Obama and Education...

The Obamas' little girls go to a pricey private school – $20,000+ per year each just for tuition. I applaud them for being willing to sink that kind of serious money into providing a solid education for their kids. I don't know anything at all about the school they're sending their kids to, but I have to assume that they've got their little girls' best interests in mind, and that they're doing the best they know how to give their kids the opportunity to excel. That's terrific, and I mean that most sincerely – this is one of the few actions of the Obamas that I find admirable.

But it also serves to point out, in a very clarifying way, Obama's staggering hypocrisy on the subject of education. He and his wife make good use of their wealth to get their kids out of our miserable public schools – but Obama adamantly opposes any such opportunity for ordinary parents. You know, those parents his party claims to represent.

The issue of education, perhaps more than any other, highlights the intrinsic conflict of interest between ordinary people and the Democratic Party. Ordinary parents (the kind who can't afford to spend $20K/year on their kids) desperately want to be able to control where their kids go to school. The Democratic Party (most definitely including Obama) opposes any and every kind of school choice.

The National Education Assocation (NEA) rates Obama's voting record on education as “perfect”. Their definition of perfect is very much self-interested, no matter how much they cloak it in “for the children” rhetoric.

The NEA and Obama are for more education funding, and against any financial reform. The implicit assumption in this is that public schools currently use their funding in a manner which could not be improved, and of course this is absurd. There are numerous examples of non-public school systems that spend less, have smaller bureaucracies, and that graduate kids with demonstrably superior knowledge and skills. The parochial school system is but one such example, but it's a good one.

The NEA and Obama are against any form of school choice, including (most famously) vouchers. While they don't like to say this directly, one cannot escape the conclusion that their objective is to force every parent to send their children to the school chosen for them by the education bureaucracy. No school choice for ordinary parents, only for the wealthy.

The NEA and Obama are against merit pay, are against firing substandard (but certified) teachers, and are against every other program that would rid our public schools of bad teachers and attract good teachers to them. They have many arguments for these positions, but they all boil down to this: they are putting the interests of the rank-and-file (mediocre by definition) union members ahead of the interests of the children. Oh, they won't say that, of course – but that is in fact what they are doing.

Obama's and the Democratic Party's position on education is inexplicable until you factor in this: the single biggest supporter of the Democratic Party is the NEA. Not just in cash, but also in contributions of grass-roots labor. For example, over half of all the delegates to the Democratic Party's convention are NEA members (and more than half the remaining delegates are members of other public-sector unions). The Democratic Party (and Obama) must support the NEA's positions, or they lose money and help they can't afford to lose.

In a very real way, the Democratic Party is an extension of public-sector unions, most especially the NEA. The interests of those unions (and by extension, of the Democratic Party) are clearly in conflict with those “ordinary Joe” voters the Democrats claim to support.

Obama: hypocrite on education. Here's a case where his actions speak far louder than his words. He and his wife have made a choice to take their kids out of public school. We all know why they're doing so – and I, for one, completely agree with him on that score. But Obama doesn't want you and I to have that same choice...