THE POTENTIAL FOR "SOFT" FRAGMENTATION
Some conservatives have suggested a direction for national policy, a kind of synthesis of privatization and separatism, that may be the basis of future support from minority groups. Michael Lind has referred to this strategy as "right-wing multiculturalism."[4] I think of it as "soft fragmentation." The basic idea is to extend opportunities for privatization to minority groups, encouraging them to go their separate ways in schools, charities, and other institutions. Conservative advocates of school choice, for example, now appeal to blacks and Hispanics for support on the proposition that they too should be able to have private or charter schools, even those established on the basis of ideals, such as Afrocentric education, that the public as a whole doesn't approve of. Historically, the "common school" played a central role in establishing a common culture, but despite concern about the new tribalism, conservatives overwhelmingly favor vouchers or other proposals for choice that would erode the common-school tradition. In California and other states, referenda to establish voucher plans have repeatedly lost, but the charter school movement is making rapid progress and may represent a kind of early-stage soft fragmentation of the public educational system.
A second example of soft fragmentation is the attempt to move social programs from the government to private and religious groups. For example, Senator Dan Coats, who in the 1990s introduced a comprehensive Charity Reform Act that would let individuals assign $500 of their tax liability to a private organization, joined with William Bennett in organizing a Project for American Renewal aimed at a large-scale devolution of functions from government to churches and other private groups. Coats contends, "Every dollar spent by families, community groups, and faith-based charities is more efficient and compassionate than any dollar spent by the federal government."[5]
If public institutions continue to deteriorate, representatives of minority groups may be increasingly tempted to take these offers of financing for private and separatist programs. But the dangers are obvious. The secession of the poor would only reinforce the secession of the successful that Robert B. Reich has warned against.[6] The more affluent members of a community would have even less sense of responsibility for the education of poor children or amelioration of poverty than they do today if those functions are devolved to private and religious institutions. If taxpayers can assign some of their tax payments to private organizations, they are likely to follow current patterns of giving and contribute
Soft fragmentation also comes dressed in a theory of social evolution. Many conservatives, most prominently Newt Gingrich, have promoted Alvin Toffler's thesis that the trend of the new information age is toward "demassification"—the replacement of mass production and distribution systems by more specialized and fragmented institutions.[8] Supposedly, the efforts to introduce markets into public education and to devolve social programs on churches and private organizations reflect the same broader trend evident in such industries as communications (the decline in market share of the television networks, for example). But the analogy breaks down. Schools are primarily a local responsibility; vouchers and charter schools erode the authority of a local democratic institution, the elected school board. Private and charter schools diminish the likelihood that members of different groups in a community (and their children) will be obliged to work together. Similarly, substituting private and religious welfare activities for public programs eliminates public deliberation on problems of distributive justice. If only the operations of programs were being privatized, that would be one thing. But what is being privatized is also the discussion about what schools and public policies should be.
The conservative hostility to public institutions and preference for "empowerment" and "choice" may be intended as a reaffirmation of individualism, but choice permits self-sorting by groups. And the kind of sorting most likely in our society would mean fewer occasions for Americans to meet and work together with people who are different from them. What started out as soft fragmentation could end up generating much harsher antagonisms.