Tuesday, July 5, 2011

NEA endorsement in context

Over the weekend, the National Education Association endorsed President Obama for re-election. A bit of context:

Let's provide some historical context for elections since 1988.
1988  Dukakis got 86%
1992 Clinton got 88%
1996 Clinton got 91%
2000 Gore got 86.5%
2004 Kerry got 86.5%
2008 Obama got 79.8%
2011, Obama got 72%.
Unlike Clinton, in his endorsement for reelection Obama dropped 7.8% (sic), while Clinton went up 3%.
And Obama's percentage in 2008 was already the lowest in the past 5 elections.
This is far from "overwhelming" support by historical standards.

The same source also has the strongly worded rebuke of Secretary Arne Duncan (now nicknamed on the web "13 Things We Hate About Arne Duncan.") The sad fact is, Teacher Ken is right: the endorsement is going to get the news, not the percentages, and not the rebuke. They should have made endorsement conditional on improving his educational policies.

3 comments:

Kirsten said...

Respectfully, I believe the text should read "percentage points" not "%". Though you are correct to indicate that the overall NEA trend does not favor Obama.

Still, even sticklers like me :) ought to caution against allowing perfection to be the enemy of the good. The alternative to a Democratic Secretary of Education is, well, NCLB.

Brinksmanship can seem more persuasive (for the issue at hand), but pragmatism preserves options for the future -- a lesson I learned from a life-long public school teacher, my dad. :)

Tracy Novick said...

Kirsten,
Last I checked, the originally post hadn't changed, so I noted the percentage issue. Thanks.
I don't think it's brinkmanship to put off endorsing until later. The NEA was getting calls as early as this spring to endorse, eighteen months prior to the general election. If your endorsement as an organization is valuable--and NEA's is, even concretely in dollars--then make someone work for it. If they put out the list of concerns, and stopped there without endorsing (even if they did not go so far as to call for Duncan's resignation), they'd be in a strong position, I would say.
And, as you've noted elsewhere, many who would have said that having Democratic Secretary of Education was worth any sacrifice are having their doubts. There's arguments on both sides of the aisle that the priorities currently being pursued are not in the best interest of education. If the endorsement was up for grabs, who's to say what the GOP might come up with? I would have liked to see the NEA try it out.

Tracy Novick said...

See also: http://www.counterpunch.org/robertson07072011.html