Jack Loechner’s Research Brief from Media Post captures the problem rather sharply. When it comes to picking a restaurant, what do you turn to? Overwhelmingly, it is the net; we search and go. The push by media to go online? Not really the way of the future either. Loencher reports

31% rely on newspapers, including

• 26% rely on printed copies

• 5% rely on newspaper websites

Even online doesn’t work. From a political standpoint, the danger here is that the source of news — the stuff for civic action — will take new economic models. The damage gets worse. Those turning away from the print edition are the very heart of the potential audience: women.

As distinct populations, they are more likely to live in households earning $75,000 or more, and have college educations. In addition, the 55% of adults who get information about restaurants, bars, and clubs are more likely to be women, young adults, urban, and technology adopters.

What is worse, the news junkies are even more fickle:

Those who are heavy local news junkies are considerably more likely than others to get material about local restaurants. 71% of those who used at least six platforms monthly got news and information about local restaurants, compared with 34% of those who relied on just one or two sources.

State Rep. Dave Agema, R-Grandville, says kids are graduating from high school without a sound education in our constitutional underpinnings.

He and 22 Republican co-sponsors have introduced a bill mandating the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are taught in public schools.

His bill also calls for a daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

I had earlier snarked that “there’s nothing I like saying more than liberty and justice for all,” but that misses the other mischief that’s underway.

For of course, Rep. Agema has no intention of promoting the actual study of the Bill of Rights or of the Declaration, let alone the Constitution. This is, shall we say, something of a rigged curriculum that he advocates. His bill (HB 5240) not only specifies that the documents should be taught, but the correct interpretation, as well. My personal favorite principle is

and the principles of a strong defense capability

Though I confess that rivaling it were the advocacy of both the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist papers. As the song goes, “first you say you do, and then you don’t.” For a measure that intends to push for recovery of foundational principles this borders on the incoherent.

One explanation for this is that Rep. Agema is simply carrying water for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) — one of the opaque mischief makers advocating “model” legislation. Among their suggested bills, one Founding Principles Act, with its leading proviso:

(A) Local boards of education shall require during the high school years the teaching of a semester course on:

(1) the philosophical foundations of our form of government, and

(2) the principles underlying the Declaration of Independence , the United States Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the writings of the Founders, which are the principles of government for a free people and are known as the” Founders’ Principles.

Though of course, as we’ve seen, Rep. Agema must do them one better with even more patriotism (a flag in every classroom plus the daily Pledge), and an even more explicit orthodoxy.

Much as I like a good political conspiracy, it doesn’t seem that the representative is completely following the ALEC playbook here.

What’s going on is something sadder, a distrust of the very principles that he seeks to enshrine. He wants the Right answers to constitutional questions, not as a matter of study or of history, but of ideology. The founding principles, the very manner of debate points to a plurality of political viewpoints. If we are to Pledge to a nation with liberty and justice for all, that “all” becomes corrosive of orthodoxies, or the narrow reading of principles. “All” stands against those who would limit the rights of religious believers — as Rep. Agema has advocated; that “All” also pushes against the  restriction of marriage, again as the representative and other conservatives have argued. That “All” also wants to have maximum participation in our elections, and maximum opportunity for our children in their schools.  That “all” is one very powerful word.

It may finally be that Rep. Agema like others believes that the truths rest in the words — a nominalist and even post-modern assumption. The irony being that in standing up for principles of freedom, he in fact ends up shackling that very freedom.

First, we have the Secretary of State working diligently to make our ballots “SAFE.” This will require more attention, but for now, let’s be clear that the problems at hand are those of book-keeping, or perhaps a fear of Zombie voting. More on this in a bit.

Second, there was the report Friday from the New York Times on the role high quality teachers make in educational outcomes. This only highlights the contradictions within the Republicans in Michigan, do they go for cheap or quality? Then again, considering this is the home of K-Mart, as well as  the first hypermarket (that’s you, Meijer), we probably already know the answer.

Then there is the “who, me dysfunctional?” act of Rep. Justin Amash. This too needs explication. While the forty percent defection rate from conventional GOP stances merits some recognition, it is one driven more by ideology, the difference is not that his party is too conservative, but not conservative enough.

