Obama’s press conference on June 23rd was extremely impressive; this is a man who is in command, and can make people who challenge him look very foolish. Case in point was Chuck Todd, who tried to pin Obama down to specific actions the Administration would take against Iran. Obama scolded Todd, saying that while the media is on a 24-hour news cycle the president is not. Asked whether John McCain and Lindsey Graham had “scared” him into getting tougher on Iran, Obama responded, with his trademark grin, “What do you think?”

The president is that rare politician who can demonstrate that words do matter, a lot. He and his team are meticulous not only about what they say, but how and when they say it. Every word in an Obama speech or press conference is aimed at the larger picture; like a chess master, he’s always thinking five moves ahead.

What surprises me is that people continue to underestimate him, and think they can bring him down with cheap shots. He was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, cut his teeth in the rough and tumble of Chicago politics, defeated a Clinton in the Democratic primary, and went on to win the White House, over a war hero, in the biggest landslide for Democrats in a generation. It’s almost as if the smile, the slim frame, and the talk of bipartisanship and cooperation casts a spell that makes people forget what a ruthless—and effective—politician Obama truly is.

But even many on the left are complaining that Obama has retreated on many campaign promises, and that he is just another “centrist” trying to triangulate and take the path of least resistance.

It’s way too early to reach this judgment. In only five months in office, Obama has already racked up impressive achievements: a major expansion of children’s healthcare, the equal pay for women legislation, and the biggest stimulus package in history, including hundreds of billions for renewable energy and education. He’s also proclaimed his commitment to closing Guantanamo and ending torture.

The biggest challenges await: healthcare reform, climate change legislation, an overhaul of the financial industry, and comprehensive immigration reform. If Obama makes meaningful progress on even one of these, he will have had an incredible first year; if he manages to succeed on multiple fronts, it will be stunning. Those who would judge Obama need to wait at least another six months to see how these issues play out. If Tuesday’s press conference is any indication, Obama will spend his political capital judiciously to further his agenda.

His best rhetorical skill may be his ability to make his opponents seem ridiculous, as if they must be joking. For example, asked about his insistence on a public option for healthcare, Obama mocked those who claim that the government can’t do anything right and at the same time say that private insurers won’t be able to compete with a public plan. In seconds, he shot down an argument that had begun to worry many Congressional Democrats.

I don’t worship Obama. Still it’s a thing of beauty to watch someone so skilled at dismantling opponents with so little effort. As they say in boxing, you can’t win on points against the champ—you have to score a knockout. No one so far seems even remotely capable; if Congressional Democrats show enough spine (a big if), the next legislation session could be very fruitful for Obama’s agenda.

Jason Scorse

The scope of the irresponsibility and lack of accountability during the Bush years is legendary, and will only grow over time. It is both sad and maddening to see the airwaves full of the enablers of this legacy (e.g., Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, joined these days by the uber-hypocrite Newt Gingrich). The same for the intellectual architects of these failures, most notably neoconWilliam Kristol, who bounces from one major outlet to the other, from the pages of the New York Times to the Washington Post.

Ours is a culture that preaches accountability and responsibility, yet no longer practices it. This is probably our greatest national weakness; I have always contended that we get the government (and the media) that we deserve.

This culture of disregard for the consequence of one’s actions is nowhere more evident than in the public response to the housing and credit bust, and most recently in legislation aimed at improving the fuel efficiency of the cars Americans drive.

Millions of people who bought homes during the bubble now owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth (referred to as being “underwater”). To hear them, you might think there is a god-given right that their homes would appreciate at double digits forever. If they were speculating, the downturn was simply the price of making a bad bet; if they bought their home to live in and could afford the mortgage, there should be no change in their behavior; if they bought a home they couldn’t afford, that was their mistake (and whoever gave them their mortgage).

But now tens of thousands are simply walking away from their homes and refusing to pay. This weakens the communities that have to deal with the abandoned houses, further weakens the banks, and helped lead to government bailouts that cost taxpayers tens of billions. The bailouts largely reward the most irresponsible; those who were prudent and resisted the housing hysteria are now subsidizing the foolish.

The same goes for credit cards. After running up huge debts, mainly on goods that are by no means a necessity, millions are now defaulting—and getting great deals in the process. They’re wiping out their debts by paying as little as 50 cents on the dollar. Wonderful for them, but it raises interests rates for everyone else (and depresses share prices for people like myself, who have banks in their retirement portfolios).

Perhaps most egregious, since it comes from a Democratic Congress under President Obama, is the new $1 billion “cash for clunkers” program. Owners of SUVs or trucks that get less than 18 mpg will be able to get up to $4,500 from the government to trade their old vehicle in as long as they buy one that gets at least 2 mpg more. People who own cars with less than 18 mpg get the money if they buy new cars that get at least 4 mpg more. This is another giveaway to the auto industry, it does almost nothing to improve fuel efficiency, and it actually penalizes the people who had the sense to buy fuel-efficient cars in the first place: if you have a car that gets 25 or 30 mpg, you’re not eligible for a single penny from the program.

There are serious problems when society views the government as little more than a trough at which to engorge themselves. This parasitic relationship reached its apex during the Bush Administration: lobbyists wrote legislation, jobs went to political cronies instead of the competent, the public was told they could have lower taxes and still fight two wars.

With Obama we were supposed to get “tough love” and a return to the true conservative principle of personal responsibility. Given the severity of the economic crisis, and the need to bail out the banks and the car companies, the president obviously feels he has to hold up on this message; one can only hope that it ultimately becomes central to his governing philosophy.

When those who play by the rules see irresponsibility being rewarded, they ultimately become dispirited and no longer believe in the system. They can easily become disengaged, leaving the system even more vulnerable to manipulation by those who are unaccountable and irresponsible. This is a cycle that America must avoid if it is to remain a great power.

Jason Scorse

Just as nations and empires in their waning days are prone to violence, just as wounded animals are the most dangerous, so can a political party in its death throes pose a threat to society.

Such is the case with the Republican Party in America today.

Thoroughly discredited, representing an ever smaller and less diverse portion of the American electorate, the modern GOP is not only bankrupt of ideas but increasingly given to outbursts of ignorance, stupidity, and dangerous rhetoric. It happens regularly, on a scale that is hard to square with a mature political party.

Many of the worst offenders are not elected Republicans but ex-office-holders (such as Newt Gingrich, Tom Tancredo, Dick Cheney, and Mitt Romney), shock jocks such as Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh, and almost the entire crew of Fox News. But even from Republicans currently serving in government, there is no shortage of foolishness and even vitriol; consider, just for instance, recent statements from Senator Jim Inhofe and Governors Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, and Mark Sanford, along with the head of the RNC, Michael Steele.

Even so-called Republican “moderates” such as Congressman Eric Cantor and Governor Tim Pawlenty have joined the chorus of irresponsibility that now is the norm, not the exception, from Republicans.

These last gasps of the party that rose to ascendancy under George W. Bush are causing serious damage to society, both to the political process and concretely; the murders of Dr. George Tiller in Kansas and the guard at the Holocaust Museum in the Capitol are only the most recent examples. As much as the right and the GOP want to distance themselves from violent extremists, there is no denying the link. The killers share the rhetoric and conspiracy theories that are all-too-common in rightwing commentary, and often endorsed explicitly or implicitly by high-ranking Republicans (Dick Cheney recently said that he favors Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell endorsed actor Jon Voight’s comment that Obama is a “false prophet” who will bring down America).

On the policy side the damage is even greater. The Republicans watered down the stimulus bill to reduce benefits to the unemployed and deny lower taxes to low-income Americans. On energy policy, they offer no solutions for global warming; in fact, their latest attempt at energy legislation expressly ignores the topic and calls instead for two new nuclear reactors in each of the 50 states. And on healthcare, while the outcome is far from certain, Republicans are working hard to block a public option and to maintain the private insurance industry’s grip on the market.

One can only hope, as in 2006 and 2008, that the American public recognizes the danger and continues to hand the Republicans decisive defeats. The more it’s marginalized into irrelevancy, the greater the chance that the GOP will have to significantly rethink its positions.

On a positive note, the 20% or so of America that leans far-right (most of whom call themselves Republicans) holds views that are well out of the mainstream; many are illiberal and bigoted older Americans, who will die off over the next 20-30 years (e.g. almost 60% of Bill O’Reilly’s audience is over 50 years old). The younger generation, both Democrats and Republicans, is more tolerant and open-minded. Here’s hoping we can minimize the damage that the fringe is still able to inflict before they all pass away.

Jason Scorse

The New York Times says that Obama plans to take a more active role in the upcoming healthcare debate because he’s worried that if he leaves the legislation solely to Congress, it will become too watered down. Supposedly, in a conversation with Senate Republicans, he stated that he’d rather compromise and get 85% of what he wants with some Republican votes than get 100% of what he wants with only Democratic support.

This is troubling and yet understandable, and underlines the great test that Obama will face in this debate.

Congressional Democrats have already agreed to use the reconciliation process for the healthcare vote, which means that it will only require a simple majority and cannot be filibustered. This almost guarantees that Obama could get everything he wants; even if he loses a few “moderate” Democrats, there’s little chance he would get fewer than the necessary 51. He could even go as low as 50 and count on Vice-President Biden for the tie-breaker.

But Obama is making a calculated judgment that in order for healthcare reform to truly be sustainable, both economically and politically, he needs Republican support; otherwise, any reform might be reversed by a future Congress or presidential administration.

The question is what Obama will have to give up to attract Republican support, and whether it will be worth the trade-off. The main element that Republicans oppose is the “public option,” which would allow a government-run plan similar to Medicare to compete with private plans. Republicans fear that this would open the door to single-payer insurance, and that the government plan would have an unfair advantage over private-sector plans.

While in theory there is some merit to this argument, in reality it is largely fallacious. Many nations have both private and public health insurance, and the systems can be structured to compete fairly. Without a public option, which typically has low overhead costs, private insurance companies have little incentive to cut costs—and cost-cutting is ultimately the key to successful healthcare reform. By resisting a public option, Republican lawmakers seem more intent on protecting the profits of big insurance companies than on improving healthcare access and affordability for all Americans.

If Obama were to compromise on the public option, it would represent a tremendous failure of leadership; he would be capitulating to the GOP, and severely damaging the prospects for real reform. As Obama has already stated, if genuine healthcare reform can’t be passed now it will likely never pass.

I would like to assume that Obama’s reputed statement to Republicans (that he’d rather get most of what he wants with some Republican support than all of what he wants with Democrats alone) is simply, at this point, good politics; I would like to assume that he plans to stand firmly behind a public option, even if this leads in the end to little or no Republican support.

If substantive healthcare reform passes and proves successful, its popularity would likely generate the political will necessary to sustain it; at the same time, it would represent an additional political advantage for the Democrats.

To my mind, that’s a risk worth taking.

Jason Scorse

With the retirement of David Souter from the Court, Obama has the chance to nominate his first Justice. While his choice won’t dramatically alter the ideology of the Court, since Souter is strongly liberal, it does give him the opportunity to appoint a fresh face and begin to counter the right wing tilt that was bolstered by Bush’s additions of John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Odds are that Obama is going to pick a woman, and fortunately there are many capable women both in the court system and outside it. Speculation is also mounting as to whether Obama will try to pick a Hispanic or a woman from another minority group, thus further diversifying the Court, strengthening his ties with the chosen community, and scoring political points in the bargain.

The best choice Obama could make would be Constitutional scholar Pam Karlan of Stanford University, who is openly gay.

Professor Karlan is extremely bright; she was one of the main commentators on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer back in 2000 during the Florida recount battles, and consistently proved to have the most coherent arguments. She is extremely confident and does not shy away from controversy. At 50 she is relatively young, and she has the intellectual heft to help build a serious alternative to the rightwing narrative that has recently dominated the Court and the public’s perception of it. She is just the type of Justice who could persuade other Justices and move the Court, even if only incrementally, in a direction in which every citizen’s rights are better protected.

In an ideal world, the fact that Karlan is gay wouldn’t be an issue. But of course it is. Nominating the first openly gay Justice to the Court would be certain to galvanize the right wing and guarantee a bruising confirmation battle. But it could also do more to advance civil rights and educate the public than almost any other decision Obama could make.

Professor Karlan has one of the best minds in the country; during the confirmation hearings, she would make quick work of anyone who tried to challenge her integrity or her commitment to the rule of law. When pressed whether she would have a “pro-gay” bias, she could easily counter that no one ever asked Catholic males (e.g., Scalia and Alito) whether they had a “pro-male, pro-religious” bias; so much for the notion that being gay has anything to do with following the letter of the law or being impartial.

An openly gay person on the Court would be a huge victory for civil rights, and establish Obama as a President who doesn’t shy away from pushing the envelope. Given his opposition to gay marriage and his hesitancy to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” it would also go a long way towards answering his critics in the LGBT community and on the Left.

Unfortunately, I don’t think Obama is going to make this pick even though I think he would like to; he doesn’t want to distract from his larger domestic agenda, especially health care, and already the torture issue is threatening to do just that.

Here's hoping that Obama does the courageous thing and nominates Karlan to the Court.

Jason Scorse

Friday’s economic data point to a continuing recession, but one in which the worst may be over: job losses are beginning to decelerate, there are moderately encouraging signs in retail spending and consumer confidence, and some of the hardest-hit home markets are showing sales upticks. The stock market, a leading indicator typically six months ahead of employment and GDP swings, has shown the largest percentage gains in years over the last two months.

Whether the worst is really over is hard to tell. Still, since much of the nearly $800 billion in stimulus spending will only begin to impact the economy in the coming months, it’s reasonable to expect that things should get better; in that case, the country may be officially out of recession by the end of the year. Much rests on the health of the financial system, which is still shaky, but there have been encouraging signs in the banking sector as well; banks currently don’t need as much new capital as once feared, and a serious financial collapse now seems a remote possibility.

If there is reason for cautious optimism for the country’s economic health, there is no such (even qualified) good news for the GOP. In the opening weeks of the Obama Administration, the Republican Party appeared to stake its political future on the hope that Obama (and the country) would fail, and that they would be able to put the blame squarely on the President and the Democrats. This was always a risky proposition, made even riskier by the timing; the likelihood that the recession would continue through the 2010 mid-term elections was always dubious.

By voting nearly unanimously against virtually all of Obama’s major spending initiatives, the GOP has put itself in a lose-lose position. If the economy turns around, Obama and the Democrats will be able to take all the credit; if things get worse, Democrats can make the case that things would have been far worse had we followed the GOP’s advice. While the government is running record deficits, federal red ink has never been a hugely motivating political force. In the midst of the worse recession since the 1930s, it won’t matter this time, either.

People vote their pocketbooks more than anything. By painting themselves into a corner on all matters economic, the GOP will have nothing left to fall back on but the culture war issues that have less and less resonance. The country is becoming increasingly tolerant of gays, and the stridently anti-abortion forces represent no more than 20% of the country.

To compound its problems even more, the face of today’s GOP consists of a discredited old guard (e.g., Cheney, Gingrich, and McCain) and a new guard (Rush Limbaugh, Michael Steele, and Sean Hannity) which speaks only to a sliver of angry, bitter voters: those not guided by reason, and who totally turn off independents and moderates. As many on the blogosphere have noted, the current spokespeople for the GOP are almost a dream come true for Democratic activists.

In the end, America needs a robust multi-party democracy. With the GOP seemingly bent on political irrelevance, perhaps it’s the time for the emergence of a new national party. Either way, as long as Obama and the Democrats don’t make any major missteps, the country appears to be theirs to govern for a long time to come.

Jason Scorse

By any reasonable standards, President Obama is confronting an excess of serious issues: the global financial meltdown, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, growing threats in Iran and Pakistan, the Israeli-Palestinian issue, health care reform, the climate crisis, immigration reform, and on and on.

Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to embark on many new initiatives at once. This is especially true in our media-driven culture, which tends to focus on the trivial, blow things out of proportion, and make it difficult to carry out sustained rational discourse. Obama’s political capital has so far allowed him to take on much more than earlier presidents, but he too has limits.

There is no doubt a heated and ongoing discussion in the White House over what issues to prioritize and which to put on the back burner or shelve, perhaps permanently, in the effort to succeed on a few key fronts.

There is likewise no doubt that healthcare reform is at the top of Obama’s agenda, and that he is preparing to expend significant political capital to make it happen. Democrats have already signaled that they are willing to use the reconciliation process to get this passed, which will require only a simple majority vote instead of the 60 needed to prevent a Senate filibuster.

But there are some issues that the Administration has signaled it does not intend to pursue, and in an ideal world these issues would not be brushed aside: notably gay rights, the prosecution of former Bush officials for their role in the torture of detainees, and gun control. Federal legislation mandating civil unions would be a huge step forward. Those who ordered the torture of detainees committed war crimes and should be brought to justice, reaffirming U.S. moral legitimacy and the rule of law in America. Closing the loophole that allows gun purchases without background checks and reaffirming the assault weapons ban are common-sense steps; taking them would prevent tremendous violence both in the U.S. and Mexico.

And there’s the question of how far the Obama Administration is prepared to go to enact serious climate change legislation. The House of Representatives will likely approve the Waxman-Markey Bill, but Democrats lack the 60 votes needed in the Senate to avoid a filibuster. It remains to be seen whether they’re willing to use the reconciliation process here, as in healthcare reform, to get a deal done. If the U.S. doesn’t pass serious environmental legislation before the Copenhagen meetings in December, it could signal the beginning of the end of any meaningful international effort to address global warming--with potentially devastating consequences.

Obama is under tremendous pressure, and will only go to the mat for issues which he is convinced the public cares most about (which may make him change his mind about the torture prosecutions). We need to make sure our voices are heard on a wide range of issues; unless we speak up, they will not get the attention they deserve. Our politicians will only make things a priority if we do.

Jason Scorse

The Bush years will be remembered for many things, but above all they represent a lost decade during which American economic might was squandered. The wealth that was generated during the first decade of the millennium was essentially illusory; except for some advances in computing and electronics technology, increases in the value of assets were strictly on paper, based on speculation and, as we’ve discovered, Ponzi schemes.

It didn’t have to be this way. Our current problems are the result of specific policy decisions made by the Bush Administration, and a public that let them get away with it.

The Administration’s all out disregard for scientific inquiry is legendary, and particularly damaging in the areas of stem cell research and energy technology. Some on the right argue that no major advances have come from embryonic stem cell research, and that if anything, Bush’s refusal to allow federal funding has led to advances in the less morally problematic realm of adult stem cells. This is wrong. With a federal moratorium in place for eight years, we have no real idea how much stem cell research may have been retarded. Many of the world’s top scientists in biotechnology have moved to other countries, and many competitor nations have used the past decade to catch or surpass us in this critical 21st century technology.

In addition, by deciding to make it harder to obtain student and work visas, the Bush Administration has significantly decreased the number of top students and researchers who come to the U.S. to study and work. At a time when America should have increased its outreach, we made the world’s best and brightest feel unwanted and unwelcome.

On the energy front, Bush’s reversal of his campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide (and his all-out efforts to block states from doing so on their own) has led to another decade in which American dependence on Mideast oil has increased. As a result we continued our direct financial support of terrorist-sponsoring states, and lost precious time to confront climate change. China is now the leading solar panel producer in the world; while Silicon Valley is finally beginning to invest in green technology, a tremendous opportunity for America to take the lead in energy innovation was wasted.

The state of America’s infrastructure is appalling by industrialized standards, as anyone who drives on our major highways or visits our airports can attest. It will take many years and hundreds of billions of dollars just to make repairs, let alone major improvements.

The costs of education and health care have far outstripped the nominal increase in wages over the past decade. This has hampered productivity because many workers stay in jobs solely for the healthcare benefits, and many businesses are hiring fewer workers because of the burden of healthcare premiums. Many younger Americans are being dissuaded from pursuing advanced degrees at just the time when the premium on education is getting even higher. There is simply no way America can remain a major economic power if education participation rates continue to slip relative to other major powers.

The bottom line: in too many important ways, America is a poorer place than it was in 2000.

Fortunately, in only a little over two months, Obama has begun to put in place policies that will not only help us dig our way out of the mess we’ve made, but rebuild our human and physical capital for the long-term.

We’ve lost a lot of time, and it may take at least a year or two to get unemployment down to a reasonable level and growth rates up to a modest 2-3 percent. At least we’re now pointing in the right direction, away from the policies of Bush’s lost decade.

Jason Scorse

Anyone who doubted Obama’s commitment to a paradigm-shifting agenda should have had their fears allayed by now. Make no mistake: Obama is the real deal, a New Deal for the 21st century. He is that rare politician who is actually following through on his campaign promises: from health care to the Iraq War, from tax reform to ethics reform, to even serious climate change legislation.

Obama’s agenda is so far-reaching that I think many on the Left have yet to realize what an amazing opportunity this is to reshape the country. While there are things to criticize about some of his cabinet choices, aspects of his bank bailout plan, and his foreign policy, Obama is a man on a mission who has thrown incrementalism to the wind.

Included in his recent budget is the most progressive redistribution of wealth in decades. By letting Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy expire in 2010, reducing the value of itemized deductions for those making over $250,000, and closing many corporate loopholes, Obama is telling the elites that it is time for them to contribute more to the greater good that is the foundation of their prosperity. Much of the additional revenue from these steps will be used to put a significant down payment on universal healthcare.

On the climate change front, Obama’s plan is an economist’s dream. Instead of giving away the pollution permits for greenhouse gases he is going to make companies pay for them; this will create a revenue stream which Obama plans to use to permanently reduce tax rates for low-income Americans and to fund renewable energy projects. This will help mitigate the regressive nature of higher energy prices, and help transition the economy to less carbon-intensive technologies.

Obama has also been extremely savvy by including in his budget all the costs of war and the annual fixes to the alternative minimum tax. This will not only make it easier for him to demonstrate progress on cutting the budget deficit, it provides a more sober and reality-based assessment of the country’s long-term fiscal needs.

The next phase of Obama’s plan is entitlement reform. The elephant in the room is Medicare, which by some projections is headed for deficits in the tens of trillions. Obama, of course, hopes that some sort of universal healthcare system will bring down costs and enable the country to get the problem under control.

Doing even half of what he proposes would make him Obama a great president. If he can pull off his entire agenda, he will truly be a once-in-a-lifetime figure.

Elections have consequences.

Jason Scorse

On the heels of the stimulus package victory, the Obama Administration quickly unveiled its new bank bailout strategy and home foreclosure plan. The host of economic challenges that Obama faces is unprecedented in the modern era, let alone the foreign policy challenges that seem to grow more difficult every day (see Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel).

But looming ahead is what will likely be Obama’s toughest challenge: enacting meaningful climate change legislation.

With oil prices back down to near-record lows (in real dollars), with the economy in a tailspin, and with environmentalism near the bottom of the public’s priority list, passing such legislation is going to be extremely difficult. It has not been made any easier by Energy Secretary Chu’s recent statement that he is unsure whether the political climate is right.

The signature legislation being considered is a national cap and trade system that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 20% of 1990 levels by 2050. This would require a major restructuring of American industry (and the entire economy), and would likely lead to significantly higher energy costs in the short to medium term. Because demand for energy is relatively insensitive to price, much of the cost would be passed on to consumers. Rebates could mitigate these higher prices, but this too would cost money and the question is where to get it.

Enter the contentious issue of giving away or auctioning the greenhouse gas permits.

Government auctions of permits could generate huge amounts of revenue, perhaps trillions; the monies could be used not only to decrease taxes in other sectors, but for additional investments in green technology or technology transfers to the developing world. But industry is going to lobby hard for free permits. Obama has pledged to auction the permits, but it’s an open question whether this will make it into the final bill. Either way, look for a massive battle.

In addition to the permit issue, fossil fuel industries (particularly the coal industry) would be hit hard by any binding greenhouse limits. Legislator in the affected states will lobby intensely to weaken any legislation, and create escape clauses that go easy on the coal industry.

Even more fundamentally, the remnants of the Republican Party in Congress are comprised mostly of extremists, many of whom continue to deny the reality of climate change. Arguments that Obama is kowtowing to the “extreme left,” and that he wants to put the interests of polar bears over those of American workers, are sure to fill rightwing airwaves when legislation is finally proposed.

Whether Obama and Congressional Democratic leaders have the will to overcome these objections (which unfortunately may be joined in by some of the “Blue Dog” Democrats), will likely determine whether America, and the world community, make a serious effort to address climate change. If we wait another eight years, there will be almost no real chance of reining in the emissions trajectory.

Initial signs are promising. Henry Waxman won out over John Dingell for the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee, replacing a shill for the automakers with a staunch environmentalist. Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has already signaled that it will make recommendations for regulating CO2, and Obama himself has not backed down in his aggressive call for the U.S. to be a willing partner in tough and substantive international climate negotiations scheduled for Copenhagen this December.

But a lot can happen in 10 months, and great political battles often hinge on factors beyond the President’s control. The state of the economy and foreign affairs toward the end of 2009 may have as much to do with whether we try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as the best-laid plans of environmental advocates.

Jason Scorse

This past week saw an amazing episode of brinkmanship between the discredited Republican Congressional minority and the new president, with the outcome of the stimulus bill still in doubt.

I’ll put my money on President Obama.

He bent over backwards to please House Republicans, replacing 10-20 percent of the bill’s spending portion with business and corporate tax cuts that have little stimulus merit. It upset many progressives (myself included) to see Obama water down such a potentially good bill simply for the sake of bipartisanship.

Not only was he rewarded with exactly zero House votes; even more, right wing pundits and GOP leaders (including Senator McCain) chided the president none too subtly for not doing more to appease them.

I keep reminding myself that Obama is a master politician, and I am convinced that he has a larger plan in the works. Now that Republicans have made clear that they have no intention of negotiating in good faith, Obama and Congressional Democrats may be able to weaken the GOP provisions, add more progressive elements, and pass an improved bill.

If the GOP complains, it will be easy for Obama to say that he tried to bring them into the process and that they have no right to feel slighted. With his sky-high approval ratings, the public will likely side with him over the GOP—and when the economy ultimately turns around, Obama and the Democrats will get all the credit. This will likely happen before the 2010 midterm elections, putting the Democrats in an extremely strong position to make further gains.

But perhaps I’m giving Obama too much credit, and he was naïve enough to believe that the GOP wanted real negotiation. I doubt it. While some elements of the stimulus bill are little more than Democratic-wish list items, the GOP’s relentless emphasis on tax cuts is patently ludicrous; few economists still peddle this voodoo.

Sadly, what remains of the GOP is mostly an extremist Southern wing that is well out of the mainstream. While Republicans still control 40 percent of the votes in the Senate, the states they represent account for less than 30 percent of the population. With Rush Limbaugh seemingly calling the shots, we are witnessing the death throes of a loud and vocal minority.

And we should be happy we are.

Listening to GOP “leaders” and “thinkers” is like listening in on a parallel universe where black is white and up is down. Their ideas have been discredited, and they seem tone-deaf to the direction this country (and the world) is going. They continue to spread misogynistic nonsense (notice how many voted for the Liddy Ledbetter Fair Pay Act), have overtly racist leanings (i.e. RNC candidate chair Saltsman sending out CDs with the “Barack the Magic Negro” song), and they still cling to “culture war" crusades that are being drowned out by a collapsing economy and other truly serious issues. Americans know that it was Republican rule that landed us in the mess we are in, and that capitalism has been been brought to its knees not by “socialism” but by the GOP.

The bottom line is that bipartisanship for its own sake is a fool’s errand. The Republicans are so opposed to all that the Democrats and Obama stand for that the best strategy will be to largely ignore them. The public wants more social spending, a more progressive tax code, a more diplomatic and even-handed foreign policy; it wants science elevated to its rightful place, and it wants America to get serious about an energy policy.

Obama is the rare politician who is smart enough to have it both ways: appearing to reach out to those who disapprove of his policies, but not backing down from his core principles.

It’s up to us to make sure this is how he governs for the next eight years.

Jason Scorse

The American experiment is premised on the beautiful, radical, ultimately illusory proposition that all people are created equal. In reality, people are inherently unequal; even more, research suggests there are genetic markers for qualities as far-reaching as will power and discipline that severely limit the ability of people to improve their lot.

This seeming contradiction at the heart of the American ideal (and the ideals of liberal democracies worldwide) presents us with an immense challenge: despite the inequalities that we inherit by chance at birth, how much can and should society do to move toward greater equality, both in terms of opportunity and outcomes? It’s a question that has bedeviled presidents throughout our history, and it’s particularly poignant at this moment when we have a president as committed to change as Barack Hussein Obama. It doesn’t help that the current financial crisis is only exacerbating inequalities, and making it even harder to address the mess we are in.

Here are some thoughts on this question, a mixture of Obama’s and my own:

1. Greatly expand early childhood education (starting from pre-natal)

An increasing body of research says that the years from conception to the age of four or five are the time when the most intense and rapid cognitive development takes place; this means that a child’s capacity to learn and grow is largely determined before they ever enter kindergarten.

Some amazing programs, such as the Harlem Children’s Zone, have caught the attention of top educational researchers and Obama as well. These programs focus on the crucial early years in a child’s development. Obama has stated that he hopes to fund 20 such zones around the country. In terms of results per-dollar, programs like this are one of the best investments a country can make, with returns orders of magnitude greater than for many other types of social investments.

2. Lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research and increase federal funding for medical research

Innovations in health technology have the potential to diminish and even eliminate the genetic inequality that some of us inherit. If we can find cures for crippling diseases, we can help not only those people but others as well. We may be able to determine the genetic precursors to various diseases, screen for them at the earliest possible time, devise interventions, and perhaps even eliminate them from the human gene pool.

3. Create a culture of responsibility and accountability

Even though our genetic inheritance can dramatically shape our destiny, genes are far from a 100 percent determining factor. While we may not have as much agency or free will as once believed, we can create environments that nurture certain behaviors over others.

Obama had this in mind when he pledged to create a government that was more transparent and accountable, and an America in which people take greater responsibility for their actions and the impact of those actions on others. Already, he has signed into law paradigm-shifting ethics and transparency rules whose full impact we will only experience as the Obama Administration unfolds.

4. Elevate science to its rightful place

The Republican “war on science” has been one of the most damaging legacies of the Bush years. Not only did Bush substitute ideology for facts, many times he injected religious dogma into the process as well.

Restoring scientific inquiry and empiricism to its rightful place is central to Obama’s mission, and he is clearly intent on carrying this out. This will have particular relevance in issues such as environmental standards, healthcare and education policy, all of which touch directly on people’s lives.

5. Draw sharper lines between abhorrent criminals and non-violent offenders

One of the tragedies of the American justice system is how often criminals such as murderers, rapists, and pedophiles are lumped together in jails with non-violent offenders such as drug users (who sometimes receive harsher sentences). This is unfair, inefficient, and often creates worse criminals as well.

There are clearly people whose past and potential actions require that they be locked up. At the same time, our jails are full of individuals whose real problems are addiction and mental illness, not an inclination to criminal behavior. I hope that President Obama can shift the terms of the debate so that the latter group receives more treatment and preventative resources, and is isolated from the hardened criminals who truly deserve incarceration.

Summing up, it will never be true that people are created equal. But the great beauty of America is our attempt to forge a “more perfect union” in which we move ever closer to this ideal.

Jason Scorse

Recent polls suggest that Americans not only have faith that Obama will be able to turn the country around, but they are also willing to give him significant time to do so. While their patience is not unlimited, they recognize that Obama is inheriting problems not of his own making and not amenable to quick fixes. This (rare) display of maturity on the part of the American people is refreshing, and it gives Obama greater political capital than any new president in the past 20+ years.

While making political predictions is always dicey, here are mine for 2009:

1. The Economy

Obama will sign a stimulus package in the range of $1 trillion. It will be largely free of pork, but it will include provisions to entice tax-cutting Republicans that should have been left out. The emphasis will be on public works, especially green energy. As a result, we’ll see the economy start to turn around by the second half of the year. Obama will get credit for the turnaround (though much of it will actually be due to central bankers around the world), which will only increase his standing among the American people.

2. Healthcare

The dire fiscal situation will keep Obama from passing universal healthcare in his first year. But he’ll greatly expand coverage for poor children, and will lay the groundwork for a major initiative once the economy picks up. He will build a coalition for universal coverage with big business by telling them that their support is not only in their best interests, but is a necessary trade-off if business wants additional financial help from the White House.

3. Climate Change

There is great uncertainty about what Obama will do on this front. On one hand he has expressed strongly his intention to curb greenhouse gasses, but so far has been unwilling to ask for the necessary sacrifices (e.g., a greenhouse gas tax). A major international meeting in December will likely determine the fate of the post-Kyoto framework. While I expect the Obama Administration to make significant commitments, I suspect (unfortunately) that they will not go far enough toward reaching the goal of slashing emissions by 80% by 2050.

4. Education

Obama will expand early childhood education (perhaps as part of the stimulus package) and make some minor reforms in linking federal money to more flexible hiring practices and promoting charter schools. I don’t expect anything radical on this front in the first year.

5. Gay Rights

Obama will end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the military, and will begin to craft federal legislation mandating universal civil unions for gay couples. This will be a major development, and it won’t actually take place until after the economy rebounds.

6. The Supreme Court

If a vacancy arises Obama will nominate a woman or a Hispanic. Based on obvious political calculations, the nominee will be sufficiently liberal to satisfy the Democratic left.

7. Iraq

As promised, Obama will begin a phased withdrawal that will essentially end major U.S. combat operations by 2010. He will leave a residual force of 30,000+ that will still take part in combat operations, especially to weed out any remaining Al Qaeda. Iraq will continue to teeter on the brink, but be reasonably stable in 2009.

8. Afghanistan/Pakistan

These countries are linked in terrorism since the border between the countries is essentially porous. Obama will increase U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and will also ask his generals to begin bribing the less extreme Taliban elements in an effort to divide the group. He will increase foreign aid to both countries, making the case that America must offer their peoples an attractive alternative to the extremists.

Obama will also significantly increase pressure on Pakistan to crack down on militants, and will increase covert American operations aimed at taking out key Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders. Pakistan remains mired in internal strife and has yet to admit the full extent of its terrorist problem, but pressure from both India and the U.S. will force the Pakistani government to clamp down on the militants who threaten its own survival.

9. Iran

Obama will begin diplomatic initiatives leading to a “grand bargain”: the Iranians will be offered increased entry into the world community in exchange for abolishing their nuclear weapons program and decreasing their support for global terrorism. If this diplomatic effort fails, Obama will authorize military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities by the end of 2009.

Happy Inauguration Day!!!

Jason Scorse

When I first heard that the “Big Three” automakers were teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, my reaction was good riddance. The automakers, in conjunction with the United Autoworkers Union (UAW), have blocked environmental legislation for decades because cheap oil spelled big profits with gas-guzzling SUVs. There’s something to be said for allowing market forces to weed out inefficient producers and reward the Asian car manufacturers who had the foresight to develop fuel-efficient fleets.

But after some reflection I realized that this was too simplistic. Part of the reason the Big Three are so close to insolvency is because of the credit crisis, which is no fault of theirs. Currently it is simply difficult to get car loans, and even Toyota and Honda are experiencing huge sales downturns. In addition, because the U.S. is the only major industrialized nation without universal healthcare, U.S. automakers are at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis their overseas rivals.

Bailing out Detroit might not be a great option, but it appears to be the lesser of bad options; letting the mainstay of U.S. manufacturing go down in the middle of a major recession would reverberate throughout the economy, and make things significantly worse. In comparison to the $700 billion so far pledged to bail out the financial sector, the $15-$34 billion that is being discussed for the Big Three is a relative pittance; there’s also a good chance that the government (aka we taxpayers) will eventually recoup the investment, which happened when Chrysler was bailed out years ago.

Enter the Senate Republicans.

At the weekend the GOP, in yet another show of class warfare and ideology trumping the public good, seemed intent on derailing any auto bailout because the UAW would not agree to immediate and major cuts in wages. That the GOP’s anti-union stance would blind them to the repercussions of letting this modest proposal fail shows all too well that when it comes to the middle class and blue collar workers, the Republicans could care less. Where is their outrage over the compensation of corporate CEOs and investment bankers who pull down more in a year than autoworkers make in a lifetime? Their companies have already received tens of billions of dollars, many times more than the Big Three are asking for.

I hold no love for GM, Ford, and Chrysler and I’ve never owned an American-made car, but I never imagined the day might come when these companies went out of business. There is still time for emergency measures, but the window of opportunity may be about to close for good.

Jason Scorse

My hunch is that Barack Obama is an atheist, or at minimum an agnostic. I doubt that he believes in heaven and hell, that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that a supernatural being is preparing to wipe away our sins and redeem the world.

But Obama wanted a career in national politics. In America this requires membership in a church, and at the least a modest display of piety. (You don’t believe it? Polls show that Americans would sooner vote for a black lesbian for president than for an atheist.)

So am I accusing Obama of being an opportunist and somewhat dishonest? Yes, but I forgive him; pretending to be religious is a tried and true American tradition, and he had no choice but to feign devotion if he wanted a future in national politics. I think he has a genuine affection for much of Jesus’s philosophy and the role that it played in the Civil Rights Movement, and I believe this helps him to justify his own professions of Christianity.

But make no mistake about it: Barack Obama is not a deeply religious man, if religious at all (the same can be said for John McCain, which is one of the reasons the far right despises him).

This is a good thing. It is time for America to reverse the creeping intrusion of religion into politics and the public square. Obama is just the person to elevate rational discourse to its rightful place in national politics, and to return religion to the private sphere where it belongs.

I am sure every now and then Obama will make a speech that highlights religion, and he will routinely end his talks with “god bless America”—he wants to be re-elected after all—but I predict that his administration will be one of the least overtly religious in the modern era. Above all, Obama is a pragmatist who understands that the role of government is to protect the public interest and get things done.

By couching issues in terms of basic fairness, common sense, and effectiveness, Obama will demonstrate that America does not need religious dictums to do the right thing; that our inherent moral intuition, combined with reason, is up to the task of crafting sound government policy. With Obama, intellectualism will be back in vogue and the United States can get back to leading the world in many areas of scientific inquiry.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution created just about the perfect balance between religion and the public sphere; in contrast to the last eight years of attempts to upset this balance, Obama is poised to solidify the wall that separates church and state.

And we will all be better off.

Jason Scorse

A curious thing has happened in the weeks since Obama’s momentous victory: many on the Left are complaining that the President-Elect isn’t being progressive enough. On popular cables shows such as Rachel Maddow, in the pages of liberal blogs and websites like Truthdig and MyDD, and in the columns of established liberal publications such as The Nation, commentators are declaring Obama too centrist.

I don’t know what planet these people are on.

Obama has maintained a remarkably consistent set of principles and policy goals ever since he began campaigning almost two years ago, and they include some of the most progressive U.S. policies in over a generation. Obama is set to put forth a plan for universal or near-universal healthcare coverage; to enact major tax reform that increases taxes on the wealthy and gives cuts to the middle and lower classes (the definition of progressive); and to embark on a massive public works stimulus program that will create millions of jobs and focus on green energy.

He’s also committed to regulating greenhouse gases and reversing the Bush Administration’s environmental legacy, and to expanding preschool education and federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. Taken together, we have the makings of the most progressive administration of our lifetimes.

It seems clear that Obama’s critics have yet to realize that what is considered “centrist” these days is actually progressive. They should be celebrating the fact that the policies which progressives have long fought for are now embraced by a majority of the American people, and are on the verge of being enacted by one of the most skilled politicians in American history (and one who takes office with a significant mandate as well). Instead, too many progressives seem stuck in their role as outliers who need to “take on the system”.

In particular, the appointment of many former Clinton Administration officials and prominent classical economists has some prominent progressives confusing personality with policy. As Obama made clear at a recent press conference, he is the one who will provide the vision for where he wants to take the country, and his team will be tasked with implementing it.

I can understand why progressives are nervous; they are so close to realizing many of their dreams, and they don’t want the opportunity to slip away. But it would be nice if everyone could take a deep breath and give Obama the benefit of the doubt. He has earned it and until he proves otherwise, I am going to trust him to carry out the progressive policies that he has promised.

Jason Scorse

Aside from all the speculation about Obama’s cabinet picks this past week, the most significant political development may have been the victory of Henry Waxman over John Dingell for the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House of Representatives. Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, has chaired this powerful committee for nearly three decades. He has consistently undermined sound environmental policy by kowtowing to the Detroit automakers, scuttling efforts to raise fuel efficiency standards and to otherwise address climate change.

Few believed that Waxman would succeed in ousting Dingell before the chairmanship came up for a vote, and Waxman ended up winning by only a slim margin. His victory is significant because it means that Democrats are serious about energy policy. Obama released a short YouTube video on climate change last week, in which he made clear to both domestic leaders and the international community that America will take a leadership role in reducing greenhouse gases.

In addition, a large portion of Obama’s planned stimulus package (which will be his first priority after taking office) centers on building new green infrastructure, including transmission lines to support electric cars, smart grids to allow much more efficient use of energy, and major new renewable energy projects across the country.

