The Long Haul Is it worth it? Obama’s Afghanistan decision By Jack Detsch
p. 04
Questioning the Karzai regime By Sarah Khederian
p. 02
PLUS!
Israel-Palestine is not the (only) answer for Middle-East peace By Dan Rozenson
p. 05
01
From the Editor Dear Readers,
December 2009
Hello and thank you for picking up a copy of the GW Discourse. This is the first edition of the magazine’s third year. Yet today, as much as any time in its history, the publication is the George Washington University’s premier location for the sharing of student political thought. You are holding the first printed edition of the Discourse in over a year. We are pleased to announce our pages and staff box are fuller than ever, and our content is as topical as ever. The online magazine and blog (www.gwdiscourse. com!) is developing into a thriving community. In this issue you will find a new approach. Instead of an organizing theme, we encouraged students to pick any topic. By allowing the staff to play to their own strengths, I believe the level of analysis and personal interest in stories has increased. More than anything, we aim to be a place where students can bring the ideas and arguements they are passionate about. So go ahead – read, ponder, react, disagree, scoff, shout and praise. Such is the nature of good political discourse. William Schreiber
Writers & Editors William Schreiber Editor/Production Dan Rozenson International Affairs Editor Samantha Cyrulnik-Dercher Domestic Affairs Editor Alejandra Barrio Political Theory Editor Domestic Affairs International Affairs Andrew Detsch:Staff Writer Matt Ingoglia:Staff Writer Adrienne Keamy:Staff Writer Gina Gibbons:Staff Writer Dan Trombly:Staff Writer Sarah Khederian:Staff Writer Clay McKeon:Staff Writer Political Theory Greg Nanni:Staff Writer Emily Sieg:Staff Writer Seth Christman:Staff Writer
Elise Corbin:Staff Writer Sarah Constant:Staff Writer Ajay Kumar:Staff Writer
If you are interested in becoming a staff writer, production manager or online contributor, please send an e-mail to gwd@gwu.edu.
Table of Contents
International Affairs On Barack and Baruch: Rethinking Nuclear Disarmarment Daniel Trombly...........................................02 The Best of All Possible Presidents? Hamid Karzai Sarah Khederian..........................................02 Forget Something? Darfur’s disappearence Adrienne Keamy.........................................03 Is it Worth it? The U.S. in the Graveyard of Empires Andrew Detsch...........................................04 In Our Time: Rethinking Peace in the Middle East Dan Rozenson.............................................05 Domestic Affairs New Jersey ‘09: The Risks of Negative Campaigns Matt Ingoglia...............................................06 Follow the Leader: In Defense of Harry Reid Gina Gibbons...............................................06 On Student Loans Clay McKeon..............................................08
To Trade or Tax? Curbing Emissions Elise Corbin.........................................08 Healthcare and the Money Game Sarah Constant.....................................08 Election Update: Illinois Senate 2010 Ajay Kumar..........................................10 Where’s My Change? Obama’s Equivocation on LGBT Samantha Cyrulnik-Dercher................10 Political Theory Why the SPD Should Take a Detour From the Third Way Emily Sieg............................................11 How Welfare Recipiants are Socially Stigmatized Greg Nanni...........................................11 The Problem with Pundits Seth Christman.....................................12 Book Review: Frigid, Bloated and Empty Chris Southcott.....................................13 Healthcare Standoff: CRs versus CDs Andrew Clark and Ryan Ashley...........14
International Affairs
On Barack and Baruch: Rethinking Nuclear Disarmament
By: Daniel Trombly In 1946, America tried to end the nuclear age as quickly as it had begun. The Baruch Plan, proposed to the United Nations, would have all countries limit nuclear programs to peaceful purposes, and the US – then the sole nuclear power – disarm and place its bombs under UN control. The Soviet Union rejected the gesture as a cynical ploy, and despite arrival of the IAEA, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and several treaties between superpowers, 8,000 active warheads and roughly 15,000 more remain in the world today. The Cold War’s end showed that a world free of the nuclear nightmare was possible: South Africa dismantled its program and former Soviet states surrendered inherited weapons. Yet nuclear proliferation still haunts the world. Since 1998, India and Pakistan openly tested nuclear arms, North Korea developed and tested its own devices, and Israel, with its undeclared arsenal, fears an Iranian bomb.
Over sixty years after Baruch’s attempt at disarmament, an American administration is talking seriously about a nuclear-free world. President Obama historically chaired a September UN Security Council session on non-proliferation, and his ambitious vision helped earn the Nobel Prize. Of course, the NPT exhorts the nuclear states to disarm, and Obama’s Cold War predecessors brought nuclear arms down from their arms race heights. Former Secretaries of State George Schultz and Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, and former Senator Sam Nunn called to end the nuclear threat in 2007. Obama himself has given disarmament special priority, and in his desire to transcend historic Russian rivalry and end the Iranian nuclear imbroglio there is room for nuclear disarmament to enhance the administration’s grand strategy. The greatest opportunity to reduce total stockpiles lies with US-Russian bilateral treaties. The preponderant
powers’ presidents met this July and agreed to cut hundreds of nuclear warheads each, alongside substantial reductions of intercontinental missiles. They hope to formalize this agreement as part of a renewed Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) within the year. Such cuts are more than idealist moves, corresponding with both countries’ shift from massive nuclear arsenals towards maintaining the minimum possible deterrent. The burden of maintaining aging nuclear weapons with limited relevance to actual policy and operations weighs heavily on both American and Russia. Despite the strategic and financial sense of nuclear arms reductions, the course beyond renewing START is a matter of fierce debate. With the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review upcoming, many in the Pentagon wonder how far Obama will take his zero pledge. Though nuclear elimination is far on the horizon, his decision to cut the Reliable Replacement Warhead frustrates some officials. While America is averse to developing new warheads, its stockpile is aging and tests ceased after 1992. A credible deterrent requires assurance that the vast majority of warheads still function, RRW proponents argue, so they require upgrades Obama has canceled. Another pressing question for nuclear policy is the integrity of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. US-Russia reductions are beneficial, but few worry of total nuclear war. Today’s doomsday scenarios spring from India-Pakistan standoffs, North Korean belligerence, Iranian radicalism, or loose nukes falling into al Qaeda’s hands. Some proponents of nuclear disarmament argue America can refute other states’ cries of hypocrisy during proliferation crises by taking the lead in fulfilling NPT disarmament clauses. Here the logic of bilateral cuts blurs with wishful thinking. Please see page 04
02 “I was a lovely man, when I was keeping quiet.” -Afghan President Hamid Karzai
The best of all possible presidents? By: Sarah Khederian A recent New York Times article alleging that Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Walid Karzai is on the CIA’s payroll, has reintroduced the topic of corruption in the Afghan central government. President Karzai and his government have perpetually been accused of corruption and nepotism. These allegations include election fraud in the recent 2009 presidential election, President Karzai’s mismanagement of ministries and provincial governments and accusations of Ahmed Karzai’s connection to the heroin trade. When Hamid Karzai was installed as interim leader of Afghanistan in 2002, he was applauded by the international community as “the only man for the job” and was even called “the chicest man on the planet” by designer Tom Ford. Yet, he has quickly lost the respect and legitimacy of the international community as well as his own government. When Karzai was appointed president of the transitional administration for two years, he vowed - along with a laundry list of governmental reforms, which would create an electoral democracy - to fight corruption and turn Afghanistan around. Karzai was, at the time, considered the perfect leader for Afghanistan by the international community. In 2004, Afghanistan held its first elections as a democratic state; Hamid Karzai was elected President with 55 percent of the votes. The election was heralded as a success for democracy where “millions of voters stood up Please see page 03
03
International Affairs
President Karzai
The slickest man on the planet
Forget Something? By: Adrienne Keamy The Obama administration’s lack of focus on Darfur has been met with conspicuous silence. During the Bush years, “Save Darfur” was one of the most popular political slogans in America and the issue was widely discussed. After Obama’s policy was announced, the media and activist groups have been quiet about Darfur, possibly waiting for results before critiquing the policy, or perhaps reluctant to criticize the new administration. Although the scale of violence in the region has decreased in recent months, the Obama administration still refers to the crisis as genocide. Responding to the numerous cries for action in Sudan by human interest groups, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a release outlining the Obama administration’s plans on October 19. The reactions to Obama’s course of action have been mixed, but generally cautiously positive. The President’s New Policy The Bush administration focused more on the Western Darfur region of Sudan, but President Obama’s plan centers on the origin of the Sudanese conflict: the relationship between the North and the South. The Bush administration oversaw a peace agreement in 2005 that granted Southern Sudan political and religious freedom and promised a vote on Southern secession in 2011. Northern Sudan and the government have an economic interest in keeping the oil-rich south as part of Sudan, and they have delayed the vote by violence—such as mass murders, rapes, and other civilian-targeted attacks. The Obama administration seeks, among other things, to see the terms of the 2005 peace agreement upheld. The administration describes its policy as a combination of “incentives and pressures.” The Sudanese government has interest in normalizing relations with the United States, and President Obama hopes that those interests will motivate cooperation with
