The Revolution of Sensible Government

By Andrew Collins

Strange change is afoot. In the midst of the clanking and crashing of the most grandiose ideological sword fight this country has ever seen, a potent coterie of practical politicians is emerging. Ideologically nondescript, they play a different game than their polarized comrades do. Their sole quest? Good government.

The roster is small but growing and includes such Democrats as Mark Warner, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Halter and such Republicans as John McCain, Michael Bloomberg, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. None are perfect, but as of this writing, they have mostly shown themselves to be committed to results over abstract ideology.

It might be tempting to call these individuals “moderate” or “centrist,” but those labels reflect an increasingly outmoded way of thinking about politicians as occupying a notch on an ideological spectrum. For them, it is more about facts, empirical data, and cutting-edge public policy research transformed into bold, sometimes experimental policy efforts. Better labels for these politicians might be “pragmatists,” “progressives,” or “technocrats.”

Two components separate out the sensible executives and representatives from the rest—who, while not necessarily lacking sense, often see the world through a hued lens of ideology or constituent pressure. The first is know-how. Many of these sharp tacks have backgrounds in economics or public policy or have participated in results-oriented business at a high level. It is good to be a wonk, or at least surround yourself with them.

The other key attribute of the pragmatists is political flexibility in working with fair-minded individuals from across parties, agencies, and branches of government. Confining oneself to narrow ideological warfare may help win elections, but it rarely makes for good policy. By contrast, Clinton’s efforts to brainstorm with both Democrats and Republicans on health care has contributed to the formation of several coherent plans and has contributed greatly to the national debate.

The historical track record of sensible politicians is excellent. Consider the progressive tradition of Theodore Roosevelt that was carried on by every President from Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933 to John F. Kennedy in 1963—the most successful period in American history in economic, military, and social progress.

A pragmatic technocrat is sometimes viewed as lacking in conviction and runs the risk of being labelled a flip-flopper or being shunned by both parties. John Kerry and John McCain’s respective Presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2004 are good examples of these respective pitfalls. Kerry is generally oriented toward sensible policy solutions, despite warped, fabricated claims by his political enemies in 2004 about his extreme liberalism. President Bush was actually the more egregious flip-flopper, but the charge stuck to Kerry because he lacked a familiar-sounding ideology to fall back on. Likewise, McCain’s focus on reform and deviation from Republican orthodoxy cost him the Republican nomination in 2000.

Now, with Warner’s success as Virginia governor forged largely through his results-based leadership and Bloomberg enjoying some of the highest sustained popularity ratings in New York City history thanks to a streamlined, businesslike administration, sensible stewardship is back in vogue. The McCain of 2000 and the Kerry of 2004 might have had a home in this nascent political scene by proclaiming a core campaign message of results.

The public outcry for a reliance on planning, analysis, and common sense reached a fever pitch with the government botching of Iraq and Hurricane Katrina. Most Americans have long self-identified as moderate and prefer leaders who look for answers in facts and principles, not theoretical worldviews or deranged emotion. The difference is that now, the stakes are higher. Without good leaders, the nation is at risk. Nationally and on the state level, the people are clamoring for competence and sound public policies.

A challenge is separating the good eggs from the bad ones. George W. Bush governed Texas like a sensible pragmatist but turned into the poster boy for defiantly anti-results leadership when he entered the White House. And while Clinton was feared by some as a liberal ideologue, she has been anything but as a senator.

The solution might lie in a third party, shooting straight up the gut but including even those with rather staunch views (e.g., Newt Gingrich, Ted Kennedy) who are willing to talk sensibly about common ground and results. A redefinition of the political landscape could ease the polarization between liberals and conservatives and sharpen the difference between those who govern by results and those who govern by ideology.

Wishful thinking? Perhaps. But just as the fledgling Republican Party coalesced around Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and the overhauled Democratic Party found an icon in Franklin D. Roosevelt, a new or reconstituted party of sound government could emerge thanks to a great leader in this time of national turmoil. Our best chance perhaps lies in a reinvigorated Democratic Party led by an ideologically unrestricted public servant; of course, both parties have their share of respective absolutist forces more interested in preconceived notions than public policy solutions.

America is at a moment of unease. And yet great things are happening from New York City to Virginia to California. The tide is soon to turn, and when it does, prepare to be awed. With committed leaders and brilliant minds trained to engineer public policy solutions based on facts, there is no limit to how successful America can be and how much its people can thrive.

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR: Christianity: Filling the Black Hole in the European Union Constitution

By Shawn Sheehy

Once, in a pique of flippancy, Margaret Thatcher posed a useful rhetorical question: “A United Europe: What is that?” We ask this same question today.

The European Union was putatively formed to prevent future wars between France and Germany and to promote harmony and stability amongst European countries. But to accomplish this, Europeans have created a Constitution that is about 500 pages long and regulates everything from customs to the legal circumference of tomatoes. The document starts with a quote from Thucydides and shifts to the merits of the Enlightenment, leaving a gap of about 1,700 years. That gap should be filled with Christianity, the basis of European civilization. This missing link acts as a black hole, sucking in what ever hodgepodge of culture it can so that the gap is filled. Thus the gap in the European Constitution is a microcosm of the problem of Europe.

While it may create stability, the European Constitution certainly takes away religious freedom and more importantly, the sovereign right to self-determination. A good example are the recent problems in Slovakia. As an April Wall Street Journal editorial pointed out, Slovakia exemplifies the tension between Western Europe’s disdain for religion and the revitalization of religion in Europe’s eastern bloc.

In 2003 the government of Slovakia and the Vatican agreed on a concordat that permitted Catholic doctors and hospitals to exercise conscientious objection regarding the performance of abortions.

The European Union’s Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights is a group of sixteen unelected elitists from each EU member state who meet in Brussels to tell the European continent what constitutes a human right and what does not. Unlike the United Nations General Assembly, this particular commission has teeth because it can take punitive action against a member state that does not follow the commission's “expert” opinion.