As someone who has waited decades for the United States to get serious about energy issues, and not simply react to the ebb and flow of the oil market, the prospect of comprehensive reform is truly exciting.

Obama is benefitting from a political climate in which there is now bipartisan consensus that government must make up for the spending slack caused by falling consumer demand. Add to this the fact that most jobs in alternative energy cannot be outsourced, and you have a potent recipe for action.

Another aspect of a major progressive energy policy is its security component, i.e., what’s best for the environment and job growth is also best for our national security: as one of my bumper stickers proclaims, “Renewable Energy is Homeland Security”.

With this in mind, look for James Woolsey, former head of the CIA and energy advisor to John McCain’s presidential campaign, to have a role in the Obama Administration. Since Obama has yet to name a (promised) Republican to his cabinet, I wouldn’t be surprised if Woolsey became at least a senior advisor. This would be politically shrewd; Woolsey is highly respected in both parties, and could help cement support from the military and those who are security-minded, but less persuaded by environmental concerns.

Jason Scorse

Today, I jump into the media buzz concerning Obama’s first-term priorities. One thing I think is certain: Obama is not going to be an incrementalist. He won a large mandate based on bold campaign promises, and I expect him to quickly put forth major initiatives such as universal healthcare, energy independence, and progressive tax reform.

All three will be difficult to enact given the vested interests and the costs, not to mention the GOP’s aversion to raising taxes on the rich. Nevertheless I think Obama will make these the centerpiece of his first year in office, and that he will succeed in all three areas. The reason is simple: a significant majority of Americans want them. Their enactment will not only help us out of the current economic slump, it will lay the foundation for strong economic growth in the future.

Obama promises a new “New Deal” that progressives have been awaiting for decades, yet which has eluded past Democratic presidents. The confluence of factors at Obama’s back make it likely that this time will be different.

In other critical areas as well, I think Obama’s presidency will have a profound effect almost immediately.

We are likely to see major election reform within the first year. This may include a national registration program, extended early voting, mandatory paper trails, perhaps even shifting Election Day to a weekend or holiday. All of these changes would benefit not only American democracy, but the Democratic Party; since its base is growing, anything that increases turnout bodes well for the Party’s prospects.

On the issue of gay rights, Obama could move the country closer to the European model of civil unions. If Obama can pass a law mandating civil union rights for all gay couples, at the same time making it clear that no religion will be forced to perform ceremonies for gays, this should reassure those who remain concerned about infringements on their view of marriage. With a national civil union statute, the state wouldn’t be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation; religions could marry whomever they wished, straight or gay.

On the abortion issue, Obama has another opportunity to quell the culture wars by pressing for major initiatives to decrease unwanted pregnancies. If he can achieve a reduction in abortions through sound government policy, and not ideology, that would be a huge victory for the progressive approach to reproductive issues.

Obama is likely to face his greatest challenges in foreign policy. Here, I think he will very likely disappoint and anger many of the left, which may result in some of the fiercest opposition to his presidency.

He is not going to be a pacifist. There is little doubt that he will not only ratchet up troop strength in Afghanistan, he may very well ratchet up cross-border raids into Pakistan too. In addition, if he remains true to his commitment to stop the genocide in Sudan, this will require putting U.S. troops into the midst of a volatile, chaotic conflict. The same logic that says we should intervene in Sudan may also be applied to the Congo, where war is once again raging and hundreds of thousands are being displaced. I would not be surprised to see U.S. troops take a more active role in more conflicts under an Obama Administration (a role which I wholeheartedly support).

With respect to Iran, Obama will no doubt make diplomatic overtures and perhaps offer the Iranians some sort of “grand bargain” in which in exchange for inclusion in the international community the Iranians must give up their nuclear ambitions. But make no mistake: one of the reasons Obama wants to negotiate with Iran is because if they refuse an American deal this will make the case for military action that much stronger. I strongly doubt that Obama will allow Iran to go nuclear on his watch; if military action is required to stop them, I think he will opt for that choice.

Obama gives us a better chance at non-violent solutions to the world’s thorniest problems. At the same time, anyone who thinks an Obama Administration automatically means a de-escalation of conflict is naïve.

Jason Scorse

Above all, Barack Obama’s landslide victory last Tuesday was a victory of reason over ignorance. His opponents tried to tarnish him with every kind of mindless smear, but they all backfired; the American electorate by large margins is not only comfortable with Obama, they say that he shares their values. With Obama’s poise and intellect, plus a little luck, America may finally have turned its back on the anti-intellectual fear tactics of the modern Republican Party.

What is so striking about Obama’s victory is the way he managed to defeat the agents of intolerance and anti-intellectualism: he either ignored or belittled them. Instead of fighting fire with fire and responding with anger and indignation, Obama mocked his attackers and made them look petty. In many of his speeches he would mention a recent smear and essentially say to the crowd, “can you believe these people?” In these moments he always maintained a sense of humor that put him above the fray.

When McCain made fun of his comment that Americans should inflate their tires (which would save more oil than any amount of offshore oil drilling), Obama said that the right seems “proud of its ignorance.”

When the right began calling him a radical and a socialist, Obama asked whether sharing his toys in kindergarten was part of the evidence against him.

And in his acceptance speech Tuesday night, Obama injected a word that he hadn’t used before on the campaign trail to characterize the divisive politics of the last couple of decades: immature.

Obama clearly represents a return of seriousness to politics, a recognition that we simply cannot allow ourselves to be distracted from the major issues that we face.

It will be fascinating to watch the team Obama assembles: he has the best and the brightest lining up to offer themselves, from Nobel Laureates to leaders of business and finance to the world’s top statesmen (and women). In just his first few days as president-elect, he has set a tone indicating that he means to put competence above loyalty, pragmatism above ideology (including making clear that he intends to fill some senior positions with Republicans). The main message from the Obama camp is that the adults are back in charge.

For the most part, the Republican Party seems to have taken exactly the wrong lessons from their defeat. Listening to leading Republicans this past week, I couldn’t help but wonder whether they live in the same country. There were claims that Obama doesn’t have a mandate, claims that the country remains “center-right,” suggestions that the GOP needs to focus on culture war issues and limiting government spending; there was almost nothing to indicate that the party has any sense of the political realignment that’s taking place.

Obama and the Democrats won in all of the demographic groups that are growing in America, while the GOP won in only the groups that are shrinking. If this isn’t a recipe for permanent political irrelevance for the GOP, I don’t know what is.

While political fortunes can change very quickly, my hunch is that Obama and his administration will not make the same mistakes as Karl Rove and George Bush and blow the political capital they have. Unlike Rove and Bush, who lied about their agenda in order to get elected (promoting a non-existent “compassionate conservatism”), Obama earned his mandate by telling the voters precisely what he intends to carry out. This is a huge advantage that should not be underestimated.

There is a case to be made that it’s a good thing the Republicans are clueless and in disarray, perhaps even enough to nominate Palin in 2012, because this would only extend their minority status.

But one-party rule is ultimately not good for a democracy, and a robust and inclusive Republican Party is something we should all wish for. Let us hope that thoughtful and reasonable Republicans will be able to recapture their party, sooner rather than later.

Jason Scorse

This campaign has been an amazing journey. We have witnessed the rise of the biggest star in American politics since JFK, who has run a masterful campaign that will be studied for generations to come. Against incredible odds and in the midst of world financial crisis, Barack Obama has maintained his composure and demonstrated a fortitude and commitment to reason that has been astounding.

As epic has been the rise of Obama, John McCain’s fall has been equally dramatic. A once proud man, who championed many controversial positions, has been reduced to making baseless claims and spreading lies. His choice of Sarah Palin, a know-nothing religious fundamentalist brazenly proud of her provincialism and ignorance, will go down in history as the one of the worst vice-presidential picks of all time. Choosing Palin demonstrated without question that McCain put his election prospects first, not the interests of the country, while completely undermining his argument about Obama’s relative inexperience.

But the election is not over yet.

Even though McCain has not led in a single national poll in over six weeks, and every single electoral analysis has Obama winning comfortably, there is still a slight chance that America will give in to fear and swing for McCain in the last days. Undoubtedly, if McCain were to win racism would be a huge factor since there would be simply no way to explain such a shift in such a short period of time (absent world-changing events).

If this happens it will demonstrate that despite all of the terrible lessons of the past eight years, America has still not regained its bearings. This would be a terrible blow against the forces of reason that I shudder to contemplate.

To make sure the unthinkable doesn’t occur, I urge everyone to do what they can in these last hours to make sure that on November 4th America chooses light instead of darkness, hope over fear, reason over ignorance, and unity over division.

It will be an amazing and historic moment to wake up on November 5th and see that America emphatically rejected the politics of the extremist right and turned the page on one of the darkest chapters of our modern history.

And it will be with great pleasure that I can begin to devote the pages of VoR to discussing how an Obama Administration plans to rebuild the country and make a more prosperous, more just, and safer world.

Jason Scorse

One of the things I am most hopeful about in a potential Obama Administration is the chance to finally strike the right balance between personal responsibility and government assistance. For too long America’s political landscape has been polarized by two unhealthy extremes that have dominated both government policy and our national conversation.

Many on the Left and in Democratic circles, while rightly focused on some of the key structural inequities in American society, have often been too quick to view government as the solution to all problems, and too quick to believe that those who find themselves in hard times are necessarily victims of some injustice. Many Americans simply make bad choices—taking too much credit, investing too little in education, saving too little for retirement, and taking too little time to invest in their children—and they and their families suffer for it. One doesn’t have to be insensitive to the racism that still lingers in society or the stagnating median wages of the past decades, to also acknowledge that many Americans would be a lot better off if they exercised greater caution and care when making major decisions.

Many on the Right and in the Republican circles, while justifiably focused on values of hard work, sacrifice, and personal responsibility (even if not practiced by their leadership) have often been too quick to ignore the lingering systemic injustices that keep many people from achieving their full potential, and too quick to abandon the most vulnerable segments of society, who are often stuck in hard times through no fault of their own.

What we need is a leader who makes it clear that the government is there to meet the American citizens half way. For everyone who works hard and strives to improve their lot in life the government will lend a helping hand with college tuition assistance, basic daycare and preschool, healthcare, and a safety net during serious economic downturns when firms aren’t hiring.

At the same time, the citizenry have a responsibility to do their part by being seriously engaged in their children’s education, updating their skills continually throughout their working lives, living within their means, doing their best to save, and taking care of their health so as not to burden the healthcare system.

I think Barack Obama is capable of creating this new social compact in America; many of his speeches are already tinged with hints of such a worldview, especially in the realm of education. America will likely never move all the way towards some of the more strongly socialist economies of Europe, such as Sweden and Germany, because we so greatly value our unique dynamism and put a large premium on individuality. Obama’s social programs may move us in this direction, but not all the way, and with an American flavor that will retain both greater choice and a greater role for the private sector.

Hopefully, in less than 10 days we will begin this journey towards a more responsive government that works in concert with a more disciplined and engaged citizenry.

You know what to do to make it happen—send money, make calls, and talk to friends and relatives so that we run through the finish line. Also, you can help out the down ticket races here.

Jason Scorse

We’re down to the final two weeks of what might be the most historically significant election of our lifetime. First, there’s the possibility of electing the first black President of the United States; second, given the almost certainly large Democratic majorities in Congress, an Obama Administration could dramatically transform American society by ushering in a 21st century version of the New Deal.

There is little doubt that if Obama were able to enact even half of his agenda, America would be a fairer, more just, and prosperous nation eight years from now. It is exciting to be so close to a transformation with the potential to do so much good.

By any rational calculus, the election should be a landslide. The Republican brand is in tatters after eight years of criminal incompetence by the Bush Administration (an incompetence which has left America significantly weaker both internationally and domestically). Unfortunately, significant numbers of citizens appear to be more interested in culture wars, religious fundamentalism, and thinly-veiled bigotry than making a reasoned choice for the next leader of this great nation.

While Republicans have no monopoly on ignorance, they certainly seem to have cornered the market. A once-proud GOP now panders to the lowest common denominator, so much so that McCain-Palin rallies often bear an eerie resemblance to lynch mobs.

Senator McCain, who once famously denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance,” last week hired the same robo-calling firm that tarnished his own 2000 presidential bid. Then the calls insinuated that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child; now they’re spreading lies and sowing hatred toward Obama. So it goes in the final act of a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions.

As I said months ago, this election will be a clarifying moment regardless of who wins: the soul of America will be revealed for all the world to see. My strong hunch is that we are going to like the outcome: Obama will win with a strong mandate, and the virulent elements of the Republican Party will be repudiated.

But there remains the possibility that Americans may give in to fear and ignorance and reward McCain; at the weekend, the polls were beginning to show a tightening race (though to be fair, this usually happens as presidential campaigns approach their end).

It’s also likely that the campaign will get even uglier as Nov. 4th nears (which also usually happens).

Do what you can to put Obama over the top. This is no time for complacency.

Jason Scorse

For many viewers, Barack Obama’s witty response to McCain’s insistence that he doesn’t understand foreign policy was the highlight of Tuesday’s debate. Obama answered that it’s correct that he doesn’t understand why we invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

But the line that will have lasting resonance was Obama’s response when Brokaw asked whether healthcare was a privilege, a responsibility, or a right; Obama stated unequivocally that it’s a right. He went on to say that it’s wrong for people to go without healthcare in the richest nation in the world, and told the story of his mother spending the last months of her life dying of cancer while fighting insurance companies over whether they would cover the costs of her treatment.

Many secularists (including myself) have long lamented the ceding of morality to the religious right, which uses it to bludgeon whatever minority they happen to hate at the moment. But in America, the Enlightenment tradition is full of examples of clear moral language that reflect no particular religion, but speak instead to our sense of common decency.

With so many facets of American life clearly calling out for our leaders to acknowledge what is wrong, unfair, and even criminal, it’s about time for Democrats to frame the issues in clear moral language. For good or bad, this is what many people, who would not be swayed by policy proposals, most relate to.

Here are just a few examples:

It is wrong that median incomes have stalled while wealth has soared for the top 1%.

It is wrong that we have allowed businesses to kill key pieces of environmental legislation that would confer huge health benefits for relatively low cost; it’s equally wrong that we haven’t seriously begun to address global warming.

It is wrong that millions of Americans are behind bars for non-violent drug offenses (often for longer terms than rapists, robbers, and murderers) when their “crimes” might better be treated as medical conditions.

It is wrong that in many parts of the country gay couples don’t have the same legal protections as heterosexual couples, let alone the right to marry or serve openly in the military.

It is wrong that quality day care and preschool are not available to all Americans, especially given the huge social returns to this early childhood investment.

Hopefully, Obama’s clear moral language on healthcare is just the beginning of a larger moral conversation in which many more issues will be framed as issues of right and wrong and basic fairness. This will not only build a new and stronger Democratic coalition; it can also attract more traditional Republicans who have been put off by the stridency and intolerance of the religious right, as well as evangelicals who have grown weary of the culture wars.

Jason Scorse

This is an odd moment for optimism: we’re facing the likelihood of a serious recession, and the global equity markets have already lost trillions. Yet I believe there are several silver linings beneath the current crisis.

Here are my reasons why America will ultimately be much better off:

1. Obama’s victory is almost assured, along with larger Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate.

A focus on the economy usually favors the Democratic candidate. This time around, John McCain’s bumbling and craven response to the financial meltdown seriously eroded what miniscule credibility he had on economic matters.

The most important thing needed to get America back on track is an Obama Administration with solid Congressional backing. It’s the only way that major institutional reform can be undertaken; any legislation drafted by a McCain Administration would take us in the wrong direction. Want proof? Just look at the dictatorial-style powers Paulson asked for last week.

With Obama at the helm and the adults back in charge, legislation will begin with the public interest front and center. Thanks to the Democratic left, the legislation might get even better in the Congressional negotiations.

2. Progressive legislation may be easier to pass given the Wall Street bailout

In the first debate, Jim Lehrer tried to get Obama to state which programs he might need to cut because of the worsening budget situation. I think this is exactly wrong. By bailing out the fat cats who got us into this mess, it will be easier for Democrats to spend on social programs and give tax cuts to the middle and lower classes. The Congressional refrain in 2009 is likely to be: “If we had enough to help investment bankers, we have enough for health care, universal preschool, college tuition relief, etc.”

In addition, I think it will be easier than expected to let Bush’s tax cuts for the top 5% expire as scheduled. There is widespread outrage that those who have done the best under Bush are being bailed out. This added revenue, plus the savings from ending the Iraq War, should allow the Democrats to fund significant new programs.

3. The bailout is not likely to cost $700 billion

While the final outlay may total $700 billion, proper safeguards and oversight should enable the government (and taxpayers) to get back most if not all of the money. This will only reinforce Point No. 2, since the public’s perception will be that $700 billion went to the fat cats and it’s time for Main Street to get its share.

4. New investments and real regulation will strengthen America

For years, America has been on an unsustainable path and living beyond its means. Our infrastructure has aged; we trail much of the world in broadband access and other requisites of today’s digital age. We need a serious push to upgrade our infrastructure, to develop new industries in green technology and biotech, and to modernize our financial system. We need all of these things to maintain our competitive edge in the global economy of the 21st century.

This will take some time. Obama plans $150 billion of federal spending over 10 years on alternative energy, and he will immediately open up federal funding for stem-cell research. I am confident he will also put our best minds to work on updating our financial regulatory apparatus, as he called for back in March. Wall Street may not see the growth in asset values that we have experienced in other periods; at the same time, a steady growth rate of 3-5% without as much volatility would be a great development. It is certainly within reach.

In summary, while things may get worse before they get better (which is quite scary), I think America’s best days lie ahead. The country is on the verge of self-correcting, even if the process is going to be painful.

P.S. Once we send Palin back to Alaska, we can all laugh (or shudder) at the fact that someone with so little knowledge about virtually anything (and seemingly proud of her ignorance) ever got anywhere near the vice-presidency. She didn’t deserve to be on the same stage with Joe Biden.

Jason Scorse

For a long time, America has been living beyond its means, running record deficits and having a negative personal savings rate for the first time in history.

Even more importantly, the Republican Party has for decades been preaching an extreme anti-government ideology completely divorced from economic fundamentals. As a professor of economics, I can say with some confidence that the people who have peddled this nonsense are extremely ignorant about basic economic principles. Nothing in the works of Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall, John Maynard Keynes, or even Milton Friedman supports the radical laissez-faire that has been the hallmark of the Republican creed; in fact, just the opposite.

Most economists recognize that markets are not always self-correcting, and that government needs to set the parameters to ensure against systemic risk. Probably no one has had more blind faith in markets than Alan Greenspan (a disciple of Ayn Rand). His legacy is now in tatters since much of the crisis can be traced directly to his actions—opposing government regulation of investment banks and hedge funds, helping to create the housing bubble by taking interest rates to historically low levels, becoming a cheerleader for subprime mortgages, denying the housing bubble and the mortgage crisis long after their existence was clear to others.

Now the house of cards has come crashing down, and it’s time for grown-ups to come to the rescue. In the presidential race there is only one: Barack Obama. John McCain’s campaign has deteriorated into such a farce that I will be shocked if Obama doesn’t win in a landslide. Yes, there is racism in America, and yes, Americans can be swayed by irrational fears, but I refuse to believe that they will elect a man whose campaign will be a staple of late-night comedy shows for years to come.

From picking probably the most inexperienced and patently unqualified person ever as his vice-president—a person whose approval ratings are tanking as she utters gaffe after gaffe—to his bizarre stunt this week in which he said he was suspending his campaign (but didn’t) and would not show up at the first debate (but did), McCain has demonstrated that he is simply unserious. This has not been lost on virtually every news commentator, save the talking heads at Fox News. And with the consensus that Friday’s foreign policy debate was either a tie or an Obama win, it will be all downhill for McCain from here. Foreign policy was supposed to be McCain’s forte; I expect Obama to dominate the debate on economic policy, and I expect Biden to dominate Sarah Palin on Thursday on every issue.

On a somber note, the financial mess cannot help but constrain the actions of the next president; this means that Obama will not have the funds to embark on as much of his progressive agenda as we had hoped. At least in the short-term, Republicans will likely win by losing: they took over the White House in 2000 with a surplus, and will leave it in 2009 with a record deficit that will thwart elements of the new Democratic agenda.

But in the long-term, the Republican Party will no longer be recognizable and America will be better for it. The modern GOP has become a cancer on the Republic, and deserves its place in the dustbin of history. Now is the time for America to rebuild under a Democratic Administration, with large Democratic majorities in Congress. I look forward to devoting VoR pieces to analyzing Obama’s proposals and achievements.

P.S. In his debate with Sarah Palin, I hope to hear Joe Biden say something like this: “Let me be clear, just because someone is a woman doesn’t mean they support women’s issues. For over three decades, I have been a champion for women’s health and safety and reproductive freedoms. In an Obama-Biden administration, these will be a top priority.”

Jason Scorse

This election is shaping up to be even more dramatic than expected. The country’s financial crisis accelerated this past week, and the government is poised to bail out Wall Street to the tune of $700 billion or more. It’s one more instance of the greedy making fortunes, running up huge debts, and leaving it to the taxpayers to pick up the tab.

But this time it’s more than just another financial disruption. This time there’s an opportunity for the country to say “enough” to the Republican ideology of virtually unregulated markets that precipitated this crisis, and now threatens American competitiveness and even our solvency.

When Ronald Reagan took power in 1980, there was a case to be made that regulations were too onerous and federal income taxes were too high, e.g., there was too little competition in the airline and trucking industries, and the top marginal tax rate was 70%. Reagan and the Republicans had the solution: cut taxes and do away with regulations. They were themes that resonated with the American people, and the GOP has hammered away at them ever since.

But besides lowering taxes and making some industries more competitive, Reagan became a union buster and a gutter of key environmental and labor laws.

And it’s become ever more clear that the anti-regulation pendulum which he set in motion has swung too far.

For all the talk of complex derivatives and sub-prime mortgages, the root of the current crisis is much simpler: whereas traditional banks are required to hold assets worth 10% of outstanding loans, investment banks were able to hold as little as 2%. When things began to unravel, these firms (Lehman Brothers being the latest example) simply didn’t have the funds to stay afloat. Why aren’t investment banks held to the same capital requirements as traditional banks? It began with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, engineered by then Senator Phil Gramm of Texas (later to become John McCain’s top economic advisor). And just four years ago, the SEC passed a rule which specifically allowed five investment banks to take on higher debt ratios. Which five? Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs. Only the last two are still standing, and even they were teetering before the big news on Friday.

America would have economic problems even if investment banks had been required to hold 10%, but nothing approaching the severity of what we’re facing. As a direct result of lax oversight and loose regulation, America could well be headed for a prolonged economic slump and significantly higher unemployment (in addition, of course, to that $700 billion bailout bill).

But (as I always keep in mind) we get the government we deserve. In 2000 and again in 2004, Americans chose a leader they thought was a nice guy; he might not be too sharp, but he shared their values and would be fun to have a beer with. When we don’t choose competence, when we don’t use reason to elect the leader of the free world, this is what we get: a major U.S. city under water, record gas prices, two terribly managed wars, zero response to climate change, and now a financial meltdown.

In a little over six weeks, voters will once again have the chance to change course and say “enough” to the party that has driven America into a huge ditch these past eight years.

They can choose a man whose economic team is comprised of the people who made possible this economic mess, and who freely admits that he doesn’t know much about the economy (along with his culture-war sidekick from Alaska, who proudly doesn’t know much about anything).

Or they can choose probably the most centered and serious politician of a generation, whose campaign has been disciplined, respectful, and focused on the real issues Americans care about.

Hopefully, Americans will make the right choice this time. If not, expect more of the same and no sympathy from me.

Jason Scorse

The contrasting styles of the Democratic and Republican conventions are being mirrored in the ads and strategies of both campaigns. The Obama camp is hitting McCain hard, mostly using his own quotes or factual information, and maintaining an overall positive tone. McCain, on the other hand, is peddling lie after lie and sinking to a nastiness that has shocked and dismayed many former admirers in the media.

As someone who is often critical of the traditional media, it is encouraging that reporters are finally speaking out about the deception and vileness of McCain’s campaign (even if it is belated, and not yet forceful enough). There are still almost two months to go before Election Day; if the narrative can switch to “old, nasty, and lying” versus “young, hopeful, and truthful,” I think Obama will be in good shape.

I was also pleasantly surprised to see Charlie Gibson hit Sarah Palin with some pretty serious questions, many of which clearly caught her off guard and exposed her for the neophyte that she is. Her celebrity status is bound to fade, and hopefully this episode will accelerate the process; there has never been anyone so manifestly unqualified to deal with the challenges America faces.

But there is still plenty to criticize in the media.

One particularly egregious episode occurred during Tom Brokaw’s interview with Joe Biden last week on the Meet The Press. Brokaw brought up Obama’s response to an abortion question that was asked by the evangelist Rick Warren at the Saddleback Ranch forum. Warren asked Obama when a human being gets rights. Obama answered that he didn’t really know, that it was a difficult issue on which many religious scholars and ethicists can’t agree. McCain answered that human rights begin “at the moment of conception.” McCain’s remark was greeted by cheers, while Obama was criticized for waffling.

The problem in Brokaw’s interview with Biden was that he made it seem that Obama had been responding to an entirely different question—when does life begin?

McCain’s response was meant to please religious fundamentalists, but it contradicts his actual policy positions. If human rights begin with conception, then all abortions are murder (even in cases of rape or incest, or to protect the life of the mother). All embryonic stem-cell research would be banned; fertility clinics, which often destroy human embryos, would need to be shut down. These are not McCain’s positions, and the media should insist that he explain the inconsistencies.

Obama’s response is actually consistent with the belief of the overwhelming majority of Americans, who believe that destroying embryos is sometimes justified, and that they should not be afforded the same status as people.

Abortion is the single most divisive issue in American politics, and can be decisive in terms of election outcomes at the margin. With so much on the line, it was extremely unprofessional for Brokaw to make such a big mix up during a primetime interview. Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court and the strong desire of the religious right to criminalize abortion and prevent stem-cell research (which is partly what led McCain to choose Palin), the American public deserves an open and honest discussion on the candidates’ positions.

Once again, the traditional media let the American people down.

Jason Scorse

The conventions have come and gone, and we learned a lot.

The Democrats staged an essentially flawless event. While many speakers were critical of McCain and the GOP, they were respectful and reasoned. Obama’s acceptance speech praised McCain for his military service and called him an honorable man. The speech included a lot of substance and some details of his positions. The audience throughout the four days was as diverse as America, with all age groups and ethnicities represented.

On the Republican side we got a steady stream of vitriol, lies, and continuing incompetence: the McCain camp botched the backdrop for his acceptance speech, showing the Walter Reed Middle School instead of the Walter Reed Medical Center. The Republicans would have us believe they’re competent enough to run the country, but they can’t even choose a photo properly.

And the audience at the GOP convention? It was almost 100% white; in fact, McCain had such a hard time getting minorities to show up that his campaign used stock photos of black people, taken off the internet, for his introductory video.

So there we have it: a choice as stark as night and day, as black and white.

What will it say about America if the majority chooses McCain over Obama? As I’ve said before, it will not be because people have been tricked or duped into voting against their interests.

For some, a vote for McCain will be based on a legitimate and rational calculus; those who are rich, for example, who don’t want to pay higher taxes, or those who believe that we need a more militaristic approach to our foreign policy challenges.

For many others, I fear that a vote for McCain will be an expression of a dangerous anti-intellectualism that is creeping across America: an ideology driven by imaginary grievances against “elites,” and the notion that somehow intellectual sophistication is a liability rather than an asset. These people cheer when Mitt Romney (who signed universal healthcare when he was governor of Massachusetts, and once supported gay rights and women’s rights), tells the GOP convention that we need to clear Washington of the “East Coast liberals” who have controlled the government for the past eight years. They cheer when the former mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani (who had multiple affairs, divorced twice, lived with a gay couple and dressed in drag), extols the virtues of “small-town” America against the evil forces of cosmopolitanism.

This creed is not conservative, it is reactionary; it holds an anti-enlightenment worldview in which facts simply do not matter.

The fact is that the world is becoming more inter-connected and complex by the day. A culture of anti-intellectualism will not be able to cope with these complexities; it will not be able to meet the many challenges we face, from climate change to terrorism to economic globalization.

The EU, China, India, and Brazil aren’t wasting time arguing over evolution, or whether a Harvard education is a good or bad thing. Yet listening to the GOP convention last week, what did we hear? A constant refrain of "culture war" references, and next to nothing about the real issues that face Americans.

If McCain wins, it would in some sense be easier to accept if we could blame it on stupidity and misinformation. What I am suggesting, however, would point to a deeper defect in the American electorate: the wholesale embrace of trivia over substance and resentment as a governing philosophy.

P.S. Maybe I'm simply wrong about the American voter. What do you think?

Jason Scorse

History was made last week in Denver when a black man was nominated for president by a major political party for the first time. The week had many highpoints, with strong speeches by both Clintons, Michelle Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, and Joe Biden (you can watch them all here). And to cap it off Barack Obama gave one of the best acceptance speeches ever to an adoring crowd of over 80,000.

The speech hit all the right notes—the failed policies of George Bush and the GOP, the need for universal healthcare coverage and a serious energy policy, and a commitment to real security. Obama had many excellent lines and often took the fight directly to McCain. He ended with an homage to the 45th anniversary of MLK Jr.s’ “I have A Dream” speech. Perhaps most importantly, he spelled out what “change” would mean by specifying proposals his administration would make. It was a brilliant speech, which we have come to expect from what has been an almost flawless campaign to date.

The ball is now squarely in the court of the American people.

Obama has demonstrated that he is a serious, thoughtful leader who would take America in a substantively new direction, one that is less divisive and more focused on the public good. He has assembled a team of extremely capable and experienced advisors, and chosen the foreign policy expert Joe Biden as his running mate. With an Obama presidency, the adults would be back in charge.

On the Republican side we continue to get more of the same. One of McCain’s healthcare advisors just days ago echoed a Republican talking point that there are no uninsured people in America because anyone can go to a hospital emergency room. This is profoundly ignorant—advocating socialized medicine at its worst—since hospital emergency rooms are hugely expensive and crisis-driven instead of preventative.

The week ended with McCain in desperation picking unknown Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, for his VP. Not long ago, the same Sarah Palin admitted that she didn’t even know what a vice-president did. Her selection is a sop to the religious right (Palin is strongly anti-abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, and believes in creationism) and a transparent attempt to woo Hillary supporters. Not even some of the most ardent Republican backers can deny how completely unserious this pick is (I can’t wait to see what national security hawks like Christopher Hitchens have to say, who have sworn that foreign policy judgment is the only criteria they are using to judge the presidential candidates).

So now it’s up to the American people. Will they choose the divisive (and now gender-identity) politics of John McCain? Or will they vote instead to change the dismal course of the past eight years, and heed Obama’s call: “America, you are better than this.”

We will know in a little over nine weeks. The stakes are about as high as they come. I urge everyone to do what they can—no matter how small—to nudge the American public in the right direction.

Jason Scorse

The presidential campaign officially kicks off tomorrow with the start of the Democratic Convention in Denver, Colorado (a great venue since Colorado is a swing state in 2008). The convention will culminate Thursday night with Barack Obama’s acceptance speech before an audience of 70,000+ on the 40th anniversary of Dr. King’s “I have a dream” speech.

Obama has three primary goals:

1. To unify the party

There are still grumblings from Hillary supporters who can’t get over the fact that she lost. In an overture to them, Obama has agreed to let her name be placed in nomination and receive a roll call vote. All indications are that Hillary is doing the right thing; she will urge her supporters to vote for Barack in the final vote, and will deliver a gracious speech asking them to do likewise in November. I think Obama got it right in allowing the roll call vote and giving both Hillary and Bill prime speaking slots. He’s going to need their all-out support (especially among core white working-class voters in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, where the election may once again be decided, and where currently an uncomfortably large percentage of Democrats are saying they will vote for McCain).

2. To counter claims of his “otherness”

The Republicans and the McCain camp have been hitting Obama hard on charges of elitism and aloofness, while none-too-subtly trying to paint him as somehow foreign or un-American. So one of the main focuses in Denver will be to showcase Obama as prototypically American, and to surround him with “regular” Americans from all walks of life. Since large segments of the electorate will be getting their first extended look at Obama, this portrayal will hopefully go a long way toward making them comfortable with the notion of a President Obama.

On a side note, much has been made of the forum with pastor Rick Warren last weekend. Many believe McCain got the upper hand with answers which were firmer and more direct, while Obama’s were more “nuanced.” While this assessment may be accurate, I think commentators missed the point of what Obama wanted to achieve at the forum. His main goal was to make the largely Republican evangelical base comfortable with him, which is no small feat for a liberal Democrat; I believe he achieved this. Look for a more forceful and hard-hitting Obama when he faces off with McCain in the debates this fall.

3. To contrast his agenda with McCain’s

This should be the easiest objective to achieve, and ultimately the most important. McCain has no choice but to run on his image; if the election is based on issues, he loses by a landslide. The public doesn’t want a more belligerent foreign policy, more tax cuts for the rich, privatized Social Security, or an end to legalized abortion, all of which McCain supports.

I have one criticism of the Obama campaign so far: it hasn’t hit McCain hard enough, hasn’t driven home the message that what he wants for America is more of Bush’s policies and even worse (although this is quickly changing). Obama needs to couple this with specifics about how he’s different; he has to deliver them in simple sound bites that voters can easily understand and relate to. Some examples: McCain: more tax cuts for the rich; Obama, tax cuts for the middle class. McCain: the government controls a woman’s body; Obama: a woman controls her own body. McCain: trillions for more wars; Obama: trillions to rebuild America.

This election is Obama’s to lose. If the Obama camp plays its cards right, it will be a referendum on Republican rule. With more than 80% of Americans thinking the country is on the wrong track, the outcome shouldn’t be close. Because of Obama’s relative inexperience, McCain’s image and the racism that lingers in America, the election could be closer than it otherwise would be; nevertheless, Obama should win if he executes his game plan. Nothing so far leads me to believe that he and his campaign won’t deliver; they are, if nothing else, an extremely disciplined machine.

And with Joe Biden as VP, and Obama’s foreign policy credentials now solid, he can focus the convention on all of the above.

P.S. Great article on Obama's economic plan in the NYT; bottom line-Obama has a detailed and thoughtful plan while McCain's economic policy is largely tax cuts for the rich and corporate giveaways.

P.P.S. I think still Mark Warner would’ve been the best Democratic candidate to run against any Republican nominee. We would be looking at a true 1980-style blowout if he were the nominee. Warner was poised to run, dropped out, and now will almost certainly be elected a U.S. senator in Virginia; he also just happens to be giving the keynote speech in Denver. Whatever led him to eschew a national run this time around, it looks like he still has presidential aspirations.

Jason Scorse

The Republican Party has morphed into an organization so corrupt that it needs to be completely repudiated at the polls. Only then will true conservatives, who hold honorable and intellectually defensible positions, be able to retake their party.

I’ve lost track of exactly how many party officials have been indicted. Just last week we learned of illegal GOP practices in the Justice Department. Monica Goodling, an incompetent sycophant, was put in charge of hiring DOJ attorneys. She put political loyalty over national security, refusing to hire a highly-qualified terrorism expert because he was married to a Democrat. In addition, she blacklisted gay staff workers and ran her office more like a crony front for the Bush Administration than the nation’s top legal department.

This same week, a man broke into a Unitarian Church and started shooting people with a shotgun, killing two, because he was angry with liberals. Books by Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage were found in his home. Imagine what the media, especially the rightwing media, would’ve done with this story if the person had been a liberal who owned books by Michael Moore and Richard Dawkins. For all the talk about leftwing radicals and extremists, it is the far right that routinely resorts to violence, fueled by the non-stop hatred coming from rightwing talk radio and Fox News.

Some may argue that it is neither fair nor balanced to lump the far right with the Republican Party. I beg to differ; it is hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. Fox News is essentially a talk shop for the Republican Party and the White House; Scott McClellan has confirmed this. Karl Rove, whose politics of division helped Bush get to the White House twice (and who has just been held in contempt by the House), is now advising McCain’s campaign. Rush Limbaugh and rightwing talk radio are probably the biggest “get out the vote” operations for the Republican Party.

In addition, senior members of the GOP are on record over the past decade routinely making asinine and inflammatory statements: they have bashed gays, openly threatened the judiciary, called global warming a hoax, lied about oil drilling and gas prices, etc., ad infinitum. All this on top of the epic incompetence of the Bush Administration, which will take decades to fully document and comprehend.

There is a historical parallel here. Until Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, the Democratic Party was dominated by Southern racists who exercised a stranglehold on party policies. They clung to segregation and overt racism, creating a culture of fear and violence that led to the deaths of hundreds of blacks and numerous white supporters. When Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, racist whites almost instantly began to desert the Democrats. This weakened their power base in the once-Democratic “Solid South,” ultimately leading to the ascension of the conservative movement and the election of Ronald Reagan.

While the loss of the South dealt a political blow to the Democrats, it has worked to the party’s long-term benefit. The party is far from perfect, but excising its bigoted and reactionary members was the right thing to do. Now, in 2008, it is on the brink of nominating America’s first black candidate for president.

Hopefully, the Republican Party will be thoroughly discredited in this election. The far right will descend into the dustbin of history, where it belongs. Only then can the Republican Party jettison its association with religious extremists, bigots, and hate-mongers, regain its tradition of true conservative principles, and once again be a strong voice for American values.

Until then, I am officially ending my commitment to non-partisanship. The modern GOP must be defeated at the polls, and begin its long-overdue renewal.

This does not mean, however, that from now on I will only sing the praises of Democrats. Next week I’ll be looking into free trade—an issue where by and large the Republicans have it right and the Democrats have it wrong.

P.S. Coincidentally, Paul Krugman seemed to be thinking the same thing this week.

Jason Scorse

In my twenties I was a pacifist; I believed that violence, particularly military violence, was counterproductive and unethical. I could accept violence in self-defense, but I believed (and still do) that few wars met this criterion. My rejection of violence extended to the death penalty, which seemed barbaric in a civilized society.

These views have changed over the years, especially since 9/11. Since that time I have examined in some detail the nature of oppressive regimes and the monsters they produce (for example, the Lebanese terrorist whom the Israelis just swapped for the bodies of their soldiers).

Here are my still evolving thoughts on issues in which violence is central; I find them the most difficult to grapple with, both as an individual and as a member of society):

1. The Death Penalty

I now believe there is nothing morally wrong with the death penalty for certain crimes. Some acts are so abhorrent that the persons who commit them forfeit their right to continue living.

Yet I remain opposed to the death penalty, for two reasons:

First, it is impossible to apply uniformly. There are always racial and class biases, which make it inherently unjust. While the same might be said for our criminal justice system in general, we need to be especially careful when it comes to the ultimate penalty.

Second, the death penalty serves little purpose besides revenge. Its deterrent ability is nil or negligible. Life imprisonment, an alternative sentence, gives society ample means to protect itself against future crimes.

2. Pre-emptive war

As discussed in earlier pieces, pre-emptive war is already countenanced by the international community and international law. If a country is going to be attacked, it has the right to strike first. This doctrine has most famously been used by the Israelis: in the 1967 war, in air strikes against Iraq’s nuclear facilities in 1981, and recently against Syria’s nuclear facility.

Pre-emptive war strikes me as reasonable and just, especially against actors who are clearly intent on attacking a peaceful nation and clearly developing the capacity to do so. I would extend this logic a step further: nations have the right to assassinate foreign leaders or military personnel directly involved in terrorist activity against that nation.

For example, if Iran is arming militia groups that are targeting Americans or Israelis, Iranian leaders then become legitimate targets. Those leaders have declared war by proxy against America and Israel, and can be treated accordingly.

This does not mean that I think it would be wise to attack Iranian leaders. It means that there is nothing immoral about killing leaders who are actively engaged in killing your military personnel and threatening your civilian population.

What is not moral is preventative war, the doctrine which the Bush Administration used to justify the Iraq invasion (though they called it a pre-emptive action). Preventative war occurs when one nation strikes another nation based on the possibility of a future attack. Iraq posed no real threat to the United States. If wars could be justified based on no more than conjecture about potential threats, total chaos would ensue.

3. International Military Actions

Although the Iraq War did not meet the criterion for a pre-emptive war, what about Saddam’s crimes against humanity? Did those justify the overthrow of his regime? What about the atrocities of the Sudanese government? Or the Burmese or Zimbabwean governments?

The answers are far from clear.

Let’s start with the moral issues. If a ruler commits crimes against a country’s own people, e.g., mass murder and genocide, I believe there is nothing immoral in taking out that ruler and his or her party by force. There would be nothing wrong with taking out the Sudanese government or the Zimbabwean government or the Burmese junta; in fact, a strong case could be made that this would be the moral thing to do.

But there are major complications with carrying out such a policy. The first reflects our failure in Iraq: we removed a despot only to incite sectarian strife that has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and devastated the country. There is little doubt that the Iraqis have suffered more over the past five years than if Saddam had remained in office (even though the country may be better off in the long run).

