Oppose the Minimum Wage Illusion

By Anthony Vitarelli

From a strategic perspective, Senate Democrats have been savvy recently in their attempts to add minimum wage amendments to numerous bills that have received votes in the Senate. A higher minimum wage polls exceptionally well throughout the entire country. In late 2005, PollingReport.com reported that over 83 percent of Americans favor an increased minimum wage, and almost 80 percent of Americans would be more likely to vote for a Congressional candidate who favored minimum wage hikes. Politically, there are not many better issues for Democrats to support.

Unfortunately, raising the minimum wage is simply bad policy.

If the price of labor (the wage rate) is artificially inflated by a government mandate, employers will be compelled to reduce the total hours of labor they demand. Such a government mandate necessitates market inefficiency. That is, the total value of production from the new market condition will be less than at the pre-minimum wage level. Moreover, minimum wage laws necessarily increase unemployment as businesses substitute away from the suddenly more expensive labor.

Clinton Secretary of Labor Bob Reich is an avowed supporter of a $7/hour minimum wage. He declares that “the minimum wage is also a moral statement about the minimum value of work in our society.” While Reich’s is a claim that has some merit, he ignores the aggregate employment trade-offs associated with a higher minimum wage. Surely, most citizens would support keeping employment levels constant with simultaneous increases in the lowest wages, but that scenario is simply impossible.

On the other hand, Reich generally asserts correctly that a nation’s policies on employment serve as a moral testament as to a government’s commitment to its people. In that spirit, the government should pursue more results-oriented measures of lifting people from poverty. Notably, the most effective measure in recent years to support economic growth, while continuing to promote hard work, has been the Earned Income Tax Credit. This legislation rewards those who work full-time jobs by refunding payroll taxes up to certain income levels. Additionally, the EITC encourage hard work by increasing the benefit stream as hours of employment increase at first, leveling off in the mid-range, and tapering toward the end of the eligible income levels.

Moreover, since the EITC signifies real income and often lifts families above the poverty line, America’s EITC program also reduces entitlement spending by shrinking those rolls. At its core, though, the EITC spurs economic growth by returning money to those who are most likely to spend it. That is, a family earning $30,000 per year that receives $2,000 in EITC benefits has a far higher marginal propensity to spend than a millionaire who receives a similarly proportional tax credit. These types of programs that induce consumer spending have a multiplicative impact on local economies, which often spurs additional demand for labor, further reducing unemployment.

From a political perspective, though, macroeconomists comprise a relatively small voting block. Democrats need to make a positive case for serious programs that generate economic growth and can truly lift families from poverty, rather than “sound bite” programs like increasing the minimum wage. A theme in this regard, as Democrats move forward toward November, should center upon the concept of “investing in the American people.” Democrats should not resign themselves to the false conclusion that they cannot win with sensible policy.

Programs like the EITC that increase incentives for hard work can resonate not only with low-wage workers but also the businesses who seek to employ them. Additionally, Democrats should link a proposed expansion of the EITC to other workforce development programs such as increased funding for job training and vocational education. Democrats can make the empirical arguments that the money invested in such programs has a far greater return in the economic long-run.

With a reasonable series of proposals in this vein, Democrats can shed their legacy of being the party of government hand-outs and taxing-and-spending. Step one requires having the courage to move beyond the comfort of sound bites to the seriousness of sound policy.

National Service to Invigorate America's Soul

By Andrew Collins

Ask not…

Name that quotation. Easy, right? It is one of the most famous and time-worn in American history, a cliché that has lost its power. But consider it freshly—not as a nugget of history in some grainy, black-and-white film reel, but in the immediate, fervent present tense in which it was intended.

With that remark in his 1961 Inaugural Address, President John F. Kennedy charged all Americans to man the intrepid gunboats of democracy’s arsenal. He was talking about a change in attitude, from negativity and laziness to a spirit of hope and can-do buoyancy. He was talking about every American “buying in” to the country’s mission and claiming a stake in its success. Most of all, he was talking about national service.

It is time to bring national service back to the foreground of our lives. Compel it, suggest it, cajole it, reward it—these details are less important than the great task of reinvigorating America’s spirit and national unity. National service is something everyone can rally around, and when we do, we will find it delivers unexpected positive dividends to our communities, nation, and world.

The beauty of national service is that it can can be tailored to fit any set of aspirations. Its benefits are not limited to people of certain socioeconomic status, professional status, or geographic region. Democrats and Republicans alike can seize on national service as typifying “their kind of program.” Democrats can talk about how it helps both communities served and participants’ lives through a government program. Republicans can talk about how it emphasizes volunteerism and the enterprise of faith- and community-based organizations, not taxes or handouts.

Service can take the form of skilled labor, like building dams or fixing faulty plumbing systems. It can take the form of unskilled labor, like cleaning trash from highways. It can take the form of capacity-building work, like helping to provide technology to soup kitchens and food pantries on the front lines of fighting hunger. National service participants can be sent overseas as ambassadors to assist people in need and give them the tools to help raise themselves out of abject poverty. Religion need not be a component of national service; then again, it can be. Both approaches have value.

National service is underway in America right now, although in a shriveled, underfunded form. President Kennedy envisioned millions of national service veterans helping the United States and world out of many of its difficulties and pushing it toward an even brighter future. “Progress” was the watchword, as during the previous progressive eras of the Roosevelts. Instead, national service has mostly been in a holding pattern.

President Bill Clinton briefly reinvigorated President Kennedy’s aspirations for national service with the AmeriCorps program, an umbrella organization for federal service programs. But at the time of the program’s creation, President Clinton lacked the political capital necessary to truly empower AmeriCorps. President George W. Bush professes to like AmeriCorps but has attempted to cut its funding and axe vital components.

Making national service a cornerstone of the public edifice would teach young people new skills, create jobs, improve national infrastructure, ease conflicts as volunteers worked together, and help restore America’s sense of civic spirit. The cost of administration would be far outweighed by the public benefit, and with a large program, economies of scale would suggest an even more favorable net result.

A question within the national service movement is whether it should be compulsory, like in many countries, or voluntary. An advantage of compulsory service is that it would draw people who might not otherwise be inclined to service; these people may often benefit most from it. In addition, it would inspire a greater commitment from Congress; for a nationwide program, there is less of a threat of a bureau being marginalized or targeted for cuts or elimination.

The main disadvantage of compulsory service is, of course, that it would inevitably force some people to serve who simply did not want to do so. It would also be perceived by some people as a strike at personal liberty. For these reasons, an “opt-out” form of voluntary but expected national service should be established. It should be considered as a given that people will contribute a year or more of national service, with information distribution and matching workshops in schools. But, like with a military draft, there should be a host of waivers and exceptions made for those who have a legitimate reason or deep conviction against service.

Those people not be the focus of national service, however. There is so much more to be gained from the spirit and practice of giving to America than there is wisdom in the grumbling of naysayers. Where we as a nation sometimes feel rudderless in a perplexing age, service gives us purpose.