This overbearing power was exercised in January 2004 when the commission demanded that the government of Slovakia break the consciencious objection concordat or face severe penalties. This decision had dire consequences for intra-Slovakian affairs. Bratislava was embroiled in debate--so much so that when the dust settled, the prime minister was compelled to dissolve the parliament and the government collapsed. Should 11 men thousands of miles away from Bratislava wield so much power that they can sway the elections and the course of a sovereign state with the mere issuance of an opinion? And abortion is not the only issue. The EU may soon decide to officially call all countries that do not permit gay marriage “homophobic” and penalize them with suspension.

The EU Constitution calls on the people of Europe to “transcend” their individual culture, but the problem is that the czars in Brussels are rootless in their notions of what constitutes European culture. Because of the EU’s inability to understand its Christian heritage, Europe is trying to fill its religious void with a culture that the member states are supposed to transcend into. This culture is established by opinions from the aforementioned commission and other similar commissions such as the Center for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism, all of which operate with the ability to legally enforce their opinions.

The gap that this culture machine is trying to fill was once filled by Christianity. This is important to notice because the EU’s objective, it seems, is to rid the European public square of any Christian influence. This explains its recent decision to remove “Piglet” mugs from stores because they were offensive to Muslims and yet punish those who are offended by gay marriage and voice their opposition. The EU therefore is trying to replace 1,700 years of Christian culture with opinions and sanctions inhibiting a country’s right to sovereignty and right to self-determination and individual religious freedom and concomitant right of free speech. However, such uncultivated culture cannot take root, which is the main reason voters defeated the EU Constitution. If the Brussels 16 continue to violate what was started in Westphalia, then we can expect to see more clashes of cultures that generated the great dictum cuius regio eius religio.

Shawn Sheehy is a 2006 graduate of The College of the Holy Cross. He also recently completed an Honors Fellowship from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

The Youth Health Insurance Disaster

By Anthony Vitarelli

By and large, young people live most of the early part of their life as recipients of the health insurance provided by one of their parents’ employer-based programs. However, upon their graduation from high school or college (depending on the level of coverage), the youth are dropped instantaneously from their parents’ plan without any transition period to new coverage.

Many young people then take jobs that do not offer health insurance, or they actively elect to eschew health coverage for a slightly larger salary. Although the youth represent a healthy population cohort, they still have serious needs for preventative care, particularly prenatal care. The youth also has pockets of severe health concerns, such as the youth’s high incidence of obesity and HIV/AIDS.

This week, the Commonwealth Fund released a report detailing the pervasiveness of this problem. They found the following:

Young adults (ages 19 to 29) are one of the largest and fastest-growing segments of the U.S. population without health insurance: 13.7 million lacked coverage in 2004, an increase of 2.5 million since 2000.Young adults often lose coverage under their parents’ policies, Medicaid, or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program at age 19, or when they graduate from high school or college. Nearly two of five college graduates and one-half of high school graduates who do not go on to college will be uninsured for a period during the first year after graduation.

The arguments for some form of universal health insurance are well-established.

Citizens without health insurance delay seeking medical attention when they become sick. They remain contagious in society for a prolonged period of time, increasing others’ likelihood of becoming ill. Additionally, this delay worsens their condition once they decide to seek treatment, increasing the costs of their treatment and the length of their eventual recovery.

Uninsured Americans typically wait so long to visit a doctor that the emergency room becomes their form of primary care. Clogging emergency rooms with cases that easily could have been treated previously places serious strain many hospital’s capacities. Needless to say, the costs of an emergency room visit dwarf the costs of visiting a primary care physician.

Solutions here need not result in the specter of “socialized medicine” that dominated healthcare debates in the early 1990s.

First of all, most young Americans are relatively healthy and do not need an extensive health insurance plan. A plan with high deductibles and co-insurance suits the young population well, as they likely will only visit a doctor once or twice each year. In fact, they truly only need a plan that covers catastrophic care and prolonged hospital stays. Plans of this nature are commercially available to individuals for as low as $50 per month. Mass coverage would generate enormous economies of scale, lowering that price substantially on a per citizen basis.

Second, the government must not administer this plan. Time and time again, the government has shown itself unable to control costs or obtain the efficiency of even the most basic for-profit enterprise. Therefore, the government should require that businesses enroll their employees in an extremely basic health insurance program, with appropriate subsidies available to smaller businesses. This structure would compel the businesses to find the most efficient commercial plans to control their bottom line. Moreover, this increased demand of price discriminating consumers would motivate medical providers to offer insurance packages at more competitive rates to attract the new customers.

Third, policymakers should consider methods for smoothing the transition period between being covered under a parents’ insurance program and one’s own policy. A mandatory extension of coverage for even six months after graduation (from either high school or college) would seriously ameliorate the potential for serious healthcare debts. Similar to the earlier proposal, the costs of this kind of extension should be low due to the relative health of young people and the percentage of the population that will not need this extension.

While the benefits of more sweeping insurance coverage seem intuitive, the positive economic benefits are difficult to quantify when faced with the financial cost of implementation. Averted costs include lost wages and productivity (for the initial sick person and subsequently for anyone they might also infect). There also exists the potential for such a program to reduce insurance costs across the board by making the insurance industry more competitive due to the infusion of demand. As an added bonus, the administrative costs will be absolutely miniscule when compared with other government health programs. Admittedly, it will not cover as many citizens as the US’s health programs for the elderly, but it will ensure that Americans are far healthier by the time they need to enroll in Medicare.

The Once and Future Good Neighbor

By Andrew Collins

In the United States, we take it for granted that the world hates us. Often, we assume the dislike and distrust stem from jealousy, religious rage, or some seed of discontent planted by a foe. Some contemporary Republicans take it a step further, saying that American popularity is unavoidable and therefore we should act unilaterally to defend our narrowest interests. Samuel Huntington, a scholar, predicted a “clash of civilizations” resulting from intrinsic differences.

