Rep. Justin Amash held a town hall meeting at City HS auditorium and the place was packed. What was striking to many was the engagement.The big lesson (always!) is that you don’t have to agree, but you do have to listen. And you don’t have to agree with him to admire him.
There is, I think, a growth from the brash 20-something bomb thrower a decade ago. At the time of his election I wondered how the office, how time would change him. Would he end up as a sort of ideological purist, on the fringe? Would he migrate to an official (and powerful) libertarian platform? Who would he become? For him, Trump is a gift, pushing back, standing for the Constitution, Amash builds a broader base than he did in the last years of Obama. At last the stance begins to get traction, and his skills of communication finally show up. Justin Swan sees as much in a Facebook post,
My response to the noise against him, beginning back in 2010 has been “have you heard him speak? Because if you hear him speak, you wouldn’t say what you just said about him.”… finally, people from both sides of the isle are hearing him speak, and for the most part, they like what they hear OR they respect where he’s coming from.
More on this from Rachel Bade at Politico:
How one GOP congressman tamed pro-Obamacare protesters
On his Facebook page, Rep. Justin Amash presents his education platform. Some interesting stuff is going on.
The right of parents to educate their children as they see fit, including the right of homeschooling, should not be infringed. Government-mandated curriculums and teaching methods do not properly account for different learning styles, leaving many children confused and falling short of their potential. To encourage innovation and competition, the federal government should—and constitutionally must—leave the matter of education to the states, where it will be better managed and funded. Critical decisions should be made locally, letting parents, teachers, and community leaders determine the most efficient use of resources.
Cut through the rhetoric and starry-eyed romanticism, three items stand out: first, removal of funding from the Federal government (the ending of Title I) would substantially affect special education. As disabilities tend to correlate inversely with socio-economic status (ie more for the poor), underfunding special education puts poor schools and neighborhoods particularly at risk.
Second, the other key initiative underway is that of developing Common Core and standards — this is the business of those “government-mandated curriculums (sic)”. Again, shifting to the states can seem to be a good idea, but as state behavior post NCLB demonstrated, states have a natural incentive to set the bar low. We get Lake Woebegone schools where everyone is “above average.” Again, the impact for such policies falls disproportionately on the poorer communities; lower standards become an excuse for substandard performance. If nothing else, NCLB got one important truth right: student success should belong to all not just to some.
A third liability to Rep. Amash’s rose-colored viewpoint is simply this: poor districts often lack the resources from the state and local funding to fully provide the programs sufficient for student success. Again, helping the poorer districts is the second major funding dimension to the federal education budget.
So we are back to the key questions: how do we make sure our weakest students get a good education; and how do we make sure our schools actually work to raise the standards for all children and not simply those of the well-off districts?
Nate Reens covers the looming congressional cash battle
Given the national stature of Amash, it would be foolish to think this $200k is anything more than pocket change. A serious threat — and Pestka is clearly approaching the serious threat threshold — will be the motivation. As the proclaimed heir to Ron Paul, Amash can tap some incredibly deep pockets.
That’s why for the D’s it is less a matter of dollars than of organization. Of the two Dems, the Pestka campaign has the present advantage here over that of Trevor Thomas — certainly it has deeper connections into the community.
Down With Tyranny was in full progressive mode the other day, pushing the Trevor Thomas campaign and smacking down Steve Pestka
Trevor is the fighting progressive we need. He comes from a working class family and he has a record of helping to pass major federal legislation, namely the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. . . . Let’s help spread the word and work to stop this faux-Democratic challenge and stand by our party’s platform to help protect women now.
But I have my doubts.
Curiosity gets the better of me: in what way is Trevor fighting, or has fought for West Michigan? By all lights his campaign is pretty green, offering little to date in the way of political engagement with Amash (n.b. his web site offers values not issues). He has clearly put together a nice team, but do they look like, do they connect with the actual district? Let’s just say that for a campaign based on “for us all,” minority representation lags. This is the natural product of young or first-time campaigns. Amash’s first run in 2008 looked a lot like this, too.
But this is not a post-graduate seminar, or the chance to demonstrate one’s progressive creds. Take a look again at the task at hand: two metropolitan regions, a democratic base that is racially diverse, strength in cities and support in suburbs. This will be both a media intensive campaign (including all matter of social media) as well as require a robust, motivated, well-organized ground game. You can not do it with your own cohort. And by all lights, such a campaign will have a final budget well into seven figures.
In short, as any one on the ground knows that this campaign is going to take work.
So again the question, in what way is Trevor actually fighting, actually engaging, actually demonstrating that he has the smarts to win
Bill (William), do you not think that Ron Paul can compete with your nominee, Pres. Obama? The President has been a disappointment on civil liberties, no?
My view is rather pragmatic, actually. Age first. At 76, he carries a burden of age and energy — granting that I have a mother in law at 93 who still drives herself to church. Second, I think that his strong individualism is too much of an acquired taste for the general election (CNN polls not withstanding). The center has a greater communitarian sense, a sense that I’m not sure that Rep. Paul is willing to surrender his ideals for; indeed that principled stance has been his calling card.
And on civil liberties, the security state is thing to be resisted and constitutionally chained. There, I am with you (and Paul).
”Every individual has the right to use force for lawful self-defense. It is for this reason that the collective force—which is only the organized combination of the individual forces—may lawfully be used for the same purpose; and it cannot be used legitimately for any other purpose.”
Not a bad liberal quote in the old-fashioned sense. However the counter would be the other tradition in the West, that of the Augustinian Christianity that understands that force is also a tool for justice (as a guard or restraint on individual behavior, and on occasion as a proactive aspect — one does as well as react).
[A secondary note would be that Bastiat does not especially in this quote deal with the question of anarchy. This is Hobbesian territory, an area I probably should explore if I had time.]