"Keeping universities accessible"

That's the title of my column this week. Here's my argument:

Instead of further calcifying economic and societal inequality, higher education should be an ameliorative agent. It should extirpate, not perpetuate, inequities.

So don’t be fooled by rising enrollment — the UI has a real problem on its hands.

And state officials are only compounding it when they slash state aid and increase tuition.

Last week's column

I didn't get around to posting my column last week. Here it is.

[I]n addition to the collective bargaining conflagration there’s a less overt — yet incredibly important — dispute over electoral mandates and, consequently, democratic citizenship...

Elections are important. They provide voters with an accountability mechanism and spur conversation about some of the most important topics of the day...

But reducing citizenship to merely voting for elites is a fatuous bastardization of democracy.

"Corruption's fine line"

In my column this week, I discuss corruption on the Board of Regents:

My intent isn’t to impugn Downer or the rest of the board’s integrity. But there are serious questions we should be asking about regent contributions. Should we accept that, with little compunction, regents often donate thousands of dollars to the governors who tapped them? Where is the line between political participation and I’ll-scratch-your-back-if-you-scratch-mine corruption? Does the current system crowd out other potential appointees? I don’t claim to have a definitive answer to these questions. What is clear to me, however, is that legislators are too content with the status quo.

The regents make too many important decisions for legislators and citizens not to be more inquisitive.

A couple columns

I had two pieces come out this week, one on Monday and one today.

Here's the first column, "Stop the unions (well... sort of)", in which I argue that "banning corporate and union election spending would be a boon for the political process — both for substantive and optic reasons."

And here's my column in today's paper, "Education goes private." My contention is that a new and insidious consensus on higher education funding has emerged:

That new consensus among state politicians is roughly this: We can reduce public support for our state universities, as increased efficiency — along with tuition hikes and money from other private sources — will prevent them from being egregiously hampered. (Not all state elected officials believe this, but as far as I can tell, non-adherents are anomalies.)

These assumed upshots have already proven false.

Weekly column

Here's my column in today's paper, "In defense of unions."

The crux of my argument:

While enfeebled labor unions retain some electoral power, their dwindling membership (approximately 12 percent of wage and salary workers were union members in 2010) has substantially reduced their economic clout.

Still, the material benefits of unionization remain: Union members’ 2010 median weekly earnings of $917, dwarfed nonunion workers’ $717. For many, that’s reason enough to join.

But unions can provide more than pecuniary pay-offs.

They help foster solidarity and an ethos of shared sacrifice. They amplify the voice of workers in often impervious workplaces. And they democratize power relations, putting workers on a more equal footing with management.

That’s why unions are essential in a truly democratic society. Many citizens would balk at attempts to revoke their political rights; yet, most complicity accept that authoritarianism, officious bosses, and a lack of due process are just a part of American employment.

Column archiving, and a little nuance-adding

I recently stepped down as the DI's opinions editor, but I'll still be writing a column each Friday. Here's the thrust of my argument in today's column.

Libertarians will always place more weight on individual freedom; left-liberals will always favor steps to ensure greater political and economic equality. The two camps will always clash on questions of the role of government.

And that’s fine.

Anything other than a détente on such core ideological questions would precipitate an impasse. And rhetoric and visceral distaste for one another would have to be set aside.

So, fellow leftists — drop the libertarian bashing. And libertarians — repress your own anti-leftist bomb throwing.

An alliance between us that was unencumbered by petty squabbling would do wonders for our nation’s politics.

I'd also like to add a little nuance to my argument, in light of some of the responses I've received in the comment section. My contention isn't that if libertarians and leftists helped push through policies they agreed upon (cutting the defense budget, shrinking the footprint of the military abroad, tamping down on corporatism, ending the war on drugs, etc.,) they would then agree where to go from there. That's obviously not the case. They have different ideological proclivities.

The left-libertarian coalition strategy I've suggested should be seen as a reaction to the current political paradigm. It shouldn't be viewed as the end game for either ideological camp. What unites left-liberals and libertarians, in other words, is what policies our government should be enacting right now. If leftists and libertarians mounted a huge push to significantly cut military spending, for example, they'd disagree about what to do with the money (left-liberals would likely want to funnel it into education or health care, while libertarians would probably want to pay down the debt or give everyone a tax cut.) But at least in my mind, we'd still be in a better place. Right now, we're still mired in an insidious political status quo. And, in my estimation, it will take cross-ideological coalition building to free ourselves from it.

Here are my first two columns of the semester:

"Finding the country's conscience," Jan. 28

"Advancing democracy," Jan. 21

You can read some of my older pieces here.

Local control and partisan ideology

It's always interesting when partisan labels break down on a given issue. It's a simplistic dichotomy (as many leftists and libertarians would surely point out), but Democrats are typically cast as the party of "big government" and Republicans the party of "small government." Iowa's contentious "local control" issues throws a wrench in this (blithe) construction, with Democrats clamoring for decentralization and Republicans pining for centralized decision-making.

The issue has divided candidates in the Secretary of Agriculture race, with Democrat Francis Thicke stalwartly supporting giving local communities the power to decide where Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) can be built. The Republican incumbent, Farm Bureau-backed Bill Northey, opposes conferring such autonomy on localities.

In an interview with the Iowa Independent, Thicke correctly called local control "democracy in action." He went on to say:

Iowans know what works best in their communities, and politicians who favor taking away this right are serving corporate interests, not the citizens of Iowa. It is important to protect Iowa citizens from the impacts of CAFOs on neighbors’ quality of life, health, and property rights.

Thicke has pushed the David vs. Goliath storyline throughout his campaign. In his meeting with the DI Editorial Board, he told us, “You have to stand up to [big agribusiness]. I’m used to debating the lawyers from the Farm Bureau. I rather enjoy it, actually.”

It's an old, populist political tool. But in this case (unlike, say, the Democratic narrative in the healthcare debate or much of what Obama has done at the federal level) it has unalloyed validity.

So how does this intersect with my initial point about ideological shake-ups in parties (and philosophical labels for these parties)?

My brand of liberalism, animated by the ideas of democratic champions like Louis Brandeis and Ralph Nader, values citizen power over centralized paternalism. In my view, liberals often reflexively opt for centralized decision-making, content with constructing a purportedly benevolent government that provides for its citizens. Liberals should question concentrated power wherever it resides, however — in business, government, or any other sphere. Sure, conservatives and libertarians are wrong to regard government as an alien "other" to tear down and denigrate. But liberals should question the wisdom of erecting centralized bureaucracies that can engender a sclerotic citizenry.

When it comes to the local control issue, Iowa Democrats are on the right side. Aligned with principled groups like Citizens for Community Improvement, they're admirably pushing for a more robust vision of democracy — one that empowers citizens, instead of servilely acquiescing to entrenched interests.

Could this be the Democratic Party of the future? I sure hope so.