But our unpopularity is largely our own doing, and can be undone by our actions. Take the most traditionally anti-American region in the world, Latin America. The United States is loathed in many quarters for its support of right-wing dictators, its encouragement of coups, its heavy-handed moralism, its Monrovian paternalism, the economic exploitation it permits by its huge corporations, its starkly capitalistic free trade policies, and its tendency to cut and run when intervention ceases to be expedient. Despite over a century of US duplicitousness and attending animosity, there was an amazing moment of cordiality and genuine goodwill between Latin American countries and the United States. This two-decade period of sunshine did not come from external forces, “luck,” or a sudden alignment of interests; rather, it was the result of a conscious effort by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to establish what is known as the Good Neighbor Policy.

What efforts did it take to shore up support in this region? What massive costs were suffered in order to finally achieve hemispheric unity—which, by the way, might have been the difference between Allied and Axis victory in World War II? Suprisingly, nothing. The Good Neighbor Policy entailed forswearing military intervention and respecting the autonomy of Latin American countries.

After announcing the policy in 1933, Roosevelt immediately made good on his rhetoric by removing US troops from Haiti and Cuba and lowering tariffs. Because the respect accorded to Latin America was genuine, it went a long way. Latin American countries signed a pact of unity against Axis aggression despite widespread admiration of European fascism, and, after World War II, joined the Organization of American States. Songs of praise were written and sung in honor of Roosevelt.

Unfortunately, anti-Communist paranoia and the unchecked power of large corporations caused the United States to revisit its intrusive Latin America tendencies from the 1950s forward. Its popularity has never again reached the heights of the Good Neighbor era.

With the success of this policy, it should come as no surprise that the Good Neighbor Principle (that genuine respect leads to international support and desired foreign policy outcomes) has held true at other moments in US history when we have faced the world with fairness and decency. There was nothing ulterior about the Marshall Plan, and it led to enormous US popularity in Europe. Likewise President Clinton’s peacemaking in the Balkans, which contributed to a strong US reputation there.

Why should the United States care about being liked and trusted? First, it gives us greater flexibility in being a global leader on all matters of policy and action. A popular United States gets a real coalition to invade Iraq (imagining, for a moment, that the invasion was necessary) and does it right. Second, it gives less credibility to terrorists and US-haters who would seek to do us harm. Terrorists deserve every ounce of blame for their actions, but their job becomes harder when they must navigate through countries that support and admire the United States. Imagine a pro-US Pakistani population—how much safer would we become? Third, it enables all sorts of positive international action, from the free trade agreements we seek to regional defense treaties.

A cynic might say that benevolence equals softness, and that being a Good Neighbor would cause the United States to be economically and militarily exploited by unsentimental realists. Far from it. A benevolent United States is rather exerting soft power and need not give up its hard power capability. Retain the world’s greatest military, and use it when necessary. By thinking in terms of mulitple sorts of power, one can see that treating other autonomous nations with respect is not only morally decent and logically coherent, but also deeply empowering.

A final example involving the region that is fast coming to rival Latin America as the most consistently anti-American place on Earth: the Middle East. A new Good Neighbor Policy might entail reconsidering military bases in Saudi Arabia, ending the farcial experiment of sending Karen Hughes to propagandize the masses, and bringing the carrot back to the stick-laden table on Iran. A good start on a better neighborhood has taken place in Libya, where President Bush honorably held up his end of the deal and rewarded Libya’s abandonment of weapons of mass destruction and cooperation on anti-terrorism efforts with full diplomatic recognition.

Many in the region were stunned that the United States actually carried through on its end of the bargain on Libya—an illustration of how far we have to go to change hearts and minds about our trustworthiness, commitment to fairness, and designs for the region. Luckily, the power to win back the region’s support and proceed with the business of making a safer, more properous world lies within our grasp. Let us begin.

Ted Koppel: International Man of Mystery

By Robert Samuel

Newsmen love to turn to punditry once they retire from the anchor chair. After years of largely objectively spouting out the news events of the day, they feel uniquely qualified to give opinionated analysis of world and national events.

Ted Koppel, former anchor of ABC’s Nightline, is the most recent embodiment of this caricature. Koppel is now the managing editor of the Discovery Networks, and in his spare time he writes a periodic column for The New York Times.

On Monday, he published his third piece for the paper of record. Few knew Koppel’s precise views before he began publishing his column, but his first two editorials were fairly predictable. His first, published Jan. 29, 2006, discussed how different news outlets contain different biases based on an intended market rather than their own particular ideology. The column provided insightful and provocative analysis from a seasoned insider. Koppel’s writing, unsurprisingly, also subtlely showed disdain for media outlets that courted viewers with a conservative disposition.

Koppel’s second column pulled far fewer punches. In his Feb. 24, 2006, piece he claimed all of President Bush’s foreign policy decisions in the Middle East ultimately were motivated by oil. To his credit, Koppel also argued that every American president of the past 50 years had the same attitude about securing oil, and that Bush merely was continuing a longstanding policy with the war in Iraq.

Koppel surprised few on the right with his first two works. Though they showed efforts at political balance, in the end his left-wing bias could not be overcome in the conclusions he drew. Republicans feel this diagnosis is true for almost all of those that make up the mainstream media.

Then came Koppel’s column in today's Times. Koppel wrote of the continued privatization of the American military and civilian contractors. I kept waiting for the moment when Koppel would go into a diatribe of how horrible this trend was. Instead, Koppel came out in favor of private militaries.

Rather than listing a litany of complaints, Koppel explained why these private forces were necessary:

“Consider only a partial list of factors that would make a force of latter-day Hessians seem attractive. Among them are these:
• Growing public disenchantment with the war in Iraq;
• The prospect of an endless campaign against global terrorism;
• An over-extended military backed by an exhausted, even depleted force of reservists and National Guardsmen;
• The unwillingness or inability of the United Nations or other multinational
organizations to dispatch adequate forces to deal quickly with hideous, large-scale atrocities (see Darfur and Congo);
• The expansion of American corporations into more remote, fractious and potentially hostile settings.” Koppel explained he felt the privatized forces were a natural extension of the all-volunteer Army. He even saw few problems with members of the American military retiring early to accept a higher salary as civilian contractors.

