Fire Him? Not the Point

No. Arne Duncan won't be fired. And I don't think he should be.

Better that the NEA Representative Assembly narrowly, but clearly, voted "no confidence" in the Secretary of Education. The Obama Administration deserves it.

Read that again. The Administration. Let's keep our eyes on the ball here. Barack Obama appointed Duncan to the position. He had many decent and competent choices. He chose Duncan.

That's because he believes in merit pay as a way to improve teaching. He believes in dissolving contracts that have layoffs based on seniority. If it were his way, all teacher contracts would change in that direction.

It may be politically correct not to blame the President for the present national attitude that, somehow, teachers are primarily to blame for the lack of student progress that's plaguing public education. It may be. But Duncan's indefatigable efforts, the requirements for the Race to the Top, and what appears to be a similar attitude in renewing No Child Left Behind, land at Obama's feet.

Indirectly, of course, a vote of no confidence says that to the President, too. It isn't an easy call, what with the administration strongly behind a new jobs bill that will save over a hundred thousand teacher's jobs if passed. Some thanks we get, might be their attitude toward the NEA.

So as usual, it isn't an easy call to make. The debate on the NEA-RA floor demonstrated that. It is a highly-charged political world we now live in, where bits and pieces of victories are all that can be expected, especially now. It is difficult to accept.

But to move to fire Duncan not only will not get any attention from anybody but the most cynical pundits, it will appear to be sour grapes for supporting a Presidential candidate who did no more and no less than tell everybody just exactly what he was going to do. Sometimes, one must accept the reality.

234 Years, and What Else Do We Know?

The fireworks exploded again last night at the Milwaukee lakefront. Thousands watched. Most parked legally.

It is time to look at ourselves, 234 years on, halfway through this year. Do you like what you see?

Are the Tea Partiers gaining ground and legitimacy? Or are they a passing political force, amorphous and too fluid to hang on?

Is the President the leader he said he would be? He's doing pretty much what he said he'd do, after all. He's actually accomplishing some of it. Isn't that what leaders do?

Or is it ourselves that need a little re-examination? If we elected a person who's fulfilling some of his pledges, why are we still complaining so much? Did we elect someone for a different reason and, faced with the political results, now look back and wish we hadn't? (Been known to happen before; in this case, we get Sarah Palin, too, remember)

Why are the demagogues gaining a foothold? What is it about them that continues to attract? As FDR gained popularity in the 1930s, as the effects of the New Deal kept slowly improving the economy, their rantings died off. Not so much today; cable TV has too much backing. They'll always be there.

And as they do, there is an inevitable wearing effect: the emotional, simplistic, attack-mode approaches of their rhetoric keeps us on edge. It's a different country now: the political intrudes into nearly everything that isn't being sold in front of our faces. A lot of us are needing that Bloom County trip into the dandelions--just to sit there for a moment and think about not very much.

It's a stressed-out nation right now, trying everything it can to find solutions. Change we've got; hope is another issue. 234 years, and I'm not sure we know much else.