Jay Nordlinger: Live in St. Louis and Kansas City on May 9 and May 10

Posted on by Posted

St. Louis Event

Cost: Free
When: Tuesday, May 9
Reception: 5:30 pm
Program: 6:00 pm
Where: Lindenwood University (Harmon Hall Auditorium) 209 South Kingshighway Street, Saint Charles, MO, 63301

Register Here for the St. Louis Event

Kansas City Event

Cost: Free
When: Wednesday, May 10
Reception: 5:30 pm
Program: 6:00 pm
Where: Kansas City Central Library (14 W 10th St, Kansas City, MO 64105)

Register Here for the Kansas City Event

About the Program and Speaker

Jay Nordlinger surveys today’s media landscape with what has become frequent dismay.
“We’ve never had so much journalism and so many outlets, which is great,” the National Review senior editor says. “But politics and journalism have merged, and … I’ve seen a lot of journalists begin to act like politicians with political calculations. That’s crippling to a writer.”
“You’ve got to be free at the keyboard,” he says, “to pursue the truth as you find it.”
Nordlinger himself has gained a reputation for open-mindedness in writing about politics, foreign affairs, and the arts, among other subjects, for National Review. In an event co-presented by the Show-Me Institute, National Review Institute, the John W. Hammond Institute for Free Enterprise, The Kansas City Public Library, the Sinquefield Charitable Foundation, and Show-Me Opportunity, he looks at journalists’ roles – from reporters to columnists, critics, and editors – and the practice of straight vs. opinion journalism. And he takes stock of his profession today. What’s good, and what’s bad? How does one navigate the current media environment? Is everyone siloed?
Nordlinger, who lives in New York, writes the column “Impromptus” for NationalReview.com and is a book fellow of the National Review Institute. He’s the author of two books: Peace, They Say: A History of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Most Famous and Controversial Prize in the World and Children of Monsters: An Inquiry into the Sons and Daughters of Dictators. Selections of his work have been republished in two anthologies.
He also is a music critic for The New Criterion and the host of two podcasts, Q&A and Music for a While.

Banning Books? Everyone Is a Censor

Posted on by James V. Shuls

A version of this commentary appeared in the Columbia Daily Tribune.

How do you feel about book-banning? This question was recently posed at a meeting of about 50 educators. When the question went out to the audience, you could hear the groans rising. The questioner, a librarian, was considering putting a “Banned Books” display in the library. As you can imagine, the educators were all for this. Then something curious happened. In a matter of seconds, the very educators who had voiced strong opposition to the banning of books themselves became book-banners.

Hearing the response to her question, the librarian was heartened. She shared her thoughts on the display and mentioned an example—Skippyjon Jones. Released in 2003, Skippyjon Jones was an immediate hit. It featured a loveable Siamese cat who thought he was a Chihuahua. In 2004, the book won the E.B. White Read Aloud Award from The Association of Booksellers for Children. I began teaching first grade shortly after Skippyjon Jones was released. My students loved it. They would often repeat the refrain from the book, “Yip, yippee, yippito! My name is Skippy Skippito!”

Fast-forward to 2018 and the book was listed as the eighth-most-challenged book by the American Library Association. Finding the book’s portrayal of Hispanics and stereotypes of Latinos objectionable, many have sought to remove the book from public school classrooms.

When that librarian mentioned the book to her audience of educators, I don’t think she expected what happened. The mood turned. The groans of disapproval of “bans” turned to voices saying, “Well . . . that book is problematic.”

You have heard that everyone is a critic. What you may not realize is that everyone is also a censor. Every person believes objectionable or problematic materials should not be given to unsuspecting youth in our public school classrooms. We just define what is objectionable or problematic in different ways.

In recent years, conservatives have been labeled as “book banners” for attempting to keep books that display sexual acts or that teach children about gender ideology from the classroom. The use of the phrase “book banning” is effective rhetorically, but it is not really accurate. The individuals organizing at school board meetings or in state houses are hardly seeking to ban books. Rather, they are seeking to keep some books from being purchased by government organizations for consumption in public institutions. They are seeking to censor what is being presented to children.

This notion of censorship is not a right or left issue and it is not new. Americans have long fought over the content that would be taught and the books that would be presented to children. We’ve fought over these issues for many reasons. Chief among them are that some materials are simply not appropriate for children, and that education has the ability to shape a child’s mind.

