Amitai Etzioni Notes

Social conservatives, I wonder...

Are social conservatives failing the most elementary test of ethics: to not discriminate? They seem to hand out boatloads of free passes to McCain and his political partner, while withholding the high marks due to Obama and kin.

For decades, social conservatives have extolled the value of marriage. However, we do not hear them cheering for Barack and Michelle, who are clearly honoring their marital vows, and they have precious little to say about John McCain's extra-martial affair or the fact that he has been divorced. (They need not be concerned about engaging in gossip or rumor mongering; McCain openly acknowledges both the divorce and the affair.)

Maybe social conservatives are saying to each other that not all moral transgressions or sins are created equal. Indeed, Catholicism, Judaism, and the secular legal codes of all major nations grade transgressions. One can hold that abortion is a much more serious offense than divorce and extra-marital affairs put together. Hence, one may try to argue that McCain's failings can be much more quickly overlooked than those of Obama. However, such a claim does not stand for a minute, as it disregards that all the Obamas have done is to talk about the right of women to choose; McCain committed adultery and got a divorce. I am hard put to find a religious or secular ethic, legal system, or set of values that does not draw a sharp line between talking and doing.

Then there is a matter which is difficult to approach but should not be shoved under the rug. For decades, social conservatives from Pat Moynihan to Charles Murray had a special beef with African Americans, especially the men. They were depicted as promiscuous, quick to move on, unwilling to marry, and neglectful of the children they spawned. Social conservatives promoted various plans to encourage marriage -- including denying welfare to single mothers, many whom were African American -- and they looked for positive role models for African Americans who did marry, stayed married and attended to their offspring. They could call them--the Obamas. I am not insisting on confetti, but how about some coast to coast acknowledgment that here is the couple we have being praying for, role models by any standard? And how about one more heartfelt round of applause for Obama for being willing to take the heat for supporting responsible fatherhood, especially among African Americans?

I do not blame Sarah Palin for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter, although Palin's advocacy of abstinence-only sex education may well have contributed to the pregnancy of some girls. But it seems curious to hear from those who have weighed in for decades against pre-marital sex and teen pregnancy that the news from Palin's family is welcome because it shows that theirs is a "normal American family, with its share of travails." It is not hard to imagine what social conservatives would have shouted from the rooftops if the shoe had been on the other foot, if Obama had a 17-year-old, unmarried daughter who became pregnant. Would they not have argued that it showed a profound character flaw in the parents?

Then there is a point best made by a leading social conservative, the former dean of the Catholic University Law School and an official in several past Republican administrations, Douglas W. Kmiec. (A man who, by the way, was subject to a tirade from the pulpit and denied communion for his support of Obama.) Kmiec says he expects that Obama and Biden will fulfill the call by Pope John Paul II to "ensure proper support for families and motherhood."

I take it for granted that social conservatives share the precept that "whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me." Better yet, these days they not care only about poverty and social justice, but also about the environment and climate control, about preserving God's gifts to mankind. I assume we can agree that the argument over who scores better on these points is going to be a short one.

I am not opposed to devout people who draw on their values to judge political candidates. I am merely concerned when they play it the other way around: shade, shave and tailor their moral judgments to fit their political preferences. Such bias surely is not the greatest moral failing, but it ranks somewhere far from the bottom of the scale of what is right vs. wrong.

Green the Public Square

The next president should include in his agenda the greening of all public facilities within 3 years. Such greening should be required of all federal facilities (from office buildings to prisons, from courts to military bases), and of all corporations that receive substantial amounts of federal funds in grants or contracts (e.g., Halliburton and Boeing). The same should be strongly urged for all state and local government facilities, for other public agencies (e.g., the nation’s 35,000 school boards), and for the hundreds of thousands of not-for-profit organizations, such as the Gates, Ford, and Rockefeller foundations.

Granted, some public agencies already participate in some greening measures, but it’s sporadic and not on a national level.

