[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > As an aside on Mike's post, I'd like to comment on two code phrases > in Bob Dole's "Republican response" to Clinton's proposal. They're > interesting because one hears them a lot from right-wingers these > days, and in taken in tandem they contradict each other in substance. # 1 omitted > > 2) "Return education to state and local control" As in, we > statespersonlike Republicans want to get the Federal government off > your backs and out of your wallet, so that you can have your children > educated as you see fit. > > Translation: yeah, we know the US spends the smallest percentage of > GDP (or close to that) among the developed countries on public > education, the largest percentage on private education, and maintains > the largest disparities in per-pupil spending. And that's fine with > us (notice the absence of education provisions in the Contract on > America, e.g.), so let's take steps to perpetuate these trends. > In trying to figure out why class conscious "leaders" who represent (however haltingly) the interest of the ruling class would be willing to shrink the available pool of educated citizens in their own country, I've come to the conclusion that Robert Reich's hint at the "secession of the successful" in _The Work of Nations_ is really on the money. The ruling class is now (or becoming) state-less. EVerywhere in the world, the power of the state is aimed at preserving the rights of capital. CApital now has the ENTIRE WORLD from which to pick their labor force needs. It is NOT IMPORTANT anymore for a particular _country_ to be the home for the most important capital accumulation activities of any particular business --- they can more to where the (appropriately skilled) labor is. Perhaps even more important --- the highly skilled, creative, labor (what Reich calls the "symbolic analysts") can come from any part of the world. They don't have to be "home grown." In this context, a widely successful system of public education is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. --- the inequality in the US system may actually be a harbinger of the future. [sort of like Marx warning the Germans in Vol. I of Capital that the story he tells about Britain as the archetype capitalist social formation shows the future for the rest of the world!!] Reich's lame efforts to suggest that some kind of altruistic nationalism should conquer the "secession of the successful" suggests precious few reasons why any class conscious politician would resisit the transformations underway as exemplified by the promises (AND OMISSIONS -- good point, Gil!) in the Contract with America. As always -- we have to figure out a way to fight back. I agree with Loren, we ought to be kicking, yelling and screaming. And there ought to be a DEMOCRATIC _PARTY challenge to Clinton's reelection. I wouldn't have said this before his speech because I thought he might fight the Republican onslaught --- but he just joined them. I could have puked when I saw Laura Tyson THREE TIMES say, "WE _have_ to balance the budget!!" And of course leave it to MacNeil-Lehrere not to have ANYONE one who has a different point of view. We ought to call them and demand they have a Bob Eisner or even one of us on!!! More gnashing of teeth! -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