Another moral question is the extent to which the lives and treasure of one nation should be sacrificed for the benefit of another nation. Citizens everywhere are right to question whether their governments should send them to fight and die in other lands simply for humanitarian reasons.

Countries rarely base their military actions on humanitarian grounds. Instead they cite national security interests, which makes their actions palatable to the home-country public. This explains why America has been so involved in the Mideast (the oil-producing center of the world) and so relatively uninvolved in Africa (where the violence and atrocities have been even greater, but where U.S. economic interests are far less).

I’m personally not happy that America’s military involvement is usually limited only to places where there’s a perceived nexus between national security and economic goals. On the other hand, is it really the business of America to eradicate evil wherever we find it, whenever we find it? Even if we wanted to, even if we decided this was the moral thing to do, where would the resources come from?

Tough questions. Difficult choices. No easy answers. Even if international actions against oppressive regimes may be moral, it does not mean that they are either practical or should be a priority for a nation-state.

Jason Scorse

Academics use a number of election prediction models, and almost all rely on macroeconomic variables—GDP growth, inflation, unemployment, etc. Most of these models predicted a Gore win in 2000 (which was actually correct since he won the popular vote) and a Bush win in 2004. At the moment the models predict a resounding Obama win in 2008, based on dreary economic news as we head into the election.

Obviously these models are not 100% accurate; their architects freely admit that factors such as wars, disasters, and issues of character also influence voting patterns. But they stick by their fundamental insistence that it is the economy which ultimately dictates election outcomes.

In aggregate, there is little to dispute about these models. If Americans are feeling good about their economic prospects, by and large they can be expected to vote for the candidate who represents the party in power; if they think their economic prospects are dim, they will vote for the opposing party.

But hidden behind the national numbers are huge state-by-state and regional disparities that can’t be explained by economics alone. In huge swaths of the South as well as parts of the Midwest (e.g., Utah) the GOP has consistently outpolled Democrats by margins that correlated poorly if at all with economic factors.

It is these areas where “culture war” issues and race play a major factor, often turning economics into a secondary and even a tertiary issue. Large numbers of voters in these regions are genuinely more concerned about gay marriage, the government taking away their guns, abortion, the perceived dilution of American culture because of illegal immigration, and fears of an even more secular America. While the economy may still influences these voters, their ballots often end up going to the candidates who promise a kind of cultural security which they feel is slipping way.

Some political observers, like author and WSJ columnist Thomas Frank, take this as evidence that people have been duped into voting against their economic interests, when in fact it is evidence that these people simply give priority to issues other than economics.

When rich investment bankers in New York vote Democratic, nobody says they’ve been duped, even though they may very well be voting against their immediate economic interests since Democrats generally favor higher taxes for the rich*. If asked to justify their votes, these well-off Democrats might cite the party’s liberal social positions or less belligerent foreign policy; in exchange for these positions, they’re willing to accept higher taxes.

But when poor whites vote Republican because they oppose gay marriage or abortion, they’re assumed to be gullible. Unfortunately for Democrats and economic progressives, the disproportionate electoral sway of America’s Deep South and Midwestern states hands these “values” voters extra weight both in the Electoral College and the Senate.

In the end, it’s hard to accept any uni-causal case for the election of a U.S. president. There are too many factors, too many cross-currents, and it’s impossible to sort them out. The economy ultimately may swing the election, and certainly it will be more important than it was in 2004; but there are many motivations that can sway people on the margins, and have large electoral impacts.

As the Democrats have learned, in order to truly be competitive in certain parts of the country they have had to tone down their gun control rhetoric, speak more openly about faith and religion, and walk a fine line on gay rights (opposing gay marriage while supporting civil unions). This is what many voters in these regions want to hear, and the strategy has begun to pay dividends: Democrats are winning elections for state offices and Congressional seats in once-solid GOP territory, and Obama is competitive in states that haven’t voted Democratic for 40+ years.

The Republicans are in a much more difficult position because America overall is more socially liberal and economically progressive than the mainstream GOP. The party’s success this decade in some sense represents an anomaly; Bush actually lost in 2000, and won in 2004 largely because of a fearful citizenry that wanted to support a “war-time president.” Looking forward, it is hard to see how the far right’s message will resonate with voters, especially younger voters whose only taste of GOP rule has been an administration characterized by epic incompetence, cronyism, anti-intellectualism, and economic downturn. It will be interesting to see how the GOP retools, especially if they lose big in November.

Stay tuned….

*Wealthy individuals voting Democratic might be right to think that their long-run economic prospects under Democratic rule will be better than under Republican rule even if their immediate economic interests take a hit.

P.S. See here for a very interesting analysis of economic performance under Democratic and Republican administrations; it may surprise you.

Jason Scorse

Last month the world got a glimpse into Karl Rove’s mind when he said this about Obama:

"Even if you never met him, you know this guy. He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."

Put aside that most Americans have never been inside a country club, or the fact that a black man could easily face discrimination at such an institution. If we substitute “school dance” for “country club,” and picture a 17-year-old Karl Rove as one of the passersby, it’s not hard to imagine this scene playing out: Rove is the nerdy loser who never gets the girl, who has to bear the taunts of better looking and more popular students, and he’s emotionally scarred by the experience. Viewed through this lens, we can better understand his lifelong quest to get back at all those who made him feel so low as a teenager.

The same goes for one of America’s most annoying pseudo-intellectuals, Jonah Goldberg, whose book “Liberal Fascism” reads like a 500-page poke in the eye at all the people who at some point or another threw the word “fascist” in his direction. Again, it is easy to imagine a young Goldberg sitting in his room alone at night, incensed, plotting how he was going to have the last laugh, no matter how ridiculous, inflammatory, or intellectually dishonest he needed to be.

So what’s the point of all this?

There are a few. First, as much as the readers of this site would like more reason and rationality in politics, the people who practice it are often motivated by just about everything other than the public good—a quest for power and attention, perhaps a profound sense of victimization and alienation (Tom DeLay, for instance, was a bug exterminator who became incensed at the environmental regulations he was forced to follow). And in politics, as in so much else, it is often the loudest voices which most influence policy, those who feel aggrieved, rightly or wrongly, who fight the hardest.

Finally, insecurity may be the strongest of all human emotions: a potent combination of fear, uncertainty, estrangement, and desperation. We all experience insecurity at some point in our life, sometimes throughout. Politicians and pundits who become adept at playing on our feelings of insecurity are often the most successful. Why? Because those who are insecure are often seeking explanations for their plight, consciously or not. They are quick to accept scapegoats and rationalizations (which is why minorities like gays, blacks, immigrants, atheists and today’s favorite, “intellectual elites,” are typically in the cross-hairs).

I am not sure how to combat the bad feelings that insecurity brings to the surface. The best antidote I know is a consistent and unyielding campaign to eschew excessive emotional appeals, to stick to facts and reasoned arguments.

But still I wonder: if Karl Rove had had a few more friends back in high school, maybe the world could have been spared the last eight years of the Bush Administration.

Jason Scorse

Americans are feeling pain at the pump; gas prices going into the July 4th weekend hit a record high national average of $4.09 for regular unleaded, up $1.14 from a year ago and roughly triple what it was when Bush took office. Oil has topped $145 a barrel and high fuel costs are leading to price increases across a wide swath of products.

But in truth, U.S. gas prices are low by world standards. As this chart shows, there are many developed nations where the average price of a gallon of gas is between $7 and $10.

Most of these nations are not being hurt as much by the current oil price shock because their governments were smart and made gas expensive long ago. This created incentives for better public transit, more fuel-efficient vehicles and industrial processes, and shorter commutes. For decades, many U.S. economists have been urging higher gasoline taxes for exactly these reasons; unfortunately, their advice has fallen on deaf ears.

As the price of oil plummeted in the 1990s, the SUV craze took hold and Detroit automakers ignored the lessons of the 1970s and 80s. Not only did these behemoths lead to more urban sprawl and less automotive safety, America’s carbon footprint grew enormously. Politicians of both parties took the myopic, short-term view. They could have seized on this period of low gas prices as an opportunity to phase in a higher gasoline tax, and move towards a more fuel-efficient and less oil-dependent society. They didn’t.

Fast forward to September 12, 2001.

Of the 19 hijackers who changed the world the previous day, 15 came from Saudi Arabia. We knew then that Saudi oil money financed extremist groups. Iran and Iraq, two other nations that represented serious national security challenges also relied on oil money, as well as Russia and Venezuela.

Given the growing threat of global warming, any serious U.S. effort in 2001 to reduce its oil dependency would have been warmly greeted by the world community, especially the Europeans. The massive investments in technology required for such an endeavor would have helped reinvigorate manufacturing in the U.S. and the American auto industry.

Instead, an administration run by oilmen told us that conservation is for hippies and that all America needed to do was go shopping.

Fast forward to the present.

Virtually all of the worst-case scenarios of 2001 have come to pass. Rogue, terrorist-sponsoring oil states are awash in cash, which they are using to fund groups hostile to America. Here at home, there’s a long list of problems: the economy is teetering on recession, auto sales are slumping sharply, with GM and Chrysler headed toward bankruptcy, and the U.S. has recorded its sixth straight month of job losses; at the same time, not coincidentally, the threat of global warming continues to accelerate. And while Bush and Cheney continue to beg the Saudis to open the taps a little more, the Saudis are putting pressure on us to raise interest rates (in order to strengthen the dollar) at a time when the financial sector would be further weakened by such a move.

And we have no one but ourselves to blame.

All of these outcomes were both predictable and avoidable. In April of 1977 President Jimmy Carter put forth a comprehensive energy policy that is amazing in its detail and prescience. In the speech Carter calls for collective sacrifice and warns us not to get sidetracked by the sudden drop in oil prices because of the need to plan for the long-run. Carter was largely scoffed at and ignored and now we have to live with the results (Nixon also devoted some of his 1974 State of the Union speech to energy issues, although he did not offer nearly as comprehensive an assessment of both the problems and the solutions).

Unfortunately, when it comes to sound energy policy the U.S. has been running on empty for way too long, and we’re going to have to suffer for a while before things turn around.

Jason Scorse

The following comment by Geraldine Ferraro may have been the stupidest of the entire primary season:

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

If Obama had an Anglo name and spoke with a Southern drawl, is there anyone in their right mind who doesn’t think he would now be ahead of McCain by 20 points in the national polls? And be ahead in at least 35 out of 50 states?

But Obama has a foreign name (including Hussein for a middle name), has lived abroad, has Muslim relatives, and is black; unfortunately, all of these factors represent serious drawbacks for him with a sizeable segment of the electorate. These are people who in 2008 remain at least slightly xenophobic, racist, or susceptible to accusations and insinuations that somehow Obama represents the “other”.

Think I’m exaggerating?

Just take a look at McCain’s first general election ad, which begins with the narration: “The American President Americans Have Been Waiting For.” If McCain is an “American President,” then what is Obama? An “un-American” president? This from the team that has said it wants to run a “clean” campaign, but won’t even try to control advertising by so-called 527s and other outside groups that are gearing up for what is likely to be one of the nastiest campaigns in recent memory.

There are numerous rumors already flying over the internet about Obama being anti-Semitic or refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, about Michelle Obama using the slur “whitey,” even questions regarding the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate (all of which can be debunked at Fight the Smears).

While America has come a long way from its overtly racist past, there is simply no doubt that racial fears, conscious and unconscious, will play a major role in this election. This November will show us whether a solid majority of Americans will be able to resist the smears, the coded racist slurs, and the dumbing down of the real issues by a media bent on sensationalism (and let’s not forget to mention a rightwing attack machine that will do absolutely anything in order to win).

This is not to suggest that any vote for McCain is a vote prompted by racist fears, any more than the votes against Hillary were all due to misogynist leanings. We still have five months to go; there are likely to be many ups and downs over the campaign, and surprises could occur that might alter the fundamental dynamics of the race.

But if the underlying trends continue and Obama loses, it will likely be that an onslaught of negative and untruthful scare tactics tipped the balance against him.

That is a huge reason why this election is so important.

Is America truly ready to move beyond its racist past? Can we be led by our hopes, and not by our fears and prejudices? Election 2008 will provide a serious reality check, perhaps the most clarifying moment of a generation.

Jason Scorse

A spate of articles and books in recent months (e.g., Fareed Zakaria’s The Post-American World) raise the question of whether America will remain the dominant economic power in the coming decades; no one really doubts that America will remain the dominant military power. I just returned from a two-week trip to China, which got me thinking about the subject since one can’t fail to be impressed by the rise of this Asian power.

I am ambivalent about the issue. On one hand, as an American I want my country to remain strong and prosperous; but I also am an internationalist, and want to see prosperity spread across the world. Fortunately, it need not be a zero-sum game. American greatness can coexist with rapid wealth generation in the emerging markets.

In fact, an argument can be made that American wealth is partially dependent on the rise of the developing world: our historic low interest rates and (until recently) extremely low inflation are due in part to the high savings rates and low labor costs in Asia and the Middle East.

The key looking forward is to realize that American dominance is not some force of nature that is destined to continue. It is instead the result of specific policies and characteristics of the American economy and society that must constantly be revisited, revised, and maintained. Mistakes have been made that have weakened America’s economic position, but these mistakes can be rectified.

Here are four missteps, coupled with new opportunities, to consider as we look towards a new administration and getting back on the right economic track:

1. Nowhere has the failure of leadership been more damaging than in the U.S. auto sector. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have coddled Detroit; a combination of corporate mismanagement and intransigent, short-sighted unions has blocked all efforts at meaningful fuel efficiency for decades. Free-market advocates are finally seeing some vindication, decades late, now that high gas prices and tumbling demand for SUVs is forcing Detroit to see what thinking people have known for decades: fuel-efficient cars are the wave of the future. It is too early to tell whether Detroit will be able to recover, but there are encouraging signs: GM is pursuing plug-in electric vehicles, and both Obama and McCain support a cap on carbon emissions (although McCain oddly seems to forget that he does).

2. One way America has become so affluent is by recruiting the best of the best from across the world. Skimming the cream from countries across the globe has helped the U.S. to the highest living standards for any country remotely comparable in size. However, since 9/11, the enactment of anti-immigrant policies has slowed the influx of engineers, computer scientists, biochemists, doctors, et al. While tighter immigration controls are no doubt warranted, America should be expanding visa applications for the best and the brightest. This is an area that doesn’t make headlines, but it should be watched carefully.

3. Green technology, nanotechnology, and biotechnology are likely to be the leading areas for rapid growth and breakout products that dramatically impact global society. The U.S. nanotechnology industry seems in good shape, but our biotech industry has suffered under the anti-science policies promulgated by the Bush Administration at the insistence of the religious right. Legitimate moral issues related to cloning need to be addressed, but blocking embryonic stem-cell research that has the potential to cure major illnesses is both unwise and unconscionable. The embryos used in the process are already slated for destruction; in fact, a consistent “pro-life” stance would oppose fertility clinics, a fact which the right never mentions. Both Obama and McCain support lifting the ban on federal funding for stem-cell research (but given McCain’s numerous reversals and pandering to the right, I am not confident he will maintain this position; we’ll see).

4. The final issue is more long-term: America’s debt. America is the world’s most heavily indebted nation, both the government and the people. This has been possible because the rest of the world has sought the safety of U.S.-backed treasuries, but it will not persist indefinitely (especially as other countries begin to consume more and the emerging markets become more attractive for investment). High levels of American debt will inevitably result in higher domestic interest rates and lower economic growth. Higher taxes are also likely, especially if the federal deficit continues to rise. Neither Obama’s nor McCain’s fiscal plans make tackling the debt a priority, but McCain’s plan is much worse overall; it would increase the deficit by an estimated $5.7 trillion over the next decade. Regardless of what the government does, individual Americans should get their fiscal houses in order: we need to pay down our debts and increase our saving rates.

In conclusion, predictions of America’s economic decline are probably premature. At the same time, continued American dominance is in no way preordained. It will take hard work and sound policies; as always, a little luck wouldn’t hurt either.

Jason Scorse

In many parts of the world disagreements between groups are often settled through violence and mayhem. The singular achievement of liberal democracies is that we settle our differences through the political process and rarely resort to violence; this is no small feat.

But make no mistake: our current political battles represent life and death struggles. They include a woman’s right to choose, civil rights for gays, universal health care, global warming, and war policy. In short, choosing a president of the United States is one of the most consequential acts a citizen ever performs.

Every time we vote, we make serious moral judgments; there is no escaping this, since politics is little more than the act of converting public morals into public policy. Everything from tax rates to teacher pay to toxic chemical standards to social security payments is at its root a moral decision about what is right and wrong for society.

It should be clear that we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the last eight years, which have harmed so many millions both here and abroad.

Unfortunately, repeating these mistakes is what John McCain promises to do on virtually every issue. He has not only embraced the Bush economic policy, but his tax proposals are even more regressive and would result in more debt ($5.7 trillion); he has called for the overturning of Roe v. Wade and promised to appoint justices like Alito and Scalia (who not only would take away women’s reproductive rights, but whose views on the scope of executive power are truly frightening); he strongly supports the Iraq War and argues for an open-ended U.S. military occupation; he voted against the children’s health insurance bills and is ideologically opposed to any form of universal health insurance; even his support for climate change legislation is tempered by his support for windfall profits for the oil and energy industries.

As Albert Einstein noted, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. A vote for John McCain is a vote for more of the same disastrous policies.

I make no apologies for claiming that people who would vote for someone who doesn’t want to provide health insurance for poor children, who wants to further enrich the rich, and who thinks the Iraq War was a good idea, are taking positions which I consider both foolish and immoral. Political differences this great represent sharply opposing values and worldviews, and there’s nothing wrong with discussing them frankly.

In fact, America would be in better shape if people spoke up more often about injustice and incompetence without fear of being labeled strident or divisive. Mature people need not be afraid of offending others with direct talk, even if it sometimes includes recriminations (no doubt, all of us have probably done things or held views that we now view as foolish or unethical—it’s part of being human).

What separates ideologues and political hacks from reasoned critics is not the absence of strong language; it’s openness to opposing views, respecting people who don’t share our views, admitting that we could be wrong, and, of course, backing up claims with solid arguments.

In no small part, the reason that Democrats and progressives have failed to achieve many of their goals over the past decades is because they’ve failed to cast public policies in clear moral terms. Voters don’t often get excited over policy details, but they do get excited over principles.

Ironically, many of these Democrats and progressives (who have largely ceded all moral discourse to the religious right) are now worried that Obama’s “beyond partisanship” posture ignores the political struggles that will be required to enact his agenda.

They shouldn’t worry; Obama definitely gets it. He doesn’t believe that the entrenched interest groups and power centers will simply roll over for him.

His great gift is his ability to couch the major issues of the day in clear moral terms—what’s fair, what’s right, what’s sensible—and in this way appeal to the compassion and reasonableness of the American people.

He doesn’t need to convince every last American that his views are best. But by not shying away from making forceful statements about what’s right and what’s wrong, he very well may be able to convince a solid majority.

Jason Scorse

Now that Barack Obama has wrapped up the Democratic nomination, the American people are in store for a historic election. Obama is truly a phenomenon: a man who has swiftly risen through the ranks of Democratic politics though a combination of rhetorical skills, his tranquil and composed demeanor, and the nature of this unique historical moment. He doesn’t have McCain’s long history in government and military service nor Clinton’s political stature, but he is no doubt formidable.

With Obama and McCain as the nominees, the U.S. electorate will truly get a choice between two very different approaches to both domestic and foreign policy. While much was made of the small policy differences between Clinton and Obama, it is Obama’s initial and unwavering opposition to the Iraq War that helps to solidify the contrast between the Democratic and Republican candidates for president in 2008.

As readers of this site know, I have never subscribed to the Thomas Franks school of thought. In his book What’s The Matter With Kansas?, Franks posits that many working-class Americans have been duped into voting for the GOP all these years against their own economic interests. While Americans may be genuinely ignorant about many aspects of foreign affairs and public policy, they do know the basic differences between the major political parties.

When Americans go to the ballot box, those whose greatest desires are to see abortion criminalized and gays denied civil rights will correctly choose the Republican candidate; those who want the estate tax eliminated and corporate tax rates slashed are also correct to pull the lever for the GOP, the same as those who prefer a more militaristic and hard-nosed approach to foreign policy. I find these reasons not only wrong-headed, but largely immoral and foolish; but they are not irrational based on the values these voters profess.

Bush’s reelection in 2004 (and GOP gains in both houses of Congress) represented something of an anomaly; Americans were still reeling from the shock of 9/11, and the Iraq War was still supported by a majority of the population. It seemed to me at the time that the incompetence and pettiness of the Bush Administration were clear for all to see, but I understand how many Americans wanted, and chose, to give the president the benefit of the doubt.

Fast forward to 2008.

It is now obvious to almost everyone that these past eight years are likely to be remembered as a “lost decade,” one in which Americans were led by the worst president in our history. America is weaker, poorer, more fractured, less competitive, and less respected than it was in 2000; it will take years to reverse the damage that has been wrought by ideologues who put loyalty over expertise, and turned the U.S. government into a system of allegiance to cronies over competence.

While John McCain would likely represent an improvement over the Bush Administration (which isn’t really saying much), his positions on foreign policy, fiscal policy, and executive power are almost identical. Barack Obama, on the other hand, offers significantly different proposals on all fronts: a more diplomatic and focused strategy for combating terrorism, a more progressive tax system, universal healthcare, transparency in government, and a serious alternative energy policy.

It is no secret who I think would be the better president. But in the event Obama doesn’t win, it will be an extremely illuminating moment nonetheless.

If the American people choose John McCain for president, I will have to conclude that the majority of Americans do not share my values or my vision for the future.

Given how much energy I invest in national politics, this will be hard news for me to accept, but I will do so. I will turn my attention to more local issues and the international stage. I will not move to Canada or bemoan America, but I will realize that on the national level America is not the country I hoped it would be.

I do not think this will happen. I look forward to many years of discussing an Obama Administration: its many achievements as well as its missteps.

Either way, November 2008 will be a major clarifying moment in American history. I look forward to it.

Jason Scorse

This week marked the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state. As Jeffery Goldberg at the Atlantic Monthly points out, Israel is the culmination of one of the most successful nationalist movements of the last century, and yet it still faces stark questions with respect to its identity and future.

I am Jewish by birth: my mother is Jewish, and Judaism is a matrilineal religion/culture. Like many Jews raised in New York City in a secular home with little exposure to explicitly Jewish culture, I have mixed emotions about both Judaism and Israel. I know that my ancestors were often singled out and persecuted, and that to this day Jews are still a hated minority in many parts of the world. I do not take lightly the struggles and pain of the Jewish people.

There are many things about Jewish culture that I respect, particularly its strong intellectual tradition and the fact that Jews by and large do not believe in proselytizing. At the same time, my strong aversion to organized religion puts me at odds with much of Jewish identity; I also find the notion of a “chosen people” offensive.

It is with respect to the state of Israel that my feelings are most mixed. There is something uplifting about a people so long reviled and persecuted finally realizing their dream of a state of their own, one which they have turned into the most prosperous in the Middle East. But the human costs on both sides have been tremendous; I’ve been reading about the history of the Israelis and the Palestinians for more than a decade, and I’m still not sure where the blame really lies.

Some things, however, are clear.

There is no doubt that suicide bombing is evil, and that the Arab states bent on Israel’s destruction are largely filled with vile opportunists who use the Palestinians as pawns to deflect attention away from their own corruption. Israel is not free from blame, either. The continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank clearly violates both international law and any proper sense of justice.

More importantly, the very nature of a “Jewish state” troubles me.

The essence of liberal democracy is that states are defined by ideals, not by ethnicity; yet so much of Israeli domestic and foreign policy is driven by the goal of maintaining a majority ethnic Jewish population. Because of higher Arab birth rates, this ultimately means that Israel will either have to create a two-tiered socioeconomic system (akin to apartheid in South Africa) or somehow decrease its Arab population (through expulsion or other means). In some ways the Jews may be suffering the “winner’s curse”: after thousands of years of struggle, they return to their homeland only to see demographics deny them their dream.

The bottom line is that Israel will eventually be faced with a difficult choice—either be democratic or be Jewish. Since I believe strongly in democracy, my own choice is clear; yet I can still sympathize with the fears and hopes of my ethnic relatives half-way across the world.

I hope and dream that one day humanity will be drawn together by shared ideals of freedom and universal human rights. In the meantime, religious and ethnic bonds will remain some of the strongest that both keep people together and tear them apart. Israel is ground zero for this dynamic, and will likely be for the foreseeable future.

Jason Scorse

If there’s one lesson to learn from the Reverend Wright controversy, it is that it’s past time to get religion out of politics. While Senator Obama’s pastor occupied the spotlight this past week, preachers with equally ridiculous and offensive views have been linked to GOP leaders for decades. Both Democrats and Republicans should work to keep religion out of the public square.

Both the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence make absolutely clear that religion is a private affair that should not be the basis for any government policy. At the same time there’s no doubt that candidates’ religious views influence their morals, and this is a valid topic for discussion.

It would be illuminating, for instance, to see a presidential debate in which the candidates were called on to discuss how their religious beliefs influence their attitudes towards war, healthcare, education, science, and taxation. Perhaps even more important, it would be great to hear what they think about the separation of church and state in modern-day America.

The least we can ask for is a politics free of the influence of incendiary and ignorant preachers of any stripe.

Unfortunately, as E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post points out, there’s a double-standard at work: if the preachers are white and right wing, they don’t get the same scrutiny as when they’re black and liberal (or associated with liberals). If the media paid close attention to the pastors in John McCain’s circle, the public would soon learn that his are no less offensive than Reverend Wright.

So their views would cancel each other out, and make no difference in November. This would be a great development. Senator McCain doesn’t wear his religion on his sleeve, nor does Senator Obama. That means we might yet get a debate that isn’t about distractions, but focuses instead on the issues that actually matter for America and the world.

P.S. As usual, please make your views known to the traditional media—both carrots and sticks—praise them for covering real issues and rebuke them when they emphasize trivialities. I’m beginning to sense a backlash against the mindlessness, which bodes well for the fall.

Jason Scorse

The real elitists in American politics are the pundits and the news media who think that flag pins, “likability”, and the color of one’s skin or one’s gender are the most important issues in the campaign for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world. With an economy slipping into recession, no end in sight for two of the longest wars in U.S. history, an administration that has endorsed torture, and a looming environmental crisis, the nation’s major news sources have no shortage of serious issues to report on. Instead, we get an endless stream of distractions and trivialities.

Adding insult to injury, the nation’s opinion pages routinely contain lectures on what it really means to understand rural America—these from blowhards living in the posh D.C. suburbs who skip from one gala dinner to the next.

This has to stop. The stakes are simply too high.

The only way it will is if we the people demand something different. Some of us are already doing this by switching to new media sources, which is one reason why newspaper circulation and network news audiences are steadily declining. We also need to speak up loud and clear when the mainstream media stoop to new lows, as ABC did with its mindless Obama-Clinton “debate”. And of course we can continue to build alternative sources, as this website and tons of others has attempted to do.

More than anything, what has exposed the mediocrity of the traditional media is the plethora of superior perspectives put forth on the web by academics, thinkers, and concerned citizens. Many of the pieces that I read on blogs, for which the writers are generally unpaid, are better than what people are earning six-figure salaries to produce.

But let us not pretend that alternative media can do it alone. The large resources of the major newspapers and networks enable them to do the kind of original reporting that blogs and other independent sources can’t possibly match. Only National Public Radio, probably the best overall source of news, can begin to compete, and even its resources are tiny by comparison.

It is possible to envision a future in which the traditional media forego mindlessness and return to in-depth coverage of serious issues and a focus on real priorities. Combine this with continued scrutiny by blogs, and the more varied commentary that comes with them, and America could easily become the most informed nation in the world. Given the disproportionate power that we wield on the international stage, we should aim for no less.

Take-home point: Make your voices heard. Whenever you hear or read a particularly mindless story, give the media a call or send an email expressing your discontent. And when they run a great story, let them know as well.

P.S. As if on cue, an entire issue of mindlessness at Newsweek. Let the editors know what you think at: Editors@newsweek.com.

Jason Scorse

There is no doubt that Obama’s recent comments that many rural Americans feel “bitter” about their economic situation, leading them to “cling” to guns, religion, and anti-gay and anti-immigrant sentiments, represent his worst political mistake to date. Both Clinton and McCain promptly jumped all over the comments, as well as the news media (ridiculously so in Wednesday’s ABC News “debate”).

That Obama made these comments in a closed meeting in San Francisco makes them all the more damaging. We will know soon whether this seriously damages his poll numbers; Obama is that rare politician who can take a terrible gaffe and turn it into a “teaching moment” (e.g., the Wright controversy).

Back in 2005 I wrote about this issue while disputing the main thesis in Thomas Franks’s book, What’s the Matter with Kansas. Franks lays out in detail the ways in which rural Americans are distracted by “culture war” issues and duped into voting against their economic self-interest. I laid out in some detail why this argument—Obama’s argument (and Jim Webb’s too)—is somewhat elitist, but more importantly, wrong.

Issue by issue, I showed that for many Americans certain “values” issues trump economics, and that voters are making rational choices, just not in the way the left and Democrats would like.

This week Larry Bartels from Princeton took up my critique, and offered a different explanation. Analyzing socioeconomic data and poll results, Bartels makes the case that low income Americans do vote based more on economic issues, while the relatively affluent take socio-cultural issues more into account (perhaps because they don’t have to worry as much about money).

In some ways the 2008 Presidential Election will present a test, however imperfect, of this thesis. Assuming Obama is the Democratic nominee, Americans will have a choice between a candidate with an unambiguously progressive domestic agenda and a candidate who believes that Bush’s domestic agenda was too progressive.

If come November, with the economy likely in a recession or just coming out of one, McCain were still able to beat Obama, we would have to conclude that the majority of Americans are not primarily swayed by economic issues when it comes to voting.

If this transpires it will usher in a day of reckoning for the Democratic Party and the entire progressive movement, both of which would need to radically rethink their view of government and American values. Stay tuned.

Jason Scorse

The controversy surrounding the comments of Barack Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright, has once again highlighted a major divide in American politics. At one extreme are those who believe that America is an exceptional nation chosen by God to bring democracy and justice to the world; at the other are those who hold that America is no different than other imperial powers. Formed in slavery and genocide, it is as responsible as any other nation for the atrocities that stain human history.

Many on the left criticize those on the right for what they view as a form of mindless and blind patriotism, of obliviousness to the evils committed by Americans. Those on the right view many leftists as bordering on traitorous, unable to recognize that America has more often than not been a benevolent power that has sacrificed greatly to promote freedom around the globe.

The middle ground is rarely articulated in American political discourse, and yet this is where the truth lies. What we need is a humbler and more truthful American narrative.

Such a narrative would begin by acknowledging the great tragedies of Native American genocide and black slavery, the legacies of which linger to this day. It would recognize that slavery hardly ended with the Civil War; it continued in one form or another until WW II, and then morphed into an extremist racial segregation that continued until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. In fact, of the more than 350 years of American history, fewer than 50 have been characterized by even a modicum of decency towards black Americans. It is not an exaggeration to describe the treatment of blacks in America as domestic terrorism, made all the more evil because it was perpetrated by American citizens against other American citizens who happened to be of a different color.

But the evils that were committed against blacks, Indians, and other immigrant groups throughout American history have always been tempered by the ideals set forth in our founding documents. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal. This was a revolutionary doctrine, and it was always there to prick the consciences of those who realized what it said about our treatment of blacks and Native Americans and yes, women too. Over generations, the ideal that all men and women are equal helped to create one of the most multi-ethnic and economically mobile civilizations of all time. America may be a nation of sinners, but it is also a nation that strives to live up to its ideals and to overcome its moral imperfections.

Americans, believing deeply that freedom is a universal right, have also sacrificed tremendously to help spread liberty throughout the world. Americans died by the hundreds of thousands fighting Nazism and Communism, wicked ideologies bent on world domination. Today American military bases around the world do more to prevent conflict than to incite it. While Iraq makes the headlines, no one hears about the relative peace and tranquility secured by American forces throughout much of the world.

America’s foreign policy has aided and abetted heinous crimes, but this was usually done to oppose what we understood to be even greater evils. For example, while there is no real excuse for American support of dictators and oppressors, we justified these steps during the Cold War in the face of Soviet aggression and expansionism. This irrationality reached its apex during the Vietnam War, when it became common practice to destroy entire villages in order to “save” them.

Despite all the contradictions and wrongdoings, the American experience has been marked by continual moral progress: by the knowledge that we must do more to live up to our highest ideals, and by our movement toward them. America will never be perfect, but this does not take away our legitimate right to try to influence world events. American power is best used with one eye on our own shortcomings, and the other on promoting those universal human rights that represent the best of who we are.

A more humble and truthful American narrative recognizes how easy it is to commit evil in the name of good, and the need to guard against this; at the same time, the narrative gives us confidence that our highest ideals are worth promoting across the globe.

P.S. A time stamp for the comments is coming soon. Thanks for your patience.

Jason Scorse

An honest, non-ideological conversation about our current economic problems requires us to abandon the clichés of “big government” versus “small government”. The real issue is effective government: what should be done and what’s the best way to do it?

We cannot afford a laissez-faire attitude toward the banking sector. Banks cannot be allowed to fail for the simple reason that they can take the rest of the economy down with them. This means that ultimately the public sector (our tax dollars) acts as a final insurer for the private banking sector, and banks know this. Without adequate regulation they will always be tempted to take unnecessary risks, knowing that the federal government will eventually come to their rescue.

The conversation we should be having is how best to ensure that banks are not allowed to take risks of such magnitude that they can undermine the entire credit system, while at the same time allowing them to innovate and provide low cost capital to the general economy. While the details of this balancing act must be left to experts in finance and banking, the basic concept is not beyond the ability of the average voter to comprehend, nor of politicians to explain. There should be zero tolerance for anyone who simply spouts “the markets should be allowed to work things out;” the markets haven’t worked things out, and this line of reasoning ignores the “moral hazard” argument noted above.

On to another topic.

Barack Obama gave what many consider a brilliant speech on race relations in America last week, and it has already gone viral on YouTube. Obama is that super-rare politician who can take a serious liability (in this case an error in judgment) and turn it into an asset through his own rhetorical skills.

What Obama’s speech only hinted at should be the topic for a larger American conversation: the fact that social class and access to power divide us even more than race. Racism surely persists in America, as do sexism and homophobia; but the greatest drivers of American inequality are divisions between rich and poor, between the less educated and the more educated, and between the well-connected and the unconnected.

The millions without healthcare come from all ethnicities and racial backgrounds; coal miners who are dying by the dozens in the Appalachians are poor whites, and they have watched for generations as big coal companies have literally removed the mountains from their communities; the millions of manufacturing jobs that are leaving the Midwest are throwing blacks, white, and Latinos out of work; the corporations who flout all sorts of health and safety laws, aided by a Congress and a court system that caters to their needs above the public interest, do not discriminate in the harm they inflict.

The notion that class is the primary source of injustice in America was recognized by none other than Martin Luther King Jr., who vehemently attacked economic inequality in the last years of his life. While he is revered for his successes in the Civil Rights Movement, his positions on economic fairness and social class were not well received by the mainstream; at the time of his assassination he had lost much of his earlier support.

This is one of America’s “dirty secrets”: it is always in the interests of the powerful for the disenfranchised to fight among themselves for the crumbs (e.g., poor whites against blacks, Latinos against blacks) while those in the chips laugh all the way to the bank. This is not to suggest that there are no grievances with a specific racial or ethnic component, but that these are ultimately secondary to class interests. One doesn’t have to be a Marxist to understand this.

At a time when the federal government is once again bailing out the elite to the tunes of hundreds of billions of dollars, we have a clear choice: we can remain distracted by race, or take a moment to examine the concentration of power in this country and realize how it disadvantages whole swaths of people across all racial and ethnic categories. Greed sees only the color green, and all it really cares about is power.

P.S. Check out Paul Krugman on the topic of financial regulation making lots of sense and raising real concerns. And while I find most of Bill Kristol's columns offensive here I actually somewhat agree with him.

Jason Scorse

The terrorist attacks more than six years ago supposedly “changed everything”. They changed George Bush from someone who spoke forcefully against “nation-building” and foreign intervention into a president enamored with the idea of spreading democracy by force; they led the Administration to violate the Constitution on multiple occasions through warrantless domestic surveillance and the torture of enemy combatants; they provided cover for a far-right domestic agenda that the majority of Americans opposed.

But in one critical area 9/11 changed absolutely nothing: our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and the autocratic, terrorist-sponsoring regimes that benefit from this addiction.

Not only has the Bush Administration done nothing to diminish our reliance on Middle Eastern oil, Vice-President Cheney is on record mocking conservation as nothing more than a “personal virtue” (i.e., something only tree-huggers do), the GOP-led Congress passed energy bills that increased subsidies for oil companies (thereby further distorting markets against alternative energy), and the Administration sued the state of California for imposing a greenhouse gas reduction policy that would have resulted in higher fuel-efficiency mandates.

Let’s recap the results so far of this catastrophically misguided policy:

1. Oil prices (partly due to the effects of the Iraq War, which have crippled Iraq’s oil sector; see this NYT's piece on how insurgents are stealing Iraqi oil) are at records highs, which has helped stoke the highest inflation rate in decades and complicated efforts to deal with the coming recession

2. Oil-producing U.S. adversaries such as Iran, Venezuela, and Russia are awash in cash, helping to keep dictators in power and undermine democratic reform

3. So-called allies, such as Saudi Arabia, are also awash in cash, allowing them to stall on reforms and continue to funnel more money into the hands of terrorists

4. Our European allies are livid that we have not helped in any meaningful way to address global warming, which could be mitigated through comprehensive international efforts

5. Instead of tens of billions invested in alternative energy projects or tax rebates for the middle class, they’re going to the likes of Exxon-Mobil and Chevron (which routinely set corporate profit records every quarter)

Results like these all lead to the same conclusion. America’s long history of entanglement in the Middle East stems largely from our dependence on oil, and we will continue to be dragged into conflicts in the region until and unless we dramatically reduce the power of these regimes in the way that they would feel it most: their pocketbooks.

Following 9/11, a serious global push to reduce oil consumption would have sent a major signal to the Middle East regimes to either diversify their economies or witness their eventual decline. Ironically, having to face this reality would have provided significant incentives to liberalize their economies, which has proven to be one of the best paths to freedom and democracy.

Instead the Bush Administration took the low road, adopting policies guided by outdated thinking and its strong ties to the oil industry. Bush will leave behind many legacies of failure and incompetence, but this “lost decade” of wasted opportunity on the energy independence front may ultimately be seen as the most costly of all.

P.S. Check this article out in Sunday's WaPo for even more depressing analysis of how the Iraq War's impact on oil prices has hurt the U.S. economy and strengthened our adversaries.

Jason Scorse

The terms “conservative” and “liberal”, while grounded in well-established philosophical traditions, have been turned almost upside down today. In fact, what we now call conservative was considered classical liberalism in the Europe of old.

The rise of extremist Christianity in the GOP is as contrary to true conservative principles as trade protectionism in the Democratic Party is to true liberal principles. For every Republican who touts the benefits of spreading democracy by force around the globe, a true conservative is rolling in the grave; similarly, true liberals stand aghast that Democrats never meet a problem that can’t be solved by throwing more money at it. The insane war on drugs, and the cowardice with which both Republicans and Democrats approach the issue of gun control, display profound disrespect for both conservatism and liberalism.

The Republican noise machine has been particularly successful at tarnishing the word “liberal”. On the other hand, the actions of the Bush Administration these past seven plus years have gone a long way toward blunting the advantage that the term “conservative” once held with respect to political identification.

The truth is that most of the issues we currently face do not break down easily along ideological lines; at root they are issues that require pragmatism, competence, and common sense. For example, in the richest nation in the world, the overwhelming majority of Americans realize that allowing millions of children to go without healthcare is morally wrong; end of story. The debate is how best to provide the coverage, not whether it should be provided.

With respect to globalization, no one really believes that we should or could turn back the clock. The vast majority realizes that U.S. companies need to remain competitive; they also realize that America needs to maintain some form of safety net, and help displaced workers better transition from one type of employment to the other. Workers should be able to take risks, and not live in constant fear of being one paycheck from bankruptcy. Again, the only debate is how best to get there.

On the topic of terrorism, no one doubts that there are bad actors out there who mean to do us serious harm; the question is how best to find them and deal with them, and not sacrifice our core ideals and liberties in the process.

None of these issues can be resolved by adopting an ideological mindset that refuses to seek alternative points of view or consider other tactics. What is needed is a reasoned approach, combined with flexibility, attention to detail, and follow-through by top-notch government authorities who are accountable to the people.