Censoring is a rational human response to objectionable material. It is something we do for ourselves, and it is something we do for our own children on a daily basis. Censoring becomes an issue in the public sphere because of how we have chosen to organize our public education system. We compel parents to send their children to school and we condition their receipt of government funding upon them sending their children to public schools. We place parents in a winner-take-all system to determine whose values and whose books are presented in the classroom. As long as we continue to organize our school system in this way, “book banning” will continue to be an issue.

Of course, the system does not have to be organized this way. We could create a system of public education in which parents are empowered to send their children to the school of their choice. We could choose to create a system where parents in the same school district could choose to send their children to different schools based on the quality of education and the alignment of the curricula to each family’s values. Strangely, the very people opposed to “banning books” are often the very people who stand in the way of proposals for educational freedom.

Sections of “Banned Books” may make great library displays or they may help drive sales at bookstores, but the fact is censoring books is emblematic of our public education system. It is not a flaw of the system; it is the design. As the educators I witnessed demonstrated, we are all censors. The question is, are we ready to do something about it? Are we ready to change the system?

The Urban Doom Loop with Daniel DiSalvo

Posted on by Zach Lawhorn

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Daniel DiSalvo about his new report Big City Pensions and the Urban Doom Loop.

Daniel DiSalvo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a professor of political science in the Colin Powell School at the City College of New York–CUNY.

Read Big City Pensions and the Urban Doom Loop here.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced By Show-Me Opportunity

How to Lose a City of St. Louis Guy in 10 Days

Posted on by Avery Frank

The U.S. Census Bureau recently released new population estimates for cities around the country, and the City of St. Louis continued its trend of steady population decline in 2022. The city was estimated to have shrunk from 293,562 residents in July 2021 to 286,578 residents in July 2022 (a 2.4% decrease). Dr. Ness Sandoval of St. Louis University has rigorously studied demographic changes in Missouri and has emphasized that more people are dying in the City of St. Louis than being born. However, other parts of the St. Louis Metropolitan Area are estimated to be growing—St. Charles, Jefferson, Franklin, and Warren Counties all gained residents in 2022, with Lincoln showing the largest growth at 2.43 percent. There are numerous factors that I believe are contributing to the exodus of residents from the city. However, I believe public safety is a significant contributing factor.

Many people simply do not feel safe in St. Louis. As a city resident, I have incorporated several different habits while living in the city. To name two, I look both ways at every single green light and I ensure nothing of value is visible in my car. Auto thefts have been on the rise, and in particular, thefts of two brands (Hyundai and Kia) have soared from 273 to 3,958 in the past year in the City of St. Louis.

While there is a specific design flaw that has led to Kia and Hyundai thefts skyrocketing, the lack of punishment and deterrence might be contributing to rising vehicle crime in the city. From August 1 to August 13 in 2022, 462 cars were stolen or attempted stolen in the City of St. Louis. Yet despite the surge in auto thefts, only 1 person was charged in city courts for a crime related to auto theft during the same two week period. Whether this is due to lack of punishment or lack of law enforcement capacity to find the culprits, city residents are suffering all the same.

The lack of regard for traffic rules visible on a daily basis. For example, the day I wrote this piece, my coworker and I saw someone drive into oncoming traffic on Kingshighway Blvd, veer in front of someone turning left from the adjacent street, and blatantly run a red light. These everyday close calls can turn into fatal crashes. Despite a declining population, 230 people were killed in traffic crashes in the City of St. Louis City from 2020–2022 (with a 20 year record high of 81 in 2020) as compared to 128 from 2008–2010.

While there has been a national increase in traffic fatalities in recent years, it seems fair to wonder if local policy in St. Louis has exacerbated that trend. Even as reckless driving has seemed to increase, vehicle stops in the city have declined from their peak of 85,622 in 2009 to 45,124 in 2021. Similarly, traffic citations have decreased from 34,833 in 2009 to 17,763 in 2021. Again, whether this is due to a decision to not punish this type of crime or a lack of capacity to effectively patrol the streets, City of St. Louis residents suffer the consequences all the same.

The decline of a proud and historic city like St. Louis is a sad thing to witness. We are known as the Gateway to the West, yet sadly our streets right now more closely resemble the Wild West. If city leaders want to attract new residents and prevent current residents from leaving, they need to get a serious handle on the public safety issue, and they need to do it quickly.

