Conservatism is dying

By Eric Lotke
Campaign for America’s Future

Modern conservatism is dying. There’s still an election to be held, but conservatism as we’ve known it since Ronald Reagan is failing – ground down in the desert of Iraq, drowned in the floods of Hurricane Katrina, foreclosed by the housing crisis and poisoned by toys imported from China.

The American people are figuring this out. While conservatives repeat their time-worn slogans – “small government, low taxes, high security” – the American people are living the consequences.

We’ve seen eight years of a conservative presidency, six years overlapping with a conservative Congress, and 30 years of broadly conservative ideology. Now reality is showing how the values embodied in those slogans have been betrayed.

Conservatives say “shrink government.” We get inadequate levees, exploding steam pipes and schools without textbooks. Conservatives say “deregulate,” and now Thomas the Tank Engine is painted with toxic lead. Conservatives say “low taxes,” but it primarily applies to millionaires, billionaires and crony corporations.

What follows is a history of these problems, and the direction people want to go instead.

Appealing Slogans, Disastrous Results

The conservative shibboleth – “small government, low taxes, high security” – has timeless appeal, founded on genuine moral and constitutional values. But the application of those values by today’s conservatives is frightening.

Shrinking Government

“Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
– Ronald Reagan, First inaugural address, January 1981.

“My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”
– Grover Norquist, Executive Director, Americans for Tax Reform.

The modern conservative movement is united less by belief in small government – a traditional constitutional value – than by disdain for government. They don’t just want to shrink it. They want to drown it in a bathtub. Such disdain courts exactly the kind of disasters we got.

Hurricane Katrina. A shrunken government failed in fundamental responsibilities when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. Crucial levees had been left to rot and the Federal Emergency Management Agency had been “systematically downgraded and all but dismantled.” Reconstruction remains a forgotten promise.

Continue reading

Remembering the ladies

iwd_logo2.gif

How and Why We Celebrate
By Sue Katz

On Saturday, women around the world will celebrate our progress and plans for the future. Where will you be?

It’s annoying that International Women’s Day gets a mere whisper compared to the retail shout-out that Mothers’ Day receives in this country. Although I’m not a big holiday/ritual/ceremony kinda girl (no, you can’t ignore my birthdays), I do think this particular annual event is special, so I try to celebrate each year.

Let’s start with some history.

In February, 1909, following a march for labor rights by many thousands of women workers the year before, the Socialist Party of America declared International Women’s Day (IWD) in the United States. The next year, at the Second International, in Copenhagen, women from 11 countries adopted the day in the hopes of furthering women’s suffrage.

In 1911, over a million women and men marked the day around the world, but only a week later the crime known as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire took the lives of over 140 women in the rag trade – mostly Jewish and Italian immigrants – and the struggle against sweatshop conditions became forever associated with IWD.

Russian women imprinted their own radicalism on IWD in 1917 when their strike for “bread and peace” over the death of two million Russian soldiers led to the abdication of the Czar and governmental embrace of women’s voting rights.

Soon the UN adopted International Women’s Day and in 1975, in recognition of the second wave of feminism, held a global International Women’s Year. This meant that, just like the men, we could gather from around the world, compromise bitterly after difficult debate (say, over the inclusion of queers or abortion rights), make resolutions that no one is entirely happy with and be unable to get our governments to put any resources into meeting the goals, anyway. Wow, finally we’ve got a seat at the table of world-level frustration.

While there’s hardly even an official murmur in the States over IWD, there is a website that lists an exhilarating range of world locations and activities – giving the sense that International Women’s Day is not as moribund elsewhere as it seems to be here. This website keeps a tally of events, including the following.

In Saudi Arabia, they’re holding a two-day workshop on integrating women into the economy. A domestic violence group in Albania offers an event they call a Manifestation. Likewise, Tanzania’s having a mother-daughter fundraiser for their domestic violence organization, while the funder in Fiji goes towards building a scholarship fund for “young women studying Automotive and Electrical Engineering at the Fiji Institute of Technology” – the event has the charming name of Women in Celebration of You. In Lebanon they’ll be looking at women’s health. Icelanders are planning to talk about women’s world-wide friendships and about children’s rights, while the Kenyan’s are having a musical festival and handing out prestigious awards.

