If This be Socialism, Let’s Make the Most of It

If this be Socialism – Let’s Make the Most of It

1787 was the year the founding fathers met in Philadelphia to re-think the government of the United States.  The current establishment, the Articles of Confederation Congress, was unable to control thirteen states with disparate interests; too weak to govern, too poor to lead, too hamstrung by the “nine state majority rule.”   It was only a year later that the Constitution was ratified, and the nation was put on course towards firmer national unity.

But as flawed as the Articles of Confederation form of government was, it did manage to keep the colonies together through the Revolution, winning a war of attrition against England.  And it did develop the Northwest Ordinance.  This law set the precedent for what America would do with its greatest resource, the land stretching to the Mississippi (at that time) and later to the Pacific coast.

The Northwest Ordinance established how a territory could become a co-equal member state in the Union. The law called for three to five states to be created out of what is today Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin.  It established that those areas could become separate territories when their population reached 5,000, and could petition to become a “sovereign and co-equal” state once they reached 60,000.

One of the most significant aspects of the Northwest Ordinance was the emphasis it placed on the government’s role in education.  Portions of land in each township were set aside to support public education, and larger sections set aside for the development of state universities.  Ohio University in Athens, Ohio, was the first of these “land grant colleges,” enrolling its first students in 1809.

Government involvement in education was “baked-in” even before the writing of the Constitution.  Public education, even in 1787, was considered a legitimate role of government, along with protection from attack (military) maintaining of order (police) and development of infrastructure (roads, bridges, canals.)  

Today we hear a hue and cry over Democratic political views that public support for education needs to be expanded beyond the current K-12 public schools.  Critics deride as “socialism” the idea “the government” should pay for most or all of college education.

But it is a natural progression.  The United States has from it’s beginning realized that a democratic citizenry needed to be educated.  Public education, with all of its current flaws, has expanded from the one room schoolhouse to thirteen years.  We have made it a “right” for children in America.

We all now agree that the thirteen years are not enough to prepare them for life and work in our complex and changing world.  We recognize the need for education beyond high school, but we have decided that the demands of  “capitalism” means that we require steep payments to gain those additional, necessary years.  For thirteen years student costs are “covered” by the government, but the next four, even at the “land-grant schools” envisioned by Northwest Ordinance, could cost over $100,000.  

The United States has always paid homage to the concept of “meritocracy;” that we are a nation where a citizen, regardless of their parents’ economic condition, could “rise to the top.” But our public schools are already economically skewed, with the rich getting richer. Here in Ohio the state Supreme Court recognized that disparity in 1997 (DeRolph v State) but in the twenty-one years since, has done little to “even the playing field.” However, there is no greater disparity than what is now told to high school graduates:  your diploma is not enough, you need an even more advanced degree, and you must literally mortgage your or your parents’ future to get it.

It’s not “socialism” to say that we need to prepare our young citizens for their future.  It’s not “socialistic:” it is a responsibility that has been recognized for as long as we have had our nation.  It’s not a question of political “philosophy,” it’s a question of political will.

To provide the opportunity for two more years of public education to every student, might cost the United States $100 Billion a year.  That sounds like an enormous amount of money, but is it really?   The Federal government is already spending $91 Billion a year in grants and loans, so a large portion of the money is already there, and just needs to be reapportioned. In addition, there are fifty states; each would be required to pay a portion of their own costs, just as they pay for K-12 education today.  

So it’s easy for critics to deride Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren for “pie in the sky” “socialistic” dreams like free college education.  They are called “socialists,” and for most critics that epithet is enough to end the conversation.  But the reality is that America has a long tradition of educating its citizens, and we all need to recognize that more is needed.  It’s not socialism:   it’s American.