Let President Kennedy have the last word: Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR: Justifying Collective Security

By Jeremy Suttenberg

A favorite whipping boy of Bill O’Reilly is the United Nations. On his radio show, O’Reilly recently told a caller, “I just wish Katrina had only hit the United Nations building, nothing else, just had flooded them out. And I wouldn't have rescued them.” Of course the underpinning of the UN is collective security, and given the current unpopularity of the UN, a theoretical justification of collective security is warranted.

An effective conceptual means of analyzing international systems is through a hierarchal continuum between a universal world government and an anarchical system of unaligned states. Within this range, collective security falls closer to the former, with a bipolar world or balance of power system marking the way towards the latter. In theory, collective security should be optimal yet unattainable due to both collective action failure and the inherent impossibility of great powers acting in concert to police one another.

Despite its failings, though, collective security offers, in practice, the best means of ensuring international stability. This apparent paradox can be resolved through recognition of that hierarchal continuum between international security systems. Even if collective security were to fail, it would likely lapse into either a bipolar or mutlipolar system, as was the case throughout the Cold War. Furthermore, the bipolar (or balance of power) world created by the failings of collective security would be optimal since a lingering ideology of international cooperation would remain in the political consciousness.

The theoretical flaws of achieving collective security are twofold: collective action failure for the weaker powers and the contradiction between concert and enforcement for the great powers. It can easily be argued that global security constitutes a public good, comparable to that of clean air, unpolluted water, or, to be a bit more mundane, a clean apartment. Like those other public goods, everyone benefits from the effects of global security, and no one can be excluded from enjoying it once the peace has been achieved. Thus, the coordination breakdown occurs due to the phenomenon of free-riding; the natural incentive for states is to allow others to enforce collective security agreements while they reap its benefits without paying the costs. The states that have the most to gain from a stable world (i.e. the superpowers) will likely end up providing most of the security, while the states with less to gain will choose to defect.

Indeed, since there is no means of ensuring that defecting countries will not be able reap the benefits of a stable world, national interests encourage defection from collective security. As more and more countries defect, collective security either disappears completely or becomes entrusted to the great powers.

If collective action failure explains why less powerful countries will abandon collective security, the theoretical reason why the superpowers cannot operate under this system is more systematic and abstract. In his article, “An Autopsy of Collective Security”, Earl C. Ravenal identifies the logical contradiction that plagues any collective action system:

The very notion of a concord of great powers sufficient to repel and punish significant aggression is a contradiction between the two essential, and yet mutually incompatible, conditions for a regime of collective security: concert and enforcement. This contradiction goes to the heart of the improbability of this form of international system and this kind of international organization: the essential members – the great powers – do not, and cannot, police each other. To the extent that they did, they would transform the system into something else.

There are many historical manifestations of Ravenal’s contradiction, one of which was the 1950 UN intervention in Korea. Viewed by many as the first UN intervention and an assertion of collective security following World War II, this action was only possible because the USSR was boycotting the Security Council at the time. Once the Soviets resumed their seat, the UN was forced to abandon the South Koreans, thus illustrating the paradox between concert and enforcement. The UN intervention in Korea was initially successful precisely because it was not collective, and once a true concert of the great powers emerged the enforcement ceased to exist.

Even though underlying flaws are present in its theoretical foundation, the practical application of collective security still offers the best means of ensuring global stability. This relates directly back to the hierarchal continuum of international security systems identified at the beginning of this article. That continuum is hierarchal because it can be presumed that a unitary world government would provide the most global security, then followed by collective security, bipolarity, and so-on down the scale until one reaches international anarchy. It follows from this hierarchy that the descent towards anarchy is a progression through the different international relations systems. In other words, it is highly improbable that the world would collapse from collective security to general un-alignment without passing through either a bipolar or balance of power world first. The authors Charles and Clifford Kupchan argue that this fact is the primary advantage of the collective security system:

Even when it does not work, collective security at its worst is roughly equivalent to balancing under anarchy at its best. Should non-threatened states opt out of collective action, the remaining coalition would consist of the same directly threatened states as the alliance that would form through balancing under anarchy.

This partly negates the theoretical problem of coordination failure, since the Kupchans’ model allows for defection without throwing the entire system into disarray. Thus, the world should strive for collective security but recognize its theoretical flaws and chance it may regress back to the older ways of maintaining the peace.

Jeremy Suttenberg is a graduate of Washington University.

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR: Religion: A Necessity for Liberty

By Shawn Sheehy

When one reads about the latest religious clause case, one notices the template has become quite banal. Some sanctimonious ACLU attorney is trotted out to pontificate about the necessity of religious freedom in this country. The attorney then deftly uses this universally recognized principle to argue that the foundations of the republic will shatter if a high school student says a prayer in school.

It is rare to hear conservatives in higher education demand the same strict church-state separation as the ACLU does, albeit for different reasons. I experienced such a shock a few weeks ago when leaving a convention in Delaware. The perpetrator of this shock was a professor from Hillsdale College in Michigan.

We were in the Philadelphia airport waiting for our planes to depart when this professor, another student and I engaged in a discussion over the use of religion by public figures. The professor argued that it was dangerous for political leaders to use religious metaphors, tones and language when giving a speech because it deifies the state. It is also a theft of religious terms that devalues the meaning and importance of such language and metaphors in the context of religion.

The ACLU asks: How much is the religious sphere meddling in the affairs the state? The conservative professor asks: How much is the state sphere meddling in the affairs of religion? Both essentially ask: What role does religion play in a liberal society?

Let us first look into the vast reservoir of the ancient Western tradition. In his History of the Peloponnesian War (434-404 BCE), the great Athenian general Thucydides discusses the end of the first year of the war and the beginning of the second. Pericles, Athens's leader, gives a stellar encomium to the greatness of Athens. But in this famous oration, commonly known as Pericles’ Funeral Oration, reference to the gods is conspicuously missing.

This section of Thucycides' history is followed immediately an account of the plague, in which the glorious Athenian city-state of the Funeral Oration is reduced to an anarchic city-state of nature. The Athenians became “careless of all law, both sacred and profane.” Thucydides often will tacitly imply something by the mere placement of events; in this case, his message is found in describing this lack of deference to both human and divine law immediately following the conspicuously godless Funeral Oration.

Thucydides is therefore saying that in intra-polis relations, religion is important for the maintenance of liberty. Without respect for the divine, a state falls into absolute freedom, a state of nature where there is no freedom, just anarchy. Religion, to Thucydides, inculcates a respect for the law and thus enables a healthy understanding of liberty. However, in inter-polis relations, because the relations between states are inherently anarchic, religion will not be of any help to the state and in fact could be a hindrance.

Fast-forward to America's founding, and the seed of this “liberty needs religion” approach is brought to fruition by our Founding Fathers. George Washington, in his famous Farewell Address, said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” He further claims the morality of the young country will not prevail without religion. This sentiment is echoed by John Adams and even Thomas Jefferson, who, while not a believer, as President thought it his duty to attend church so as to provide an example to the rest of the citizenry.

