Enegaging Ideas

Via Democracy Arsenal, I am interested in hearing feedback from my colleague on a recent post by Heather Hulbert:

Tomorrow's Headlines Today

Three topics I'd be very interested in if I were a magazine assignments editor, a corporate strategist, or the head of State's Policy Planning shop*:

1. A small-c conservative shift in Europe is larger than most engaged Americans realize, with implications that we haven't much thought through.

Exhibit A is how the selection of Pope Benedict XVI stunned many American observers, even though in retrospect he was doing some pretty good campaigning for himself in the Italian media. More specifically, how his election has been attributed to the church's concern with the decline in European catholicism. (Remember that Europe is still vastly over-represented in the College of Cardinals.) And what issue did he take on first? A gay marriage law in Spain. I'd never argue that the church's European cardinals are exactly in tune with the continental zeitgeist... but yet...

Exhibit B is the upcoming referenda on the EU constitutional treaty in France and the Netherlands. The treaty is in trouble in France and a concern in the Netherlands, both traditional bastions of pro-EU sentiment. In neither country is the vote really about the 400-page accretion of specificities and compromises that make up Giscard d'Estaing's treaty; in both the anti-treaty sentiment is tinged with anti-Muslim sentiment that has seized on the prospect of Turkish admission to the EU as one of its rallying points (an opposition it shares with Pope Benedict, by the way.)

If a major EU country votes down the treaty, that will provoke a near-crisis. Even if France and the others pull a "oui" out of the fire, the going for the Euro-phile project, and for the tolerant multiculturalism that many Americans, rightly or wrongly, associate with "Europe" is going to be tough for a few years.

Might that have implications for how much energy and vision Europe can devote to challenges beyond its borders? Are the "non" campaigners and the cardinals tapping into some very real discomforts with what the 21st century looks like, discomforts not unlike those that make Americans go running to George W. bush for another four years of safety from terrorism? You bet.

2. A diffuse, unsteady but very real "third wave" of democratization and "people power" is crashing around the world right now. If I were a Bush Administration speechwriter, I'd be bragging about it at every opportunity. Why aren't they?

A theory: we all spend a great deal of time worrying about democracy producing results we don't like in places like Iraq, citing the example of fundamentalists elected in Algeria 14 years ago, and so on. But interestingly, the results most inimical to Washington's order of things right now are coming from Latin America. Chavez is still in power, and still tweaking Washington; Ecuador can't seem to keep a government in power; and voters in Uruguay and elsewhere have acted n their dissatisfaction with how little growth has trickled down to bring in a "pink tide" of leftist governments in recent years.

And then there are the plucky democracy campaigners we can't (or won't) do much of anything to help -- Zimbabwe, Togo.

So narrowly, this wave of democratization was not made in Washington. But it is changing the face of some critical regions -- the former Soviet Union, South America, parts of Africa -- in ways that are good for core US values in the long run, but perhaps challenging for Bush Administration interests in the short run.

3. An amen, brother to Derek's thoughts on building a strategic reserve of people who actually know something about the Arab and Muslim worlds to help make policy on them, with one addition; in my experience, we are also pretty short on Asia experts. The broad issue corresponding to terrorism here is strategy for how the US positions itself politically and economically in a world where Asia is on the rise -- and then the ability to carry out such a strategy. I find the Asianist shortage to get more severe the higher-up one goes; there are still too many of us reformed Sovietologists around. Many of the Bush Administration's miscalculations, to my mind, can be explained by the paucity of policymakers whose minds were formed anywhere other than in the US-Soviet cauldron.

Any comments??

A Goldmine for New Ways to Promote "Freedom"

In the most recent Washington Monthly Professor William Galston of the University of Maryland's School of Public Affairs has an exceptionally important (and exceptionally long) discourse on the meaning of freedom in American history and how it has shaped our political history in the last fifty years.

This piece is full of both lessons for progressives to learn in how they lost the ground to conservaties in leading the push for freedom both at home and abroad. The piece also contains many nuggets of gold for Democrats should mine to push in future elections.

