Education, Education, Education

Famously the 1992 election was all about the economy (I never call people stupid). This one is actually all about education, more specifically the crisis in higher education, although no-one except Bernie Sanders seems to have figured that out yet. Sanders' campaign has focused on college towns trying to get those millennials who are then going to buzz about him on social media. His number one policy - the one that gets cheers and incredulity and even laughter is, wait for it...FREE college! He wants to make state and community college free for everyone (just like Scandinavia and many other places). He is going to pay for it by putting a tax on Wall Street speculation - OK now we are laughing - but he's really serious. Apparently, he can't win but he is making a fair crack at it.

Education is the most significant difference between Sanders and Clinton. Yes they differ on healthcare, but who can really blame her for not wanting to go down that road again, and sort of on guns but not really in principle - Sanders does not think restrictions on gun sales are unconscionable - and of course the differ on Wall St but that is just part of the same thing. 

But in addressing the crisis in higher education the difference is huge. Hooge, Sanders would say, in almost the same accent as Trump. Clinton says she wants to make college more affordable (yawn they have been saying that for years and its just getting more expensive) but on the PRINCIPLE of free education she asks if we really want to pay for Trump's kids to go to college? 

And Yes actually I do because that is why this election is really about education. Because it turns out that the Trump supporters are mostly people who did not get to go to college or finish college. I want to pay for his kids and him and his supporters to go but only if I can get some assurance about the quality of education they are going to have - not some business degree that will teach them how to avoid paying their debts by declaring bankruptcy willy nilly all over the shop - but a degree that might include some classes in ethics or philosophy, a bit of constitutional history or at least allow them to recognize a snake oil salesman in full pitch. If this stat is not an indication that education is a public good I don't know what is?

So what's the problem? - Americans have always paid for college and they have some of the world's best colleges and one of the highest rates of college education in the world right?

But the cost of college has increased by over 1000% in thirty years. You still have a very high number of high school graduates going to college (about 68%) but half of them drop out before they finish. Its because it costs too much: According to the College Board, the average cost of tuition and fees for the 2015–2016 school year was $32,405 at private colleges, $9,410 for state residents at public colleges (but that's an average - a UC college about $14,000), and $23,893 for out-of-state residents attending public universities. Its impossible. Unsustainable. Its just inconceivable that it could be worth the money!

So a lot of people are not getting to go to college or they go, spend lots of money and then don't even get a degree. And all the people with degrees are taking all the jobs that people without degrees used to do. Now that would make you angry. But its easier to think your job is being taken by immigrants than by overqualified graduates.

This is why people are so disillusioned with the American dream because it is supposed to be that if you work hard you can succeed but now all that happens is that you work hard and you end up with a huge debt you are never going to pay off and you have to pay stupid government interest rates and you can't even declare bankruptcy like Mr Trump does.

What is most dangerous is that the education they are paying huge sums for is not what it was. It might be said that what is driving up the cost of education is that the colleges are hiring the best and the brightest from all over the world, and certainly private US colleges pay better than anyone in Europe (ha!) but the colleges are cutting costs at the same time as driving up fees, and hiring adjuncts to teach destroying the whole idea of a university as an academic community that can further human knowledge. 

There is an immense snobbery about education - about which college you go to that drives the fake meritocracy - and what you are buying is not education but entrance to a team playing in a national success league based on the image of your college. You do two years at a community college and then transfer to UCLA and you only have to pay the big bucks for the last two years. But you are still a UC graduate. Studies show that graduating from an elite college is not the key to success - only getting admitted! suggesting for all those high fees the schools really don't add value.

So its not surprising if the sensible people are starting to question the whole idea of higher education, Like Warren Buffet saying you should invest the money instead and Bloomberg recommending training as a plumber.

Anyway that's my 2 cents worth. The New Hampshire primary is on Tuesday so I'll explain why a primary is different from a caucus and why Bernie Sanders is going to win in New Hampshire. Soon.