This then brings us to Alexis de Tocqueville and Abraham Lincoln and the concept of a civil religion to achieve what the Founders envisioned. Tocqueville explicitly outlines the necessity of religion for liberty. Religion, to Tocqueville, “prevents [the people] from conceiving everything and forbids them to dare everything.” He goes on to say, “If [religion] does not give them the taste for freedom, it singularly facilitates their use of it.”

Both quotations show how religion allows for liberty in that it provides boundaries to freedom—thus, liberty and order, not illiberalism and disorder. But Tocqueville specifies the proper sphere for a civil religion. He says it is not the business of the state to get an individual into heaven, but that civil religion can reside in the sphere of morality common to all religions.

This sentiment is supported by Pope Benedict XVI in his latest book, Without Roots, in which he agrees with Tocqueville that a liberal society needs religion and sees that a valid civil religion is helpful in reestablishing “an image of a world of spirit and sense to counter the deconstructionist trends....”

Pope Benedict’s concern closely resembles Thucydides’ concern when he wrote his History. The forces of Antiphon—a pre-Socratic philosopher who argued there is no natural law except “man’s natural state is one of anarchy”—were dangerous because they considered human law a mere construct to stop man from full enjoyment. Thucydides, rather, advocates a reverence for divine law and human law. This is what Pope Benedict is referring to here: a civil religion that recognizes God as a possibility within the realm of reason, lending reverence to human law.

There are many similarities between the Funeral Oration and Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but the difference is what is important. Lincoln says that our great Nation is “under God” and that the blood of the soldiers “consecrated” the fields of Gettysburg. He says these fields are where the American proposition that all men were created equal was tested. God here is in the realm of possibility, and the description of the soldier’s sacrifice at Gettysburg leaves the listener with a sense that liberty is something higher than merely a Northern cultural construct.

In Lincoln’s letter to Mrs. Bixby, a mother of five sons who all lost their lives fighting in the Civil War, he thanks her for their sacrifice upon “the altar of liberty.” Again liberty here is elevated beyond a construct and into the realm of universal application, but still within the sphere of reason. The choice of the word altar is significant because it recognizes the principle that liberty needs religion for the aforementioned reasons. It does this because the term altar in Latin means both “high” and “deep.” It is the recognition that man is actually taller when he genuflects before something greater than himself. If liberty is looked upon merely as a construct, then human law is nothing more than the flux of Heraclitus and it will fail. But if liberty is supported by the pillars of religion, then society will have a healthy respect for laws and recognize their importance, which Lincoln describes in his Lyceum Address as the purpose of a civil religion. Liberty has to look to religion for assistance (a lowering) in order that liberty may be memorialized (a raising).

Pope Benedict and Lincoln seem to be in an agreement on the necessity of a civil religion. Both have God in the realm of reason and possibility and recognize the importance of the moral qualities of religion and its value in establishing a society that understands the importance of liberty with boundaries. This is not to be confused with Taliban-like use of religion. The Taliban uses force to make people believe and conform to its vision of the world, saying, “I am doing the will of God,” which is beyond the realm of a civil religion because reason cannot dictate that one is doing the will of God. Once political leaders depart from reason in their usage of religion, combining the state and religion becomes dangerous. We have to be like Lincoln, not Nicias.

Religion is not cheapened when statesmen use it to cultivate a civil religion. This is because the state, as Tocqueville points out, is leaving the faith aspect alone. The public aspects of religion are what is used, and that sphere is shared between religion and the state. Furthermore, the concern over deification of the state is rejected for the same reasons that statesmen do not devalue the religious significance of metaphors and language. The deity finds its locus in faith, not reason.

Therefore, religion is necessary in the public square for the perpetuation of our republic and democratic institutions. The use of religious ideals by statesmen should be encouraged by religion, not seen as a scourge to religion. As Tocqueville says, the lack of religion in the public square creates the conditions necessary for anarchy or despots. Religion cultivates the conditions for the perpetuation of liberty.

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 Bill Factor

By Andrew Collins

In all the discussion about Senator Hillary Clinton’s possible 2008 White House bid, one huge, HUGE factor keeps getting overlooked.

The 43rd President of the United States. Bill Clinton. The most popular man in the world.

Neither party wants you to focus on him at this point. Democrats know Hillary needs to continue to establish herself as a worthy and independently credible Presidential candidate. Republicans recognize that Bill is wildly popular and don’t want to remind people of the days in which the United States was confident, respected, and fiscally responsible because, obviously, their man in the White House is not quite measuring up.

But don’t kid yourself—as the election draws closer, Bill will emerge as the looming ex-President in the room. Regardless of how a Hillary Clinton Presidency would actually play out, the public would perceive a Hillary ’08 ticket as more than the sum of her and her running mate. A vote for Hillary Clinton would also be seen as a vote for the symbolic and actual Bill Clinton as a source of stability, experience, and wisdom. My hunch is that many voters would find the idea of Bill’s return irresistable and that his presence would make Hillary Clinton a much more formidable candidate in 2008 than some prognosticators are suggesting.

Bill Clinton’s national popularity has escalated steadily since he left office, and he currently enjoys 60 percent approval ratings. A self-styled elder statesman focusing on big-picture global health and wealth issues rather than political minutiae, he comes across as above-the-fray and driven solely by a desire to improve lives and his legacy. He has already burnished his post-Presidency reputation with several significant achievements, including negotiating with soft drink companies to ban sugared soda from public schools. He is also inclined to cross party lines, as when he joined with former President George H. W. Bush in 2005 for disaster relief in Southeast Asia and the Gulf Coast and was named one-half of Time’s “Partnership of the Year.”

He is also a flat-out rock star. No one garnered more applause at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, pointedly including Presidential nominee John Kerry. I saw him speak in West Harlem last week, and he left no doubt that he still had a magic touch when it came to charming and convincing audiences.

There is no doubt that he can be used to good effect on the campaign trail. Hillary would not make the same mistake Al Gore did in 2000 by refusing to use Bill’s popularity and successful Presidency to her advantage. He would be a huge draw everywhere he went, and would keep pounding home the same message: Hillary Clinton would be a wonderful President. The only risk would be that he could overshadow her, but if anyone knows how to manage his image on the stump, it is Bill Clinton.

The Bush era would come into much starker relief if Hillary were the Democratic nominee. Against a non-Clinton challenger, the 2008 Republican nominee could reasonably speculate, “Candidate X wouldn’t have led the country as effectively as President Bush did.” But if Hillary were the nominee and effectively framed her Presidential bid as a return to the Clinton era (which it literally would be), the Republican nominee would be stuck. Because the Clintons, of course, did lead the country as effectively as President Bush did—in fact, much more effectively, and we have the boundless data and polls to prove it. Hillary was in the White House then and played a vital role for her husband.

