FREE ESSAY ON SCHUMER V D-AMATO

SCHUMER V D-AMATO

In one of 1998's most costly, caustic senate races, New York candidates Charles Schumer
and Alfonse D'Amato battled it out with negative campaign ads, personal slurs, and
attention on previous political mistakes. Yet somewhere among the mud-slinging and
personal attacks some issues emerged, of which education became a top priority. Schumer
and D'amato both realized the importance of education to New York voters and therefore
the necessity of addressing the issue in each of their campaigns. D'amato promised to
reform a dysfunctional school system, by improving the quality of teachers, which he
blamed for many of the problems. Schumer, conversely, sought to improve the current,
well-functioning system, with increased funding and standards for students (Saunders,
1998). Although both candidates were forced to address their contrasting views on of
education as a response to public pressure, the issue was clouded by the negative
campaign and discussed mainly in the context of the other's past political actions.
Education became such an important issue in this senate race because New York City's
recent rejuvenation and economic boom has shifted New Yorker's focus from social issues
such as crime and welfare to those of education and taxes. New York has previously been a
state politically divided between the north and south on many issues, but education is
one that unites them. With many educated citizens of upstate New York fleeing for more
promising academic territory and downstate's hope of retaining an educated middle class,
education reform has gained importance throughout the entire state. A Quinnipiac College
poll asking New Yorkers to name the single most important problem facing the state
resulting in 17% pointing to education, with only 7% singling out crime (Dolman, 1998).
This prompted each candidate to address the issue in his campaign without the fear of
alienating any specific district, even though neither of them had focused on education in
their political pasts (Nagourney 2, 1998). Schumer and D'amato responded to the public's
wishes and both aimed at capturing the support of the broadest number of voters, neither
of them willing to risk overlooking such an important issue. Schumer, who touted a
classically democratic education plan, threatened D'amato who consequently went full
force with a plan of his own (Dolman, 1998). 
D'amato, the incumbent was supported by the Republican Party, but his campaign tactics
were a little more aggressive than many of his republican supporters had hoped.
Contrastly, Schumer was strongly supported by his party and stuck to their values
concerning most issues. D'amato moved to blamed the shortcomings of the public school's
on teachers' unions (Nagourney 2, 1998). By challenging the unions, he provoked the wrath
of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), knowing he would not have gained their
support anyway. His headstrong, aggressive manner of campaigning became clear when he
supported mandatory testing to ensure teacher competency, renewable rather than lifelong
tenure, and pay based on merit. This was an open attack on teachers, and stirred much
opposition among them. D'amato also knew that he wouldn't be supported by teachers and
proceeded with his full-fledged attack on them. As a result he was depicted as somewhat
of an enemy of public education, but also as taking a distinctive, fresh, yet gutsy, view
on a crucial issue in an attempt to give himself an edge in the competitive campaign
(Dolman, 1998). He also openly opposed Schumer and the Democratic Party in supporting
government funded vouchers to offset tuition at private and parochial schools. D'amato's
popularity increased for a short time during his ads supporting this and his evidence of
voucher's benefits from a study done in New York City's public school system. With all of
his tough campaigning, wily strategies, and massive fund-raising attempts, D'amato's
chances of reelection were optimistic. However, his opponent matched him in intensity,
nearly in money, and fought back with just as many negative ads and accusations
(Sullivan, 1998).
Schumer, playing the safer side of the fence in the nature of his education platform,
supported teachers (his own mother was a teacher), even promising to forgive teacher's
student loans after five years of teaching in order to attract great teachers. He called
for more spending for schools to hire more teachers, rebuild deteriorated building and
start pre-kindergarten programs (Saunders, 1998). He appealed to many parents, mothers
especially, when he referred to the overcrowded classroom conditions of his own child's
kindergarten class and said building new schools must be on the top of national agenda.
All of his proposals included increased spending, which paralleled the Democratic Party's
views on education (Nagourney 2, 1998). Schumer also backed President Clinton's plan for
stepped-up standards in math and english for students. Consequently, Clinton and the
first lady helped campaign for him and even made some appearances in support of him.
Hillary Clinton praised Schumer for proposing to make college tuition tax deductible for
families with incomes up to $150,000. Along with this she assailed D'amato for voting to
cut various scholarship programs, like Pell Grants, contrasting this to Schumer's support
of these programs. Mrs. Clinton also explicitly urged women to support Schumer,
especially because D'amato had consistently voted in favor of so many issues that women
care about (Nagourney 1, 1998). Schumer targeted women's votes in his campaign, hoping it
would give him the edge over D'amato in such a close race. He took a much more supportive
view of education and New York's existing system than did D'amato, with his fierce attack
on teachers. 
Had the campaign truly been about issues and a genuine desire for education reform, the
views of the candidate's would have been very clear and easy to decipher. Yet during the
campaign this wasn't so. The campaign was so negative and so focused on the other
opponent's past voting record, that the issue of education was clouded and discussed
primarily in that context (Zeh, 1998). When asked if he was an anti-education senator,
D'amato responded that he wasn't; he voted for a bill to hire 100,000 new teachers, but
when that bill came up on the house floor, Schumer wasn't there. He once again reinforced
his point that Schumer was out campaigning rather than doing his job as a congressman
(Hardt 1, 1998). Their views on education reform were printed on paper and asserted
clearly during individual platform speeches, but they were completely overlooked during
debates. Their focus was on their opponent's poor past performance in office, missed
votes, and some juvenile name-calling tactics. Every issue in the campaign was used by
D'amato as a chance to scold Schumer for missing votes in congress and vice versa. In
response to a question about how the candidates differed on education, Schumer simply
retorted that Senator D'amato is one of the worst senators. His record is one of the
worst for education in New York's history. Schumer went on to point out that D'amato
voted against education aid and voted to cut the very successful government program, Head
Start (Hardt 2, 1998). This led to D'amato's rebuttal that Schumer missed the Head Start
vote altogether, and this went on indefinitely. The overall altruistic and beneficial
views that the candidates touted about education never even came up when they were
debating. This proved true of their entire campaign: very good, strong platforms on the
issue of education which were lost among the mud-slinging and negative campaigning. 
The race between these two long-time politicians with the ability to raise massive amount
of campaign funds was close until the end. With D'amato repeatedly citing Schumer's
missed votes in Congress and Schumer calling the senator an untrustworthy liar, the race
featured more character attacks and name-calling than issues. Nevertheless, education
emerged as an important issue in the campaign, helping Schumer win over teachers and
women and giving D'amato a competitive edge in the campaign. The race appeared to be a
toss-up, but a late development involving D'amato insulting Schumer with a vulgar
personal slur was enough to give Schumer a stunning 54%-45% victory over D'amato, finally
ending the bitter campaign