I'm not big on politics and breaking down what the Democrats or Republicans are doing because I think that large-scale movements are necessary for overhauls in policy, but have very limited effect in the life of a given individual. Whether Bush or Kerry is elected in November, the kids I tutor will still need to shore up their basic skills (or get some in the first place), people that were hungry before the election will be hungry after the election, and so forth. And even if all the President's (new or incumbent) policies are enacted exactly as he is proposing them now, it's gonna take a while before it means anything to the average person on the street.
Casey Lartigue expresses my ambivalence beautifully. He's talking about the difference that the new Superintendent of the DC School system will be able to make, but I think it applies to any bureaucratic entity.
I'm someone who is skeptical that public policy can do much to help a person advance in life. The best thing public policy can do, rather than trying to create jobs, is to remove barriers. We should be pleased that the schools are safe and that kids learn the basics, forget about higher expectations about what a superintendent can do. No child left behind? Sounds fine, but no child should be left behind on purpose. It sounds cruel to say it, but if you've worked with kids, you know that some are more motivated than others. The Board of Education of the 1980s may have been led by politically motivated misfits, but could a Board of Education led by altruistic geniuses do much to motivate the unmotivated to become motivated about book learnin'?
Having said that, I'm just a little dismayed by President Bush's embrace of
Don King as a campaign spokesman. Don King, though? Seriously. Don King? Bush might as well call Snoop to see if he can link him up with Bishop Don Magic Juan. Don King, though? Man, if I was running for public office, I wouldn't want Don King telling people that I love babies and puppies, let alone trying to advocate my policies.
I understand that the Republican party is trying to reach out to the Black community, but dag! If they think Don King is a figure with
any type of credibility, they're more out of touch than I had imagined possible. Don King has name recognition, but that's about it. The opening paragraph from this article at Alternet pretty much sums him up:
Don King is a hustler who rose from the depths of a manslaughter conviction to the heights of boxing promotion by dint of a well-honed ability to play the angles. So, it's really no surprise that King has thrown his lot into the reelection campaign of George W. Bush; he's playing the angles.
Don King is a hustler, baby. If I had any game at all, I'd write him talking about I was his nephew. Even if he didn't believe me, I bet game would recognize game and he'd take me on anyway. Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily anti-Don King as a person. I mean, everybody knows he's dirty but nobody can prove it, so that has to count for something. He's right there with Al Sharpton as public figures that most people find contemptible but for whom I have a limited admiration. Say what you want about Don or Al, but the fact that you say anything about them at all means a lot. If there's one thing to learn from them, it's that cojones and game can take you as far as you want to go.
All that notwithstanding, come on, y'all. I'm really not sweating the outcome of the election either way, but really, though...Don King? Whoever promoted this match needs to be in the soup line right behind the people responsible for
Oreo Barbie.