the wake, and he talked about how much harder it would have been if he had to fight to be allowed to make funeral arrangements, deal with his husband's finances, etc... At his lowest, most difficult moment, his marriage meant that his grief, as overwhelming as it was, was not compounded by the anger and frustration of not being married in the eyes of the law.

During the campaign, time and time again, President Obama appealed our ideals of what our country could be. He spoke of equality and equity. He appealed the progressive ideals of young and old across the nation. Today, while on the one hand, he made an historic nomination to the Supreme Court, he betrayed those same ideals by staying silent when his voice was dearly needed.

I hope Judge Sotomayor is confirmed. I hope that she is more than a center-left jurist. I hope she does pass judgement with compassion and empathy. And I hope that she serves as a living symbol that our government is of all the people and for all the people. But on a day when a judicial body in this country dashed the hopes of millions in California (and millions more across the nation,) President Obama could have -- and should have -- made plain and powerful the link between the need for jurists like Judge Sotomayor on the Supreme Court bench and the need for the courts to overturn unjust laws like Proposition Eight. That's what we needed today. That kind of leadership was the change I could believe in. Anything else, is sadly, to quote Vice-President Biden, more of the same.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: politics, proposition 8, SCOTUS

Be Quick But Don't Hurry

chris@practicaltheory.org (Chris Lehmann) — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:21:25 -0700

That was one of John Wooden's credos -- Be quick, but don't hurry.

It seems to me that Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, a former former Harvard basketball player, would do well to remember. Sec. Duncan was quoted heavily in an April 17th editorial in the Chicago Tribune that suggested that unless Illinois quickly changes to his ideas on education reform, they will get none of the $5 Billion "Race to the Top" Department of Education money.

I question those folks who would say that there is one way to fix education -- or that we know what we need to know. I worry a great deal that in our hurry to change education, we are pushing "reforms" through that may not do what we want them. And I worry about a Secretary of Education who would use language such as this:

"Illinois has a chance to either stay at a very mediocre level, or fundamentally break through and start to reward excellence and start to create innovation and incent innovation," Duncan said. "And I would strongly urge the state, and I would urge you to help encourage the state, to think very, very differently about what they do. And if Illinois commits to that there's a chance of putting in tremendous, tremendous resources the likes of which this state has never seen.

"But if things don't change in a very meaningful way, Illinois won't be among those eight or 10 or 15 states" that receive a share of the $5 billion.

One, what is the data that suggests all of Illinois is at a mediocre level? Two, the innovations that Duncan proposes -- according to the rest of the article -- are more charter schools and merit pay based on test scores. The recent RAND study that included Philadelphia charter schools suggests that we still have a lot to learn about the efficacy of charter schools. That's not to say they shouldn't be funded, but rather that we shouldn't only look at the latest educational fads as the path to improvement.

And that's happening a lot lately. It's easy to forget, but NCLB is only eight years old. We have seen an almost complete upheaval of public education in those eight years. We are racing toward... what? What is the specific vision of those who would reauthorize NCLB, who would push for merit pay, who would push for both more charter schools and more standardized curriculum for the public schools?

There is no question that we must continue to work to fix our schools. There's no question that there is work to do. But let us be deliberate and thoughtful about the way we do it. Let us dial down the rhetoric and recognize the hard work and successes that so many educators -- and so many schools -- have achieved. Let us make choices (and spend money) in ways that help students as best we can, as opposed to changing as much as we can as fast as we can, just to say we did something.

In other words, let us be quick... but let us never hurry.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

David Warlick is angry...

chris@practicaltheory.org (Chris Lehmann) — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 22:34:13 -0700

... and that's a very good thing.

In a recent post entitled "Let's Just Put Them All In Jail 24/7," David's title came from a comment a reader left in the post before about Secretary Duncan's comments in Coloardo where he called for more time in schools as he said:

"Go ahead and boo me," Duncan told about 400 middle and high school students at a public school in northeast Denver. "I fundamentally think that our school day is too short, our school week is too short and our school year is too short."

David weighs in with his own opinion about this:

We're talking about our children. ..and let's face it, we're talking about nothing less than institutionalizing "child labor" to satisfy a failed belief that higher standardized test scores will reliably lead to a stronger economy, more prosperous citizens, and a vibrant democracy. What it leads to is boredom, collapsing morale among our best teachers, children without passion, children dropping out, and a growing and prospering testing industry.

