respect

by

An Id Too Far

The scariest part of Donald Trump is how much we want to be like him.

The National Review christened Donald Trump the “Id” of America last summer, a diagnosis that has proven prescient as well as shrewd. (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422116/donald-trump-and-american-id-kevin-d-williamson). In the past five months Trump has waxed outrageous, surviving a bluntness rarely allowed in Presidential campaigning. Tough talk resonates in the current debate.
I realized this morning that the “Id” is on the loose in America, especially when political columnists lead with the headline “How Stupid is Iowa?” Timothy Egan would not have inscribed those words publicly before Trump immortalized them, but once circulating in the public domain, they can be repeated without accepting full responsibility for them. Because, after all, you’re merely quoting.
The phenomenon of appropriating without owning the language is common in public discourse. Trump, himself is a master of appropriation. For months he has insisted that he is interested in Ted Cruz’s birth legitimacy to be President, not because he cares, mind you, but because the Washington Post raised the issue. So Trump can be slimy, as well as blunt. (Note to self: The scariest part of Donald Trump is how much I want to be like him.)
But appropriating Donald Trump means letting your id romp in your front yard. Voters have enjoyed this romp, because it is so different from politics as usual. We can talk about people we don’t like in public, not just in the seclusion of our kitchens or texting our friends. Donald Trump has legitimized contempt and open disgust in the name of disrupting “political correctness.”
There is more to it than political correctness, however. “Respect” and “compassion” come to mind. “Political correctness” is when you tolerate groups of people for political gain. “Respect” is when you allow others the human dignity they deserve. Iowans don’t deserve to be called “stupid,” even if we are tired of their opinions mattering more than ours. They did adopt the highly democratic process known as “caucusing” and made political discussion as important as corn in an agricultural state. So we should not be using “stupid” to describe Iowans, regardless of their irritating presence on the front page every day. They are simply enjoying their quadrenniel six months of fame.
The edgy words in our public discourse is a sign of an id too far. If we speak like Donald Trump, we become Donald Trump. Perhaps a third of America is happy to be associated with his brashness, but the rest of us should be ashamed and try not to live down to his level of contempt. It is like getting caught up in hate-speak among people whom you want to like. You let your moral defenses down a little, and suddenly you are using language you were shunning yesterday.
So let’s not pretend we are just liberating ourselves from “political correctness” or paraphrasing someone else’s language. Our political bile is probably getting stirred up by the language served up by those who can dish it out, but we don’t have to let our ids out to play.

by

Public Service or Servitude?

Mitt Romney pretty much ignored education for most of the Presidential campaign, but suddenly he has become concerned with the damage teacher unions are doing in public schools. In his latest stump speech he declares parents will have more voice in choosing their children’s schools, because “parents have no unions.”

Governor Romney has no clue what goes on in public schools, but he knows that teachers’ unions will not vote for him, so he can afford to demonize them.  Public service unions, in particular, are considered enemies of progress in Romney’s world.

Indeed public service unions in some cities and states have bargained their way into oblivion.  Sometimes they have treated their contracts as sacred documents, never subtracting, always adding. Sometimes they have protected those who deserved to be fired. But those days are gone.

No public service employee on the ground level is getting rich in these days of enforced austerity, so it is time to remember why public service is unionized in the first place.

For those who did not buy their way into it, public service is exactly that—service.  Those who choose to teach in public schools or walk a beat in the police force or risk their lives fire-fighting, could earn much more in private employment.  Even public school teachers, who earn more than many of their private school counterparts, could move into higher brackets by starting out in the banking or computer or insurance industry and using the literacy and numeracy skills from a solid liberal arts education.

As a teacher educator I meet both teenagers and middle-aged candidates for teaching in advising conferences as well as the classroom every day.  They understand the nature of service and the challenges of even finding a teaching position in this economy. But they have a vision of “making a difference,” they love the subjects they teach, and they want to impart that love to students.  No one has ever asked me how much they will earn by teaching.

You might say that visionaries like these really need a union.  Because they are committed to service, they are embarrassed to bring up anything that sounds like “What’s in it for me?”  Many teachers have issues with their unions, because they think teachers should be above grubbing for dollars.

No doubt Mitt Romney favors such teachers, because they will work for a pittance.  But I wonder what the parents and spouses of these teachers think? I wonder what veteran teachers think when they are disappointed in contract after contract, their district pleading poverty? I remember a entire decade of school district poverty in the 1980’s when teachers were routinely laid off and class sizes grew every year. Those were the years of Block Grant funding of education.

In 2012 politicians are less interested in squeezing teachers by cutting federal budgets, than they are dismantling the unions that advocate for their benefits.  The business model of education demands that the personnel budget line shrink, so those who do not send their children to public schools are not inconvenienced with taxes.  Not surprisingly those who benefit directly from public school funding have no trouble supporting tax increases, realizing that teachers have to eat, too.

So public service unions are needed just to represent what teachers and social workers and public safety employees are ill-disposed to represent for themselves. They are always reminded and mindful that they chose service, and that choice implies less compensation. They remind themselves “they are not in it for the money,” while those anticipating retirement remind their younger colleagues that there is a life after teaching, one that needs provision.

There is a difference between service and servitude.  Public service unions have been dedicated to marking that difference in negotiation after negotiation.  Only those who have avoided that service or, in some cases, bought their way into it, are willing to obscure that distinction.  But no one should treat public service employees as less than the professionals they are, and if unions are needed to protect them, than we must negotiate with unions and respect their role in public service.