I chose the title for this piece because I think Barack Obama is the candidate with the most potential to usher in such an era of common sense approaches to policy without the ideological baggage that weighs so heavily on the American body politic. As the conservative columnist Stephen Hayes has noted, Obama’s rhetorical skill lies in his ability to show that he understands and respects opposing viewpoints, even as he points out why a certain course of action is preferable. He rarely uses terms like liberal or conservative; he has a way of elevating the dialogue above the labels that so often get in the way of clear thinking.

While McCain is trying to prove his “conservative” credentials (which seems to mean embracing Christian extremists like John Hagee, and flip-flopping on the Bush tax cuts), Hillary Clinton is staking out a fairly conventional partisan stance. None of this is to say that Obama is the only one who could help move us beyond the ideological divide, but that he seems to have the best chance this election cycle.

Regardless of who wins in November, I think we will begin to see a movement away from the conservative-liberal divide as a new political generation comes of age: a generation less interested in notions of ideological purity, and more interested in finding solutions to the problems that all of us face.

Jason Scorse

We could be at a unique historical moment for both the Democratic and Republican parties.

On the Democratic side, Obama excepted, almost all of the major political figures were shaped by the civil rights and the anti-Vietnam War movements. They have a sense of moral indignation and fire that’s absent in Obama. His appeal (in addition to his charisma, charm and rhetorical skills) stems largely from his post-1960s outlook. To the older Democrats, change only comes about through hard struggle against unyielding forces; they consider Obama naïve to think otherwise, and arrogant as well because he believes the time has come to move beyond this narrow view of political progress.

Their frustration was clear in a recent discussion with one of Clinton’s biggest supporters, Geraldine Ferraro, in which she lambasted those who take for granted the gains in women’s rights, and fail to realize how hard-fought they were.

It is easy to understand how this core group of Democrats has come to believe that their contributions to social justice are being undervalued. Obama has taken pains to thank them and make clear that he wouldn’t be where he is if not for their efforts; at the same time he is unapologetic in his call for change, which is no doubt directed at them as much as at the GOP.

The change taking place on the Republican side has been more gradual, and took on particular resonance with the passing of William F. Buckley this past week. Buckley was the consummate intellectual elitist, a person whom the modern Republican Party came to loathe; he was the son of a rich oilman, educated with private tutors and in the best New England schools, spoke in a haughty British accent and routinely quoted Shakespeare, was an avid yachter, and to his dying day believed that the right to vote should be restricted to those who passed certain literacy tests.

To his dismay, the conservative movement that he helped created and the Republican Party that he called home took on an increasingly anti-intellectual bent. This anti-intellectualism reached its apex with the presidency of George W. Bush, who is almost proud that he can’t speak proper English and who uses his “ranch” in Texas as a stage set to prove his “heartland” credentials. Similarly, Buckley’s fierce but substantive and respectful debate program, Firing Line, has been replaced by Fox News and the likes of Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly; these men are many things, but gentlemen in the Buckley mold is not among them.

Buckley came around to believe that the Iraq War has been a failure and antithetical to true conservative principles; for this he was branded a senile old man and a coward by some of the very people whom he helped elevate to positions of power. This account of a debate between Buckley and Norman Podhoretz (an influential neocon who has never visited the Middle East, but has written books on the region and who claims that Iran must be bombed), is striking. Buckley asks Podhoretz if he’s at all embarrassed that Iraq didn’t have any WMD; to this, without a shred of evidence, Podhoretz claims that all the WMD were shipped to Syria.

If conservatism and the Republican Party are to regain their footing, their leaders would be wise to shed their anti-intellectualism and try to once again become the “party of ideas”. If the past seven plus years have taught us anything, it is this: when ideology and party loyalty come before competence and intellectual merit, the results are disastrous.

(In next week’s piece I will discuss Obama’s potential to actually further many key Democratic values in a way the old guard has been unable to do.)

Jason Scorse

I was aghast the other day when I read this piece about a potential bailout of troubled homeowners. The article describes people, often with six-figure incomes, whose mortgages are now higher than the value of their homes. They are upper-middle class, they live in large homes and own several cars, and Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) is now asking that my tax money (and yours) be used to rescue them from their own bad decisions.

On this score, the conservative notion of personal responsibility and dealing with the consequences of one’s actions is absolutely right. These are not people who were duped by shady loan practices, but well-educated individuals with good jobs who exercised bad judgment. Liberals who say that no matter how foolishly people behave the government is there to bail them out are going too far.

There is another conservative position that I’m starting to warm to as well: doing away with campaign finance reform. This is an issue that conservatives feel so strongly about that it is McCain’s biggest Achilles Heel among hardcore Republicans. The Supreme Court has made it clear that limiting people’s contributions to campaigns is essentially a limit on free speech, and therefore a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Most attempts to limit private money in politics are meant to prevent the rise of politicians who, bankrolled by the wealthy and powerful, are able to outspend and outcompete all their rivals. There is also the fear that politicians will be bought off by big money, which will sway their votes. On both scores I think these fears are unwarranted.

The internet has almost completely negated the advantages of big money in politics; millions of small donors can now help candidates raise tens of millions of dollars a month (just ask Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and even Ron Paul). It is true that with unlimited contributions the uber-wealthy can surpass these amounts, but the law of diminishing returns keeps this advantage well in check; there’s only so much that money can do in any campaign.

With regards to the corruption that money brings to politics, this is where an active citizenry comes in. If there is evidence that politicians are trading votes for contributions from big business, or selling out the public interest for the interests of the few, then it is our responsibility to vote them out of office. Again, in the age of the internet, it is easy for almost anyone to get detailed information on candidates’ positions and records. Americans watch television an average of four hours a day: plenty of time to better inform ourselves about politics and our elected officials if we so choose. If we do not choose, and if those officials abuse the public trust, then we have only ourselves to blame. We get the government we deserve.

There is a strong need for government regulation and assistance in many facets of our lives, but conservatives are correct when they insist that we shouldn’t use government intervention as a substitute for taking responsibility for the major decisions in our life. Buying a house and voting for elected officials are two areas where people should be expected to invest significant time in their decisions, and be prepared to live with them.

Jason Scorse

The presidential field will soon be narrowed to the final two: John McCain for the Republicans and Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton for the Democrats. Although it has become routine to claim that every presidential election is “pivotal,” “historic,” or “represents a major turning point,” this time the descriptions stand a good chance of turning out to be accurate.

America will have its first chance ever to elect a black man or a woman president, but that’s just the beginning of what’s at stake. American troops are fighting two foreign wars; the economy seems on the brink of a significant downturn; the long-term makeup of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance, and global warming seems to be accelerating. These issues, and who knows what more, will face the 44th president come next January.

This is why we need a vigorous series of presidential debates. The country deserves a detailed and sophisticated discussion of the major issues, not the superficial questioning that often passes for a debate.

One excellent proposal is for a debate entirely dedicated to science, an idea spearheaded by a group calling itself “Science Debate 2008”. Many of the country’s top scientists have signed on, and their idea has appeared in many major media outlets. After seven plus years of an administration openly hostile to science and scientific inquiry, this would be an amazingly refreshing event. Not only would it help inform the electorate about the candidates’ views on the major environmental, technological, and ethical issues that we are now confronting; it would also help to elevate science at a time when facts too often take a back seat to opinions and punditry.

In addition, a candidate who doesn’t believe in evolution, or thinks global warming is a hoax, or that frozen embryos are “people,” would have to describe what information they based their beliefs on, and defend these beliefs against respected members of the scientific community.

Another debate I would love to see is one dedicated to the candidates’ values: where they come from, how they inform their worldviews, and the implications of these values for their domestic and foreign policies. A candidate who cited “family values” would be asked to elaborate on what this means, and what role they think government should have in promoting these values. They would be asked how their values inform their priorities, e.g., what do their values tell them about growing income equality, about the size of the military budget relative to domestic spending, and about the difference between just and unjust wars.

In all these presidential debates I would like to see the candidates have the ability to ask each other questions, to have five minutes to make opening and closing statements, and for enough flexibility in the debate structure so that particularly important contrasts can be fully developed.

This isn’t too much to ask. It should be the norm.

For too long we Americans have allowed ourselves to be swayed by largely superficial aspects of the candidates’ personalities, appearance, and character (fueled in large part by the media’s infatuation with the trivial). It is time to demand more substantive and comprehensive debates in the run-up to the most important choice we make as citizens.

P.S. The Commission on Presidential Debates has no contact information on its website, so there is no apparent way to make suggestions directly to the Commission. Individuals can, however, add their names to the signatory list for the Science Debate at their website. As we get closer to the election I will update readers on how to voice your opinion on both the number and content of the debates.

P.P.S. Seems like a science debate with the Clinton and Obama proxies actually happened over the weekend. Check it.

Jason Scorse

It’s a mixed bag.

Here in the U.S. there is both good and bad news. On the positive front, turnout in the Democratic presidential primaries has shattered records week after week. While America is unique among modern democracies in its abysmal voter participation rates, there are hopeful signs. What is particularly inspiring is the increased youth vote; politicians continually urge young people to get out and vote, but no modern-day politician was able to get them there until now. In addition, while the role of big money in U.S. politics is rightly bemoaned, the fact that candidates can now raise hundreds of millions from small donors on the internet has tended to equalize the playing field and is a great development.

Two other developments, however, don’t bode well for U.S. democracy. The first is the Bush Administration’s continued blatant disregard for the rule of law and its now-admitted use of torture (for the disturbing details see Dahlia Lithwick’s piece in Slate). This will go down as a historic moral failing and a low point for American democracy.

The other troubling development is Hillary Clinton’s attempted power grab of the 366 delegates from Michigan and Florida. These states broke DNC rules by moving up their primaries; the DNC retaliated by stripping the delegates of their right to be seated at the convention. All the candidates agreed to abide by the DNC ruling and not to campaign in these states. But with the delegate race now looking incredibly tight, Hillary is making noises about seating the Michigan and Florida delegates; this despite the fact that Obama’s name wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan, and both primaries, which Hillary “won,” were essentially a joke. Regular readers know that I’m an Obama supporter, but this is simply wrong. If she wins fair and square, fine; but what she’s suggesting is literally an attempt to steal the nomination, and it has the potential to destroy the Democratic Party and once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (for the sordid details see this piece in The New Republic).

On the global stage, unfortunately, the state of democracy and freedom is almost unambiguously bleak.

Freedom House recently published its 2007 rankings, and there has been a marked decline in democratic freedoms around the world: a global backsliding, led by such nations as China, Russia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Chad, Pakistan (Al Qeada's home base), and a mélange of Middle Eastern autocrats. So much for Bush’s “Freedom Agenda”. People can argue all they want about how his foreign policies will be viewed 50 years from now; according to current measurements, those policies have failed.

All of this should remind us yet again how fragile democracy is; it needs to be consistently defended and protected. It is not the natural state for humanity, but a system that is eternally vulnerable.

Jason Scorse

In earlier posts I have praised centrism; to me it’s not a mushy form of triangulation, but a pragmatic style of politics that takes the best from the left and the right.

Centrism is not without ideological principles, but ideology does not overwhelm facts. For example, a centrist position on abortion retains the ideological position that women have an inherent right to control their reproductive decisions; but centrists also recognize that late-term abortions confront us with ethical challenges that cannot automatically be resolved in favor of women’s rights.

On the economic front centrist policies meld the recognition that market-based capitalism is the engine of our prosperity with the understanding that regulations are required to ensure equity and maintain health, safety, and environmental standards. Centrist economic policy neither fetishizes free markets nor demonizes them.

Centrists do not seek equal outcomes in America, but they do believe that government has a role in guaranteeing equal opportunity. There are legitimate differences on how best to provide this opportunity, but basic agreement with the idea that government resources should be used to make sure every American has a chance to excel and contribute to society.

Centrist foreign policy recognizes that America has a unique role to play as a world superpower, and that more often than not American influence has helped to tilt the world against authoritarianism and toward freedom. At the same time, America’s exceptionalism hardly makes us perfect; we have also engaged in unjust and unwise foreign interventions that have led to humanitarian disasters. Centrists don’t want isolationism, but they do want wise engagement and an emphasis first and foremost on diplomacy and economic tools.

Unfortunately, the GOP has drifted so far right during the Bush Administration that its guiding philosophy conforms to almost no centrist principles.

On domestic issues, GOP leaders seem to think that tax cuts alone (mostly for the wealthy) are the end all and be all. Nobody in the GOP talks about making college more affordable for the middle class, or increasing teacher pay in poor communities, or providing health care for poor children, or any of the other policies that are needed to truly provide equal opportunity. Instead the GOP lionizes the “market” and denigrates all forms of regulation, an approach that has taken us in swift succession from Enron to Katrina to the current subprime mess, costing hundreds of billions of dollars and ruining countless thousands of lives.

Things are little better on the foreign policy side. The Administration has had some success with North Korea and seems finally to be taking an interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it is too little too late. The Iraq War has been a disaster, and the bellicose militarism that has dominated the GOP’s strategy has hardly made America more secure: Al Qaeda is still potent and again gaining in strength, Iran is emboldened, Pakistan dangerously close to becoming a failed nuclear Islamic state. For the most part the GOP presidential nominees have learned nothing from this imprudent course, and spend their time trying to out-tough each other.

The only exception is Arizona Senator John McCain, who, despite some reactionary stances, comes closest to a centrist position; unfortunately for McCain, this is exactly why the GOP establishment can’t stand him. Except for him, the establishment all line up on the far right.

Across the aisle, however, the Democrats are mostly staunch centrists. There are Kucinichs in the party, but the leaders and the serious presidential candidates are textbook centrists on a wide range of issues.

This may change. The GOP was once home to many moderates (remember the Rockefeller Republicans?), and may be again. (Among the party’s presidential nominees, Mike Huckabee has shown an almost Democratic interest in workers who’ve lost jobs and families whose annual incomes are well short of six figures.)

But if you’re a real centrist, there’s no doubt you should be fighting to elect Democrats in 08.

Jason Scorse

I’m really stuffed…..from all that humble pie I’ve been eating this past week. I thought Obama would cruise in New Hampshire, and he didn’t.

Even so I feel good. As one reader pointed out to me last week, my being a cheerleader for Barack doesn’t really fit with the tenor of this site. Nor does it really mesh with my own outlook. So after a little soul-searching here’s the deal:

I really don’t care much about the personalities in this race, including Obama. He is a fresh face from a young generation, and he represents a cosmopolitan vision of the world that I happen to think will serve America best in the 21st century.

But more than anything I’m sick of the “culture wars”, and really bothered by the notion that the U.S. presidency has become a form of dynastic rule. If Hillary’s name were anything but Clinton or Bush, I might like her a lot more. But it isn’t, and she brings with her a sense of entitlement that truly irks me. If she gets elected I guarantee Jeb Bush will challenge her down the road, and by then Chelsea can come in and try to knock him off. It’s ridiculous and it’s un-American.

That aside, there’s something even more fundamental that last week taught me: I’m as susceptible as anyone to soaring oratory and a warm smile, but what I really care about are ideas and policies.

The ideas and policies that I want from our next president are:

1. A more restrained and humble foreign policy

I don’t want isolationism, but I’ve had enough of the grand rhetoric about remaking the world. I think the worst foreign policy mistake we’ve made has been to elevate bin Laden and al Qaeda to the status of Hitler and Stalin; these cave-dwelling fanatics are dangerous and should be killed, but we have done more to increase their allure across the Muslim world than they could’ve ever dreamed of. This is not WW III; we need targeted policies focused on specific enemies, not sweeping rhetoric about the power of democracy (remember, if you will, that our own democracy tolerated terrorism against a good portion of our own citizens for well over a century).

2. Transparency in government and a commitment to the rule of law

There have been too many days during the Bush presidency when I have been ashamed to be an American. America should not torture, period. We should restore habeus corpus, period. The public has a right to know everything that is not absolutely necessary to be kept secret for national security purposes. If the government wants to spy on American citizens, it needs warrants. I want a president who understands all this without reservation.

3. Protection of minority rights

This includes gay rights, women’s rights, and voting rights. Protecting these rights is not “special-interest” politics; it is the bedrock of American democracy.

4. Science and reality-based governance

Religion is a personal matter and should have no bearing on public policy. Religious doctrines may sometimes takes us to the same place, but religion by itself is no basis for legislation. When it becomes so, we have arrived at a theocracy.

5. Free markets with social safety nets and proper regulation

The free market system is the most incredible wealth-generating system in the world, and every nation that wants to improve its standard of living is embracing it (or should be). But the free market system produces winners and losers and safety nets are necessary, e.g., guaranteed health care and retirement benefits. In addition, as we’ve come to realize, the environment can be a big loser when economies industrialize. This means that effective environmental regulation is crucial as well. I want elected officials who fully embrace capitalism, but who understand that regulations and safeguards are needed and will fight to get them.

There are many more issues that I care about, but these are the main ones. As I’ve pointed out in previous posts, the GOP has diverged so far from its roots, and is so dominated by religious fundamentalists, that I simply can’t vote for them at this point. That leaves me in the Democratic camp for ’08.

Until now I have backed Obama. Truth be told, the differences between the Democratic candidates are relatively small: a Clinton, Edwards, or Obama administration would likely be very similar and in line with my priorities outlined above.

I’ve sided with Obama because of what I mentioned above. I don’t like the idea of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton; I don’t like the ferocious left-right partisanship that we’ve been seeing in Washington.

But above all, I want to win. I want a sane and competent government grounded in the real-world.

So I am now torn. If McCain becomes the GOP nominee, I am not so sure that Obama has a better chance at beating him than Hillary. If I knew for sure that Hillary would nominate Barack as the VP if she won, and McCain was definitely the GOP nominee, I might even switch and support her. I think Obama could handily beat anyone else on the GOP side, so I would stick with him if someone other than McCain gets the Republican nod.

I don’t know what I’ll do. I’m leaning heavily to supporting Obama no matter what because I finally want to vote for someone, and not base my support on political calculus and fear. My more pragmatic side isn’t so sure. Either way, I’m glad to be back concentrating on ideas and policies rather than personalities.

Next week: why even centrism requires partisanship these days.

Jason Scorse

I’m a college professor and another semester has just ended. In my final class on environmental economics I stressed to my students that we shouldn’t get too fixated on individual actions, but instead focus on political and institutional change. I think most got the message, but not all.

These days activism has become overly identified with consumer choices. It’s easy to forget that solving our problems requires more than buying organic food (which in some cases may actually be worse for the environment), buying a hybrid car, or turning off the lights. Doing these things may be comforting, but they’re not the real answer.

The magnitude of problems such as climate change, deforestation, the collapse of fisheries, and species extinction requires major changes in laws and regulations from the federal level on down, and cooperation at the international level as well.

I try (not always successfully) to practice what I preach. Most of my charitable giving and volunteer time is now devoted to getting better politicians elected. Whether we like it or not, every time the President of the United States signs a bill or an executive order its impact is greater than the sum of all the actions that any number of ethically-minded individuals might make in their daily lives. On the international level, these impacts are only compounded.

For example, governments around the world spend upwards of a trillion dollars a year on subsidies that actually pay people to use resources unsustainably and pollute the environment (for more info check out this article). No matter what changes we make in our personal lives, we won’t be able to protect our critical ecosystems if we don’t stop this madness. The same for climate change: No amount of carbon offsets or fluorescent lights are going to be sufficient to mitigate climate change without government commitments to both cap greenhouse gas emissions and to establish adaptation strategies at the national and international levels.

The same goes for many issues not directly tied to environmental issues, e.g., the proliferation of WMD and the spread of infectious diseases. They all require government action.

Again, this is not to deny the role of individual choice and the impact these choices can have; I make the comparison only to emphasize that individual choices will never be sufficient without larger political and institutional change. Getting leaders elected who are willing to take on the special interests and promote the public good, and then holding these leaders to their promises, is the only viable long-term strategy for a more just and prosperous world.

Fortunately, in America we will have the chance in the New Year to finally put the back-sliding of the Bush years behind us and to elect a competent administration in its place.

Happy Holidays everyone!!

Jason Scorse

What has happened to the Republican Party is tragic.

It has been taken over by fringe elements who contradict almost all the tenets of true conservatism. The GOP today is in almost complete disarray, with moderate Republicans (those who do not want to impose an intolerant brand of Christianity on all Americans) left standing on the sidelines with nowhere to turn.

Anyone who doubts this need look no further than the current dynamics of the GOP presidential nomination. Here we have Mike Huckabee, now the front-runner, who doesn’t believe in evolution, believes that the Bible is the literal word of god, as late as 1992 said that he wanted to isolate AIDs patients from the rest of society, and who claims that god is behind his rise in the polls, airing commercials in which he claims to be a “Christian leader”. At the same time Huckabee has been implying that Mitt Romney is not a true Christian, forcing Romney to give a speech about Mormonism in order to assuage voters concerns about his particularly bizarre religion.

Romney’s much anticipated speech only reinforced the view that the Republican presidential race is being dominated by religious concerns. Romney went out of his way to ignore and disrespect all Americans who do not believe in religion; at the same time, he fanned the flames of the culture wars by resurrecting the straw man of secularists out to ban religion from America public life. It was a perfect illustration of how far a once mighty and proud party has fallen.

Not to be outdone by Huckabee and Romney, John McCain, trying desperately to breathe some life into his flagging campaign, has taken to emphasizing that America is “a Christian nation”.

A party once concerned with fiscal discipline and defeating communism is now concerned with seeing who can mouth the most platitudes about Jesus, and promise to nominate court justices who will impose their views on the rest of us.

What is most ironic (and points to another failure of traditional media) is that there is more news coverage about the Democrats being swayed by the far left than about the GOP having become a captive of the far right. Aside from Dennis Kucinich, all the Democratic contenders are almost perfect examples of centrism and moderation. For all the talk about MoveOn.org, Democrats have done almost nothing to curtail the Iraq War, not a single Democratic contender has come out in favor of gay marriage, and on the most contentious issues (Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and illegal immigration), the Democrats have sounded almost hawkish.

In contrast,virtually all of the Republican candidates are all appealing to the radical fringe on issue after issue, from religion to torture to immigration. With notable moderates either retiring (John Warner and Chuck Hagel) or being beaten by Democratic rivals (Lincoln Chafee), the GOP can only become even more extreme in the near term

This is discouraging news for America. Since 60 votes are needed to pass legislation in the Senate, a vocal minority can block legislation and wreak havoc (as we are already seeing).

Hopefully, true conservatives will somehow find their voice again and speak up against the religious fundamentalists who have taken over the GOP. Our nation’s policies would be much improved if the party could once again become a champion of conservative principles; I might not always agree with them (just as I don't always agree with Democrats), but at least their positions would be defensible.

Until that happens, I’ll be working work hard to defeat a Republican Party that wants to undermine American democracy and turn it into a theocracy.

Jason Scorse

The discovery that stem cells may be able to be produced without destroying a human embryo was announced two weeks ago. Ever since, Bush supporters and “pro-life” Republicans have been waxing triumphant about how Bush was right to oppose federal funding for embryonic stem cell research: Michael Gerson of the Washington Post, writers at The National Review and The Weekly Standard, and this week, Charles Krauthammer, also of the Washington Post, whose article “Stem Cell Vindication” flatly declares that “Bush won”.

Nothing could be farther from the truth, which coincidentally also appeared in another Post article. That article quoted a prominent genetic scientist who said that the Bush-imposed federal ban on embryonic stem cell research probably set the field back four to five years. A new avenue of research has been developed, but valuable time has been lost.

Stem cell research is likely to yield new medicines that can alleviate suffering and prolong life, hopefully in the near future. Then we will be able to calculate the needless suffering that Bush and his “pro-life” supporters caused; then we will be able to see the damage that can be done when religious ideology dictates policy.

But all of this is lost on the “pro-life” apologists. Not one of them mentions that this new line of research represents an opportunity cost of lost time doing other research, or the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists still supports continuing the earlier stem cell research (because it is too early to tell if the new avenue truly represents a complete and viable substitute).

Let me be clear: if this new research does make it unnecessary to destroy human embryos, that’s great. But it’s not the point. It never has been.

I have yet to meet a “pro-lifer” who opposes in vitro fertilization and calls it “murder”, even though embryos are destroyed in the process. The religious fundamentalists who tell us that abortion should be illegal are perfectly willing to let people go to great lengths to produce their own biological children; they know that the public would never agree to government interference in fertility decisions of this kind.

But when the destruction of an embryo might lead to a cure for cancer or paralysis (even an embryo that is going to be discarded anyway), the “pro-lifers” say that life can’t be taken. Their position is inherently inconsistent, and yet virtually no one calls them on it.

Hopefully, in 2009 we will elect a president who is willing to lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research. Let the best minds go figure out the best methods, unimpeded by religious fundamentalists.

Update:The Washington Post gets it right.

Jason Scorse

This article in Foreign Policy points to many encouraging global trends. While you wouldn’t know it from reading the headlines, the chance of dying in an armed conflict is now at its lowest level in history. Longevity continues to improve virtually everywhere. In fact, on almost all measures humanity is progressing in substantive ways that we can all be thankful for.

This doesn’t mean there aren’t grave issues to deal with, but it’s good to put things in perspective. Compared to the challenges of the 20th century–two world wars, the Great Depression, the Cold War–the problems we face today are not as dire. And we’ll be going at them with much better technology and far more wealth.

Before we can even begin, though, we have to somehow shake off the modern perception that government is ineffective, inefficient, and corrupt. For decades this sentiment has been fostered by the “conservative” movement in the United States; in a huge irony, through incompetence, cronyism and scandals, it’s been demonstrated in spades by the Bush Administration.

Nobody doubts that Washington pursues some wasteful and ridiculous policies: agricultural subsidies and the “war on drugs” topping the list. But there’s no way we can tackle our major problems (like our dependence on foreign oil, and climate change) without a bold and committed government. We know that strong measures need to be taken, but somehow we’re unable to take them.

The core problem, the one we need to solve before we can start solving the other ones, is the fundamental distrust of government.

I just finished reading a book on the building of the atomic bomb during WW II, and I was amazed at the level of coordination that was required. The U.S. government constructed entire cities from scratch; the efforts of hundreds of thousands of people were channeled into a single effort that involved the most advanced science known at the time. Every resource that America could muster went toward the cause. As just one example, the amount of silver needed for the project was so great that it exhausted all the reserves in the entire country; the project was able to borrow the rest from the U.S. Treasury, which it then returned after the war.

The descriptions of the Manhattan Project reminded me, of course, of America’s efforts to put a man on the moon more than two decades later: another shared goal that required government leadership and a huge national investment. It saddens me that this type of government-led project seems so anachronistic today. Instead of a massive project after 9/11 to develop alternatives to oil, both to combat climate change and to weaken the petrol states that support terrorism, we were told to go shopping and tax cuts were showered on the rich.

More than anything, I hope that Americans in 2008 choose a leader who does not believe that government is the enemy. I hope this leader inspires us with a sense of national purpose, and reinstills real pride in government: not as a provider of earmarks and pork, but as the way to channel our incredible ingenuity and reach for the greater good.

Now that would definitely be something to give thanks for.

Jason Scorse

Like many, I am appalled by the lack of seriousness in the media’s coverage of the presidential contenders, particularly their televised debates. Questions like “what’s you favorite Bible verse?” and “have you ever seen a UFO?” have zero relevance and are an insult to our intelligence; the same for stories about whether Obama is “black enough,” whether Hillary’s laugh is grating, or the price of Edwards’s haircut. The apparent obsession with trivia, distractions, and vacuity is deservedly satirized in this Onion news clip.

But the topic is hardly comical; we are about to elect a new leader of the free world at a pivotal time. Why all the frivolity?

One standard explanation is that this is what people want: if they didn’t, the media wouldn’t supply it. There is certainly a grain of truth to this; people do spend an inordinate amount of time watching low quality shows, both news and entertainment. However this logic isn’t quite as sound when it comes to the presidential debates. For these the public has no options. Either we watch Tim Russert ask inane questions or we don’t watch at all; there is no alternative we can switch to.

But I think something more fundamental is occurring; what in economics is called “coordination failure”. The media business has become extremely competitive and risk-averse, and no media outlet wants to be the first to turn to more substantive issues and risk losing audience share to those that cater to the lowest common denominator.

Still there is a real hunger for more substantive news in the country. If all the major news organizations jointly resolved to only focus on issues of substance, I doubt highly that overall viewership would drop. In fact, I think the American people might wake up and ask themselves why they weren’t demanding more substance and real analysis all along.

So here’s my plea to the media empires of the world: please, please get together and agree to drop the triviality. Not every story has to focus on policy details only a wonk could love, but let’s at least get to the core issues. It would be good for your viewers, for your listeners, and ultimately for the world. You could start with this list of questions, put together for FoxNews by a contributor to Reason magazine.

Jason Scorse

Civilian control of the military is not only one of the great benefits of today’s democracies; it is also one of the most profound political developments of the modern era.

Clearly there are hazards to having the military in charge of those who may not have fought in wars, and therefore cannot know first-hand the horrors of war. But those hazards are small compared to having active-duty generals in charge of both a country’s military and politics. For instance, there is no shortage of military men whose experience in battle only increases their appetite for military incursions, and who are apt to view all foreign policy politics as contests of military might.

Probably no example in American history better demonstrates the benefits of civilian leadership over the military than the Cuban Missile Crisis. If the military leaders had had their way the U.S. would likely have bombed Cuba, believing that the Soviet nuclear warheads were not yet operational. In fact they were operational, and recent documents show that both Castro and the Soviets were prepared to launch a nuclear strike on America if Cuba was attacked. Only the wisdom and restraint of the Kennedy team, many of whom were formerly in the military, averted the disaster.

Most importantly, civilian leadership puts the responsibility for foreign policy and the conduct of war exactly where it should be: on elected officials who are accountable to the people. Without this check it would be much harder for the public to exert any influence on American foreign policy, including waging war.

And yet this chain of accountability has been utterly broken by one of the Bush Administration’s most effective “bait and switches”. Back in 2006 Bush started using the rhetoric that he was “listening to the generals”; it was a masterful way to shift the blame away from him and his administration so that he could contend that he was just following what the generals were telling him.

This tactic of deflecting attention away from his own failed policies reached its apex recently when he shifted all the attention to General Petraeus. No longer did Bush have to answer for his policy decisions; they were all in the hands of a single general who would periodically brief Congress.

And the media rolled over (yet again).

When Petraeus testified in September there were reams of media coverage dissecting his statistics and whether the “surge” was working; there was next to nothing on how Bush’s rationale for the war had shifted yet again (to we can’t leave because it will get worse). The Administration’s original metrics for success were barely discussed.

Most troubling about this shift is that it’s become increasingly clear (despite the mythology perpetrated by the Right) that the generals are not apolitical actors who “tell it like it is”. In fact they have their own agendas and are loathe to openly criticize Administration policy.

Until they retire that is.

General Sanchez, once a major cheerleader for the war, is the most recent retired general to change his tune once he begins collecting his pension. Just last week he unleashed a tirade of criticism on the administration and described the war as a colossal failure. One can only wonder whether there are any high-ranking military officers willing to openly criticize the war while they actually have some say in its conduct.

We now have a situation where the civilian leadership under Bush has absolved itself of responsibility and the generals are playing along. The result: an indefinite occupation which no one seems to have a clue how to end.

Expect lots more money down the drain and lots more body bags. And then Bush will tiptoe out of office and leave the mess to the next administration.

This is not how American democracy was supposed to work.

Jason Scorse

Last week I made the case that Ahmadinejad’s request to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site should have been approved. It wasn’t, but the Iranian President was invited to talk at Columbia University. Predictably, many on the right accused Columbia President Lee Bollinger of giving in to this dictator’s propaganda ploy.

The speech went ahead as planned, but something strange happened.

Many on the right, including some who originally opposed the event, grudgingly admitted that it might have actually served U.S. interests. They were notably happy with Bollinger’s harsh treatment of Ahmadinejad (which in my view actually blunted Bollinger’s words and made him appear to be bowing to the right-leaning New York Post), but they were even more happy with Ahmadinejad’s miserable performance. Not only did he throw in more Holocaust denial rhetoric, he denied that there were gays in Iran, said Iranian women were the freest in the world, blurted out bizarre Koranic passages and requested that the messiah come soon. In short, for all the world to see, he came across as the fanatic and out-of-touch despot that he is.

Iranian television naturally tried to spin the event in their leader’s favor, showing selective clips and complaining about the rude treatment he received. But these passages from Iranian bloggers show clearly that in the age of the internet it is next to impossible to hide the truth, even for dictatorial regimes.

There are still those who claim that allowing Ahmadinejad to speak was a bad move since the U.S. has no obligation to provide any forum to a maniacal ruler. In my view this is myopic; it reeks of the hypocrisy that is all too common these days, and has contributed to America’s diminished standing in the world.

Iran is progressive compared to Saudi Arabia, and yet the Saudi royal family gets special tours of the Bush ranch in Crawford and family members walk arm in arm with the President. In Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive, and unmarried women are forbidden to appear with men in public. Meanwhile the royal family continues to bankroll terrorists around the world, which helps explain why a disproportionate number of foreign fighters coming into Iraq to kill Americans and Iraqis are in fact from Saudi Arabia.

President Mubarak of Egypt, who receives billions in U.S. aid, jails and tortures political dissidents. President Musharraf of Pakistan is not much better, yet he too gets face time with our top leaders and gets treated with extreme respect. And don’t forget those Sunni sheiks whom Bush just visited in Iraq for photo-ops, whom he said were “good men” fighting al Qaeda; only months ago they were major leaders of the insurgency and were shedding American blood.

But it is not consistency or fairness that leads me to advocate American forums for the world’s despots. It is because it is in our interests, as the Columbia event demonstrated. The more we can show how deranged the Ahmadinejads of the world are, while at the same time presenting ourselves as a free and open society confident in its values and its commitment to freedom and human rights, the surer we are to come away the winner. We cannot win every propaganda battle, every exchange of soundbites, but we will win the larger war of ideas. And we must not shy away from it.

A conservative friend of mine, once a supporter of President Bush, even one-upped me on this score. He suggested that we not only allow the dictators of the world to speak on our soil and debate us, but that we make it an open invitation with full expenses paid whenever they want. He too understands that this is not a left-right issue; all of us should be confident that America has nothing to fear from the rants of madmen. Hearing them out only shows our real strength to the world’s people.

Jason Scorse

(In response to the Iranian President’s request to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site.)

Fellow Americans and citizens of the world:

It is no secret that the U.S. and Iran governments are at odds on many fronts. In fact, it would not be an exaggeration to say that we are enemies. Iran is sponsoring terrorism throughout the Middle East, including Iraq and Afghanistan, where our soldiers are sometimes the victims. Iranian President Ahmadinejad has made thinly veiled threats against Israel, recently hosted a conference for Holocaust deniers, and has defied the United Nation’s mandate to curtail its nuclear program.

And now, before visiting this very same institution in New York City, he has asked that he be allowed to lay a wreath at the site of the greatest terrorist attack in our history.

Like many of you, my first reaction was disgust and anger.

But then I thought again about the great struggle we are in against the jihadists and the forces of extremism around the world.

Above all else, this is a struggle for hearts and minds. In the Cold War it was not military action that ended the strife, but the recognition that the Western system of free markets and democracy produced better outcomes and led to more prosperous societies. The same must happen today. Those in the Arab and Muslim world must come to realize that open societies, with human rights like freedom of speech and religion, are not tools of Western imperialism; instead they represent the highest aspirations of all peoples, including their own.

And so I put away my disgust and anger.

It is imperative to make clear that America has nothing to fear from the dictators and thugs of the world. We will win the war of ideas, and the jidadists and their ideology will be relegated to the dustbin of history. But we must engage in this battle in order to win it decisively.

And so I am welcoming the Iranian President to the World Trade Center site. His trip will demonstrate two things.

First, not that America is weak and bows to the whims of despots, but that America is a free society, one where even people with odious and objectionable views are allowed to express them. This is a sign of our strength and a signal to the Arab world: it is only the weak and desperate who restrict free speech and free expression, who limit people’s movements, who jail political dissidents.

Second, another key American trait is redemption. If the Iranian President truly wants to turn a new page by honoring our dead, let that be a first step towards a greater reconciliation. Let him withdraw his support for Hezbollah and Hamas; let him stop his nuclear program.

It is unlikely that Ahmadinejad will do any of these things. More than likely he will try to use his trip as a propaganda ploy. If this is the path he chooses, he will fail.

The world will see clearly that it is America that stands by its principles; that it is America that practices freedom, and not just preaches it; that it is America that offered goodwill even to its enemies in the hopes that they would change their ways; that it was America that allowed the President of Iran onto the site of our greatest and freshest wound, only to have him disrespect us.

And let it be known to all that America’s goodwill is not infinite; that we do not take it lightly when people abuse our goodwill and pursue policies of death and chaos; that when America finally loses its patience and is forced to bring its full resources to bear on those who want to harm us and our friends, that America was on the side of justice and the side of freedom.

Thank you my fellow Americans and citizens of the world.

Next Week: More on the competing notions about diplomacy and how to treat rogue actors on the world stage.

Jason Scorse

Friday I had the opportunity to see Barack Obama give a speech in San Francisco (you can view some highlights here). While I had already heard him speak early this year, I barely had a glimpse of him then; this time he was right in front of me and there were big screens to each side. Most importantly, Obama has been refining his stump speech all year and the result was one of the best political speeches I have ever heard.

There is no doubt in my mind that if everyone in America had the opportunity that I had, Obama not only would win the Democratic primary but the presidency too.

Let me be clear. I do not think Obama is a savior or a miracle worker. I would likely be disappointed at some of the things he would do or say as president, and likely some of the expectations that he could radically transform Washington would go unfulfilled.

But there is no doubt that he would be a transformative and historic figure, partly because his rise is already the stuff of legend. Listening to Obama, it is clear that he understands the unique circumstances that made him first a Senator and now a major contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. These circumstances include a terribly unpopular president, the dawn of a new millennium, and a deep desire for something fresh and new. Obama has combined all of these with a political message that is much more pragmatic than ideological, a message which speaks to the optimism of the American psyche at a time when we have been fed little more than fear for the past six years.

The contrast in styles between our current president and Obama is striking, not only because of their different political views, but because of Obama’s charisma and articulateness. Whereas it is often painful to listen to Bush mangle even the simplest of phrases, if Obama becomes president people will be glued to the television every time he addresses the nation. My guess is that his speeches would become classics and be mined for soundbites for generations to come.

Obama plays a crowd like a master conductor, working his way from anecdotes, key principles, and his own insights to resounding declarations of what must be done to reclaim American greatness. He has no small bit of the preacher in him. His stump speech evokes patriotism in the best sense of the word, instilling pride and love of country, not empty jingoism.

One of the highlights of Friday’s speech came when he spoke about restoring America’s leadership in the world. He said he would go to the U.N. General Assembly and proudly declare that “America is back”. With respect to his disagreement with Hillary Clinton over speaking directly to our enemies, he declared sarcastically that he had no fear that he would lose a propaganda battle with the world’s dictators. He said a strong country, sure in its principles, has nothing to lose by engaging more with the world. Some of the biggest applause came when he said how he would restore habeus corpus and shut down Guantanamo and the CIA’s secret prisons, shouting that this is “not who we are”. Indeed.

I left the event feeling more excited about politics than I ever have, but strangely, also a little remorseful. If Obama doesn’t earn the nomination I will be very disappointed; America will have missed a historic opportunity and we will be the poorer for it.

Jason Scorse

Many supporters of the Iraq War are already preparing to blame the Democrats for “losing” the war. For these supporters the primary lesson of Vietnam appears to be that we would’ve won if only we had “stayed the course”: this despite a decade of heavy fighting which killed 2-3 million Vietnamese, left a rural peasant economy drenched in napalm and Agent Orange, took more ordinance than was dropped in all of World War II and cost over 58,000 American lives plus hundreds of thousands wounded, most of whom were supplied via a draft that fell disproportionately on the poor and disadvantaged.

This same reasoning is now being applied to Iraq. After almost five years of heavy fighting that shows no clear sign of abatement, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, and tens of thousands of American casualties*, we are once again being implored to remain steadfast and see the conflict through until we are “victorious”. And once again, as the narrative goes, the only obstacle to our eventual success are the Democrats, who want to draw down forces before the job is done.

I was born at the height of the Vietnam War. I’m too young to remember the political dynamics that played out in the seventies and eventually led to the election of Ronald Reagan and the supposed conservative ascendancy. Today many people suggest that the Democrats risk the same fate as they did 40 years ago, when their credibility on national security evaporated, if they force a withdrawal from Iraq and the situation gets even worse.

I do not think this scenario is likely to transpire, mainly because I do not think the parallels between the Vietnam era and today really hold up. The sixties were marked by enormous cultural changes (e.g., the civil rights movement, women’s liberation, increases in teenage drug use and sexual promiscuity) that came to be associated with the Democratic Party, and against which many Americans ultimately wearied of and rebelled against. It’s now 2007 and society has advanced dramatically; today it is the GOP’s perverse and hypocritical moralizing on social issues that is out of step with the rest of the country. In addition the only Democratic president in the seventies was Jimmy Carter, who was easily caricatured as a peacenik. Today all of the first and second tier potential Democratic presidential nominees have gone out of their way to portray themselves as tough on national security.