The greening of the public square should apply to all new facilities and tools (e.g., all new buildings should be required to meet basic green standards, all new vehicles to meet higher and rising CAFE standards, etc.) as well as to the retrofitting of old ones (through improved insulation, green roofs and so on). It should encompass both conservation (e.g., by turning off computers at night and on weekends and holidays) and requirements to purchase power from alternative, renewable sources (say, electricity produced by windmills rather than oil).
   
The greening of the public square would be self-financing. The initial outlays would be provided by special bonds to be issued by a new greening authority. Those who receive the funds will be required to pay them back with interest by turning over half the savings they gain as a result of greening, until the funds and interest due have been repaid.

Such greening is for the common good to the fifth degree. Environmentalists have already pointed out (albeit not in these exact words) that green acts are winners to the fourth degree. They reduce our dependence on foreign oil; generate jobs at home; improve the climate; and stimulate our research and development, a major engine of a strong economy that is especially well-suited for the American place in the global economy. I add only that the greening of the public square also creates a powerful and reliable demand for new or improved green products by securing a mass market for them. Take the example of vehicles that are much more energy efficient than existing ones. To develop such vehicles requires a major outlay. If there is no secure and sizable market for such vehicles, car manufacturers and investors will be reluctant to make such investments. If, however, they knew that all new vehicles purchased by millions of public entities in the future would be required to meet ever higher CAFE standards, such investments would become much less risky. Moreover, such an ensured mass market would reduce the unit cost for the private sector.

Most discussions of greening focus on the private sector. However, the public sector is the best place to rush greening forward. It is much more amenable to national guidance than the private sector.

In short, there is much to be gained from greening the public square. The main losers would be the adversaries who are confronting us from Latin America to Eastern Europe, drawing on the funds and political leverage sky-high oil prices have granted them. That is, such greening provides yet another “win”: more funds in our pockets, less in the hands of those who do not particularly love us.

Hispanics went missing in Denver

Hispanics now outnumber blacks in the USA, but they were practically invisible during the Democratic Convention in Denver.  Only one speaker during the primetime slots was Hispanic, and he did not speak to Hispanic issues.  Otherwise, though the convention started slowly, it kept improving and by the end, it soared. The Obama campaign may well have some good explanation for this neglect of Hispanics.  Hence, it may not need to say “sorry,” but it had better make amends. 

In recent days, new census findings further document what social scientists have known for years- that minorities are rapidly becoming the majority. The Census Bureau calculates that by 2042, Americans who identify themselves as Hispanic, black, Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander will together outnumber non-Hispanic whites. However, lost in this summary overview is that one group has accounted for much of this population growth in the recent past and will do even more so in the future. By 2050, Hispanics will account for 30% of Americans, compared to 15% today.  In comparison, blacks will increase only from 13% to 15%, and Asians will increase from 5% to 9%. 

In political terms, African Americans have been mobilized for decades.  They had, and currently have, a large number and variety of leaders of national presence, culminating in the nomination of Barack Obama.  Hispanics are just beginning to find their political legs.  Many of them are still new to this country, and like many first generation immigrants, they focus on finding their way and on local affairs. However, with each election their votes have become more important.  Moreover, while most African Americans tend to vote Democratic, and surely will do so this year, Hispanics must be won over if more of them are to vote for Obama. 

During the Democratic Convention in Denver, only one Hispanic person, Governor Richardson, was given a prime spot.  (Gov. Kaine of Virginia threw in two lines in Spanish).  Other speakers courted the unions, spoke of Israel, expressed concern for gay rights, and so on, but little voice was given to the issues that trouble Hispanics.  This is especially regrettable, as the relationship between African Americans and Latinos is, let’s just say, complex. 

The Obama campaign may well say that the large number of African American speakers, introducers, and endorsers was due to the special nature of the day-- the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.s “I Have a Dream” speech -- and that they were speaking for all Americans and not just for their race.  Fair enough. But the convention was mindful of special concerns of other groups, and hence the campaign should make amends. 

Let’s have one or more occasions in which we hear from a variety of Hispanics on what their version of the American dream is. 