Last on the local note, there is the departure of GRPS Superintendent Bernard Taylor. There was one story for the media but inside the stories are more that he was handed his hat. Meantime, there is a noticeable sigh of relief arising from the schools.

The striking characteristic of Dr. Le Roy is his lack of connection with either Calvin College or its supporting institution, the Christian Reformed Church. Sympathetic observers may see the move as signaling a softening in the conservatism of the Christian Reformed community, however they would be mistaken.

As a practical matter, the appointment of someone from outside the supporting community is something of an inevitability, now with more than 50 percent of the enrollment come from non-Christian Reformed backgrounds. While some imagine that this will bring the college closer into the broad liberal arts tradition, the reality of the enrollment pattern has instead pushed it closer to the American Evangelical church. That’s not all bad, as there is a minority progressive tilt among young evangelicals (say in the neighborhood of 30 percent). A less “Dutch” Calvin is a Calvin less bound to the folkways and reflexive politics of the original supporting community.

But the truth is, that supporting community — this network of churches, schools, institutions and associations– is going nowhere. Even with a new college president, they remain archly conservative, as  the recent actions of Sen. Mark Jansen have demonstrated. It’s not going anywhere.

Yet while the supporting community (this Windmill) remains staunchly conservative, the presidential nomination does signal several changes for the interaction between the College and the community. Three changes would appear to lie ahead in the relation of the college and the community.

First and most positive will be the likely warming of relations with area schools.  Historically, the link between Calvin and the Christian day school movement was tight, mandating that children of professors could not attend public schools. Not too long ago one could read expressions of antipathy toward public education from faculty and supporters of the school. This has resulted in an understandable coolness between Calvin and Grand Rapids Public Schools and other urban schools. There is little in the background of Dr. Le Roy to suggest that he will continue to maintain this barrier.

A second and related positive change, may occur in the area of racial relations. The politics of race and the urban schools are interwined. Again, historically the college and its denomination have had strong principled responses in favor of racial justice, however these have also consistently run aground in actual practice. The stories circulate in the background, with perhaps the most visible one being the conflict surrounding the dismissing of Dr. Denise Isom four years ago. This continues to cast a shadow on the local reputation of the school, a shadow that an outside President may address.

A third, and perhaps more negative change will be in the political focus of the school. The demographic shift in school enrollment is both symptom and cause of a shift from the regional to a national focus in politics. A generation ago, the college pumped out a cadre of local activists who invested themselves in all manner of political and social engagement. In the political parties, in the non-profit organizations these men and women thought creatively about problems and helped build the social capital of the region, from ICCF and Bethany Christian Services, to Rep. Vern Ehlers and State Senator Mark Jansen.

This sort of engagement was a direct result of the fading cultural make-up of the college and surrounding community. In a word, they were still Dutch. The Windmill.

Dr. Le Roy’s nomination is one more sign that the College thinks of its mission away from its original cultural matrix. Like other liberal arts institutions, Calvin’s graduates are sent away; the focus is larger, more national in scope. A more nationally focused college can bring some expertise to local politics, it can also bring a small cadre of volunteers to work on campaigns. What we will miss will be the resulting community leaders and candidates ten years from now.

And here Dr. Le Roy’s nomination turns to pose perhaps the most significant question to the College itself: to what degree will it contribute its gifts, its expertise to the community where it finds itself. Will it lead? Or look away?

Gail Collins calls it right:

The Republicans, who are really the only game in town this year, hope to get more than 100,000 participants. That is approximately the number of people who go to Michigan Stadium to watch the Wolverines play football. However, the Wolverines’ fans do not get free cookies.

Indeed. Chances are the 100,000 or so in Michigan Stadium would pick a better candidate than the Primary Reality Show that we’ve seen.