US demands. Although the specific methodology remains classified, the plan involves rewarding the Sudanese government for meeting benchmarks in three key areas: Darfur, NorthSouth relations, and counterterrorism. The North-South relations component of the policy calls for both the end of the ethnic/religious violence and the enabling of a 2011 vote on Southern Sudanese sovereignty. The US will evaluate progress in those areas every three months, and has threatened unspecified penalties if substantial improvement is not made. In essence, the plan calls for engaging, not isolating, the Sudanese government— although the US government still refuses to meet with President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who is still wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes in the Darfur region. Instead, the Obama administration has held meetings with senior advisors and other governmental representatives from Sudan. Obama’s Sudan policy falls between two opposing views within his administration. General Scott Gration, the US special envoy to Sudan, has called for a less threatening diplomatic approach. Conversely, UN Ambassador Susan Rice—who participated in the discussion that led President Clinton to launch cruise missiles into a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant in retaliation for US-embassy bombings—represents a more hardline, military-based policy. Although Secretary Clinton’s announcement on Monday wasn’t specific regarding possible repercussions, the threat of further action if benchmark progress isn’t met at the three-month evaluation point seems to indicate President Obama is willing to use a more hardline approach if diplomacy fails, which is in keeping with his “smart power” methods elsewhere. Reactions The reception to Obama’s policy was generally cautiously favorable. Please see page 04
From page 02 to threats from the Taliban and cast their lot with a form of democratic participation that can, in time, create a genuine spirit of citizenship.” These aspirations for a truly democratic Afghan state have become tainted by widespread corruption along with the continuing threat of insurgency. In 2007, the United Nations identified and examined several forms of corruption present in Afghanistan. These included “petty corruption and bribery, extortion, outright theft of government assets, patronage and corruption in government procurement.” The report further states that drug-related corruption poses one of the most serious problems to the state as it “comprise[s] an extremely important threat to the broader state-building agenda, which interacts destructively with corruption in the security sector (especially the police) and justice sector.” This is where charges of nepotism arise: Not only is President Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Walid Karzai, the chief of the Kandahar Provincial Council, he has also been linked to narcotic rings. According to Lieutenant General David Barno, “what appears to be a fairly common Afghan public perception of corruption inside their government is a tremendously corrosive element working against establishing longterm confidence in that government – a very serious matter.” Recently added to the nepotism and corruption that plague Karzai’s government are allegations of election fraud. The recent presidential election produced varying reports of electoral winnings, hurting Afghans’ confidence in the results: “A panel of experts appointed by the United Nations issued findings for the first time on [October 18] showing that fraud was so pervasive that nearly a quarter of all votes were thrown out, and that Mr. Karzai had not won the Aug. 20 election outright.” Though President Karzai has finally admitted to his not winning the election in the first round, his nearly three month long refusal to admit defeat has produced a serious blow to Afghan democracy. Another key accusation against Karzai purports his mismanagement
of provincial governments and affairs as well as his inability to affect the changes he has proposed. Issues arose in late 2002 when Karzai faced off with several provincial deputies who, accused of corruption, would not step down from their positions despite Karzai’s order to do so. Some attribute Karzai’s lack of authority to his non-confrontational demeanor, others to the complete disorganization of the Presidential office. And when he began to disagree with the United States regarding the US military action in Afghanistan as well as the handling of internal affairs, Karzai was berated by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Karzai defended himself by claiming “I was a lovely man when I was keeping quiet. I’m a nasty man, a no-good leader when I began to speak.” Karzai’s statement presents an interesting, and not entirely new, theory about the legitimacy of local governments under international interventions: international legitimacy is gained when the occupied leadership acts in accordance with the policies and strategies of the occupier. One might normally ask just how free to act and lead a president is who formerly enjoyed daily video conferences with President Bush, perhaps giving the appearance that he was an American puppet. Yet, the opinions of Afghans offer a different view to what one might expect: “‘Most Afghans are extremely pragmatic and they equate foreign support with strength,’ said [Jawed] Ludin, the [Afghan] ambassador to Norway. ‘If they know the Americans are not with you, you are not a serious candidate.’” If the Afghan people view a USbacked leader as the “serious candidate,” then the state of Afghan democracy is not one in which legitimacy is gained from the people but from an outside force. With the United States at a crossroads between two highly contentious options in Afghanistan, the legitimacy of the Afghan government poses a serious threat to US goals of stability and security in the region. We can only wait and see how recent international pressure on the newly elected Karzai to curb corruption will play out in the future months, and if he can indeed turn his government into an effective and legitimate force in the country.
International Affairs
Baruch Obama From page 02
START reduces large stockpiles but maintains deterrence’s strategic appeal. Cutting its nuclear inventory by half still leaves America enough warheads to obliterate Iran, North Korea, and other states. Were small states concerned with American nuclear arms rather than conventional military intervention, they would never embark on nuclear weapons programs at all. They could never afford to deter America’s nuclear arsenal. But as Saddam learnt in 1991, nothing short of weapons of mass destruction stand a chance of even matching America conventionally. Not only do nuclear arms provide small states limited deterrence against invasion, they may also engorge national pride. The honor of being a nuclear state helps motivate Iran’s program, and even the Vice President of Brazil argued his country cannot be a true power without nuclear bombs, despite South America’s relative stability. Considering nuclear weapons’ appeal, is Obama’s desire for a nuclearfree world realistic? Global Zero Initiative, a group of US and Russian politicians and defense officials, argue the world could eliminate nuclear weapons by 2030, with America and Russia taking the lead. Nevertheless, total nuclear disarmament requires sustained commitment from
the leadership of all nuclear powers. While America and Russia have strategic and economic incentives to reduce their enormous arsenals, not all nuclear powers want to downscale. Continuing India-Pakistan tensions make those two countries unlikely to entertain disarmament overtures, and a strengthening China, along with its modernizing missile capabilities, has created an Asian nuclear triangle that will be difficult to undo. Israel will not even declare its nuclear capability, its last deterrent against existential threats. North Korea’s opaque and idiosyncratic leadership defies the world for its bombs and seems unlikely to cede theirs. Even if states claim total disarmament, the possibilities of clandestine warheads or states exercising “breakout” capabilities persist, but deterrence would not. Perhaps zero is neither feasible nor desirable, but steps towards zero are worth taking. Obama’s policy will reduce the financial burden and strategic misallocations of US nuclear capabilities. Americans should sober their expectations, though – nuclear disarmament is not a panacea; it cannot feasibly supersede deterrence nor will it sway rising nuclear powers and rogue states. It might end Cold War posturing, but a nuclear-free utopia remains seems as distant as in Baruch’s day.
Darfur deserted? From page 03
Several aid groups, such as The Genocide Intervention Network and the Save Darfur Coalition, applauded the renewed focus on NorthSouth relations and the emphasis on the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement but were skeptical about the administration’s willingness to follow through on consequences for lack of timely progress. Some were expecting a tougher response. During the campaign, President Obama advocated applying pressure on the Sudanese government and taking meaningful action in the region. After seven months of silence, many were expecting less carrot and more stick. Another as-of-yet unfulfilled campaign promise was that an Obama administration would call out the
Chinese government for its support of dangerous and terrorist-harboring regimes such as the one in Sudan. However, President Obama is traveling to China next month, and he may discuss Sudan with the Chinese. As is true of most “smart power” agreements, the effectiveness of the policy will be tested by the Obama administration’s willingness to enforce it.
Is it worth it?
04
The United States in the Graveyard of Empires By:Andrew Detsch In Washington, Barack Obama has made the foreign policy decision that will define his political future. In keeping with campaign promises, the President has decided to implement a 30,000-troop surge in Afghanistan (undershooting Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s recommendation of 40,000 troops), and to then begin withdrawing U.S. forces in 2011. His choices have broad political ramifications. Obama’s strategy faces significant opposition in public opinion polls, and from both parties in congress, as war-weary liberals and conservatives hungry for regime change, are equally skeptical of prospects for success. Their doubts are legitimate. Afghan domestic security has deteriorated rapidly over the summer, and a resurgent Taliban threatens the stability of both the Karzai regime in Kabul and the Afghan state itself. Some worry that this struggle is destined to be the next U.S. military quagmire. Empires have collapsed here. Will we be the next? A raw troop surge and enhanced measures to protect Afghan civilians will not alone suffice. Afghanistan is not Iraq, and we cannot win there while ignoring entrenched political, economic and social realities the way our military has done for the past eight years. Instead, we must employ a complex and multilateral ground operation on local levels, focused on building infrastructure and securing the peace in order to emerge victorious. This strategy should consist of six separate, but interrelated, components. First, we must get rid of Hamid Karzai by any means necessary. His pithy, dawdling style of “big tent” leadership has facilitated a widespread culture of corruption in Kabul and nationwide, most prominently in the August elections, and has paved the way for the Taliban’s resurgence in rural Afghanistan. Approval ratings for the regime are consistently under ten percent, making it less popular domestically than any major active terrorist group. Chances are that Afghans will not be heartbroken by such a loss.
