Guest Voice: Looping, Or Just Loopy? In Defense Of Political Experience, At The Risk Of Political Entrenchment
Jan 12th, 2008 | 12 responses
The Moderate Voice runs Guest Voice columns by readers who don’t have their own websites or want to present their ideas to TMV’s ideologically diverse audience. Guest Voice columns do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers. This Guest Voice is by Jill Miller Zimon who has her own excellent site Writes Like She Talks.
Looping, or just loopy? In defense of political experience, at the risk of political entrenchment
by Jill Miller Zimon
Yesterday, I went to lunch with a near 30-year veteran of a major metropolitan newspaper who retired a little over a year ago. She’s a Barack Obama supporter and I’m a Democratic fence-sitter. Since my top three candidates are gone, baby, gone, I now will choose between the top three finishers in Iowa and New Hampshire.
But how – how will I choose? What criteria do I find to be most relevant? Which criteria are the most relevant?
My lunch date said that she prefers Obama to Clinton or John Edwards because she believes that this country needs someone who will listen and integrate multiple perspectives into a single solution, whatever issue is under the microscope.
I played devil’s advocate by bringing up the experience question – what’s he got to show, versus someone like Hillary Clinton or John Edwards? (I’m dispensing with the arguments that Clinton’s time has all been on the watch as a wife and Edwards as a trial lawyer; I don’t believe the former characterization to be accurate or fair and if being a trial lawyer doesn’t involve finding solutions, albeit through our justice system, I don’t know what profession does).
And her response, not surprisingly, was that Clinton’s experience is overshadowed by her entrenchment as a result of that experience.
That’s when I told her about looping.
If you have a child in elementary or middle school, you might know about looping. I know about it firsthand because one of my kids is a beneficiary of it.
Looping, in education, is when a teacher sticks with a class for more than one grade. The class, when it heads into its second year, is said to be “looping” with that teacher.
What’s the benefit of looping?
Again, if you’ve got kids, you can just imagine: how many weeks at the beginning of the year are spent by a classroom teacher assessing, assessing, and, you know, assessing? In my school district, anywhere from three to six weeks or more. Especially with the pressures on schools to implement inclusion, so that any one classroom has kids who function along a lengthy continuum of abilities, that assessment period – and then analysis of the results and implementation based on that analysis – can take literally months.
But, ah – with looping? That assessment period, that analysis time, that getting to implementation? Dramatically shortened.
Now, I told my friend, I understand her concern about Hillary Clinton’s entrenchment with certain people, groups and influencers that comes as a result of her experience. I feel the same concern – it is real. No question.
But imagine the opposite. Remember the class without looping, the class with brand new everyone – new classmates, new room, new teacher.
As we chatted, it became clear that the conundrum pits the benefits of looping against the detriments of entrenchment. This conundrum, when applied to making a choice between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (or John Edwards), makes us face the following question:
Which is the greater enemy of achieving the more or less similar goals shared by the Democratic front-runners (getting out of Iraq, re-establishing a positive global reputation for the US, keeping social security safe, reforming health care, improving education, addressing illegal immigration):
Ceding the time it will take Obama to put together a team – across the entire White House administration including all its cabinets, and then create, develop and build relationships with and between all those individuals – because we know he is bright and has a vision, when time is not something most Democrats want to have more of before change takes place;
Or risking the possibility that Clinton will be unable to disregard or otherwise dilute decades-long ties inside the Beltway and therefore be unable to answer to the American people, as a citizenry?
That choice is why I’m on the fence, although the looping analogy has me leaning toward experience.
How about you?
Also posted at Writes Like She Talks, BlogHer and RedBlueAmerica.
12 Responses to “Guest Voice: Looping, Or Just Loopy? In Defense Of Political Experience, At The Risk Of Political Entrenchment”
[...] Here’s another interesting post I read today by Joe Gandelman [...]
[...] Here’s another interesting post I read today by The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, ori… [...]
Once again those who know me know that I am bitterly opposed to Obama because he is being swept towards a White House Throne by the antiwar fervor that is prevalent in this courntry.
The people make no sense when they think that the most LIBERAL member of congress is going to be a uniter or is going to work with the GOP to get a moderate agenda done.
LOOK at his record. LOOK at his ISSUSES on the website and you will see that his issues are rooted in left to far left mantra. This is a perscription for UNITING this country?
I do not think so. Call me a redneck from south of the Mason Dixon line but its got nothing to do with his color. His talk indeed is moderate…..His Vote is NOT. His manner indeed is concillitory. His actions are not. His wishes are indeed for middle of the road politics. His Issue page on his website is for Radical far left euphoria.
There is NO WAY this man is about change, hope or being a Uniter. He is nothing more then a typical politician, albeit with a flair for oratory and inspiration, whose goal is power and whose aim is change. The problem is the change he advocates is change from far right politics to far left politics.
Well written post!
I'm pretty tossed up still on the experience debates, and the education / “looping” analogy is a good one. And looping has some enormous advantages, I agree.
OTOH, it sometimes happens that the children (in this analogy, the American people) are paired with a teacher with whom they do not get along, and end up dreading the coming year(s).
Likewise, there's the problem of “labeling”, wherein a child's history becomes part of the permanent memory bank of the teacher, and thereafter “labeled”. This can color future interactions, and can affect expectations (from both sides).
In short, “looping” can be a two-sided coin.
