A recent piece by columnist LZ Granderson argues that school choice is “a cover for segregation.” It is a rebuke of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, which outlawed segregation in government schools, and it is an attempt to create separate but unequal schooling in the name of God. School choice, he claims is attempt by conservatives to further their political agenda. Granderson, like most so-called Progressives, is unwilling to consider alternatives.
According to this argument, which is common among opponents of school choice, those who support government schools truly care about children. Those who support school choice don’t. In other words, if you disagree with the defenders of government schools, then you are clearly pursuing a political agenda that has nothing to do with the well-being of students. Progressives are unwilling to consider the fact that we believe that school is best for parents and students.
I call this the Progressive framework, and it is present in nearly any public policy debate. As an example, those who oppose “renters’ protections” are defending billionaires and corporate landlords and don’t care about low- and moderate-income households. Progressives are unwilling to consider the fact that we believe that renters’ protections are harmful to tenants in the long-term.
The Progressive framework leads to the continual recycling of policies that have failed in the past. Somehow, we are expected to believe, with a few tweaks, we can make failed policies work. Then, when the modified policy also fails, the process starts anew with further tweaks.
Unfortunately, the Progressive framework infects both Republicans and Democrats. The result is a debate over details, while the fundamental principles are ignored. As an example, consider the current debate regarding the regulation of artificial intelligence. Both sides agree that regulation is necessary because neither is willing to consider whether such regulation is even a proper function of government.
If we truly want to make the best public policy decisions, then we must be willing to consider alternatives. We must identify and weigh the pros and cons of each. And one alternative that always exists is freedom.