None of this is to suggest that the Democrats do not have their work cut out for them. Even if America elects a Democratic president in 2008, he or she will face the daunting and delicate task of somehow extricating the United States from Iraq and will have to take responsibility for the outcome. Given how badly the war has been managed I suspect that the American people will grant a Democratic president a great degree of leeway when things (as likely) become chaotic and messy. No one expects Iraq to become tranquil overnight or a Jeffersonian democracy anytime soon.

It seems to me that Americans are more sophisticated and reasonable than the war’s major supporters, who talk of “victory” as if it were some abstract concept devoid of costs and benefits: as if “victory” were something that we could simply will into being if only we stick it out. The public understands that there are many pressing issues, both domestically and abroad, and that it is time that the Iraq War no longer be the primary focus of so much energy and national resources.

Unfortunately, our fates will be entangled with Iraq’s for a very long time, but I believe that Americans will cut the Democrats some slack even if things get worse before they get better.

As long as Democratic leaders offer a comprehensive vision of how to make America safer and more prosperous, and devote sufficient resources to the task, both political and financial, I think the political fallout of withdrawing from Iraq can be minimized.

*Total U.S. casualties are over 30,000: 3790 dead and 27,004 wounded.

Jason Scorse

You probably don’t deserve what you have. Neither do I.

Despite what we like to tell ourselves about meritocracy, the greatest predictors of a person’s lot in life are things completely out of their control: where they were born and their genetic inheritance.

Let’s take my life as an example. I was born a white male into a middle class educated family in New York City with above average intelligence (at least according to standardized tests). From the day I was born a relatively prosperous life was almost guaranteed; it was laid out for me on a red carpet. All I had to do was go through the motions—elementary school, high school, college, career. At the same time there are tens of millions just as able as I, who were born in other parts of the world, who live their lives in squalor and misery for no other reason than the injustice of random fate.

None of this is to suggest that there aren’t exceptions to the rule; there are some privileged kids who experience tough times, and there are some who rise from poor upbringings to great success. (Even these individuals were likely hampered or helped by their genetic predispositions.)

My point is not to portray the world as a deterministic product of class and genetics; it is not. Individual choice and action are essential and societies must provide incentives for people to strive.

However, the fact that individual fortune is so much a product of things beyond a person’s control presents the greatest argument in favor of progressive government policies. The philosopher John Rawls long ago noted that if we had no idea where we were going to be born and with what attributes, the types of redistributive policies that we would favor would be much different than the ones that we currently employ.

As always, for all redistributive systems, the “devil is in the details”. Many utopian schemes (such as communism) can easily backfire and make life worse off for nearly everyone.

But the notion that individual merit alone should be the basis for society’s rewards should be laid to rest once and for all. Let us reserve praise for those who take their gifts and use them to do extraordinary things, and to those whose gifts and opportunities have been limited and yet against all odds have managed to succeed.

The rest of us deserve little praise or blame.

P.S. An article on the new "Gilded Age" in today's NYT shows how the basic points outlined above are still not universally understood.

Jason Scorse

Having had some time to digest my three weeks in Europe, I am struck by the extent to which the European political and media culture is generally sophisticated and serious. During the French election and Gordon Brown’s ascension there was no talk of how gay marriage posed a threat to Western Civilization, no debate over evolution, not a single word about whether a woman’s right to choose should be revoked, and the politicians never argued over whose fealty to god was stronger. With decades of experience fighting terrorism, Europeans are fully engaged in the intelligence and police work necessary to, if not eliminate the threat, greatly reduce the risks, and the citizenry do not live in fear. The media in Europe is much more aggressive than in the U.S., and the tough questions are almost always asked.

None of this is meant to romanticize Europe and European political culture. Europeans have plenty of contradictions and serious problems of their own. The parliamentary systems they employ often end up in gridlock, the assimilation of Muslim immigrants has been terribly slow, and there are serious structural issues in many of their economies that will be difficult to address. But I am confident that the Europeans will ultimately be up to the task; talk of the “demise of Europe”, particularly by commentators on America’s political right, is extremely overblown.

When you contrast the seriousness and sophistication of European political and media culture with the last six plus years in the States, America comes out looking infantile. On issue after issue American politics has been reduced to soundbites best befitting a grade B movie or a network sitcom. More time has been spent debating a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage than on some of our biggest national security issues. More time has been spent rallying against immigration reform than on global warming. While much of the blame for the debasing of American political culture rests with the GOP and the rightwing noise machine that supports it, the Democrats have not been free of blame. They have been cowed into defensiveness and posturing of their own.

There are encouraging signs, however, that the American people are tired of the level to which our political discourse has sunk and a return to seriousness is imminent. Bush’s approval ratings are at historic lows and there is a real sense that people finally see through all of the lies, stupidity, and incompetence of this Administration (according to the Pew Research Center, “incompetent” is the word most people now associate with President Bush).

Last week I was ecstatic to read about the TV anchorwoman who refused to cover the Paris Hilton saga and instead continued with a discussion about serious issues. As always, the blogosphere is ahead of the mainstream media, and beginning to do investigative reporting of its own that is top-notch. While this medium was in its infancy during the 2004 campaign, it showed its strength in 2006, and it will be an even more powerful force in 2008.

The Democratic “big three” – Obama, Clinton, and Edwards – are all serious figures who have helped to raise the political discourse to a more sophisticated level. No one can accuse any of them of being ideologues. On the GOP side I wish I could say the same thing about the top contenders – Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Thompson – but I can’t. Aside from McCain, who is a serious person regardless of one’s opinion of his politics, the others have displayed many of the same traits that have gotten us into the messes we now face. Given Romney’s bizarre statement that he wants to double the size of Guantanamo (for no apparent reason other than to sound tough), and Rudy’s being unaware that North Korea’s nuclear program is farther along than Iran’s, and Fred Thompson’s sheer vacuity, one can only hope that some serious GOP politicians are waiting to enter the fray.

Above all I want the 2008 campaign to be focused on serious issues by serious people, regardless of party. Anything less would be a blow to America and the world.

Jason Scorse

I’ve been in Europe during the changing of the guard at Downing Street and now comes the news of two large bombs discovered in cars in downtown London. Here are a few observations from across the Atlantic.

Many commentators believe that Tony Blair’s legacy will be forever tarnished because of his support for the Iraq War and perhaps more importantly, his unwavering support of President Bush. This may be true, but it would be unfortunate.

For all his faults, Blair is just the type of politician I wish we had in the United States. He is extremely articulate, fully embraces globalization, and is firmly committed to the enlightenment values that best define Western culture.

Under his watch Britain has prospered for the past decade. In addition, even though his legacy is most closely aligned with the future of Iraq, he actually helped to solve what seemed to be an even more intractable situation at home: reconciliation with Northern Ireland. After decades of conflict, including many terrorist attacks, Blair managed to achieve a peace which none before him had been able to do. This is a huge achievement that should help elevate his status as time goes on.

Europeans have been dealing with terrorism on their soil for a long time; as the bombs discovered this week demonstrate, the threat of terrorism is real and governments must remain vigilant.

But as a friend recently pointed out to me, virtually no one in Europe considers Islamists to represent an existential threat to the West. After two world wars and their own homegrown insurgencies, Europeans are not terrified of scattered bands of Islamists, many hiding out in caves, no matter how determined and hateful they are. Of all of the mistakes we have made in the past six years, to me none is greater than not recognizing this essential fact:

Terrorism only works if we allow ourselves to become terrorized.

Jason Scorse

There has been a pronounced rightward shift in U.S. high courts that is impossible not to notice. Not only has the Supreme Court begun to chip away at women’s rights, the Justices have made it easier for prosecutors to purge juries of those opposed to the death penalty, have sided with employers in discrimination suits, and appear likely to strike down key components of affirmative action.

For those who value minority rights and the rights of the public against special interests, these results are deeply troubling. But there may be a way to reverse much of the damage, and ironically the solution is consistent with a key conservative position.

Conservatives have long railed against what they perceive as “judicial activism”: judges interpreting statutes instead of enforcing them, in essence playing the role of the legislature. The right has been able to get this viewpoint accepted despite the fact that multiple studies have shown equal, if not increased, judicial activism among the most conservative justices. Judicial activism, then, is really no more than a code word for decisions that conservatives don’t like. While there is no doubt that it is a real phenomenon, it’s hardly the exclusive domain of liberal judges.

The solution, as conservatives see it, is for legislatures at all levels to pass laws on the key issues, and to be precise in their lawmaking and not leave so much room for judicial interpretation. For example, in the recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that a woman could only sue her employee for pay discrimination within 180 days of the discriminatory act, the Court made clear that Congress could change the law if it found the 180-day period unreasonably short. Smartly, Hillary Clinton immediately promised to do just that.

From a conservative viewpoint this is exactly how the process should work: justices objectively interpret the law and effectively send the case back to the legislators, who can then change the law if they are unhappy with the interpretation.

Given that the country is slowly and steadily moving in a more liberal direction on virtually all social issues, as well as on the environment and civil rights, members of Congress and presidential hopefuls should begin to advocate more use of legislatures as the preferred method to advance their agendas. The legislatures in fact have already begun to act: New Hampshire recently legalized civil unions for gays, and New York and California are currently contemplating legalizing gay marriage. As I have mentioned before, the Democratic Congress should enact a federal law establishing once and for all a woman’s right to control her reproductive decisions, and a Democratic President should repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” anti-gay policy.

The Far Right targeted the courts for decades and its efforts paid off as more right-leaning judges received judicial appointments. It’s time for the Left to exercise the power of the legislature to reverse the erosion of civil and minority rights in the name of the people they represent. The Right will no doubt be unhappy, but the irony is that this is what they have been advocating all along; as the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for.

Jason Scorse

I returned this week from a trip abroad during which I interacted with many Europeans. The experience made me ponder a nagging question: how do Americans stack up against our counterparts in Europe with respect to cultural awareness and knowledge of world affairs? While my sample size was relatively small and clearly biased, I think my conclusions could withstand a more rigorous analysis.

We Americans are truly less culturally knowledgeable than our European counterparts. Most Europeans speak at least two (often three plus) languages, travel extensively throughout the varied regions of Europe, and know far more than the average American about history and geography. While some of this is due to simple population densities and a first-class rail system, it is nonetheless fair to say that Americans are relatively ignorant compared to Europeans on the cultural front.

With respect to current world affairs, here too I think the Europeans have a significant edge. Their general level of knowledge regarding current conflicts, as well as the political situations in countries apart from their own, is more sophisticated than the average American. It is safe to say that almost nowhere in Europe would you encounter polls showing such widespread ignorance on important basic questions (for example whether Iraq had WMD or whether the scientific consensus is that humans are at least partially responsible for the greenhouse effect).

However, when it comes to important moral judgments and the interpretation of world events, Europeans can be just as myopic, shortsighted, and biased as the Americans they criticize.

Europeans have a very negative attitude towards America because of the Iraq War. They view America as a bumbling hegemon led by a tough-talking Texas cowboy poseur. Despite the (not insignificant) truth in these perceptions, Europeans are reluctant to admit the extent to which they rely on American power and the ways in which their Enlightenment values must sometimes rely on military might.

I asked some of those I encountered why no European power, such as France or Germany (especially Germany), had considered sending troops into the Sudan to stop the genocide, both for humanitarian reasons and to show the world that other powers besides America could be relied on to promote human rights in a meaningful way. My question was always met with lame excuses or silence. I mentioned American intervention in the Balkans, in which it was unilateral American power that stopped the ethnic cleansing by the Serbs. Again, crickets. Europe lives under an umbrella of American military security, but Europeans are more apt to criticize the size of the U.S. military budget than to acknowledge their reliance on it.

The world would be a better place if Americans moved closer to the European model with respect to cultural awareness: it would be great if we spoke more languages and could find Iraq on a map, all the while not shying away from our recognition that democracy and liberty must be backed by military power. (In my view Barack Obama, with his international experience and liberal global vision, comes closest to this ideal among the current presidential hopefuls.)

On the other hand, Europeans would do well to acknowledge that sometimes it is necessary to back a commitment to liberal democracy and secularism with force; not all uses of military power are illegitimate and the result of imperialist design. Their hesitation to rely on military force is certainly welcome, but not their unrealistic and sometimes dangerous rejection of it in its entirety.

Jason Scorse

We are nearing the end of the first decade of the 21st century and yet it is still true that the color of a person´s skin is probably the best predictor of their material standard of living. On my recent trip to Brazil I saw this firsthand and was struck yet again by the enduring legacy of slavery and racism.

In the elite neighborhoods of Rio de Janeiro and other Brazilian cities, the residents have almost entirely European features and the overwhelming majority of blacks are maids, street cleaners, or other service workers. The proportion of national income that goes to whites versus blacks has changed little in centuries and the concentration of wealth is even greater.

The same situation persists throughout Latin America, where the treatment of indigenous people also includes blatant human rights violations and virtual second-class citizenship. Whatever can be said about inequality in America and its racial component, we have come a long way and progressed much further than our Southern neighbors.

But we have a long way to go.

For four decades we have experimented with various methods of affirmative action based on raced-based preferences, which have resulted in significant upward mobility for blacks and other minority groups. That we have a fairly robust and sizeable black middle class and a rising Latino professional class is a testament to the success of affirmative action (which is not to say that many of these men and women would not have succeeded without racial preferences).

But there is a perception that racial preferences are un-American and amount to reverse discrimination. The perception has become widespread; there are too many examples of preferences being extending to the sons and daughters of the minority elite, and patience with affirmative action is wearing thin. Fortunately there is an easy fix that is starting to catch on. By simply changing preferences from race to economic status, we can lose the stigma of race and yet still lend a hand to those at the bottom of the economic ladder, who are disproportionately black and Hispanic. If we also happen to assist poor whites from Appalachia or the Pacific Northwest or anywhere else, all the better.

The second thing that should be done to help ameliorate the effects of racism is to wholeheartedly promote universal preschool education. For a long time educators have realized that a child´s cognitive potential is largely determined before the child ever sets foot in kindergarten. From birth until the ages of 3-4 a child´s brain is absorbing information at a staggering pace. Without significant stimuli, a child´s development during these years is severely handicapped and their potential significantly stymied. Increasingly, researchers are showing that investments in preschool are some of the best that individuals and society can make.

Neither of these policies will completely end the legacy of racism, but they represent improvements over the status quo. They are policies that all countries should adopt, especially those where slavery once reigned.

Jason Scorse

Make no mistake, if there are such things as “activist” judges the five who voted to uphold the Congressional ban on “partial birth abortion” are now the poster children. In a blatantly religiously and politically motivated decision, they ignored recent court precedent (only 7 years old), based their decision on discredited science, and interjected arguments about protecting women from their own decisions (because according to the “conservative” mindset, women are feeble and infantile and need to be prevented from doing things that they will later regret). It was a low point for a court that has not lacked for low points in recent years.

What is particularly sad is how predictable it was, and how Democrats never mounted a real fight to prevent it from happening. Replacing Sandra Day O’Connor, a moderate female judge, with Samuel Alito, a far right Scalia copy, who during his confirmation hearings made it clear that he still resented the “irresponsibility” of the 1960s, left no doubt about how the Court would change. Alito’s confirmation hearings even revealed memos that he submitted to the Reagan Administration outlining the exact strategy for stripping women’s rights that he helped put into effect in the latest decision.

But I think there are a number of silver linings worth noting. In fact, I think this decision may end up being a gift for progressives in their struggle to protect women’s rights. Here’s why:

1. Progressives need to confront the ethical challenges that late-term abortions pose. As I noted on VoR long ago, both extremes in the abortion debate lead to immoral policies. Those on the right who elevate embryos to the status of human beings strip women of their fundamental right to control their bodies, in addition to preventing medical advances that could well save millions. Those on the left refuse to acknowledge that a developed fetus has at least some rights: there is a point short of nine months when the fetus is sentient, conscious, and can feel pain.

Instead of trying to ignore this, progressives should be asking why significant numbers of women let pregnancies develop so long that a procedure hardly distinguishable from infanticide becomes necessary. No doubt there are cases where complications arise late in a woman’s pregnancy that threaten a woman’s health and make this procedure necessary; but just as surely there are cases that arise for less defensible reasons. Since the far right wants to criminalize abortion, their efforts to restrict and regulate the procedure are justly viewed as nothing but interim steps towards their ultimate goal; they cannot be trusted to have the best interests of women at heart. Only pro-choice progressives, who have fought and defended a woman’s right to choose, have the trust and confidence of women. It’s up to them to make a good faith effort to see that late-term abortions become even more rare. Perhaps they can never go down to zero, but that should be the goal. If progressives can get beyond the belief that any questioning of any abortion is a betrayal to women, they may realize that this issue provides an opportunity to continue to win over the public.

Abortion is an issue where the middle ground has it right. A strong majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all 50 states in the early part of pregnancy. This is when the embryo or fetus is in a pre-conscious state (and in fact when millions each year are destroyed through natural miscarriages). But the public recognizes that at 4-5 months these fetuses not only start resembling babies, they can also think and feel. So people want restrictions on late-term abortions: not because they want to deny women’s rights, but because they have legitimate moral qualms about destroying sentient beings.

The left must realize that affording moral status to highly developed fetuses does not make them “sell outs” and does not “buy into the right-wing frame”; it is instead an honest attempt to grapple with the issues that abortion presents. If they can make this leap, the left will find that public opinion supports their position.

2. This brings me to the second silver lining. If Roe v. Wade is ever overturned the conventional wisdom is that the “blue” states will legalize it and the “red” states will criminalize it in varying degrees, creating a patchwork of rules and regulations. What seems more likely to me, however, is that a federal law requiring all states to permit abortions would be enacted by a Democratic majority in Congress (Eliot Spitzer of NY has just produced a model for this type of legislation). This law would immediately be challenged and the case would make its way to the Supreme Court. The Justices would have to decide whether Congress has the right under the Commerce Clause to regulate abortion. Since women denied abortions in one state would obviously cross state lines to receive abortions, any sensible reading would indicate that of course Congress has this right.

More importantly, the Court’s recent ruling for the first time upheld a federal law regulating abortion. This gives the Court its own precedent validating this reading of the Commerce Clause. Justices Thomas and Scalia, recognizing that the precedent they were setting could be used to enact laws in favor of abortion rights, made it clear in their concurring opinions that they were not deciding on the merits of Congress’s authority, just on the specifics of the regulation. They obviously wanted to leave open the door to their ultimate goal: not only to overturn Roe v. Wade, but to deny the federal government any ability to require states to permit abortions.

Would three more Justices agree with such a radical position? A position which would obliterate centuries of precedent, and throw into question literally hundreds of Commerce Clause cases? After decrying “activist” liberal judges and saying for decades that abortion should be decided by the legislature, would five Justices have the nerve to deny the government this power? I don’t think so: it would destroy the Court’s reputation and legitimacy for decades. I cannot see a scenario where Chief Justice Roberts (or even Alito, who is if anything an incrementalist) would agree to this reading.

3. This brings me to whether the recent decision is a step towards overturning Roe v. Wade. I think it does the opposite. It further strengthens Roe because, more than anything, every new case that affirms Roe’s basic structure, as this did, solidifies Roe as precedent. While no doubt the Court undermined some of the spirit of Roe, particularly in its disrespect for women’s ability to make decisions for themselves, Kennedy in his majority opinion went out of his way to affirm Roe’s fundamental tenets. I think a woman’s virtually unfettered right to an early-term abortion has less of chance of being overruled now more than ever. I may be wrong. We will see what new obstructions the far right comes up with, and which if any the Court upholds.

Jason Scorse

It never takes long after a major tragedy in America for rightwing extremists to lay the blame on evolution and/or abortion.

After the Columbine massacre Tom Delay had this to say:

“Guns have little or nothing to do with juvenile violence. The causes of youth violence are working parents who put their kids into daycare, the teaching of evolution in the schools, and working mothers who take birth control pills.”

After 9/11 Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said that the ACLU, abortionists, feminists, gays and People For the American Way shared the blame for the attacks.

Karen Hughes, counselor to the president and now Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, once tried to compare supporters of abortion rights with terrorists when she said, “the fundamental issue between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life” (Tell that to the Iraqis, whose civilian deaths we refuse to count).

And now in the wake of the Virginia massacre we have these words from Pastor Parsley, president of the Center for Moral Clarity in the “On Faith” section of the Washington Post:

“Choosing a world view that excludes God and disregards the value of human life makes the unforgettable scenes from Virginia Tech possible.”

(Apparently Pastor Parsley didn’t read what the Virginia killer had to say about his motives, such as this: “Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people.”)

Obviously, the rightwing extremists in our society and government don’t care about facts. The places in the world where abortion is safe and legal are by and large the most peaceful and prosperous on earth; the societies where abortion has been criminalized are by and large repressive and filled with violence. Aside from most of the Middle East and Central Asia, take Brazil, where abortion is illegal except in cases of rape and incest: in the last five years almost 2,000 minors have been murdered in Rio alone.

The rightwing doesn’t seem to care that there are over 200 million guns in the hands of Americans, half of the world total for small arms, which helps to fuel the approximately 30,000 gun-related deaths per year. In fact, America is an anomaly in terms of the high level of violence in a country where abortion is legal.

But again, facts are beside the point. Even if abortion were criminalized (which will fortunately never happen; more on this next week) the rightwing would find someone or something to blame for the violence that persists because their worldview is not amenable to reason.

At the same time that we are told by the far right that our domestic violence is a product of our moral decay, President Bush tells us repeatedly that we are at war with terrorists because they “hate our freedoms”. Which freedoms I wonder? I doubt Osama Bin Laden cares that we have 500 channels to choose from or 10 types of toothpaste or even that we can own guns; he probably respects that part of our culture.

What bothers the Islamic terrorists is that we have freedom from religion. For the Islamists this is the greatest sacrilege: to have the arrogance to be a secular society. Islamists also hate the fact that women are free in our society, free to dress in skimpy clothes, free to be the bosses of men, and yes, free to control their own reproductive decisions.

This is where the rightwing’s narratives collide. On one hand they want us to believe that all of our problems are due to our secular society, but the freedoms of this secular society are supposedly what we are fighting to protect. The rightwing can’t have it both ways.

The far right’s continued efforts to criminalize abortion demonstrate their insistence that women are morally and intellectually infantile and that their bodies should be subjected to the whims of a patriarchal state; their continued attacks on evolution demonstrates that the far right wants to discredit basic science; their persistent and hate-filled attacks on homosexuals demonstrate that they want a sexually oppressive and unequal society. All of these goals are shared by the Islamic terrorists with whom we are at war.

I have one humble desire for our next president. I want him or her to work to strengthen, not undermine, the basic freedoms and liberties that our enemies despise. I want there to be nothing in common between the goals of my government and the goals of the Taliban, Al Qeada, Iran, and the rest of the Islamic extremists who are the enemies of free and just societies.

Jason Scorse

The internet has been going strong for over a decade now, but there is a lively debate about whether it is truly a democratizing force or whether its grassroots potential is still dwarfed by traditional forms of power. I for one believe that the internet is radically changing our democracy and empowering new actors in positive ways.

Take political fundraising. While many large donors and their elite events still grab major headlines, the internet has elevated grassroots fundraising to a new level. A few million ordinary people each giving $50-$100 to a campaign can generate tens of millions of dollars and catapult candidates into the first tier of a race. Just ask Barack Obama, who has a growing army of 100,000+ donors that he is building mainly through his website. Learning from the success of Howard Dean’s internet rise in 2003-2004, Obama is not only raising phenomenal amounts of money, but his website emphasizes the movement over the money. Individuals can join groups, find and host events and invite others into the campaign.

While Obama leads the Democratic field in utilizing the internet’s potential, Democrats similarly are way ahead of Republicans. Instead of simply asking for money, Democrats are using the internet to create a sense of togetherness and to engage users in the cause. This is a striking development given that Republicans have long held the advantage with mailing lists and grassroots fundraising.

This brings me to the second significant aspect of the internet: the rise of political blogs. Sites such as Dailykos, in which any user can post a diary that is then rated by others and can rise to the top of the main page, affords huge audiences to ordinary people based solely on the merits of their ideas, not their credentials. In addition, the comments section allows all users to actively participate in the conversation.

Almost all blog writers are not “professional” journalists, yet their writing often rivals or is better than what appears in major news sources. Their off-the-cuff style may be offensive to some, but the candor and lack of political-correctness on the blogosphere is a welcome development when the mainstream media’s op-ed sections seem to be dominated by sycophants too lazy to fact-check their claims.

And these days many stories that otherwise would have slipped by the major news outlets are being heard because of bloggers. Case-in-point is the recent work by the writers at Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo, which led to the heightened interest and eventual whirlwind surrounding the purge of U.S. attorneys.

And the left-leaning sites appear to offer much greater reader engagement than right-leaning sites; to my knowledge the right has no site that rivals Dailykos in its community participation.

Like all other mediums the blogosphere has increasingly become concentrated, with a relatively small number of blogs dominating computer screens around the country; at the same time the blog medium itself is profoundly more democratic than traditional media. No no-name will ever get an op-ed job at the New York Times, but the internet gives every unknown the chance to reach huge audiences by working hard and building a following. Who knew Atrios before Dailykos got rolling?

The extent to which bloggers might ultimately blunt the influence of Washington’s chattering class and the highly paid consultants who dominate the Democratic and Republican parties is still unclear, but any diminishment of their power is to be welcomed.

All in all I think the internet is proving extremely beneficial to democracy, with its full potential yet to be exploited. This is good for the country and ultimately good for the world. The citizens of China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Cuba aren’t going to forever watch the rest of the world actively engage in open and democratic societies without demanding freedom of their own.

Jason Scorse

Last week’s piece sparked an interesting discussion on the issue of principles versus political pragmatism. Here are three instances where this dilemma presents itself, and some thoughts about them:

1. Voting for third-party candidates

Many people view voting for third-party candidates as simply throwing away one’s vote in protest. Since a third party candidate has never won major national office in the U.S. there is some empirical evidence to support this. However, third party candidates have definitely influenced the outcome of at least three presidential elections. Ross Perot’s double digit showing in 1992 likely cost George Bush Sr. reelection and ushered in the Clinton era. Based strictly on mathematics, Ralph Nader surely cost Al Gore the election in 2000. Historians also generally agree that Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party handed the presidency to Woodrow Wilson in 1912 over the Republican Taft.

In the case of Perot, most of those who voted for him likely leaned Republican and their votes resulted in the election of a candidate with a much different set of political principles. A significant number of those who voted for Nader likely were more politically aligned with Gore and yet helped usher in the second Bush presidency. This lends credence to the view that third-party voters often hurt their own causes.

So did these voters make a principled stand or did they actually sell out their principles by putting into office those they opposed?

I don’t think there is an easy answer.

There is something noble about voting one’s conscience. If we really want things to change we have to take a stand (think of Lyndon Johnson’s signing of the Civil Rights Act, which he knew from the start would cost the Democrats the South). Even though it infuriates some, Nader is right that from his perspective Gore took away votes from him; there was nothing stopping a Nader presidency if this is what the people really wanted. We live in a democracy and a serious challenge to the two-party system is probably a good thing in the long-run. In addition, those who believe that voting for third-party candidates is harmful always have plenty of time to convince people why they should vote instead for one of the major candidates. In the case of Gore in 2000 I have a hard time blaming Nader voters for the loss; Gore should have won in such a landslide that Nader’s 97,000 votes in Florida would not have been an issue.

My main issue with Nader voters (and third-party voters in general) is their motivation. If it’s a sincere vote for a different set of principles that one believes would be better for the country then I’m all for it, but what bothered me about the Nader campaign was the insistence that Democrats and Republicans were essentially identical and that Nader represented the only legitimate alternative. This is sheer folly, as the last six years have made abundantly clear. Anyone who thinks that a President Gore would have been no worse than the current president needs to have their head examined. The differences were evident in 2000 and they’re even more evident now on a whole range of substantive issues, e.g., foreign policy, taxes, the environment and civil rights.

2. The federal government or states’ rights

A common belief among conservatives is that contentious social issues should be resolved individually by states. They believe (rightly) that there is no Constitutional right to an abortion and therefore that states should be able to decide for themselves whether to ban it or allow it. Except for those calling for an amendment to ban gay marriage (and civil unions), conservatives feel the same way about gay rights. This stance is often championed as pragmatic and entirely consistent with “original” Constitutional principles; in truth it is little more than a cover for bigotry and the diminishment of civil rights.

Since when have states been on the forefront of increasing liberty in America?

If it weren’t for federal laws and rulings by the Supreme Court, many states would to this day have extremely racist laws, such as laws against biracial marriage. Until Lawrence v. Texas a few years ago, numerous states had extremely anti-gay laws on the books; many have actually increased their anti-gay statutes through anti-gay marriage initiatives that deny partner benefits (e.g. in Virginia and Michigan). If Roe v. Wade were overturned many states would immediately criminalize abortion, thereby setting women’s rights back generations.

Given these realities I think that insisting on federal laws that protect a women’s right to abortion and federal laws that treat gay partnerships equally are the only viable option for those who believe in liberty. This means that national majorities on key issues of civil freedoms must trump the desires of individual states to impose oppressive policies in the name of local democracy.

Fortunately, this principled position is also pragmatic politically. As the religious right has become more extreme on social issues the country has become more tolerant and liberal, and the base of social extremism in the South is becoming politically isolated. A political party that stands for federal guarantees of basic equality for gays and a women’s right to choose will have majority political support. (This is one of the reasons why sometimes I think it would be a good thing if Roe v. Wade were overturned; it would create the opening for federal legislation to maintain abortion rights).

3. Negotiating with terrorists and despots

Conservative commentators are correct to point out that this week’s deal with North Korea represents negotiating with a member of the “axis of evil”. The deal even includes a U.S. promise to remove North Korean from the list of terrorist-sponsoring nations.

Throughout our history we have not only negotiated with dictators and evil rulers but actively supported them when we believed it was in our interests. Probably most notorious was our pact with Stalin in 1945 which allowed almost half of Europe to fall under Communist rule. We supported Saddam Hussein during Iraq’s war with Iran, even selling him the ingredients for the chemical weapons he later used against the Kurds. Even today we support dictators, strongmen, and oppressive regimes in various parts of the world, including the Middle East, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

Arguments in favor of dealing with dictators and rogue states come largely from the realist school, which argues that a nation must pursue its self-interest even if this means accepting practices abroad that we would never accept at home. In a world where the choice is between a bad regime or a worse regime (think the Iran-Iraq War), we cannot simply refuse to work with either regime based simply on principle when our interests are at risk.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that by compromising our principles and dealing with despots we actually undermine our long-term interests since only a sustained commitment to democracy and human rights will truly create a world where our security and commercial interest are best served.

Again I don’t think there are simple answers; we must examine situations on a case-by-case basis.

For example, is there anyone who really thinks we shouldn’t deal with President Musharraf of Pakistan simply because he’s a dictator who shows no signs of democratic reform? I don’t think so. Yet there is little doubt today that our support of Saddam Hussein in the 1980’s was unnecessary and a mistake. It was never clear that a victorious Iraq was better for us in the long run than a further emboldened Iran; and Hussein’s eventual use of chemical weapons and his numerous other atrocities clearly put us in a morally untenable position.

To be continued.

Jason Scorse

The 2008 presidential field is already stocked with solid candidates, particularly on the Democratic side. For a party that arguably was robbed in 2000 and watched its hopes slip away in 2004 it is hard not to be upbeat given the depth and strength of the current lineup. On the Republican side things do not look so good; all the major candidates have significant weaknesses in a climate already leaning Democratic.

But two years is an eternity in politics so any predictions made now are essentially meaningless; literally anything can happen.

Although currently I support Barack Obama for president (see his recent speech where he officially launches his campaign here; it is excellent), I am still open to changing my mind. I will even go so far as to say that although I have never voted for a Republican for president, I could envision scenarios in which I would do so in 2008. Bottom line: whoever is most aligned from either party with the personal qualities and values I believe in will get my vote.

So what are those attributes?

1. Good judgment

I can’t emphasize this strongly enough. The president is a generalist who must delineate responsibility to groups of experts and then make final decisions when presented with alternative policy options. Judgment is essential in choosing those best-qualified to run governmental departments as well as the assorted experts who are called on to advise them. When it comes to making final decisions I want someone who I trust will make a serious effort to use reason and empirical evidence, and weigh costs and benefits. Those who are blinded by ideology, who do not demand the best information possible, or who allow their biases to interfere are likely to make bad judgments and repeat them.

2. Sound policy principles, not plans

I consider myself a policy wonk, and yet even I don’t want too many policy details from candidates. Plans change dozens of times once Administrations come to office and Congress has a huge role in shaping them. What I want are principles. Case in point: health care. I want candidates committed to universal healthcare, but I’m not concerned about specifics in 2007 for something that likely won’t be debated until at least 2009. Second example: gun control. I would like to know that a candidate believes that the federal government should do more to clamp down on illegal guns, but I don’t need to know whether they want to reinstate specific weapons bans.

3. Core non-negotiable values

There are core principles of liberty that I want a candidate to stand for equivocally. These can be deal breakers for me. Examples:

- Abortion rights: candidates can talk all they want about the legitimate desire to reduce abortions, but they must support this fundamental woman’s right.

- Gay rights: as much as I support gay marriage I am willing to concede that in the current climate it is not feasible. At the same time candidates must support civil unions, oppose a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, and oppose the ridiculous “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military.

- Separation of church and state: I look forward to the day when a declared secular humanist can run for president and have a serious shot. Today, at a minimum, candidates must make clear that religion can never be used to end conversation or policy discussion (even if they believe it should be included as part of the broader debate), and that science will always trump religious ideology.

4. The ability to be a uniter, not a divider

I don’t care whether a candidate would be fun to have a beer with (that’s what friends are for), but congeniality and the ability to work across party lines are extremely important given the challenges we face. A recent book on the Supreme Court makes the case that the most successful Justices were not those who were the brightest or had the sharpest ideological positions, but those who could woo their colleagues and forge consensus positions. This is a skill that should not be underestimated.

5. Speak articulately about the way forward and the positive role of America in the world

I don’t need fancy words or masterful rhetoric, just someone who can get across a positive and encouraging message consistently, who can help to rekindle the positive image of America in the world, and speak for all Americans, not just those of their own political party.

Anything I’m missing?

P.S. Check out my friend's new site: Headline Junky. It is more of a detailed day-to-day analysis with very good writing and insights. Definitely check it out.

Jason Scorse

It costs hundreds of billions of dollars, there’s no end in sight and tens of thousands have been killed. It is empowering our enemies and weakening our friends.

I’m referring to the “war on drugs”, probably the most misguided set of policies in the world today. It is a war that attempts to defy the law of supply and demand, eradicate one of the core desires of human beings and use military force to solve a social problem. All the while this “war” uses empty moralizing to mock freedom and liberty, diminish individual rights, and perpetrate a form of racial and class warfare that would make the KKK proud. In short, it is a delusional set of policies with disastrous consequences. I am 100% certain that people will look back and wonder how we could have been both so blind and so stupid.

In this piece I do not intend to list all of the facts that underlie my assessment; they have been documented ad nauseum for decades. Check out these websites: here, here, here, and here for detailed accounts of the grim statistics and how your tax money is being thrown down the drain. And here is a collection of essays in William F. Buckley’s ultra-conservative National Review on the utter futility of the “war on drugs”. In addition, a couple recent examples of collateral damage and violations of international sovereignty in the "war on drugs" are here and here.

What I want to focus on in this piece is one aspect of this war which is not as prominent as it should be, and which provides an opening for a courageous politician of either party.

A commitment to promoting families and “family values” is now something that all serious candidates for higher office must demonstrate. For most rightwing politicians this somehow has morphed into a bizarre platform of anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-sex education policies, combined with calls for greater censorship of the media (for sex only, of course, violence is okay). For the left, the issue of “family values” is somewhat vague and usually comes wrapped in calls for greater education funding, health care, and sometimes censorship as well.

But in the end, it is difficult-to-impossible for the government to legislate values. The problems that lead families to disintegrate are due to complex factors that have nothing to do with election cycles. There is no doubt that sex education and better health care can make a difference, but there is one policy shift that would have a dramatic and almost immediate effect on family life in America: the decriminalization of most illegal drugs.

Hundreds of thousands of families each year are devastated by the incarceration for drug offenses of mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, and uncles and aunts. Most of these offenses are non-violent, yet in many states they are met with hard time in prisons full of violence-prone people. Not only is this insanely unjust, but it hits the most vulnerable families the hardest, which are disproportionately minorities. Treating drug addiction not as a crime, but as an illness, would dramatically improve the lives of millions of people. No longer would children have to visit their parents, siblings and other relatives in jail; no longer would they become increasingly jaded and disconnected from society; no longer would they continue to use drugs behind bars. Instead they would be eligible for treatment programs, community service and other rehabilitation efforts.

Would this be a panacea? Of course not. But the current policy is simply unsustainable. We will eventually have to treat drug addiction as what it is: a health problem, not a criminal problem. In addition, casual users should be no more stigmatized than those who drink a few beers, smoke cigarettes, or pop one of the hundreds of legal drugs that Americans consume by the billions each year. It is not a crime to catch a buzz; it is an elemental part of human nature. (And as studies continue to demonstrate, many illegal drugs such as marijuana are safer than alcohol or tobacco.)

It will take a brave politician to state the obvious. The inevitable smear will surely follow, accusing him or her of being “soft on crime”. This in turn will be compounded by the prejudice that we have for people who choose to get high on things other than what are considered socially acceptable.

But the politician who breaks through this delusional fog and changes the terms of the debate will help to usher in a new era, one that will truly help families and ultimately end the “war on drugs”. This will be a legacy worthy of the highest praise.

P.S. On a completely unrelated note, I have entered my first novel into a writing competition on gather.com. If you're interested, you can read the first chapter and leave comments. Thanks.

Jason Scorse

This past week was historic: the first woman Speaker of the House, a minority member for House majority whip, the first Muslim Congressman (sworn in using Thomas Jefferson’s personal Koran no less, a move that could not have been more brilliant), and only the second black governor in U.S. history. What all of these public officials have in common is that they are Democrats. While the GOP talks diversity, it is the Democratic Party that best mirrors the true diversity in American society.

Not only did the Democrats pass meaningful (though by no means comprehensive) ethics reform on their first day in charge, but their “first 100 hours” agenda consists of popular, common sense measures that will surely increase Congress’s approval rating. Democratic proposals include an increase in the federal minimum wage, federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and allowing the Government to negotiate prices for prescription drugs under Medicare.

All of this portends good news for the Democratic Party, which, despite all of the nonsense we have heard over the past years about Karl Rove’s genius, is poised to become the dominant majority party for the coming decades; the GOP, meanwhile, is shrinking into a Southern regional party powered mostly by religious fanatics and racists.

But on the biggest issue of the day - the Iraq War - the Democrats will soon face a huge dilemma: to what extent should they oppose Bush’s escalation of the conflict?

This week the president is expected to announce an increase in U.S. troops in Iraq. He has already shuffled the generals and intelligence officials in charge and brought in those who are more predisposed to an escalation. For all of the promises of a “new strategy,” what is likely to unfold is more of the same: adding more blood and treasure to a failed policy. The spectacle of Saddam’s execution should have been the final straw to convince the American people that supporting the Iraqi government is not the key to “victory”; it is a government that is in league with Moktada al-Sadr and the Shiite extremists. We are well past the time when military force could succeed in Iraq, and the insurgents can always wait out our troops since they know we have to leave sooner or later. Only when Iraqi leaders agree to real compromise will there be any semblance of stability, and this has little to do with whether we have another 20,000 boots on the ground.

All of this puts the Democrats in a quandary. They know that Bush’s plan will cost many more American and Iraqi lives. They know that the mess will be left in the lap of whoever takes over the White House in 2008, likely a Democrat. They know that their constituents want them to oppose Bush and insist on bringing the troops home.

But Bush is the commander in chief and has the power to wage war. Pelosi and Reid sent the President a strongly worded letter urging him not to escalate the war, and they can hold hearings to expose its futility. But the only way the Democrats can bring the war to a stop is by moving to cut off funding, which carries huge political risks. It could easily result in a huge backlash against the Democrats, and provide an opportunity for Republicans to blame Democrats for our eventual defeat.

So what to do?

Twice in the past I have insisted that the American people voted for Bush and therefore, he should be given the benefit of the doubt to carry out the foreign policy he believes in. I have made the case that this is his war and he should fight it his way to its conclusion. I am fully aware of the moral dilemma this poses, even while Iraq grows more dangerous and costly by the day. But I essentially think this is how the Democrats should proceed. They should make it clear that they strongly oppose his policy, hold him accountable for it, but not threaten to withdraw funding. They might have the middle-ground option to authorize funding for continued operations but not for additional troops, but this would get tricky: almost certainly Bush would find a way to escalate the conflict, which would put the Democrats in an even greater bind.