Karzai’s appointment of known former Taliban operatives to government posts and his increasingly fervent anti-American tone, both moves to ensure his tenuous political standing, are intolerable to the United States and Afghanistan alike. With Karzai must also go our dream for a liberal, centralized democracy in Afghanistan. This is no nation; it is only a set of borders partitioned by the British, within them a patchwork of disparate ethnic groups and local polities loosely and ineffectively controlled by a central government. In many of these areas, tribal tradition is the law of the land. We must respect and adhere to this truth by focusing our institutional buildup on a local level and allowing provincial powers greater autonomy. For these reasons, Karzai’s exit will not be especially destabilizing. Above all else, Afghans want security, not democracy. Unsurprisingly, the state’s most popular national institution is the Afghan National Security Forces. We must embolden their efforts by providing effective training and advanced weaponry. In Afghanistan provinces, police forces are the only real source of government we need for the time being, and will be the roots of lasting peace and stability. Persisting Afghan instability in the wake of 9/11 is not entirely our fault. Until recently, Pakistan has repeatedly dropped the ball in combating radical Islamist forces, especially in the Northwest region bordering Afghanistan, most of which has fallen to the Taliban and other militants. This scourge has poured over the mountainous border and continues to plague our military efforts. A major tenant in our Afghanistan policy, as emphasized by Vice President Joe Biden, must be securing Pakistan. If Afghanistan were to collapse, it would undoubtedly be a major threat to regional stability. But if Pakistan were to collapse (and it has come dangerously close), the security implications would be far more severe. Terrorists would have the opportunity to obtain nuclear weapons. Pakistan’s demise can be prevented in Please see page 05
05
International Affairs
In Our Time: Rethinking Peace in the Mid-East By: Dan Rozenson
President Barack Obama’s hands-on effort to help forge peace between Israel and the Palestinians marks a significant departure from the laissezfaire approach of the last administration and has renewed worldwide interest in solving the world’s most exhausting conflict. Yet the president’s effort has been stymied – not only by actors on the ground, but also by poor strategy. After months of unproductively trying to prod Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the Arab states to the negotiating table, the president is finding himself forced to recalculate his Middle East policy. Hopefully, this time, he won’t fall prey to certain (wrong) elements of conventional wisdom. Dennis Ross, the chief American Middle East peace negotiator in the 1990s, and David Makovsky, a scholar on Arab-Israeli affairs, published a book this summer called Myths, Illusions, and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East. Ross and Makovsky devote their book to debunking prevailing myths about the region – chief among them being “linkage.” Linkage, they explain, is the premise that “ending the Arab-Israeli conflict is prerequisite to addressing the maladies of the Middle East. Solve it, and in doing so conclude all other conflicts. Fail, and instability – even war – will engulf the entire region.” The hypothesis places Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories at the center of all the Middle East’s problems. It dictates only American pressure on Israel to resolve its conflict with the Palestinians can end the region’s troubles. Arab and Palestinian responsibility for the peace process disappears.
President Obama’s rhetoric in the past has illustrated a belief in linkage. In an interview with The Atlantic in May 2008, he referred to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a “constant sore [that infects] all of our foreign policy.” This belief has ramifications for the president’s early foreign policy, as he has tried to coax Israel into negotiations by getting Arab states to take steps towards recognizing Israel – like allowing flyover rights for Israeli commercial planes – in exchange for a halt in settlement construction. The problem with the linkage approach is that it doesn’t work. Obama’s efforts to revive talks by involving Arab states have been noble and sincere, but also wrongheaded. Not only has Obama failed to get Arab states to deliver, but he has actually made it more difficult for Israelis and Palestinians to restart negotiations; by deciding to pressure Israel to meet the lofty demand of a total halt to settlement construction (even in areas likely to become part of Israel after final status negotiations), he has lost the trust of the Israeli public. One recent poll of Israelis showed that only 4 percent characterized Obama as “pro-Israel.” The demand has also
forced Palestinian President Mah moud Abbas to reject Israeli offers for talks until Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu meets Obama’s request. How can Abbas be seen as softer on the settlement issue than the President of the United States? Peace is a risky venture – it necessitates making huge concessions while having enough confidence to take your adversary’s word that they will reciprocate. With a weak negotiating partner and external security threats clouding the picture, Israel is not in a position to take risks. The reason talks have not restarted has nothing to do with flyover rights in Algeria. The peace process has been stalled because Israel and moderate Palestinian elements are under threat from a nation – Iran – that does not desire a comprehensive regional approach to peace. Iran constantly threatens Israeli security, from its pursuit of nuclear weapons to its backing of not one, but two paramilitary organizations armed with rockets that can reach Israel’s population centers. Simply put, it is not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is causing Iran’s hegemonic ambitions. Iran’s aggressive pursuit of power is helping to continue the
European forces, particularly the Italians and the British, suffered heavy casualties and are plagued by domestic doubts. Though Prime Ministers Silvio Berlusconi and Gordon Brown have not yet wavered from hard-line stances on Afghanistan, they will likely soon be forced to make concessions to woo domestic audiences. It is up to the Obama administration to maintain this fragile coalition through intelligent diplomacy with our NATO allies, who have pledged to send another 5,000 troops to the Kush. Afghanistan is geopolitically important, and the first multilateral
military effort combating Islamic terrorism. Failure will affect our collective future. Ultimately, we cannot be successful in Afghanistan until we figure out what we’re really fighting for. For our efforts to be politically viable, the Obama administration must demonstrate that Afghanistan is indeed “a war of necessity.” The President has further confused this effort by initiating an exit strategy so soon, hinting at his own lack of confidence. But Obama has a campaign to run come 2012, and must make the human cost of this war palatable to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Iran is the greatest danger to peace in the region – not Israel. If U.S. Middle East policy is to bring Palestine and Israel back to the table, it must focus on two main objectives: strengthening the Palestinian Authority, and weakening Iran and its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. That way, both Israel and the Palestinians will be in secure enough positions to make the painful compromises needed to cement a deal. Meeting these objectives can and should involve an appropriate degree of American leadership, with the understanding that America is not omnipotent and cannot fix problems alone. Non-military approaches to dealing with Iran’s nuclear program are still far superior on balance. On the other hand, open-ended diplomacy will not meet our objectives in the region. We need a firm deadline to our engagements with the Iranian regime. One way to compel Iranian cooperation is unilateral sanctions against companies that provide them with refined petroleum, a crucial import in a country unable to refine its own oil. Secondly, bolstering Abbas, is an uphill – but vital – battle with economic and security-related factors. The U.S. should expand its training of police loyal to Abbas, a project that has yielded excellent returns so far. Ultimately, as Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan showed, peace will have to come from within. The U.S. can facilitate a peace process with actors already willing and able to deal, but it cannot dictate peace. We must shape conditions in the region so that Israelis and Palestinians will want to talk to each other, by first making sure that the peacemakers feel strong enough to make hard bargains.
Is it worth it? Obama’s Afghan commitment From page 04
two ways. The first is similar to the policy we should pursue in Afghanistan: Embolden and encourage Pakistan’s counter-insurgency efforts by pooling advisers and resources. Secondly, attempt to mediate more fluid diplomacy with India. Pakistan and India see one another as primary threats to national security, and continue to add to their nuclear stockpiles for deterance. With Pakistan’s primary focus on India, they will never really be successful in combating radical Islam. It’s been a summer of bloodletting in the region for coalition forcesn.
American voter. Make no mistake: that cost will be enormous, especially for a military that is already vastly overstretched and sometimes under resourced. However, the strategic implications of defeat, already looming, could have calamitous effects, further tipping the geopolitical balance in the Middle East toward chaos. In the next few months, through tragedy, travail, and some triumph in this ongoing war effort, history will answer the fateful question that has been on the minds of Americans all summer: Is Afghanistan worth it? We eagerly await that verdict.
Domestic Affairs
06
New Jersey ’09:
“These men chose the shepard’s crook over the bullwhip, and honey over vinegar...”
The Risks of Negative Campaigns
By: Matt Ingoglia Like many New Jersey Democrats, I woke up on the morning of November 3rd confident that Gov. Jon Corzine would find a way to trounce Republican Chris Christie at the polls. When friends would ask if I felt nervous, I would remind them of my governor’s prodigious wealth and incumbency advantage. Even the lukewarm exit polls did little to worry me; with the state’s demographics firmly in his favor, I knew that Corzine would continue the Democrats’ unbroken 12-year statewide winning streak. Needless to say, my night
ended in disbelief as I attempted in vain to rationalize the fact that a Democrat was defeated for reelection in New Jersey, a state which hadn’t sent a Republican to statewide office since moderate Gov. Christie Whitman won reelection in 1997. Even as the Bush years pushed the country redder and Democratic leaders came to epitomize the stereotype of ineffectual spendthrifts, the state’s electorate diligently sent Republican candidates packing. In the 12 years since Whitman’s reelection, every other state in the Union had elected at least one Republican to statewide office.