So my old friend Ceri wants me to explain this mess...

that passes for an election here. I am probably not qualified, firstly because I can't even vote and secondly because I am a bit of a psephology geek and like all geeks struggle to find the border between fascinating and tedious. Thirdly I really don't think the Presidential election is important. Of course I understand that everyone back in Britain is fascinated by the political theater and no doubt the shenanigans are highly amusing but they imagine that this is serious business here. But in all honesty I don't think the presidency is that important to people's everyday lives even in the US. 

I think what makes a difference here is state politics, and local politics and I wish international news (or even national US news) would focus on theses issues sometimes. Washington really doesn't matter that much except maybe the supreme court. After that comes congress and then the presidency and even then the White House has so little power - its more about moral leadership and of course foreign policy. So in a sense who gets elected is as important to the rest of the world as it is to Americans, except you don't have to make up your mind and choose who to vote for.

I was hoping I would get to do just that. Having lived in California for 10 years, I filled out my naturalization form and sent it in hoping to get citizenship in time to vote. My husband who sent it in at the same time has already completed his interview and his ceremony and I am still stuck on "application in process." So here I am very probably a non-voting observer. Question is what needs explaining? The first thing is: isn't this a weird election?

Yes it is. All US Presidential elections are unpredictable and surprising things happen but this one has a bizarreness to it that is freaking out the media but actually engaging American people, particularly the millennials. 

There is a mood across the country that is disillusioned with the political status quo that is drawing support towards candidates that seem to be 'authentic'. The biggest problem for the media is that Hillary Clinton, who they were ready to crown, doesn't do 'authentic'. Perhaps more than a mood - perhaps even a national crisis of identity.

Normally the mood wouldn't matter much - but, here come the numbers, demographers and psephologists are tracking the RAE - the Rising American Electorate which is unmarried women, people of color and millennials. Not only are they increasing in number but they are also increasingly participating in the process. Have a look at the sweet millennials arguing it out at the Iowa Caucus! This is what democracy is supposed to look like, um.

The other change is the money thing. It has been a common place since television was invented really that the way to win the US election was to show lots of expensive TV ads and so the person who could raise the most money and show the most ads would win the election. (Of course legally the person doesn't raise or spend the money - a superpac that supports them does and its 'really out of the candidate's control'. The effect is of course corrupting of the news media (who's stations need the ad revenue) and of the candidates trying to raise huge sums of money. 

No one can ever really change this system because to support campaign finance you would need to be elected without being beholden to the financiers. Two candidates are doing just that. Bernie Sanders has no Super-pac, and is accepting only donations from individuals. The average donation is $27. He has raised a lot of money but its minuscule compared to what is usually needed. But he is still able to get his word out mostly through social media which costs very little. The problem for Sanders has been not getting much more than a tiny soundbite on national TV or print news. Unless its something about how remarkable he's doing for a loser. Trump is going the other way - he does have some (white supremacist)Super-pacs supporting him but mostly he doesn't have to raise money because he is getting all the publicity he needs from the media obsession with him. Until now he hasn't paid for media - now he is blitzing Iowa and New Hampshire but its not the usual campaign orthodoxy. He doesn't even need travel money - he misses the debate and they talk for two weeks about his absence. He could stay at home and do this. The voting consultants are baffled. Frank Luntz tried every strategy the Republican party could use on his focus group and NOTHING could stop him. 

The Iowa Caucus is important only because it is the start of the real race after a long long phoney war. Bernie Sanders won morally because he made the media show his whole speech and he was able to state all his amazing fabulous policies without it cutting off to show trump doing something idiotic. Cruz was expected to win Iowa because of his evangelical background so no surprise there but the media had to find a way of making it about Trump and they enjoyed cruzifying him. He will rise again on February 9 in New Hampshire. The winner from the GOP side was certainly Marco Rubio. The problem on the Republican side is basically that there are too many candidates and everyone knows it but no one wants to give way. Now Rubio can try to present himself as the establishment Republican candidate - the safe bet for those who vote Republican to keep their taxes low and their investments safe but aren't motivated by all the crazy anti-immigrant, anti-women, anti-gay stuff. But is he strong enough to put a sensible choice coalition together? Because we all know that those moderate Republicans might vote for Hillary rather than Trump or Cruz. And usually that would win it - because that's where the money is. But 2016 is weird.