[EPI welcomes
reader
feedback.]
Senator Lieberman's Support for Vouchers
According to one media report, when NEA leadership was
shown Vice President Gore's short list for vice president,
the NEA's reaction was "Anyone but Lieberman." Obviously, we
Liebermans do not get along very well with the NEA. Or
should I say "did not" since Senator Lieberman has allegedly
written a position paper in which his position changed from
support for to opposition against vouchers, even on an
"experimental" basis.
The media emphasis on Lieberman's past support for
vouchers is rather naive. It is very unlikely that
candidates for president and vice president see eye to eye
on all the important issues, or have in the past.
Lieberman's comment that he would advise President Gore
privately but would support the Gore position subsequently
is the appropriate relationship. It is a much more sensible
way than for the vice president to deny that there were or
are differences between himself and the president.
Republican vice presidential nominee Dick Cheney will
undoubtedly follow this policy also.
That said, there is one aspect of the matter that is
troubling. After Senator Lieberman's nomination, Democratic
officials asserted that he had drafted a position statement
reflecting his change of position on vouchers. The change
was supposedly reflected in Lieberman's response to a
question that was part of the vetting process for potential
vice presidential candidates. This group clearly included
Lieberman; otherwise, he would not have completed the
questionnaire. If this is true -- a big "if" to be sure --
it raises an interesting ethical as well as political issue.
It would mean that Senator Lieberman was adopting one point
of view publicly and a very different point of view
privately at the same time. This is not consistent with the
media emphasis on Lieberman's political integrity.
In short, I have no problem with Lieberman stating that
President Gore's position would also be Lieberman's. Nor do
I have a problem with his change of mind, if that is what
happened. What I do have a problem with is the apparent
discrepancy between his public position and the position
supposedly set forth in the vetting process. If Lieberman
had changed his position on the desirability of vouchers,
there should have been a public acknowledgement of this
months before he was chosen to be on the ticket. As it
happened, he could take whatever position suited his
personal political agenda without much risk. I would be
happy to consider a more benign explanation for what seems
to be a dubious approach to school vouchers and political
candor.
| 
Building a Competitive Education Industry
