"...and while I don't imagine many of the people who voted to kill the DC voucher program have consciences, I hope those that do feel a twinge."

I wish people wouldn't say things like this. One of the real curses of modern American politics is the way we tend to demonize our ideological adversaries. Of course, the members of Congress who voted against the DC program have consciences; they simply disagree with you about the solution to a political issue. Perhaps they worry that if we open the voucher door too wide, K-12 education will be overrun by those fly-by-night operators who have sullied higher ed with their internet diploma mills and their marginal vo-tech schools that exist only to relieve students of their federal loan money. Maybe they believe that using public funds to subsidize sectarian religious education, even indirectly, violates the First Amendment. One might dispute these positions, but they are not inherently the views of people who don't care about children.

The same thing, of course, is said by supporters of health care reform about those who have opposed President Obama's various plans. You hear it all the time: how can anyone with a conscience allow a system to persist that condemns thousands of Americans to bankruptcy or death each year simply for the crime of getting sick. And that's just as wrong.

Are there people out there whose values are warped? Sure. Some Democrats probably don't care if kids learn so long as the jobs of the most incompetent teachers are protected. And some Republicans likely don't worry themselves about families being ruined or Americans dying unnecessarily so long as they can destroy the Democratic presidency du jour.

But I refuse to believe that those people are great in number. The people who hold these views are our friends and neighbors, and we need to reject a politics that presupposes that their motives must necessarily be venal or worse.

I started reading this blog because it seemed thoughtful. But more and more I notice statements such as, "I don't imagine many of the people who voted to kill the DC voucher program have consciences." I admit my perspective is not likely one that will let truly understand the things I'm about to comment on but the impression I get is that this sort of comment isn't designed to promote a better world but rather offered as excuse for being angry. Maybe there are reasons to be angry but anger is a poor foundation for debate. When you suggest that the only reason your opponents could hold the views they do is their moral decay, you weaken, not strengthen your argument. It not just that I'm confident that you got it wrong about the lack of consciences. It's that I'm confident you know that it's wrong. I no longer trust you when you assert that, "massive per pupil spending ... has translated into graft..."

Scott and Pete -- Looks like I touched a nerve. Can I assume you don't support vouchers?

You are right up to a point about the damaging role that anger of the sort I express here can have -- and I'll do better on that front in future. For the record, I note that 1) this is, overall, a very temperate blog, and my comment yesterday was the exception rather than the rule; 2) I think it's legitimate to be angry about the things our government is doing to us, in education and elsewhere. The method of expression of that anger can certainly be debated -- but anger itself is a legitimate response, and I am angry about what's happened to the DC voucher program.

One reason I am angry is that the arguments that have been made against school choice and vouchers are very often *not* made in good faith, and are made in such a manner as to demonize those who make the arguments. The case against school choice is a union-made case designed to shore up teachers' interests, pure and simple. It's dressed up to look like something else--but that is the origin of the argument. You look at who challenges voucher laws in the courts and fights the expansion of charter schools, and you will see that.

I don't like seeing members of Congress get into bed with that -- especially when it's at the expense of the kids. And they've lied egregiously about it in the past -- several years ago Mary Landrieu promised the DC parents that she would support the voucher bill. And then she walked in the next day and delivered a heated speech opposing it. She is not alone. Why did she change her opinion overnight? Was conscience her guide? You don't want me to speculate about that. But it smells bad ... and not least because we have seen recently that she and others are very open to being bribed (if you don't like that word, please suggest another one) in exchange for their votes.

I don't know how much you know about the school choice movement--or about the attacks that have been made against it, or about the kids whose lives hang in the balance. I'd strongly recommend that you watch the Heritage Foundation's short video, Let Me Rise (www.voicesofschoolchoice.org/), and that, if you have time, you read Clint Bolick's book Voucher Wars just for starters. I've met many of the people in the Heritage video, so this issue is very real to me.

I also hope, for the record, that you will exercise your right to speak up as you have with me when you see people using terms like "teabagger," or when you see them indulging in all sorts of nasty ad hominem with people like Sarah Palin, rather than sticking to the issues. We do need a more civil public culture--but it only works if we are evenhanded in our demand for it.