There are few ideas more right wing than a privatized army. That is one of the reasons Dick Cheney’s tenure as CEO of Halliburton is so controversial; Halliburton employees now do many of the support functions, such as providing food and laundry services, that the army used to do for itself.

I am always wary of “objective” newsmen turning to punditry late in life. Their opinions will undoubtedly cast a shadow of the events they once covered in a supposed neutral way. Walter Cronkite is a prime example of this, tarnishing much of his considerable legacy with bomb-throwing, left-wing, syndicated columns.

Koppel does not seem to be hurting his legacy because of his political bias. His columns are not helpful to his cause because he comes off as a crazy old man. Based on everything Koppel has said on the record, there is nothing in his thought process that would make him support a private army.

Yet he does. And he doesn’t provide a very good reason for his view, either.

Koppel should have never entered the world of punditry and neither should any other anchor who stayed in objective news into his 60s. There is simply too much to lose.

The Government and the Market

By Anthony Vitarelli

Taxes are inherently distortionary. That is, if we were to assume that markets could efficiently set prices, no government intervention would ever be necessary in any situation. However, as can be easily observed from the United States’ defense budget, citizens have not voluntary gotten together to decide to fund national defense. Similarly, the nation has not aggregately pooled capital to secure our airports, pave our highways, or protect our environment. Citizens do not individually fund officers to enforce civil rights equality, diplomats to prevent foreign conflicts, or envoys to negotiate international trade agreements.

Since on an individual basis, consumers undervalue these outcomes, yet they appreciate the end result when all citizens participate in their financing, government intervention creates social welfare in these instances. These collective action failures can only be solved by government-mandated participation.

Additionally, the word “distortionary” in this context should not have an exclusively negative connotation. Governments can be used to distort markets that are creating negative social outcomes by not efficiently setting prices. For instance, Americans underestimate the negative health impacts of smoking. When they purchase a pack of cigarettes, they do not accurately consider the future individual and social medical costs associated with smoking – including the ramifications of second-hand smoke and the money they will charge the taxpayers through their Medicare or Medicaid claims. Therefore, a government tax on tobacco products can effectively distort this market to reduce demand and, correspondingly, the negative externalities of smoking.

Likewise, the government can offer financial subsidies (essentially, reverse taxes) to influence consumers who undervalue financial decisions with a positive social impact, such as preschool education of young children. When faced with the financial decision of sending their children to preschool, many families elect to forego this elective education due to budgetary constraints. However, the value to the children – and eventually to society through that child’s future impacts – will likely far exceed the financial cost of that preschool program. In this case, the government has offered a subsidized program to allow families to educate their children at a reduced price and creates a positive net social outcome.

On the other hand, taxes can distort markets negatively and frequently do. When taxes are employed solely as a method of revenue generation – rather than a market improvement – they act in a negative manner concerning market efficiency. They preclude consumers from the market who otherwise would have purchased a good and reduce the net number of consumer-producer exchanges, reducing the net welfare benefit of the market. A common example of such taxes impact luxury goods, such as yachts or Bentleys.

Another form of public interference in markets, government regulations impact markets in the exact same manner as taxes. Effectively, regulations on producer behavior raise their prices through the same mechanism as would a tax on their raw materials. As with taxes, regulations can be employed positively, such as restrictions a firm that over-pollutes or discriminates in hiring, or negatively, such as when the government mandates overly restrictive reporting requirements on emissions.

Perhaps the most negatively distortionary government influence on markets results from a private firm’s use of the government to reconfigure a market such that the firm can reap more profits – a phenomenon known as rent seeking. In other words, firms exercise rent seeking behavior when they lobby the government to enact more favorable tax, trade, or regulatory policies that would otherwise not appear in a perfect market. This behavior has become increasingly prominent due to the enormous windfalls that firm can experience from such government intrusion. Government action on rent seeking requests unequivocally harms consumers and can in no way be construed as a positive intervention.

Naturally, this article ignores the occasional moral imperatives of government action and considers only the immediate impacts of taxes and regulations. Additionally, markets do not function individually, particularly not in today’s world where goods, people, and information easily traverse markets over remarkably short time horizons. Consumers and producers do not always act with perfect information and markets do not correct instantaneously. Regardless of these qualifications, policymakers should more judiciously consider the dramatic impact of tax policy and ensure that when they act, they strive for market improvement – not market meddling.

Pumping Up Hillary for Fun and Profit

By Andrew Collins

Among Republicans, there are few more astute electoral strategists than Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, and Lindsey Graham. Rove is the well known architect of George W. Bush’s Presidential triumphs in 2000 and 2004. Gingrich, of course, led the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994. And Graham is a fast-rising, whip-smart Republican senator from South Carolina.

With 2008 approaching, all three of these men have oddly, repeatedly expressed fear of and respect for Hillary Clinton. Have these ambitious power brokers, calculating in every way, suddenly turned kindly and guileless? Do they just love Hillary? Hardly. In an ingenius strategy, they are pumping up Clinton for Republican political purposes.

They have—either independently or in a unified effort—apparently concluded that the best way to retain the Presidency is to help make Clinton the behemoth Democratic front-runner. Three results are expected: First, she will likely win the nomination over possibly more electorally potent candidates like former Virginia Governor Mark Warner and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards. Second, the Republican nominee might seem like an upstart trying to disrupt the coronation of another Clinton—a maverick savior, not the continuation of an unpopular incumbent administration. Third, gratuitous Republican praise of her could cast further aspersions about her liberal credentials among her already deeply troubled base.

