Section 2 described the overall strategies of (1) creating a network of advocacy organizations and (2) focus on ideology. Section 3 describes specific strategies and tactics that support the overall strategic approach and serve to accomplish the goals of the Right described in Section 1. It also explores in greater detail the Right’s strategies in opposition to public education and teacher unions.
The specific strategies presented in this section are referred to as “major” strategies and “other” strategies, as opposed to tactics. Strategies typically have a long-term focus and are large in scope. Tactics are generally considered as specific actions that help to ad–vance a strategy. For example, using talk radio as a way of evaluating public response to specific messages is a tactic used to advance the strategy of changing public attitudes.
A clear understanding of the opposition’s strategies is necessary for mounting an effective counter. In Section 5, Fighting Back, the report will address some of the specific tactics that supporters of public education might employ, as well as the larger strategies.
Major Strategies in Creating and Maintaining an Infrastructure
Twenty-five years ago the leadership of the Republican Party had almost nothing in common with the Religious Right. That has changed dramatically.
“Although they are powerful, the small number of neo-cons makes it almost impossible for them to win elections on their own. This is where the religious right becomes useful. Legions of citizens from organizations like Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and the Christian Coalition are convinced that
“Money and influence from the neo-conservative secular right combined with grassroots power from the religious right has resulted in a dramatic reshaping of the American political landscape. One important point of intersection between the two is the movement to dismantle public education. ”
- Tom Seibold, “A Brief Framework for Understanding the Anti-Public School Movement” [58]
The Right through its funders and funded organizations provides financial support for literally the full range of operations and activities that make up its infrastructure. The people who write the op-eds promoting vouchers are funded. The people who write the books are funded. The people speaking on any given cable TV show are funded. The people speaking to public interest organizations are funded. Even the people who initially write many of the letters to the editors are funded.
Having a well-funded established infrastructure means having available an army of thousands of soldiers dedicated to furthering the goals of the “movement.” In a Salon Magazine interview, [59] David Brock discusses the “cradle-to-grave jobs network”:
“You write about the conservative cradle-to-grave jobs network that goes along with the think tanks, opinion journals, magazines, radio shows and syndicated columns, and book deals and speaking fees. It sounds pretty cushy.
“It is. There's every financial incentive in the world to stay in the conservative movement forever. That [network] allows the conservatives the freedom and the confidence to devote their attention to influencing the mainstream without actually becoming a part of it. It also means that when young people are trained they can stay -- it's not an up-or-out situation. You have very senior people editing magazines who can have families. And, again, it's sustained support. Editors of conservative magazines aren't out trying to raise money. The money is there; the cash reserves are in the bank. ”
These well-funded “soldiers” are available to take on any issue at a moment’s notice. They are available and ready to appear on talk shows, to write articles on any issue, to serve on the Boards of the various right-funded organizations, and even to appear as “average people” at rallies and demonstrations.
By funding all parts of the network, the backers of the conservative movement ensure that all the necessary components are in place. They do not leave it to chance whether speakers or writers or publishers or scholars will be available to develop and spread their message – they make sure that they are.
Many right-wing organizations operate like businesses. They often have small corporate boards that include those with business backgrounds, and are able to make quick, well-informed decisions. The organizations tend to operate in a business-like manner. They are well-structured, strategic, focused and disciplined, with clear objectives regarding public influence in the policy arena. They are able to recruit and retain capable talent, as they generally pay those who work for them a salary and benefits that are comparable to what a person might get in private industry.
Finally, the business perspective of conservative funders makes it easy for them to recognize that funding infrastructure is an investment. This is fundamental to the Right’s success. The Right was built and is sustained by people from the business community. These people also understand the power of marketing and PR techniques because they used them to sell their own products. It should be noted that many of the conservative funders were inspired by the Powell memo, described earlier in the report. That report, as previously noted, was presented to the Chamber of Commerce, and was particularly focused on the Chamber’s corporate membership.
Much of the effectiveness of the Right results from the degree to which their efforts are coordinated. One of the strategies that makes this possible is relationships between the boards and staffs of foundations and their nonprofit grantees. The NCRP report, Axis of Ideology, states the following:
“There is a great deal of overlap between the boards and staffs of conservative foundations and the boards and staffs of their nonprofit grantees. Twenty-three of the individuals in the database of conservative foundation and grantee board and staff members are leaders of three or more foundations and/or nonprofits, with 19 of those individuals serving on the board or staff of at least one foundation and of at least one nonprofit. Notably, the leading family members who direct foundations also serve on the boards of various nonprofits to which their foundations often provide grants.” [60]
This is reminiscent of the overlapping roles seen in the business world, in which top corporate executives serve on boards of other corporations, and become venture capitalists (VCs). VCs, in turn, may move into executive positions and hold board seats in the companies in which they invest. From NCRP’s report, Axis of Ideology:
“A core group of foundation and grantee leaders serve on several foundation and grantee boards of directors, and contribute millions of dollars to Republican candidates for public office.” [61]
Major Strategies in Marketing/Communications
The Right has taken a long-term approach to changing public attitudes, influencing decision makers, and achieving their goals. Use of long-term strategies has made it possible for them to continually take the initiative in moving their agendas. It allows the Right to be proactive on a short-term tactical basis, rather than reactive to others’ initiatives, as has been the case with moderates and progressives.
For the Right, long-term strategies do not develop spontaneously, but are the product of strategic thinking and planning. They know where they want to go, and develop a long-term strategic plan for getting there. The strategic plan may include a number of steps to achieve the final goal. For example, as part of the long-term strategic plan to privatize educa–tion, the public has been led to believe that “public schools are failing,” which has opened the door for the Right to introduce legislative solutions for this supposed problem.
As readily can be seen, developing and repeating strategic messages over time is a fundamental tool in using a long-term approach.
This long-term approach is fundamental to creating social change – changing the mindset of the populace so that they accept the Right’s underlying ideology as being “what is good for
The right-wing National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) website shows their understanding of the value of a long-term approach to ideological advocacy: [62]
“Secrets of Success:
[. . .] Adopting a Long-Term Strategy: Convention lists three ingredients to a successful business strategy:
· Setting goals that reach beyond the planning horizon
· Finding a market niche
· Developing complementary and strengthening factors and ideas that branch from the original market niche.
The NCPA has followed this strategy by producing numerous studies, consistently testifying before Congress and developing communicative strategies in numerous target areas. These areas are part of a five-year plan that is fully reviewed at least once every two years. ”
The term “Interconnectedness” in this report refers to linkages that exist between the whole range of players on the Right. Interconnectedness is a key component of the Right’s overall communication and marketing strategy.
Conservative “think tanks” publish research that backs up the privatization movement's claims and develop “talking points” for distribution to speakers, pundits, writers and the media. Other organizations provide trained speakers for radio and television programs. Still others publish magazine articles, op-ed pieces, and books based on the research from the think tanks. Some organizations work to discredit opponents. Others work to disparage teachers and teacher unions in the public mind. Yet others spread misleading stories about problems with public schools. All of this is designed to weaken teacher unions and public education, while simultaneously garnering support for privatization.
In sum, school privatization messages are amplified by the Right’s communication machine. Be–cause conservative movement organizations share the same basic ideology, they are able to validate and leverage each other's work, creating a multiplier effect. This enables them to operate as a message amplification infrastructure, which has been referred to as “The Mighty Wurlitzer”. [63] To the public, it appears that there are many diverse voices from a number of independent organizations and media outlets, giving the appearance of a wide–spread consensus among scholars and opinion leaders. In truth, however, the messages come from a core group using its net–work of advocacy organizations as an echo chamber, making one voice sound like many.
The right-wing funders, their organizations and associated politicians are closely linked, centrally coordinated and act in concert – that is why they can be considered components of the same movement. This pattern is not limited to the attack on public education. It characterizes all aspects of the movement. Since these individuals and organizations owe some portion (if not all) of their livelihood to a very small core group of funders, they cannot be expected to act independently.
“The potency of right wing politics and opinion molding lies in the architec–ture of the movement. That is, its constituent organizations think and act strategically. Agendas, priorities, and propaganda are directed from the center. Members are disciplined and dedicated to the narrow theology of the right.
“The disparate streams of conservative thought and action -- social, economic, religious, libertarian, and corporate -- set aside major differences and march to a single drummer -- with the tempo set at weekly tactical conferences in Washington .”