Bill happens to fill in Hillary’s electoral gaps nicely. Where she is perceived as lacking a lengthy national security resume, he served as Commander-in-Chief for eight years. Where she has a bit of trouble appealing to “soccer moms,” Bill has none. Where she gets polite support from some minority groups, he is revered. And where she has some edges, he is expert at smoothing them over. He humanizes her. In some ways, he is a better fit for the traditional role of First Spouse than she was.

Not everyone loved the Clinton era, of course, and not everyone would like to see the Comeback Kid in another go-round. But human beings have a natural proclivity toward the familiar, and many ostensible Bill-haters would secretly be glad to have him back in the headlines in the same way they “hate” Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan yet consume their familiar comings and goings with relish. Once America gets Bill Clinton at full wattage for a few months, it’s hard to imagine us rejecting him for four years of George Allen football metaphors.

Even the staunchest anti-Clintonites would have a prurient curiosity about how Bill, someone they loved to hate, would fare back in the White House. Wouldn’t it be fun to laugh at First Gentleman Clinton spoofs on Saturday Night Live, or witness the awkwardness of him standing catty-cornered to the Presidential podium? Would he still jog around Washington with a Secret Service entourage? How would the Clinton marriage change with Hillary in the seat of power and Bill­, once the most powerful man in the world, relegated to one of the most decorative jobs in America? Would he be responsible for the linens and drapes?

In actuality, Bill would be able to keep a policy portfolio and advise with immense credibility on everything his wife could possibly confront. He could bring a big-picture, politically liberated perspective. He could even help keep the Hillary Clinton White House from falling into some of his early pitfalls such as hubris and overreaching. And if you want to talk about bringing back the respect America has long enjoyed internationally, Bill Clinton is the undisputed most popular man in the world. You don’t think he could get the Europeans to agree to a treaty or two?

Having Bill back in office would be a good thing. As voters start to fully grasp the implications of a Hillary Clinton Presidency—that you get two for the price of one, with both pretty outstanding in their own right—my suspicion is that Clinton redux will start to sound mighty compelling to a majority of American voters.

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR: You Say You Want a Revolution?

By Ravi Gupta

Integrity cannot be demonstrated through the articulation of moral purpose. Integrity is demonstrated through the achievement of practical good in the face of possible personal loss. In the run-up to the fall elections, the Democrats in Congress have had no problem demonstrating the former, but have, thus far, failed to demonstrate their capacity to perform the latter. Their failure is most clearly demonstrated in what should be one of the biggest issues in the campaign—government reform.

In the next few months, the Democrats will tell the following narrative: The great drama that is the 2006 election takes place on the stage of a rotted political system. The Republicans, corrupted by unchecked power under the nefarious leadership of President Bush, are the culprits... the villains. The Democrats—the protagonists—are the protectors of our cherished democracy, motivated out of a sincere desire to better our ailing system.

As much as I wish this narrative were true, the Democrats only get half the story right—the Republicans are culprits. Unfortunately, the Democrats are no heroes.

No issue better exemplifies the broken state of the electoral process in our country more than redistricting. Federal and state elections suffer, as one Boston Globe columnist put it, from a gulf between “incumbents who treat public office as private property and the increasingly neutered electorate in whose name they claim to act.” If there is an issue that Democrats—a party historically rooted in a concept of participatory government—should unequivocally and forcefully advocate, it is redistricting reform.

Disappointingly, with few exceptions, the power brokers in the Democratic Party only advocate redistricting reform when it serves to increase the number of Democrats elected. Most disturbing was the unholy alliance between Democratic incumbents in California (led by Nancy Pelosi) and the Republican incumbents, who successfully defeated a ballot measure last fall that would have handed over the redistricting process to a panel of retired judges. Boss Pelosi and her posse from the California congressional delegation raised a Bloombergian sum of money to defeat the measure (made possible only because they pressured the Federal Elections Commission to reopen a soft-money loophole in the campaign finance laws so the members could raise unlimited funds to defeat the ballot measure). Moreover, they may be breaking the law in their post-election effort to raise money ($1.6 million thus far) to pay back a $4 million loan made to their anti-redistricting committee by Hollywood producer Stephen Bing.

Democratic activists must be wondering what Pelosi is thinking. Is protecting her crew from competitive elections such a priority that she not only vigorously campaigned against the measure in the 2005 election, but has continued to raise money to oppose the measure, even in the run-up to an extremely important midterm election where the Democrats suffer from a funding disadvantage? Pelosi argues that the Texas redistricting debacle compels Democrats to take a nuanced position, distinguishing between blatant power grabs and pure reform measures. Indeed, the California measure was compelled, in part, by partisan motivations. As Thomas Mann of The Brookings Institution argued after the defeat of the California measure, “any initiative requiring mid-decade redistricting smells like a power grab by the ‘out’ party.” Nevertheless, the California measure, which would have set up a bipartisan commission of disinterested judges, can easily be distinguished from the Texas measure, which merely replaced one gerrymandered map with another.

When Pelosi’s arguments are distilled to their most basic components, her position is both anti-democratic and politically shortsighted. She conceded that gerrymandering in California is a corrupt, disempowering practice. However, she argued that voters should reject the proposed reform (and instead hope for the California Legislature to pass a bill compelling reform in 2010) because the measure was spearheaded by partisan Republicans who wanted to deal a blow to the Democrats’ effort to take back the House. All but the most partisan Democrats should have rejected this tradeoff. Though she succeeded in defeating the ballot measure, she has undermined the effort of many Democrats who are pursuing real reform, because the position of the party as a whole has become ambiguous at best, and contradictory at worst. Indeed, while Pelosi was railing against mid-decade redistricting, the Democrats in Ohio were pushing a ballot measure proposing mid-decade redistricting.

Moreover, there are myriad additional areas in government reform where the Democrats have retreated to opportunism. For example, in April, almost every Democrat in the House voted to oppose a measure meant to close a loophole in campaign finance law that allows so-called "527 groups" to receive unlimited soft-money donations. The Democrats opposed the measure, because they are much more reliant on 527s than Republicans. In one shortsighted move, the Democrats effectively surrendered any high ground they achieved when they overwhelmingly supported the McCain-Feingold bill. Similarly, the leadership has taken inconsistent positions on lobbyist-paid travel, lobbyist-paid gifts, and Congressional leadership reform.

The current public discontent with Republicans is not merely an opportunity to take back the House this fall. The Democrats have an opportunity to convince many voters, who were persuaded to join the “Gingrich revolution” in the early 90’s due to what they perceived as a corrupt, lethargic Washington culture, to rejoin the Democratic Party. This counterrevolution will only be possible if the Democrats rediscover their roots as the party of reform. In what is arguably the clearest statement of the principles of the party in the past 50 years, Barbara Jordan outlined the bedrock principles of the Democrats during the national convention in 1976:

We believe that the people are the source of all governmental power; that the authority of the people is to be extended, not restricted. This -- This can be accomplished only by providing each citizen with every opportunity to participate in the management of the government. ... We believe that the government which represents the authority of all the people, not just one interest group, but all the people, has an obligation to actively—underscore actively—seek to remove those obstacles which would block individual achievement. ... We have a positive vision of the future founded on the belief that the gap between the promise and reality of America can one day be finally closed. ... Let's all understand that these guiding principles cannot be discarded for short-term political gains. They represent what this country is all about. They are indigenous to the American idea. And these are principles which are not negotiable.