No right to bear arms

The Supreme Court decision to uphold the ruling of a lower court which struck down a Washington DC law banning handgun ownership as unconstitutional is a bigger set back to American law and public safety than first meets the eye.

To many Americans the court’s actions may make sense because even liberal publications often refer to the Second Amendment as if it speaks simply of a "right to bear arms."  Actually the text reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." You may say the text is ambiguous given that it speaks first about a militia and then about people. However, until this year, whenever this issue reached the highest court of the land, in cases that span nearly 125 years, the court ruled that there is no constitutional barrier to limiting or removing guns owned by individuals. It is this long accumulation of legal judgments which now has been undermined by a court loaded with conservatives.

In an overview of all the cases before 2008 none other than Erin N. Griswold, solicitor general in the Nixon administration, and former dean of Harvard Law School, noted: "Never in history has a federal court invalidated a law regulating the private ownership of firearms on Second Amendment grounds. Indeed, that the Second Amendment poses no barrier to strong gun laws is perhaps the most well settled proposition in American constitutional law."

The relevant Supreme Court cases are United States v. Cruikshank (1875); Presser v. Illinois (1886); Miller v. Texas (1894); United States v. Miller (1939); Lewis v. United States (1980); Quilici v. The Village of Morton Grove (1983); Higgins v. Farmer (1991); and Printz v. United States (1997). Though the details of these cases vary, and like all such cases they are subject to different readings, the decisions reached in all of them fundamentally affirm that the Constitution does not limit the states' ability to restrict private gun ownership.

For instance, in United States v. Miller, the most often cited of these cases, Jack Miller had not properly registered his sawed-off shotgun, nor had he paid a tax for transporting this weapon in interstate commerce, both required under the 1934 Firearms Act. Miller claimed that the Act violated his Second Amendment rights. The Court ruled that because Miller could not prove that his shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Seems plain enough. But when I wrote previously about this subject I received a storm of critical emails. Many of the responses were composed merely of cuss words strung together, of the kind one would expect to find in a poorly kept public toilet.  Some readers, though, offered actual arguments. They quoted Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and George Mason to show that our founding fathers were proponents of private gun ownership. My response is that ours is a government by laws which cannot be trumped by quotations from even the most highly regarded patriotic icons.

Recently some social scientists have claimed that their studies show that the more guns private citizens have, the lower the crime. These are the results of highly manipulated models, not actual empirical research. If one compared the murder rates in nations in which there is next to no private ownership of guns (such as the UK and Canada) one sees that for decades, they had much lower murder rates. Ditto for other kinds of violent crime.

The NRA argument that criminals kill people, not guns, ignores the fact that guns make it much easier for a person to kill scores of others than say knives or wrenches, to which guns are often compared. Moreover, one must note that guns in the house are more likely to be used by one spouse against another, or discharged accidentally, or to endanger children—than ever be used against a criminal. In fact, for every justified use of a gun in the home, there are about 22 criminal or unintended shootings.

One can but hope that the recent Supreme Court ruling will not open the door to a widespread relaxation of laws in other cities or states which limit the availability of dangerous weapons. While unclear, the Supreme Court’s decision does not deny that cases may be made for state limitations on the possession of firearms. However, by reversing course in the Court’s history of interpreting the Second Amendment, it is likely to impose an unwelcome burden on attempts to improve public safety.

Amitai Etzioni is University Professor and director of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University. His most recent book is Security First (Yale 2007) www.securityfirstbook.com  email: comnet@gwu.edu 

For more on Second Amendment issues:  http://dspace.wrlc.org/handle/1961/587

Life on Mars? A Bridge in Brooklyn?

