Home | About | Donate

Democrats Can Win if They Lead on Education

Democrats Can Win if They Lead on Education

Jeff Bryant

While progressives lament their recent failure in an Illinois primary to knock out Dan Lipinski – a conservative, anti-abortion, Congressional Democrat who voted against the Affordable Care Act – they mostly fail to note where and how they won elsewhere in the state.

It’s going to take a whole lot more to win elections for the Democrats than just funding education.

Funding Peace would be a good start.

Commitment to cutting Military Spending by at least 25% and closing a third of all bases worldwide. Bringing home our troops to rebuild our infrastructure would go hand in hand.

Democrats must invest in our people, our entire country, and our planet.


"Grassroots progressive Democrats are telling the party’s establishment how it can lead and win on education issues. What’s not clear is if the party’s pundit and policy apparatus is willing to listen."

And there is the major problem that Democrats face in every election. “…the party’s pundit and policy apparatus is NOT willing to listen.”


Education is at the center of the division between the right and the left. The right believes that public schools are ruining their children by filling them with liberal ideas and keeping their children away from religion. That has resulted in a lot of right wingers supporting some schooling and private schools. It seems to me that basic problem with school funding is that it relies heavily on property taxes. That means wealthy areas, are going to have the best funded schools. Most of these wealthy areas are in the suburbs. The states can partly make up the difference but not completely. Wealthy suburban areas are gong to have most of the best funded schools. To have equality in funding all of the money would have to come from the state. That would be a drastic change and would be very unpopular in many places.

1 Like

Here in NY Andy Cuomo betrayed students in low property-tax districts, public education generally, and homeowners who fund public ed, Cuomo sabotaged comprehensive true property-tax reform that included more funding for low tax-based districts, to instead support a BS “caps” proposal that only limited the increase in already obscenely high property taxes driving many out of their homes and the state!

The Equity in Education Act championed the change from unsustainable and onerous/unfair property taxes on our homes, farms, vacant lands and other property, to a system that replaced property taxes as the means of funding public education to one based on income instead. That pool of income-based money would then fund public schools in NY equally to children in all school districts, with the richest able to add to that basic education by referendum.

“Democrats” often join RepubliCons to scuttle many issues, national, state, and local - the issue should be the determining factor not partisanship. That MO derailed equality in school funding, reform of property taxation, assured further development of priceless farmlands and lands that would be protected and/or preserved. - NY farmlands taxed NOT on what they produced but what the land would be worth developed! Corruption in a very basic form!

Big-money interests and corruption won in NY and it was BOTH political parties and politicians that served not the people and a sustainable future, but wealth, power, “development” interests, and for-profit education pushed by those who would profit from the scam - it was Andy Cuomo, D that presided over the Three Men in a Room to screw so many!

The Equity in Education Act is now largely forgotten, shelved over and over as it was for decades by BOTH party sellouts, and those that once championed its reforms bought-out - their advocacy sold for a job or position, and STILL Andy Cuomo serves NOT the 99%, equitable public education, and most vulnerable home owners, but business as usual, big-money via campaign contribution bribes, and the powerful over at-risk citizens! ENOUGH!


You’re middle sentence is where the Dem contenders go off the rails. More than 50% of these candidates are coming from the intelligence and military sector. Voters will need to examine them very closely. If they are successful, not much chance of you’re sentence becoming true (I support you’re wishes, except I would cut by 50%).

Bryant closes with this:

“Grassroots progressive Democrats are telling the party’s establishment how it can lead and win on education issues. What’s not clear is if the party’s pundit and policy apparatus is willing to listen.”

The DNC “policy apparatus” is tightly wedded to corporate, privatizing, neoliberal profiteers. Look to the specific candidate, ask them specific questions, about whether profiteering corporate interests have any say over actual policies. Only vote for candidates who understand what the hell you are talking about.


Peace, health, privacy, transparency, economic inequality,education, pollution, GMO and poisoned food, Energy dependencies and global warming–there are really no shortage of issues, are there?

Understandably discouraged and with tremendous trained helplessness, the population does think sufficiently against the flow of bogus media that these are all mostly popular issues among the population most of the time, despite the cradle-to-grave river of lies that we all are handed.

The trouble is that there are almost no people ever in public life willing to take them up.

Consider. A recently developed matrix to classify political opinions uses an x-y axis, like this:

--------Coercion ---------


So, if you can imagine Hitler in the upper right, Castro in the upper left, Ron Paul somewhere in the lower right, Gandhi or King somewhere in the lower left, you have some idea what is represented.

Of course, political opinions might be represented differently and are, in all sorts of ways. But this can provide us with an interesting insight. Pretty much all humans would prefer a society that is inclusive rather than exclusive and inequal, and free rather than coercive and vicious. We do differ considerably in how much of this we believe is possible to arrange, and we differ in what ways we believe may be best to respond to the possibilities and impossibilities. But the actual preferred goal appears species-wide, much in the way that speech is.

However, almost all of our “leaders,”–both elected and appointed officials along with their rich support are all in the upper right.

We need independents and third parties to run against the two parties, because the two parties are actually one in the same. Gayle McLaughlin, running for Lt. Gov. in California is a perfect example. She is corporate free, people first. She and her community have taken back Richmond, CA, from Chevron, who has the largest refinery in the nation in their city. McLaughlin doesn’t take corporate money, and her record shows how the city council and community worked together in the last 12 years to reduce the homicide rate by 75%, and turn their city into a citizen-oriented place rather than a corporately owned and operated place. https://gayleforcalifornia.org/bio/
The Republicans are corporate wolves in wolves’ clothing. The Democrats are corporate wolves in sheeps’ clothing.
Obama invaded nations and slaughtered innocents, including assassinating two American citizens with zero due process. He increased the militarization of domestic police departments and the DHS. He signed the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act into law, all of which rob American citizens of civil rights. The Democrats also robbed us of a future we could have believed in when they rigged the primary against the best candidate America has seen in decades. The Democrats have proven over and over that they’re part of the problem, not part of the solution.