If the Democratic leadership chooses to continue to ignore Jordan’s vision, they will do so at their own peril. However, if they reclaim their identity, they may be able to spark the revolution they so desire.

Ravi Gupta will be a second-year student at Yale Law School.

Why Webb Won

By Anthony Vitarelli

This Tuesday, Virginia Democratic primary voters nominated James Webb to serve as their candidate for US Senate against incumbent George Allen. This primary illustrates the continually growing influence of the Internet in national politics, as well as the American public’s persistent dissatisfaction with the Republican culture of corruption in Washington.

Webb, the former Secretary of Navy under President Reagan, seemed a reluctant candidate. In late 2005, Webb was drafted by online organizers who were dissatisfied with the apparent anointing of lobbyist Harris Miller as the Democratic nominee. Fortunately for Virginia Democrats, the netroots communities did not feel that Virginia Democrats had no chance against George Allen in the November general election. Indeed, with Tim Kaine’s 2005 gubernatorial victory over Jerry Kilgore, the endless deification of Mark Warner in Virginia politics, and the national enmity toward Republican leadership, there remains no reason to believe that Democrats cannot win statewide again in Virginia.

Regardless, Virginia establishment money continued to flow into the coffers of Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology Association of America. Gradually though, with the general recognition that this race would not have exceptionally high turnout, national Democrats began to openly support Webb as they observed the vast amount of Internet support for his candidacy. While Miller enjoyed a two-to-one fundraising advantage for much of the race (including many of his own funds), national Democratic leaders realized that people posting on Internet message boards and e-mailing campaign materials to their friends were almost 100 percent likely to vote. Miller could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on television advertising, but Webb would get people to the polls. Before voting on Tuesday, Webb had secured the endorsements from Harry Reid, John Kerry, John Murtha and many other national Democratic leaders.

Thus, in a primary featuring a dishearteningly low 3.44 percent voter turnout, the impact of net-based political organization presents itself most overtly.

Webb also capitalized strongly on the general contempt for the influence of money on Washington politics. Accordingly, a centerpiece of his campaign has been ethics reform. His platform states simply, “the influence of money in the political system should be eliminated, or at least minimized. As a senator I will work to reform the political process to reduce the role of money and lobbyists.” Although this promise surely was intended primarily to criticize national Republicans, when campaigning against a career lobbyist, these charges also pay enormous dividends in the primary.

Moreover, during the primary campaign, bloggers posted in painstaking detail many of Miller’s past lobbying activities that would make Jack Abramoff blush, particularly on the issue of outsourcing of American jobs. Webb filled the interesting niche of being a current “outsider” but being possessed of the resume of a consummate Washington insider. That is, he has been free of the Washington power culture for fifteen years but has a national security portfolio that makes George Allen look like a freshman congressman.

More broadly, the importance of this race for Democrats cannot be understated. George Allen, former chairman of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee, absolutely must win this race if he is to continue on the Republican nomination for President in 2008 as he plans. While a defeat would surely doom his Presidential aspirations, it would also be a terribly embarrassment for Republicans nationally if one of their standard-bearers was to lose to such a political upstart. Prospectively, a Democratic victory in Virginia would send a powerful signal to national leaders that Democrats can compete in states that George W. Bush carried by eight percent.

Observant Democrats should employ the lessons of Webb’s primary to future races. Running an honest, populist campaign can produce results against well-funded establishment opponent, lacking any real credentials for public office. What remains to be seen is whether Webb will have similar success against another well-funded establishment candidate without real credentials for public office.

Partisanship: Good, Bad, or N/A?

By Andrew Collins

Taking a break from his busy schedule of court appearances, corrupt former Speaker of the House Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) took a moment last week to issue a defense of partisanship.

“You show me a nation without partisanship, and I'll show you a tyranny,” said DeLay as he resigned from the House in disgrace. “It is not the principled partisan, however obnoxious he may seem to his opponents, who degrades our public debate, but the preening, self-styled statesman who elevates compromise to a first principle.”

Despite the dismal messenger and context, it is worth taking a serious look at DeLay’s thesis. After all, until states implement long-overdue redistricting reform, we will be stuck with dozens, if not hundreds, of Congressional adherents to DeLay’s combative philosophy.

His implication is that partisanship is good, which is worth exploring in a moment. First, let us dispatch with the three prongs of his inane rationale.

DeLay demanded to be shown a nation without partisanship so he could condemn it as a tyranny. I will show him the United States, circa the first twenty years of its existence. He will not show me a tyranny. I will also show him the Sioux nation, and again, he will not show me a tyranny.

Contrary to his second claim, the “principled partisan” does indeed degrade our public debate. Principled partisan Tom DeLay once said, “Howard Dean is a cruel and extremist demagogue. And Howard Dean is as ignorant on John Ashcroft as he is on national security. If this cruel, loudmouth extremist is the cream of the Democrat crop, next November's going to make the 1984 election look like a squeaker.” Debate degraded.

Finally, the implied dichotomy of the political landscape between principled partisans and those who “[elevate] compromise to a first principle” is false. It is also illogical. As DeLay himself calls compromise a principle, could a principled partisan not have compromise as his principle? Semantics aside, it is wrong to suggest that compromise degrades our public debate. In a 1975 Harper’s essay, Garry Wills listed compromise of principle as first among “virtues that ignorant people take for vices.” It is the foundation of the New Deal, welfare reform, every truce in war, and a host of other political achievements for both parties throughout American history. Knowing when to retrench into principle and when to compromise separates the great statesmen from the hacks.

So DeLay did not defend the “partisanship is good” idea very effectively. But the question remains: Is partisanship good?

Well, it’s not bad. Just as government is the codification of and structure for human social interactions, partisanship is the codification of and structure for the human struggle for power. If government were abolished tomorrow, humans would still find some way to self-organize. Likewise, without political parties, they would find some other way to compete and satisfy the inborn urge to dominate.

Both government and partisanship are mere stages on which aspects of the human drama play out; to “blame partisanship” for shrill discourse is generally absurd. Anger toward partisanship is most often intended for the human attributes and behaviors that are manifest through partisanship. Partisanship is a proxy for us.

It is not entirely a neutral construct, however. The extent of its problems are found in the ways it misrepresents the good and bad of human nature and warps the effects of behavior. For while one cannot blame the mirror of partisanship for reflecting our unseemly propensity to lie, scheme, and lust for power, we can blame it for producing fun-house-like effects that lead to distortions and, ultimately, inefficiencies in society.

