/ 17 November 2008

It’s OK: Obama can care for poor kids as well as his own

Of all the charges hurled at liberalism in America since the 1970s, few have proven as potent as the allegation of ”liberal hypocrisy”. The typical liberal, it is said, lives a life of ease and sanguinity and asks the average working Joe (they’re always Joes in America, hence the resonance of Joe the Plumber, whose actual name was Samuel) to make sacrifices so that liberal notions about society may be fulfilled.

I admit readily that there were instances in which the charge carried some truth. The most famous case over here involved what we call ”busing”, an idea that grew in the 1970s. Liberal education reformers spent the 50s and 60s trying to make inner-city schools the equal of suburban schools. Once they acknowledged that it would never happen, someone hit on the idea of ”busing” urban children to suburban schools. Since the suburban schools were not going to double in size overnight, this scheme entailed busing suburban children to the inner-city. Many kids would no longer be going to the school down the street but to one perhaps 45 minutes away.

This created one of the most consuming controversies in recent US history, and race was at the heart of it. Things got particularly ugly in Boston in the mid-1970s. The working-class whites of south Boston complained that of course those crazy liberals of Brookline, a swell Boston suburb with excellent schools, were all for busing — it would never affect them personally. The liberal hypocrisy charge took hold, and to this day right-wing demagogues such as Rush Limbaugh scour the landscape for more examples, aware that nothing else riles their constituencies quite like it.

As a result, it’s a handy catch-all category these days. If a liberal politician who talks about helping the poor is caught eating a plate of lobster thermidor — j’accuse! Hypocrisy.

All of which brings us to the matter at hand. Barack and Michelle Obama are looking at schools for their daughters. One hears it said frequently that to put their money where their mouth is, they should send the girls to public school (in America, a ”private” school is an exclusive, fee-paying institution with a competitive application process, and a ”public” school is free and open to everyone). After all, the Obamas ”claim” to believe in public education, so for them to send their kids to a private school would reek of you-know-what.

Hogwarts. In this day and age, a president can no more send his children to a public school than he can go strolling down the street alone. Especially this president. I don’t want to get too specific or macabre here, but let me just put it this way. There’s a reason the candidate who stood to become America’s first black president received a secret service detail long before presidential candidates usually do. You follow?

In a public school, Sasha and Malia Obama would spend five days a week on premises open to practically anyone. The secret service presence would have to be so obtrusive as to disrupt daily life beyond recognition (and the expense would be astronomical, for those mindful of the taxpayer). At a private school, they would still require a security detail, but a smaller one. Daily life on a private-school campus — which, in Washington, would probably already have diplomats’ and other officials’ children on the rolls — would be far less altered.

Yes, it would be nice if we lived in a society in which the Obama girls could go to a public school. But let’s face it. We live in a society with a bunch of hateful nuts. Not so many that Obama couldn’t be elected president, but plenty enough of them. I’m confident that the secret service people are on their knees begging him and Michelle to choose a private school.

So no, it is not hypocritical of them in the slightest. And even if security wasn’t paramount — even if they just wanted to give their daughters the best because they can afford it — it wouldn’t be hypocritical then, either.

People are perfectly entitled to give their children the best if they have the means to do so. The Obamas made their money honestly, through good educations and well-paid jobs (hers) and high book sales (his).

And they’re still entirely capable of caring genuinely about those who’ve been less fortunate.

I’d even say people are entitled to situate themselves in the comfort their money will allow, although there should be limits. A Hollywood celebrity who preaches environmental activism and flies around in a private jet is being hypocritical. And one of the many reasons I wasn’t wild about John Edwards’ candidacy is that his 2 700 square metre home struck me as a tad excessive.

But the Obamas have the right to educate their children as they see fit. Indeed, I hope they choose a private school, because over time it will help brush off this nonsense about liberal hypocrisy. President Obama will have many opportunities to show his concern about public schools. His proposals include expanding early education, putting more emphasis on maths and science and recruiting better teachers to poor schools, among other measures. I hope that he passes them one day, and I further hope that, to celebrate their passage, he treats himself to a nice plate of lobster thermidor. – guardian.co.uk