Lionel Trilling spoke of "the moral obligation to be intelligent." Obviously, people can't be smarter than their inborn intellectual endowment allows, but they *can* make a good-faith effort to look at evidence, to understand causes and effects, and to avoid confirmation bias. I think many of the supporters of the-educational-system-as-it-is fail Trilling's test...they are either not looking at reality, or they are knowingly distorting it. For example, I've seen advertisements that purport to show how underfunded education is by graphing Federal education spending versus military spending...with no mention of the fact that most education funding at the U.S. is at the state & local level.

I agree with Erin that her blog is far more temperate than most. A couple of weeks ago, a reader commented to me in an email try hat reading most blogs is "like being hit over the head with a frying pan"....I think this blog is an exception to that all-too-common reality.

I also that in a situation where millions of kids are being sacrificed unneccessarily, year after year, a certain amount of measured anger is appropriate.

I started reading this blog because it seemed thoughtful. But more and more I notice statements such as, "I don't imagine many of the people who voted to kill the DC voucher program have consciences." I admit my perspective is not likely one that will let truly understand the things I'm about to comment on but the impression I get is that this sort of comment isn't designed to promote a better world but rather offered as excuse for being angry.

And as I as worked my way through your comment, it became increasingly clear to me that it isn't designed to promote a better world but rather offered as an excuse for discrediting Erin (whose ideas you obviously view as a threat).

Maybe there are reasons to be angry but anger is a poor foundation for debate.

I think we're living in different universes . . . whatever anger Erin expresses is tempered, measured in the extreme. And I believe justified (are you not outraged by what's happening in our public schools, especially in New Jersey and DC??).

I believe you've fallen into the classic liberal trap of comparing an ideological opponent to a perfect and unachievable standard rather than to the real world (you've damned Erin, the very, very good, because she is imperfect, as if any of us are).

I also believe you apply your standard selectively to your opponents but not your ideological fellow-travelers. But you can prove me wrong . . . point me towards where you've publicly criticized any individual who is one of your ideological allies for being "angry," or condemned his motives.

When you suggest that the only reason your opponents could hold the views they do is their moral decay, you weaken, not strengthen your argument.

She didn't say the only reason for opposition is moral decay: when you write a blog, you sometimes omit qualifiers simply for brevity — and if you're going to criticize Erin for doing so . . . you might consider that any blog entry, written by any author, is subject to the same criticism.

Once again, as with the "anger" point, we see selective criticism: you're more than willing to discredit, this time using a straw-man argument.

Having said that, I'd welcome reading any philosophical or practical defense you might wish to post which would justify giving any promising voucher program the deep six, especially the DC one.

Question: With respect to abortion . . . are you pro-choice? If so, why not pro-choice for vouchers?

It not just that I'm confident that you got it wrong about the lack of consciences. It's that I'm confident you know that it's wrong. I no longer trust you when you assert that, "massive per pupil spending ... has translated into graft..."

Oh dear! I must quote myself, above:

And as I as worked my way through your comment, it became increasingly clear to me that it isn't designed to promote a better world but rather offered as an excuse for discrediting Erin (whose ideas you obviously view as a threat).

Thanks for the response.

Yes, you have touched a nerve, though not the one you think. My feelings about vouchers--which are more complicated than you assume--had little to do with my response.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with getting angry about political outcomes that one finds disappointing or wrongheaded. I do that myself, probably far more often than I should. But I think that it's important to remember that the people whose views we oppose are, for the most part, decent, caring people. They are simply people with whom we disagree.

That was my point about the health care debate. I know, from reading this blog, that you are passionately opposed to any nationalization of medical care in the United States. When faced with views such as yours, many of my liberal friends would conclude that such a person simply has no conscience, and is more concerned with scoring ideological victories than with the families who suffer and the people who die under the current profit-driven system. That is, they cannot even conceive of the possibility that someone could hold your views for any but the most venal or petty reasons. And that obviously goes double for the Republican members of Congress, who are assumed by the left to be in bed with the AMA and Big Pharma.

That is a corrosive view, and one which I, although a strong supporter of Canadian-style heath care, speak out against whenever I hear it. I reject the idea that people who disagree with me must, by definition, be uncaring or corrupt.