But New Jersey doesn’t just reject Republicans, it tortures them. Typically, voters show openness toward Republicans in early opinion polls, only to inexplicably come home to the Democratic candidate and leave the challenger in the dust. This in turn leads the national Republican Party to dump tremendous resources into the state in hopes of eventually bucking the trend. Like Ahab chasing his white whale, they were unsuccessful year after yearuntil now. So how did this happen in blue New Jersey? Listening to the media’s chattering class, it would seem that the 2009 elections represented an unambiguous rebuke of President Obama’s national agenda. More insultingly, these pundits would have you believe that the election of an unapologetic conservative portends some kind of Republican resurgence. These arguments, clear and convenient as they are, miss the underlying message behind this anomalous election. This race turned because Corzine’s campaign Jumps to page 07
Follow the leader
By: Gina Gibbons Harry Reid doesn’t get any respect. He defeated opponents in the boxing ring and, as chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission, he knocked down the Mafia. But in spite of his accomplishments, many still see Harry Reid as a listless leader who suffers from Geithner-esque levels of approval. Many seemed to perceive Reid’s tenure as Senate Majority Leader as an administration sans backbone. Critics claim there has been a lack of concrete liberal accomplishments after the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress, the election of Barack Obama, and the 60-seat supermajority that Democrats won in the Senate. Some wish Reid would take a page out of Rep. Tom DeLay or Sen. Bill Frist’s playbook, or even channel his former boxing days to get the job done. But is all of this criticism fair? After all, Senator Reid follows the temperament and approach of his Jumps to page 07
07
Domestic Affairs
Harry Reid gets no respect
From page 06
Democratic predecessors. Former Democratic Majority Leaders include Sens. Mansfield, Daschle, and Mitchell. These men chose the shepherd’s crook over the bullwhip and honey over vinegar, respectively. Harry Reid does not have an easy job. For one, he must contend with the growing tent of the Democratic Party. Moderate Senators like Nebraska’s Ben Nelson, Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu and Indiana’s Evan Bayh, though democrats, are not guaranteed votes. Politico’s Jamal Simmons explains, “Republicans are surely chuckling behind closed doors as they remember that one major reason Democrats were able to win the House and Senate back in 2006 is that the party ran moderate-to-conservative candidates for seats held by Republicans … their views are more in line with the voters of their rural and suburban districts than with many of their big-city and coastal brethren who make up a majority of the party.” Another asterisk next to the 60 seats that Democrats hold are Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo). Both are
moderates facing tough reelection battles, and both are more concerned with the future of their political careers than falling lockstep behind Majority Leader Reid. As Nancy Pelosi has discovered during her tenure as Speaker of the House, the Blue Dogs must constantly be satiated, or they will bite. With a formidable election coming up in 2010, the prospect of the Senate without Harry Reid could become a reality. So what would the Senate look like without Reid? It may become clear that Majority Leader Reid was really the glue that was holding the Democratic caucus together. A Democratic insider close to Majority Leader Reid told Politico, “On the surface, it appears that all these guys have friendly relationships. But under the surface, there are people who really don’t like each other in the conference, and Harry
keeps a lid on all of that.” And that precisely gets at the root of why Majority Leader Reid is the focus of such criticism all the time: He is a consensus-builder. The Demo crats do have 60 seats, but not nearly the ideological homogeneity or party discipline seen on the other side of the aisle. The ideological spectrum of Congressional Democrats encompasses all shades of blue. Also, with the increasing use of the filibuster, Reid has little to no room for error. He must make sure that all 60 members of his caucus are happy. And being happy for a Senator often means being in good standing with his or her home state. Reid is the unsung hero of Washington because he is aware of the political realities facing each Senator in their home state. He knows which votes they can take and which would be political suicide. Reid is able to put his ego aside and deal with the towering ones around him.
Perhaps redemption for liberals disenchanted with the number of accomplishments to Reid’s name may come in the form of the public option. The successful inclusion of a public option in the health reform legislation currently being negotiated on Capitol Hill would ingratiate the left wing of the Democratic party with Majority Leader Reid again. Majority Leader Reid has mentioned that he will be including a public option on the bill up for vote in the Senate, the repercussion of which may be twofold. If it does not pass, it would signal to the more liberal members of Reid’s caucus that he gave the public option “the old college try,” and it didn’t have the votes. If it passes, it would represent a key moment in the history of Congressional deal making. Either way, while some might say that Democrats “own Washington,” this is far from the truth. Like a long line of Rodney Dangerfield-like figures before him, Majority Leader Reid has low levels in the respect department. It isn’t easy getting Chuck Schumer and Ben Nelson to vote the same way. So perhaps what Harry Reid needs more than anything is a new publicist.
By September, Christie’s lead had crumbled and the Corzine campaign had found its footing. Independent voters, increasingly concerned with Christie’s vague platform and ties to Bush, defected to independent Chris Daggett and brightened Corzine’s prospects. The Democratic playbook seemed to have saved the day, until the Corzine campaign forever redefined the phrase “taking the low road.” Incredibly, someone in a position of power on Corzine’s campaign decided that attacking the overweight Christie would cause his supporters to disown him. Inexplicably, Corzine’s team diverted from the real issues and cut an ad that accused Christie of “throwing his weight around” to avoid paying traffic tickets and displayed the Republican in images clearly chosen to reinforce his girth. Worse, Corzine did little to deny his campaign’s intentions; when confronted on CNN, the governor expressed regret over the ad’s wording but did not renounce its underlying message. As any political communications
major will tell you, implicit appeals are best defeated when the aggrieved party exposes them to the light of day. The Christie campaign promptly seized on the ad and painted their candidate as an everyman whose weight struggles mirrored those of the many New Jerseyans who are overweight or obese. No longer could the Corzine campaign argue its opponent was out of step with his state, as their own cheap shots had inadvertently endeared him to thousands of sympathetic voters. Christie insisted the governor come clean about his campaign’s motives, all the while engendering support for his candidacy and reinforcing Corzine’s image as an out-of-touch creature of Wall Street. Media outlets and bloggers throughout the state hailed the exchange as proof that Corzine’s campaign had reached rock bottom. Many argued that the ineffectual governor was trying to obscure his own failings by mocking Christie’s struggles. President Obama’s late visit temporarily diverted the attention, but the damage had been done.
This time, the Republicans wound up vindicated. Independents, disgusted with Corzine’s behavior, flocked to Christie as the lesser of two evils. Despite lacking a coherent closing message, Christie triumphed with 49% of the vote to Corzine’s 45% and Daggett’s 6%. Exit poll respondents overwhelmingly declared that national politics had little bearing on their choice, while independents cited Corzine’s negative barrage as a major factor in their vote for Christie. As Governor-elect Christie prepares to take his shot at running the Garden State, Democrats would do well to remember the lessons of this painful campaign. Legitimate attacks helped Corzine close his deficit, while petty pot shots doomed his momentum. Visits from popular national figures garnered press coverage, but not even the most popular of politicos can efface the scars of a failed governorship. And perhaps most importantly, the people of New Jersey, while not known for their politeness, evidently don’t take kindly to fat jokes.
Dirty NJ Dems fall to Republicans From page 06
crossed the boundaries of acceptable discourse and in so doing reinforced his reputation as a feckless and unlikeable leader. Indisputably, this is a race that any Democrat should have won in a walk. With President Obama still popular in the state, Republicans on the outs, and demographic trends favoring progressive candidates, Corzine should have been favored from the start. Yet the incumbent remained dogged by his inability to balance the state budget, and his early polling numbers suffered before Christie even declared his candidacy. As the Christie campaign struggled to justify its sizeable polling lead during the summer months, Corzine emphasized winning issues like education reform and solidified his status as the president’s ally in Trenton. At the same time, the state Democratic Party worked tenaciously to tie Christie to the unpopular former president who made him U.S. Attorney: a man by the name of George W. Bush..