The whole post is worth reading -- as are the comments, but I wanted to jump in and say that what angers David most, it seems, is the whole "the beatings will continue until moral improves" mindset that seems to be prevailing these days. And yes, it's being applied to students and teachers alike. The answer to our problems in education seems to be teach more, teach harder, learn more, learn harder. More hours, more homework, etc...

... without ever questioning the validity of the time we spend -- and the work we do -- together.

David is right to challenge the prevailing winds in education policy. He is right to be angry. He is right to worry that the path we're heading down does not lead to smarter, more passionate students and teachers, bur rather it leads to teachers and students thinking that school is something that is done TO students, not with or for.

If we want to see a smarter populace, let's start by making sure we find ways to make the time we spend together meaningful, and then let's continue by helping kids make all the hours of their days meaningful. That might mean letting them find their own learning from time to time, but first, we've got to make sure school doesn't take that love of learning away from them.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Broader, Bolder Approach Symposium

chris@practicaltheory.org (Chris Lehmann) — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:46:56 -0700

[I'm on the Broad, Bolder Approach mailing list. I just got this today, but I'll be in Chicago that day, otherwise, I'd be taking a day off to go down to DC for this event. BBA is one of the groups really advocating a different kind of accountability for public education. If you can go, I'd think is going to be powerfully worthwhile.]

New Directions in Accountability Policy for Education

Thursday, February 26, 3-5 PM

With the controversy surrounding No Child Left Behind, there is hunger in the policy community for a viable alternative to make schools and other institutions of youth development accountable for delivering high-quality education. But when it comes to accountability, many people know what they are against; few know what they are for.

At this forum, leaders of the campaign for A Broader Bolder Approach to Education (BBA) will present and discuss proposals for new accountability systems, recommended for consideration to the Obama administration and state governments.

BBA, as you may know, issued a consensus statement last June that has now been endorsed by more than 1,000 leaders in education and social policy. That statement notes:

The public has a right to hold schools accountable for raising student achievement. However, test scores alone cannot describe a school's contribution to the full range of student outcomes. New accountability systems should combine appropriate qualitative and quantitative methods, and they will be considerably more expensive than the flawed accountability systems currently in use by the federal and state governments.

Presenters will include these BBA leaders:

Christopher Cross, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education (1989-91)
Daniel Koretz, author of Measuring Up: What Educational Testing Really Tells Us
Susan B. Neuman, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education (2001-03)
Tom Payzant, BBA co-chair, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education (1993-1995)
Diane Ravitch (via video), former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education (1991-1993)
Richard Rothstein, author of Grading Education, Getting Accountability Right
Robert Schwarz, Academic Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and founding president, Achieve
Warren Simmons, Executive Director of the Annenberg Institute for School Reform

DATE: Thursday, February 26, 2009, from 3:00-5:00 PM

PLACE: Economic Policy Institute, 1333 H Street, NW, East Tower, Suite 300, Washington, DC (near McPherson Square Metro and Metro Center)

RSVP: Space is limited, so please click here to reserve your seat today.

Co-chairs of A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education
Helen F. Ladd (Duke University)
Pedro Noguera (New York University)
Tom Payzant (Harvard Graduate School of Education)

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: edreform

Take Action: Stop Bill 363

chris@practicaltheory.org (Chris Lehmann) — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:04:32 -0700

"First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you
then they fight you,
then you win."
-Mahatma Gandhi

Today, in the Pennsylvania State House, Bill 363 was introduced into the Education Committee. The bill reads:

Section 1317.1. Possession of [Telephone Pagers] Electronic Devices Prohibited.--
(a) The possession by students of telephone paging devices, commonly referred to as beepers, cellular telephones and portable electronic devices that record or play audio or video material shall be prohibited on school grounds, at school sponsored activities and on buses or other vehicles provided by the school district.

(b) The prohibition against beepers and cellular telephones contained in subsection (a) shall not apply in the following cases, provided that the school authorities approve of the presence of the beeper or cellular telephone in each case:
(1) A student who is a member of a volunteer fire company, ambulance or rescue squad.
(2) A student who has a need for a beeper or cellular telephone due to the medical condition of an immediate family member.

Section 2. This act shall take effect in 60 days.

