The Problem with Modern Discourse

Chances are you've seen a Miller Lite beer commercial (ranked as the 8^th best advertising campaign of all time!). One person says that he likes Miller Lite because it “tastes great.” The other person says that he likes Miller Lite because it’s “less filling.” An argument then ensues about what makes Miller Lite so great, but there's no possible way of resolving it.

This pretty much summarizes the problem with modern public discourse. One side says we should do “x” because of “y”; the other side says we shouldn’t do “x” because of “z.” Because of their different starting points, there’s no way to resolve the problem. The sides merely make assertions and talk past each other.

The “School Choice” debate offers an example of this problem. For those who don’t know, “school choice” refers to those who support alternative ways to use public funds for education, such as charter schools and vouchers that parents can use to send their children to private schools.

In their arguments, school choice advocates usually appeal to the idea of freedom. They claim that offering the public more choices for education better represents a country and society that strives to provide freedom for all. According to them, the current public school system forces disadvantaged children into failing schools, which further limits their future possibilities.

School choice opponents, on the other hand, usually appeal to the principle of equality. According to this group, public education offers universal access to education, thus providing equality of opportunity to all children. They admit that some schools need to improve, but insist that school choice takes away the funds that can make this improvement possible. Furthermore, they maintain that school choice leads to more inequality, as the best and brightest students will simply flock to the high-achieving schools, leaving behind peers who would benefit from exposure to these high-performing students.

One side shouts “Freedom!” The other side shouts “Equality!” One side claims that school choice protects freedom; the other side claims that it violates equality. How do we determine which side is right?

The only way out of this pickle is to take a good, hard look at the assumptions of each side. It requires asking questions such as “Is freedom of choice the essence of freedom?” Or, “Is equality of opportunity in education truly possible, or even just?” Finding answers to these questions requires that we look back at how Western tradition has understood these terms “freedom” and “equality.” It will require that we come to some basic agreement on what “freedom” and “equality” mean. These are the prerequisites for moving forward in dialogue.  

Unless this process takes place, each side in the school choice debate - and other modern policy debates - will continue to talk past each other. And the victory of one side over the other will end up being not the prevailing of truth, but the prevailing of the “strong man,” usually in the form of a political majority.