While Stand for Children is well positioned to work with the wings of the Republican and Democratic parties that agree with Stand’s agenda, how well do these “frienemies” ideas work for those on the outside looking in?

For example, while Stand for Children is an astroturf/grasstops group aligned with powerful and wealthy interests and can therefore find allies among both Republicans and Democrats, true grassroots community organizations generally advocate policies that put them on the outside looking in.

While Stand for Children attempts to bring parents in line with a pre-existing reform agenda, true grassroots community organizations try to understand local needs and to help those in the community amplify their own political voices. This often plays out as local voices objecting to the imposition of policies from the outside that do not fit local needs of desires.

It also plays out in calls for economic justice. Political voice is much stronger among the wealthy than among the poor. Educational opportunities are also much greater for the wealthy, as are housing opportunities, healthcare opportunities, safe and unpolluted neighborhoods, etc etc. These true grassroots community organizations would surely love to form alliances with many Republicans and Democrats in pursuit of economic justice, but I doubt they will find the same open arms that Stand for Children finds when it seeks, e.g., to weaken teachers unions.

It’s not hard, then, to see why Stand for Children is able to build alliances (temporary or otherwise) with Republicans and Democrats while genuine grassroots community organizations have a much harder time flexing their political muscles.

Interestingly, while Stand for Children and its founder, Jonah Edelman, have chosen one path, another path has been followed by Peter Edelman, Jonah’s father. The elder Edelman is a law professor at Georgetown University and a long-time advocate of strong anti-poverty policies and policies designed to grow the middle class, as voiced in his New York Times commentary last Sunday (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/why-cant-we-end-poverty-in-america.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all). What do you think are the chances that Professor Edelman has, over the past week, received support for his ideas from a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Democrats?

When it comes to federal advocacy, I like to remember that if you’re not at the table, then you’ll likely be on the table. Last year, my former boss, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, made it a priority to be “at the table” and craft bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. His work with Senator Enzi on this particular bill shows that even in a seemingly gridlocked Congress, progress is possible – particularly in education.

The idea that people with different ideas need to learn to trust each other isn’t new---in fact, the Senate HELP Committee did just that last year when they continued to return to the table for these discussions. Cynics will no doubt point to the subsequent stalemate that ensued as proof that education policy is doomed from here on out, but we should remember that reaching the Senate floor is not the only indicator of success. While a healthy level of pessimism can be good, I believe that the Harkin-Enzi collaboration shows that a foundation of communication and trust can exist in Washington.

Continuing a constructive conversation in Washington will certainly have its challenges, but with persistence and a sharp focus on who really matters – students, teachers, administrators and parents – it is certainly possible. It’s time for us to stop looking at the different stakeholders as ‘friends’ and ‘enemies’ but rather as good-willed people striving to achieve a common goal. It’s time to come back to the table – and stay there – because the future of our country depends on it.