Savvy Republicans would love for Clinton to be the Democratic nominee, and are wisely saving up their ammunition to unload upon her if and when she secures the nomination. It is easy to imagine a damning battery of criticism from the right: weak, few national security credentials, liberal, shrill, beholden to interest groups, female, female, female. Why haven’t we heard anything like this lately, when Clinton is 24 points ahead of the nearest candidate in polls about the Democratic nomination?

Simple: the Republicans are stifling giggles and watching what they believe to be the self-destruction of Democrats in a ill-conceived quest to reinstate some 1960s bleeding-heart utopian regime that never really existed. It is like the 2004 Howard Dean near-fiasco all over again, goes the Republican line of thinking, only if Dean were favored by the establishment from day one. Warner is the candidate the Republican cognoscenti truly worry about—a popular, moderate Southern governor with an emphasis on competent leadership.

They could be wrong to see Clinton as less threatening, but their thinking makes sense. She has some clear electoral limitations, including her gender (unfortunately), her husband, her preexisting notoriety, and what many will inevitably see as her liberalism. Because she is already well known, she is less likely to make great strides in popularity during a general election than someone like Warner, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, or even Edwards. Her core supporters are vocal, however, and she might gain enough votes from stalwart Democrats and women to win a bitterly contested election. Republicans like Rove, Gingrich, and Graham seem willing to take this chance.

The second element of the Republicans’ strategy—building Clinton up into some kind of Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man who can only be taken down by the votes of hardworking, pin-wearing, “just folks” types—is to ensure that once she gets the nomination, she is already on her way to a backlash. Her dynastic aura of inevitability is too great already; with Republicans shoveling kindling on the fire, she is going to be seen as even more menacing to moderates and the 51 percent of Americans who would “never consider voting” for her. “Those who underestimate her do so at their own peril,” wrote Graham ominously in Time. Enter some maverick candidate like John McCain to stand up for smaller government and tough-nosed reform with a slingshot to Clinton’s dome.

The third blow rendered by the Rove-Gingrich-Graham ploy is to make diehard liberals queasy about Clinton. Her base has worried lately about her centrist pronouncements on staying the course in Iraq, avoiding abortions, and keeping spending under control. Few liberals are heartened by Gingrich saying he and Clinton “have the same instinct” on anything; in fact, they are probably horrified. President Bush has built a powerful campaign structure on the foundation of his base, so Republicans are perfectly aware of the dangers of heavy turnout in this age.

Hillary Clinton could be elected President in 2008, regardless of what the elite political minds of the Republican Party are currently plotting. But her road is littered with dangerous obstacles, and she would be wise to only cautiously embrace former enemies across the aisle. They may seem kind, but they want nothing more than to defeat the Democrats and secure another Republican administration. And behind their smiles lurks a vast amount of calculation, skill, and ruthlessness.

So, Democrats, what is your braintrust up to? (You do have a braintrust, right?... Right?... Hello?...)

Lincoln's Advice to the 18-to-24 Bracket

By Robert Samuel

In an era when many decry the absolute lack of leadership in the world, I wonder what would Abraham Lincoln say to those in today’s 18-to-24 bracket?

We are given some idea in the clues Lincoln bequeathed us in his 1838 address to young professionals of his own time at the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois. Lincoln, a 28-year-old young professional himself, entitled his speech “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions.” Belying his awkward dress and unusual build, Lincoln forcefully and eloquently argued in front of this prestigious group that the United States’ republicanism and democracy were on precarious ground.

This speech was as controversial in antebellum America as it would be if made by a public figure in our own time. And his conclusion, that America must seek a “political religion” of reverence for law and liberty, remains as a salient guiding force in contemporary public affairs as it was for a fledging nation nearly two centuries ago.

Lincoln began his speech by sentimentally and appreciatively describing the natural beauty and wondrous natural resources that so benefit the United States. He felt America’s distinct geographical advantages would forever bar the U.S. from foreign occupation or influence.

Lincoln then drew a parallel to the political institutions and civil and religious freedoms Americans inherited. “We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us.” But Lincoln quickly reminded his audience that although America’s physical advantages would remain indefinitely into her future, her political advantages would not inevitably perpetuate. “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

Lincoln listed mob rule and the staggering ambitions of men of genius as the two biggest threats to American political institutions. But the significance of “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions” lies not in its diagnosis of possible existential political problems, but in its recommendation for the proper antidote.

Lincoln believed the internal threat to America’s institutions could be nullified by a condition he termed “political religion.”

"As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;--let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap--let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation.”

At a time when politics lead many to have a pessimistic view of the world and the direction of the country, today’s youth must remember the advice of Lincoln and be rejuvenated to perpetuate our wondrous political institutions.

Anthony Vitarelli is on Vacation

He will return next week.

The Grand Narrative

By Andrew Collins

You are better off when we are better off.

You—the individual, the class, the state, the country—are better off when we—the community, the broader populace, the country, the world—are better off.

That is the moral of America’s Grand Narrative. It is a true lesson of the modern era, and it is the story Democrats must tell—and believe—to regain power and implement a benevolent and effective regime for the 21st century.

The story begins with a thunderous, memorable example. 1945. Europe lay in moral, economic and physical devastation. Japan was quieted, and China was disjointed and wounded. America stood alone atop the ruins of the world. For the first time in human history, a state had achieved unquestionable domination of the entire world. America’s astonishing course? To fish its neighbors from the wreckage and rebuild them as partners.

The Marshall Plan remains the most exceptional peacetime act in American history. It is hard not to be jarred by its idealism and simple goodness. America made good on Woodrow Wilson’s unrealized desire after World War I: to share the fruits of victory in an experiment for peace. Wilson believed that by quickly reinstating war’s losers as members of an international community with bounds, expectations, and rewards, peace and prosperity could become permanent conditions. Harry Truman instinctively applied Wilson’s intellectual maxims, donating millions to rebuild Europe through the Marshall Plan. He was also instrumental in developing the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank—institutions predicated upon the notion that what is best for one is best for all. Despite their limitations, these organizations have been crucial in providing Africa with a Green Revolution, developing the “Asian tigers,” and creating the most rapid increases in quality of life in human history.