I grant you this is not high on the next President’s priority list; however, if he cannot ground NASA, he will never be able to rein in the much more powerful Pentagon. NASA has a very effective propaganda machine.  Its most recent PR move is to tell Congress and the public that it is out to find “life” on Mars and other planets. When many people hear references to life, images of Martians spin through their heads; some even envision civilizations that we could ally ourselves with, maybe against China, at least against some other aliens in some other galaxy. Actually, what the multi-billion dollar agency is looking for is some organic material, the size of amoebas or—even less.  It would be nice to know, I grant you; however, given other priorities, it hardly belongs at the top of the list of what ought to be studied. Indeed, even if one insists that these funds are to be used for exploration—and not, say, finding better ways to fight disease or poverty—much more promising targets are near by, right here on Earth, in the oceans.

Although oceans cover more than 70% of the Earth, less than 5% of them have been mapped with the same degree of detail as Mars. We have rarely ventured below 6,500 meters in the oceans, although they are more than 11,000 meters deep. We know much less about the deepest layers of the oceans than we know about the dark side of the moon.

Yet, the potential payoffs are huge. First of all, this is the place, bar none, where the largest amounts of untapped oil and gas are to be found. Next: NASA claims that space exploration has led to all kinds of new technology—for instance, it maintains that the coatings that allow space capsules to withstand the heat of reentry are used to make better pots and pans. But deep-sea expeditions are likely to yield even greater benefits. In order to freely explore the oceans' deepest reaches, we must learn to construct submersibles that can handle extreme pressure, as much as 18,000 pounds per square inch. The resulting materials and techniques might help us design and construct homes that could withstand cyclones, hurricanes and earthquakes.

In contrast to cells of organic material that may be present on Mars, it is estimated that there are up to 2 million marine life forms that are yet to be discovered in the oceans. Whenever we venture deeper, we find new species, for instance lithistids, a rare kind of sponge present only in deep waters. Such discoveries are likely to reveal secrets of earlier life on Earth, and make up for other species that are being lost due to human expansion on the surface.

Moreover, deep-water habitats teem with life that contains the promise of new drugs and new cures for diseases. In what are still largely unexplored deep-water reef communities, the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution in Ft. Pierce, Fla., has discovered what is believed to be an anti-tumor agent (discodermolide); its value for humans is being tested in clinical trials. Also, scientists expect that organisms in the deep oceans can consume the methane that is seeping through the ocean floor and convert it into energy for themselves. They hope that we could learn to harvest such energy for our own use.

The discovery that dust on Mars is finer than previously thought or that water once flowed down its now barren craters doesn't bowl me over. Even the seas' more obvious secrets are much richer—for instance, sunken ships. Consider the Swedish warship Vasa, which sank in 1628. Raised in the 1960s, it now tells us volumes about earlier historical periods.

Perhaps most important, the oceans are the major part of our environment.  They greatly affect the climate and the conditions that allow life—of real, two-legged creatures, our life—to survive. And yet we are turning one sea after another—the Mediterranean, for instance—into garbage dumps.  Studying the health of oceans and how they may be protected is much more urgent than re-visiting Mars.

There are some—including researchers who do not receive grants from NASA—who believe that we can draw inspiration from walking on the moon, but not from diving into the oceans. They may be too young to remember the admiration with which many millions followed the explorations of Jacques Cousteau. All we need is a good race with other nations—measured by how much ocean we cover and who can find more goodies faster—and ocean exploration will be all the rage.

Granted, Obama and McCain have more urgent priorities than worrying about either outer space or deep oceans. However, Presidents have assistants, and they have assistants. Somebody, one cannot but hope, can bring some sense into setting priorities in spending those dollars dedicated to exploration. These may well be dedicated to discovering ways to fight  disease and finding sustainable new sources of energy. However, one hopes that some funds will be set aside to probe the oceans; these funds can be found on Mars.

Conservatism is dead; long live liberalism? (Part III)

Conservatism is dying on the vine [detailed here]; liberalism is not a mainspring of compelling and mobilizing ideas [here]. Obama draws heavily on—and contributes much to—a little known social philosophy known as communitarianism. It is centered around the importance of community, the common good, and service.

