Awkward Utopia

A couple days ago, Megan McArdle launched a fusillade against voucher opponents on Asymmetrical Information, a blog now attached to The Atlantic (a real credit to this magazine’s intellectual honesty). She named the best arguments that voucher opponents were coming up with and responded. In sum:

1) Vouchers don’t work
2) Voucher advocates are total hypocrites too, because why don’t they start private vouchers, huh? Bet you never thought of that!
3) The community doesn’t want vouchers.
4) Vouchers are a subsidy to rich people.
5) Vouchers destroy the public school system
6) There aren’t enough private schools
7) Public education is vital to creating a common identity as American citizens
8) Vouchers don’t make things any better; they just give the appearance of working by pulling the successful away from the unsuccessful, in the process dooming the latter to failure
9) I don’t want my tax dollars used to pay for religious education
10) Vouchers wouldn’t pay the tuition at a top-notch private school
11) There’s no way to assure the quality of private schools

I don’t really have the space here to summarize all her rejoinders, but they are well worth reading. I think they summarize the issue pretty well. You have powerful interests in the field opposing them — and for what? Former UES President Eric Breitenstein once yelled at me that I obviously hadn’t read history when I said that I supported vouchers in 2002 to him. He argued that vouchers would allow the government to take over private schools by making them dependent on vouchers, at which point the government would tie it to stupid curricula and conditions. I agreed with him that it was certainly possible, but that it was a big improvement from where we were. He said he later changed his mind to have some mild support for vouchers, but I wonder where he stands now.