(A quick break for theoretical underpinnings: mainstream economics strongly supports the main axiom of this Grand Narrative. I will leave the explanation to the experts.)

Resuming, the narrative becomes animated by a great character, John F. Kennedy. Just as Truman wisely perceived that the United States could only thrive by empowering its neighbors, Kennedy realized that America would never reach its potential while black and poor Americans remained a permanent underclass. Hence the civil rights reform and War on Poverty of the 1960s. These were correct policy efforts—in the right direction and with the right spirit. Civil rights legislation was a major achievement of the century, though much work remains undone. The War on Poverty achieved some success, including narrowing the gap between rich and poor, before being thwarted by less expansive political minds.

Under Truman and Kennedy, America was a place of hope in which we helped others in order to help ourselves. That has been the successful American way, and our few failures have been when we have pursued narrow self-interest. The Great Depression deepened irrevocably when we entrenched with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and chose a path that made life more difficult for the rest of the world. Vietnam was a painful experience of learning that we could not always proclaim from on high what was best for the world, and that crusading for an ideology was no substitute for a careful and respectful analysis of actual conditions. We were humbled and are better for it.

The Grand Narrative reaches its climax in today’s world. The Bush administration has failed to realize that sharing America’s strength is the path to success. It has not seriously engaged in a War of Ideas against terrorism by improving the lives of Arabs and Muslims and by offering a better alternative to the opiate lure of identity and purpose that terrorism provides. Rather than work for a shared security framework through NATO, this administration has preferred unilateralism. And in lieu of accepting the Kyoto Protocol or pushing for a revised environmental regime, as per its promise, this administration has buckled down in the service of short-term economic escapism. Its approach flies in the face of history, which has consistently shown that when we empower our global neighbors, their interests tend to align with ours.

Democrats can offer an alternative to this administration’s narrow, failed approach: a world order that gives other peoples a stake in the success of the world and thereby helps both them and us. Through free and fair trade, aid, and political guidance, Democrats can stress improving the quality of life in developing countries. Genuine help will encourage South American and African governments seek to engage in constructive economic and political activity and disengage from jingoistic socialism and terrorist protection. For tumultuous places like the Middle East, a new Marshall Plan encouraging countries to cast off the shackles of economic repression should be the centerpiece of a Democratic approach.

Iran is not an impossible situation, but success will require giving the expectant Iranian people reason to hope. Ahmadinejad thrives only because he makes Iranians feel proud and powerful. If the United States can somehow replicate and better his efforts without allowing the country to obtain nuclear weapons, we will have won a great battle for peace.

Domestically, the same principles apply. We are not best with trickle-down tax breaks for the rich and the dissolution of crucial programs for the poor; rather, we are best when our underclass is insured, empowered, employed, inspired, and able to kick down class walls with hard work. Allowing a huge underclass to fester in poverty, disease, and crime is morally unacceptable and is guaranteed to poison an intertwined society if left unchecked. The Democratic approach should be one of finding solutions to the problems that are wrecking our inner cities, farms, and increasingly destitute inner suburbs. It starts with adequate funding for key programs like food stamps and No Child Left Behind, continues with repealing tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent, reinvigorates with sustainable reform of Social Security and Medicare, and never succumbs to the ciphons of cronyism and corruption.

America is a shining city on a hill. But even the greatest city can be sacked if it hoards power and allows poverty and conflict to persist outside its walls, and it can collapse upon itself if built upon decrepit foundations. Let us send out our emissaries far and wide to bring light to the dark reaches of the world and dark crevices of our city. Let us learn from our past mistakes, by approaching the problems with humility and pragmatism, not arrogant ideology.

And above all, let us bring goodness back to the administration of government. In the great story of America, this has always served us best.

Statesmanship versus Ideology: The Russia Question

By Robert Samuel

The American media has oft been criticized for its lack of proper coverage of foreign events, both in scope and content. The information empires often wait for an international relations earthquake before they roll out their satellite trucks and correspondents.

Dick Cheney created an IR tremor with his May 4th speech in Vilnius, Lithuania. But true to form, the US media did not properly broadcast the importance or give context to the possible blowback from the most unfortunate timing of the speech.

Mr. Cheney issued the strongest formal rebuke of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Kremlin policies by a Bush administration official. Russia has had many US detractors from high-level US policy and opinion makers; US Senator John McCain made the most famous pronouncement when he urged the other seven nations in the G8 to kick Russia out of the prestigious group of industrialized nations.

Before Thursday, Bush administration officials issued calm and calculated warnings to Russia for its rollback of democratic institutions and its authoritarian energy policies. Mr. Cheney, however, pulled no punches. The Vice President accused the Kremlin of using its gas and oil supplies as “tools of intimidation and blackmail” and hammered at the former Soviet state for “unfairly” restricting citizens’ rights.

Mr. Cheney continued, “America and all of Europe… want to see Russia in the category of healthy, vibrant democracies. Yet in Russia today, opponents of reform are seeking to reverse gains of the last decade. In many areas of the civil society—from religion and the news media to advocacy groups and political parties—the government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of other people.”

Cheney spoke these words in the capital of a former Soviet republic, only furthering the sting to the Russian government.

Needless to say, the speech did not go over well in Moscow. The mostly liberal and anti-Kremlin business daily newspaper Kommersant led its coverage with the headline, “Enemy at the Gate: Dick Cheney made almost a Fulton speech in Vilnius,” referring to Winston Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech made in Fulton, Missouri. The pro-Kremlin and best-selling daily Komsomolskaya Pravda offered more telling analysis. “Asia has stayed with Moscow, but former socialist Europe has gone over to the American side.