08
Domestic Affairs
On Student Loans To Trade or Tax? By: Clay McKeon With the average undergraduate now walking away with more than $23,000 in loans after receiving their bachelor’s degree, any proposed changes to the student loan system will affect many at GW’s campus and others around the country. The Obama administration is supporting a bill passed by the House and awaiting vote in the Senate that would change many aspects of the current federal student loan model. This development would transform how many students get the money they need to pay for their education. While the bill provides some funding for pre-kindergarten education and community colleges, the biggest change proposed by the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, introduced by George Miller (D-CA), deals with who makes loans to students. Right now, most universities use private lenders like Bank of America and Chase to originate different loans to college students depending on financial status. Most lenders are more than willing to make these loans, as the federal government secures more than 95 percent of any losses the lender would face if a student defaults. Around 25 percent of schools, on the other hand, use a “direct lending” process and have their students borrow straight from
the federal government. The direct lending model is often regarded as more efficient because it cuts out the middleman. This is in contrast to the private lender model, where the government essentially lets private lenders make almost-risk-free profits off of students by guaranteeing their loans. In what has become a familiar theme in American finance, the situation ends up being heads the lenders win, tails the taxpayers lose. This switch to direct lending is estimated to save up to $87 billion over the next ten years by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. If the bill passes, much of those leftover funds will be recycled into expanding the federal Pell Grant program, which is designed to go to the neediest college students. As college costs have grown in recent decades, the Pell Grant has not kept up. A key goal of this bill is to increase the grant for 2010 and 2011, and then tie its value to the Consumer Price Index so that it is no longer eroded in real value every year. The goal of this portion of the bill is to help the neediest students as they try to cope with rising educational costs. These changes make sense in theory. There is no reason to outsource student loan lending to the markets when the government is already guarantee Please see page 09
Curbing emissions without killing the economy
By:Elise Corbin Over the summer, the House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, (commonly known as the Cap and Trade Bill) only to be overshadowed by healthcare and the war in Afghanistan. Now the bill seems to be making a comeback, as the Senate was presented in late October with a bill written by Senator John Kerry (D-Mass) and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif). The principle behind cap and trade is that companies would need permits for every ton of carbon they release into the atmosphere. Those that do not use all their permits could trade to companies that need more. The total number of permits allowed would reduce emissions, thus addressing global warming. Some fear that this model will not work, creating a market where none previously existed, thus reducing the stigma associated with polluting and emissions would rise. The alternative is to let the popular culture green
movement increase the stigma associated with polluting to drive down emissions. My fear is that the green movement is a fad and will pass, leaving us worse off than before. Another alternative proposal is a carbon tax. Yet while this creates an incentive for companies to decrease their pollution, it does nothing to ensure reductions, and it would financially hurt companies more than necessary. Most people have accepted that global warming needs to be stopped, or at least slowed down. Emissions have increased drastically since the 1950s, illustrating the escalating pollution year after year. As a result, temperature and weather patterns are getting more and more extreme, threatening not only the world’s wildlife, but as time goes on, the human population as well. Even major companies are getting behind the green movement. From General Electric and Shell to utilities like Exelon, large corporations have supported the House bill, believing that the costs of Please see page 09
Healthcare and the money game
By Sarah Constant The healthcare debate is taking over Congress and the media, however, instead of focusing on actual healthcare, the arguments are revolving around money, money, and more money. The discussion should be about assisting the needy in accessing healthcare. Instead, the big guys in Washington are more concerned with how the government can flip the bill on healthcare. While money is the main reason for the lengthy debate on how to reform the healthcare system, Congress is not taking the best path to finding a financial solution. When it came to bailing out Wall Street and America’s failing corporations, there was little debate over price control. All that Congress focused on was the failing capitalist system that they had to save. Today, when it comes to
healthcare and the well-being of America’s citizens, the government is worried about paying too much. Most of the plans running through Congress now have a price tag of over $1 trillion, with the exceptions of the already-passed Finance Committee Bill and the Democrats latest attempt, which is estimated to cost $871 billion. With these large price
tags and a deficit of a couple of trillion dollars, the government has suggested new methods of payment. The government wants to pay as little as possible and they are relying on new taxes and fees to help lower the cost. Of course, raising current taxes on American people is out of the question. There would be uproar if taxes were raised substantially to pay for this bill. On top of premium and co-payments, increased taxes would defeat the affordability and money-saving purpose of this plan. So who does the government look to for funds in its time of need? Insurance companies, drug manufacturers, and medical device producers. Insurance companies are the ones taking the biggest hit.
The media has been painting them as the enemy since the beginning of the healthcare debate. Practically every time a baby is denied coverage from an insurance corporation, it makes CNN headline news. President Obama is contributing to the media frenzy of hatred for insurance companies. President Obama said he wants assurance that the new plan will ban the insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. The plan that passed in the Finance committee will require more Americans to buy private health insurance with little government regulation, and with no public option to create competition. The insurance companies still are not satisfied. Again, it all comes down to money. Please see page 09
09
Domestic Affairs
Go for the Green From page 08
Students’ struggles From page 08
guarenteeng the loans and taking over most of the risk from lenders. Given the tight credit markets now and the susceptibility of the economy to shocks in the near future, it also makes sense to insulate educational loans from the market – Americans need access to college funding whether we are in a recession or not. Despite this, the proposed reform does raise questions on several fronts. The most notable, raised by Congressional Republicans, is the intrusion of the government into another aspect of private life; however, when looking at how the system in place is already held up by the federal government, it doesn’t make sense to paint this as a takeover. A more pointed question would be one of efficiency: Despite projected savings, it is always questionable how well a new large-scale government program would run. The “cash for clunkers” program last summer, while popular, was notorious for the confusion and uncertainty it caused among car dealers. There are fears that a transition to direct lending as early as next year would not be run smoothly.
In addition, private lenders have a reputation of providing solid customer assistance to the colleges and students they serve; is this likely to be the case when a large bureaucracy not facing competition is in control? It is hard to predict. Finally, there is the question of what will happen to those currently holding loans through private lenders—whether terms of payback or bundling after graduation might change. This will affect millions of students who currently have loans from a private lender. The bill is now before committee in the Senate, and looks likely to pass in some form given that it was approved 253-171 by the House in September. Lawmakers must judge whether the bill seeks to reform too much too soon, and whether 2010 is an unrealistic goal for switching over the entire system of higher education to direct lending. The goal of cutting the cost of a major government program is admirable, and if properly put into place, these new policies could truly help needy American students improve access to a college education.
costs of inaction will be far greater than the price tag of the legislation. Also, the forerunners for new, environmentally friendly technology will profit from this bill. The House bill was found by the Congressional Budget Office to only cost about a postage stamp a day, but it would yield economic gains from energy efficiency. Meanwhile, the innovation, development, and commercialization of new technologies will create an estimated 1.7 million new jobs. Still, the bill is expected to face resistance with senators from industrial states, whose constituents fear growing energy costs. Others fear that if a bill is imposed and other countries do not follow suit, the US will be at a disadvantage. Countries like China fear that the US may put the rest of the world at a disadvantage by not signing the Kyoto protocol or passing environmental legislation. . As the US becomes the leader in alternative fuel, they will fuel the economy. Domestically, the partisan tug-of-war between tough standards and costs to Americans may cause the bill to lose momentum as well. But there is some hope: Sens. John Kerry and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are reaching across the aisle. They co-authored a New York Times piece addressing the concerns of both parties about environmental issues. They explained that climate change is real, and that it threatens our economy and national security, suggesting cap and trade policy but also other forms of power. Their priorities include safeguarding American industries from increases in energy costs and reducing our dependency on foreign oil, as
well as decreasing carbon emissions. But beyond settling the parties’ qualms about environmental policy, they pointed out it would be advantageous to pass a bill through Congress – the alternative is far less incentivized. If climate change legislation is not passed, the administration will use the EPA to impose tougher regulations that wont include proposed job protection and investment incentives. The EPA has been pushing forward: When the schedule for the Senate to deal with the climate change bill was pushed from July to late October, they kept working. September saw 13 new rules, seven of which directly affect emissions, and the EPA’s proposed stricter fuel economy standards is likely to find support from the administration in the coming months. Actions to limit emissions have also been taken in the court system. In Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company, lawsuits were brought against coal-burning utilities, arguing that their emissions were creating a nuisance by causing global warming. The suit was originally ruled against, but then later reversed. Given that the public is going through the courts, the administration’s support of progress, and the parties seem to be trying to work together suggests hope for legislation curbing climate change. Everyone seems to be coming together in an effort to get this bill through. Cap and trade, along with looking for other energy sources, is the favorite and most viable option. It doesn’t dramatically force change in the everyday lives of the general public, and it gives businesses a flexible way to reduce emissions.
Curing healthcare should be a fiscal priority From page 08
Insurance companies think that the plan will cause more unhealthy people to buy insurance plans, which will result in higher costs. The companies will also have to pay an additional tax equal to 40 percent of total premiums paid on insurance plans costing more than $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families. Also, since they have to cover people with preexisting conditions, the insurance companies may stand to lose more than they gain, especially with the additional fees from the government. PhRMA, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, have learned to play the Washington money game quite well. The drug manufacturers are looking at paying
a lot of rebates and following strict price controls from the government in the new plan. PhARMA’s lobbyists came up with another solution: they will pay the government $80 billion over ten years to help pay for the new healthcare legislation. Basically, the pharmaceutical companies would pay the government to make less harsh legislation against them. The money game in healthcare continues. The other debate is about whether or not to include a public option in the healthcare bill. The new plan from the Democrats includes the public option, and it actually ends up saving the government billions of dollars. The problem is that the Republicans do not want the government controlling
any more of the healthcare industry. Although the competition with the insurance companies will most likely help to lower premium prices, many people are still hesitant about this plan. The public option would not force people to buy plans from existing companies. It would also lower government subsidies, which are tax credits to families making up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level and small employers. With or without the public option, the government is going to be involved in healthcare. Congress now has to decide the level of involvement.There are fees and fines all over the Senate Finance Bill. Small businesses will be taxed for receiving government
subsidies, and people who do not
purchase insurance will be fined. Instead of focusing on high-quality and cost-efficient care, the government is worrying about taxing and fining the American people and its companies. The entire healthcare system needs to be refined, not just the method of payment and affordability. Emergency rooms need to be less crowded, people need better access to quality care, and nurses and doctors need to be more worried about their patients than about how the government is going to pay for healthcare. The money game needs to end and a solution needs to be found soon so that more focus can go to actually helping sick Americans.
