I’ve been working on a short post about Metro Police Chief’s visit to Washington this week, but I’m struggling to track down some statistics and it feels odd writing about that when everyone is talking about the Trump inauguration. And confirmation hearings. And tweets. And really anything Trump-related. 

Now, my newsfeed is overwhelmed with Trump news. And I don’t want this to be another online source bending to the inevitability of the Click-Creator. But I’ve been watching, reading, and thinking about the same things you have, and want to share some thoughts: 

To put it simply, watching (soon-to-be, maybe now by the time you’re reading this) President Trump take office has made me reflect on the coalitions we choose to build. I often write about education here, and what is happening to the “education reform” coalition is striking. For years, education reform was bi-partisan. It drew both from free-market aficionados on the right who believe in the power of the market to fix educational woes, and largely centrist democrats who saw a host of accountability measures (read high-stakes standardized testing) paired with charter expansion in urban communities as a way to address the achievement gap. It’s easy to forget that the now much-maligned No Child Left Behind Act was authored by both John Boehner and Ted Kennedy. 

Anytime you put together a centrist coalition, there are more extreme members. The more extreme school choice activists are arguing for vouchers, for-profit charters, and even virtual charters. The evidence on charters and vouchers is genuinely contested — but for-profit and virtual charters have rotten records and supporting them speaks more to a blind belief in a free market than any results they’ve produced. The appointment of Betsy DeVos to Secretary of Education is the embrace of the extreme end of the coalition. DeVos is not a clear-eyed educator working to use evidence to improve the lives of those who face the largest challenges in getting a good education. She is an ideologue. 

There is a part of me that wants to scream from the rooftop, “this is what you get for dancing with the devil.” This is what happens when your coalition includes extreme entities — when those entities come into power, they impose an extreme vision. And worse still, they do so under the cover of having centrist language and a centrist coalition. After DeVos’ confirmation hearing, there is little doubt that the “school choice” consensus, such that it is, is going to be used to promote extreme policies. And in some ways, the educational reform community has helped make that possible. 

In this way, I’ve become deeply skeptical of bi-partisanship — because often it seems to be political. Coalitions can be weaponized to enable damaging policies. 

But, there’s danger in the other path as well. Purity tests, standing in loyal opposition, circling the wagons around only those who agree, those who say the right things, those who have the right beliefs, has its own problems. In this sense, I thank Hillary Clinton. Her running for office profoundly challenged my own politics. It made me ask, what sacrifices am I willing to make to get things done. I looked back at her early history, her work supporting children and families, her efforts to expand health care, and see so much there that I want to support. But I’m also stricken by the way she moved to the center (along with, but sometimes in different ways than here husband while he was in office). I looked at the constraints she faced, the sometimes ugly ways she worked within the democratic party, decisions she made that I disagreed with, and I wondered what compromises she had to make, and where the line between compromising to keep power and compromising to get things done actually met. 

It may not be trendy after such a shocking loss, but I thought Clinton ran an excellent campaign (baiting Trump for long periods of time into self-defeating conversations). More than that, I was happy there was a steely-eyed, competent candidate running. She challenged my skepticism of coalitions. 

Why the focus on coalitions? Why the concern about the potential dangers of such-crosscutting bi-partisanship? Some of it is historical. In the New Jim Crow (by Michelle Alexander) she lays out how it was Democrats moving to the center in the 90s to meet a Republican Congress that led to mass incarceration and the slashing of the welfare state in a way that devastated communities of color. I worry that moving to the center now means policies that crush these same communities, such as moving to the center meant excluding people of color from original welfare legislation (by excluding certain workers from eligibility), just as “law and order” was weaponized against people of color and just as Make America Great Again too often feels like code for Make America Great for Us Again.

But it’s also something I’ve struggled with locally. I’ve looked progressive education administrators (who I respect) in the eye here in Camden and asked them how they could work for Gov. Chris Christie. They tell me that they do it because it’s important work. Sometimes it makes me want to scream (shouldn’t you second-guess yourself if someone you disagree with so vehemently is encouraging you down this path? What are his political reasons for doing so?). I look at the movement towards charter/renaissance schools here in the city (which, even though I’m skeptical of, I understand how well-meaning educators could believe in) and wonder how those involved in pushing these policies don’t understand that they are being used as part of a long-standing legacy to take power away from the local community.

I don’t know if I could be a part of that. And I don’t know if I’m right. 

The same thing goes for those of us trying to figure out what it means to be a Democrat in South Jersey. The Camden County Democratic Party is, in many ways, profoundly conservative. Its most influential (and unelected) leader was calling for the destruction of the local police union and the universal use of vouchers. He got the first, and settled on charter schools, the less extreme “school choice” option, on the second. 

In many ways, this is the question I struggle with daily in the Trump world. Do I support Keith Ellison for DNC Chair? I heard him speak in Philadelphia at an event run by Helen Gym and loved him. But is that a doubling down on purity politics at a time when we need to be expanding our coalition? Is it bad politics?

Is it better to hold the local New Jersey Democratic Party accountable from the outside, or to become a part of it from the inside, along with the compromises that might involve (this question is purely hypothetical, as I’ve long-since burned my bridges with most county democrats)?

Is it enough that New Jersey’s two frontrunners for Governor are embracing the progressive mantle? Should we be pushing them to take more progressive policy stances, or lending full-throated support and appreciating their effort to hold progressive values while also widening the party’s tent?

When do our coalitions enable those with damaging politics to say “see, I care about this. I’m working in Camden. I’m partnering with Democrats” while pushing policies that undercut those communities — and when are they genuine opportunities to get get things done with folks from the other side of the aisle? 

I don’t know. But I want to hear from you (on Facebook, on twitter, in the comments section, via email, or over a beer). I want to know what choices you make and why when building your own coalitions. Because I’m torn, and trying to understand what to do.