“What is Russia to do? Evidently it needs to strengthen links with Belarus and central Asia. And get friendly with China, to counterbalance the western might.”

Word for word, there is not much with which I disagree in Cheney’s speech. Russia has done much to weaken democratic institutions, most notably making state governor’s a federally appointed position rather than an elected one. It has also used the gas giant Gasprom to punish the Ukraine for its new pro-Western policies by reducing energy supplies and increasing prices. Any proponent of democratic governance would be highly troubled by Russia’s behavior.

But this was not the time for Cheney’s speech. Russia simply means too much in negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program. Just as the War on Terrorism could never be completed with Saddam Hussein in power, the War on Terrorism will be endless if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon. The United States cannot allow the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism to obtain a nuclear weapon.

And Russia can be the answer to diplomatically solving this international crisis. With Russia’s veto powers on the United Nation’s Security Council and its longstanding ties with the Persian nation, Russia is key to the diplomatic solution with Iran.

It goes against Cheney’s newfound neoconservative ideology to side with authoritarian regimes to obtain a political end. But this is exactly why ideological purity is for philosophers, not politicians. Ideologies produce many ideas, both good and bad. Statesmen should have ideological principles, but should also know when to make compromises in order to achieve the best possible outcomes for the nations they represent.

Russia’s recent history should trouble the United States. But it is clear Russia is not becoming the Soviet Union again. Russia’s economic conditions and national ambition are much more tempered. Cheney should have recognized that.

It is the interest of the United States for Russia to return to the democratic path. But it is even more important that Russia be on the United States’ side in the showdown with Iran. For that reason, Mr. Cheney’s speech did more to hurt the United States than help the worldwide democratic movement.

Party at the Crossroads: Democrats and the Honesty Strategy

By Anthony Vitarelli

It’s almost as if the Republican Party were trying to forfeit the 2006 midterm elections.

This week, Republicans have proposed and then withdrawn a stunningly awful proposal to send $100 checks to every American as a gasoline tax rebate. Buttressing their image as the party of moral certitude, the press reported that former Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham may have been involved in a lobbyist-finance, sex scandal with a cadre of prostitutes at (of all places) the Watergate Hotel. Finally, creating sound bites for attack ads everywhere, President Bush proposed a reduction in deposits to the strategic petroleum reserve – exactly what he claimed he would never do, while campaigning for the Presidency in 2000.

Unfortunately, as the Republicans continue to try to hand the Democrats control of Congress, Democrats have seized the moment by doing what they do best: absolutely nothing.

In fact, the $100 Republican rebate proposal actually originated as a $500 gas tax holiday proposed by Senator Bob Menendez. The Democrats have also not improved their general image of privilege and carelessness by another member of Congress named Kennedy getting into an alcohol-fueled car wreck. Additionally, in what may be remembered as the greatest policy oversight in recent memory, Democrats offered no reasonable, actionable proposal on immigration reform, despite massive wave of public outcry for change from a large portion of the Democratic base.

Democrats need to speak honestly with voters and to convince them that the government can work for them, rather than serving solely as an amorphous specter that fights wars on their behalf, writes their parking tickets, and collects their taxes.

Honesty can work on immigration. Democratic candidates can frankly say to voters that sending back all undocumented workers is not possible, and the government should provide immigrants with a challenging but manageable process through which they can become citizens, pay taxes, and contribute to the American economy. The United States needs to bolster border security with increased funding and authority for the US Customs and Border Protection agency. Democrats should favor prosecuting companies that continue to circumvent employment laws, while working with those companies to facilitate the H-1B visa program for guest workers. The United States does not need an enormous fence along the Mexican border.

Honesty can work on gas prices. Candidates must present the realistic choice to voters: either Americans need to start consuming less or the US need to find ways to either obtain cheaper oil or derive energy from other sources, such as renewables. Frame this issue as an investment in the productivity in our economy, rather than rabble rousing by focusing on greedy oil companies and ruthless Middle East regimes. Democrats should focus on a positive strategy to reduce demand and create new, competitive supplies.

Honesty can work on healthcare. With over 45 million uninsured Americans and retirement healthcare costs crippling some of America’s largest corporations, Democrats need to get serious about confronting this impending – or already existing – crisis without obfuscating the numbers or creating boondoggles for pharmaceutical companies. Democrats need to propose a realistic system for financing health insurance through employers, without creating an additional bureaucracy. Candidates should explain to voters how reliance on emergency care and delayed treatment become financially crippling for individuals and the entire healthcare system. This is not about big government or socialized medicine; this is a dire economic issue more than any dividend tax cut or rebate check.

Democrats have lost every national election since 1998, and they can only blame shifting American demographies and the Republican funding advantage for so long. The Party needs to candidly acknowledge its debilitating ideas deficit in recent campaigns, exemplified by many voters’ inability to define a core set of Democratic values. To date, running as the anti-Republicans has proven to be a remarkably ineffective strategy.

Democrats: Get honest with yourselves, and then get honest with the American people about how you intend to manage immigration, enact a sensible energy policy, and reform healthcare. There is quite simply too much at stake to lose again.

Note: Zeb Smathers contributed ideas to this article.

The Underlying Issue on Immigration

By Andrew Collins

As I stood amidst a thunderous crowd Monday, having stumbled upon a pro-immigrant rally in New York City’s Union Square on my way home from a doctor’s appointment, I was struck by a helpful realization about the nature of America’s recent immigration debate. And in a microcosm of the broader political scene, I had to wade through a lot of clutter before encountering my epiphany.

Flags of all colors whipped in front of my eyes. The Stars and Stripes outnumbered all others combined, but Mexican, Puerto Rican, and other flags comprised a robust minority. Some protesters sewed the back of their native flag to the back of their adopted one; others defied American nativists by marching under the colors of a foreign nation. But this debate is not about symbols.