Now, the students of SLA quickly pointed out that this could easily mean no laptops, but even if you don't include laptops in the "portable electronic device" (or tape recorders...) this law just doesn't make sense. Simply put -- if we want to teach students to be 21st Century citizens, we shouldn't ban -- by state law -- the tools of the 21st Century.

Moreover, the more we ban, prohibit, regulate and legislate, the less we teach. If we want students to learn how to manage their lives, we have to let them live them. This law creates more distance between our schools and the lives our kids lead. That makes it harder for us to teach, not easier. The short-term gain of keeping distractions out of our classrooms is, in my belief, far outweighed by the long-term loss of making our schools less and less relevant to kids. Fortunately, PA educators are mobilizing against the bill. There's a Facebook group and an online petition, but we can and must do more.

The sponsors of the bill are:

Please, especially if you are a PA resident, call, write letters, sign the petition, send emails and pass the word. This bill will set back our schools. Help ensure its defeat.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: School2.0, politics, cell phones

Perhaps We Can Hope

chris@practicaltheory.org (Chris Lehmann) — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:59:16 -0700

I admit, I've been discouraged by Obama's early forays into education policy, but yesterday's visit by President Obama and the First Lady to Capital City Public Charter School suggests that we may have reason to hope that our new president will be supportive of progressive education.

CCPCS is a Coalition of Essential Schools school. CES is the organization founded by Ted Sizer and Deborah Meier, two outspoken critics of NCLB. CES is perhaps the most esteemed organization that advocates progressive education, small schools and project-based learning.

So my question to President Obama is this -- if CCPCS is an example of "How all our schools should be," what are the policy initiatives you are willing to support to give more schools a chance to get there?

(Thanks to Tom for calling me out to write about this.)

Blogged with the Flock Browser

The Educational Debate -- Tone Matters

chris@practicaltheory.org (Chris Lehmann) — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 22:40:39 -0700

I was going to write a long impassioned screed about the latest Time magazine article about Michelle Rhee. But then I saw that Dean Shareski already did, so I thought I'd first link to that.

I'll add a few more points, however, but they deal with the tenor and tone of the conversation right now, both in Rhee's words and in the tone of the article.

I worry about an educational leader who would speak like this to a reporter:

Then she raises her chin and does what I come to recognize as her standard imitation of people she doesn't respect. Sometimes she uses this voice to imitate teachers; other times, politicians or parents. Never students. "People say, 'Well, you know, test scores don't take into account creativity and the love of learning,'" she says with a drippy, grating voice, lowering her eyelids halfway. Then she snaps back to herself. "I'm like, 'You know what? I don't give a crap.' Don't get me wrong. Creativity is good and whatever. But if the children don't know how to read, I don't care how creative you are. You're not doing your job."

Let's admit that educational ideas are controversial. Let's admit that no one side of this argument has a monopoly on "right." Let's admit that we can work as hard as we want in service of an educational idea, but that we still don't know for sure that we're doing it right way. And let's let that back-of-the-mind doubt humble us, so that we remain open to learn, because in the end that's what we want our students to do.

And to Time Magazine, if you are going to have a reporter write an editorial, call it an editorial, because when you allow reporters to write statements like this without citing any research at all, you undermine your magazine's credibility:

... if we wanted to have truly great teachers in our schools, we would assess them after their second year of teaching, when we could identify very strong and very weak performers, according to years of research. Great teachers are in total control. They have clear expectations and rules, and they are consistent with rewards and punishments. Most of all, they are in a hurry. They never feel that there is enough time in the day. They quiz kids on their multiplication tables while they walk to lunch. And they don't give up on their worst students, even when any normal person would.

Mixed in with the platitudes there are some very questionable statements. (I'd argue some of the best teachers I've ever seen teach learned how to never be in a hurry. In fact, I'd argue that 'being in a hurry' can often be an impediment to great teaching, because a) that's about you, not the kids, and b) you miss a lot of details when you're in a hurry, and details tend to be important when you teach.) I'm fine with them on the editorial page -- or on a blog -- but not in a piece of reportage. And again, making those statements as blanket truths is reductive -- it makes it seem like the way to great teaching and great schools is just some magic algorithm that everyone knows already but just for some perverse reason is unwilling to implement.