So what are you doing? I’m going to an annual tea with 90 other women in the afternoon and in the evening to a screening of the as-yet-unfinished film, “Left on Pearl”, about the 1971 takeover that started on IWD of a Harvard University building by the vibrant Boston women’s movement. I was there, so I was interviewed for the film. I’m going to celebrate old victories, because lately it feels like those are the only ones we have.

Sue Katz has published journalism on the three continents where she has lived; her topics range from Middle East peace movements to the impact of ageing on sexuality. Visit her blog, Consenting Adult, at www.suekatz.com.

AIDS fight requires more than politics as usual

By Scott Blaine Swenson

Americans need look no farther than the reauthorization of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) to understand why fundamental change is needed in Washington. The good intentions of American taxpayers extending a helping hand to Africans ravaged by AIDS are caught between Republican ideologues and complicit Democrats avoiding a fight on issues at the center of efforts to combat AIDS; sexual and reproductive health.

PEPFAR’s mission was compromised by the House Foreign Affairs Committee because they cannot honestly discuss sexual reproductive health. Once Republican ideologues invoke abortion, which has nothing to do with PEPFAR, problem solving is lost to politics.
For 25 years social conservatives ignored AIDS, using it to marginalize people and allowing the disease to run rampant. Now rigid ideology prevents them from allowing public health experts to use proven scientific methods to educate, prevent and treat. Democrats who compromise are politically complicit.

Ignoring objective analyses and recommendations based on PEPFAR’s first five years from the Institute of Medicine, General Accounting Office, Center for Public Integrity and others, the current proposal fails to ensure the increased funds are spent wisely. Congress will spend more without listening to proven public health strategies.

The good news is the White House has agreed to Congress’ request for $50 billion, over five-years, up from $30 billion President Bush requested. More money is good, but more money spent wisely, based on reality is better.

The new proposal includes efforts to address unique circumstances that women, girls and youth face, including efforts to confront violence against women, promoting property and inheritance rights, expanding economic opportunity to promote financial independence, and efforts to work with men and boys to reinforce positive attitudes and the rights of women. Women in Africa have less ability to negotiate sex, are often married young, and exposed to HIV often through marriage.

Other positive changes include increased training of health care professionals and support for nutrition programs.

Now for the bad news:

Republicans continue to push abstinence-only policies that major studies on PEPFAR indicate impede program effectiveness. An earmark insisting 33 percent of funds be spent on abstinence is gone. But in its place is a requirement that 50 percent of funds for preventing sexual transmission be spent on “behavior change,” defined as abstinence, delay of sexual debut, monogamy and fidelity. The tone of the new requirement suggests that abstinence-only programming is preferred. The proposal requires local public health officials to report noncompliance. Congressional micro-management like this perpetuates failed abstinence-only policies and politicizes a program that should be based on scientific evidence, not ideology.

Continue reading

A 15-year-old’s take on the Democratic race

I’m so proud of my granddaugher Laura’s (age 15) writing that I had to pass this along. I think she has nailed what’s at issue in our time: hope vs. fear.
Peace,
Dwight Fee

(Dwight is the Progressive Network’s representative for the Low Country Peace Network.)

***************

Hillary Clinton’s switch from dialogue to diatribe
By Laura Schneck, NYC

According to the media, America’s fighter, Hillary Clinton, has made a comeback. The March 4th primaries awarded Senator Clinton only six more pledged delegates than Barack Obama, but proved that she could survive being “victimized” by a misogynistic media.

To me, though, Hillary’s comeback couldn’t have been more of a letdown. 

A year ago, I was just another high school freshman completely oblivious to anything political. And if you had asked me to describe my parents’ political tendencies I’d have to say that they were, at best, apathetic democrats. 

Last January, something changed. My mom would come over and sit with me as I waited to see the results of the night’s primaries. We’d play tag team, watching for when Obama would come out to make his speech. We’d listen together, and, yes, we began to hope together. Night after night, we talked politics at the dinner table with my dad and 10-year-old sister and then sat side-by-side, glued to CNN. I became a fan of top political analysts rather than pop-culture icons, ate lunch with page A18 instead of the “in” crowd, and stayed up to watch the democratic debates instead of the latest reality show. Our family was interested. We were inspired. We were almost ready to ask what we could do for our country.