For example, the quest for the Presidency is full of men and women jockeying for personal gain and pursuing their tangible and ideological fortunes. Such is human nature. But partisanship, in its embedded institutions of primaries, conventions, and forced machinations, has distorted either the perception of self-interest or its effects and has led to the repeated nomination of notably poor-caliber individuals. As H. L. Mencken wrote, “When the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre—the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.” In an ideal system for negotiating the pursuit of power, or perhaps even in a typical one, would people not identify part of their self-interest as hitching aspirations to someone of greatness? Past societies, such as the Japanese samurai culture and the monarchies of Renaissance Europe, have been much more adept at avoiding this particular distortion of our party system.

American partisanship has wrought countless other misrepresentations of human nature and behavior. On a smaller scale, other examples include the magnification of insult, the fervent love for an ideology not even liked, and self-injury at the behest of the party. Of course, partisanship also has its positive distortions, as when “being a good partisan” leads to humanitarian action that transcends base human instincts.

Like it or not, partisanship is humanity writ large. Just as the inefficiencies of government are problematic, not the entire concept, partisanship should be loathed for its legitimate crimes and not its existence. The best we can hope to do is smooth out its negative distortions in reflecting our true selves, accentuate the positive ones, and herald awareness of our nature as a first step unto its improvement.

The Meaning of Zarqawi's Death

By Robert Samuel

In both its intent and effect, terrorism is primarily a psychological tool.

Unable to influence politics through traditional institutions and unable to wield conventional military power, terrorists seek to arrive at their goals by “terrorizing” populations and politicians into positions of compromise and retreat.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a genius at terrorist tactics. When America’s elite argue over Zarqawi’s intellectual capabilities and his relationship with Osama bin Laden, they miss the point. Al Qaeda’s ideological purity and consistency is already ably accomplished by Osama bin Laden and his No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri. Conversely, Zarqawi’s considerable genius had solely to do with his status as the best tactical terrorist in the first war of the 21st century.

Bin Laden and Zawahri have had unbelievable success in propagating their cause to the world and recruiting foot soldiers to carry out their missions. But tactically, bin Laden and Zawahri have had few victories since the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in the late 1980s.

From the first bombing of the World Trade Center, to the Khobar Towers incident in Saudi Arabia, the bombings of American embassies in Africa, to the attack on the USS Cole, and then to 9/11, al Qaeda’s terrorism has done little to accomplish the group’s stated goals.

Zarqawi’s terrorism in Iraq, however, has been extremely effective. Zarqawi’s attacks on the United Nations and the Red Cross are the reason those two organizations now hardly have a presence in Iraq. Zarqawi-organized attacks that killed top Shiite cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim and toppled the Shiite al-Askari shrine in Samarra did more to incite sectarian tensions than any other events. Zarqawi has done more to dissuade Arab governments from sending ambassadors to Baghdad than any other person, and Zarqawi’s ability to stage attacks highly interested by the media have done much to reduce the popularity of the war amongst American citizens.

For those reasons, it is hard to overestimate the importance of Zarqawi’s death. Although those loyal to Zarqawi represented a significant minority of the insurgency, Zarqawi’s effectiveness was immense, and thus is the importance of his death. Al Qaeda in Iraq will surely name a successor and continue to launch attacks, but it is highly unlikely a leader with the capabilities of Zarqawi will be found. If this type of leader already existed, he would have already arisen as a force in the most terrorist-centric area of the world.

The death of Zarqawi is also significant in regards to the perception of the capabilities of the United States military and the Iraqi government. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has long held the view that the terrorists are better at using all media to further their goals than the United States military is.

“In this war, some of the most critical battles may not be fought in the mountains of Afghanistan or the streets of Iraq, but in the newsrooms in places like New York and London and Cairo and elsewhere,” Rumsfeld said in an address to the Council on Foreign Relations Feb. 17, 2006. “Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today’s media age, but for the most part we, our country, our government, has not adapted…. Our federal government is really only beginning to adapt our operations to the 21st century. For the most part, the US government still functions as a five and dime store in an eBay world.”

Despite the lightning-quick campaign that led to the removal of the Taliban and the “shock and awe” invasion of Iraq, the unending search for bin Laden and Zawahri and three years of IEDs and suicide bombs have significantly lessened the world’s confidence in the U.S. military’s ability to fight wars. When Major General William Caldwell held a press conference that revealed the first picture of a dead Zarqawi and the aerial bombing footage that lead to his demise, the American military proved its resolve and its ability to adapt to this ever-changing war. Despite the many setbacks of the war, the US military still has the tools and the mindset to ultimately prevail.

The death of Zarqawi delivers considerable momentum to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the newly formed Iraqi government. For the many Iraqis unsure of whose side to join, the death of Zarqawi is a significant incentive for the fence sitters to join the Coalition’s side. The insurgents and terrorists will not win because the new democratically elected government, with the help of the Americans, will not let them.

Unfortunately, bloodshed will continue in Iraq and the road to victory is a long, treacherous one. But the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is significant on many different levels. There will need to be many more for the United States to prevail in the War on Terror, but it won a clear victory on June 7, 2006.

No Rest for the Weary

By Anthony Vitarelli

Tuesday was not a good day for Democrats.

Most notably, former Republican Congressman Brian Bilbray retained the seat formerly held by Randy “Duke” Cunningham, who resigned from Congress after pleading guilty to accepting over $2 million in bribes.

As the only special election on primary day, Democrats viewed the CA-50 race as their most promising opportunity to show the nation that voters are disgusted with the Republican culture of corruption and are looking for a new direction in American leadership. Unfortunately, Bilbray’s opponent, Francine Busby, only garnered 45 percent of the vote and sent a truly devastating blow to Democrats nationwide.

Democratic leaders would, of course, have you believe differently though. They claim that Busby performed admirably in a district with a 44 to 30 percent registered Republican to Democrat advantage. Additionally, they assert that Republicans cannot continue to spend $4.5 million on races in strongly Republican districts.

While these assertions have some truth, the fact that Busby could not defeat Bilbray strikes directly at the most central Democratic thesis of 2006–that President Bush’s poor performance in office justifies defeating Republican members of Congress.

In contrast, Republicans have relied on the premise that House races are inherently decided on local issues and local personalities. Their thesis operates on the practical assumption that voters want to elect people like them, who care about the same issues they do. Sometimes these are national issues, but often these are distinct-specific concerns irrespective of the President. Where Democrats have coordinated their message around a consistent criticism of President Bush, Republicans have campaigned with a far more disaggregated message.

Additionally, as demonstrated by Congressman-elect Bilbray, Republican candidates can successfully distance themselves within their district from the President’s unpopular policies. For instance, the CA-50th is markedly opposed to offering amnesty of any kind to illegal aliens–a central tenet of President Bush’s immigration proposal. Bilbray openly criticized the President on this item, and voters trusted that he would bring those independent views to Washington.

Deluding themselves further, Democrats continue to point to 1994 as an analogous election to 2006 with the potential for a sitting President to adversely impact his party in Congressional elections. Democrats claim that in 1994 Republicans successfully nationalized Congressional races and channeled national disapproval of President Clinton into a sweeping Republican victory.