We need fewer know-it-alls in education today. We need thoughtful, humble people who are willing to acknowledge their uncertainty and still do what they believe to be right. We need people who do understand that bludgeoning our way to school improvement probably isn't going to get us there. And we need people who understand, like Tom Sobol once said,

The policy clock and the pedagogical clock are not synchronized. Letâs understand that truth, and quiet our rhetoric down. The question is not only did the scores go up this year; it is whether we have persisted in our journey, noting progress, but respecting at all times the nature of butterflies and flight.

That perspective -- given near the end of a long heroic career in education -- doesn't get you in Time magazine, and it probably doesn't get you meets with both Presidential candidates during election season, but it's what's needed.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

A Modest Proposal

chris@practicaltheory.org (Chris Lehmann) — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:10:46 -0700

I admit... when I saw the headlines earlier this week about another $800 billion for the bailout, I started to get angry. I understood, from talking to friends I trust in the finance world and reading as much as I could get my hands on, that the first bailout was necessary. But the more I read about corporate retreats and corporate jets, the more angry I get about spending $1.8 trillion dollars on the bailout. Somewhere, somehow, the folks running these companies just flat out don't get it.

So here's my proposal -- continue the bailout because we cannot allow these markets to collapse, (and put some intelligent regulation and oversight in, please!) But any company that takes federal bailout money must put a cap on salaries. No one at any company that takes federal monies can make more than the President of the United States.

I think it's fair. That's a $400,000 salary. That's fair. That's livable. (Heck, I'd love to learn how to just get by on $400,000.) And more importantly, it sends a clear message -- the era of greed is over.

I know there are some who say that the market can bear a higher price, and that's what is necessary to get the brilliant minds we need to run these companies, but I'm unimpressed with the folks running them so far, and, honestly, President Obama is, by all accounts, a very smart man.

I know there are those who will feel that this doesn't go far enough -- that the CEOs of AIG and BearStearns should be forced to give back salary back. I think that's a fight we won't win.

This makes sense to me -- if you take bailout money, you pay anyone in your company more money than the highest paid federal employee -- the President of the United States -- and that includes stock options and such -- for the next ten years.

To me, this sends a message to the American people that the executives at these companies are willing to sacrifice like so many Americans are right now. And that's important, since we are bailing them out with enough money to insure every American, fully fund every school or invest in Social Security so that it's there when my generation retires. These are all things we were told that the American government couldn't afford, but now the money is there. It's only right that everyone takes their share of the hit on this one -- and that should certainly include the business folks who oversaw this disaster in the first place.

And if the executives don't want to do that, well, no one is making them take the federal dollars, are they?

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: bailout

Yes, We Can.

chris@practicaltheory.org (Chris Lehmann) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:55:14 -0700

The words of my students:
"I feel as if I can really do anything in the world now."
"Lehmann!!! We did it! President Obama!"
"We did it!"

But as President-Elect Obama said, it's not over now. The real work begins tomorrow... o.k., maybe Thursday.

And Theo gets his piece of history too... look at the screenshot of tonight's Philly.com:

And look at upper right hand of the frame. We're so proud.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: politics

The Politics of Hope

chris@practicaltheory.org (Chris Lehmann) — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 22:05:30 -0700

[A note -- I used to blog much more about my personal political views when I was a teacher, not a principal. As a principal, I blog much less about my personal beliefs outside of education for a lot of reasons. But in the end, this blog isn't a school blog, it's my personal blog, and I asked myself tonight why I had no ideas to blog about this week, and it's because I, like most of America, have been watching this election so closely. I respect that not everyone thinks that I should write publicly about my political views, and I respect that not everyone shares those views -- and not everyone at SLA shares those views. That's o.k., but I need to write this anyway.]

The McCain commercials that have been airing in Pennsylvania this week have been about fear. I saw my first 527 Reverend Wright ad tonight. I watched McCain surrogate "Joe the Plumber" question Obama's patriotism. And I've been offended and frightened. Offended because I cannot believe that John McCain has been willing to stoop so low, and frightened because it has worked before.

So I watched Obama's speech in Ohio last week. If you can't watch the whole thing, watch the last seven minutes.

And then read this -- My Wife Made Me Canvass for Obama.

And remember, that we as Americans have a choice about our nation. We can make a choice this week to believe in the best that we can be. I believe that this election has the chance to revitalize our political process. I believe that if Obama wins, we will have invited a generation of young people to the political process. I believe that if Obama wins, we will have invigorated people all over the demographic map - people like my mother who has spent hundreds of hours volunteering for the campaign. I believe that these people have worked for Obama because they were inspired by him.