The nature of communitarianism is best illustrated by contrasting it with identity politics, the rejection of which is both a major theme of Obama’s campaign, and is symbolized by his post-racial biography and personhood. Identity politics build on what differentiates us from one another: our racial or ethnic origins; our sexual orientations; our separate past social histories. Identity politics led to attempts to form a ‘rainbow’ coalition, composed of various groups who considered themselves victimized—against the declining white, male majority. Other forms of identity politics pitted citizens against immigrants. Some of the more radical versions of multiculturalism also contributed to this kind of divisive politics.

Obama’s conceit is the mirror opposite of this kind of liberalism. On the stump, he repeatedly stresses that we are not from red states or blue states but from the United States. His statement, reiterated time and again, that we are not black, white, Hispanic, Christian or Jewish, but members of one overarching community, is much more than a flurry of oratory: it is a major social philosophy that seeks to draw the best out of all of us and invest it in making a better life for all.

A revival of the American community requires us to spend much less of our energy and resources on fighting one another, and invest much more of it in the common good, in those goods that serve one and all. Hence, Obama seeks not only social justice for the poor, but decent work at decent wages for one and all; he harps less on the uninsured, and seeks a health care system that will encompass all Americans; he is as open to those with a strong faith as he is to those who embrace secular humanism.

In The Audacity of Hope, Obama shows that he is well versed not only in the language of rights and entitlements but also that of obligations. He writes, "We value the imperatives of family and the cross-generational obligations that family implies...We value patriotism and the obligations of citizenship, a sense of duty and sacrifice on behalf of our nation."

Better yet, Obama used to stress that "in the end a sense of mutual understanding isn't enough. After all, talk is cheap; like any value, empathy must be acted upon." He recounted with pride that when he was a community organizer "[he] would often challenge neighborhood leaders by asking them where they put their time, energy and money." He put this key communitarian idea well when he stated: "If we aren't willing to pay a price for our values, if we aren't willing to make some sacrifices in order to realize them, then we should ask ourselves whether we truly believe in them at all."

Obama’s international policies strike the same basic note. He is looking to work with our allies and to engage our adversaries in a dialogue, rather than force down our allies’ throats policies the United States has generated and use our military power to forcefully change the regimes which adhere to values different than ours.

The nation is upon hard times. Its coffers are empty; creditors are at the gate; the military is exhausted and depleted; the regard with which America is held overseas is at an all time low; and major economic and security challenges pile up like so many storm clouds. The nation demands a prolonged period of restoration, one in which merely replenishing all that was squandered will entail raising taxes and keeping new expenditures under a tight leash. In plain English—sacrifices. People will be willing to put their shoulder to the wheel only if they are convinced that their efforts are dedicated to the common good, and not to the service of one group or another.

A three-way combination of addressing climate change, environmental protection, and development of sustainable sources of energy is a model and leading common good. It is not tailored to serve any particular group or class, but to provide for all our lives—and those of our children and their children. No wonder both liberal Gore Democrats and conservative Christian Evangelicals, the moderate left and the moderating right, can find purpose here.

Other Obama favored policies fit well into a communitarian agenda, such as dramatically expanding the opportunities for national service, drawing on faith based groups to participate in the delivery of social services, and fighting drug and alcohol abuse.

Returning the economy to a course in which everyone will be able to earn a “living wage” and all Americans will be able to gain and maintain their health insurance, two Obama goals, may sound like liberal themes. However, they are formulated as communitarian ideals because they do not call to serve only those most in need—the poor, the disadvantaged, the people of color—but all Americans. The same holds true for Obama’s educational reforms. All together these amount to what Michael Kazin and Julian Zelizer called “a new social contract.” (I would add paying one of the parents a wage during family leave from work when a new child is born. It is a very costly program; hence it must be gradually introduced. However, given that many European societies can afford it, it is hard to see that the United State—still richer—could not do the same).

One may argue that none of these communitarian themes are novel ones. Indeed, their echo can be heard in Bill Clinton’s call for finding the common ground. Bush had a communitarian minute when he called on Americans to dedicate 4,000 hours to volunteer work during their life time, a noble idea he forgot as soon as the teleprompter was turned off. His compassionate conservatism lasted a few speeches longer, before it too was dumped. Much more importantly, environmentalists have long championed ecological responsibility. However, whereas in the past communitarian ideas were treated as part of a much large package, Obama makes them the main theme of his public philosophy.