Unfortunately for Democrats, this comparison could not be further from the truth.

Republicans did funnel anger about the Clinton healthcare plan and the 1993 budget reconciliation into increased campaign contributions, but national disapproval only represented the initial small step toward their Congressional victories. Lest Democrats forget, in 1994 the Republicans had a massive and creative policy platform called the Contract with America, calling for a number of “responsible government” measures such as Congressional term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and a repeal of the marriage tax penalty. They promised to bring 12 major legislative reforms to a floor vote within 100 days. They sounded serious about governing.

When independent voters disgruntled with the Clinton administration asked Republicans what they would do if elected, Republicans had a consistent, simple message. Needless to say, if Democrats are determined to taking back at least one of the branches of government, they should reflect for a moment on what they plan to do if they happen to find themselves in the majority next January.

There is still time for Democrats to coalesce around a common-sense approach to governing with emphases on equal opportunity, responsibility in governing, and economic growth. Democrats should vow to treat the federal budget just like any family’s check book by balancing the budget through a repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. When voters ask Democrats why they would be better leaders, they should respond with proposals to invest in the productive capacity of the American people through education and healthcare.

Democrats do not need catchy slogans, they need concrete ideas. Contracts with America, New Covenants, and Real Deals only work when they contain robust ideas to get America moving forward in a way that advances human welfare at home and abroad. Time to get to it.

Nonsensical Anti-Proliferation Efforts

By Andrew Collins

With Europe and the United States presently confronting Iran over its suspected nuclear aspirations, it seems an opportune moment to consider the pointedly absurd nature of the global nuclear weapons scene.

Western states, having developed scores of nuclear weapons for security purposes, are now attempting to deny countries like Iran and North Korea access to these same weapons on the grounds of a nonproliferation treaty. Despite the innumerable merits of keeping nuclear weapons away from these rogues, the anti-nuclear stance of nuclear states is self-evidently nonsensical and certainly unsustainable. Unless the world’s nuclear states commit to serious reform, including the abolition of all nuclear weapons save for a small cache under international supervision, the house of cards erected by Cold War policies will collapse into a nuclear nightmare.

Imagine a group of children who are invited to partake in a jar of cookies. The first children to the jar stuff their faces and pockets, but before the rest of the group arrives, they seal the jar and decide there will be no further “proliferation” of cookies. They can cite all sorts of ostensibly valid reasons—the latecomers are fat, they only want to throw the cookies, they are “bad” children—but objectively, the decision is fundamentally unfair and sure to infuriate the have-nots.

The last thing any Westerner wants to see is a nuclear-armed Iran or North Korea (though, of course, North Korea has already obtained several of these weapons). The main reason is that countries like these are unstable and likely to misuse their soon-to-be-obtained trump card. Iran is probably as bad as the West imagines, in terms of its policy choices and how it would use nuclear weapons.

But obviously, Iranians do not see their country as “bad.” They correctly recognize that having nuclear weapons would make them a significant player—not just militarily, but also in terms of extracting economic and other policy concessions. From the Iranian perspective, the United States and other nuclear states are closing the door to the nuclear club simply because they are already inside and want to secure their own power. Not only is it frustrating and emasculating, it provides further proof in the minds of Iranians that the West wants to stack the deck and make it impossible for Iran to assert itself as a sovereign, powerful nation.

As long as Western countries are allowed to keep their respective arsenals and disarm only when it suits their fancy, two results are inevitable: First, nuclear states will continue to occupy an elevated position of power over non-nuclear states, making nuclear power grabs increasingly routine for those outside the club.

Second, when these rogues attempt to proliferate, attempts to prosecute the “crime” of making nuclear weapons will continue to be undermined by the fact that the prosecutors are rolling in the dough of their prior crime sprees. Because of this fact, only in the most extreme cases will regime change be a remotely justifiable option. (In the cookie jar analogy, this would be akin to a kid with cookie crumbs spilling out of his mouth beating the living hell out of someone who snuck a cookie after the jar was sealed.) Without serious military action on the table, most countries would choose nuclear empowerment over any punishments and incentives the West could conjure up. North Korea and Pakistan are cases in point; Libya is the exception. Iran appears to be heading toward the former option.

(Incidentally, the incentives approach, also known as appeasement, may actually encourage proliferation by showing countries they can achieve economic gain through bellicosity.)

So in the long run—say, over the next 100 years—we are destined to move toward a world in which an increasing numbers of countries possess nuclear weapons. By the laws of probability, the chance of an accident or conflict precipitating nuclear war will be greater. Sooner or later, the world is heading for a fall.

The best and perhaps the only chance we have to arrest this march to nuclear disaster is solution that was once official US policy but now would strike many as a radical fringe notion. We need a neo-Baruch Plan to collect all nuclear weapons, destroy most, and leave a small reserve in the hands of a trusted international organization.

Once upon a time, in 1946, the brilliant US financier Bernard Baruch devised a plan of international control of atomic weapons and the peaceful use of atomic energy. The United States adopted the Baruch Plan, but the USSR rejected it. A massive arms buildup on both sides, the Cold War, and broader proliferation ensued. It is time to rescuscitate this righteous and sensible idea.

The rationale is similar to that of government (in this case, international government) assuming control over a stock that should not be handled in the private market. Just as education is too important to be left to market whims, as not a single child can be abandoned as a “market casualty,” nuclear weapons are too destructive to be left to the market.

If nuclear weapons were under international control, the current impasse with Iran would be playing out much differently. The justification for denying Iran nuclear weapons would not be rooted in a value judgment about whether it is “bad” or an inane grandfather clause that the only countries allowed to have nuclear weapons are those who got there before the cookie jar was sealed in 1968; rather, the justification would be that nuclear weapons are absolutely banned.

Should Iran or another would-be rogue developer steadfastly persist, all options could be credibly considered in confronting what would be a serious threat. There would be a miniscule chance of a nuclear weapon being created, however, because the control of materials used to create such a weapon could be much more tightly restricted following the collection and destruction of existing weapons.

A neo-Baruch Plan would mean working as a cooperative international community, a concept that is presently at a nadir in the United States. Many would blanch at an idea that isolationists would falsely portray as giving some sort of international gestapo sole control over a superweapon. To the paranoid, it may appear that whomever controls this central atomic agency controls the globe.

That is surely hyperbole, but skepticism is appropriate. The global community must take every precaution to ensure nuclear weapons are never used and the central atomic agency is merely a bureau of serious Hans Blix-types charged with guarding a dangerous artifact of the world’s violent and fearful 20th century. The agency must not be tilted toward any particular country or region, and a near-infinite number of checks must be put in place to make sure that the weapons never fall into the wrong hands. The weapons should not be destroyed, either; on the chance that some rogue scientist were to engineer a comparable weapon, the civilized world should always hold the trump card.