10 Where’s my Change?
Domestic Affairs
Election Update:
Obama’s Equivication on LGBT Rights By: Samantha Cyrulnik-Dercher
Illinois Senate 2010
By: Ajai Kumar
The past year has been a rollercoaster ride for the state of Illinois. There was the election of Barack Obama, the first Illinoisan to be elected as President since Ulysses S. Grant. Then came the less than stunning news (for the people of Illinois, at least) that Rod Blagojevich had been indicted on federal corruption charges. Fortunately, before he was pried out of office by the Illinois State Legislature, (always the beacon of altruism) he managed to appoint one Roland Burris. Burris, sworn in under controversy and pressure from the Congressional Black Caucus, has since become the epitome of a lame duck politician. With political heavyweight Lisa Madigan declining to run in either the Senate or Gubernatorial races, the field seems open for 2010. But the FEC fundraising report released at the end of September shows how quickly the wheat separates from the chaff. At the top of the list are the clear frontrunners: Rep. Mark Kirk and State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, both with over two million dollars cash on hand. When Illinois State Chairman Andy McKenna decided to run in the gubernatorial race instead of the Senatorial race, he cleared the field for Kirk. According to the FEC report, Kirk has nearly seven times more cash on hand than his nearest primary challenger. The party base also seems to be coalescing around Kirk, who has a near 60-point lead over any primary challenger. The Democratic side is more crowded, but State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias is at the head of the pack. With around 2.5 million dollars on hand, and 90 percent of it from individual donors, he has proved an effective fundraiser. Still, there is still some cautiousness surrounding him. The Washington Post reported the anxiety was from the White House. It was clear that Barack Obama supported Giannoulias in his 2004 Illinois State Treasurer election, even going so far as to call Giannoulias “one of the most outstanding young men I could ever hope to meet.” However, White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod has met twice this month with David Hoffman, another
contender for the Democratic nomination. It seems that the White House intends on staying neutral. Also contending for the Democratic nomination is Cheryl Jackson, president of the Chicago Urban League. She has been endorsed by Emily’s List, and has the highest visibility among Giannoulias’s primary opponents. However, her fundraising abilities have been questioned since she trails both David Hoffman and Giannoulias. David Hoffman, a former federal prosecutor and Inspector General for the City of Chicago, and Jacob Meister, a prominent Chicago lawyer, have both made substantial personal loans to their campaigns, allowing them a greater chance in the upcoming primary battle. However, a statewide Senate election in Illinois cannot be run on personal wealth alone. These candidates must prove their ability to fundraise in order to effectively compete against a wellfunded Republican candidate. While Illinois has leaned heavily Democratic in past elections, this election is still a toss-up. Obama still holds a favorability rating in Illinois 5 percent higher than the rest of the country. However, with Blagojevich’s tribulations and deadlocks in the State Legislature, there is widespread disillusionment with the state Democrats. A recent Rasmussen poll placed a general match-up between Giannoulias and Kirk in a dead heat, each with 41% of the vote. Kirk has only a 4% lead over Cheryl Jackson and a 10% lead over Hoffman. A Republican win in Illinois would be a huge blow to the Obama administration. Illinois is their home turf and the nexus of the administration’s influence. Conversely, the Senate race will be competing for media attention with the trial of Blagojevich, which is scheduled for June of next year and is bound to be a parade of sleazy Democratic politicians. With Democrats fighting to keep their supermajority, and Republicans attempting to deny it from them, both parties view Illinois as a major battleground. The oddities of Illinois State politics has managed to turn the race for Barack Obama’s old Senate seat into one of the most interesting elections this season.
It has been one year since President Obama’s historical election, and yet some of his strongest supporters are still waiting on unfulfilled campaign promises. Although Obama has never supported same-sex marriage, (instead, he promotes civil unions with rights comparable to those of marriage) the LGBT community looked to him during the 2008 election as the candidate who would protect, and hopefully expand, their rights. To his credit, President Obama did sign the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill into law, which will now include sexual orientation in the federal definition of violent hate crimes. But with regards to marriage and involvement in the military, change has not come for the LGBT community. The controversial policies of The Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell are still firmly in place, and although President Obama has pledged to repeal them, the LGBT community is growing impatient waiting for him to take action. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 as a method of preventing across-the-board promotion of samesex marriage. Section 2 allows states and localities to refuse to recognize marriages between people of the same sex, including those relationships that are treated as marriages in other states. Section 3 states that the federal definition of marriage means “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” This denies same-sex couples over 1,100 federal benefits that straight marriage couples are guaranteed. The Respect for Marriage Act, which
will repeal Sections 2 and 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act if it is passed, was introduced in Congress in September by Congressman Nadler (D-NY), Congresswoman Baldwin (D-WI), and Congressman Polis (D-Colo). This law would not force states, localities, or religious groups to perform or license same-sex marriages. States would continue to have their own power to define marriage. Instead, The Respect for Marriage Act will ensure the extension of federal benefits to same-sex married couples. The success of the this bill will be largely dependant on the President’s willingness to speak out on behalf of gay Americans and campaign strongly for their rights. The military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy began in 1993 under President Clinton as a temporary compromise between the status quo (a complete ban on non-heterosexuals) and Clinton’s campaign promise (to allow people of all sexual orientations to serve openly in the military). Fifteen years later, our nation is still grappling with this difficult policy, which forbids army members and officials from asking or requiring others to reveal their sexual orientation. The policy claims to only target homosexual conduct, not status, but merely insinuating a sexual orientation while never acting upon it is grounds for investigation and discharge. Under this policy, the government has spent millions of dollars investigating the private, intimate lives of service members engaging in legal, consensual and adult sex. This money is being Please see page 14
Political Theory
11
Why the SPD should take a detour from the Third Way
By: Emily Sieg A shift seems to have swept over the European political spectrum. When Gordon Brown calls for elections, most Britons anticipate the end of Labour and the rise of the Tories under David Cameron. As Germany observed the 2009 campaigns of Angela Merkel and Frank-Walter Steinmeier, few honestly contended that the former SPD foreign minister would gain the chancellorship. Whereas in 2000 Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom could all be defined as leftist ruling governments, only Norway may remain social democratic in 2010. This trend relies in part upon the weaknesses of Tony Blair’s influential Third Way political movement, which was adopted by numerous European social democratic parties. An examination of the German case will reveal the continental trend of faltering social democratic parties that is symptomatic of an endemic political failure in the Third Way, namely the attempt to compromise social democratic principles with traditional policies of the right. To be sure, the continental trend is
not simply a shift in the European political spectrum, but a response to specifically social democratic party politics. Some would argue that the SPD of Germany must persist in their adherence to the Neue Mitte as proposed by Gerhard Schröder. However, this erroneous belief reveals a lack of understanding in recent German election history as well as a misconstrued conception of the German electorate and would only prove to fuel the recent SPD electoral defeats. The argument in favor of pursuing the Neue Mitte contends that the German political spectrum is moving to the right and, given the decrease in the size of the working class, the SPD must abandon the confining rhetoric attached to said class. In response to the first assumption, the current government of Germany does not seem to desire a rightward shift. Chancellor Angela Merkel of the CDU has already encountered problems with her coalition mate Guido Westerwelle of the free-market liberals, FDP. Not only does Merkel seem hesitant to back down on some of her social policies in favor of liberal ones, but she also has shown reluctance to adjust
the tax system to a more traditional center-right set-up. The traditional conservative party of Germany under Merkel has in fact moved to the left, not the right. In support of the belief that the spectrum has moved right, many cite the significant reduction in SPD representation and the commendable increase in FDP political support. Suggesting a shift of the entire political system on the gains and losses of two political parties in a five party system is little more than folly. The decrease in SPD representation reveals the dissatisfaction and disillusionment in the rightward movement of the German electorate. Growth in the FDP may potentially show a growing desire for free-market legislation, but more likely it is simply a vote against the status quo, namely the SPD and CDU/CSU coalition. As the traditional third party in the fiveparty system, the FDP represents a more moderate and ‘safe’ alternative. Additionally, coalitions are typically formed between FDP and either the CDU or SPD. The frustration with the Grand Coalition under SPD and CDU/CSU engendered not only a loss of confidence in both parties but also in grand coalition politics. Disillusioned moderates of both parties also tended to go to FDP. Moreover, while left-wing supporters of the SPDcould comfortably give their votes to Die Linke or Die Grünen, right-wing supporters of the CDU/CSU only transferred to the FDP. The second part of the pro-Neue Mitte argument addresses the belief that the shrinking working class necessitates a modernization and expansion of the SPD idealogy, specifically in a center-right direction. While the overarching theme of this belief holds water, the fault resides in the aforementioned discussion on an ever-increasingly center-right political spectrum. The working class Please see page 12
“Often those who are eligible to receive welfare assistance will not claim them because of the shame that the label ‘welfare recipient’ would bring to them”
How welfare recipients are socially castrated