- Jerry Landray, The Apparat [64]
Right-wing funding patterns support lock-step coordination. One example of this coordination is a weekly meeting hosted by Grover Norquist, head of the Scaife/Coors/Olin /Bradley (among others)-funded Americans for Tax Reform [65] , which is attended by representatives of the funding foundations, major right-wing organizations like the National Rifle Association, the Christian Coali–tion and the Heritage Foundation, the Republican Party, House and Senate Republican leadership, right-wing associated media, and the White House [66] . Robert Dreyfuss, in his article in The Nation, “Grover Norquist: 'Field Marshal' of the Bush Plan,” writes, “ ‘The meeting functions as the weekly checklist so that everybody knows what's up, what to do,’ says Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, a conservative pollster who has been a regular attendee for years.” [67]
A Chicago Tribune story by Jill Zuckman, “Pipeline Leads to White House” says of Norquist, “To the extent that there is a conservative network, Grover is at the switchboard.” [68] Explaining how Norquist’s weekly meetings are used to keep varied organizations and individuals in line, a Guardian Limited story says:
“While the ostensible purpose of the meeting is to share information and coordinate strategy, they also give Norquist the opportunity to act as an ideological enforcer. When one member of the Bush administration worried to a New York Times reporter that the administration's plan to repeal the estate tax would cripple charitable giving, he was publicly warned by Norquist that this was ‘the first betrayal of Bush’, and was gone not long afterward. When a conservative pundit . . . criticized a fellow conservative . . . she was immediately informed by Norquist to decide ‘whether to be with us or against us’. She was no longer welcome at the meetings.” [69]
Because these meetings are frequent and are attended by representatives of all key components of a policy messaging machine – including media, government officials, and political party leaders – the messages can be coordinated not only in content, but also in timing. For example, messages denigrating those who might oppose the Bush administration tax cuts began to appear in multiple media two months before the official announcement of the legislative package.
David Brock, in his book Blinded by the Right, described, from the perspective of a former movement insider, how different parts of the right-wing web and their funders interacted during the attempt to remove President Clinton from office. Brock writes that funding was supplied by Richard Mellon Scaife, with Federalist Society (partly funded by Scaife) lawyers and judges working behind the scenes assisting Special Prosecutor Ken Starr and supplying information to the (partly Scaife-funded) American Spectator magazine. [70]
The interconnectedness of these organizations – leveraging the work of individuals and organizations tied to this movement – increases their effectiveness in disseminating messages to the public through seemingly independent channels and it also increases the perception of credibility. Individuals whose education was directly or indirectly funded by scholarships from the core group of funders and obtained at educational institutions that receive funding from the core group then graduate to work at organizations that receive funding from the core group, producing work that is funded by grants and fellowships from the core group. Their research cites other research pieces, published by others similarly receiving funding from this core group. Their books are published by publishers receiving funding from or ideologically associated with the core group, promoted by media and businesses ideologi–cally associated with the core group, reviewed by other individuals similarly associated with the core group, and sold in part through channels ideologically associated with the goals of the core group. In addition, still other organizations that receive funding from the core group then refer to this work to validate and give the appearance of credibility to their own work or messaging.
“The overlap among members of foundations, think tanks and, increasingly, the Bush team, borders on the incestuous. ”
- “Perspective: Who funds whom?” Energy Compass [71]
This interconnectedness gives the Right’s “research” an aura of credibility by citing each other's work and presenting it as conducted by independent, authoritative sources. The majority of the “conservative” experts and scholars writing newspaper op-ed pieces, books and magazine articles, and even the organizations that generate the “talking points” and position papers used by TV pundits and radio talk show hosts, are directly funded by, work for organizations supported by, or receive some form of support from this core group of funders.
Citing “reports, studies, surveys, recommendations, and policy statements,” most likely all funded by the same sources, Myron Lieberman writes in Market Solutions to the Education Crisis,
“In recent years, hundreds of prestigious reports, studies, surveys, recommendations, and policy statements have told us what's wrong with education and what to do about it. Nevertheless, significant reform in public education has not occurred, nor is it occurring. Why is this, and what must be done to increase educational achievement in the
“To answer these questions, the issues ignored in the reform reports have to be recognized.[1] One is the role of the two teacher unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and their state and local affiliates.” [72]
This “echo chamber” effect, whereby different organizations validate the research of other organizations in the network, making it appear credible, is part of why the Right’s infrastructure is able to accomplish so much.
In his Salon Magazine interview, [73] David Brock says,
“The Republican noise machine has an echo effect. It sets a climate and helps set parameters and helps form impressions -- and because there is so much noise coming out, there's no way that doesn't seep in. The absence of a liberal noise machine pushing back in an accurate way has to have some effect in there somewhere. ”
As one looks at the websites and published research of these and the many other advocacy organizations funded by this core group, one notices that they all refer to each other's work, citing it as research done by outside, independent, authoritative sources. But all these organizations are funded by the same group, and all have been set up to advocate the same ideology.
Tom Seibold describes this interconnectedness in “A Brief Framework for Understanding the Anti-Public School Movement” [74]
“As one explores the Internet from one neo-conservative think tank to another, the same names keep appearing over and over again. The names listed on think tank staffs, boards, and advisory councils looks like a fraternity roster. For example, the four most visible education research groups—Fordham, Hoover , Manhattan , and PEPG—share the same key players:
“In addition to a cross-pollinated leadership, the groups share the same writers, they reference the same studies, they review each other's work, and they appoint each other to the same projects and task forces. The comedian Foxworthy once quipped that "you know you are a red neck when your family tree has no branches." In the neo-conservative world of think tanks, expertise is incestuous. ”
Right-wing organizations function as an infrastructure that translates the ideas and policies into influential language, and then repeatedly disseminates those messages to the general public through a variety of communications channels. This messaging affects the public’s perception of issues and prepares them to be receptive to right-wing policy proposals and the politicians that support those proposals.
The Right’s messaging infrastructure draws effectively on communication techniques from the fields of marketing, public relations, and corporate image-management. They package their messages to appeal to people's deeper feelings and values, and they have refined their communication techniques and vocabularies to motivate their potential supporters effectively.
The right-wing Manhattan Institute’s website description demonstrates some of the marketing and message-dissemination capabilities of right-wing think tanks.
“The Manhattan Institute's program of luncheon forums, conferences, and publications reach a broad, diverse audience. As a result, our ideas are taken seriously—even by those who disagree with us.” [75]
George Lakoff, a professor of linguistics and cognitive science at the University of California Berkeley , in an interview, discusses why the Right is successful at framing communications:
“But they started back in the '50s, and after the '64 election they really got started. For the last 30 to 40 years, they have pumped $2 billion into supporting all of their think tanks and media apparatus. They have built this series of think tanks that started out after the Goldwater debacle, when "conservative" was a dirty word, when the idea of tax relief could not be introduced in two words. The phrase would have been meaningless. And what they did was to develop these ideas with very great patience and fortitude, in campaign after campaign, year after year, and invent the right words as the ideas came into popular view. Their success didn't happen overnight. They took a long-term view. I think we can do things a little faster since we now understand the science of it a little better, but some things are not going to happen overnight.” [76]
The Right utilizes multiple channels in disseminating their messages.
The Right’s message amplification infrastructure has a broad reach, repeating coordinated strategic messages through multiple communication channels: conservative talk radio, Fox News, Internet sites like the Drudge Report, op-ed pieces in newspapers across the country, prefab letters-to-the-editor, books, pundits and columnists
, talking points distributed to politicians and public speakers, advertisements, and newspapers like the Washington Times and Wall Street Journal.
The result, if you listen closely, is that the same words and phrases magically appear in multiple media at approximately the same time. Staying on message is a skill well-honed by the proponents of school privatization.
The use of multiple channels works to overcome the segmentation of media markets. It increases the fraction of the population that will be reached by the message. Whether one gets news from television, the local paper, the New York Times, or talk radio, one is sure to encounter the message. Another benefit of using multiple channels is that a given individual will be exposed to the message repeatedly – in the morning newspaper, by drive time radio, and in the evening TV news.
A significant part of the success of the Right is that they consistently take a marketing approach. Because of its business-oriented foundations, and because we are a consumer society, the leaders of the Right understand the power of marketing. It is second nature to many in the business community to use a marketing approach to solve problems.
The Right’s organizations use sophisticated marketing methods to “translate” – packaging ideas to appeal to people's deeper feelings and values – and disseminate messages designed to alter underlying public opinions to be supportive of their shared ideology. Even single words or phrases, selected for their effectiveness, are shared by multiple voices to reinforce the right-wing message.
This in turn leads to public support for their organizations and ideology, puts public pressure on legislators to support their issues, and results in the election of public officials who support their agenda and appoint judges and agency officials who carry out their policies.
“We believe that ideas have consequences, but that those ideas must be promoted aggressively. So, we constantly try innovative ways to market our ideas. ”
-Heritage Foundation Website [77]
The Heartland Institute’s “Marketing Plan for Educational Choice ” explains:
“In sales literature, a distinction is commonly made between "features" and "benefits." Features describe how a product looks, works, and compares to a different product. Benefits describe how the buyer will be better off with the product. In an effective sales presentation, the benefits of the product are emphasized while the features are described only to the extent needed to create a foundation of understanding in the buyer. Some of the benefits of an educational choice plan are: etc. [. . .] Tell your volunteers to stress these benefits at every opportunity and avoid long explanations of the features of your program. Ultimately, most people are moved by a program's objectives rather than the way it achieves them. Your marketing plan should recognize that fact and emphasize your goals. ”
A Marketing Plan for Educational Choice [78]
Heartland Institute goes on to explain how to win debates.
“Educational choice proponents must be able to win debates against their opponents. These debates will take place in public and in private thousands of times during the campaign to win passage of an educational choice plan. [. . .] From a marketing perspective, … [a] large body of information must be dramatically shortened and simplified. Partly this is because the producers of television and radio programs want "sound bites" of just a few seconds to fit into their news and commentary programs. But just as importantly, choice proponents will have only a few minutes to make their case in many public forums, and a few paragraphs or pages in an essay or letter sent to an editor, legislator, or potential supporter.
“Every participant in your campaign must be prepared to make a brief and effective case for educational choice. This requires preparation, rehearsal, and even memorization of key phrases and arguments. A convincing presentation will define the concept, establish the need, demonstrate workability, and document the benefits of the educational choice plan.”
A Marketing Plan for Educational Choice [79]
Framing is an important concept in communications and marketing. Frames reflect people’s concepts about the world. The frame cues a person as to how they should interpret a piece of information. Frames are usually expressed in language, but can also be conveyed through pictures, symbols, music, etc. A frame defines the terms of a debate or how an audience will perceive an argument. For example, referring to the inheritance tax as a “death tax” frames the issue. Using the expression “school choice” rather than “vouchers” creates a favorable frame for vouchers. Using the term “government schools”, in a context in which the public has been primed to consider anything having to do with the government as bad, creates a negative frame for public education. The “government schools” frame also allows the conservative movement to take advantage of the extensive anti-government messaging that the Right has been doing in relation to issues other than education. Similarly, the expression “children trapped in failing public schools” is obviously a very negative way of framing public schools.
It should be noted that a right-wing frame that does not appear to moderates or progressives to be honest or accurate may be considered as honest and accurate from the perspective or worldview of many supporters of right-wing positions. However, if ethical considerations are not a priority for those using a frame as a strategic means to a specific end, it should be recognized that a frame does not have to be accurate or honest in order to be effective.
From an ABC news report describing the importance of words to conservative advocates,
“To people who oppose vouchers, 'vouchers' is a lightening rod," says Darcy Olsen, director of education and child policy at the Cato Institute.
Word Has Negative Connotations
Even though vouchers are largely a Republican brainchild, Rod Paige, the new secretary of education, and many other Republicans don't even like to utter the word.
“Vouchers…we never use that word,” Paige said on ABCNEWS' This Week. He prefers "parental choice," and others refer to it as “portability.”
“Why the fight over one word? Because the word has acquired a negative connotation: it implies failure. Over the years, by one count, vouchers have lost at the polls no fewer than 10 times, most recently in California and Michigan .”
The 'V-Word' – ABC News [80]
One key to moving public opinion has been to create “conventional wisdom” through the constant repetition of simple messages through multiple channels over a long period of time. Two main examples are the claims that “Social Security is going broke” and that “public schools are failing.” Both statements are at best questionable, yet both have been firmly embedded in the “public mind” by purposeful repetition in a variety of media outlets and communications venues.
“After voters soundly rejected several state battles to implement voucher plans, Friedman's devotees realized that they would have to step back and reshape public opinion by hammering home the school failure message. Eventually, they reason, the public will get the message, school support will erode, and they can move incrementally toward greater levels of privatization. The idea of taking smaller steps toward the promised land is reflected in the following statement by the Heartland Institute president, Joesph [sic} L. Bast: ‘Pilot voucher programs for the urban poor will lead the way to statewide universal voucher plans. Soon, most government schools will be converted into private schools or simply close their doors.’ ”
- Tom Seibold, “A Brief Framework for Understanding the Anti-Public School Movement” [81]
Examples of conventional wisdom manufactured by school privatization advocates include:
These are just some of the simplistic and misleading messages that the school-privatization movement has spent vast amounts of time and money drumming into the public mind. As more and more people come to believe in the existence of these “problems,” the “solutions” offered by right-wing politicians become increasingly appealing. Also note that these messages frame the issues. Table 3.1 below shows an associated frame for each of the above five statements of conventional wisdom, the implication of, and responses triggered by, those frames.