To think clearly is to recognize that no matter how uncomfortable we may be about ceding control of nuclear weapons to a central authority, it is a better alternative than the inevitable future of an arms race in the Middle East, Korean Peninsula, and more. What is preferable: Israel, Iran, and Iraq staring down the barrel of each others’ nuclear missiles, or a very small cache of nuclear weapons under near-permanent lock-and-key?

We are conditioned to prefer the bad known to the bad unknown, but the status quo on nuclear weapons is absolutely insane. We have come perilously close to nuclear war with the United States and the USSR and with India and Pakistan. Some day, we will not be so lucky.

Conservatism and Culture: ‘Tis Better to Create than Dissent

By Robert Samuel

Perusing through the pages of the latest issue of Rolling Stone, I had one of my least proud moments as a Duke University alum. The magazine's editors decided to profile Duke in an attempt to explain the cultural conditions that led to the scandal where three white Duke lacrosse players were indicted for raping and kidnapping a black stripper.

I believe we all should wait for the evidence presented at the trial before we make any real conclusions about what happened on the night in question, as most of the evidence leaked to the media exonerates the players of the crimes accused. But even if the crimes did occur, I think this is more of a story of the culture of big-time lacrosse than a story about Duke University. In fact, Collin Finnerty, one of the three Duke players charged, had a previous bout with the law when he and two other members of division I lacrosse teams allegedly beat a man in Washington, DC, while yelling anti-gay slurs.

The super-macho culture of Division I lacrosse is not counterbalanced by any moral infrastructure, and therefore scandalous activity is more likely to occur. The Duke lacrosse scandal could have easily occurred at a variety of other institutions.

Rolling Stone writer Janet Reitman disagrees:

“I've come to Durham, like hundreds of journalists, to report on the scandal enveloping this campus. But in talking to women at Duke, particularly those who know or run in the same social circles as the lacrosse team, I've begun to see the story as not a ‘he said/she said’ tale, nor a story about sexual violence, but rather a story about sex itself.”

The story goes on to describe a decadent culture where privileged students, seemingly unaware of their lucky lot in life, behaved inexcusably immorally. The story goes on to clarify that the descriptions are mostly of the “Duke 500,” a collection of the most popular fraternities and sororities and the now-infamous lacrosse team. There is no mention that Duke is made up of over 6,000 undergrads and that this “Duke 500” therefore makes up less than 10 percent of undergraduates.

Though the story did point out the significant academic aspirations of the students, Reitman makes no mention of any of the faith-based groups on campus, any of the philanthropic groups on campus, or the significant number of volunteer hours students log in the community at large.

The story is a microcosm of what conservatives hate about the media and those that dominate culture. For the most part, the elite media and the elite in arts are liberal and therefore document the more liberal parts of the society.

Conservatives have been dreadful in countering this problem. Conservatives, for the most part, have just complained about these cultural injustices rather than sought to counter them. There are hundreds of conservative commentators who will rail against plays like "The Vagina Monologues," but there are hardly any conservative playwrights available to create a work that can eclipse attention from “Monologues.”

I used to become frustrated with conservatives at Duke when they would complain about The Chronicle’s editorials, an editorial board on which I served. A group of 15 or fewer editors decided most of The Chronicle’s editorials in a small room. If campus conservatives desired to truly change the paper’s editorial tone, they should just join the paper’s volunteer staff. It would not take many bodies to drown out the paper’s status quo leadership. Though conservatives created an opinion newspaper called New Sense, the prestige and dominance of The Chronicle was hardly shaken.

In his book It Takes a Family, Republican Senator Rick Santorum writes that conservatives must encourage students to go into the media and entertainment industries because that is the only way to truly change the culture.

If conservatives do not, articles such as “Sex & Scandal at Duke,” which profile the rowdy 10 percent of Duke University will continue to be the norm, and the accomplishments of students guided by a much firmer moral compass will go less noticed than they should.

The Battle for Legitimacy

By Anthony Vitarelli

Public intellectuals, such as Peter Beinart, have argued recently that, despite its lack of success in Iraq to date and the corresponding public and international outcry, the United States need not retreat into isolationism as it did in the 1920s. The US can and should continue to be an active force for good in the world, but it must begin to employ force in more legitimate ways.

When the US then decides to employ force, a commitment to legitimacy will make such operations far more effective and will allow the US to maintain and foster better relations with its international partners.

At present, the United States faces two principal challenges to its legitimacy internationally. First, it has lacked willingness to seek endorsement from international institutions before armed conflict. Second, US government activities have often run counter to the values the US seeks to impose on other nations. The confluence of these two factors has led the perception that the United States has acted--particularly in Iraq and in the amorphous Global War on Terror--in a manner contrary to international norms.

Force can become legitimized when sanctioned through an international institution. That is, when a group of countries have come together and collectively decided to cede some of their sovereignty to a third party, that third party then can confer legitimacy upon some violations of sovereignty. Specifically, signatories to the United Nations charter have ceded some of their national autonomy to empower the organization to act on their behalf.

Currently, however, the United States faces the challenge that the international institutions (particularly the UN) capable of conferring legitimacy have become entirely dysfunctional.

In failing to sanction the US intervention in Bosnia (and continued lack of action on Darfur), the UN Security Council has demonstrated its inability to act decisively in matters of humanitarian crisis. While the decision to invade Iraq remains shrouded in controversy, one cannot help but be skeptical of the Security Council’s ability to lead decisively in a military action, even if the decision were more unambiguous.

Each effort at UN reform over the past decade has routinely and intentionally ignored the most fundamental issue before the organization: Security Council reform. Without a considered reevaluation of the veto-power and permanent membership, little progress towards efficiency will likely be made.

That being said, the United States as a member-state is not entirely free of blame for the malaise of the UN, as its dues have been chronically late, and President Bush nominated John Bolton--a notorious unilateralist--as the US Ambassador to the UN. President Bush has not shown much rhetorical support for the organization and only sought a Security Council resolution on Iraq after repeated entreaties from former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Reaffirmation of its commitment to international institutions represents only half the battle for the United States. At home, the US must recommit itself to the values that it seeks to promulgate abroad.

The US has little credibility to impose liberty on other when American citizens are routinely denied the right to vote, racially profiled, or unjustly imprisoned. Similarly, the US must act abroad in a manner consistent with similar moral uprightness. Operating a shadowy network of prison camps where military combatants are held without trial impairs the US’s ability to compel other nations to make their societies more free.

Much as the Cold War was won through the internal development of civil rights within the United States, the struggle to spread democracy in the 21^st century can only be won through increased democratization and liberty within the United States. Removing barriers to voting, ensuring free speech, and protecting citizens from an invasive government can positively assert the United States’ commitment to liberty at home and abroad. Attempting to impose liberty abroad, while curtailing freedoms at home, does not represent a sustainable foreign or domestic policy.

Only if the United States acts with policy consistency in all venues and avoids unilateral military action can it hope to achieve legitimacy and truly create positive, lasting change.