By the same token, though, I don't think you can assume that arguments against vouchers are necessarily made in bad faith. I would guess that nearly all the union leaders authentically feel that the interests of teachers and those of children are consonant. Further, I would guess that they honestly believe that those who sell voucher programs are ideologically-driven snake oil salesmen whose real agenda is to destroy public education. They may be wrong, they may be rationalizing, they may be crazy, but when they go home at night, they sleep well, knowing, in their minds at least, that they are on the side of the angels.

Likewise, the proponents of the status quo on health care go to bed each night believing that they are fighting the good fight on behalf of all Americans, not just those who are fortunate enough to have full coverage.

For what it's worth, I do consider your blog generally quite measured and respectful of alternative viewpoints. That's why I come here and enjoy reading what you have to say. It's also why I was disappointed to see such a facile and nasty charactertization of people who, in their own way, care about children just as much as you or I do. They may certainly be wrong, but they are not monsters.

Scott -- Thanks for your note. I couple of points: while I am very sympathetic to much of what you say, I want to qualify in a couple of places. One is your assumption that people not on board with the government's health care bill are "proponents of the status quo." That's not true. It's a straw man set up by supporters of the government bill to demonize those who disagree with them as uncaring, racist, selfish, what have you. You have drunk the Kool-Aid even as you say you have not!

And part of the anger that you saw coming from me in my post was displaced expression of accumulated frustration at just these sort of characterizations being directed at me and people like me. I very much want to see health care reform--but think the place to start is with things like tort reform, making sure people have portable insurance that they can shop for anywhere and that can cross state lines, making sure you can't be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, and so on. Private solutions that are pragmatic, and that have the potential to cut costs in the right places while still giving people autonomy over their own care. I have *really* disliked being demonized as not wanting reform, and as not wanting it for reasons of diminished character.

That's just one example. Another one is available for view at Michael Berube's blog, where you can see how he and his commenters responded when I called him out for talking about teabaggers shortly after he was elected MLA president. I did something rather like what you did with me the other day -- except I did it more mildly, and with someone who *chronically* and *continuously* engages in ad hominem attacks and snarky nastiness to people who disagree with him, and does it from a prominent academic professorship where his students can see it, from an AAUP officership where it reflects poorly on the entire academic profession, and will shortly be doing it from the presidency of the modern language association. For my troubles, I was mocked by him, and accused by his readers of everything from prudishness to, yes, intellectual dishonesty (this last was a de facto diagnosis, reached by googling my name and discovering that I am a research fellow for ACTA). I was accused of trying to smear Berube's reputation (for posting his own posted words!). Etc. Etc. Etc. It's ironic, don't you think? Just be glad I'm not Berube. You wouldn't be getting the time for day right about now and you'd be wishing you had been smarter than to bother bringing up the issue of civility.

This is not to make excuses for my having a momentary lapse of civility. But it is to say that there is a context for it, and that context is the extremely nasty behavior that comes my way, and comes the way of libertarians like me, when academics, journalists, reporters, and, yes, elected leaders go for the old ad hominem rather that treat us like actual people with actual brains and--yes--actual consciences who just happen to come to different conclusions than they do. You'll say that nasty behavior runs the other way, too. And sure it does. But I think you are wasting your time if you want to make a crusade out of me. Go police Ann Coulter *and* Michael Berube if you want to make a difference, and let me get on with my daily attempts to find more civil ways of dealing. I don't always succeed, but you will at least get no argument that this is the ideal.

I've taken a lot of crap for writing this blog over the years. I have even had a death threat or two. That was fun! I've been called names, I've been mocked and attacked. I was frozen out of my job at Penn for having the wrong opinions and speaking out. That sort of thing tends to give me a low opinion of the principled behavior and conscience-driven decision-making of the folks you ask me to believe are well-meaning, fighting the good fight. When I meet people who really are doing that, I recognize it, I genuinely honor it, and I respect it -- no matter what side of the issues they are on. But I tend to have different baseline assumptions than you do, and they come from long and unpleasant experience. I am not willing to take as an article of faith that most people--particularly most politicians--are operating from pure motives and are fighting the good fight. Maybe your experience justifies that baseline assumption, but mine does not.

Now let's let it lie, shall we? And if you would like to tell me your thoughts on vouchers, I would like to hear them, and I am sure my readers would, too.

