Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in October 2022

An IFF fail

jones

The ill-named Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) has encountered substantial reversals in recent months in its avowed war against Idaho’s public school system. Lest anyone forget, IFF’s chief bottle washer, Wayne Hoffman, famously declared: “I don’t think government should be in the education business. It is the most virulent form of socialism (and indoctrination thereto) in America today.” The dark-money-funded IFF is flailing in its quest to find a new weapon to defund and discredit our public schools.

IFF initially achieved success in its crusade against our schools by compelling its legislative minions to fight against practically every effort to adequately fund educational programs (IFF’s current minions are legislators who scored over 70% on the group’s Freedom Index). When the meager funding resulted in less-than-stellar student performance, IFF claimed that our “government” schools were failing.

In recent years, IFF has intensified its hostilities against public schools by employing fake culture war claims. The obvious intent is to discredit our school system and try to replace it with private, but publicly-funded, schools. Some of IFF’s dark money appears to come from interests that just happen to be invested in such private schooling opportunities.

In 2020, IFF made the false claim that Idaho schools were indoctrinating children with critical race theory (CRT). The legislators owned and operated by IFF parroted those claims throughout the State, even though most of them had no idea what CRT is. Two of IFF’s favorite cheerleaders, Janice McGeachin and Priscilla Giddings, conducted a witch hunt to ferret out the dreaded CRT and came up empty.

The problem was that, after the dust settled, local school patrons realized their locally-elected school boards would not put up with any sort of improper attempts to indoctrinate their kids. They knew their local teachers, many of whom grew up in the community, were doing their level best to educate the kids, not indoctrinate them.

IFF then tried selling the false claims that teachers were engaging in various supposed evils–social emotional learning and social justice. Jesus was a big advocate of social justice, so it could not be all that horrible. Those claims more or less fell flat.

Most recently, IFF’s supposed education “experts” falsely claimed that Idaho’s schools were giving “Porn Literacy” to K-12 students. The IFF report was discredited and fully debunked practically before the ink on it was dry. No wonder, one of the authors was Scott Yenor the disgraced professor who claimed college women were “medicated, meddlesome and quarrelsome.” Ouch!

The primary elections produced another setback for IFF. In the southern part of the State, it lost three of its leading lights in the House–Ron Nate, Karey Hanks and Chad Christensen–and made few gains. About half of the IFF acolytes who made it through the primary election voted in favor of the Governor’s special session education plan to increase education spending by $410 million. That indicates a substantial lessening of IFF’s influence, even among its primary election survivors.

In another recent blow to IFF, the Heritage Foundation, which is generally a powerful IFF fellow traveler, has reported that Idaho public schools are much better than anyone would expect, based on their low level of funding. The Foundation’s September 9 report card ranks Idaho first in the nation for return on investment. According to Heritage, “Idaho taxpayers will be glad to know they’re getting bang for their buck.” What Heritage did not say, is that we would be getting even more bang if we put more state funds into teacher pay so that we did not have so many teacher vacancies across the state.

The Heritage Foundation report has some deficiencies, but it is a powerful rebuttal of the false claims that IFF has been tarring our public school system with over the years. Public schools are the heart and soul of every community across the State. Instead of trying to tear them down, like IFF loves to do, we should be doing our level best to build them up with proper funding and strong public support.

 

Two of the three corners

stapiluslogo2

In a group of three, two usually line up – and did in the latest Oregon gubernatorial debate

A two-way contest of any sort is a relatively simple matter of one side gaining more than the other. Add a third side to the picture and it becomes much more complicated.

In Oregon’s race for governor, for example, there are three complex strategies – all of them probably too complex to readily resonate with most voters. Republican Christiane Drazan argues that opponents Tina Kotek, a Democrat, and Betsy Johnson, who is not aligned with a party, are simply two of a kind, stand-pat liberals. Kotek argues that Drazan and Johnson are just two lookalike right-wingers. Johnson contends that Kotek and Drazan are both extremists on opposing sides, and she represents a center point.

That’s been the core message of many of the ads and statements from the candidates so far. How did it play out on Tuesday, when the candidates ran head to head in a debate at Bend on KTVZ-TV?

The candidates almost always agreed with the premise of the questions asked, with many of them coming from central Oregon television news viewers. Almost a score of topics were specifically raised.

There weren’t – and this is maybe a little surprising – any clear cases (the debate on homelessness could be an exception) where all three candidates broke apart in three clearly different directions, though they all had distinct ways of expressing their views. The closest case would be on taxes, where Kotek generally defended recent legislation while calling for some change, Johnson offered a limited defense but emphasized a need for review and probably overhaul and Drazan summed up, “I’m on this stage with two people who have voted for billions of dollars of taxes.”

All three candidates were in agreement on no more than two or three issues. They agreed with the premise that many people outside the Willamette Valley feel the western metro areas get most of the attention and benefits, and each made a case for why they would best address that. They concurred on the need for better funding and organizational structuring for higher education and general public school policy, but even while coming to similar conclusions the three took shots round the edges.

In nearly all cases, question by question, it was a two-way split.

In two cases – although there was conflict all around – the answers largely put Kotek and Johnson on one side, Drazan on the other.

One of those – to no surprise – was abortion, where Kotek highlighted her legislative record and support from groups supporting abortion access, and Johnson noted her history as a Planned Parenthood board member and legislator supporting abortion access. Drazan said she is against abortions, but beyond that only that she would enforce Oregon’s abortion laws. That led Kotek to point out that a governor could do a great deal to effectively restrict abortion even with the laws on the books. None of the three answered the moderator’s question about when life begins.

On water management and limited water supplies, Johnson and Kotek both called for working with local people, but Drazan dismissed them both: “All of what you just heard is a lot of campaigning. … There will be more regulation.”

Beyond those subjects, all of the other questions – on topics ranging from guns, homelessness, affordable housing, the state’s pandemic response and health resources, drug addiction, school standards, climate change and support for small business – broke down mainly with Kotek on one side, and Drazan and Johnson on the other.

For example, talk about guns was keyed partly to a recent shooting incident in Bend and partly to Measure 114, which if the voters pass it in November would mandate permitting and safety training before purchasing a gun. Kotek endorsed it, and noted that both of her opponents had top ratings from the National Rifle Association. The other candidates were opposed. Drazan said that Oregon has enough gun legislation at present, and Johnson argued about release of some violent prison inmates, but appeared to oppose further gun restrictions.

Asked about climate change, the substance of Drazan’s and Johnson’s answers were remarkably similar: Both focused heavily on wildfires and forest policy. Kotek didn’t specifically argue with their points, but said forest management and fires accounted for only a small portion of what the state can or should do about climate change, and said they were unwilling to look at any other options, which, she said, she has.

A few other impressions of the second debate, which overall was not drastically different from the first:

No one made much attempt at humor or even lighten the tone: The mood was serious and intermittently angry; Johnson particularly came off as a scold. Johnson and Kotek both offered plenty of policy specifics, though Johnson weighted her answers more toward criticisms of what the state has or hasn’t done; Drazan spoke almost exclusively in broad strokes with no new specifics, even after the moderator specifically asked for details rather than blue-sky aspirations.

All of that said, there was quite a bit to be learned from the debate. One clear point: The two of the three who appear most often aligned are Johnson and Drazan.

Debates of course only influence final election results, ordinarily, in a limited way. But if the indication from this one, that Drazan and Johnson are in effect sharing much the same message and in effect mostly splitting one sector of support, that would be a big advantage for Kotek.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.