Differing Education Policies Between Senators McCain and Obama

Each candidate is quick to remind us that education is key to our future prosperity, but they offer differing fundamental ideologies on the issue. Senator McCain's education plan incorporates free market principals to foster competition between schools, to reward the best and eliminate the worst. Senator Obama's plan would use the federal government to expand educational opportunities and raise every school to a higher standard. Where Senator McCain brings choice, Senator Obama brings right.

"School choice stimulates improvement and creates expanded opportunities for our children to get a quality education," said Senator McCain at the signing of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Later, defending vouchers, he argued, "Exciting things are happening in Milwaukee and Cleveland, where school voucher programs have been put in place. There, minority schoolchildren are being given a chance to succeed. The early signs are good: test scores and performance are up." Senator McCain supports the voucher program because it lets parents determine their child's education rather than relying on public schools. Vouchers are given out by school districts to allow families the option to spend their tax money that would've been spent on public school to pay for private school tuition instead. This would create a competitive environment between schools, giving each the incentive to be the best.

From the public education's perspective, Senator McCain's support of NCLB, Centers for Excellence, and vouchers would create "sink or swim" education. This ideology, however great for business, is disastrous for schools. Good schools will prosper and attract students, poorer schools won't turn students away. Because of employment opportunities, many low income families have limited mobility. The students who will be left are those who have nowhere else to go, stuck to flounder in terrible schools. These children's families can't move to other school districts, even if their local school is incompetent. If they did get a voucher, there would be nowhere to redeem it. Senator McCain would force families to choose between their child's education and putting bread on the table—no family should have to make that choice. Every school needs to swim because those that sink won't just sink into obscurity, but will perpetuate bad education. Public schools were originally intended to create informed citizens of the republic, which is essential to democracy. The voucher system and increased competition that Senator McCain proposes would leave many students behind and create an even more uninformed public.

Senator McCain's program proposals for compulsory education are sparse, but his plans for higher education are nearly non-existent. For the most part, higher education in the United States is a private endeavor. Senator McCain's earlier education proposals limit government involvement to promote business. In the same vein, he proposes to simplify tax benefits, simplify federal financial aid, make more information available, fix student lending programs, and of course, cut earmarks. Each of these proposals may streamline the process, but in reality, they do little to help struggling families send their children to college.

In stark contrast, Senator Obama wants an overall increase in federal involvement. "No Child Left Behind left the money behind!" has become a slogan on the campaign trail. While Senator McCain would create one Early Head Start Center for Excellence per state, Senator Obama would quadruple the budget for the program across the board. His massive increases in funding and the creation of many programs demonstrates his belief that education is a right and no one should be deprived of it. His website reads, "Quality public education is the heart of the American promise."

The arguments against Senator Obama's plan fall into three main categories, but can be easily summed up in one conservative slogan, "Big Government Bad." Opponents often argue that first, bureaucracy is ineffective. Second, government doesn't work. And third, free market is better.

Senator Obama plans to create at least six new programs, not to mention expanding some that already exist. This would establish an even more massive bureaucracy than exists today. Bureaucracies are slow, ineffective, and waste taxpayers' money. In a time when our economy is so damaged, we can't afford more wanton spending.

Even if the bureaucracy succeeded, it would still be centered at the federal level and completely detached from the realities on the ground. Education is a highly localized practice because the knowledge students garner needs to reflect the values, needs, and practices of their locality. You don't need to learn Eskimo poetry in Flint, Michigan. You need trades.

Any resolution of these problems would be temporary. Big government is slow to react to sudden needs. Free market is better equipped to regulate education. It can penalize poorly performing schools and teachers, and reward high performance. In a "sink or swim" system, there is more incentive than exists in a welfare state.

Countering Senator McCain's higher education plan, Senator Obama would offer a $4,000 dollar tax credit, a welcome relief for struggling families, but possibly ineffective in the long term. Given the state of the economy, universities are cutting costs and relying more on revenue from tuition. It's not a stretch to imagine tuition rising to a cost that dwarfs the small $4,000 aid.

