…returns this morning, over at Pajamas Media — what is the right analogy for the battle of Madison?
Note that I’ve added in the comments here that slipped in to the other post before I unpublished it yesterday.
[Afternoon update]
Yes, I got the sequence of Jutland and Lusitania confused. Mea culpa.
Analogy breaks down sometimes. I see this as the first real conflict in the US after the November election. And the premature, over-the-top manner with which the Democrats carry their side, astroturf demonstrations and Democrat legislators cowering in a friendly state, indicates to me that the Democrats are going to lose this fight badly and probably expect to do so.
Is anyone going to take the Democrats seriously when a mere month into the new legislative term, they’re already trying to game the system so that the Republicans can’t put together a quorum? I doubt they’ll stay away for the entire legislative session so it’s not going to make a difference in the long run. Well, come to think of it, maybe the public unions will reward the Democrats for a token effort.
A weak protest by the unions and the senators’ subsequent ignominious return to Madison may be exactly what the Democrats are shooting for as a best case. A little drama to show the world and their constituents that the Democrats still care, even if they don’t care enough to do anything serious.
homestead strike of 1892?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike
Well done Rand, especially your summation. Analogies are what they are; a way to provide a useful abstraction. None are perfect (how could they be?)
When an analogy works they reveal truth that may be hidden in the original thing. So if the analogy isn’t obvious you may still have to emphasize that truth.
The truth here seems to be what this administration and it’s minions stand for. The more important truth is if you stand for real values against demagoguery people may see the light but even if they don’t it’s the fight worth fighting. Let’s hope those that do but have been sitting on the sidelines realize how important this fight is.
Ironically, if we eliminate the department of education would that allow schools to teach real American history and the values that go with it?
Ken,
What is covered in K-12 history, or other K-12 subjects, is basically set at the state level, although large states like California and Texas have influence beyond their borders due to their size in the market place for textbook books.
So if you don’t like what Arizona is teaching its the Arizona Board of Education you have to blame.
http://www.ade.az.gov/standards/contentstandards.asp
Thomas everything you said is correct. So what exactly are you saying?
Nothing about the dept. of education so I guess we both agree it can be eliminated with no great loss and quite a bit of help in balancing that out of control budget.
After that, I guess you’re telling me we need to get rid of a lot of board members as well as teachers. I’ve got to go along with you there.
It’s so nice to be in such agreement for once. Thanks Thomas.
Ken,
No, only that you are focused on the wrong target if you want to change what is taught in K-12 schools.
Before you vote to eliminate DOE I suggest you take a moment and do some research on what the U.S. Department of Education actually does. Here are some links.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/tables.html?src=ct
http://www2.ed.gov/about/what-we-do.html
And no, many of these tasks, and costs will not disappear with the closing of the DOE, anymore then the ISS would go away if you closed NASA. That is the problem with “simple” Tea Party solutions based on a lack of research of what the government actually does.
If the Tea Party is actually going to make contributions beyond rhetoric to the debate they need to learn a bit about how the money is actually spent and then make intelligent spending decision, just like Rand Simberg is advocating for NASA.
As I noted before NASA would be an easy target for budget cutting since its hard to link it to any Constitutional justification. Science is great and I have always enjoyed it, and personally support it, but is it really something the federal government should be funding? Why not leave it mostly to private foundations to fund as was the case before World War II?
Could the DOE go? Yes, it only dates to 1980. But the question is where do you move the different programs. The ones that are worthwhile. And where will the states, where educational budgets are already being cut, make up the funding short falls? Are you willing to pay higher taxes in Arizona to counter the federal tax money from states like California that are channeled into Arizona via the DOE?
That is the problem, the financial solutions are not simple for DOE and more then they are simple for NASA.
Rand,
I think Fort Sumter would be a far better analogy since everyone expected that a battle like this was going to be a consequence of the Tea Party’s focus on cutting state budgets and ending the power of public unions. Like Fort Sumter this has been building up since the 2010 elections.
And like Fort Sumter, most I think also recognized its just the first battle in what will be a bitter war leading up to the 2012 election. No matter what the outcome in Wisconsin the war will continue in other states and with escalating takes. The “Battle of Gettysburg” over budgets cuts is still in the future in terms of the “war” between the Tea Party and public spending, probably over one of the major state or federal budget fights next year when both sides are fully engaged.
This is both a turning point like gettysburg and a last ditch battle of the bulge… because if the liberals lose the power of unions…. that’s the end of them.