Open Enrollment in St. Louis Schools: 55 Years in the Making

Posted on by James V. Shuls

A version of this commentary appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

When the Spainhower Commission issued its final report in 1968, St. Louis County had 25 school districts (plus the Special School District). Those schools served 186,428 students. Asked to develop “a plan to provide equal access to educational opportunity for all children,” the commission recommended a consolidation of all St. Louis–area school districts into a single district. That call was taken up again in 2014 following the shooting of Michael Brown. Then, as in 1968, the solution proposed was to tear down those dividing district lines in the sake of unity. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial board endorsed this plan in their piece, “One school district. One focus. One future: Unify St. Louis schools.”

Fifty-five years after the Spainhower report, the number of students enrolled in St. Louis County school districts has decreased by more than 53,000, but almost all district lines remain. Just three school districts have closed. At the time of their mergers, all three served mostly African American schoolchildren. In the 1970s, the Kinloch and Berkeley School Districts were forced by the courts to consolidate into the Ferguson-Florissant School District. In 2010, the Missouri State Board of Education consolidated the Wellston School District into the Normandy School District.

From then to now we have known that arbitrary boundaries drawn around school districts create haves and have-nots. We have known that assigning students to attend schools based on where they live has perpetuated inequities among students and limited access to quality educational options. And yet, the problem has been almost intractable. Why? According to James Spainhower, as reported by the Post-Dispatch’s Tony Messenger, “The only place where the report was weak, was in the thought that people could get over their biases.” I think this analysis is correct, but not in the way that Messenger implied.

According to Messenger, parents in predominantly white school districts did not want to merge with predominantly African American school districts. As we saw when students from the predominantly African American Normandy school district attempted to transfer to predominantly white school districts a few years ago, race can still be an issue. But race wasn’t the only obstacle for those Normandy students—remember, their own school district didn’t want them to leave, either—nor am I convinced that race is the primary motivating factor for those who oppose school district consolidation. People take pride in their local schools, and they do not want to see them changed. Moreover, people instinctively react when anyone attempts to force their school district to be consolidated. It is a loss of identity.

This is the problem. If we leave school districts to make this change themselves, nothing will get done. If we attempt to force consolidation on them, they will resist. This is why attempts at consolidation, except in those rare cases mentioned above, have failed in the St. Louis region. People are loathe to voluntarily consolidate their own school district unless they see a significant benefit, and they strongly resist top-down directives from the state to consolidate their schools.

It is time to change the strategy. Rather than rely on district leaders to take action or attempt to obliterate school district lines, we need to make those boundaries porous. We need to allow students to begin moving across those lines to attend schools in other school districts. We need school choice. We need open enrollment. The Post-Dispatch editorial board once championed this idea. In their call for unifying St. Louis schools they wrote, “The fastest way to move toward such unity would be for the school districts in the St. Louis region to adopt an open enrollment policy.”

Now there is an open enrollment proposal before the Missouri legislature. Yet, as Blythe Bernhard and Jack Suntrup have reported, “Missouri educators vow to fight as open enrollment plan gains steam.” This opposition was to be expected. What was not expected was the complete silence from those who previously advocated for unity among St. Louis schools.

If we continue to look for top-down solutions to this problem, in another 55 years we’ll likely be exactly where we are today—where a student’s educational opportunities are dictated by his or her zip code.

Let’s Talk About Zoning

Posted on by David Stokes

Zoning reform is generating a lot of interest around the nation. I think that is great. The debate is primarily being driven by those concerned about housing prices, particularly along our coasts. Not surprisingly, since Missouri has some of America’s most affordable housing, there is less demand for change in Missouri than elsewhere, but that doesn’t mean our state and cities wouldn’t benefit from zoning reforms.

Various ideas are being tried in other states, including eliminating single-family zoning, requiring the allowing of smaller units, and overriding the authority of local zoning boards.  

We have seen efforts to amend zoning recently in Missouri, though in different ways. State government actually took away the authority of local governments to address concentrated animal feeding operations through zoning. In Webster Groves, the city passed an ordinance allowing duplexes in most single-family zoning areas, but residents put that law up for a referendum and it was voted down. As I wrote at the time about the issue of zoning reform in Webster Groves (and elsewhere):

The rubber will meet the road in debates about equality in housing policy when people — including suburban liberals who claim to passionately support more diversity and inclusion — are forced to consider changes that could affect their own home values and community makeup.

I think the larger questions of zoning reform will eventually come to St. Louis and Kansas City. Right now, our cities and suburbs aggressively mandate lot sizes, setbacks, parking requirements, family limits (homes versus duplexes versus apartments or condos), and much more. The revealed preference of suburban growth is that many people like those policies. I happen to think we should make some adjustments to them.