Once the public has been convinced through repetition, right-wing politicians step in and offer "solutions”. It hardly matters who their candidates are – they all repeat the same talking points, offer the same solutions and, when elected, vote according to the directives of the funders, the same foundations and organizations that prepared the messages and laid the ideological groundwork. On the other hand, the progressive and moderate politicians are largely on their own to make their case. They do not have the benefit of a well-established messaging machine with coordinated messages to make their case.
Table 3.1 – Conventional Wisdoms and Frames
| Conventional Wisdom | Frame(s) | Implications | Response Triggered by Frame |
| Public schools are failing
| Failure | Failure is bad, has very negative implications | Want something successful, not those failing public schools
|
| Children are trapped in failing schools | Kids are trapped against their will | Children can’t escape without help | Protectiveness: We must rescue the children by getting them out of those public schools |
| Teacher unions are blocking reforms | Unions oppose progress
Reforms are needed
| Teacher unions are bad because they are opposing improvements to education
Needed reforms will not happen if there are teacher unions | Need to get rid of teacher unions, as they oppose a fundamentally good thing: progress. If reform is needed, the present conditions are bad in some way.
|
| Public schools are a monopoly | Monopolies are bad | Monopolies are anti-competitive and deprive people of choice
Competition leads to winning – that’s good
Choice implies freedom | Public schools need competition, which means that there should be school choice (i.e., vouchers) |
| Public schools are promoting a homosexual lifestyle | Public schools make kids into sexual deviants | “Normal” children attending public schools will be encouraged to become homosexuals Homosexual teachers may molest children | Public schools violate the religious norms of our society I don’t want my child to go to a public school
|
Underlying ideologies allow shifting – as one argument is attacked, another argument is used, based on the same ideological principle. Or one can shift to a different underlying ideological principle. For example, start with the underlying principle of free market competition, and then shift to an argument based on the underlying ideology of personal
responsibility.
“Developed by socialist theorist Leon Trotsky in 1915 … permanent revolution is the pinnacle of the art of mass distraction--one continually changes the subject of debate by striving for new goals that are always just beyond reach. The idea is diabolically simple: by the time people start grumbling about the problems created by your Great Leap Forward, you're causing new difficulties with your Cultural Revolution. Opposition takes time to materialize; taking the nation from one crisis to the next neutralizes your enemies by focusing them against initiatives you've already abandoned.
“On the domestic front, Bush has launched so many political offensives that it's impossible for what's left of the left to launch a coordinated resistance. Fast-track signing authority for free trade, expanded tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations while running up the deficit, drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, rounding up detainees and depriving them of due process, unraveling environmental regulations, union-busting, curtailing privacy rights--any one of these full-scale assaults would require a full-court press by liberals to block or overturn.” – Ted Rall [82]
One successful strategy has been to keep public-school advocates always on the defensive. Heartland Institute’s 1991 document, A Marketing Plan for Educational Choice, [83] makes this point:
“The best way to preempt potentially damaging attacks by educational choice opponents is to keep the debate focused on the problems in and failures of government education. This information must be consistently presented to the general public both in advance of and during the campaign for educational choice. Defendants of the status quo must be made to explain how their warmed-over and already-failed reforms will address these problems. In other words, educational choice opponents must be kept on the defensive, as defenders of the failed status quo should be. ”
The Right’s demonization of public education and teacher unions is so pervasive that the Secretary of Education felt free to call the NEA a “terrorist organization.” When his statement was criticized, his “apology” consisted of saying:
"It was an inappropriate choice of words to describe the obstructionist scare tactics the NEA's Washington lobbyists have employed against No Child Left Behind's historic education reforms.” [84]
The Right’s response was not to back down or apologize. In fact, it was to escalate. In Paige Was Only Telling The Truth, Frank Salvato writes,
“So, Rod Paige may have used some inappropriate words to paint a picture of the NEA but in my opinion they may not have been strong enough. If we want to see accountability in education, rising test scores and smarter graduates the first step is to get the NEA out of the classrooms, schools and the educational institutions all together. Of course this will never happen so I will be happy with the creation of an alternative and legitimate teachers union that doesn’t double as “thought police” to those with opposing views, an alternative for those who do not believe in the NEA’s destructive, uncooperative, liberal agenda.” [85]
“Educational choice proponents can blunt the force of public sector unions in several ways. First, the credibility of teachers unions is very shaky and can be undercut by careful research and commentary. . . . Contrasting the rise in teachers salaries in recent years with the fall in test scores can show that the NEA looks out for its members first and students second. ”