Observing Congressional vote-counting for the beleaguered D.C. voucher bill, one of America's sagest observers of the school choice scene asked the other day if I had noticed that the tireless and costly grass-roots efforts of innumerable pro-choice organizations seem to be having absolutely no effect on the willingness of individual Senators and Representatives to vote for the measure? Well, maybe one. Perhaps the grassroots convinced Mayor Williams, who convinced Senator Feinstein, to support the DC bill. Otherwise, said this observer, votes are being cast along party lines, based on long-held beliefs or in accord with heavy-duty union lobbying. "We've won the battle for public opinion on school choice," said my comrade. "But it isn't winning us any more votes. PACs are what we need. All the millions now pouring into grassroots advocacy efforts might better be re-directed into electing candidates who are pledged from the get-go to support school choice. Once elected, we almost never change anybody's mind." The choice movement's deep thinkers and deep pockets should at least ponder: forget the ads and advocates, the grassroots organizations and P.R. campaigns. Instead take all that money and use it to elect legislators and Congressmen who, when the chips are down, will vote aye. "That's what the 'other side' is doing," my friend noted. "Why is our team still acting as if it were a 'war of ideas' or for 'hearts and minds' instead of a straightforward battle for control of the statehouse and the Congress?"
Correspondence invited: can you cite examples (other than maybe Feinstein) where a legislator's or Congressman's (or governor's or president's) opposition to school choice was reversed by grassroots activity AFTER he/she was elected to office?