And that's the thing. I want a political who inspires. I am envious when I hear my mother and father talk about what it was like to listen to JFK's inaugural speech. I remember the hope I had for Clinton.

And I remember watching Obama's speech in Philadelphia and thinking that I was hearing something truly different than I had ever heard from a politican in my lifetime.

We have the chance to vote for someone who believes in the best of what we can be. We have the chance to vote for someone who believes that the American Dream must be open to all who are willing to work for it. We have the chance to vote for someone who believes that politicans of either party have an obligation to work for all Americans.

On Tuesday morning, I'm going to take Jakob by the hand, down to my polling place, and I'm going to take him into the ballot booth with me as I vote for Barack Obama. I hope that, years from now, he remembers the moment as a powerful piece of his own and our country's history.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: politics

Sustainability and a New Economic Model

chris@practicaltheory.org (Chris Lehmann) — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:20:22 -0700

[Forgive me if this is a post that isn't about the stuff I usually write about, but the idea was rumbling around, and here's where I put ideas that rumble around. -- Chris]

This post comes from thinking about the financial crisis of the past week (and next decade) and spending time with some old college friends of mine this weekend. Both are Wharton grads and both still are in the world of business. One is high ranking executive at a Fortune 50 company, and I always am intrigued to talk to them because their view on the world is very different than mine, even when our ethical values are often very similar.

This post comes at the intersection of two conversations we were having. On one level, I was listening to them discuss the financial realities of their businesses in the wake of everything going on. At another point, we were talking about the environment and issues of sustainability. What concerns me, and what I want to write about, is my creeping feeling that our current economic system is uniquely unsuitable to the need for a sustainable society.

The corporate structure -- by definition -- is designed for growth. That's where the shareholder profit comes in. Because there is a need to always take money out of the system to reward investment, a zero growth sustainable corporation -- by my definition, the ability to reach a stable presence in the market -- is a losing proposition.

Now, on any micro-economic level, that's fine. Companies come and go, but it strikes me that on the whole, we are reaching an end-game with a growth economy, as there is a limit how much markets can grow, and much of the growth we have seen of the past twenty years (the dot-com boom, the housing boom) has -- it seems to me -- been built on parlor games and mathematical tricks. We hope that new technologies, new innovations, will grow new markets. We hope that increased wealth of developing nations will mean growth for old corporations. But all of this also comes at a point where we are seeing a growing environmental crisis, as there are serious questions about the degree to which our planet can sustain our current environmental pace without serious repercussions.

Much of the current mainstream political debate deals with the need to tweak the current economic / environmental model. Do we regulate more? Do we bail out? Do we use market forces to encourage a reduced carbon footprint? It was fascinating for me to listen to two business executives agree that there should have been a massive gas tax years ago to a) change American behavior around gas consumption, b) raise necessary funds to fund alternative energy research and c) alter the market so that the the price of gasoline reflected the actual price of gas once the externality of pollution was factor in so that alternative energies became cheaper alternatives more quickly. Certainly, those are all important questions, and the need to question and alter the role of government in the coming years to deal with the realities of our changing world will be one of the fundamental question of the coming decade.

But at the root is the legal organism of the capitalist corporation. Has it outlived its usefulness? Have we, as a society - a world - reached a point in our evolution where the growth model of the market organism is more harmful than helpful? The sole proprietorship, the "mom and pop" did not have the need for growth that the corporation -- by definition -- has. I'm not suggesting that we can go back to an atomized capitalism - to the days of Adam Smith, nor am I arguing for a state-sponsored socialism (although is it just me or did we just nationalize a massive section of the banking industry last week?). Instead I am questioning our ability to imagine a new model of economics -- one that harnesses the best notions of the marketplace while recognizing the limits of growth as the altar at which business must worship? Can we imagine a model of economics where sustainability is the goal of business? Where the idea of "enough" at the macro level was considered? Is there a model of a market economy that does not have to include macro-economic growth?

Because I am concerned that without a new model, the macro-level rapaciousness of a corporate capitalism as that legal organism is currently constructed will lead us into a need for more and more where we must hope that technological innovations stretch ever-dwindling resources and increase the efficiency with which humans interact with their environment outpace the need for the market to grow. And that is a frightening end-game that, to me, we are destined some day to lose.