In conclusion, this is a terrible situation with no good outcome. Elections have consequences. When the American people voted for Bush in 2004, after he had displayed incompetence and hubris and showed that he was out of touch with reality, they made an error that America, Iraq and the whole world continue to pay for. Democrats will not be able to remedy the situation until 2008 at the earliest, when they get a chance to restore sanity to the White House.

P.S. It seems as if Pelosi just this morning suggested that the Democrats will try to take the "middle way"; fund current troops but not additional ones without sufficient "justification". This is going to get really interesting really fast.

Jason Scorse

As 2006 ends I am both nervous and hopeful about the prospects for 2007. Nothing better encapsulates why I feel this mix of emotions than Tony Blair’s recent essay in Foreign Affairs, which I wish everyone would read carefully.

The first thing that struck me is how articulate Mr. Blair is. He has always been the superior spokesman for the ideological worldview that underlies his support for the Iraq War and the “global war on terrorism”.

So what are Blair’s main points?

1. The attacks of 9/11 were the product of a growing global ideology of radical Islam, not simply the work of a few isolated madmen.

2. We are not in the midst of a “clash of civilizations”, but in a struggle for civilization itself.

3. Islam itself is not the problem; in fact Islam has many elements that are eminently reasonable and progressive.

4. Poverty is not the root of the problem, and the problem will not go away if we withdraw our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

5. The ideology of radical Islam must be confronted everywhere.

6. We must support those in Iraq and Afghanistan who stand for democracy regardless of whether or not the war was justified.

7. The ultimate struggle is for modernity and global liberal values. These are much more than just security, and include new multilateral trade deals, protecting human rights, and fighting climate change.

Let me begin with what I find hopeful about this message. Mr. Blair is one of the liberalism’s wisest defenders of the past decade. He gets the big picture. He understands that you can’t promote democracy and then torture people, that the Doha Round of the WTO is as important for beating terrorists as expanding democracy, that America must take the lead on environmental issues that have potentially huge security implications. Put simply: Mr. Blair is one of the champions of enlightenment values and we owe him great respect.

But with respect to his perception of the “enemy” and how to combat the forces of radicalism, I do not think the facts support Mr. Blair’s worldview.

Let us start with Iraq. Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. While it is certainly true that there are elements in Iraq who want to see democracy fail in order to establish a Taliban-like state, most of the conflict is motivated by the oldest reason in the world: power. The Sunnis are afraid of being disenfranchised and the Shiites want to take full control; there is nothing particularly ideological about it at all, and the jihadists are only a small part.

While supporters of the war continue to put their faith in the Iraqi government, it is becoming increasingly hard to tell the “good” guys from the “bad” guys; some of the worst elements in Iraq, notably Al Sadr, are part of the democratically-elected government. In addition, it is reasonable to assume that once we leave Iraq Al Qeada will be weakened, not strengthened, because many powerful groups in Iraq view them as enemies and are already engaged in fighting them, while our presence serves as a recruiting tool for the jihadists.

We also should not let Mr. Blair off the hook about the original motivation for the war. He says that radical Islam should be combated everywhere. I agree, which is exactly why attacking a weak non-threatening secular regime was a bad idea.

Finally, Mr. Blair is surely aware that the radicals who killed more than 50 British citizens in bus and train bombings were themselves British citizens, as are the majority of the 1,600 Muslims in Britain who are currently under heavy surveillance. The murder of Theo Van Gogh in Holland was committed by a Dutch middle class citizen. Bin Laden and his affiliates are mostly middle class and Western-educated. And where is their support coming from? Primarily Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. While the threat of terrorism might not go away if we left Iraq, there is little doubt that these men have been further radicalized by the invasion and occupation.

In summary, when I listen to people like Mr. Blair I am hopeful because of their strong and unwavering commitment to liberal values. Philosophically I agree as well with the neocons, who also believe strongly in freedom and democracy. I believe that American power can and should be a force for good in the world (e.g., personally I wish that America would unilaterally invade Sudan and crush the perpetrators of the Sudanese genocide).

But I diverge with Blair on tactics and strategy. As I have said many times, democracy is not a precondition for peace and liberal values. Democracy can bring people like Al Sadr or Hamas to power. In Saudi Arabia and Pakistan it would likely bring Al Qaeda to power.

The war against Islamic radicals is much more a long-term ideological struggle than it is a military one. As to the practical matter of defeating and deterring the individuals who are actively seeking to do us harm, it seems increasingly obvious that this is best done through intelligence gathering and global law enforcement efforts, not by the crude use of military force.

That people as smart as Mr. Blair don’t seem to get this, even after these past four years, is what makes me worry.

P.S. A few comments on Saddam’s execution: 1. Read the description of what happened at the execution and it will make you sick to your stomach; Saddam’s executioners prayed to Al Sadr, whose militia the Defense Department has recently indicated is the #1 threat in Iraq (yes, greater than Al Qeada). 2. The whole affair in Iraq is becoming a sicker and sicker travesty by the day, and this banana-republic show trial is just one more page in a downward spiral. 3. None of this is to suggest that I am sad that Saddam is dead; I am sad that the greatest nation on earth is so morally adrift that “victory”, no matter how elusive, has become a hollow term.

Jason Scorse

Well, you know, maybe that requires understanding the Middle East a little first. But even a little understanding seems like too much to ask from our elected representatives.

Investigative reporter Jeff Stein has been going around the nation’s capital for the last few months quizzing our politicians on Middle East Basics 101. And guess what, they’re failing miserably. Incoming Intelligence Chairman Reyes didn’t even know that Al Qaeda is a predominantly Sunni group, not predominantly Shiite (and remember the odds were 50-50 he’d guess right.)

This should give all of us pause, but especially those neocons who advocate overthrowing regimes throughout the Middle East by force. It is not only crazy to entrust these people with such radical missions, it is also immoral.

Reasonable people can disagree on the original rationale for the Iraq War (although I don’t think there can be reasonable disagreement that it has turned out to be a failure), but I think everyone can agree that a prerequisite for a policy as radical as preventive war is at least understanding the people you’re warring with. It’s not too much to ask our leaders that if they want to invade a country and initiate a radical transformation of the Middle East that they have a solid understanding of the history, culture, and politics of the region.

I fear that instead America’s worst instincts have been at work. After 9/11 we needed to lash out at an enemy and we believed that somehow a massive show of force in Iraq would initiate a new Middle Eastern reality. It turns out that this thinking was grounded more in our delusions than in solid analysis. We continue to use broad brush strokes to categorize people who are divided along many religious, cultural, ethnic, and political lines. We have further united our enemies against us and divided our allies. We have disempowered the Baathists and empowered Iran. In short, we have set in motion forces that were in some sense predictable if they had been grounded in an understanding of who we were dealing with—but they weren’t.

Hopefully, this should serve as a serious warning to all of those interested in an aggressive foreign policy. Just as classic liberal economists showed us why in many instances government intervention to solve domestic problems may do more harm than good, the same applies for foreign policy. I am not advocating isolationism, only stating what should now be obvious: our leaders should focus on protecting America and weakening its enemies, not on grand utopian visions of radical transformation brought about by military force.

P.S. Coincidentally, this Sunday's NYT has a short "refresher course" on Middle Eastern basics that is worth reading.

Jason Scorse

Freedom is a word with many meanings. Yet it more than anything defines liberal democracies, and differentiates us from many of the “un-free” Muslim and Arab societies with which we are at odds.

Throughout Western Europe, which is experiencing an influx of largely unassimilated Muslims, there is the perception that some freedoms need to be curtailed in order to ensure that Muslim immigrants conform to European norms. In the Netherlands the Dutch have just passed a law banning the burqa and other types of Muslim clothing, and France has already banned the Muslim headscarves in schools. (In one of the biggest infringements of free speech in a liberal democracy, the Austrians have made it a crime to deny the Holocaust.)

While some of these laws are understandable from the standpoint of a people worried that its cultures and traditions are slowly being eroded by a foreign illiberal wave, they are largely misguided. What is needed is a careful clarification of what freedom means in the context of liberal democracies, including which ones are non-negotiable and which are more fungible. Tony Blair has begun to lay out such guidelines, making a point of which aspects of liberal democratic society in Britain all immigrants must respect if they are to be welcomed.

The bedrock principles of liberal democracies are equal rights for all, including women and minorities. Also, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom from unlawful persecution, and freedom of association. The Western powers should go out of their way to make clear to the Muslims and Arabs who live in their societies that these elements are non-negotiable for all members of society; that where these principles conflict with Islamic principles, it is the principles of freedom that win out. The tenets of no religion or culture can supersede these basic freedoms.

At the same time it should also be made clear that all aspects of a person’s culture and way of life that do not conflict with these basic freedoms are left entirely up to them. If women freely chose to wear burqas or headscarves, fine; it is only when they are coerced that it is wrong. People are free to celebrate whatever holidays they want, and to practice their religion openly and freely; the West welcomes new cultures with open arms. (Keeping in mind of course that limits on freedom of speech and association for those who incite violence have always been a part of liberal democracies, and are not aimed at Muslims or Arabs).

In summary, there are fundamental rights that must be honored by everyone in a liberal democracy, and these need to continually be repeated and reinforced. However, members of other cultures should not be made to feel that all aspects of their cultures are under attack by the West.

Putting this in the context of American society, where we have been much more successful at assimilating minority religious and cultural groups, it is the U.S. Constitution that lays down these liberal democratic principles while it paves the way for an ever-evolving American culture. Those who argue that we are a Christian nation are wrong; we are a constitutional democracy that does not draw whatsoever on Christianity for its structure. However, it is correct that America’s cultural mores have predominantly been of the Judeo-Christian variety, including our holidays, slogans, and dominant religion. This can and likely will change. As the makeup of the American population changes so will our culture; we will further integrate the Hispanic and Muslim cultures, all the while maintaining our constitutional tradition.

A side note: It is ironic that demagogues such as the rightwing radio host Dennis Prager, who confuse and obscure the difference between our liberal democratic legal foundations and our cultural history, advocate contradicting our legal statutes in order to promote a narrow view of American culture. Prager caused a stir when he recently said that the new Muslim Congressman-elect must take his oath of office on a Bible and not a Koran. In reality, our legal tradition requires neither, nothing more than one’s right hand held in the air, and the Congressman has every right to choose to use a Koran for symbolic purposes as a representation of his culture. Prager’s insistence demonstrates that the right wing only believes in freedom of religion when it is Judeo-Christian religion; it is quick to call for unconstitutional rules, which infringe on religious freedom, when other religions seek a place within American culture. (The American Family Association is lobbying for a new law that requires swearing on the Bible for public office.)

Jason Scorse

I have come to believe that the root of fundamentalism (which has spawned some of the most virulently anti-liberal and violent behavior in the world) is a dysfunctional view of sexuality. I know it seems extreme to boil one of the great geopolitical struggles down to this level, but I think the facts bear this out.

Let us begin at home. The most recent gay sex scandal involving the now-disgraced evangelical leader Ted Haggard has opened a window into a world that tens of millions of Americans belong to that most of us who live in cities, especially liberal ones, have no connection with. In this world, sexual purity, defined as no sexual experience outside of heterosexual marriage, is viewed as the ultimate virtuous behavior. Not only is homosexuality viewed as a temptation by the devil, but premarital sex and even masturbation are viewed as abhorrent in the eyes of God. Best-selling books by evangelical authors are dedicated to fighting the “evil urge” to masturbate and men with homosexual tendencies are “cured” through shock therapy. What is perhaps most sad and disturbing about this latest episode is that Mr. Haggard is so full of self-loathing for his homosexual behavior that he has committed himself to healing by none other than one of the most anti-gay bigots in the country, James Dobson of the Family Research Council (who recently said that he is too busy to counsel Ted). Mr. Haggard goes so far to deny that homosexuality even exists.

The obsession with sexuality has spilled over into the virulent anti-gay activity of many on the Christian Right and is also intimately linked with their campaigns against sex education. In addition, much of their case against abortion rests on the view that sex is strictly for procreation and nothing more. To an outsider like myself, the more I learn about the inner workings of the Christian Right, the more I realize what an unhealthy and combustible mix it is. It has established a movement with an almost singular focus on sexuality, while at the same time creating conditions in which sexual confusion and frustration thrive. By denying the genetic nature of homosexuality and associating virtually all sexual desire with shame, the Christian Right creates mandates that lead to profound cognitive dissonance. It then funnels the frustration people feel when they can’t live up to these impossible and unrealistic ideals against liberals, gays, lesbians, and Hollywood (recall, Jerry Falwell blamed the attacks of 9/11 on just these groups.)

At the other end of the spectrum, halfway across the world, we have the Muslim fundamentalists, who blow themselves up believing that they are going to be rewarded in paradise with 72 virgins. If there is anything more obviously driven by sexual dysfunction I don’t know what it is. Because of the disempowerment and distrust of women throughout much of the Arab and Muslim world, many Muslim men experience their first sexual relations with other men (and yet, in six Muslim countries homosexual acts are punishable by death). This too leads to extreme forms of shame and self-loathing. The belief that men are unable to control their wicked sexual impulses is so strong that a Muslim cleric in Australia just went on record saying that women who don’t cover themselves deserve to be raped because they have tempted men (and he is just one of many). The entire cultural phenomenon of covered women is little more than a means to control sexual impulses and achieve some unattainable and unhealthy version of sexual purity.

While I do not have statistics to back me up, I can say with some confidence that people who are comfortable with their sexuality are some of the most contented people in the world, while those who are sexually conflicted and frustrated are among the least contented. I believe this level of contentment is inversely correlated with many antisocial behaviors, including violent aggression, the need to scapegoat vulnerable groups, and the need to force others to conform to one’s own view of reality.

Where this all leads I am not sure. I do not want to downplay the problems that some people encounter when they engage in sex with numerous partners, including sexually-transmitted diseases. Nor do I want to discount the needs of children, who require loving and committed parents.

How to strike a balance between sexual freedom and acceptance of non-traditional views of sexuality with a commitment to strong relationships and family is difficult. But there is no doubt in my mind that fundamentalism at its core is driven by sexual dysfunction and that until this issue is approached head-on we can look forward to more gay-bashing, violence against women, and suicide bombers. If there really is a clash of civilizations it is between the fundamentalists and liberal society, and the most potent issue that separates these two groups is their views towards sex.

P.S. Someone read my piece and forwarded me a link to one of Bill Maher's rants that's too good to pass up. Check it out- it's hilarious and on the money!

Jason Scorse

Last year some of the top military commanders in charge of Guantanamo prison came to Monterey to brief the community on conditions at the prison and the government’s policy towards detainees (An Air Force brigadier general named Hemingway, a Naval rear admiral, and an Air Force colonel). This was part of a larger campaign to address the public’s growing unease with an unjust system that was weakening America’s credibility in the world.

During the Q&A I asked the brigadier general how we could claim war powers to hold people without charge when the “war on terror” was so ill-defined and could perhaps go on indefinitely. The general responded that this was a serious question that had yet to be addressed, but which needed to be. He said that terrorism posed a new threat that required new definitions and that the government still hadn’t fully grappled with this issue.

A year later, and five years since 9/11, we still don’t have a clear definition of what this conflict is, and what defines success. The new detainee bill that recently passed in Congress strips Guantanamo prisoners of the right of Habeas Corpus and puts them in an indefinite legal limbo.

That we are this long into the struggle and still have not come up with a sensible definition of the conflict is a disgrace to our American system and the rule of law. By this time into WW I and WW II we had prosecuted the wars and declared victory, yet today we don’t even know what “victory” means. This wouldn’t be so terrible is it weren’t for the immense extensions of executive power and the diminishment of civil liberties that have accompanied this struggle, which we are routinely told will take generations.

The contradictions of our current policy were no more evident than in a recent NPR interview with John Yoo, the primary architect of the Bush Administration’s legal strategy in the post-9/11 period. While Yoo makes a persuasive case that presidents have always had the power to hold people indefinitely who are caught on the battlefield, when pressed to say how long that power can reasonably last he reiterated what the general said last year: we don’t know since we haven’t defined victory.

But Yoo made an additional statement that demonstrated the Administration’s lack of seriousness on the definitional issue, and contradicted President Bush as well. Yoo said that perhaps a good metric for defining the end of the conflict would be when most of Al Qaeda’s top leaders are captured or killed. While this sounds reasonable, it directly contradicts Bush’s own contention that the war is much broader then Al Qaeda. Also notably absent from Yoo’s remarks was how the Iraq conflict relates to his definition, since none of the major Al Qaeda figures are in Iraq. If Yoo and the President can’t agree, it seems clear that the Administration is not really serious about defining the “war on terror”.

This should come as no surprise.

The Bush Administration does not want to define the war because then it would have to justify an entire set of policies that have specious connections to the true terrorist threats, and it would also by definition constrain its own power. The result is that we are stuck with an Orwellian “war without end” in which presidential power is virtually unchecked and anything the president deems a threat can be lumped under the general heading of the “war on terror”.

My guess is that Bush will leave office without ever articulating a definition of success in the “war on terror”. We will still have hundreds of alleged terrorists in U.S. custody, many of whom were grabbed in large sweeps and are likely not terrorists, and who will not get the chance to contest the charges against them. Recall, these are the same prisoners that are constantly referred to by Bush as “some of the world’s most dangerous terrorists”, when in fact they are alleged terrorists since little evidence has ever been brought against most of them. This is precisely why we need the checks and balances and judicial oversight that this Administration has constantly tried to supersede. (What is worse is how they have cynically implied that anyone who questions their policies is abetting the terrorists.)

It will be up to the next president to clarify this struggle and restore our system of civil rights and checks and balances (There are signs that the Democratic Congress may begin work on this). We can argue all we want about the fine points of presidential power (and reasonable people of differing political persuasions can disagree), but it is unarguable that the Founders did not intend presidential war time powers to last for decades within the confines of an ill-defined struggle. That is simply un-American.

P.S. Don't forget to check the headlines for the latest news and commentary.

Jason Scorse

I have never believed that “all politics is local,” and this week’s election finally laid that myth to rest. This was a referendum on a presidency and a national GOP political culture of corruption, incompetence, and misguided priorities both domestically and abroad.

Here are a few things I take away from the midterms that you may not have already heard:

1. George Bush’s and Karl Rove’s style of conservatism was a fraud from the start

I never understood why Democrats seemed scared of their shadows for the past five years and didn’t stand up to Republicans. They somehow fell victim to the belief that they were being pulled under by some huge “conservative” tide that in fact never existed. Bush ran on a platform of moderate, “compassionate” conservatism in 2000 and lost, not only the popular vote but by all objective standards probably Florida as well.

The reason the GOP won in 2002 and 2004 is simple: 9/11. People rallied behind the president and the GOP because we were attacked in a most horrific way. If Bush and Rove had used the huge reservoir of goodwill that 9/11 gave them to promote center or even center-right, positions, they may have been able to build a formidable GOP majority. But they didn’t; they turned the government into a clearing house for special interests, cut taxes disproportionately for the rich, prosecuted a war with criminal neglect, and took numerous far-right positions such as interfering in the Teri Schiavo case and vetoing federal stem-cell research.

They blew the election because they used the cover of 9/11 as a mandate from heaven to do as they pleased even if the majority of Americans opposed it. When the history books are written these men will not be treated kindly.

2. After trying to convince people that Democrats have horns, what is the GOP to do?

I look forward to Nancy Pelosi unveiling her agenda and all of the Republicans who tried to convince people that she was going to paint the White House pink and start confiscating everybody’s property are left looking like the fear-mongers they are. Raising the minimum wage, reducing the power of drug companies to dictate prices, promoting stem-cell research, and bringing accountability to the government are things Americans want, by very large margins.

There is now only one centrist party in the country and it is the Democrats. Yes, the GOP has a dwindling few moderates in its ranks, but most were ousted because people finally realized that given our two-party political system these moderates were by default enabling the corrupt GOP Congress; sorry Senator Chafee. One only has to look at the party leaders and platforms to realize that the GOP has become an extremist party out of step with the electorate. Since it is independents and moderates who decide national elections the GOP is in big trouble. This is especially true in the West, where people are sick of a government that tries to get in their bedrooms while at the same time giving subsidies to energy companies to despoil their backyards.

3. The “big tent” Democratic Party is fine, don’t worry

All this nonsense about how difficult it will be for the Democratic Party to operate given that it has some new, more conservative Congressmen and Senators is just that; nonsense. After five years of trying to ram a far right agenda down our throats, the American people will surely have plenty of tolerance for a party that is unified on core principles, even if there is some disagreement on a few issues.

And the Democrats are smart.

On issues even as contentious as gay rights, guns, and abortion, there are some very sensible middle-ground positions they are likely to support. The few “pro-life” Democrats can work to reduce abortion rates through increased family-planning, contraceptives, and adoption services (you know, the things that actually work); the gun rights people can work on enforcing the laws on the books and helping to track illegal firearms (again, the sensible stuff), while Democrats who are opposed to gay marriage can at least promote civil unions (which most Americans agree with) and move us away from hatred and bigotry.

If you want to look for division and blood-letting, don’t look to the Democrats, look to the GOP.

4. The coming implosion of the GOP

The GOP’s rise to national power was always premised on an odd assortment of essentially contradictory movements: religious extremists & libertarians, big-business special interests & small-government fiscal conservatives, foreign policy realists & neoconservatives. It was possible to hold this coalition together (just barely) when the country was sick of almost 40 years of Democratic Congressional rule and after 9/11 when the country was united behind the president. But the fissures were going to blow eventually because so many of the positions of these coalitions are mutually exclusive: you can’t both believe in personal freedom and want to fully criminalize abortion, you can’t believe in individual liberties and want to amend the Constitution to deny gay rights, you can’t try to spend your way to popularity and call for smaller government; and you can’t try to champion opportunity and believe we should deport 12 million illegal immigrants.

I predict a major realignment within the GOP because the religious extremists in the South are simply not large enough to sustain the party; moderates and independents are necessary. Hopefully, this will mean that the GOP returns to its core principles of the 1960s and 1970s and the religious right will be marginalized. This will be much better for the country and move us all towards the center, which is where we should be (and haven’t even been close to during the Bush presidency).

A couple of last points. A few hundred votes in the other direction in either Montana or Virginia and the GOP would still hold the Senate; in our winner-take-all system, voting has become increasingly important. Probably one of the greatest successes last Tuesday was the relative lack of major voting problems or charges of fraud; our democracy is chaotic, imperfect, and the electorate sometimes reacts too slowly, but ultimately it works. And that’s a huge victory for the reality-based community.

P.S. Don't forget to check Recent Headlines for all the latest key news from around the globe.

Jason Scorse

I was obviously wrong about Mark Warner becoming the next president; so much for political predictions (but he still may be the next VP). Taking his place as the new attractive “centrist” candidate is superstar Barack Obama, who is currently on a tour promoting his new book, The Audacity of Hope. On “Meet the Press” last week Senator Obama opened the door for a possible presidential run in 2008, and since then speculation has grown about whether he will actually take the plunge after the midterm elections.

I think he should without reservation and here’s why:

1. He is one of the most articulate speakers out there. Even if policy-minded folks like me prefer substance more than style, the latter still matters a lot in American politics (which is probably why an economist has never been president). And not only is Obama articulate, he is charismatic and good looking as well.

2. He is a fresh face with no baggage. There is already a palpable fatigue with the Bush and Clinton dynasties; personally I could think of nothing worse than replaying the same battles of the past two decades if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Obama is the face of the future: a man of mixed race who has lived all over the world. He is cosmopolitan to the extreme. What could be more refreshing for American politics than to move beyond the old, leftover arguments from the sixties that still find expression in the political bickering of today.

3. Obama actually thinks about the issues; he is decidedly non-ideological. It is a sad testament to American politics that this isn’t a given for every president, but anyone who has watched George Bush these past six years knows that he is driven more by ideology than by reason and facts. This is always dangerous, and never more so than at a time when we are fighting battles that demand nuance, subtlety, and constant evaluation. If Obama were to become president the contrast between him and Bush would be striking in a dramatically good way.

4. He is centrist in the right ways. As my VoR piece a few weeks ago outlined, political centrism, while often viewed as weak and diluted, actually presents positions that are the most well-reasoned, take the best positions from the Left and Right, and combine them into workable policy. On matters of policy implementation Obama is a pragmatist who would work to achieve the desired outcomes, and not be bogged down by notions of whether the policies are labeled “liberal” or “conservative”.

5. He transcends easy classification. While most Democrats are easily caricatured as “too liberal,” Obama doesn’t fit into the typical frames of liberal v. conservative, which is very appealing to the growing number of independents and moderates. In addition, the old labels convey little meaningful information, and do more to obfuscate than illuminate.

6. His position on the Iraq war is consistent and sensible. Obama is the only potential Democratic nominee who argued strongly against the war and has said unequivocally that he would not have voted for it. He makes the case that it has been a terrible strategic blunder and incompetently managed. But when it comes to deciding what to do now, his tone is more measured. Many on the anti-war Left believe that he is trying to have it both ways, and are upset that he isn’t calling for immediate withdrawal. But like most Americans, Obama is genuinely torn; he knows the war was a mistake but also knows that how we end it will have serious repercussions for American security. He wants to think it through and weigh the options. Obviously, if he chooses to run he will have to clarify his position, but there is nothing wrong with being unsure of the best course at this juncture; it is in fact intellectually honest.

Will Obama run? Who knows. Some say that he is waiting to see how Harold Ford does in his senate race in Tennessee. While overt racism is no longer as prevalent in America, there is still the underlying fear that many whites would not vote for a black man for president (even if they said they would in polls).

I hope Obama runs. I think he could beat Hillary for the Democratic nomination, and beat whoever the Republicans put forth, including McCain (though I don’t think he will get the Republican nomination). I like to imagine a time a few years from now when Obama is making speeches from the Oval Office that are eloquent, inclusive, and hopeful, and we come to fully realize how this is the type of president our country deserves. We will wonder how it was that we tolerated the divisiveness, the fear-mongering and the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration for all those years.

If you have any doubts about Obama check out this interview.

Jason Scorse

While many voters consider themselves pragmatic centrists (perhaps even a majority), those who are deemed “centrists” are often viewed negatively among loyalists of both parties, who believe that centrism connotes intellectual weakness, excessive compromise, and a lack of strong ideals.

I want to reframe centrism as the political philosophy that takes the best ideas of all political persuasions instead of simply being viewed as either watered down liberalism or conservatism. In addition, centrism should be viewed as a philosophy of governing that is concerned primarily with societal outcomes, and less so with ideological purity. It is a more humble philosophy that allows for unintended consequences, continually updated assumptions, and the sincere desire to take into account opposing viewpoints.

The following are a few examples of centrist positions on key issues:

1. Educational opportunity

Centrists recognize that our nation is rightly focused more on providing equal opportunity than on guaranteeing equal outcomes, and that education is the key driver of opportunity in our society. Adequately providing educational opportunities requires some degree of economic redistribution, while also making sure that incentives are in place that allow for personal responsibility and choice. A system of progressive school vouchers would be an ideal centrist educational policy.

2. Health care

Centrists recognize that our system of health care is inefficient and ineffective because bureaucracy costs are exceptionally high by world standards, tens of millions of our citizens are uninsured, our businesses are at a disadvantage because in all other industrialized nations business do not have huge health care liabilities, and there is little incentive to invest in preventative care that saves lives and money when one’s insurer at a young age will likely not be the insurer during old age. Centrists also realize that an entirely state-run health system would be a disaster, but that some form of nationalized system that guarantees everyone basic health care is the direction we must move towards. Some form of mandatory coverage within a private-run system combined with health vouchers for the poor is likely the direction to go.

3. Drug policy

Centrists recognize that the “War on Drugs” is an abysmal failure based on any sensible metric, as well as an infringement of basic rights that is contrary to our democratic ideals. A centrist position on drug reform would emphasize the decriminalization of most drugs, a focus on drug use as a health and educational issue, while maintaining stiff and severe penalties for those who use drugs in situations where there is an increased chance of injuring innocent bystanders (i.e. driving while intoxicated or harming children).

4. Foreign policy

Centrists recognize that the promotion of democracy and human rights should be a centerpiece of our foreign policy, but that sometimes these goals can conflict (as in the case of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Shiites parties in Iraq). There is simply no guarantee that majorities will choose peace or the promotion of human rights. For this reason, centrists favor a focus on clear and present dangers to the U.S. and a more gradual and decidedly less militaristic approach to the promotion of democracy abroad, since homegrown movements have a much greater chance of being sustained.

Of all the current crop of presidential candidates, Mark Warner continues to come closest to espousing a centrist philosophy; one of his slogans in fact is the “sensible center”. Hopefully, the time will soon be ripe for someone with his mindset to ascend to the presidency since the country is ill-served by ideologues of either party, particularly ones whose criminal incompetence never ceases to amaze.

Jason Scorse

On a recent NPR show the Berkeley linguist George Lakoff (famous on the left for his work on values “framing”) derided what he called the “rationalist trap.” Lakoff believes that the assumption that voters critically analyze competing candidates’ positions and decide which one more closely aligns with their own preferences is wrong. He believes that voters choose candidates based on a set of underlying values and their general predisposition to the world.

Like most of Lakoff’s analyses there is some truth to what he says, but I believe he is largely incorrect, at least with respect to the voters who matter most in national elections.

Much of the recent discussion on the rationality or irrationality of the American electorate can be traced to the Thomas Frank book, What’s the Matter with Kansas?, in which Frank makes the case that the lower-class rural voters who have switched from voting for Democrats to voting for Republicans have been duped into voting against their own self-interest. I contend that both Frank and Lakoff misread the U.S. electorate. Frank is condescending to GOP voters, while Lakoff is simply incorrect to claim that the bulk of voters (who aren’t intensely partisan) are motivated more by values than by specific policies and issues.

On the contrary, I believe that most American voters are in fact largely rational and clearly do weigh the policies of one candidate against the other when voting in national elections. The fact that the GOP has increased its power in consecutive elections is entirely consistent with this belief. Here’s why:

For the 20-30 million Christian fundamentalists who oppose reproductive freedoms, think that gays should be denied civil rights, and believe in a much greater role for Christian religion in politics, voting for the GOP is entirely rational (witness, as one small example, Bush’s recent veto of the stem-cell bill). If you’re a serious gun enthusiast who wants no restrictions on firearms, the GOP is the party that delivers. If you’re part of the business lobby that wants less regulation (or a hand in writing regulations, which may be even better), the GOP is your best choice. If you favor lower taxes there’s no doubt the GOP is the way to go. If you’re a foreign policy hawk who believes in an aggressive military posture, the GOP will likely better serve your interests. The above constituencies comprise the bulk of the GOP base, and it is clear that the party delivers on its promises.

Whether one agrees with them or not, the overwhelming majority of GOP voters are most certainly voting their interests. The problem is not whether they are rationally matching their interests to the respective candidates, but the fact that many of the values and policies they espouse are not only misguided, but to my mind reprehensible.

The issue confronting Democrats has nothing to do with making inroads among the GOP base, since their values are largely antithetical to progressive values. Democrats need to persuade the large centrist population (that is neither strongly Democratic nor Republican) that they, the Democrats, deserve to lead the country; it is the center, not the right, that has provided the GOP with its small margins of victory. Fortunately, appealing to the center doesn’t require the nonsensical and self-defeating task of trying to “out-God” the Republicans. If the Democrats can only do following, they will have no trouble persuading a majority of the electorate that they are better fit to lead America than the Republicans:

1. Clearly articulate their vision for a sensible foreign policy, state how they will expand economic opportunities for all, and stress their commitment to civil rights. The portion of the electorate that is open to progressive positions on the issues (the overwhelming majority), needs to hear in clear and simple language what it is that Democrats stand for, and why it is entirely rational to vote for them.

2. Be aggressive and fight back hard against any Republican attacks. In this dangerous world, it is entirely rational for voters not to trust our national security to people who can’t even stand up for themselves in the political arena.

3. Put forth at least relatively charismatic candidates. While “likeability” may be the least rational factor in choosing a candidate (after all, a strictly rational calculus would favor an annoying candidate whose positions you agree with over a likeable one you disagree with), the fact is that the public develops rather intimate relationships with their leaders over the years they are in office. This makes it entirely reasonable to desire a candidate who at least comes across as engaging and personable.

Those who believe that American voters are largely irrational either misinterpret voters’ preferences or cannot come to grips with the fact that large segments of the population are willing to vote for values other than their immediate economic self-interest. Fortunately for the proponents of liberal democracy and reason, the percentage of the U.S. population with values that run counter to the Constitution and Enlightenment principles, while significant, does not come close to a majority (at least nationally), and the keys to winning over the majority of American moderates are relatively straightforward.

If only the Democrats could act rationally, we might actually witness a shift back towards a government that supports the public interest and the democratic principles upon which this country was founded.

Jason Scorse

When did the Democratic nightmare take hold? Why does it keep dragging on? Who or what caused it? Not that any of this really matters, but masochism must be served:

Was it the idiot design of the butterfly ballot? Was it philandering Bill, who handed W the only legitimate issue he had (“restore dignity to the White House,” what a bitter laugh that brings now)? Was it Nader, who will forever deny, except in his heart, that he siphoned off more than enough votes to make the difference? Was it the professorial sigh of Al The Stiff, compared to whom smarmy George came off like a living, breathing human being? Was it the Supreme Court, which made the supremely political decision to overrule the majority of America’s voters? Was it John of the Woeful Countenance, poor Swiftboated John, the elitist wind-surfer-turned photo-op duck hunter, a genuine war hero done in by AWOL George and five-deferment Dick (and maybe some shenanigans in Ohio)?

We’ll never know for sure. All we really know for sure is that the Democrats have been stiffed not once not twice but thrice, that the hard right rules the roost, that the country is being governed (as a recent New York Times editorial elegantly put it) to “comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted.”

What a sweet combination; somewhere Grover Norquist must be smiling.

And yet the worst thing that happened in the last six years isn’t the presidency of George W. Bush. The worst thing that happened in the last six years is 9/11.

It was the worst thing, until W took a disaster that touched the soul of America and straight-up politicized it, turning it into a ginned-up war on terror, turning it into a litmus test of macho patriotism, killing tens of thousands of Iraqis, taking the lives of more than 2,500 American troops, physically and psychically wounding thousands of others, devastating a country, handing billions to war profiteers that could have been spent on the real needs of Americans, turning Iraq into the terrorist boot camp that it wasn’t before but has now become.

No other cheerleader in the history of Yale has accomplished so much. As a direct result of these accomplishments (and plenty of others too, though none as tragic), the so-called mainstream media has been prognosticating for months that the long dark night of the Democrats may be ending: the House can be pried from the cold, dead hands of the GOP come November, and with a little more luck the Senate as well.

Would that it were so, but the Democrats are nonpareil at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Against historical odds, they managed to lose seats in the last midterm election; in the middle of an unpopular war, holding to positions that most American voters disapproved of, embarrassed in all three Presidential debates, Bush nonetheless outpolled the doleful Kerry in 2004. Can the Democrats pull off an encore, and once again make Karl Rove look like a genius?

You bet they can, for any number of reasons.

To start with, all the levers of power are in the hands of the GOP. The White House. The Senate. The House. The chairmanships of each and every Congressional committee. So that Republicans, day in and day out, exercise total control of the controllable political agenda. No legislation can even be considered unless Republicans allow it to be considered. No legislation has the remotest chance of passing without GOP support. For all intents and purposes, every Democrat in the Congress wakes up powerless every day.

So the Congress deals not with substance but with ideology. It deals with a marriage amendment that could become the first in the history of the republic to write discrimination into the Constitution. It deals with a flag-burning ban that would betray the First Amendment. It deals, shades of 2004, with anything and everything that might provide red meat for the ravening, ruling Republican right. It deals with anything that would comfort the comfortable (extend the capital gains and dividend tax reductions, repeal the estate tax) and afflict the afflicted (deny, deny, a thousand times deny any increase in the Federal minimum wage). For shamelessness, for greed, for bigotry and hypocrisy, for tinhorn patriotism, the Republican right rises to new lows each day the cock crows.

The Democrats, out of power, hands tied, can only constantly react or constantly oppose. Neither of these are enviable political positions, and there are plenty of others just as unenviable.

For one, consider the no-win dilemma that Iraq presents for Democrats. As loyal Americans, as decent human beings, recognizing the hugeness of the stakes, Democrats have to hope as fervently as anyone else for an end to sectarian violence and the restoration of stability in the country. And if these good and desirable results come to be, who stands to gain politically? It gives new meaning to the phrase “between a rock and a hard place”.

Next up, who speaks for the Democrats? Is it the defeated candidates Gore and Kerry, the former reborn and the latter a reborn wannabe? Is it lightning-rod Hillary, whose nomination would split this country like nothing since the Civil War? Is it Murtha, the latest war hero to have his patriotism impugned by flag-waving chicken hawks? Is it the rising star Obama, or Warner or Richardson or Bayh or Biden?

The hard truth is that nobody speaks for the Democrats: there is no acknowledged party leader, no person to whom deference must be paid, no person around whom Democrats can be counted upon to rally.

So the Democratic position on just about every major issue of the day is both nowhere and everywhere. Not a good place to be politically. And the party is no more unified on the inside than it is on the issues. There’s a huge battle going on between those who, like DNC Chairman Howard Dean, want to spend money building up the party in all 50 states, and those who, like the House up-and-comer Rahm Emanuel, argue instead for pouring all available resources into the races deemed winnable this November.

Can the fractured, without-a-spokesman Democrats possibly win? Of course they can. Bush’s approval ratings may have improved lately, but they’re still way down. The ongoing dispute over immigration reform shows that Republicans don’t always speak as one, and are even capable of defying a weakened president. Survey after survey has shown that Americans have had it with Iraq, and don’t think it was worth it in the first place.

So yes the Democrats could win.

They could also lose. The Supreme Court’s decision on Guantanamo, which liberals immediately applauded, in fact once again raised the issues that worked in the GOP’s favor in 2002 and 2004: liberal judges make wrong decisions, Democrats are weak on national defense.

Will it be Johnny Nash in November (“I can see clearly now, the rain is gone”), or will the Democratic night become even longer and darker? Stay tuned.

Gerald Scorse

I know it’s early to be making presidential predictions but I am going to make one: Mark Warner is going to win the presidency in 2008. I say this happily because out of the entire presidential field I believe he is the best person for the job. Before I get into why I think he deserves to win, let me summarize why he can win:

1. He’s a former governor. Senators don’t win presidential elections; they haven’t in almost 50 years.

2. He’s a Democratic governor from a red state (Virginia); do the names Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton ring a bell?

3. He left office in Virginia with an 80% approval rating; the highest on record for any governor in U.S. history.

4. He is a self-made millionaire (worth almost $200 million), tall, good-looking, well-spoken, charismatic.

5. He has no Washington baggage; he is an entirely fresh face. Haven’t we all had enough of the Bushes and Clintons?

6. He is a dedicated problem solver who became governor in Virginia when the state was mired in one of its worst fiscal nightmares. In four short years he turned it into one of the most prosperous states in the union.

7. He has a record of strong bipartisanship; the Virginia state senate was Republican-controlled under his tenure.

8. He appeals directly to rural voters in an authentic manner and does not come off as a member of the “liberal elite”.

9. Perhaps most importantly, he emphasizes what he is for, not what he is against, and emphasizes looking towards the future instead of the past (something I predicted would be a winning strategy early last year), all of which is just what the American people so desperately want.

Flowing from this last point, here are the reasons why Warner deserves to be our next president:

1. For a long time Democrats have been struggling to define what they stand for; national elections are not successful when run strictly on “opposition” platforms. Mark Warner doesn’t suffer from this problem. He articulates what he stands for, and does not focus exclusively on attacking Republicans. While he is short on specific policy proposals, I think this is actually a plus: Americans don’t vote for policy details, but for overall vision and direction. They trust that their leaders will flesh out the details once in office. On this note, Warner has put forth a very optimistic vision of an America that embraces globalization and technology, expands economic opportunities, and returns to fiscal responsibility.

2. He proudly proclaims himself a Democrat and a progressive, and says clearly why Democratic values are the best values for America. At a time when too many Democrats have themselves in a tizzy over how to attract the elusive (and perhaps mythical) “values voters”, often making the huge error that Democrats need to “out-god” the Republicans (e.g., Joseph Lieberman), Mark Warner has realized that emphasizing the traditional Democratic values of fairness, hard work, civil rights, and opportunity are the key to winning over the majority, and that there is no need to throw bones to intolerant religious minorities.

3. While his foreign policy views have not been entirely fleshed out, so far he is saying the right things. He continually emphasizes the need to deal with the present situation in Iraq, regardless of whether it was right to invade, and so he emphasizes trying to find a workable strategy to bring stability to the country. He shies away both from any mention of specific exit strategies as well as the delusional optimism of some of the war’s more fervent supporters. While some on the left may find his rhetoric too hawkish, to me it strikes the proper balance between caution and a will to achieve some sort of victory, which is not only probably the right course, but also in line with most Americans’ thinking.