(Full disclaimer: I'm undecided re: Obama or Clinton. There's a bit of devil's advocate in this comment)
Thanks for reading and commenting. I agree with the “swept” part – I criticized an Ohio politician in the 2006 cycle for that and sure enough, he eventually dropped out. One of the things I'd cited from the beginning was that he just didn't want it the way someone who has it coursing through them does. That's not to say Obama's desire isn't genuine – I'm sure it is. But it does seem to me that you don't decide, seriously, to be the president of the US quite as quickly as he has. The too soon thing is definitely a problem for me.
I was a Biden, Dodd, Richardson voter myself. I'm very sorry that they are all gone now. And the three remaining top runners – none are my real cup of tea. That's part of why I'm going to less commonly examined elements necessary for a president to succeed – because I don't feel like looking at “whose policies do I least disagree with” if you know what I mean.
That previous reply comment of mine was for “Somebody”
Hi Polimom – thanks for reading and commenting.
Agreed – 100% re: pros and cons of looping. In my son's class, only one child opted out and recently, a new child in the school entered my son's class (which I would think could be intimidating but this teacher is a pro so maybe that's what they really wanted for the child).
I guess a lot boils down to how each of us assesses what this country needs most right now and who can give it that or attend to that best. More than one approach will work, but we do have to commit to one – not two.
Which one!?
I think you and I are in the same boat pretty much!
At one time I thought Hillary would make a good President but I feel that Obama would make a great President. One problem I have with Hillary is that so many people find her polarizing. It seems that after two decades the Bush/Clinton and Republican/Democratic interaction has been finely honed to be very partisan.
Obama on the other hand realizes that as President he will be the leader of all people, not just the elite. Obama is trying to appeal to all Americans (as much as possible), trying to find common ground even before the general election. Whereas Hillary is using time-proven political dirty tricks (i.e. the Swift Boating- all the negative stuff about Obama, even though her campaign can appear clean). The other reason I'm not supporting Hillary is because of her vote on the Iranian Revolutionary guard a few months ago. I forgave her the Iraq war vote, thinking she had learned from that, but then she supported Bush in his fight against Iran. Don't get me wrong- Iran should be dealt with, but not the Bush way.
So anyway, yeah, I think Clinton has loads of experience, but she would continue the political tradition and leave many people in this country feeling as though she doesn't represent them. That's not what we need.
The choice for me is easy- do I want a Democratic version of Bush? Or do I want to have a leader who inspires Americans (or at least doesn't marginalize Americans who disagree with him, like Bush marginalizes huge swaths of the American public)? Hillary's positions may be very different than Bush's but the partisan bickering and “business as usual” would continue in DC under Hillary- it's all her experience has taught her.
It seems to me that if people really put their vote where their mouth is then they would elect someone fresh and without years of bad blood in DC. Bush was gov. of Texas but as we've all seen his “experience” hasn't helped the US at all (and he's been Prez. for nearly two terms and hasn't gotten any better). Everyone I know- Dem and Repub.- will be happy to see him leave.
I'd like a leader who inspires people to work together and not repeat the same politics I've seen all my life.
BTW, Jill, great post- thanks!
Thanks for reading and leaving a comment, Stock.
You make great points re: why Hillary's experience is a negative and Obama is just so charismatic, appealing and inspiring.
Playing devil's advocate – what about the pitfalls of setting up expectations but not being sure that they can be met? Do you have that concern? If not, why not – what's making you feel secure that Obama will deliver? If you do have that concern, how are you thinking it will be neutralized – or what do you hope will be done to neutralize it?
Thanks.
So I’m not really concerned about Obama setting up expectations that he cannot meet. First of all Obama is committed to the American people and has worked and fought hard for his positions before. Because he will have a more inclusive Administration (I would imagine Dems, Repubs and independents) the “us versus them” mentality so loved by Bush will give way to a more civil tone.
I feel that Hillary would just continue politics as usual. Anytime a new President takes over, there will be change, and anytime the Presidency changes parties there will be even more change. Hillary is absolutely right when she says she’s been changing things for years- but then again any legislator who passes new laws can invoke the same change mantle. However she can not create the sort of change that Obama is inspiring. Obama is trying to pull the country together whereas both Democrats and Republicans see Hillary as a polarizing figure. If the President is destined to be a Democrat this time, the Republicans want her in simply because they know what they are dealing with (Clinton and the Republicans have been perfecting their partisans attitudes for the last couple of decades).
If Obama were in the WH, that means a new face and change- especially since many Republicans like Obama. For the Republicans in Congress this means giving up some of their power/control. Right now they can do what they want and blame the Democrats. But with Obama in office, and he has both Dems and Republican appointees, then any battle has to be won (or lost) on its own merits since it will be harder to point to an inclusive Obama Administration and put up roadblocks to keep the “Democrats” from winning.
You wrote:
“If Obama were in the WH, that means a new face and change- especially since many Republicans like Obama. For the Republicans in Congress this means giving up some of their power/control. Right now they can do what they want and blame the Democrats. But with Obama in office, and he has both Dems and Republican appointees, then any battle has to be won (or lost) on its own merits since it will be harder to point to an inclusive Obama Administration and put up roadblocks to keep the “Democrats” from winning.”
I've not heard this before – do you mind mentioning a bit about why you believe this will be the case (could just be my lack of following Obama and the pundits closely enough).
Thanks for continuing the conversation.