Communitarianism is far from being a fully worked-out social philosophy. It is only beginning to develop its international side. It has a way to go before it is ready to reconcile its commitment not to divide the members of the community against one another and to promote social justice. However, it is a compelling social philosophy whose time has come. You can see in the faces of the millions who turn out to cheer Obama, and who may carry him—and America—into a new age that is neither liberal nor conservative but communitarian.

Conservatism is dead; long live liberalism? (Part II)

George Packer argued that the steam has run out of the conservative movement, that its publications are vacuous, and its pundits a bore [discussed here]. But are there signs of a grand liberal revival? Could George Packer write a similar essay about liberal think tanks, pundits, and books? The Progressive Policy Institute, the think tank of the New Democrats, is barely heard of these days. The Center for American Progress is producing a steady stream of position papers, but these seem to be aimed more at policy makers than at generating liberal movement in the public square. The Brookings Institution used to be a major liberal think tank, and still produces a great variety of papers and books, but these have no shared ideological or political profile. Moreover, two of its leading economists are harping on the need to cut benefits and raise taxes in order to “save” Social Security and reduce the deficit, a rather conservative agenda. The New Republic surely shows less sparkle or verve than the conservative Weekly Standard. The most spirited of the lot is the New America Foundation, but it has no partisan political profile, agenda, or platform. Liberal thinkers may be doing a bit better than conservative ones, but this is not much of a claim.

Particularly disconcerting for those who are expecting the great liberal revival to follow the conservative demise is that significantly more Americans consider themselves conservatives rather than liberals, which is of obvious import for the forthcoming elections—a point well documented in John Micklethwait’s and Adrian Wooldridge’s book The Right Nation. This basic and important fact is all too often obscured because too many observers equate being Republican with being conservative, and Democrat—liberal. The cliché of the day is that the Republican brand is damaged, and given that Democrats are in ascendance—it seems that liberals, ipso facto, are in ascendance too. Actually, while most Republicans are conservatives, many Democrats are not liberals.

Let’s say it with numbers. Polls show that while about a third of the voters consider themselves conservative, less than a quarter consider themselves liberals (32% vs. 23%).  Only one out of three Democrats considers himself liberal (one out of four considers himself conservative and the rest view themselves as moderates). In contrast one out of twenty Republicans sees himself as liberal while most (two out of every three) see themselves as conservatives. In short, the GOP is largely a conservative party, while the Democrats are not a liberal party, but only have a liberal wing whose influence is strong during the primaries but not during the general elections nor when it comes to governing. (Some find solace in that there are numerous independents out there, but these also tend to lean more to the conservative than to the liberal side, albeit it not by a large margin).

It follows that Democrats can win big in 2008, especially in electing members of Congress, but still there will be a conservative majority. Recent by-elections in three states were viewed as harbingers of things to come as Democrats won in traditional GOP Congressional districts in Louisiana, Virginia and Illinois.  However, these Democrats ran as gun-loving, pro-business Democrats—in other words, as conservatives.  Indeed, Blue Dog Democrats, a group of fiscally conservative Democrats in the House, find themselves growing in numbers, gaining power, and able to defy party leadership and win conservative concessions.

In short, the conservatives’ well of ideas may well have run dry, but the American majority has hardly turned liberal. True, many of the conservatives are fiscal and not social conservatives; hence stem cell research, women’s rights, and the environment may do well. However, a return to grand social programs for the poor and the minorities, of extensive regulation of capitalism (Wall Street, the oil companies, and banks for instance), the liberalism of Kennedy and Johnson, not to mention of Humphrey and Como, faces many more hurdles. As sociologist Dalton Conley put it in the the New York Times, “The New Deal is not coming back. Can Democrats find a fresher way?”

Is there a third way that may guide the new administration? Could the most compelling ideas be neither conservative nor liberal but communitarian?