I understand homeowners’ objections to zoning changes. You make likely the largest investment of your life (your house) under a certain set of rules, and now people want to change the rules on you. I understand the frustration. But strict zoning rules limit people’s ability to use their own property as they see fit, and perhaps more importantly, may create housing shortages that squeeze lower-income residents out of certain markets and raise costs for everyone. That’s a serious tradeoff that homeowners ought to consider.

Until those larger debates happen, what are some zoning reforms Missouri cities and counties could benefit from now?

Those are three ideas worth acting on in St. Louis and Kansas City, and probably other parts of the state.

WATCH: Developer Seeking $60 Million TIF in Osage Beach, Missouri

Posted on by David Stokes

The Osage Beach TIF Commission will meet on April 17, 2023 regarding the Oasis at Lakeport project. More information here.

Does Tax-Increment Financing Pass the But-For Test in Missouri? Read the full Policy Study: https://bit.ly/3mkuFw8

Nuclear Energy in Modern Missouri

Posted on by Avery Frank

Is nuclear power on the rise in Missouri? House Bill (HB) 225, which just passed through the House, would allow state utility companies to raise consumer rates to pay for the construction of small module nuclear reactors (SMRs). The goal of the bill appears to be spurring nuclear power in Missouri, which has largely been non-existent for decades.

So, what would the bill change?

HB 225 would modify a law passed in 1976 that prevents government-supported utility companies from raising rates to pay for construction of new projects. Specifically, HB 225 would allow only a “clean baseload plant  rated under 600,000 megawatts” to be exempt from the current law. The current ban on raising consumer rates to help pay for construction projects would still apply to traditional nuclear plants (which are rated at over 700,000 megawatts), non-baseload energy sources (such as windmills and solar panels), and fossil fuel plants (which are deemed unclean). A utility company would only be able to raise consumer rates to pay for the construction of (SMRs).

So, what are small modular reactors (SMRs)? How are they different?

SMRs are essentially a smaller, more compact version of a traditional nuclear plant. They are brand new, cutting-edge nuclear technology, and are beginning to be rolled out across the United States—including a new SMR project a stone’s throw away from my hometown in East Tennessee. Although they are less powerful, they improve upon some of the shortcomings of traditional nuclear power plants. First, they take up far less space—the SMR being constructed near my hometown will be the size of a football field. They are less expensive and can be assembled more quickly, as the major components of each SMR are prefabricated (constructed beforehand), meaning they can be manufactured in a factory offsite and shipped to the location. This differs from traditional plants which are much larger and have to be custom designed to fit certain landscapes. SMRs are very versatile—they can increase or decrease output to match energy demand and shore up weaknesses in the power grid. For example, if a huge concert comes to a town in Missouri, an SMR can ramp up energy output to assist the grid. Additionally, SMRs can be grouped together so that if energy demand exceeds the capability of one reactor, another can be paired with the current reactor.

Are these small modular reactors safe? Could they explode and create radioactive waste?

When thinking of nuclear energy, many conjure up images of Chernobyl—the Soviet Union nuclear plant and subject of a recent HBO series—or of nuclear bombs that loomed ominously during the Cold War. However, modern nuclear energy is clean, safe, and efficient. Nuclear fission does not produce greenhouse gas and misconceptions surround nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is reusable and there is only a small amount of it that has to be stored securely. If you took all the nuclear waste ever produced by the United States nuclear industry since the late 1950s, you could dig a ditch 10 yards deep under the dimensions of one football field and store it there. Additionally, a nuclear plant cannot blow up like a nuclear bomb; it is impossible. While a disaster like Fukushima is already unlikely, the design of an SMR (which does not require power to cool a reactor down) makes an accident even less likely.

HB 225 could expand nuclear energy in our state, providing Missourians with additional clean, safe, efficient, and reliable energy, and deserves serious consideration.

Learning From Wisconsin with Will Flanders

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Will Flanders about what Missouri can learn from Wisconsin’s educational choice programs.

Will Flanders is the Research Director at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. Together with the education policy team, Dr. Flanders conducts econometric research on the application of WILL’s principles of freedom and liberty to the educational system in Wisconsin. Since joining WILL, he has authored or co-authored reports on the return on investment from charter schools, the effects of Act 10 on the teaching workforce, and the economic benefits of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced By Show-Me Opportunity

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging