MADISON, Wisconsin — On an oppressively hot August day in downtown Madison, the signs of this famously liberal city’s progressive activism are everywhere. Buildings are draped in pride flags and Black Lives Matter signs are prominently displayed on storefronts. A musty bookstore advertises revolutionary titles and newspaper clippings of rallies against Donald Trump. A fancy restaurant features a graphic of a raised Black fist in its window, with chalk outside on the sidewalk reading “solidarity forever.”
Yet the Green Party, which bills itself as an independent political party that has the best interests of self-described leftists at heart, is nowhere to be found. It has no storefronts, no candidates running for local office, no relationship with the politically active UW-Madison campus, which has almost 50,000 students.
Where it does have purchase is in the nightmares of local Democrats, who are deeply afraid of the effect the third party might have here in November. As one of the seven presidential battleground states, Wisconsin is a critical brick in the so-called Blue Wall, the term for the run of Rust Belt states that are essential to Kamala Harris’ chances of winning the presidency. It’s a deeply divided state that’s become notorious for its razor-thin margins of victory — a place where statewide elections are so close that even tenths of a percentage point matter. Against that backdrop, the Green Party looms very large this year.
We both can look out on society and agree that the way things are can and should be better, but I find it funny that you’re ostensibly arguing for progressive policy reform using logic that parallels the logic used by proponents of school choice. Stay with me, and I’ll explain how.
I think we can both agree that in order for schools to function and be effective, they need some level of financial support to operate. It’s no secret that for decades, financial support for education has been slashed across the board.
Proponents of school choice typically argue that if public schools will not or cannot perform at satisfactory levels, the students should be able to go to another school, and some level of pro rata funding should follow them to that new school. This effectively punishes schools that have been long-underfunded with financial support, which plays a factor in that under-performing, and then takes away even more financial support.
Assuming you’re familiar with the procedural aspects of how governing works, you understand that to enact legislation and policies you’re in favor of takes a threshold level of support to accomplish that. Because of gerrymandering, antiquated frameworks for distribution representation, and the the Electoral College, Democrats have hardly been in a position to enact progressive legislation that isn’t obstructed by a president, one of the legislative chambers — or even once it is passed, that isn’t overturned by a Supreme Court detached from precedent and reason.
In both cases, the support necessary to operate a sufficiently resourced school, or to get a piece of legislation across the finish line, is clearly lacking. The solution to that problem is more support, not less. Schools need more financial support to reach their goals, and Democrats need more support in Congress to pass legislation. The position you’re defending right now is now is effectively expecting schools/Democrats to do more with less.