By: Greg Nanni When life is at its hardest for some people, the welfare programs of the United States are meant to help them transition out of poverty. Welfare programs are programs that target specific means tested groups. There are no real taxes for welfare programs, rather they are funded by general revenues and run by state governments. However, welfare recipients are often stigmatized for receiving the benefits that they need from the government. Often, those who are eligible to receive welfare assistance will not claim it, because of the shame that the label “welfare recipient” would bring to them. Why should anyone feel ashamed of this label? The reason lies within the threat of social castration. Social castration is the isolation an individual experiences when he or she is percieved to be incapable of performing the basic operations of other members within society. The isolation contained in social castration causes feelings of shame and social inferiority for the individual. The threat of social castration surrounding the label of being a “welfare recipient” finds its roots in the popularization of the Social Security program. The reinforcement of the social stigma comes from two contemporary sources: the reinforcement given by officials and the reinforcement given by the nature of capitalism. When welfare was first enacted during the Great Depression of the 1930’s, it was extremely popular and had a high participation rate. Social Security, a federally ran program enacted in 1935, had nearly universal participation, yet it was very unpopular because the payoff wouldn’t arrive Please see page 13
Political Theory
The Problem with Pundits
Experts in the media, like the ones in this magazine, hold sway over public opinion. That’s not a good thing. By: Seth Christman
Once the bubble had burst and the market crashed, the question of the hour was “Why didn’t we see this coming?” Before that, it was the complications of the Iraq war that seemed so obvious in hindsight. After all, Americans like to believe our political system is supported by an immense network of think tanks, prognosticators, and talking heads. What would the markets be without market analysts telling us whether the Dow will rise or fall? What would cable news be without the token left- and rightwing commentators explaining what the latest development means for the common man? Forecasters, experts, pundits, whatever you want to call them – talking heads have a tangible effect on the political sphere. The word “pundit” itself comes from Sanskrit via the Hindi pandit, a title given to a learned man. This underlies the entire concept of punditry – the idea that well-educated experts are more effective at prediction – than ordinary folks. At the very least, experts should be better than random chance. Right? Wrong. Psychologist Philip Tetlock embarked on a sweeping study some decades ago, one that would encompass close to three hundred pundits and over 80,000 predictions. His results show a depressing truth: Pundits are not significantly more reliable than a roll of the dice. Those with a flair for big predictions are the worst. Over-opti-
mistic pundits estimated the probability of events like a Dow Jones in the 30,000s or peace in the Middle East at 65%. Their actual outcomes were closer to 15%. Pessimists are even worse – their predictions of regional collapse or World War III are long on confidence but short on results. Science has been pointing this way for some time. Market analysts, for instance, are notoriously poor at beating the odds. Burton Malkiel’s famous experiment involved flipping a coin to determine the price change of a theoretical stock. Once he showed the resulting chart to an expert, he was given an enthusiastic recommendation. Whether or not the financial markets are random as some economists think, it is clear that market analysis tends to be substantially overblown. When Jon Stewart attacked Jim Cramer for getting the financial crisis all wrong, he should have blamed the audience of Money Market for supporting a show that is, in effect, a crap-shoot. Malcolm Gladwell’s pop psychology hit Blink argues that too much information can turn into a very real handicap. The human desire to find
patterns can lead to inefficient and even counter-productive thinking. In one experiment, a rat was placed in a maze with food. The food was on the rat’s left 60% of the time. While the rat learned to turn left and accept being wrong four times out of ten, a group of Yale students only managed 52% accuracy. Implications about the Ivy League aside, this speaks volumes as to the problem with political forecasting. It’s not all the pundits’ fault. Part of the problem is in hindsight bias. Once something has happened, we naturally see it as the inevitable consequence of whatever came before. Market bubbles can only be definitely identified after the fact. Confirmation bias – the very human tendency to favor information that supports one’s existing conclusions – can also have serious consequences. Consider the growth-happy market analyst who willingly reads articles on the virtues of high-yield derivatives while dismissing talk of too much leverage. Pundits, after all, are human in spite of their many graduate degrees. Tetlock draws on Isaiah Berlin’s classification of thinkers as either
the Neue Mitte, which is premised upon the assumed movement of the political spectrum to the right. The general concepts of the Third Way, including modernization and expansion to a broader, less working class specific party, were not poor ideas; they were simply poorly executed ideas. The SPD should attempt to increase its presence in the middle classes through the continuation of educational funding and substantial promises of school reform in addi-
tion to a mixture of green policies. To restore their left base, the party should try to reincorporate traditional social guarantees, including wage reform and even bank regulation, which could restore credibility after the financial crisis. The party structure itself has lent a cold and closed-off nature to the SPD and should be remodeled to improve party-constituent interaction. In matters of the East-West divide, the SPD must further diminish its repu-
12
“hedgehogs,” who have a central organizing principle, or “foxes,” who prefer multiple perspectives to a single ideology. Those with the best record are foxes, “modest about their forecasting skills, eclectic in their ideological and theoretical tastes, and self-critical in their analytical styles.” Such pundits do indeed beat the odds. Moderation and syncretism pay off. Hedgehogs, on the other hand, plunge ahead according to their pet philosophy and never look back. Thomas Friedman, with his driving focus on globalization, is the quintessential hedgehog. The fact that his work has a simple credo makes it approachable and easy to market. Moderation doesn’t sell. It never has. His shallow analysis and exaggerated claims become pros rather than cons. Conversely, economist Tyler Cowen of the blog Marginal Revolution is a fox. He draws on the best elements of Hayek and Keynes, not hesitating to dabble in music reviews and ethnic cuisine. Accordingly, his record is respectable but his audience modest. Cable news channels are not aimed at policy wonks. So, what’s to be done? Tetlock’s solution is to create a public system for monitoring pundit accuracy. In theory, accountability would force them to either moderate or lose credibility. Of course, numbers have never stopped either side of the aisle from thinking what it will. Implementation of such a system would be a nightmare – how often do pundits freely admit to being wrong? More encouraging is the growing influence of foxes in the blogosphere. Either way, the status quo cannot stand. In democracy, accurate media is as vital as free media.
German elections an opportunity for a new SDP From page 11
may be shrinking, but the traditional concerns of the working class are ever-present. Minimum wage, unemployment, contract terms and working conditions will always remain contentious points of government policy and will always necessitate the push-pull relationship of liberal-minded parties like the FDP and CDU/CSU and oppositional left forces of the SPD, Grünen and Linke. From these conclusions, the SPD should not continue their pursuit of
tation as an aloof organization of Westerners and engage in dialogue and cooperation with Die Linke. The recent defeat in the September election may prove the perfect time to initiate these reforms. Free from the role as Angela Merkel’s tied helping hand, the SPD should concentrate on reestablishing itself as the left opposition and a force of change, a position which bears the true essence of a social democratic party, not a compromised third way.
Political Theory
13
Frigid, Bloated and The Stigma of Help Empty Book Review:
By: Chris Southcott
I have no idea who Hot, Flat, and Crowded, Thomas Friedman’s newest book - and last summer’s official selection for the Freshman Reading Program - is aimed at. While most freshmen purchased the book, only some started it, fewer finished it and fewer still enjoyed it. As something intended to motivate the American people to action, Hot, Flat, and Crowded ultimately fails, precisely because it alienates any potential audience. For academics, or even anybody who follows the news, Hot, Flat, and Crowded is an absolute nightmare. To begin with, Friedman’s research methods are atrocious. There are no footnotes or endnotes, and a vast majority of his evidence comes from either fellow journalists or from conversations with notable people. While the lack of footnotes may be excusable if Friedman did not want to alienate a less scholarly audience, what are not acceptable are the numerous occasions he simply cannot be bothered to do basic research on his own. For example, on page 58, after he describes a Sam’s Club in China selling 1,100 air conditioners in one weekend, rather than looking the exact number up, Friedman instead posits “I would bet that is more than some Sears stores in the United States sell during a whole summer.” Furthermore, Thomas Friedman’s analysis suffers from composition fallacy and massive amounts of cherry picking. Simply put, Friedman’s world view goes something like this: “So I stepped off the plane at [city X] and I noticed [cultural oddity Y], so that’s how all of [country Z] works.” Arguments are oftentimes not only fallacious, but also patently false. The most egregious example occurs after Friedman proposes “the First Law of Petropolitics”, which states that as the price of oil goes up, freedom goes down. However, not even ten pages later, Friedman contradicts this
abstract concept, which his graphs fail to support even as a correlation. He declares that in Saudi Arabia in 2008, at a time when oil prices were at the highest they had been since the 1970s, “more women are getting educated… new universities are being opened... more media are being started… including some new, reasonably independent and progressive television channels and newspapers.” Though he attributes these trends to “modernization,” they sound an awful lot like an increase in freedom to me. Perhaps most damaging to his argument, however, is that Friedman’s wife is heir to one of the largest shopping-mall chains in the nation – a fact that grants him a 12,000 square foot house and the ability to jet-set all over the world. Consequently, Friedman does far more damage to the environment than the average American citizen. Even for the ignorant, Hot, Flat, and Crowded is a mess, mostly because of Thomas Friedman’s butchery of the English language. From awful figurative language (comparisons between Mother Nature and Dungeons and Dragons) to invented terms, (like the Energy Climate Era and the Energy Internet) Friedman bombards his readers with these lingual abominations until they cannot care because they have become so disassociated. In trying to appear relatable, ultimately Friedman ostracizes the average reader. The saddest part of all this is that at its most basic level, Friedman’s argument is right: The world does need to change the way it consumes energy and America is primed to take advantage of cleaner technologies. However, amidst the thick cloud of flaws in a book that is frigid, bloated, and ultimately empty of substance, Friedman’s core argument is lost.
