A case study in how a politician gets cowed into tossing away his principles

Frederic Hess, an education specialist at the American Enterprise Institute, has a piece at Forbes entitled"What Cory Booker's Exit Means For Charter Schooling." It traces the trajectory of that New Jersey pol's position on charter schools, and it's quite instructive in terms of how a public figure can be made to say "never mind" in the face of leftist ferocity.

In his early days, he sounded like someone who valued freedom:

Booker’s rise to prominence was fueled by his efforts on behalf of school choice. A former student of Stanford professor Terry Moe—who helped catalyze the school choice movement 30 years ago with the influential Brookings book Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools—Booker eloquently made the case for all forms of school choice, including school vouchers. (Recall that charter schools were birthed in the early 1990s as a distinctly bipartisan project, one that married Democratic concerns for equity and educator empowerment with Republican concerns for parental choice and accountability.)

And dig who he was associating with back then:

In 2000, as a Newark city councilman, Booker accepted an invitation from now-Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to argue in favor of school vouchers at a Grand Rapids debate. In the mid-2000s, Booker was a prominent face, along with figures like New York City chancellor Joel Klein and DC chancellor Michelle Rhee, of charter-friendly Democrats for Education Reform (DFER). A decade later, as the mayor of Newark, Booker partnered with Republican Governor Chris Christie and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to raise $200 million to launch a bold school reform effort in Newark. A cornerstone of the plan was a dramatic expansion of charter schooling in the city—in just two years, Newark charter enrollment doubled. 

When people talked about Booker’s ambitions, they often pointed to his work around school choice as evidence of his skill at forging coalitions. Booker’s coffers were juiced by DFER donors who embraced his mixture of progressive bona fides and charter advocacy. When Booker ran for his Senate seat in 2013, his support for charter schooling was part of his general election pitch to New Jersey Republicans. 

He was emblematic of a now-vanished breed, the interesting Democrat.

But then he had to start bobbing and weaving:

Until pretty recently, Booker’s education legacy was seen as a big asset. Yet, over the past few years, something funny happened.  In the Trump years, as politics has polarized, the progressive base dug in, and teacher unions got their groove back, the 2020 Democratic race quickly devolved into a competition to see which candidate could promise the biggest jump in federal spending, most convincingly pledge their support to the teachers’ unions, and most energetically denounce all things Trump.

Charter schools got caught up in the undertow, with candidates distancing themselves from one-time support for school choice. For Booker, his history made this dance complicated, especially given his long-time ties with the deep-pocketed philanthropists who have supported school reform. Booker had to work overtime to reassure the base that he didn’t have a worrisome purple streak. 

Booker tried a number of strategies. When he launched his campaign in February, he hadn’t quite read the tea leaves and presented himself as a supporter of charter schools. By May, with his campaign struggling to gain traction, he shifted and vowed to fight against charters laws that were “raiding public education and hurting public schools.” Then, unable to find any space in the progressive lane, Booker pivoted again, using a November New York Times op-ed to clarify that he was for charter schools (but only for “high-achieving” ones, and that he was opposed to for-profit charters). 

And a narrative-contradicting racial fact came into play:

In working to reassemble the Obama coalition, Booker had to wrestle with the reality that, on the left, there’s a stark racial schism on charter schools. While black and Hispanic Democrats continue to heavily support charters, white progressives are increasingly skeptical. That line has proven to be a tough one to walk. The rest of the field has felt freer to stroke the base’s collective id by condemning charters as some kind of Trump-DeVos monstrosity. 

It would be cool if he returned to his principled stand on education now that the stakes are considerably lower. But he's probably been too immersed in wokeness as a result of his presidential run to go back.

But that's what happens, folks. Candidates for high office often do a 180 without blinking in the face of freedom-hater wrath.