Minerva,

Because it was completely irrelevant to my comment, I made no mention about my feelings regarding the topic of the original post. My point was about the tone: name-calling is not helpful. It's too bad that both you and Erin assumed that my concerns about the medium could be used to guess my opinions about the message; I have not and will not go into detail about my views on school vouchers other than to say they are not nearly so extreme as you have (based on no evidence) seem to have concluded. It seems to me that another way to view my remarks would have been to say, "Gee, here's a guy who wants to help. His point is that one should remove invective from one’s attempt to persuade.”

Instead of offering constructive criticism I could have called Erin some sort of nasty name—even nastier than suggesting she moves through the world without benefit of conscience—in the hope that she would respond in kind. Pretty soon we could get a full-on flame war going.

But you, instead of interpreting my suggestion to Erin to not be so nasty as helpful, seemed to conclude that it was my intent to discredit her; here again you seem to mean discredit her points in the substance of the post, despite the fact that my comment was silent on the substance. If any discrediting was done, I put it to you that it was Erin herself that did it. I was only commenting on that which was already done. Erin brought up Sarah Palin in her response. I don’t mean to equate Sarah Palin and Erin O’Connor but it is useful for me to follow on from that mention to make my current point. Remember when Katie Couric asked Gov. Palin which newspapers she reads and she responded with something along the lines of, “All of them”? And did you see, just recently when Glen Beck asked Palin who was her favorite founding fathers? Same answer: all of them. Now I suppose you could argue that such answers make her look good but my take is that this suggests that the woman who tried to convince me that she should be Vice President of the United States is a person of rather shallow intellect. But my point is not about Sarah Palin but that whatever you conclude about the credit or otherwise of Gov. Palin, it ought to have nothing to do with Couric or Beck. I will note however, the disappointing irony in the observation that many of those took Katie Couric to task for the “inappropriate” nature of the question seem to be giving Glen Beck a pass. You may wish to conclude that I have discredited myself for being so impolite as to point out the mistake of another but shooting the messenger says more about the shooter than the message.

I apologize for ascribing to you a point of view I have not seen you express, but I’m guessing that you mostly disagree with either Keith Olbermann or Rush Limbaugh. Many people will see the differences between the two but when recently Olbermann suggested that Scott Brown was a supporter of violence against women and Limbaugh suggested that the earthquake in Haiti was unfortunate not because of the human suffering it has created but because it will give President Obama a chance to look good, they were the same person. It is because I have not regarded Erin O’Connor as a person of shallow intellect that I bothered to suggest she cool it with regard to the angry name-calling. It’s not occurred to me to think of Rush Limbaugh when reading Erin O’Connor in the same way I am reminded of Bill O’Riely when I hear Amy Goodman. My only point was to suggest that this could change (and really ought to change) if she keeps suggesting that the best explanation for why people would oppose school vouchers is that they have no sense of right and wrong.

Health Care...of course, there is more than one possible set of improvements, and it's silly that one particular proposal--a proposal that is not even fully-defined--has been allowed to monopolize the term "healtcare reform." Whole Foods CEO John Mackie, for example, published a well-thought-out set of ideas for healtchare improvement last August: he was demonized by the Left, and there was even an attempt made to start a boycott of his stores.

Erin:

"The insults of an enemy a tribute to the brave"

(said to be an old Afghan saying)

Actually, Pete, I fully understood what you were saying . . . and I think the readership, by and large, did too.

I perceive anger in your spirited and lengthy response which I suspect stems from you having been caught out. After all, in my reply to you, I did nothing but use your own words against you.

As for you not trying to discredit or attack Erin, you did pleasure us with this gem, as part of your conclusion:

It not just that I'm confident that you got it wrong about the lack of consciences. It's that I'm confident you know that it's wrong.

If that's not saying: "Erin, you're lying and know it" then I don't understand the King's English, and if that isn't a deliberate attempt to attack her character, then I don't know what character assassination is.

So when you write in your response to me that . . .

. . . instead of interpreting my suggestion to Erin to not be so nasty as helpful, seemed to conclude that it was my intent to discredit her . . .

. . . you'll perhaps understand why your "explanation" rings hollow.