:EVT 2002 - Perspective;

:Aug 4, 2002;

:Perspective;

:2

The consistency of choice

    Our good friend and political foil Sam Coppersmith     today provides us another opportunity to clarify our positions on several important issues — Clean Elections and school choice. Elsewhere on these pages Coppersmith accuses us, and those of our ilk, of inconsistency: That we oppose public funding of politicians with whom we disagree but support public funding of religious institutions that others may dislike.

    Actually, it’s not important to us where the dollars in question go. What’s important are the circumstances under which taxpayers part with those dollars, and who decides where the money ends up.

    We don’t take issue with much of the Clean Elections Law. There is much to commend the notion of people chipping into a pot of money that is then divided among a number of candidates so they can concentrate on issues rather than fund-raising.

    Nor do we see anything wrong with people of like mind pooling resources to help candidates with whom they agree — a practice that campaign-finance "reformers" tar as "dirty special-interest soft money." But we do have a problem with money being forcibly taken from citizens to support politicians and causes with which they may disagree. We believe that’s unconstitutional, and hope the courts agree. Meanwhile, the problem could be solved with a voluntary taxpayer checkoff similar to one that helps fund presidential campaigns, or a deduction or tax credit.

    This is perfectly consistent with our position on school choice: Individuals, not government, are calling the shots. With vouchers, no tax dollars go to private or religious schools unless parents enroll their kids there.

    What is inconsistent is the position of modern-day liberals like Coppersmith on the matter of individual liberty. The classical liberal position is that the rights of the individual are sacrosanct. This is the noble liberal position that gave rise to the Civil Rights Movement and guaranteed its success over entrenched institutions.

    Yet today we find liberals, including the ACLU and the NAACP, perversely arguing that a poor black parent in inner-city Cleveland must not be allowed the option of escaping an entrenched institution — local public schools — by using some of her tax money to send her child to a private or religious school she believes is better.

    Instead of barring the public-school exit and wailing about those who would be "left behind" by citizens exercising free choice, liberals should brush up on their philosophical roots and stop this reactionary nonsense.

    When the most precious of all opportunities — that of free choice — is fully honored in all arenas, no one is forced to stay behind.