If you want to know why nothing ever changes for the better in Washington, look at the man in the White House, then look at the rest of the political cadre, and try to find a difference.
You will find a difference in degree, not a difference in kind. And what is their kind? They are central planners, and those who do not share their love for the State are outside the "mainstream."
Politicians who do not paddle in the "mainstream" are not heard, and to the degree they are heard, they are ignored.
Education an Example
Education may be the best example of something always changing for the worse, with no effort given to thinking what would change it for the better.
If, as the man once said, the definition of insanity is banging your head against the wall and expecting anything other than a headache, then American education is insane.
For decades, the federal government has showered the public schools with a cascade of money resembling Niagara Falls. Yet for decades, test scores in public schools have declined; parents are dissatisfied not only with the performance of their children but also illiterate teachers and the arrogant educrats hostile to their religious beliefs and morals.
As student performance plummets, the demand for more money climbs, particularly from the educrats and their political patrons in Washington. Aside from the obvious question of why Washington bureaucrats must anoint money with their holy hands before sending it back to the states from whence it came, one must ask why we persist in the nave hope that more money will solve our "educational" problems.
Vested in the Racket
The answer is that all American politicians are fully invested in the public school racket; i.e., planning from above. Thus, the debate is always and forever about money and planning in Washington, although education was better before federal intervention. When the federal department of education opened its doors, it was a grim day for American education.
Both political parties concede the federal Leviathan's control of public schools, and discussion outside these two prevailing views is not permitted. This is true despite the manifest superiority of private schools and home-schooling, both of which spend far less money educating students than the racketeers of public education.
The same is true for "agriculture policy." Almost every federal politician assumes government must plan the agricultural economy. No successful politician suggests that Uncle Sam should drop the hoe and abandon the farm. More generally, no popular or nationally successful politician suggests eliminating a single program.
Politicians tenaciously tinker with fatally flawed policies. Questioning the policy itself is forbidden. We have to "do something," everyone agrees, the question is what. Reform! More planning!
No one dares suggest doing "nothing," or stopping what we are doing, although given the results, doing nothing would not only be better than doing something but also exactly what our federal Constitution requires.
The Real Problem
There, of course, lies the problem. The Constitution permits almost no federal meddling, but everyone either assumes the opposite, or that the Constitution doesn't matter. We have to be practical, you know. It's not 1800 anymore.
No, it isn't. But the immutable truths about socialism and central planning haven't changed since 1800 either. They can never change, and because the planning never ends, things never get better in Washington.
October 8, 2003
Syndicated columnist R. Cort Kirkwood [send him mail] is managing editor of the Daily News-Record in Harrisonburg, Va.