Then Hillary decided to try a new tactic: making fun of us. She tried to make it sound like we were being duped by Obama, that we were somehow deluded in feeling passionate about a candidate who could bring integrity back to the White House. She poked fun not only at his optimism, but also at ours.  The Clinton people claimed that my family had fallen for a fairy tale, soundtrack courtesy of a celestial choir.

I think I speak for many Obama supporters when I say our enthusiasm is not based on imagination or illusions. I don’t support Obama because he’s “cool,” uses big words, or because I love the way he blows his nose. I support Obama because I agree with his policies on the issues-from healthcare to energy-that affect my family. I support him because he can make it to the White House with dignity. And once he’s in the White House, he will make sensible and substantial changes to improve relations between parties in this country and between countries in the world. Sorry, Hillary, but your patronizing attempt at a wake-up call only motivated me to donate to Obama’s campaign.

Some people wonder why I became so interested in politics, but mainly they ask why I am not supporting a woman for president. I tell them that, although I’ve always favored Obama, I can’t help but admire Hillary’s intelligence and tenacity. Until a few weeks ago, I might have even taken some pointers from her climb to power. 

But then she disappointed me; she began playing dirty. Ironically, her “fighter” mentality made me doubt her strength and my own. As a woman, can I only become successful by putting up a fight? Will people only listen to me if I shout? Will people only take notice of me if I scare them?

Senator Obama welcomed me into this race and Senator Clinton pushed me out. Until recently, the Democratic race convinced me that powerful people can be decent, and one doesn’t need to tear others down to come out on top. I even began to wonder what my apathetic parents had seen so wrong with politics. But the recent switch from dialogue to diatribe has turned my parents back into cynics and may convert me as well.

In the coming weeks, my optimism is on the line. I’ll be looking to see, as Bob Herbert put it, how Obama will confront the kitchen sink.

Oregonians exercise democracy through ‘Voter Owned Elections’ (or Clean Elections)

10,000 Maniacs
by Jeff Malachowsky

CommonDreams.org

Some political scientists argue that voting is irrational, that the act of political participation doesn’t bring enough benefits to the individual to make it worth the effort.

This might be so in many places, but Oregonians don’t think so. Recently, 10,000 have declared, ‘things are different here.’

That’s how many voters coughed up $5 and gave their signatures to candidates running for mayor and city council in Portland, under the city’s new ‘Voter Owned Elections’ system. Moreover, the election is still months away, in May, and it’s only a primary, to boot. What is going on?

Yogi Berra, one of baseball’s most famous orators, once observed – “If the people don’t want to come, nobody’s gonna stop ‘em.” And there-in lies the problem with elections, and with democratic government more broadly. You can’t compel participation; you can’t stop people from sitting out the vote.

But what if you could attract people, make it more fun, more popular – and, more rewarding to participate?

Continue reading

Political buyer beware

A message for women
By Martha Burk

The media is awash in stories about how women (except for some of us old gals over 50) are flocking to Barack Obama in droves and away from Hillary Clinton. Feminists are pitted against feminists as to which candidate, if elected, would be better for women, and many younger women are arguing with their mothers and aunties. But there’s a much bigger division looming, and it’s not between the Obama and Clinton camps. What everybody ought to be looking closer at is that “if elected” part. Women have suffered incredible setbacks under the Bush administration and it is in their hands whether that path continues after November.

A lot of Bush’s damage to the country as a whole, like the war and the tanking economy, is front and center. But much of the damage to women has been under the radar. Presidential appointees can do tremendous harm, mostly out of the public eye. Take Wade Horn, one of Bush’s Health and Human Services assistant secretaries. Horn founded the National Fatherhood Initiative to promote marriage as the solution to poverty, loudly touting his belief that “the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church.” Then he gave the group $12.38 million of the taxpayer’s money to push marriage instead of funding job training and educational programs to get women off welfare. But the marriage money is peanuts compared to the megabucks Horn poured into abstinence-only sex education in the public schools. That tab now comes to $176 million per year, even though the government’s own research shows the programs don’t work and teenage pregnancy is up for the first time in 15 years.