For example, on healthcare:

Consider universal health care. The left typically stresses the social justice side of this issue: In the most prosperous country on earth, it is an avoidable wrong that 45 million citizens lack health insurance. While this point is both accurate and morally admirable, invoking it has not moved the nation any closer to the goal. A more effective argument would focus on the ways in which our current system of employer-provided health care limits individual freedom. Countless Americans today are stuck in unrewarding jobs which they would like to leave—to start a new business or go back to college to upgrade their skills—but dare not, because doing so would deprive themselves and their families of health insurance. A system of universal health care would allow all Americans to pursue their dreams and take more risks.

On access to a college education:

Or consider post-secondary education. During the past three decades, young Americans with no more than a high school education have seen a steadily narrowing range of occupational choices. In that respect, they are less free than were their parents with the same level of schooling. This isn't just an economic growth issue (though it is), or a social justice issue (though it is that, too); it is at its core an issue of individual freedom. While supporting reforms of grant and loan programs to diminish corruption, enhance efficiency, and improve targeting, liberals should insist on unfettered access to post-secondary education and training, regardless of socioeconomic status. This means getting serious about high school dropout rates, which recent studies show are much higher than is generally understood (about 30 percent nationally, and 50 percent in many black, Hispanic, and low income neighborhoods). It means getting serious about the alarming numbers of students who drop out of college by the end of freshmen year because their high school diploma didn't prepare them for entry-level college courses. And it means getting serious about the millions of talented poor and minority kids who don't continue their education after high school because no responsible adult ever told them that they could—and should.

Last, AND MOST IMPORTNANT:

The third principle that should guide a center-left freedom agenda is the notion that freedom is seldom without cost. It usually requires sacrifice. Contemporary conservatism, with its free-lunch mentality, has a hard time admitting this. Liberals should embrace it.

I think these are all important ideas and should as a guide for center-left people looking for ideas. It is a definite must read.

Life in our Nation's Capital

From tonight's Nelson Report, in its entirety:

Mon., April 18, 2005

BOLTON BATTLE...the real fight

If the fight over John Bolton’s UN nomination were just about John Bolton, he’d be history already. But this isn’t about Bolton, it’s about the exercise of power. Same thing with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. If this was even 5 years ago, he’d be toast. We are at the point now where the Republican Leadership refuses to allow the possibility of a loss on anything, regardless of the merits. This renders “debate” meaningless, since nothing said actually matters, so truth is irrelevant. “Science” depends on faith; everything is a test of power. Oppose something the President wants, and you aren’t just wrong, you are betraying the Party. The underlying message is that you are also offending a very particular definition of God.

The sad, sorry Bolton/DeLay spectacles are about total war, the kill-the-prisoners exercise of power that national US politics has become since the 2000 election. If it were merely about power, it wouldn’t be so terrifying. Washington is used to that...it’s what we exist for. But the fear, the self-loathing, the pathetic, cowardly, sniveling, excuse-making drivel from such “leaders” as Lugar, Hagel, Chafee, the entire House Republican Leadership under DeLay...and the ever-so-very carefully expressed angst of the Democrats...is about something far more dangerous to the Republic than mere political power. What we are seeing is a fight for the political soul of the nation. We’ve had these before, in the existential sense...in my political lifetime, the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam war movement, the women’s rights versus, to a certain extent, the right to life movement. But this time it’s totally and completely a fight about God...specifically, whether God is going to rule in the United States.

The Constitution says that would be illegal, and any serious expert can tell you that not only were the Founders liberal in their interpretation of the Deity, but they intentionally enshrined a purely secular civic government, including the courts. They didn’t think that Jesus had an official plan for us, much less did they think that politicians who defined their duties in secular terms were defying the word of God. Tom Delay manifestly believes this, and it sounds like any number of Senate Republicans either agree, or lack the imagination or moral courage to disagree...why else would some endorse threats against Republican-appointed judges who dare to interpret the law in secular terms? This is what the Bolton fight is really about: you can’t dump him, because that lets the Democrats win on both the facts and principle...fatal notions to a desire to pack the courts with religious and secular policy extremists. Why else would there be the constant drumbeat of attacks on the “liberal media”, except to undermine public trust in the Constitutionally provided mediator between the politicians and the people?

