In today's News-Journal John Young endorses Libertarian position on elected State Board of Education

It should be emphasized that John is endorsing an idea, not a candidate, but it is also worth noting that Libertarian positions in this year's Delaware elections--from openly supporting marriage equality, to ending the war on drugs (see the political cartoon in today's WNJ which isn't up on the website yet), to an elected State Board--are rapidly gaining traction and forcing Demopublicans to deal with the fact that they haven't really had an original (or gutsy) position in state politics since . . . forever.

From the letters:

The recent excellent reporting by The News Journal on the crisis of confidence at Pencader Charter High School has exposed a fissure in Delaware government accountability: the appointed State Board of Education.

Delawareans deserve a responsive government. Currently the Delaware Department of Education, unlike other states, is run by a gubernatorial appointment: Secretary of Education. This person then is accountable to the State Board of Education, also appointed by the governor. There is no direct electoral link to the operations of our Department of Education. The result: plodding and slow reaction to situations like Pencader. An elected board could easily be directly lobbied by the voting public into calling a meeting within seven days to respond to the new challenges at the school.

Recently our state’s Libertarian candidates have endorsed the concept of an elected State Board of Education that would, among other duties, hire/fire a newly created replacement position of state Superintendent of Education, removing both the Board of Education and Chief DOE officer positions from the politics of the Governor’s office.

I ardently support this idea, particular as Pencader continues its struggles in real time with no obvious public action in sight.

John Young

Newark

Comments

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

Search This Blog