Not to be outdone, the Bush appointees over at the Department of Education have stayed busy dismantling Title IX, the law protecting girls from discrimination in educational programs, including sports. For decades courts have upheld the Education Department’s rigorous criteria for compliance as valid. But no matter. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings issued a Title IX “clarification,” allowing schools to refuse to create additional sports opportunities for women based solely on e-mail interest surveys. Failure of female students to answer e-mail surveys is now routinely counted by colleges as a lack of interest in participating in sports. Neither the standard nor the e-mail survey method of limiting opportunities applies to male students.

Continue reading

Iraq war by the numbers

5: Number of years the Iraq war has lasted. (March 19, 2008, the 6th year begins.)

3973: U.S. Deaths Confirmed By the DoD (as of March 3, 2008)

May 2, 2003: The day the President arrived on the deck of an aircraft carrier and declared “Mission Accomplished.”

64%: Percentage of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq (CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Feb. 1-3, 2008)

57%: Percentage of Iraqis who think it is acceptable to attack American soldiers. (Up from 51% in March and 17% back in February 2004.) (August 2007: ABC; BBC; NHK; D3 Systems of Vienna, Va.; and KA Research of Turkey)

81,000 – >600,000: Estimates of number of civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
(Epidemiologists have estimated that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since the war began in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.)

49: Number of countries in the Coalition of the Willing when the invasion began in 2003
25: Current number of countries supplying 11,685 troops — about 7% of the size of the U.S. forces.

4 million: Number of displaced Iraqis: more than 2 million uprooted within Iraq, and as many have fled to neighboring countries.

$600 billion: Approved funds for the war ($499 billion spent as of today). President Bush has requested another $200 billion for 2008, which would bring the cumulative total to close to $800 billion.

$3 trillion: Estimate of true cost of war by Nobel Prize-winning economists (< #1>see below).

$270 million: Number of dollars the U.S. spends each day in Iraq

$390,000: Cost of deploying one U.S. soldier for one year in Iraq
(Congressional Research Service)

$9 billion: Amount lost & unaccounted for in Iraq

$1.4 billion: Amount of Halliburton overcharges classified by the Pentagon as unreasonable and unsupported

$20 billion: Amount paid to KBR, a former Halliburton division, to supply U.S. military in Iraq with food, fuel, housing and other items

$3.2 billion: Portion of that $20 billion that Pentagon auditors deem “questionable or supportable”

75: Number of major U.S. bases in Iraq (The Nation/New York Times)

166,895: Troops in Iraq: 157,000 from the U.S., 4,500 from the UK, 2,000 from Georgia, 900 from Poland, 650 from South Korea and 1,845 from all other nations

6,000: Iraqi troops trained and able to function independent of U.S. forces (NBC’s “Meet the Press” on May 20, 2007)

27 to 60%: Iraqi unemployment rate (depending on where curfew is in effect)

28%: Iraqi children suffering from chronic malnutrition (CNN.com, July 30, 2007)

40%: Professionals who have left Iraq since 2003

34,000: Iraqi physicians before 2003 invasion

12,000: Iraqi physicians who have left Iraq since 2005 invasion

2,000: Iraqi physicians murdered since 2003 invasion

10.9: Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity (May 2007)

5.6: Average Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity (May 2007)

16 to 24: Pre-War Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Had Electricity

70%: Iraqis without access to adequate water supplies (CNN.com, July 30, 2007)

22%: Water Treatment Plants Rehabilitated

0: Number of WMDs found in Iraq

0: Number of connections between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of 9/11

0: Number of convincing reasons for starting the war, and continuing the occupation

Democrats shift gears on Iraq

By Mike Soraghan
The Hill

Congressional Democrats searching for a message that will resonate on the Iraq war are preparing an argument that getting troops out of the conflict is the only way to rebuild a spent military.

It’s a less ambitious argument than the “Out-of-Iraq now” proposals put forward last year, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other top Democrats believe it will allow the party to criticize the war without being seen as criticizing those fighting it. It could also help Democrats to portray themselves as protecting the military and national security.

The Pentagon’s commanders have repeatedly testified that the Iraq war is straining the military, and Democrats say they can take that foundation and add the extra step of saying the strain is the reason to withdraw troops.

“This is about America’s security,” said Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.). “We have an Army that can’t deploy anywhere else in the world.”

Or, as a staffer put it, “You can’t rebuild an engine while you’re driving along at 60 miles per hour.”

Continue reading