The Founders knew how to protect what they intended; this crowd has figured out how to undermine the very rule of law in the United States. Listen to what DeLay is arguing...that his excesses have nothing to do with his “persecution”, interesting choice of word, by the Democrats and their “liberal press allies”. If a majority of Congressional Republicans don’t, in their hearts, see the hypocrisy of all this, the Republic is doomed. The real story behind Bolton and DeLay is obvious, to anyone not already seduced by the dark side. Connect the dots. There’s still time

This is a scathing attack, to say the least. We know a lot about many of the prime movers in Washington: Tom DeLay; Jack Abramhoff; of course President George W. Bush. Perhaps my religion expert colleague can help extrapolate on what drives some of these men and women. In the meaintime, this is as good a place to start as any.

Friday Random Top Ten

I've been too busy to post too much this week. Additionally, I created a new blog to track my health. Check out getting into shape.

Top Ten:
1.Mirah - Words Cannot Describe
2. Radiohead - Fitter Happier
3. Bright Eyes - No lies, just love
4. Interpol - NYC
5. Pulp - Deep Fried in Kelvin
6. Broken Social Scene - Pitter Patter Goes My Heart
7. Flaming Lips - Sleeping on the Roof
8. The Weakerthans - Our Retired Explorer
9.Monster Movie - Winter is Coming
10. Jens Lekman - Maple Leaves

At least there's a better mix this week. Again: work computer, limited selection, etc.

Babysteps Toward A Progressive National Security Strategy

From a new National Security blog, with no additional comment (she captures it all):

Here goes: Today's progressive still has a basic faith in people, participation and broadly shared well-being. However, given the degraded state of our democracy, and the increasing decadence of our political leadership, progressives can simply go back to basics and reclaim many of the democratic principles enshrined in our history like problem-solving, compromise and benign, pragmatic nationalism. Blogs can claim the role of the progressive journalists of the last turn of the century, who documented the frenzy of institutional corruption and greed--and were motivated by a conviction that publicized facts would lead to social transformation. In other words, that truth would set us free.

Truth is a little more problematic nowadays, however. Current political leadership are virtuousos at "truth management" and polls have shown how a chunk of the population believe the product that's served up despite hard facts to the contrary. Karl Rove has truly turned corporate public relations into a governing philosophy. So we have to learn a hard lesson, there's a worldview and then there's facts. If you're a non-negotiable conservative, when the facts don't fit the worldview, you don't chuck the worldview, you jettison the facts.

Today's new progressive movement needs to be non-partisan but not apolitical. In short, it needs to rescue our democracy by claiming the wide terrain that has opened up in the middle of the political spectrum. This is the fundamental reason why the military and progressives need each other. The market fundamentalism of the conservative movement--along with its anti-government rhetoric--has damaged cultural notions of sacrifice, common good and public service, the military's very reason for being. This damage can be seen in the effects of privatization on the uniformed Americans serving in Iraq...where a private contractor earns several times more than a soldier.

The military institution--whose professional education system is steeped in American history and the labors involved in building a healthy democracy--looks more and more ideal as our civilian/public sector systems fail. Internationally this holds true as well: American JAGs have become global human rights champions for their work defending the rights of prisoners in Guantanamo.

The conservative strategy of substituting public relations for a governing philosophy has impacted the military as well. Intentions aside, the military has allowed the public and elected leaders to persist in the belief that defense industry pronouncements equal professional military opinion. As a Hill staffer, I visited military installations--trailed by industry staff (and lobbyists) where Lockheed or Boeing reps answered all the gadget and hardware questions and the uniformed professionals were mostly silent. Strategy, doctrine and the challenges they were really facing in the world went unmentioned. Military involvement in policymaking is always controversial, but somehow this inaction has helped lead us to where we are now: with lots of non working missile defense and not enough body armor.

In two out of the last three years, the only budgets that have passed in Congress within the fiscal year are the defense bills. If all Congress is willing to fund is defense, then pretty soon everything is going to become a security issue. This should frighten every American, left, right and center.