From page 11 until 1942, nearly a decade later. On the other hand, welfare was giving the taxpayers benefits right then and there. The public view toward Social Security started to change in 1939, when Social Security was modified to resemble a welfare program in order to increase its own popularity. By increasing benefits to couples and to widows whose husbands had work histories, the social security system shifted more closely to a means-tested program. In the 1950s, Social Security benefits were expanded to nearly everyone who was at the retirement age, even those who did not pay for the program. Since participation was decreasing, politicians were also encouraged to decrease their appeasement of welfare recipients, and to start building a constituency of social security recipients. Corruption at the state level was the largest incentive for this transition. With politicians now appealing to Social Security issues rather than welfare, the popularity of social security increased, while support for welfare decreased. It is at this point that politicians introduced the notion, “You paid for it, and you’ll get it back.” The slogan was used to overcome opponents who were gaining support from welfare recipients. This resulted in an attack on the program itself for giving handouts to those who did not earn it, and for treating America’s citizens like children. Thus, the threat of social castration was set up: People who were under welfare are like overgrown children. The common belief arose that welfare recipients were simply lazy people who depend on government money to run their lives and take advantage of the system. Moreover, the sight of officials agreeing with the stereotypes of modern day recipients maintains a lot of the negative connotation behind the phrase “welfare recipient.” Most of these officials lack expertise. They are people who positioned themselves in such a way that their opinions seem legitimized. News reporters, politicians, and talk show hosts are all
technically officials that the common person views every day, and if any of these officials hold that stereotypes behind welfare are true, then it is reinforced within the minds of the masses. The stereotype is encouraged to exist through the observance of these officials. However, what creates the logical sense of these stereotypes is the capitalist ideology many citizens have accepted unconditionally. What makes welfare recipients so easily socially vulnerable is the perception that the money the average citizen gives to the government is still partially their money. Since welfare targets specific people through programs such as TANF, which provides money to poor needy families, and SNAP, which provides food benefits to those near poverty, a lot of people are left out of the benefits. The average citizen can then ask the question “Why should I pay to support other people?” The loss of money that goes into a communal value can frustrate individuals about their loss of this money. When individuals hear the stereotypes provided by officials, some consent to those stereotypes in the wake of their frustration. They then instill the stereotypes into their minds as facts, and may even promote it themselves. This frustration, coupled with a lack of faith in others to make the right choices, creates mental conditions that reinforce the notion that welfare recipients are lazy people who abuse the system. Thus, welfare recipients are threatened with social castration. Given the historical roots of perceptions surrounding welfare and its reinforcements by officials and capitalist ideology, the threat of social castration is likely to be entrenched in our society for years to come. To be a welfare recipient is to face social isolation and embarrassment from others, and that is enough to keep certain people out of programs whose benefits they may need. Until the country adopts the view that government money belongs to the community rather than the individual, welfare recipients will remain under the threat of being socially castrated.
14
Political Theory College Democrats vs. College Republicans
Sound-Off Healthcare Reform
And healthcare for all
By Ryan Ashley
We need to reform our healthcare system; our current Pay-or-Die system is morally repugnant and economically devastating. 45,000 Americans die every year—that’s one every 12 minutes—from not having health insurance. That number doesn’t even include insured Americans who die because insurance companies decided that profits were more important than their treatment. Over the past 10 years employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have increased by 131 percent, and over the next decade these costs are estimated to go up at even faster rates. The truly sickening part of that statistic is that over the past 10 years, the percentage of health insurance companies’ revenue that has gone to patient care has decreased, meaning that our higher premiums have gone to higher executive pay, and more bureaucrats between us and our doctors. Overall, by 2018 health insurance costs are estimated to double from the rates in 2007, making it harder for working families to pay for health insurance. Also, that there are only two industries in this country that have formal protection from federal antitrust regulations: Major League Baseball and health insurance companies. This means that in some areas, one health insurance company completely monopolize a market, such as Alabama, where Blue Cross controls about 90 percent of the health insurance commercial share. Health insurance companies do not provide any healthcare--not one shot or pill; they are the money middlemen between our doctors and us. Nothing justifies them taking a 30% overhead for their money changing. Medicare, a single-payer system, takes
a 2% overhead and has higher patient satisfaction rates by far than private health insurance. So what can we do to improve our healthcare? First, we must end discrimination against American citizens: no more denying care for pre-existing conditions and no more dropped coverage once you get sick. Second, health insurance companies need to provide preventive care to Americans; staying healthy is much cheaper than treating disease. Third, we should create an insurance marketplace that will provide direct competition and puts the power of choice into the consumer’s hands. This marketplace needs to include a public healthcare option to ensure that private insurance companies are meeting their responsibilities. This marketplace will let Americans choose the best plan for them. An insurance marketplace that includes a strong public option will also lower overall healthcare costs, increase Americans’ security in their plan, and allow patients to consider their own health before considering how much their care will cost. What is also means is that if you like your current health insurance, you can keep it. However, if you don’t have health insurance, or are among the Americans who want better insurance, a public option can provide you affordable, quality care. This is not just an economic issue, it is a moral one as well. The Declaration of Independence said that American government would protect the inalienable rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Americans cannot have happiness, liberty, or especially life without quality, affordable healthcare for all.
Change that works
By Andrew Clark
There is no doubt that the American people need – and want – health care reform. For years, Americans from all walks of life have dealt with the sky-rocketing costs of insurance, and millions of Americans have had no health insurance of their own. For a firstworld nation boasting the most prosperous economy in the world, this is unacceptable, and the Republican Party wholeheartedly acknowledges that health care reform should be a key priority in any administration. However, at the same time, we have to remind ourselves that there is a difference between health care reform, and health care reform that is proven to work. The ObamaCare package that the Democrats have rammed through Congress on a narrow, party-line vote, is not the reform that the American people want, or need. In fact, the Democrats reform plans are driven less by a desire to actually see results and more from an ideological, leftwing agenda. It has been proven time and time again that more regulations, agencies, bureaucra-
cies, mandates, and taxes will only make the current health system more complex and more expensive, while reforms that are proven to work – such as tort reform and allowing insurance to be sold across state lines – were virtually ignored by Pelosi, Reid, and their liberal allies in Congress and the White House. The CBO recently released a report that the Republican health care reform plan is the only plan that would truly succeed in reducing the price of insurance premiums by taking free-market approaches to solving our problems, yet the Obama Administration has been hesitant to look at these reform plans. ObamaCare will only make health care more expensive and lower its quality, denying Americans the reform they’ve been asking for. In the coming months, the American people will only grow more willing to look at Republican ideas for solving the problems facing our nation. The Democratic Party should take a second look at its policy of ignoring the real change Americans want in favor of their liberal agenda.
Obama needs to stop putting off gay rights
From page 10
spent on discharging experts with unique skills, including fluency in Arabic, while America fights two simultaneous wars. On October 13th, the night before the Equality March in Washington, DC, President Obama addressed The Human Rights Campaign, speaking to an audience of important members of the LGBT community who were supportive of the president but disappointed in his lack of progress on their behalf. President Obama reiterated his promises and reassured them that he planned to repeal The Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. But many in the LGBT commu-
nity are wondering when they we see a timeline for these repeals; until they do, they are unlikely to believe that change is in their future. Should President Obama have used his political collateral earlier on in his presidency to promote LGBT rights? It is true that there were issues that affected many more Americans, such as the economy and healthcare, which required more immediate attention. But many still argue that if the President had started working for marriage rights and equality in the military during his honeymoon pe-
riod, he would have been much more effective in changing the minds of Americans who oppose equal rights. Perhaps the recent defeat in Maine, where 53 percent of voters overturned a same-sex marriage policy, could have been prevented had President Obama acted sooner. Some pessimists fear he has waited too long. Obama’s approval ratings are significantly lower than they were mere months ago, many are disappointed with the neverending, embittered healthcare debate,
and the LGBT community is worried that he has already lost the staggering political support he would need to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and The Defense of Marriage Act. President Obama has kept the LGBT community waiting long enough. If he holds out much longer, he will risk losing the support of a small but vocal group that was very loyal to him in the past. The questions remain: Will the President turn his attention to LGBT issues when the healthcare debate culminates? Or will his fear of losing votes for the 2012 election cause him to wait until it is convenient for him to pursue equality?
www.gwdiscourse.com