Blog

An article in this past Sunday’s Washington Post, “Colleges Chasing Potential Students,” discussed colleges taking extra measures to recruit students, particularly talented students with diverse backgrounds.

As one of the nation’s “must-read” opinion columnists, David Brooks carries great weight with all of the candidates running for public office. In today’s New York Times, Brooks attributes American economic success during most of the 20th Century to the fact that “American workers were better educated, more industrious and more innovative than the ones that came before. That progress stopped about 30 years ago.” Brooks goes on to say that while liberals have spent time thinking about human capital, conservatives have not; they have tended “to imagine that if you build a free market, a quality labor force would magically appear.” He advises the Republican nominee for President to call for “a new human capital revolution” to recapture the can-do spirit. Among other things, Brooks promotes policies that would make programs such as Teach For America, KIPP Schools, and New Leaders for New Schools flourish. Brooks also challenges the Democrats’ version of why more students don’t complete college, asserting that it’s not just about affordability: “The real reasons are that students are academically unprepared and emotionally disengaged.” He calls for making national service a “rite of passage for 20-somethings” and suggests that the volunteers focus on mentoring other students through high school and college. To read more of what Brooks has to say today, read his op-ed.

I have lived in the metropolitan DC area for exactly 25 years—six years on Capitol Hill in the District, two years in Arlington, VA, and 17 years in Chevy Chase, MD. In all those years, no one living outside of the tri-state area ever knew we were voting or cared how we voted in presidential primaries. Either we were too small to matter or the nominees were already decided by the time our primaries came around. To say “but things are so different this year” is sounding like a cliché but it’s true—things are so different! The District is abuzz with Obama and Hillary signs, and every rush hour brings groups of mostly middle-aged women to the street corners doing visibility for one of the two Democratic candidates. Horns are blaring and lights are flashing in support of favorites. White-haired women with Obama signs spent all weekend jumping up and down in Chevy Chase Circle, while teenaged boys and girls filled the streets of downtown Bethesda with Hillary signs. Michelle Obama used our local high school for an event last night. Trust me, this is not normal. But it’s wonderful. What happens here finally matters.

For anyone reading this blog, it’s safe to say that in our collective memories there has never been a presidential contest as interesting or exciting as this one. But what really separates this election contest from all others is how confusing it is. Pundits, pollsters, and other supposedly expert observers continue to analyze “trends” but they often miss the mark. According to Doug Schoen, a pollster and advisor to both President Bill Clinton and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the reason the “chattering classes” have so consistently called this election wrong is that they are missing the most important dynamic of the race: “the appearance of a crucially important new bloc of voters who are clamoring for bold, non-partisan solutions and are disgusted with today’s Washington politics.” Schoen goes on to say that “voters today aren’t just fed up with the status quo; they’re furious.” Who are these angry voters? Schoen calls them RAMs, “restless and anxious moderates.” These voters tend to be “practical, non-ideological and unabashedly results-oriented. . .  They are tough-minded pragmatists who insist on confronting the intractable problems facing the country.”