Give Clark a Star

I got to know General Wesley Clark when we both served as members of a commission studying how best to connect the dots, how to use information for national security without violating privacy and other rights. The commission was put together by the Markle Foundation, and met in Aspen, Colorado and Washington, DC, among other places. There were day long deliberations and the requisite cocktail hour and elaborate dinners. In short, a chance to get to know those you spend time with.

I am telling you all this because I want to make it clear that my heart did not go pitter patter when I heard Clark’s name mentioned as a presidential candidate—not because of some kind of bias against generals, but because it became clear to me that he isn’t a politician; he is very much a straight shooter. We need people like him who speak the truth, without beating around the bush, if you get my drift. Hence, I am particularly troubled by all those who jumped down Clark’s throat when he pointed out that the fact that McCain was a prisoner of war and that his plane was shot down is not necessarily a preparation for being a commander in chief.

This is a campaign in which the Internet is systematically loaded with all kind of smears, lies, half-lies, and misquotes about the presidential candidates. The editorial writers, the talking heads on the tube, and other such public voices have not broken out in a chorus demanding that such  dishonesty stop. They assume that each side will correct the other, and somehow the facts will bubble up. It is all part of free speech, they say.  But where do they get the nerve and find the audacity to censor Clark for speaking the truth? After all nobody is claiming that McCain’s limited and particular military experience has anything to do with being commander in chief. Fire away, General Clark.

By the way, I am not sure that military experience of any kind makes for a good president. Bill Clinton kept the country out of war and made it prosper for eight years, despite the fact that he had no more military experience than Obama and was rather uncomfortable around generals.

Indeed, the whole terminology is misleading. We do not want the commander in chief, the president, to be a military person. We want a civilian authority to lead the country and order around the military. This alone is a good reason why we should elect someone who is not “a military man” and leave the retired generals to speak truth from the side lines.

Hillary Belongs in the Cabinet

Offering Senator Clinton the position of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to lead the reform of the American health care system, is a much better answer to the question “What to do about Hillary?” than making her the Vice President. Serving as Secretary of HHS will allow her to leave a mark on American society that will last for many decades, to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Americans—old, young and yet to be born. Furthermore, it will accord her an opportunity to correct major mistakes that she admits to making during her previous attempt to reform the health care system. Also, the position will provide her with a strong platform from which to launch her future political ambitions. As a bonus—whatever mess her husband inserts himself into will not involve the White House. 

Those who will feel that Senator Clinton is being slighted if and when she is not chosen as Vice President will need to be reminded how marginal the Vice Presidency is in the American government. The Constitution provides practically no mission and next to no power for the Vice President. It is the president who is the Commander in Chief, who chooses the members of the cabinet, who submits the budget to Congress, and so on—without even an obligation to consult the Vice President or even keep him or her informed about what is going on. The Vice President does preside over the Senate and, once in a blue moon, casts a tie-breaking vote. The rest of the time, the Vice President is at the mercy of the President. (Moreover, he is often closely monitored by the President.  Several times when I visited with Vice Presidents since 1980, a staff member of the President joined the meeting and took notes).

Historically, Vice Presidents have often been isolated and used mainly to stand in for the President in places he did not want to go, especially at the funerals of some heads of states overseas. Historian Stephen Graubard wrote that “the few months Theodore Roosevelt spent in that office, with nothing to do except to preside over the Senate, denied even a seat at the Cabinet table…[the] boredom was so excruciating as to make him think seriously of abandoning politics after his term of office, possibly choosing a university career instead.” According to historian Richard Baumann, Teddy Roosevelt said "I would a great deal rather be anything, say professor of history, than vice president." FDR’s Vice President John Nance Garner (1933-41) claimed the vice presidency "isn't worth a pitcher of warm piss." As Will Rogers, an early 20th century American humorist, put it: "The man with the best job in the country is the vice president. All he has to do is get up every morning and say, 'How is the president?'"

