Posted on 7/7/2007, 4:53:12 AM by 2ndDivisionVet
Conservatives enamored with Senator Fred Thompson are desperate for evidence that he really is Ronald Reagan’s heir. After six years of disappointments, conservatives want to hear more than just a recitation of support for low taxes, less regulations, and federalism. We’ve heard that line before. Thompson needs to show that he knows the difference between limited government conservatism and Bush’s brand of big-government Republicanism, which seeks to use the government beast for conservative aims instead of tame it.
The upcoming debate on Capitol Hill over the future of the No Child Left Behind law presents Sen. Thompson — and other GOP candidates — with such an opportunity. President Bush continues to tout No Child Left Behind as one of his signature domestic initiatives. But conservatives are increasingly skeptical. As the Washington Post recently reported, a number of former Bush administration officials and loyalist have broken with the White House and are opposing extending No Child Left Behind.
No Child Left Behind is the essence of “big government” conservatism. The law created national rules for state-level testing and gave Congress and the Department of Education greater power to regulate local public schools and to mandate school reforms. It also upped federal spending on education programs by 26 percent. The purpose of the legislation was to use the carrot of federal funding to force schools to embrace the high stakes testing policies that President Bush had watched succeed in Texas.
But after five years, it’s increasingly clear that this big government approach to reforming American education hasn’t worked. Researchers have found that No Child Left Behind’s high stakes testing requirements are encouraging states to lower standards and make tests easier to pass. Many states and local school districts have resisted implementing No Child Left Behind’s modest school choice provisions that were supposed to help students stuck in persistently failing schools. School officials complain about the paperwork and red tape associated with complying with No Child Left Behind, which are costly and distract from the business of educating children.
While President Bush and Education Secretary Spellings continue to defend the law and want it reauthorized essentially unchanged, conservatives on Capitol Hill are rebelling. Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) and John Cornyn, (R., Tex) and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R., Mich.) have offered proposals that enable states to opt-out of many of No Child Left Behind’s requirements. State leaders would decide how federal funds for education could be used, and would just be responsible for showing results.
One of the many virtues of this approach is that the education debate on the federal level would become much less contentious: Members of Congress would no longer have to argue about whether smaller classes or greater school choice is the best way to improve public schools around the country. Governors, state legislators, and local leaders would decide what path to pursue and how to invest their education budget. No doubt many would experiment with innovative programs that would then become models for other states.
In short, these conservatives are trying to start applying the principles of federalism and limited government to federal education policy. But are any of the party’s would-be standard bearers ready to join them?
During a recent debate, Gov. Mitt Romney expressed support for the current No Child Left Behind regime. Senator McCain voted for the original legislation in 2001, and has largely been silent on the topic during the campaign. Mayor Giuliani has called No Child Left Behind a “marginal success,” but when talking about education policy emphasizes the need for more school choice.
Sen. Thompson, who also voted for the legislation in 2001, hasn’t been pressed on his current position regarding No Child Left Behind, but he has been the strongest champion of federalism among the field. In an April commentary on National Review Online, Thompson wrote: “Republicans have struggled in recent years, because they have strayed from basic principles. Federalism is one of those principles. It is something we all give lip service to and then proceed to ignore when it serves our purposes.”
Thompson can distinguish himself from the rest of the pack by describing how he would put this principle to work in federal education policy and reforming No Child Left Behind. It might not capture the attention of the mainstream media like a statement on Iraq, the Middle East, or a controversial social issue. But by demonstrating a true commitment to limited government, Sen. Thompson can give his would-be conservative supporters much needed reassurance.
------------------------------
Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy at the Independent Women’s Forum and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.
I kind of wondered when he would declare his run officially.
I was off in Vegas playing in the 120 degree weather but thought he would declare by the forth.
When is he going to declare he is running, 2009?
The July 4th announcement thing was a rumor, not something that Fred Thompson or his staff put out. He has to tie up loose ends with ABC, Law & Order and some other issues. Don’t worry, he’s running! I aim to raise over one million dollars for Fred, and I wouldn’t waste my time if I thought he wasn’t serious.
bump
A true Federalist would not spend a single federal dollar on education. No dollars and no rules.
A true Federalist would be running in 1807 and 2007. Society has changed, the technology of today truly makes it a small world and an even smaller country. I realize it’s an easy and convenient answer, “well, just, uh, give it back to the states”, and all is well. When these “states” that are getting it back, go under, then what? Let’s give abortion back to the states. So, one has to take a little trip for their abortion? Yes, that’s the solution. When one state has a horrible educational system and another is doing great, what then? Does Central Government take up the slack? Does the state with the good educational system get overrun via the eventual transfers from other states, thus overloading their educational system? So, uh, I guess, when you, uh, apply this to the reality on the ground, where the rubber meets the road, what you have exactly is what? I wonder if anyone has thought this through?
ummm - yeah ... maybe the framers of the constitution - just a guess.
What happens? People move out of bad states into good states. Poorly run states go broke, lose population, representation in the House, etc. When they figure out how they goofed up and vote in better State government, things turn around.
This bailing out of State governments by the Federal government is no different than liberalism/socialism/etc on a larger scale.
The whole idea of the Constitution is to have indivdual states be the competing laboratories in better governance.
When the Federal Government regulates EVERYTHING, the only result can be stagnation and a dying country.
yeah, maybe it was thought through - a little more deeply than you have.
There are three movements of federalism and the most recent movement (20th and 21st centuries) is notably different than the first two (18th and 19th centuries).
FDT subscribes to the recent movement of Federalism.
The philosphy of recent Federalism is exactly what America needs today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_(United_States)
I don’t think that most of Fred’s supporters support him because he’s Reagan’s heir. He has support because he is his own man and doesn’t compare himself to Reagan as the pack of declared candidates have tried to do.
“What happens? People move out of bad states into good states. Poorly run states go broke, lose population, representation in the House, etc. When they figure out how they goofed up and vote in better State government, things turn around.”-—— Doug
People just move out of bad states? Well, now we know. The framers had 13 original colonies. We now have 50 states and half of Mexico wanting to come here. I suppose Mexico is one of those failed states you were speaking about. I agree, poorly run states would and do lose population. I guess we disagree as to the effect it would have on well-run states. My point was that Federalism is being used as a cover-all for some and that Fred’s Fredalist rhetoric doesn’t fly with me. I don’t like the idea of anyone being bailed out by the Central Government anymore than you or anyone else. Another point I made and that you seemed to overlook, is the obvious human suffering these failed states will entail. You think Americans will go for that? Bear in mind the popularity of the Hitlery and others as you consider your answer. Consider the narrow victories by Bush in his initial election and re-election. The news of whatever happened in another state traveled very slowly for the framers. Now it is broadcast live, in living color for all the world to see. On what issues should Federalism be applied? Will abortion going to the states reduce the number of babies being murdered or will it just move the majority of this evil elsewhere? It must happen via the legislature anyway, unless we are talking a Federalism that borders on a Monarchy. Do you think the Federal Government should have any say on our borders? What if Texas decides to open their borders or California? It’s good to question and that’s our only tool in not getting the same ol’ same we have been getting for years. Does Fred think abortion should go back to the states? Do you? I liked his votes during his brief stint in the Senate, but the votes were on the periphery of the issue and did not get to the crux of said issue. Has he said, “Anyone being considered for an appointment for the Supreme Court or as a Federal Judge who can’t look at an ultrasound and not see a baby, he won’t appoint them?” With all due respect to your statement, I respectfully disagree, and would respectfully submit, I have indeed thought this through and diligently considered nearly every pertinent permutation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.