At times, this election has seemed like a contest of impacts—what will lead us to our ruin first—without any resolution. Education, as any other issue, has a profound effect on the future of our society. Both candidates present their beliefs on how best to solve the problem, but each plan, depending on how you argue, has flaws. It's entirely possible that they're both right, and November 4 will usher in a new dawn of humanity. But it's equally possible that neither can wholly fix our education system, regardless of who wins.

The Importance of Gov. Palin

Gov. Palin’s acceptance speech at the RNC towed the party line as has not yet been done in the Republican Presidential campaign. Sen. McCain has generally tried to play maverick and I think we're seeing the real benefit she brings. She is red, through and through. It'll definitely be interesting to see how that plays out. It might, and hopefully will, just play into the Democratic argument of the ticket as, "four more years of the last eight." If you've noticed, the Democrats have largely remained silent for the past few days. I think now we're going to get a chance to start to hear some responses. 
 
I think the picking of Gov. Palin is the embodiment of the idea, "just like me." This has been a tactic of the GOP for years. If you look at the Bush campaign, it was all about being "just like me." He tells jokes. He believes in God and goes to church. He loves sports. He's the kind of guy I can have a beer with. Gov. Palin is that. Many see her as the ploy by the party to court the women's vote, but I think she's also, like you said, the evangelical vote, the hunter vote, snow vote, the frontier vote. She reacted to her time in office the way, I imagine, many folk would--banning books is a time honored tradition. So, yes it's cynical, but I think just leaving it at woman is too shallow.
 
This tactic makes for great campaigning, but terrible governing. I think this is going to have to be the line of criticism that the Democrats are going to have to take. They've been tying Pres. Bush to Sen. McCain for a good few months. They should try to do the same with Gov. Palin. Or maybe not. However, Sen. Obama did just spend a whole year trying to convince people he's just folk so it might backfire.
 
The scandal about the Palin daughter’s pregnancy should rightfully be off limits, absolutely. Both campaigns I think said that well. The media is just a little slow to listen, which is annoying. The media smells blood. They keep digging up facts, only some of which are relevant. I think I saw one headline that said that she never went to Ireland. I'm half expecting there to be an article on HuffPo about how she totally loved Dream Police in college or something. There are valid skeletons in her closet that need to be dragged out, and I think within the pregnancy scandal there is a valid issue that needs to be discussed. I don’t know how eloquently I can put it (and I know the Daily Show has already done a better job). We shouldn’t discuss this young woman’s pregnancy, but we should discuss the discussion itself. An important of the conservative and general Republican platforms is an exorcism of government from otherwise private matters like the family and individual determinations. Yes, this is a private matter. However, that exclusion of the government from the private sphere is premised on the belief that government shouldn’t choose, we should determine our own lives. This belief links to the Democratic positions on abortion (pro-choice) and sex ed. These Democratic positions insist that people should determine their own private lives, not the government. People should choose whether to abort their child. People should be educated about the world around them so they are better capable of making informed decisions. The same Republican platform that touts an insistence on a separation between the government and private matters also insists on using the governments hand to destroy autonomy by eliminating choice and education.
 
The secessionist party skeleton is another good example of an issue that needs discussing. If you're a "heartbeat away from the presidency" then you should probably be an absolute patriot. I think most Americans would agree, and the GOP laid out this requirement in their attacks on the Obama family. The GOP is failing its own criteria. They've failed the experience criteria and now the patriotism criteria.
 
"Troopergate" is particularly important because we've lived through too much Washington scandal. She may not be guilty, but I don't think that matters in this case. It certainly matters for her, but the role of the next administration is to restore trust in the institutions that make up the government and the only way anyone can do that is by being clean and ethically sound. I may very well be wrong, but I think the perceptions of people will be colored by the fact that she is potentially ethically unfit. People might see the system as bankrupt, a problem that we have endured too long. On the flip-side, a thorough trial might actually benefit the country and restore faith in our justice system.
 
What I think is most damaging about Gov. Palin is the reaction within the party. Publicly, the GOP is all for her, but there are rumors abounding about lack of faith in the ticket. People think she's a ploy, she's just a campaign tactic, that she will sink the ship. Whenever you pit the hopeless against the hopeful, the latter will always win. Hopefully.