Because Dick Cheney was the Vice President for the last eight years, Americans tend to think about the Vice Presidency as an all powerful position, playing a leading role in foreign and military policy. There is no sign that Obama would wish to continue to such an unusual pattern.

There is a final bonus in Senator Clinton serving as member of the cabinet rather than as a Vice President: if it turns out that she finds it difficult to be a team player under the direction of President Obama, she will find out that it is much easier to replace cabinet members than a Vice President.

The EU Bombers

I live in a building owned jointly by a hundred families, a cooperative. The other day the board asked the members to vote on a plan to spend four million dollars on renovating the building. When the members voted “nay,” the board asked for another vote, on a slightly reconfigured loan. The membership reacted with great dismay, as it was obvious that if they had voted for the loan, no second vote would have been called for. They felt manipulated, and their resentment is still agitating our small community and threatening future plans to act in unison.

EU politicians are responding to the Irish “nay” vote on the Lisbon Treaty in the same high handed manner my board did, and the effect will be the same. EU leaders are all for democracy—as long as the people vote the way they prefer the vote to come out. In effect, leading EU politicians are more devious than my board. At first they pressured Ireland to hold a swift second referendum. When the Irish refused, the EU politicians called for others to proceed anyhow.

First of all, both German and French leaders, and even the highly respected Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxemburg, called for the other 26 nations to proceed in ratifying the treaty. This move makes little sense if the EU is going to abide by the procedures it itself set, namely that all 27 member nations must ratify the treaty for it to take effect. Why ask for the remaining 26 to go through the trouble if the treaty cannot be legally implemented anyhow?

One response is that, as France's Europe minister, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, put it, that the EU will find some “specific means of cooperation” with Ireland. Another-- a two speed Europe, in which those nations that will ratify the treaty will work more closely together than the others. In either case, the remaining 26 countries do not plan to allow their people to vote on the very consequential treaty, and will rely on ratification by the parliaments. The result? Growing alienation from the whole EU project by large segments of the European publics.

The EU politicians involved are emboldened by the decades in which they made what they considered great progress without truly involving the people. The EU’s European Commission made hundred of decisions without effective public hearings or proper consultations with the citizens of the countries involved or even with the weak EU Parliament. Those decisions stuck because they often dealt with highly technical matters (e.g. harmonizing the axle widths of the railroads of the various countries);  the EU ignored the fact that many member nations did not implement the policies the EU pronounced (e.g. the requirement that each member nation dedicate 3% of its public budget to research and development); or — the decisions did cause a measure of resentment, but an initially limited one. However over the years, the high-handed ways of the Commission have become one reason major segments of European publics have soured on the whole idea of a united Europe. True, when the French and the Dutch voted “no” on a previous round of the treaty (then called a constitution), they had several reasons, but among them was a lack of ardor for the whole EU project.

Moreover, the issues the EU now faces are far from limited technical ones, but tap into deep-seated political, moral and emotional issues, such as what is to be done about immigration (which the citizens of several nations are keen to limit, while other EU nations allow immigrants in quite readily-- immigrants quick to move to other parts of the EU); terrorists (different nations have very different notions about civil rights); further enlargement (esp. the admission of Turkey); and above all, the surrender of sovereignty, which the significant increases in EU majority voting, detailed in the new treaty, will result in.

These are not matters that lawyers, civil servants, and a few representatives can rule upon in secret or opaque meetings, or ram through parliaments-- if the majority of the public has other preferences. Either the majorities will have to be persuaded, or the policies adapted. If the EU continues to proceed in the same high-handed, undemocratic way it has been acting, it will face ever more resentment and opposition.
The rejection of the further expansion and enlargement of the EU will express itself in many ways. In some cases, national governments that are pro-EU will be voted out of office. In others, voters will flock to nationalistic right wing parties or movements. Or, they will support strikes, demonstrations, and even civil disobedience to EU measures, or vent their frustrations in some other way.

The time has come when the EU authorities and those who champion the EU project either win more people over to their cause, or sharply modify their project. Most likely they must do both if the EU is to continue to grow and not regress to a merely trade union.