Some families carried signs admonishing America about democratic principles. Others sought to “deport Bush.” One haggard crew—looking suspiciously like NYU kids on furlough from a reefer afternoon—advised anarchy and the dissolution of borders. But this is not about democracy or a lack thereof.

A speaker screeched that the immigrants were protesting America because it pursues objectives like supporting an “apartheidist Jewish state.” I tuned her out before more drivel reached my ears. This debate is certainly not about anti-Semitism.

It’s about poverty. That is what hundreds of thousands of protesters were really talking about Monday when they took to the streets in their inspiring show of solidarity and peaceful protest. Poverty is why illegal immigrants want to come to the United States, it is why they choose illegal routes, it is why they so fervently want citizenship, and it is the animating, unspoken force behind their rallying.

Let us be clear that the current immigration debate is mostly a Hispanic one, and the twin reasons are the poverty and proximity of Latin America. Wages can be up to four times higher in America, on average, than in Mexico. There is a clear economic motivation, if not compulsion, to move north. And the means is available to go illegally, through a 2,000-mile border that remains largely unprotected.

In addition to inculcating the desire to emigrate, the poverty of would-be immigrants makes it more likely that they will come illegally. There are two reasons for this; the first is the shameful fact is that a large number of Americans simply do not want poor Hispanics entering their country and living in their communities. Discriminatory nativists associate poverty with laziness, disease, and crime. This has directly and indirectly made legal immigration difficult for Hispanics and has thereby encouraged illegal immigration.

The other way in which poverty leads to illegal immigration is that poor families living in Latin America lack the means to obtain reliable information on legal immigration, the personal connections to bypass screening procedures, and the time to jump through bureaucratic hoops. A day at the immigration office can mean a lost paycheck and a hungry child that night. Do not kid yourself—legal immigration is expensive, and the rich fare better in navigating the path to documentation.

Illegal immigrants’ arrival in the United States generally improves their financial prospects and standard of living. But they tend to remain poor. Few well-paying jobs accept undocumented workers, and lack of access to continuing education often rules out high-skill jobs with a commensurate wage. Without papers, the ceiling for advancement is low. Access to the American dream is cut off. You can’t pull yourself up by the bootstraps when you don’t have boots.

Indeed, poverty is a theme from start to finish. And if there is a common trait in most of those who brave the cultural and physical hardship of coming to America from poverty, it is that they are determined to earn a better life. That is the story of Monday’s protest in Union Square, and others like it across the country. Citizenship is only an abstract representation of the real goal: the right to rise.

In its struggle, the immigrant community also speaks for the 35 million American citizens living in poverty, as well as the struggling working class, as well as everyone else—because with a roll of the cosmic dice, we could be in their shoes. The subtext of their effort is that they are shouting for a society where the upper class does not hold a strangulating noose at the neck of the masses, and they are correct in this call.

By any measure, American society is less equitable than it has been since the 1930s. The poor are getting poorer, and the rich are getting richer. We have heard this statement so many times that it almost sounds like some sort of factual axiom, a Newton’s Law of class motion. But it is a controllable reality that can be reversed, just like the seemingly inexorable 1990s trends of a deteriorating ozone layer and rising crime. The poor can get richer. The poverty line can become an unimaginable symbol of past societal inadequacy, like serfdom or the alms house.

No matter what Congress does on immigration, the essential message of Monday’s protest will echo until broader changes take place. The tax burden must be more equitably distributed; mismanaged and wasteful government programs must be untangled, streamlined and adequately funded; and campaign finance and lobbying reform must wrench politics from the control of wealthy corporate interests.

Poverty, more than anything else, is what holds illegal immigrants down. And if they someday get their papers, they will find out what 35 million documented Americans already know: even when you play by the rules, it’s hard to catch a break around here.

Multilateralism and Darfur

By Robert Samuel

Proponents of multilateralism believe Iraq is Exhibit A in their case against a unilateral foreign policy.

For opponents of multilateralism, the international community’s handling of Darfur should become the prime example of the flaws of that approach.

Thousands marched in Washington, DC, Sunday, demanding more American leadership to end what both the executive and legislative branch deemed genocide. It is true the United States could be doing more and probably should be doing more. President Bush promised genocide would not occur “on his watch,” and not enough has been done to end what he has admitted is the most heinous of human acts. Darfur so far has not been as bad as Rwanda and Bush has done more than Clinton, but besides that, Bush has few defenses.

The marchers in Washington believe Bush should be doing more, but few of these left-leaning activists could fault Bush’s multi-lateral approach to the issue. The United States has declared the situation in Darfur genocide, the Europeans have said they aren’t so sure, and the Arab League has said it definitely is not genocide.

With this type of audience at the United Nations, it is no wonder nothing has been accomplished. Instead of going-it-alone with a group of willing nations, Bush chose to go to the United Nations to discuss intervention. While the US consulted with other nations to hear their views and concerns, gun ships were plowing down scores of children and women.

Based on the principles of multilateralism, the US did everything right. The President is involved, the Secretary of State has been decisive, the UN ambassador eloquent, the Congress united. The international community, just as in the case of Bosnia, the Congo, pre-invasion Iraq, Kosovo, and Rwanda, expressed its highbrow disapproval.

But as the marchers demonstrated yesterday, not nearly enough has been done. The United Nations, once again, has failed.

In addition, the marchers should be careful what they wish for. One should not underestimate the difficulty of ending the genocide, even with NATO troops. The Janjaweed are not merely going to lay down their arms to the Western troops. They are going to fight back. If NATO intervenes, it should expect counter-insurgency warfare at best at the level of Somalia in the early 1990s and at worst at the level Iraq currently sees. Osama bin Laden once lived in Sudan, and in his latest message he suggested starting a new terrorist front there. We should not think he is kidding.

Recent history has many lessons for great powers. Unilateralism rarely solves complex problems, and multilateralism has an even worse track record. Complex international issues instead take outstanding leadership and enormous sacrifice if they are to be solved. The sacrifice is the part we rarely remember to take into consideration.