4. Finally, if Mark Warner were elected I think we could expect many positive outcomes: a return to fiscal sanity, the appointment of moderate justices who respect individual liberties, a much improved environmental policy, a huge increase in incentives for scientific research, and a significantly improved standing in the world. While partisanship would not disappear, I think it would be much harder for the Republicans to mount aggressive assaults on a man respected by many Southerners and rural voters at a time when the public is fed up with partisan squabbling.

A few additional observations as well:

First, Mark Warner is not a perfect candidate, nor anything approaching a saint. His insistence that marriage can only be between a man and a woman is disappointing, and he has not come out strongly enough against the attacks of the religious right on our liberties. But from all I can tell he is an honest man who is smart, articulate, and would bring a level of integrity to the White House not seen in a long time. His lack of foreign policy credentials could be his Achilles Heel, but I think a tactical VP pick could easily solve this (it worked for Bush).

The talking heads in the media are already saying how formidable Hillary Clinton is, but they are as wrong about this as they are about most things. As soon as Warner decides to run and the public gets a chance to see them side by side, it will be clear that Hillary doesn’t stand a chance. If Al Gore decides to run, I think it will even be better for Warner: Gore and Clinton would have to attack each other to try to win the nomination, and Warner would benefit from their dueling. When he wins the Democratic nomination, I believe that almost all 50 states would be in play. This widespread appeal is exactly the type of politics the Democrats must return to. I am convinced of Warner’s attraction not only on my own account, but because even some of my hardcore Republican friends are prepared to vote for him. (And when he wins, I predict Al Gore as the nominee to head the EPA).

J.S.

P.S. Here’s a link to Warner’s site. Go there, read up on him and urge him to run; when he does, volunteer. Here’s a link to a great interview with him as well.

Jason Scorse

This past week was a bad one for liberalism and free societies in general. President Ahmadinejad of Iran sent an 18-page letter to President Bush in which he stated that liberal democracy has failed humanity and that people are (rightfully) turning to God instead. On the other side of the world, the Bolivian President, Evo Morales, who just nationalized the Bolivian gas sector and has threatened further nationalization of the country’s resources, stated that neoliberalism has failed and that Latin America is on the verge of a “new era” (presumably more failed socialist experiments). At the same time, despite some of the strongest economic growth and lowest unemployment in the industrial world, most Americans are pessimistic about the economy, and increasingly skeptical that the benefits of free trade and globalization are worth the costs.

After the end of the Cold War, it was assumed that the tenets of liberalism--free markets, open societies, private property rights, and democracy--would soon be ascendant throughout the world. Liberal societies had delivered the goods, and liberal principles guided the strongest nations on the planet. So why does the transition to more liberal societies now seem to be lagging, and why has our own ambivalence grown so much in recent years?

While the answer is complex, a few reasons stand out.

One of the hallmarks of societies governed by free markets is the process of “creative destruction” in which the forces of capitalism continually reshuffle the deck of winners and losers and create large degrees of uncertainty. This can come into conflict with the sense of stability and security that people crave. For this reason, some of liberalism’s strongest proponents have also advocated government policies that create social safety nets and redistribute the gains throughout broad sections of the populace. This has been one of the central paradoxes of great liberal societies: in order to ensure that people support free markets, the government must act to ease the pains of transition and ensure that wealth doesn’t become too heavily concentrated at the top.

On this score, the Bush Administration, with its strong aversion to progressive policies, has utterly failed. At a time when the forces of globalization are accelerating, the need for greater stability is increasing; yet within the U.S. the ranks of the poor continue to grow, median income has stagnated, more and more people lack basic health insurance, education has become significantly more expensive, and income (and wealth) inequality has sharply increased. Apart from this indifference to the plight of the lower and middle classes, who have not shared substantially in recent economic gains, the Administration has promoted an energy policy full of subsidies for fossil fuels (and rebates for SUVs Hummers), but little in the form of greater conservation. Such a policy will do almost nothing to help America become less dependent on oil, or ease prices at the pump in either the short or long-run.

On the international front, liberalism sometimes has been a harder sell since it often appears to pit the economic interests of rich superpowers against the interests of smaller developing countries. This (largely untrue) perception can only be overcome if developed countries truly open up their markets and eliminate subsidies, offer trade adjustment assistance to poor countries, and support institution-building, without which smaller nations will not be able to reap the gains brought about by free markets (and will likely lead as well to cronyism and corruption). Unfortunately, over the last few years, the richer nations like the United States have not made sufficient movement towards opening up their own markets or providing incentives for developing nations to complete the latest round of multilateral trade negotiations. The Doha round, dubbed the “development round”, is now stalled with no signs of being reinvigorated anytime soon; this is a blow to continued global economic growth and integration, and to the spread of liberalism.

The Bush Administration shares a large part of the blame and has missed a great opportunity for constructive engagement with the world on the benefits of free trade. Bush imposed tariffs on steel and fought the WTO rulings on cotton export subsidies; its signature development aid program, the Millennium Challenge Accounts, has barely gotten off the ground (despite its good premise).

In addition, the Administration’s foreign policy has given liberalism a bad name. In many parts of the world democracy is now associated with images of war-torn Iraq and Abu Ghraib. The religious fundamentalism we have unleashed in Iraq is actually violently opposed to the very foundations of liberalism, and is yet further evidence that simply holding elections does little to ensure openness and freedom in society. At the same time, visas for foreigners wanting to come and study in the U.S. have decreased (at just the time we need to actively promote the U.S. image abroad), and almost no action has been taken to prevent the Sudanese genocide.

What is so tragic is that not only is the retreat of liberalism a harbinger of diminished economic prospects for countries such as Bolivia and Iran, but the widespread embrace of liberalism would be extremely beneficial to U.S. interests. If the Bush Administration weren’t so myopic in its worldview, it would realize that a concerted defense of liberalism, backed with progressive policies at home and serious engagement with the rest of the world on issues of trade, the environment, and human rights, constitutes one of the best ways to ensure continued U.S. economic prosperity and win allies in the war against Islamofascism.

I am not suggesting that liberalism’s diminished status is totally due to the failures of the Bush Administration; there is plenty of blame to go around. But as the greatest economic and military power, the U.S. is the country with the most clout and influence. Our policies have been inconsistent at best, and in many ways counter-productive. At just the moment when a forceful defense of liberalism is needed, the world instead is getting mixed messages from a superpower seemingly more intent on global militarism than on actually leading by constructive example. (Exception: one area where the Bush Administration has been doing a good job is in fighting international sex trafficking)

Liberalism will ultimately win out over competing ideologies, whether socialist or theocratic, because it is the best set of ideas the world has ever known. No other system of governance has ever led to such sustained levels of prosperity.

The real question is not if all of the nations of the world will ultimately adopt liberal economic and political systems, but when. The “when” matters a great deal, however; whenever liberalism wanes or is ignored, it means less prosperity, less efficiency, less openness, less human fulfillment, and unfortunately, more human misery.

Jason Scorse

Good evening ladies and gentlemen.

I am here today to lay out the Democratic Party’s vision for the future. It is the Democrats who are the party of the future, who have a forward-thinking agenda for America. The Republicans claim that they are the party of ideas; well, they have plenty of ideas all right; bad ideas that are taking America backwards, weakening America’s economy, weakening America’s security.

Democrats believe that government has a constructive role to play in American society: to help provide economic opportunities for all, at all stages of one’s life, to assist people in living up to their full potential, while at the same time staying out of people’s bedrooms and private lives. The Republicans have the opposite view of government, the worst view of government; they want the government in your bedroom, but they don’t want it around when you lose your job or you don’t have access to a doctor.

The economic realities of the 21st century are going to be much different than the 20th century, except for one thing: America will remain the leading economic power as long as Democrats are in charge. We are the party that truly understands the changes that are taking place around us. The world is becoming increasingly competitive and industries are changing at ever-faster rates. That’s a good thing– it means greater technological advances, higher living standards, and ultimately more people around the globe to buy American products.

But what is needed in this century is greater flexibility and education in our workforce. No longer can American workers expect to work for a single company for all of their adult lives. Instead they may change jobs and careers many times, and we need to understand that this is the way of the future. To prepare Americans for this type of society, we need to strive for 100% college attendance in America. It’s not enough any longer to simply finish high school; the goal should be to have our children get a college education as well.

We need to make it easier for people to constantly update their knowledge and get new training. We Democrats recognize this. That’s why we want to make higher education more affordable. And we want to put more money into basic scientific research so that the great innovations occur here in America, especially with respect to energy technologies.

The Republicans are doing the opposite, taking America backwards. They are cutting funding for college loans, making higher education even more expensive. They are fighting science and scientists at every turn, on pollution, on global warming, on the morning-after pill. They’re blocking federal money for stem-cell research. This is a recipe for the end of American dominance and we Democrats will fight to change this course. The Republican Party has become the anti-science party and this is a recipe for failure. Democrats are the party of the future, and will promote scientific advances in all areas of the American economy.

While it is dynamism and innovation that drive our economy, it is individual liberties that are at the heart of what it means to be an American. In America, our history has been defined by expanding individual rights: first to women and finally, through the great civil rights acts of the 1960s, to blacks. In neither case is the job over, and there are new cases before us. These individual liberties, liberties for all Americans, are what makes America great. It is time these same liberties, these same civil rights, are extended to gay Americans. They have been treated like second-class citizens for too long.

The Democratic Party is not pro-gay; the Democratic Party is pro-American, and many Americans happen to be gay, whether they be Democrats, Republicans, Red-staters, or Blue-staters. Gays exist in virtually every family, every church, every company, and every neighborhood all over this great country. If we truly care about healthy families, we must make room for gay Americans by granting them equal rights in all areas of society, including marriage. Those who think that gay marriage will weaken the institution of marriage have little faith in that institution. We in the Democratic Party do believe in the strength of marriage, and we know that gays will only add to its strength.

Turning to women’s individual liberties, let me make clear that the Democrats believe firmly that a woman has the right to control her own body, that a woman has the moral authority to decide what is best for her, and that no one else, especially the government, can tell her when and when not to bear children. At the same time, there is much that can be done to reduce abortion rates and to promote family planning, all of which Democrats are at the forefront of, and always have been.

For those of you out there who are anti-abortion, there is room for you in the Democratic Party to help us reduce unwanted pregnancies, to increase access to contraception and sex education, to increase adoption services, to increase economic opportunities so that women willingly choose to bring their pregnancies to term. The ultimate right of women to control their own bodies is non-negotiable in the Democratic Party, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t all work together to make abortion extremely rare.

Let us also not forget that individual liberties extend to even more basic and cherished American freedoms: freedom from unlawful detention and persecution, the separation of church and state, and freedom of speech.

All of these liberties have been under attack by Republicans, who seem to believe that freedom only means freedom to agree with them and their policies and their particular religious convictions. They have somehow come to the conclusion that just because the president says we’re in a potentially never-ending war that he has unlimited power for an unlimited number of years. That is wrong and backwards thinking. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who believe we must trade liberty for security, deserve neither.”

In all areas of the government the Republicans have tried to inject religion into policy decisions that affect all Americans. This is backwards thinking: policies should be based on the public interest, not on one group’s religious beliefs. Under the GOP we are witnessing attacks on women’s rights in states such as South Dakota, where the legislature seems to think that bringing back the days of back-alley abortions is a good thing. And now we have numerous states, led almost exclusively by Republican leadership, that are trying to ban gays from adopting children; trying to take us back to an era where gays were considered unfit to be parents.

The Democrats stand firmly against this backwards thinking; we believe strongly that religion should not be imposed on people by the government: that is an absolute abuse of our democratic system. As Democrats, we believe that our values and arguments, based on reason, science, and our belief in the freedom and liberty of all Americans, are what this country needs today. We believe this no matter what your religion, no matter whether you have a religion at all.

On the topic of families, the Democratic Party recognizes that the majority of American families don’t fit the stereotypical model. Americas has many single parents, both moms and dads, families where one parent works, some where both do; we have families with gay or lesbian parents, we have adoptive parents, foster parents, all sorts of family situations. All of these families deserve our support; they also deserve policies that recognize their unique circumstances and challenges so that we can ensure that all families are healthy and strong. This includes flexible work hours, increased access to child care, and basic affordable health care for everyone. In the richest country in the world, it should not be a privilege to have access to a doctor when you are sick or your child is not well; it should be a right.

Once again, Republicans want to take America backwards with respect to family values. They only want to recognize one type of family and ignore all others. Under their leadership, health care has become less accessible and nothing has been done to help families cope with the many demands of the modern workplace. They seem more concerned with preaching to America about family values than actually doing the hard work to make lives for all American families healthier.

They spend more time trying to convince Americans that basic healthcare is socialism or would automatically lead to huge government bureaucracy, than actually trying to make America healthier. This is wrong. We can have the benefits of market competition and also ensure basic health care for everyone. If you want an example of a misguided government program, look no further than the Medicare Drug Bill crafted by Republicans. Maybe that’s why they don’t want health care for all; their one achievement in this area has been a disaster!

Our physical and mental health are strongly tied to the environment. And one thing that all Americans have come to agree on is the need for us to be good stewards of the natural environment. Americans realize that it is a false choice between jobs and the environment, or between economic strength and the environment; we can and must have both. Democrats realize this: we want to expand wilderness areas, fully fund the national parks, and make major improvements in air and water quality that will boost productivity and decrease health care costs.

Unfortunately, Republicans once again are stuck in the old thinking that says that we have to choose between the environment and the economy. Backed by their special interests, they have chosen to weaken clean air and water standards, to weaken the Endangered Species Act. They have even tried to auction off parts of our national forests. They seem to think that just because terrorism, jobs, and healthcare dominate the concerns of most Americans that they can operate behind the scenes and undo the environmental progress of the past decades under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The Democratic Party will always be committed to moving forward on the environment, not backwards; committed to seeing that tomorrow’s generation inherits a healthier environment than today. This means that we must take the issue of climate change seriously and begin to enact policies to deal with it. The Republicans want to ignore it and hope it will go away; but it won’t, and it will only get worse if we don’t act.

This brings us to the most important issue of all, national security. Given all the threats America faces, it is crucial that we have a comprehensive national security strategy, not one that simply thinks there is a military solution to every security threat. A comprehensive strategy must look at both defense and offense. It must include risks from global diseases and environmental catastrophes. The Republicans are so fixated on narrow views of national security that even when a hurricane strikes, one that we had a week to prepare for, we were caught off guard. That is unacceptable.

We Democrats believe fully that the U.S. should help spread freedom and democracy around the world; after all, it was Woodrow Wilson who first put forth these ideas. But this has to be done intelligently. America cannot and should not try to democratize regions by military force. The primary role of the U.S. military is to defend against our enemies, not to do nation-building. The Republicans used to believe that, but they have turned that around, again moving America backwards.

In this world we will never be able to kill every terrorist, make ourselves 100% safe from every possible attack; anyone who tells you that is lying. But what we can do is greatly minimize the risks. We can manage the threats and take steps to decrease them so that Americans can feel safer and more secure both at home and abroad. But this requires international cooperation and choosing the right priorities. Most importantly, it requires leveling with the American people at every turn, informing them about what are the gravest and most immediate threats, and what are the costs and benefits of different courses of action. If we are going to ask American soldiers to give their lives to make us safer, the American people deserve to understand exactly what is at stake. The Democratic Party will never scare Americans into action; but when we act we will act decisively, with a clear plan, with sufficient resources, and with the will to achieve victory.

I thank you all for your time. I ask you to help the Democrat Party reclaim American values for the 21st century, and make sure America’s brightest years are still ahead of us.

Jason Scorse

Illegal immigration (overwhelmingly from Mexico) is currently the biggest thing in the news, but unfortunately, much of the rhetoric that surrounds the debate is nonsensical. The issues are complex and difficult, mixing economics, law, culture, and politics; this piece is not an attempt to put forth a comprehensive solution, but instead to lay the groundwork for a more reasoned discussion.

Here’s the reality:

1. The term “undocumented” is an insult to people’s intelligence. People who sneak into the U.S. have broken the law and are here illegally. They are illegal immigrants. If I were to sneak into Mexico, China, or Canada and stay there, I would be an illegal immigrant. Undocumented implies that someone is simply waiting for documents that they are entitled to, which illegal immigrants are not.

2. For those who make the case that the Western U.S. was stolen from Mexico (which it was), I would ask them whether they are willing to give Mexico back to the indigenous people of Mexico (since the Mexican territory was stolen from them by the Spanish). And exactly where would we start, since the Aztecs conquered other native tribes that came before them? The point is that playing the “conquista” game gets us nowhere.

3. Most of the fault for illegal immigration lies with the Mexican government, one of the most regressive and corrupt in the world (especially with respect to other middle income countries). The elites who govern Mexico are the greatest beneficiaries of illegal emigration to the U.S., since they are able to export Mexico’s poor while at the same tome earn foreign currency through remittances.

4. The reason people come to the U.S. is entirely for their economic self-interest. Let’s drop the rhetoric that Americans owe a debt of gratitude to illegal immigrants for picking our crops and mowing our lawns. Most immigrants work hard and provide goods and services, but this is no different than workers in all occupations, whether legal or not.

5. There are two fundamental equity issues that are rarely discussed. The first is that the large numbers of illegal immigrants from Mexico decrease the levels of legal immigration into the U.S. from other parts of the world. The question that should be asked is why poor Mexicans are more deserving of opportunities in the U.S. than poor Asians, Africans, or poor people from anywhere else. Second, illegal immigration from Mexico harms Mexicans who are trying to get here legally. Currently, it takes 15+ years for a legal Mexican immigrant to get a family member to join them in the U.S.; this would decrease dramatically if illegal immigration were curtailed.

Now to the other side….

6. We in the U.S. are largely culpable for the illegal immigration influx: not because we don’t have strong enough border control, but because we do not enforce labor laws at the employer level. The business community has consistently blocked legislation and reform that would curtail its ability to get cheap labor from Mexico. Without serious enforcement, including significant penalties (perhaps even jail time) for hiring illegal immigrants, the wage differential between Mexico and the U.S. is simply too high to stop the flow of workers across the border.

7. Whereas the Mexican government continues to neglect its poor and export them to the U.S., we have allowed illegal immigration to whittle away at the wages at the low-end of our pay scale. This makes it much harder for our own low-income, less educated workers to advance and support themselves.

8. If we were to seriously crack down on the hiring of illegal immigrants it is likely that some industries would contract. Some farmers might switch to labor-saving devices, but some would probably go out of business. In addition, some prices for services would likely rise. At the same time, areas where social services are under strain due to illegal immigration would see their financial prospects improve.

So what is to be done?

The first thing is to face the facts, many of which I have tried to lay out. The next is to think more broadly. We need to have a national conversation about what would be the optimal or ideal amount of immigration to the U.S.? What types of workers? From what parts of the world? This could be looked into by a group of economists, demographers, and business leaders with an eye on trying to balance the needs of different groups in society, protect the public interest, and maximize U.S. economic growth and competitiveness.

Once we have a blueprint for a well-thought out immigrant plan for the future, we could then develop the mix of policies that could help us at least approximate this optimal strategy. Anything that fails to look at the bigger picture will lead to the hodgepodge of reactionary policies, polemical rhetoric, and impractical solutions that typify just about everything currently being discussed in Washington and around the country.

Jason Scorse

Last week I introduced the following mission statement as a summary of what a strong, reasoned, and politically astute Leftist party could use to summarize its key values and beliefs, while at the same time differentiating itself from the right:

We believe that American prosperity depends on well-regulated markets, effective government, economic security as well as economic strength, personal liberty for all, healthy families, and a comprehensive strategy for national security.

This was a starting point, and the comments I received demonstrated that there was much room for improvement. Before I discuss revisions to this statement, let me make a few things clear:

1. The main reason I am suggesting that this vision be taken up by the Left and Democrats is because the Right and the GOP have been taken over by religious extremists, who don’t respect individual liberties, along with corporate cronies who represent the antithesis of true conservative principles (just look closely at the energy bills or the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill). I do not believe that the Democrats or the Left are inherently superior to the Right or the Republicans, and I look forward to the day when the GOP returns to its classic conservative roots.

2. The question that then naturally arises is whether the Left and Democrats are actually serious about articulating and fighting for the values and policies I am trying to lay out; the fact that I seem to be spending more time trying to come up with a concise message than they are is perhaps evidence that the Democrats aren’t serious about putting forth an alternative vision for America. This may be true, but right now the Democrats offer the only short-term hope. If they fail to coalesce around the key values that I believe are essential for American prosperity, it may be time to consider developing a viable third-party in American politics. (As further evidence that the Democratic Party doesn’t get it, their latest motto that they keep pushing is “America Can Do Better”; talk about setting a low bar! I think my idea, “The Party of the Future”, is much better.)

3. The modifications I have made to the above statement were driven not by a desire to “frame” issues in ways that pull on the heart strings, or to make bad policies appear better; both of these are equivalent to putting lipstick on a pig. The Democrats and the Left have spent way too much time wondering whether they should talk more about religion, and about how to sound tough on national security. These efforts seem to me both condescending, and proof that Democrats are largely bereft of their own core values. What they need to do is concisely and clearly articulate consistent principles in the best way possible; that is the exercise in which I am engaged (not choosing the core values themselves, which I laid those out in detail in earlier pieces (here, here, and here).

Once again, I’d like to express my thanks for all of your comments. Here’s the revision of the Left’s new statement of principles, with some additional commentary below:

We believe in economic opportunities for all, the sanctity of individual liberties, promoting healthy families, stewardship of the natural environment, and a comprehensive strategy for national security.

1. “Economic security as well as economic strength” was not the best way to express the key sentiment on the economy. I chose “opportunities” instead of “prosperity” because the free market system does not guarantee outcomes (sometimes individuals or businesses do fail), but we can ensure that everyone has the opportunity to participate and thrive in the market system. Implicit in economic opportunities are the types of policies needed to ensure economic security since individuals with greater opportunities are best able to respond to the changing dynamics brought on by globalization. I also chose not to use the word “fair” because of its unfortunate protectionist connotations.

2. I purposefully used “sanctity” before individual liberties because individual rights are truly at the core of what it means to be an American, and denying these rights is a major breach of American tradition (let alone the Constitution). We need to remind people that we don’t live a country where the majority simply tells minorities what they can or cannot do, but where individual choices and freedoms are afforded great deference.

3. Just about everybody agreed with the phrase “healthy families”. What I particularly like about it is that it alludes to health care (which currently is the #1 issue Americans are most concerned about), as well as the need for policies that recognize a variety of family structures (e.g., single moms and families with gay parents). The Left desperately needs to show that it is pro-family (but not anti-gay or anti-woman), and that it is a champion for affordable health care.

4. An explicit statement about the environment was needed. I chose the word “stewardship” because it gets at the heart of the situation: we can choose to exploit the environment or be good stewards of it. Overwhelming majorities of Americans want the latter path. Also, as with the term “sanctity”, stewardship connotes reverence and respect.

5. Everyone agreed on the need for “comprehensive” national security instead of simply “strong national defense”. This is crucial because the Left needs to show that it is committed to a broad-based strategy for security instead of a narrow military vision.

In summary, I think this is getting closer to a short and sweet statement of principles that could appeal to a sizeable majority of American voters (i.e. a winning political strategy at the national level). What do you think?

Jason Scorse

It is sad but true that the left and the Democratic Party lack a clear and coherent statement of what they stand for. I have scoured all sorts of Democratic and left-leaning websites (e.g. the DNC, DLC, The Center for American Progress), and they are full of everything guaranteed to ensure the left keeps losing elections: dozens of policy memos and briefs on dozens of topics, but lacking a simple mission statement like this one from the Heritage Foundation (which is almost identical to the GOP platform):

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

In an earlier piece, I introduced the phrase “the party of the future” as a new motto for the Democrats. (To my surprise and delight, the same phrase is now used by Mark Warner on the site of his new PAC). I originally presented this idea as an organizing principle that might make for a good bumper sticker; today I would like to embellish on the idea by suggesting a comprehensive set of principles to accompany this slogan. Below is what I think the left, and specifically the Democratic Party, could credibly stand behind that would set them apart from their counterparts on the right.

We believe that American prosperity depends on well-regulated markets, effective government, economic security as well as economic strength, personal liberty for all, healthy families, and a comprehensive strategy for national security.

These points largely mirror the conservative principles set forth by the Heritage Foundation, but with key substantive differences. Let me elaborate on what these differences are meant to convey.

1. “Well-regulated markets” v. “free enterprise”

This change of phrasing is important because the left needs to emphasize that it is pro-market and pro-capitalism, while also acknowledging that Americans want checks and balances that protect the public interest (Note: The actual Webster’s definition of “free enterprise” includes regulation for the public interest, but extreme libertarians on the right conveniently skip this part, and in reality, what they champion is much closer to laissez-faire capitalism.) Markets that are poorly regulated can endanger public health and safety, create widespread environmental degradation, and allow corporations to take advantage of both consumers and employees. For example, regulation is needed to protect public goods like the air and water, since it is virtually impossible for individuals to discern potentially toxic effects or do anything about them. Food safety in another area where government regulation is key, and there are numerous others as well. Government regulation is also necessary to prevent corporations (such as Enron) from cooking the books; largely because government safeguards were so lax, Enron was able to destroy the pensions of thousands of workers and erase billions in shareholder value. Bottom line: Americans are committed capitalists, but they recognize the need for safeguards and constraints on the market system for the benefit of the public good.

2. “Effective government” v. “limited government”

The most pressing issues involving government have to do not with the government’s absolute size, but whether it is doing a good job in the areas where it is engaged, and whether there is real accountability. Americans are not averse to government programs as long as quality services are provided in an efficient manner, and corruption is not tolerated. The Medicare Prescription Drug Bill is an example of bad government, while Social Security and the National Institutes of Health are examples of good government.

3. “Economic security as well as economic strength”

The right has no comparable statement that stresses the need for economic security because this almost by definition means a larger role for government than many conservatives are willing to tolerate. This creates the opportunity for the left to present itself as the group that recognizes the economic insecurities brought about by globalization, and which can ameliorate them. This represents probably the single most promising area for the left to distinguish itself from the right.

4. “Personal liberty for all, healthy families” v. “Individual freedom, traditional family values”

Due to the power exercised by religious fundamentalists on the right, conservatives can no longer credibly claim to support individual freedom; “traditional” family values have become mere code words for Christian fundamentalism, and are in direct conflict with a woman’s right to choose and the rights of gay Americans. The left has a great opportunity to champion individual liberties and family values in a broader sense of the term. A large percentage of children do not grow up in “traditional” nuclear families, and Americans are generally tolerant and want an inclusive society.

5. “A comprehensive strategy for national security” v. “A strong national defense”

No one can argue with the need for a strong national defense, but strength needs to be matched with the wise use of diplomacy and a vision of the world that correctly prioritizes the threats we face as a nation. The Iraq War has clearly demonstrated the limits of military action, and the left should position itself as the champion of a more reasoned and far-reaching approach to foreign policy. This is especially true since many future threats may well involve environmental issues such as climate change and diseases such as the bird flu.

In summary, the left and the Democrats need to coalesce around a set of core principles. Until they do, they are not a credible political movement, but simply a conglomerate of special interests. The left’s major national defeats in 2000, 2002, and 2004 should have ushered in new thinking and a bold new vision; unfortunately, I have yet to see any indications of this. As I have tried to demonstrate here, it is not too difficult to construct a mission statement that both includes affirmative values and can also stand in contrast to the priorities of today’s political right.

Those of us who are dedicated to reason have few places to turn in America’s confused political climate. Since there is little hope that the right is going to disassociate itself anytime soon from religious fundamentalists, whose vision of America is abhorrent, we can only hope that those on the left will remember what they once stood for and not be afraid to articulate it.

Jason Scorse

In the not-too-distant future we will look back on the years 2001-2005 as one of those periods in American history when the body politic lost its hold on reality. Fear has a way of erasing reason and rationality, and the combination of monthly terror alerts (which miraculously halted after the 2004 elections, and just might start again now that November 2006 is approaching), the occasional Osama bin Laden tape, fresh images of planes crashing into buildings, and lingering images of mushroom clouds and chemical attacks, overwhelmed the American psyche.

Don’t get me wrong, there are real threats in the world (as there always have been) and it is only natural that these threats inspire fear. But our leaders are not supposed to stoke our fears, or overreact to them, but to help us respond to our crises sensibly and with intelligence. Under ideal circumstances, a responsible leader (and political party) would have responded to the attacks of 9/11 with a cool-headed and clear message to the American people. This leader would have emphasized that the threat of Islamofascism required new ways of thinking strategically, and of reorienting our military priorities and methods. This leader would have said that a global campaign to halt the spread of WMD would be a top priority, and that winning a war of ideas was crucial since the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world prefer full refrigerators, DVDs, and open societies to blowing themselves up for the cause of jihad. Yes, a well-organized band of very evil men had managed to catch us with our guard down, but in no way was this threat on a scale even remotely close to WW II or the Cold War. The last thing this leader woud have done was to elevate a ragtag bunch of cave-dwelling extremists to such a royal status of evil. If only….

We all know what happened instead and we will pay the price for this blunder of historic proportions for generations to come. All semblance of reason was thrown out, replaced by the bizarre notion that a massive military invasion in the heart of the Middle East in an effort to promote democracy would turn the tide against the terrorists (for whom the presence of U.S. soldiers in the Middle East is one of their primary rallying cries). But we have created exactly what we have tried to avoid: a powerful Al Queda movement firmly entrenched in Iraq. In addition, if even a small percentage of the relatives of the thousands of families who have suffered death at the hands of American soldiers in Iraq swear revenge on us, we have created at minimum tens of thousands of additional enemies that did not exist prior to the invasion. (Not to mention the millions of Arabs who witnessed our atrocities in Abu Ghraib or elsewhere on television and the small percentage who may now be inclined to actively try to harm Americans. Welcome to the reality of 24-hour news cycles in the Arab world.) In addition, the costs of the Iraq War are now estimated to be between $1-$2 trillion; you don’t have to be a raving liberal to believe that this money could have been spent a lot more effectively than on an Iraqi invasion. And instead of a show of power, the invasion of Iraq has dramatically overstretched the U.S. military for all the world to see.

And all the while bin Laden is alive and well, largely because the Bush Administration chose to invade Iraq instead of putting additional military resources into dismantling Al Queda and its top leaders in Afghanistan. Adding another level of irony to an already ironic situation, Bush last week used Osama’s recent tape as justification for his likely illegal wire tapping, saying that Osama’s threats should be “taken seriously”. Thanks for reminding me, Mr. President, but it is you who have continually downplayed Osama’s significance over the past few years, not the rest of us.

Of course, the latest ironies are the most painful and will ultimately fully discredit the Administration’s policies. We finally have a democratically-elected parliament in Iraq, but it is dominated by religious fundamentalists, many of whom are at least marginally aligned with Iran, and the election has largely been viewed as further stoking sectarian divisions. In Palestine, the avowed terrorist organization Hamas is now in charge and who knows where this will lead. With the U.S. and the EU almost certain to cut off aid to the Palestinian government, Hamas is likely to turn to Hezbollah and Iran for finances. And just a reminder, Iran is the Islamic country ruled by religious extremists that is relatively close to obtaining nuclear weapons (and the Iranians are feeling empowered because of our invasion or Iraq). Did I forget to mention North Korea or A.Q. Khan’s WMD racket run out of Pakistan?

If so many lives were not at stake the situation would be almost comical. An administration that can’t even effectively manage or prepare for a hurricane disaster (they are even stonewalling the investigation into Katrina ), or their own signature legislation, the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill (an entitlement fiasco that I’m increasingly convinced was a cynical ploy to undermine faith in government) was entrusted to transform the most volatile region in the world through military means and then rebuild an entire nation? (Here’s an update on the largely failed Iraq reconstruction efforts.)

Looking back, it is almost incomprehensible that a majority of Americans actually believed such nonsense.

We let our fears and irrationality cloud our judgment, and the blame ultimately rests with us. Even I, who disagree with just about everything this Administration does, tried until very recently to give them the benefit of the doubt.

As the years pass we will all have to account for our role in the collective insanity that gripped America during the beginning years of the 21st century. And when faced with another crisis I can only hope that this era will provide a cautionary tale that will help us react with more wisdom next time around.

J.S.

P.S. I am trying to include more links to back up my claims. If there are any glaring omissions please let me know. Thanks.

Jason Scorse

(The following appeared in the Washington Post last week.)

The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is oft-quoted but rarely read. I recently turned to the document to see, in their own words, what the Founding Fathers had in mind for our government and society. I discovered some illuminating things, which are sure to irritate both conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans. Here are just a few samples:

1. Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States… (emphasis mine)

So what’s all this about social programs, entitlements, and the New Deal being unconstitutional? Article I says clearly and plainly that the government may tax the citizens for the promotion of the “general welfare”. I can’t think of things that fit the description of general welfare better than retirement insurance or basic health care. Certainly pork-barrel spending and corporate welfare don’t meet this criteria. So the next time a “conservative” tells you that national healthcare would be a socialist abomination and that social security is unconstitutional, please tell them to go read Article 1:Section 8 and get back to you.

2. Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis mine)

The next time you hear someone say that we are a Christian nation, please direct them to the first Amendment. Not only did the Founders explicitly state that the government cannot associate itself with any particular religion, but there is not a single reference to God, the church, Jesus, or the Bible anywhere in the entire Constitution. These men were excruciatingly attentive to details (as well they should be when establishing a new form of government!) and it is clear in their own words that they wanted the Constitution to be an entirely secular document. That some of these men were Christians or believed that ultimately the desire for freedom comes from a Creator is beside the point; when it came time to set forth the principal foundations for the structure of our government, religion was not only left out but its establishment was expressly forbidden. (Here are some other quotes on religion from the Founding Fathers.)

3. Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (emphasis mine)

Let me come clean: I hate guns and just about everything they represent (although I concede their necessity in our imperfect and violent world). All the same, what struck me the most about this amendment were the words “shall not be infringed.” This appears unambiguous and made me reconsider my belief that restrictions on gun ownership are Constitutional. So for those who advocate gun control (always at their political peril), here’s a suggestion. Why not admit that Americans have a Constitutional right to own as many and whatever firearms they want, and make a deal with the pro-gun lobby: we are going to focus on draconian punishments for those who abuse those rights. With rights come responsibilities, and the pro-gun folks have always argued that the overwhelming majority of gun owners use their guns responsibly. Fine, but if your gun is used by a minor for a crime, or your use accidentally results in the injury or death of an innocent bystander, or someone steals your gun and uses it for a crime. then you are going to be held partially responsible and punished severely. That seems like a reasonable and Constitutional tack to take. It’s also what the pro-gun lobby has largely been arguing, so why not call their bluff?

In summary, I recommend that everyone read the Constitution (or re-read it); you will find things that surprise you and that contradict stereotypes and misconceptions on both the Left and Right. There is nothing like being able to refer to our founding documents to help silence those with notions of what this country stands for that are divorced from reality.

Jason Scorse

(The upcoming hearings on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito make this an opportune time to dispel the persistent myth of liberal judicial activism.)

One of the most enduring, yet untruthful and damaging myths about “liberal” judges (any judge appointed by a Democrat, or those appointed by Republicans whom the religious right doesn’t like) is that they are “activists” who inject their ideological biases into court decisions in order to impose their values on society. As is the case with much right-wing propaganda, the truth is actually the opposite.

The first thing to note about judicial activism is that it is an ill-defined term. This suits the far right perfectly because they can sling it around without ever having to define it and make a reasoned case; more often than not, a decision that the far right doesn’t like is simply portrayed as a result of judicial activism while the actual merits of the case are ignored.

Earlier this year, two law scholars set out to actually define and measure judicial activism. Gewirtz and Golder defined judicial activism as a decision to overturn established law that had been decided by a legislature (either state or federal). Since the far right is always claiming that judges are usurping the will of the people, this definition, while imperfect, is both objective and quantifiable.

What Gewirtz and Golder discovered is that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is the most “active” at overturning established law, with Scalia a close third. Ginsburg and Breyer, the two most “liberal” judges, are ranked last at numbers eight and nine. In fact, both Scalia and Thomas decided to overturn established law with almost twice the frequency of Breyer and Ginsburg. I have yet to see anyone on the far right respond with a definition of their own to counter these findings.

Even more fundamental to the debate over judicial activism is the profound misunderstanding that many on the far right seem to have regarding one of the bedrock principles of our nation: minority protection from the whims of the majority. In a recent program on NPR two “conservative” activists (the quotes are used because the far right is in no sense conservative in the classic sense of the term) mentioned how the courts were imposing the will of elites on the rest of society, and they continually fell back on polling numbers that supposedly showed that the majority of Americans disagree with these judicial opinions.

But the Constitution, and hence the federal courts, does not give the majority the right to usurp the liberty and freedom of minorities just because they feel like it. Majorities in the South long believed that blacks should not be allowed equal rights, but the courts ultimately sided with the minority because the Constitution mandates “equal protection under the law”. According to “conservative” logic, the judges who ruled against Jim Crow laws and the broader post-emancipation doctrine of “separate but equal” were judicial activists. In addition, while large numbers of Americans may believe that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and that we are a “Christian nation”, the Constitution explicitly states that there shall be no state sanctioning of religion. This protects all religious views, even minority ones, as well as atheists and agnostics. Religious extremists can bemoan the lack of school prayer all they want, but if prayer in public schools isn’t a state sanctioning of religion I don’t know what is.

Another claim made by the far right (and Republicans in general) is that there is only one possible “original” interpretation of the Constitution and their judges know what it is, while liberals read all sorts of things into it. This betrays a lack of appreciation for the nuances of language. Consider the simple phrase, “equal protection under the law”. With respect to voting rights, what does “equal protection” mean? Does it mean that everyone should use the same voting equipment in order to secure an equal probability of having their vote counted? Since this conflicts with states’ rights on voting, what are we to do? What about those who have to work on Election Day versus those who don’t: is that equal protection?

Regarding the issue of gay rights, what does equal protection mean? Here the Lawrence v. Texas case is extremely instructive. In this case two men were arrested in their home when police barged in (based on the phony pretenses of a homophobic neighbor who was later charged with filing a false police report), and they were found to be engaging in gay sex. In Texas the “will of the people” had decried such an act and criminalized it. By the time the case was tried, the two men were in a Texas jail charged with having consensual gay sex in the privacy of their home. Here’s what Sandra Day O’Connor, a Reagan appointee, had to say about that case:

“A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the state’s moral disapproval of that class and the conduct associated with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review.”

This is clearly the correct ruling since this was certainly a case where the majority was unjustly tyrannizing the minority in a particularly cruel and oppressive manner based on nothing more than dislike (I may dislike rude and obnoxious people but I can’t have them thrown in jail). So what did Scalia, an “originalist”, have to say?

“Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive….Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best ... But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else.”

This utter disregard for the Equal Protection Clause and the stunning callousness with which Scalia believes the Constitution allows the majority to oppress a minority for nothing other than their dislike is stunning. In Scalia’s world, homosexuals should simply wait it out for a few decades (in prison perhaps) while the majority slowly begins to realize that their aversion to homosexuals is irrational. Fortunately, the Constitution says “equal protection” not “equal protection when people get around to it”. What is particularly disturbing about Scalia’s reasoning is that he believes it is the job of minorities to convince the majority that their very lives should not be criminalized.

In another ruling, this one by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, the Court decided that equal protection under the Massachusetts State Constitution means that one class of citizens, gays, cannot be denied the right to marry. Rather than the imposition of a gay lifestyle on the majority, this is nothing more than extending rights to a minority which has been denied those rights. What I continue to point out to members of the far right is that they should be trying to make the case that gays are second-class citizens who should not be entitled to the same basic rights as heterosexuals, since in fact this is what they are advocating. As obscene as it is, the proposed Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage is consistent with the far right’s beliefs--that discrimination should be the law of the land. Pretending that courts are over-stepping their bounds by declaring gays as equal Americans is ridiculous.

In summary, the far right and other so-called conservatives who berate judges they disagree with, labeling them judicial “activists”, are simply frustrated that their discriminatory views are not shared by the majority of the country’s judges and are not enshrined in the Constitution. They can argue all they like about what the majority wants, but the majority works through the legislature, not the courts, and the majority does not always have justice on its side. If their view of activism had held 50 years ago, blacks would still be denied the right to vote in the South, anti-miscegenation laws would still prevail, and school segregation would still be official policy. It would also be legal to jail homosexual adults in the year 2005 for having consensual sex in the privacy of their own home (so much for individual freedom and non-intrusive government), and underage children who engage in gay sex would be punished much more severely than those who engaged in heterosexual sex (the recent Kansas ruling). If “conservatives” truly advocate second-class citizenship for gays, they should come out and say it; if they truly advocate state sponsorship of religion, they should do likewise. They wrongly accuse liberals of using the courts to foist their morals on the country when this is exactly what they themselves are trying to do.