The difficulty with the reality show that is the current Republican primary is the manner in which real discussion of issues gets crowded out. The time spent trying to out-conservative one another is time better spent thinking about what the problems of the nation actually are.  And like a good reality show, the characters we see before us bear a passing resemblance to the types we find in our own communities. On the end-of-year victory lap by State Republicans we’ve seen increase in charter schools, a legislature practically flaunting how it has been bought, another piece of legislative moralism for state employees, and all the while a refusal to seriously consider what it will take to bring Our State back.  At certain moments the governor has shown some awareness of the issues, but has since settled into being merely Republican.

It will take more than cookies and sweet talk to build the bi-partisan coalition that Michigan needs. To date, the Dems have barely gotten the cookies. If that.

A presidential win, that not only goes to Obama but to his predecessor, as well.

Still, folks dislike the deal. For them talk of saving industry, suppliers, communities cannot overcome the actual cost — estimated at $25 billion. These issues, the reluctance and the push back can both be found in Megan McArdle’s writings at The Atlantic, here in this blog cited by Lowry in The National Review, but also in a more measured published response, where McArdle admits

The worst fears of many critics—including me—were overblown. The government did not simply leave the bloated legacy costs intact in order to protect its political friends.

What the current debate highlights more than anything else, is the uncertainty of that initial decision, and the continuing skepticism about government action generally. This continuing debate driven in part by the ascendency of the Tea Party only further highlights the political courage of those who stood up, as odd a mix of political bedfellows as you will find: Virg Benaro, Mike Cox, Thaddeus McCotter, and our own David LaGrand.

That political courage takes place amidst uncertainty accounts for why so many go silent. Practical calculus paralyzes. We may believe but we muffle our voice. As with all things political, it is one part rashness, one part calculation of benefit and one part driven principle.

All this comes to the fore with the other current instance of political courage in our midst, that of Rep. Justin Amash. His co-sponsoring of the War Powers Resolution certainly belongs in the category of political courage. And then he adds to it with the success of his Amendment to protect Freedom of Information Act requests at the Homeland Security Agency.

Like those who stood up for the auto bailout these are actions whose actual outcome is uncertain (will hindsight prove him right? Wrong?), but that is the substance of political courage. And like those who came before, Rep. Amash moves with that mixture of principle (moral and philosophical) coupled with a mix of political calculation and political rashness.

And let’s be clear: political courage deserves its honor.

To support entrepreneurs and build a competitive workforce, we need an education system that delivers results. Once the budget is behind us, we need to focus on improving our education system. Business and education must be strong partners in this process. What’s at stake is too important for us not to succeed.

To the extent that Mr. Baker is serious about this, he will  have to admit that this creation of “strong partners” will take added resources. And here there are two paths in front of him. From a Grand Rapids perspective, with our tradition of public-private engagements we naturally look to some sort of extra funding from the businesses themselves (or their foundations). And indeed this is the pattern currently underway in America, where major philanthropists invest deeply in reforms. Once the reforms are in place then the idea is to pass the programs back to the public sector.

The liability in such an effort is that the broader societal goals — the education of a workforce — gets shorted. The partnerships may yield insights, may benefit some, but not enough. Or perhaps they only benefit the local beneficiary, but not the broad project as a whole. So (hypothetically) Godwin gets the attention from the Chamber, but Kelloggsville is left to fend for itself. While some do well, the overall number and quality of graduates remains roughly the same.

A related problem is that the firm or foundation picks up too much of the bill. They provide the benefit and take understandable pride in ownership, but their support creates a caste of free riders. This imbalance of social responsibility is not balanced for the long term.

And that brings us to the  second path, to raise money broadly. If Mr. Baker is serious about raising up a better educated workforce, he will have to look for an increase in funding, not through donations but taxes. As distasteful as this may be to the ideologues, such a move makes the paying for excellence more equitable, as well as giving the business community a greater say in reform. Michigan’s future needs better schools. A decade of under-investment needs remedying. It is good that the Chamber has taken the step to recognize the need, it is now time for them to step out and spell out how they plan to provide resources to forge this desired public-private partnership.

To not do this exposes the business community to real risk, and in the near term, ridicule. To help Michigan’s students excel will take a commitment and dare we say it, sacrifice. Here’s hoping the Chamber is ready.