Progressives need to stand together to turn back the contagion of institutional pyromania unleashed on our federal government by conservatives. Getting to know and understand the military, its history, culture and needs will hopefully lead to a more balanced and mutual respect. This is an important first step in any progressive security alternative.

Lincoln and Bush--No Comparison

Lately, you occasionally hear or read about how about one of the crazies has compared George W Bush to Abraham Lincoln. However, the comparison couldn't be less apt.

One was a great American who gave all, including his life, for his country. The other cares about nothing beyond electoral politics, strengthening his "base," and pushing forward a narrow agenda to the detriment of his country. To: wit:

[T]he calm also reflects a political calculation among Bush's strategists. In their eyes, mass opinion doesn't matter as much as the attitude of the voters motivated to turn up on election day. As long as the president pleases his base, strategists believe they can produce an electorate that is more sympathetic to Bush and the GOP than the country is generally. That means Bush and his party can survive ratings with the general public that might sink other presidents.

............

This strategy was the key to Bush's win in November. Exit polls showed that Democrat John F. Kerry outpolled Bush significantly among moderates and narrowly with independents. But Bush significantly increased the share of Republicans and conservatives in the electorate from 2000. And they provided him margins lopsided enough to offset his mediocre performance among swing voters.

Bush's congressional strategy follows from his electoral strategy. In issues such as Social Security and taxes, Bush has usually proposed policies that enthuse most Republicans and enrage most Democrats. Most often, he has preferred to pass his initiatives with a skintight partisan majority than to compromise to attract more Democrats (and sometimes even moderate Republicans).

This hardball approach has allowed Bush to advance much of his agenda, often by the slimmest of margins (such as the recent 51-49 Senate vote approving drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). It's also helped him maintain enormous support among rank-and-file Republicans.

But this success has come at the cost of widening the country's political divisions. Bush's electoral strategy makes him inherently less sensitive than most presidents to the concerns of voters outside his core coalition. He appears content to operate as president of half the country. The gap between Bush's approval rating among voters in his own party and the opposition is the largest ever recorded. Bush's approval rating among moderates in Gallup surveys hasn't exceeded 50% since January 2004, and he's passed that milestone among independents just twice in the last year.

----------------------------------------
Ron Brownstein
"Bush's Neglect of Consensus May be Kindling for Fiery
Senate Showdown"
LA Times, April 11, 2005



The presidency is not something that could be enjoyed. Remembering its barrenness for him, one can believe that the life of Lincoln's soul was almost entirely without consummation. Sandberg remarks that there were thirty-one rooms in the White House and that Lincoln was not at home in any of them. This was the house for which had sacrificed so much!

As the months passed, a deathly weariness settled over him. Once when Noah Brooks suggested that he rest, he replied: "I suppose it is good for the body. But the tired part of me is inside and out of reach." There had always been a part of him, inside and out of reach, that had looked upon his ambition with detachment and wondered if the game was worth the candle. Now he could see the truth of what he had long dimly known and perhaps hopefully suppressed--that for a man of sensitivity and compassion to exercise great powers in a time of crisis is a grim and agonizing thing. Instead of glory, he once said, he had found only "ashes and blood." This was, for him, the end product of that success myth by which he had lived and for which he had been so persuasive a spokesman. He had had his ambitions and fulfilled them, and met heartache in his triumph.

---------------------------------------
Richard Hofstadter
"The American Political Tradition"
Pg. 173

Friday Random Top Ten

Following Pandagon's lead, here's my top ten songs at work (where my collection is admittedly quite limited:

1. Ash - Submitted
2. Bright Eyes - Take It Easy (Love Nothing)
3. Bright Eyes - Touch
4. Magnetic Fields - Queen of the Savages
5. Mirah - Million Miles
6. Weezer - O Girlfriend
7. Elliott Smith - Waltz #2
8. Antarctica - Arctikal
9. Magnetic Fields - Punk Love
10. The Faint - Paranoiattack

Admittedly, probably a little too Bright Eyes-Mag Fields centric, but you can't blame me for that. Blame storage space. And my busted iPod.