A few additional comments are in order. First, I am not claiming that only “conservative” judges engage in activism because “liberal” judges do as well (maybe not to the same degree, however). The law and the Constitution are open to interpretation, and reasonable people may disagree on these interpretations. But to claim, as some do, that conservatives have a direct line into the minds of the Founding Fathers is absurd. On a strictly empirical note, what I find most troubling about so-called conservative interpretations of the Constitution is that somehow their rulings always seem to side against minorities and the most vulnerable members of society, whether gays, the disabled, low-wage workers, endangered species, or women facing domestic abuse.

I’m sure that many on the right believe that their desire to outlaw abortion represents their attempt to protect a vulnerable population, i.e., the unborn; but as I have argued previously (here and here) the “pro-life” position is morally untenable and inconsistent. In addition, I have always been suspicious that outlawing abortion has more to do with controlling women and championing “traditional family-values” (i.e., women staying at home) than promoting the sanctity of life. The discovery that District Court Judge Alito was ruling that women must notify their husbands if they intend to have an abortion at the same time as the Pennsylvania legislature thought that it was not necessary for a man to notify his wife if he was infected with AIDs only confirms this view. In a society where women often have a hard time getting health insurance to cover contraception while men almost everywhere get free access to Viagra, I think such skepticism is warranted.

Bush’s nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court should finally put to rest the right-wing hypocrisy that Republicans oppose judicial activism. They like activism just fine when it supports their ideology (For an excellent article on how the Alito nomination is Bush’s greatest flip-flop of all, click here.

Jason Scorse

Economics has experienced a Renaissance of late with the burgeoning sub-field of behavioral economics, which incorporates aspects of psychology into traditional economic models. One of the more powerful theories of behavioral economics is loss aversion, which posits that a person experiences a greater loss in utility (happiness) when they move backwards from state B to A than the amount of utility they gain when they advance from state A to B. If you’re wondering what this means, let me try to explain.

People tend to feel stronger emotions if they lose an item than when they gain the item in the first place. For example, in financial markets, loss aversion kicks in when people are reluctant to sell assets at a loss even when the risk of losing more grows by the day. People tend to hold out in the hope of recouping their earnings because losses are so painful, while they are quicker to reap gains once these have been realized.

I have come to believe that loss aversion affects Republicans and Democrats (conservatives and liberals) very differently, and that this helps to explains why it is so hard to get bipartisan support for many social programs that would benefit American society.

From almost two decades of studying politics and conversing with people across the political spectrum, I hypothesize that Republicans on average experience extreme loss aversion regarding the abuse of social programs and public tax money. For example, while Social Security, health care, and welfare may benefit a majority of Americans, I am continually amazed at how Republicans (conservatives) will hone in on the minority of examples where people are taking advantage of the system and in effect cheating. Democrats (liberals), on the other hand, while certainly bothered by these cases, do not seem as upset about them. I think loss aversion partially explains this, and here’s why by way of a simple numerical example.

Let’s assume that Democrats and Republicans derive utility from social programs on a scale of -100 to +100; -100 being extreme unhappiness (disutility) when they witness people abusing the program and + 100 being extreme happiness (utility) when they witness law-abiding citizens benefiting from the program. Now let’s assume that both Republicans and Democrats gain an average utility of +10 from knowing that an individual is benefiting from a given social program. Let’s assume that Democrats experience loss aversion such that cases of individuals cheating the system cause disutility of -15 (greater than 10 in absolute value, which is what loss aversion predicts). As long as the number of people benefiting from the system is greater than 60% of the population, Democrats will experience net positive utility towards the program and therefore support it.

Now let’s assume that Republicans, on the other hand, are so incensed by people taking advantage of their hard-earned tax money that each case of cheating causes them unhappiness of -100 (extreme loss aversion). In this case, in order for Republicans to feel positively inclined towards the program over 90% of the population would need to be making good use of the program, or else the unhappiness caused by the cheating would overwhelm the positive utility derived from those who are benefiting.

While this is a fictitious example, I think it gets at the heart of the divide over social spending. Democrats are willing to accept a lower success rate for social programs (perhaps too low) because they do not get as angry as Republicans do over fraud. It is this anger which leads Republicans to call for (unrealistically) high rates of success for any government program. There is little room for agreement because the pros and cons of social programs enter so differently into the respective utility functions of these two groups.

One thing that remains a mystery is why Republicans are not more adamant about cutting corporate welfare. If they are truly incensed by fraud, they should be at the forefront of opposing all forms of corporate subsidies; the negatives are vast, and almost no societal good comes from them. While both Democrats and Republicans are beholden to corporate money, I think something else is at work here.

As some of the most despotic figures in history have pointed out, one death is a tragedy while a million is a mere statistic. In the case of corporate malfeasance, it is hard to find examples as colorful as a “welfare queen” bilking the government through dozens of false identities. Corporate welfare is often buried in accounting logs, is (usually) legal, and is simply not very sensationalistic, despite the gross waste and inequity it represents. And while corporations are largely faceless, there is nothing like a personality with a story behind it to stoke people’s emotions.

This is understandable but unfortunate; if there were one area where extreme loss aversion would serve society well, it would be in making the case for the elimination of corporate welfare (especially the extremely environmentally damaging subsidies given to farmers, fishermen, loggers, energy companies, and ranchers). With Democrats not as averse to government waste, we will have to wait for Republicans to take this on (don’t hold your breath). Unless of course, Democrats want a winning political strategy to help them justify increased social spending in areas that are actually beneficial for the majority of Americans (don’t hold your breath for this either).

Jason Scorse

In the last two weeks I have outlined a political platform that takes the best elements of liberalism and conservatism (in the classic sense), and added some additional points regarding current environmental realities that require greater government intervention than previously anticipated. Given the extreme importance of foreign policy issues, however, particularly issues related to national security and confronting Islamofascism (we need to start by calling it what it is), a political philosophy that is not matched with a coherent foreign policy agenda cannot be taken seriously.

In this piece I am not going to argue about the proper number of troops in Iraq or whether bilateral negotiations with North Korea would be preferable to the current multilateral process because I am not a military or international security expert. I am constantly amazed by how many bloggers and mainstream editorialists seem to believe that they are qualified to speak on such matters when they clearly are not (Hint: reading a few books and newspapers isn’t enough to tell generals what they should be doing; I’m sure I also have been guilty of over-stepping my bounds in this area as well). What I am going to do is lay out some over-arching themes that I think are reasonable, just, and would resonate with large numbers of Americans, who are disgusted with both the strident militarism of the Right and the knee-jerk pacifism of the Left.

Ideally, our future political party would incorporate the following three themes into their foreign policy platform:

1. The commitment to clearly identify all of the threats to American national security and speak of them openly and honestly

For example, with the new Iranian President calling for Israel to be “wiped off the map” any prospective leader must not shy away from acknowledging that Iran is a dangerous enemy that must be confronted (whether militarily or not). For Democrats in particular, this need to clearly identify threats to America and make it known that they will be taken seriously is paramount. This must also be met with the acknowledgement that military force is an option and that while it is acceptable for Americans to protest specific uses of military force, we do not live in a world where military force can ever be completely taken off the table.

At the same time, Americans must be leveled with regarding the dangers we face in the world. Americans citizens are savvy enough to know that sometimes we find ourselves between “a rock and a hard place” in that there are no good options that satisfy the sense of moral clarity that we so often seek.

Cases in point are both Pakistan and North Korea. The former is particularly dangerous given that Pakistan is a nuclear power that is home base to many senior Al Queda members and some of the most strident anti-Americanism. After all, the father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb spread WMD technology throughout the world and has been called a national hero. Although President Musharraf is a military dictator, he is likely all that stands between us and an Islamofascist state with nuclear weapons. The American people don’t need empty rhetoric about how the U.S. doesn’t bargain and deal with dictators, but with the honest claim that we need to work with Musharraf in order to keep the extremists at bay while we continue to pressure him to bring democracy to his country.

With respect to North Korea, our rhetoric about how we refuse to negotiate with terrorists is clearly absurd since North Korea is a terrorist state and we do nothing but negotiate with them. Why? Because they have nuclear weapons and could wipe out most of Japan and South Korea if we became engaged with them in a military conflict. Again, Americans should be leveled with and told how our current policy is seeking to create incentives for North Korea to give up its nuclear program and reduce tensions in the region. We need more than moralizing about an “axis of evil”.

Looking back to the eve of the Iraq War, there is no doubt that the Bush Administration did not honor the commitment to level with the American people. As someone who opposed the Iraq War, more than anything, I took grave offense that my leaders were trying to bully and scare me into supporting the invasion. Despite evidence that Saddam likely had WMD, by all accounts Iraq did not represent an imminent threat. There were many other reasons to consider toppling Saddam’s regime; notably his human rights offenses, his past territorial aggressions and current ambitions, and the desire to establish democracy in the Middle East. The Administration decided that the American people would not support a war on these premises and therefore used fear and deception to garner support. Our leaders should make an honest case under all circumstances.

2. Clear criteria for when U.S. military force will be used on humanitarian grounds

Many commentators have (rightfully) pointed out that the Republicans have usurped the idealistic foreign policy rhetoric that used to characterize liberals, particularly those in the Wilsonian tradition. With his talk of spreading freedom and democracy around the world, President Bush has been able to successfully characterize Democrats and the Left as isolationists with narrow views of the national self-interest. Unfortunately, this rhetoric has not been matched with a commitment to confront the genocide in Sudan. Bush is famously noted for studying the Clinton Administration’s failure to intervene in the Rwandan genocide and proclaiming “not on my watch”. Well, it has happened on his watch and even after Secretary of State Colin Powell called the situation in Darfur genocide the U.S. has not intervened in any substantive way to put an end to it.

This blatant disregard for decades upon decades of the “never again” mantra that has been echoed in the Western World since the Holocaust casts America (and the rest of the West) in a terrible light. Those who most often oppose the use of military force point to our persistent lack of will to confront genocide as evidence of a morally bankrupt foreign policy.

I suggest that we either have a foreign policy that explicitly includes larger humanitarian goals or we make it clear that it is U.S. interests alone that dictate our actions. This middle ground in which lofty moral rhetoric is bandied about, but our actions are not consistent with these principles is bad for national morale and ultimately self-defeating. It is my suspicion that a large majority of Americans across the political spectrum would support a more consistent foreign policy with a clear humanitarian component and mandate.

3. A commitment to strengthening international cooperation and institutions

With the recent scandals involving the U.N. Oil-for-food program and the sexual abuse of refugees, one would be forgiven for believing that Jesse Helms and all those on the Far Right who have been bashing the U.N. for decades may have a point. But there has never been a time when international cooperation is more urgent. Al Queda and other Islamofascists are believed to be operating in approximately 100 countries, our environmental problems are increasingly global in scope, and issues of migration and human trafficking are also becoming more serious. While no U.S. president should ever cede final decisions with respect to U.S. national security to the international community (the dumbest thing Kerry ever said was the “global test”- why couldn’t he have just said truth and honesty?), the U.S. simply cannot tackle the problems we face alone and alienating large segments of the world is not in our interests.

Specifically, I think the move by the Bush Administration against the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been terrible for the U.S. image abroad. It fuels the belief that we consider ourselves above international law and is wholly inconsistent with a belief in universal rights such as freedom and democracy. If anything, the U.S. should be at the forefront of promoting international justice and demonstrating to the world that our people are subject to the same norms regarding crimes against humanity as everyone else. Obviously, the fear among our leaders is that rogue regimes will target U.S. politicians and servicemen and women for political theater and retribution, but this is more reason for the U.S. to be engaged in the process instead of trying to undermine it. The ICC is run in Europe and our allies have an incentive for the Court to be viewed as legitimate by the U.S.. They know as well as anyone that if push came to shove, the U.S. would never sit back and let one of our own be chastised by Cuba or Syria on trumped up charges. That being said, if one of our own does actually engage in crimes against humanity we should not be afraid to prove to the world that we are willing to see them punished in an international forum. And if we are actually worried about the possibility that members of our military or political establishment would engage in such conduct then perhaps we need to change our policies, not fight against the ICC.

In summary, I believe that the themes I have outlined above would go a long way towards alleviating the distrust many Americans feel towards our political leaders and also help to mend our relations with people around the world. While not a comprehensive foreign policy platform, both of these goals are clearly in our national interest.

Jason Scorse

Last week I introduced the basic tenets of an ideal political platform in America, which largely parallels the major tenets of classic liberalism/conservatism as espoused in the 1970s by many prominent economists, notably Milton Friedman. Classic liberalism posits that government should be limited to what government does best, that social welfare should be provided in ways that are minimally distorting to the economy (e.g. lump-sum payments), that the tax system should be simple and transparent, and that individuals should be allowed to do pretty much whatever they want to as long as their actions do not directly harm others (e.g. gays should have full rights and most personal drug use should be decriminalized).

But classic liberalism as espoused decades ago is not entirely up to the task of defining the key components of a political philosophy for America in the 21st century, mainly because it under-estimated the environmental problems that would confront us and the need for government intervention in these matters. Below I highlight how the essential tenets of classic liberalism need to be augmented given the environmental realities of the 21st century:

1. Classic liberalism assumed that as information improved, private markets would lead to the increased preservation of environmental resources and that externalities (e.g. pollution) would be internalized (e.g. taken into account by private actors) given a system of strong property rights. While much improvement in the environmental arena has occurred, and much of this is due to property rights and better scientific knowledge, most economists vastly under-estimated the level of coordination that is required to tackle some of the world’s most serious environmental problems. Issues such as global warming and the loss of biodiversity require much more government intervention then had previously been assumed. This is not to say that this government intervention won’t rely heavily on the workings of the market system, but only that top-down regulation is absolutely necessary. There is simply no way to adequately address these issues without a strong commitment from the federal government, which will eventually include a high level of international cooperation. Policies such as absolute limits on CO2, government funding of alternative energy systems, and coordinated efforts to purchase and protect biodiversity hotspots around the world will need to be a major component of future government policy.

2. Coupled with a stronger role in protecting the environment, the government should move us towards a more rational method of risk management in areas that are prone to natural disasters. It is highly inefficient, as well as an abrogation of government responsibility, to create incentives for people to live in areas that are both dangerous and prone to catastrophe by providing them with reconstruction aid every time disaster strikes. The government has two options; either require that all people living in hurricane zones, flood plains, or near fault lines purchase private insurance, or make it absolutely clear that people will not be compensated for their loss of property by the government if disaster strikes. Such a policy would no doubt lead to dramatic shifts in the population densities in many disaster-prone areas of the country, and perhaps some one-time assistance for relocation would be required. The net effect would be to dramatically reduce future losses of life and property and save the government hundreds of billions in future costs. It would also force private actors (notably insurance companies) to take into account the effects of environmental externalities that until now have largely been ignored.

3. Regarding personal health and risk, the government also must play a much more active role than advocated by proponents of classic liberal economics. Milton Friedman famously noted that there is no use for the Food and Drug Administration since companies whose products lead to illness will be forced out of the market (i.e. products that make people sick will not be bought). What he failed to realize is that if someone gets sick it is extremely difficult to trace the source of the illness, and without government regulation many companies that poison consumers could in fact operate profitably for long periods of time. But Friedman did have a point in that as people look more and more towards government to regulate the economy, they sometimes do decrease the effort that they invest in making wise choices for themselves (e.g. does anyone really need the government to tell them that “fast food” is bad for you?). This being said, it is clear that in this highly complex and inter-connected system, where we all are exposed to thousands of chemicals a year, many of which interact in ways that aren’t yet fully understood, where it is hard to trace the origin of products, and where the effects of these products often don’t manifest for years, the government must play an active role in regulation. The Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture should all be well-funded, be decoupled from conflicts of interest with industry, and their mandate to protect the public welfare through rational risk assessment should be strengthened.

Jason Scorse

Often during conversations with friends across the political spectrum, we arrive at a point where we jointly acknowledge that the two mainstream political parties in the U.S. are both extremely lacking, and that voting for either one of them is typically a “lesser of evils” type of decision. This is not to say that voting is unimportant or that there aren’t significant differences between the Democrats and Republicans, only that both parties support so much that is offensive that we have to grit our teeth when we vote for them.

For those who generally lean towards the Democrats (such as myself) the nagging feeling that they have truly have become an odd assortment of special interests groups without a clear unifying message is extremely troublesome. The “we need more money for programs X ,Y, and Z” without any assessment of how well the programs are working or how they could be improved is also problematic, and so is the complete lack of courage on the social issues front. If one Democrat could simply come out and say that they support gay marriage a weight would be lifted from my shoulders every time November rolls around. Add to this the resurgent anti-free trade/pro-protectionism nonsense that is making the rounds in Democratic circles and it’s enough to make me want to bang my head against the wall. And don’t even get me started on the endless pleas for economic populism that have failed for the last three decades (please, no more stories about mill workers, we’re in the 21st century already!).

On the other side, for those who typically vote Republican, the main grievance is that the GOP is being taken over by religious extremists who want to curtail freedom and impose their own narrow views of morality on the rest of this (putting aside the fact that there is widespread disagreement and virulent animosity even amongst the different Christian groups that vie for the GOP’s loyalty). Most traditional Republicans were originally attracted to the GOP because of its libertarian leanings, but these have slowly eroded as the GOP has now taken an official position in support of amending the Constitution to deny gay people’s rights. The abominable displays of heavy-handed government intervention in the Teri Schiavo case are also enough to make people distrustful of “big government” very uneasy. Given that it has only taken five years of Republican dominance to prove that Republicans are even more profligate spenders than the Democrats and will bend over backwards to expand government as long as the money ends up in the hands of big business (and their political supporters), any pretense of fiscal discipline and small-government in the GOP has been shattered. Did I mention corruption?

So what is a thinking woman or man to do?

Come up with what an ideal political platform of course, since imagination is the mother of actualization. (And it doesn’t hurt to dream.)

Before delving into specifics, a few words on classical liberalism/conservatism are in order. Many people don’t realize that both of these movements, which seem so antithetical these days, actually have similar roots. The reasons they now appear so diametrically opposed is because they have so greatly diverged from their original foundations, and hence are largely unrecognizable from what they once were.

One of the most famous articulations of the classic liberal/conservative philosophy is Milton Freidman’s, “Capitalism and Freedom.” (I highly recommend that everyone read this if you haven’t already). That Friedman is largely vilified by those on the Left and praised, but largely ignored in practice, by those on the Right is a testament to how far we have strayed in America from a political common ground that had a lot going for it. Let me be clear that Friedman takes many of his ideas too far and history has proven him wrong on many accounts, but nonetheless, the basic political program he lays out is sound and is deserving of careful analysis. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel, and revising and updating the basic tents of classic liberalism/conservatism provide the best hope for a new and improved political platform that would attract large majorities of Americans.

Below, I outline five of the main points of the classic liberal/conservative program with some additional commentary:

1. The role of government should be limited to those things that the government does best or which only the government can perform- e.g. providing national defense or providing courts and a legal system. The beauty of this point is that it doesn’t by default favor a “small” or “big” government, just one that is most effective and efficient. If there are areas where government can do as good a job as the private sector so be it. Where it can’t, the burden of proof should be on those who want the government to perform these services and demonstrate what social purpose this serves.

2. To the extent that we want to provide a minimum standard of living for all of our citizens this should be accomplished in ways that are minimally distorting to the economy, which suggests a guaranteed minimum income instead of all sorts of complicated schemes to provide specific services such as food, housing, and medical care. The underlying rationale behind this concept is so simple that it eludes most people. If we added up all the money that the government currently spends on all types of social programs we’d realize that we (as a society) are not getting a good deal for our money. Public housing usually turns into ghettos, public schools in most cities are of such a low quality as to be criminal, and for all of the money we spend on health care, tens of millions of Americans don’t even have basic health insurance. Instead of all of the thousands of bureaucracies managing all of these programs, which create all sorts of perverse incentives in the economy, why don’t we just determine some minimum level of income and guarantee that all Americans earn at least this amount? Yeah, it’s welfare but so are all the other subsidies. Obviously, for such a thing to work, the “devil is in the details,” but the minimum would be low enough that virtually everyone would choose to work and it could be phased over a large enough bottom wrung of income that it wouldn’t create bizarre circumstances where people would earn very little more than the minimum when working a full-time job. In addition to the added efficiency, it would allow people to choose to allot their income the way they best see fit- e.g. a little more or less on housing or schooling depending on their particular family needs. (The concept of a minimum income seems quite radical today, but most people don’t realize that it was actually part of Richard Nixon’s 1972 presidential platform. Every conservative should ask themselves how it is that the party that campaigned promising a minimum income now seems to be concerned mostly with cutting taxes for the rich. And every liberal should ask why one of the arch conservatives of the 20th century is the only U.S. politician to ever speak openly about this concept.)

3. The tax system should be as simple and transparent as possible so that it is fair and so that we can minimize cheating- e.g. we should have just a few rates for different levels of income and no deductions whatsoever. (Although many conservatives currently argue for a completely “flat tax” system, where everyone no matter how much they earn pays the same percentage in taxes, a vastly simplified and more efficient tax code does not preclude progressive rates.) The benefits of a simplified tax system would be tremendous since so much money is spent on both preparing taxes and reviewing them, most of which would be saved under a new system. In addition, cheating would be made greatly more difficult since the system would be devoid of complicated schemes that can be exploited by lawyers and accountants. The savings would be so great that overall tax rates could be reduced.

4. Adults should be free to engage in whatever type of behavior they want to as long as it doesn’t directly harm others. This is generally thought of as social libertarianism, which has it roots in the writings of John Stuart Mill. The principle is simple; the burden of proof should always be on those who want to curtail liberty and freedom, rather than on those who want to exercise their liberty and freedom. Some logical conclusions from this philosophy are that gays should enjoy full legal rights, including marriage, and that almost all forms of personal drug use should be decriminalized. This doesn’t mean that the government doesn’t have a role in making sure people don’t harm people due to the influence of drugs or even discouraging types of risky sexual behavior that have dire social consequences, only that the restrictions on liberty should be tied as closely to the acts which harm society as possible; e.g. drunk driving is illegal, but consuming alcohol is not.

5. Put an end to corporate subsidies of every kind. Corporations should earn their revenue through the production of products that are desired by members of society and inasmuch as they cannot do so in a way that is profitable they should find alternatives. Again, the logic is simple and when one takes the time to realize how many hundreds of billions of dollars are doled out to profitable corporations every year one can see the huge potential savings that could be used to provide other societal goods (such as minimum income). Not only is there no rationale for corporate subsidies by they often encourage corporations to engage in activities that are damaging to society and would not occur in the absence of the subsidies (the environmental devastation wrought by agricultural and forest subsidies is case in point, but by no means the only example).

Next week: Suggestions on how these fundamentals should be augmented in order to meet the needs of America in the 21st century. In future weeks I will also touch on foreign policy.

Jason Scorse

As America struggles to contend with the broad devastation wrought by Katrina and her aftermath, one thing has become clear: the Bush administration is in deep trouble and on its political back heel, struggling with the storm of criticism and anger being directed at it from all sides. Over the past five years, Mr. Bush and his cabinet have been extremely adept at deflecting criticism of their policies and performance. But Katrina has dramatically changed the political landscape for the administration in the blink of an eye. We should certainly not underestimate the administration’s ability to emerge resilient from any political crisis. But this time the challenges look insurmountable and Bush will never fully recover.

The storm and its dire consequences have brought into sharp question all aspects of the administration’s domestic and foreign policy agendas. At root is the unease felt by all Americans, liberals and conservatives alike, about the appalling failure of the federal government to respond effectively during the first week following Katrina’s deadly rampage through the Gulf Coast region. Beyond FEMA head Michael Brown—an obvious political crony in the wrong place at the wrong time—the facts are still out regarding the degree to which the federal government’s shocking stutter steps resulted from inadequate planning, inadequate leadership, inadequate execution, or some dreadful combination of the three. Yet, to all who watched the events unfold, it is clear that the federal government’s failure to react—whatever its nature or causes—is inexcusable. How could the most powerful nation in the world not respond effectively to save its own citizens from a foreseen disaster once it was clear that state and local “first responders” were overwhelmed? And how could the Bush administration—so brash and self-congratulatory about its leadership—been caught so badly off guard?

Anyone worried about the security of the American homeland in the wake of a wide scale catastrophe—and we all have been following 9/11—is seriously concerned about the federal government’s preparedness and ability to execute after the Katrina debacle. What if, instead of a hurricane, a densely populated region of the country was hit with a major terrorist attack? What if 5-10 Million people needed to be relocated and not just 500,000? In spite of the grand promises, billions of dollars spent, and significant resources deployed into Iraq and the Middle East, a pervasive sense of doubt now clouds the reliability of the administration and its policies directed to homeland security.

The American public’s faith in the wisdom of our involvement in Iraq was already in steady decline. Having grown cynical about the administration’s justifications for involving us in Iraq in the first instance, more and more Americans had begun to question Bush’s handling of the ongoing occupation, and the costs to American society of this ongoing involvement. With growing unease regarding the unpopularity of the war around the world, and the prospect that our practice of aggressive military preemption is increasing the pool of extremist American enemies, even staunch conservatives have begun questioning Bush on his Iraq policy. Perhaps the last benefit of the doubt being extended to Bush regarding Iraq was that this effort was, somehow, helping to keep Americans safe at home. There has not been another major attack on American soil since 9/11 and several efforts had been foiled since then. Enter Katrina. Not an unexpected terror attack, but an act of nature which was being tracked for days before it touched down on American soil. Was a zero sum game at work, such that the resources deployed to Iraq the Middle East were unavailable for levee repair and contingency planning for what experts and officials long knew was the Gulf Coast’s vulnerability to a Category 3 or higher hurricane? Did the political prioritization accorded the War in Iraq at all levels render the federal government less capable of responding adequately once it was clear that state and local “first responders” were overwhelmed? Serious questions regarding the administration’s foreign policy and is efforts to secure the homeland, however, are just one prong of Bush’s political dilemma following Katrina.

As if grave concerns about homeland security were not enough for Mr. Bush, immediately clear in the days after the storm was the disproportionate impact on the poor, racial minorities, and the old and infirm. Whether the administration’s inaction was fueled by animus to the poor and African Americans, or otherwise by callous indifference to their plight, is a rich topic but one beyond the scope of this commentary. The important political point flows from the predicament of those most severely impacted by Katrina before the storm even hit—and the factors causing them not to evacuate in the first instance. The realty of “two Americas” and the dry rot of ongoing race and class disparities could not have been more painfully punctuated by the storm and its aftermath.

That America owed its most vulnerable a more expeditious rescue from death and despair is beyond question. But the Gulf Coast debacle has also renewed debate about what America owes its most disadvantaged even before a major catastrophe hits. Directly in the firing line of this debate are Bush’s policies regarding tax cuts, welfare, affirmative action, social security, and social spending programs generally. Katrina has put her own thematic spin on governmental neglect of the poor, the elderly and racial minorities, viscerally connecting such neglect to death, despair, and suffering. Bush will be hard-pressed to push through his current domestic policy agenda without appearing utterly insensitive and out of touch. Does anyone expect the political leadership of the dozens of states who have absorbed the displaced residents of the Gulf Coast to doggedly support tax cuts for the wealthy and big reductions to social spending programs? What level of aid do we owe each displaced Katrina victim to help them reestablish normal lives, whether back in New Orleans or in their current places of refuge? What moral implications will such politically unavoidable aid packages have on the level of aid we accord to other disadvantaged Americans who were not affected by Katrina, but who live day-to-day in squalid conditions and on the brink of disaster?

Bush will face deep opposition from all corners, liberal or conservative, unless he significantly shifts his domestic agenda and allows less conservative approaches back into his agenda setting. Once the political stakes of its early inaction became clear to the administration, Mr. Bush has been bending over backwards to shower the storm-ravaged survivors of Katrina with resources, money and gestures of concern. In order to maintain any political currency going forward, Bush will have to extend this “generosity” more broadly to his legislative initiatives targeted to America at large. He simply cannot continue to ‘drown the federal government in a bath tub,’ as his tax policy advisor Grover Norquist once suggested, without severe political fallout.

Regardless of the underlying merit, the administration is reduced thematically to this no-win position: “We did not fail only poor, black and elderly Americans in New Orleans, we failed all Americans and it was a direct consequence of our brand of conservatism.” Katrina has dealt the Bush administration a bigger political blow than any Democrat, leftist filmmaker or terrorist ever could. Much of the faith that conservatives and moderate liberals have put into the Bush administration thus far is based on the sense that Bush not only cares about keeping America and Americans well protected, but that his no-nonsense governance style was best suited to doing so. A president whose popularity, power and excesses were premised on his ability to keep America safe has been fatally exposed. Even an unprecedented “acceptance of responsibility” from Mr. Bush will not save him. Only compromise on his policy agenda during the remainder of his second term will.


Duane R. Valz is an Emeryville-based technology attorney and holds a J.D. from U.C. Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law.

Over the past year and a half VOR has weighed in on the gay marriage issue, arguing that there is no legitimate reason why gays should not be allowed to marry and enjoy the full legal rights of marriage. With the recent vote by the California legislature to legalize gay marriage and Governor Schwarzenegger’s promise to veto the bill, now is an appropriate time to provide an overview of the GOP’s unjust and illogical position.

Let us begin with the event that catapulted gay marriage to the national spotlight: the decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court which stated that denying gays the right to marry violated the Massachusetts state constitution. Conservatives around the country immediately decried yet another example of “liberal judicial activism”, claiming that unelected judges were imposing gay marriage on the Massachusetts citizenry.

On the morning after the Court’s decision, the citizens of Massachusetts awoke to a world where everything was exactly the same except for the fact that the gays who had been living together for years, raising children, or otherwise doing what everyone else does in America, could obtain a marriage license and the legal rights of inheritance, hospital visitation, spousal benefits, and any other rights that come with marriage. No churches or religions were forced to perform gay marriages; the Court only mandated a change to the civil code. The argument made by conservatives was that simply the knowledge that gays could marry, and therefore that gay relationships between consenting adults were now legitimate, presented a dire threat to heterosexual marriage. Think about that for a moment; the irony is stunning. What conservatives were in effect saying was that the institution of heterosexual marriages is so weak that the ability of gays to share these marriage rights somehow imperiled this ancient tradition. This irony wasn’t lost on at least one conservative commentator, David Brooks, who pointed out that conservatives should be championing gay marriage since it is an acknowledgement by gays that they want the same stability and monogamy that conservatives had been touting for years.

The conservative ire at the supposed “gay agenda” soon reached even greater heights of absurdity. Claims that if gay marriage was legalized it would threaten the very fabric of American society and spell the end of American civilization became commonplace on talk radio and the internet. According to this logic, if gay marriage were legalized this would legitimize the “gay lifestyle” and therefore more people would “choose” to be gay. Putting aside the debate over the genetic origins of homosexuality (or whether anyone has any business telling people what sexual preferences they should chose), this conservative view assumes that human beings are essentially weak and infantile, which is an added layer of irony given that conservatives are supposed to believe in personal virtue, integrity, and responsibility. (How can one hold such a view of personal virtue and believe that somehow Joe and John marrying will lead to a mass exodus from the heterosexual ranks?)

There are significant other issues as well. An adult’s sexual preference is one of his or her most intimate traits, and the government has no business favoring one sexual orientation over the other. Simply put, a gay or lesbian is no less an American than anybody else, and should be free to choose his or her partner, regardless of gender, and enjoy the same legal rights all citizens.

Unfortunately, conservatives seem intent on proving that they have lost their former dedication to personal liberty and minimal government intrusion in people’s private lives; they have gone so far as to propose amending the Constitution of the United States to bar gay marriages. It continues to boggle the mind how a party that would suggest such an outlandish thing has not been relegated to minority status, but instead has been rewarded with increased majorities in Congress. While conservatives may point to this as evidence that they have the majority on their side, they are still wrong. The Constitution that they want to amend contains provisions that were expressly written to prevent the tyranny that majorities often perpetrate on minorities.

So now we turn to the recent events in California, where the GOP has been exposed yet again as the party that favors intolerance and ideology over reason. After lambasting the court in Massachusetts and insisting that legislators decide on gay marriage, the legislature in California did just that. During the debate leading up to the vote, Republican senators are on record saying that gays are not “normal” and that they decided to vote against gay marriage because they wanted to “protect children.” Again, let us pause for closer inspection.

At least a dozen times I e-mailed anti-gay marriage activists or called in during radio programs when they were on the air and asked them the following question: If you think gays harm children, then what you really want is to deny gays the right to have and care for children, correct? Not once did they answer the question directly, and the reason is simple: they know that if they admitted their agenda they would lose credibility with the American people, who, despite their reservations and discomfort with homosexuality, sincerely want to be tolerant of gays. But the anti-gay marriage organizations, while cloaking their agenda in the rosy rhetoric of “protecting the sanctity of marriage” and “safeguarding children,” in fact want nothing less than to deny gays the right to be parents in this society.

Sadly, Governor Schwarzenegger, who has personally expressed support for gay rights, has decided to play to his base and informed the people of California that “we should let the courts decide,” in direct contradiction of the official GOP position up to this point (talk about a bizarre twist of logic). Unsurprisingly, his decision to veto the bill comes the week before he will announce his plan to run for reelection. In order to gain Republican support he has to deny gays their rights and cater to prejudice, even if this goes against his own personal convictions.

There are many areas where there are reasonable arguments for supporting Republican policies over Democratic policies. But not here. Regarding gay rights, the GOP is not only wrong, unjust, and cruel, but I would even say anti-American. The most noble trend in our history has been the steady expansion of individual rights and liberties. Until Republicans speak up in greater numbers and let the GOP leadership know that intolerance against gays is wrong, the GOP will in fact be taking America backward rather than forward.

J.S.

P.S. For a hopeful article on shifting attitudes towards gays and why the GOP will eventually lose this 21st century civil rights struggle, click here.

Jason Scorse

I’m in the camp that believes the modern Democratic Party lacks a fundamental vision that is clearly defined and well-articulated. The charge that the Democrats are little more than a collection of (disparate) interest groups seems accurate. And despite all of their contradictions and inconsistencies, the GOP does have a clearly defined vision that many more Americans strongly identify with.

So what follows may surprise you: I think the reason that the Democrats appear so stagnant and lack “big ideas” is because they’ve won just about every major battle there is to win (at least on the domestic front). I will even go so far as to claim that what afflicts the current Democratic Party is not their failures, but the fact that they have been so successful.

Let me explain.

A central tenet of the Democratic Party is that government plays a constructive role throughout most realms of society, and that the government should command significant influence and control over the nation’s resources. No matter what conservatives say about the evils of big government, the size of government has grown under both Democratic and Republican administrations and congresses, and shows no signs of abating. The Democrats’ ascendance to power came on the heels of the New Deal, which is now a fixture of American life, as is the acceptance that big government is here to stay. (While people love to complain about government who do they turn to after natural disasters or when gas prices skyrocket?) While conservatives talk endlessly about the ills of entitlement programs it has been the Bush Administration that has dramatically expanded the Medicare program with a price tag of hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition, Bush’s attempt to privatize Social Security has gone nowhere as solid majorities favor keeping the program as a form of government insurance, not an additional 401(k) investment plan.

But the Democrats’ overwhelming success in expanding the role of government is also what makes the Democrats so woefully incapable of enacting the necessary reforms that are so crucial for our continued prosperity. The truth is that there is too much government in the wrong places (e.g. agriculture subsidies and other corporate welfare) and too little in the right places (e.g. national health care).

On the topic of civil rights, it has been the Democrats who have been at the forefront of expanding the rights of minorities and women. Affirmative Action programs, which were once again declared Constitutional by the Supreme Court just last year, are in force across the country and women have made tremendous strides with regard to equal pay and fair treatment. Although gays still are denied their basic rights in most of the country, it is the Democratic states of California and Massachusetts where moves are being made to finally afford them these rights, and most social scientists predict that in a generation or two few people will understand what all the fuss was about gay marriage. (The CA senate just last week voted to legalize gay marriage– the first time this has been approved by a legislature in America.)

But again, Democratic success has been a double-edged sword. While the Democrats are rightfully associated with the Civil Rights Revolution, the almost unflinching loyalty they receive from American blacks has caused them to take this constituency for granted and prevented a more nuanced approach to civil rights in the modern era. For example, while there is now a strong black middle class and Democrats can rightfully point to the tens of thousands of black doctors, lawyers, and business executive as (partial) vindication of Affirmative Action policies, poor blacks have fallen even further behind over these past decades, and yet the Democrats resist any efforts to consider new types of policies, such as school vouchers. In addition, in our ever-increasing multiracial society (where future success is much more correlated with income than racial identity) Affirmative Action is much harder to justify both on ethical grounds and on outcomes (see the great article on the Becker-Posner blog).

On the most heated “culture issue” of them all, abortion, the Democrats have also won the issue convincingly. While there are tens of millions of American who believe that a woman doesn’t have a right to choose an abortion, the majority do, and it is almost inconceivable that this fundamental right will ever be taken away from women across America. (This is not to minimize the many state efforts that the GOP has embarked on to restrict access both to abortion and contraception.)

But this victory for women’s rights has been disastrous for Democrats on the national level given the realities of electoral politics, and the very small margins of victory in the presidential elections and many senate races. Although Democrats have rightly put a woman’s right to control her body and her reproduction decisions at the forefront of their political platform (one of the few areas where it is clear what they stand for), the Supreme Court ruling that has stood for over 30 years has so enraged many religious fundamentalists that they vote against Democrats solely based on this single issue. This has guaranteed Republican dominance in many Southern and Mid-western states where religious fundamentalists make up a sizeable portion of the population.

On the foreign policy front, while it is true that the Democrats do not have a unified and coherent foreign policy vision, this is one area where they actually share much with the GOP. Bush campaigned in 2000 on a strongly anti-interventionist platform and it was only the events of 9/11 which prompted him to enact a policy of active regime change in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Democrats were virtually unanimous in supporting the invasion of Afghanistan, and given how Iraq has played out so far, the Bush doctrine of preemption is seriously being called into question. Although we do not have any counterfactual Democratic leadership of the past five years with which to compare, it is not unreasonable to believe that a Democratic response to Al Queda would have been as or more effective as the Bush Administration’s (after all, Kerry pledged to focus more on Al Queda and the dominant Democratic critique of the Bush Administration was that Iraq has diverted resources from this struggle). We can be almost assured that under Democratic leadership the country would now have a much more serious energy policy and not the corporate give-away that President Bush just signed.

In summary, while it is true that Democratic power has now been eclipsed by the GOP, this is due in part, paradoxically, to the across-the-board success of Democratic policies and ideals. Democratic stagnation stems not solely from a lack of imagination and vision, but because almost all of the Democrats’ ideas are now an accepted and established part of American society.

Looking at it another way, what have the Republicans and conservatives actually won or have a chance of winning? They control all branches of government and seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices have been appointed by Republicans, yet on issue after issue the conservative movement is a dismal failure. Government is bigger than ever and so are the deficits. While some aspects of abortion rights are being curtailed the essential right is not threatened. Republicans continually erect protectionist trade measures even while preaching the doctrine of “free trade.” The separation of church and state has not been eroded. While true that many tax cuts for the rich have been enacted, these are likely to be reinstated by future administrations (Republican or Democratic) given the tremendous budget deficits. A Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage will never pass and it is inevitable that as the younger generation enters the halls of power opposition to gay rights will erode. The government’s ability to regulate business and protect public goods remains strong and the essential elements of the New Deal have broad public support. And the list goes on….

Perhaps one day the GOP will have the power to actually threaten the great Democratic achievements, but I doubt it. America in the year 2005 looks a lot like Democrats had envisioned it, and (for good and bad) it will probably remain so for the remainder of our lifetimes.

J.S.

P.S. Kevin Drum explains why the government response to Katrina shows even more conclusively what an utter failure modern conservatism, in practice, has been.

Jason Scorse

It is fashionable on the right to speak of leftist academics as a bunch of traitors who hate America. And while there is nothing that justifies this steady-stream of mind-numbing venom, there is a speck of truth buried in these charges.

I earned two college degrees at UC-Santa Cruz, a university well-known for its liberal bent. During these years, I was exposed to many critiques of the capitalist system and American foreign policy, as well as many alternative histories of non-European peoples. Many of these works were immensely illuminating and exposed me to knowledge I never knew existed, and probably would never have sought out on my own.

Nowhere, however, was I required to read of Stalin’s death camps, Mao’s collectivization schemes, or Cuba under Castro. Despite the many legitimate critiques of capitalism I was introduced to, nowhere was I presented with comparisons between the material progress in Communist Russia and Eastern Europe and the progress of the rest of Europe and the United States, nor the sorry state of human rights in the non-capitalist regions of the world. In addition, it was rare when critiques of the modern capitalism-democratic state were accompanied by much in the way of solutions or alternatives; it was simply enough to sight injustices and inequities and leave it at that.

I only am speaking for myself, but from conversations with many friends and acquaintances throughout the years I know my experience was not unique. While liberal-leaning universities in America are not a hotbed of anti-American radicalism, many do inculcate young minds with a particular type of bias; when in doubt, America, capitalism, and corporations are usually the wrong-doers. In a particularly unscholarly vein, this assumption is never fully explored or critiqued, but accepted a priori. While it is absolutely essential for students to question some of the