Perhaps the most intriguing part is how the GOP gives up Battle Creek — a definite Democratic stronghold. The explanation no doubt lies in an attempt to save Rep. Tim Walberg (CD – 7). For those in Kent County this looks to be something of a fair trade. The new 3rd Congressional gets a Democratic stronghold, but needs to surrender (parts of?) Wyoming. By most lights that would be a fair trade. If the GOP plan does anything it formally creates a more competitive seat.

“Formally” is the operative word here. The configuration raises two important campaign challenges, particularly for any Democratic candidate. This is no longer a seat that can be run from the City; it’s no longer “local.” The inclusion of Battle Creek will ask campaigns to divide their time between the two regions — especially Democrats who will need a strong turnout in Calhoun to have any chance of winning, at all. The addition of a second media market also raises the funding bar for any serious campaign.

Likely the most interesting item — and the reason that the GOP likes this configuration (well, apart from saving Walberg) — is how it skews old. Where approximately 25 percent of Kent County is over 62, in Calhoun County the number is over 33 percent, one third. These are generally  more conservative voters, although in the Ryan era and the proposed revision of Medicare this older make-up opens a significant vulnerability to the sitting congressman in the 3rd, Rep. Justin Amash.

Two things appear to be driving the shift. First would be economics. To the extent that the schools were serving poorer families, those families are more vulnerable to economic downturns. The recent escalation in food and fuel only further strains the budget. The second reason has been the persistent growth of charter schools. A recent study of Michigan charters from Rajashri Chakrabarti (Federal Reserve NY)and Joydeep Roy (Columbia) suggests the schools account for slightly more than 1 percent erosion in nearby private school enrollment.

Within the context of Grand Rapids, the decline of private schools parallels that of the shrinking public school sector as well — both are products of the declining prospects in the city, a decline driving parents to the burbs or as we’ve seen, out of state.

Of longer range interest, is how the report highlights the difficulties for all those who advance private schools as the preferable option to under-performing schools. That private schools have a cost growth of inflation + two percent means that the pool of attending families in the economically-at-risk category increases.  As with the state universities, a state subsidy (voucher) would only match part of this and still come up increasingly short, losing  its purchasing power over time. So again, we do not have a tool that especially works.

While some choose the school for its perspective or perhaps for its sense of elitism, the continuing drive for the at-risk family is that these are schools they choose, schools where they hope their child will be safe. This is powerful, and certainly seems to be the driver for the growth in charter schools, a growth that has seen enrollment nearly triple from 571,000 in 2001-02, to more than 1.4 million in 2008-09.  This growth can again be seen in the area, a growth that can be unnerving for some Dems. However, when seen as a defensive move and not as an ideological one (open book/Bible on the Heritage Academy logo to the contrary), the charter school becomes a seedbed for political action that would build strong neighborhoods.

To understand what’s going on, keep in mind three numbers: Kent County’s population (602,622), the minimum size for a senate distict (247,091), and the maximum (273,100).  With these numbers, the county is entitled to 2.2-2.4 State Senate seats. Or to look at it another way, between 50,000 and 100,000 residents will be attached to a district outside of the county.

From a Kent County perspective, the proposed map matches the districts fairly well with the underlying social reality. The city of Grand Rapids is paired with Wyoming (for Dems, a happy thought, giving at least the possibility of a win); the southern tier of townships are sent to neighboring Allegan county, again a happy match of the economic populist/libertarians; and the remaining townships form the second complete district — one strongly Republican but also with a mix of economic and social conservatives. This last would be Hildenbrand’s seat.

But if this map is modestly happy for Dems, that’s a pretty good reason why it’s not likely to be adopted. Several other configurations suggest themselves for the GOP, chief would be the sending off the top two tiers of northern townships (roughly 50,000).  Grand Rapids would then be paired with Plainfield, Cannon, GR Twp, EGR Ada, Vergennes and Lowell. Again, an easy district for Sen. Hildenbrand. The second seat would then be Wyoming, Kentwood and surrounding western and southern townships – a district more in line with social conservatives.  There are other configurations, but as to sending folks away, the GOP would be advised to keep their social conservatives on the west intact (Alpine down to Byron Center).