Suchergebnisse

Abstract
In the U.S., and elsewhere, populism has been democracy's way of shaking elites up. We can view populism in part as a revolt of the losers, or perceived losers, of globalization. Yet elites have often paid too little heed to the domestic distributive impact of high immigration and globalized trade. Immigration and globalization are also spurring forms of nativism and demagoguery that threaten both democratic deliberation and undermine progressive political coalitions. The challenge now is to find the most reasonable – or least unreasonable – responses to the new politics of resentment: ways that recognize that egalitarian liberalism and social democracy are national projects and preserve progressive political coalitions, while also acknowledging our interconnections, duties, and moral obligations to those beyond our borders.

The Article defends against various objections, the practice of funding religious schools and other faith-based social service providers, but only on condition that they comply with various public regulations and requirements. Critics of conditional funding—including Moshe Cohen- Eliya—argue that conditional funding is coercive and unfair to poorer religious parents, is often divisive or ineffective, and it threatens the autonomy and integrity of religious communities by putting a price on (or increasing the cost of) some of their religious practices; it would be better simply to prohibit the disfavored educational practices targeted by funding conditionalities. I argue that typical funding conditionalities are not objectionably coercive as long as they are designed to advance defensible public purposes. Unfairness to the poor should be addressed by general redistributive policies. The Article allows that funding conditionalities might undermine religious communities' integrity, and cause social divisions, but that these concerns are speculative and not an adequate basis for disallowing in advance conditional public funding of faith-based institutions.

How can the American educational system be improved for all? What can and should be done about substandard inner-city schooling that leaves large numbers of poor and overwhelmingly minority children incapable of effective civic participation and ineligible for good jobs? These perennial issues of politics and public policy implicate fundamental principles of justice. Educational choices involve, among other things, choices about a future in which children's life chances will take shape either under the sway of inherited privilege or on the basis of equal citizenship and opportunity. In the midst of America's vast and growing inequalities of income and wealth, which continue to be associated with race, how can we clothe ourselves in comforting myths of equal opportunity if we fail to provide good schools for everyone?

A review essay on books by (1) Terry M. Moe, Schools, Vouchers, and the American Public (Washington, DC: Brookings Instit, 2001); (2) John Portz, Lana Stein, & Robin R. Jones, City Schools and City Politics: Institutions and Leadership in Pittsburgh, Boston, and St. Louis (Lawrence, KS: U Press Kansas, 1999); (3) Clarence N. Stone, Jeffrey R. Henig, Bryan D. Jones, & Carol Pierannunzi, Building Civic Capacity: The Politics of Reforming Urban Schools (Lawrence, KS: U Press Kansas, 2001); & (4) Douglas S. Reed, On Equal Terms: The Constitutional Politics of Educational Opportunity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton U Press, 2001). 44 References.