Don’t waver, brother and sister progressives. Remain firm in your commitment to the hopes and ideals that we campaigned for in 2008. But remember: not wavering and standing firm does not mean ignoring the political reality that there must be compromises along the way to transformation. It does mean staying united in the face of unprincipled opposition. Continue reading “Progressives: Keep Your Eyes on the Prize!”
The Republicans in Congress have very short memories. They enthusiastically supported the Bush administration decision to go to war in Iraq without a strategic plan, and without answers to three crucial questions: How many troops will be needed? How much money will it cost? And, what is the exit strategy? Continue reading “A New Afghan Strategy: Three Cups of Tea”
Dara Molloy is a priest and an activist for justice who lives with his wife Tess and four children on the Island of Inis Mor. His book “The Globalisation of God” was recently published, and you can learn more about the book and Dara’s work at www.aislingmagazine.com. Continue reading “More on Obama’s Nobel: A View from Ireland”
Time for a Change?
For the past few months the debate on health care has consumed all of the physical, intellectual and emotional energy in Congress. But, there is another kind of energy that will be the focus of debate on October 27 when the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee begins hearings on climate change legislation. Senator Barbara Boxer, the committee’s chair, pledged to pass a strong energy and jobs bill “as soon as possible.”
Like health care, this is easier said than done. Powerful forces with deep pockets and a multitude of lobbyists are mobilized to water down or defeat any initiative that brings substantive change. But also like health care, strong energy legislation is crucial for the health of our planet, the security of our nation and the future of our children.
I wrote about this during my time in Cambridge when the bill was being debated in the House of Representatives, and that argument bears repeating as the effort gets kicked off in the Senate.
Start by thinking about the US utility business. The industry’s primary stakeholders are shareholders who expect a return on investment; and, the commercial and residential customers who need reliable electricity, and whose monthly bill payments provide revenue. But there are many others who have a stake in how the business is managed, ranging from environmentalists to economic developers.
The issue is not limited to the utility industry, but includes all businesses and individuals that use energy-producing fuels. This raises an overriding national security concern about the extent of our reliance on fossil fuels, much of which comes from countries that are not fond of our values or our way of life.
In looking at federal energy legislation, how do we balance the immediate business priorities of shareholder return and customer price, with the long-term issues of national security, healthy air and water, economic development and environmental sustainability?
At present, we don’t. We can’t seem to think beyond the immediate interests of our various constituencies. Politicians in power want to stay there and those out of power want to return, common good be damned; the primary concern of business is shareholder return and customer price; consumers seek to maintain and improve their existing standard of living. The first is subjected to powerful lobbying from the second, and the third targeted with partisan campaigns of fear, obfuscation and manipulation by the other two.
It seems clear to me that the United States is becoming more and more vulnerable as we increase our dependency on energy imports, thus becoming less able to deal effectively with threats from the Middle East. We are in danger of falling into energy insecurity, and of being mired in constant conflict with unstable and badly governed states.
We have an urgent need to begin a conversation about new political and economic strategies, conversations that must recognize the true cost of our energy consumption. This true cost (according to Energy Security: Toward a New Foreign Policy Status by Jan Kalicki and David Goldwyn) includes the cost of maintaining a military presence in the Gulf states, the health costs caused by carbon emissions and other pollutants, the cost of maintaining our transportation infrastructure, and the economic costs “that volatile energy prices impose on the competitiveness of US manufacturing.”
Kalicki and Goldwyn argue that “the disconnect between what Americans pay for energy and what it really costs them has lead to political deadlock… The failure to achieve basic changes has plagued Democrats and Republicans alike, both of which have feared antagonizing domestic producers and manufacturers or risking consumer retaliation at even the mention of increasing taxes. They argue, therefore, that the legislative consequence is weak, and is limited to “shortsighted discussions of industry subsidies, or continuation of the war between producers and environmentalists.”
Even though their book was written in 2005, it paints an accurate picture of the current legislative process in Washington. At least the Democrats in the House had the courage to pass out a bill, but Democratic Senators have been unwilling to confront the naysayers and tackle the issue. I am hopeful that Senator Boxer is about to change that dire situation.
Somewhere, somehow there must be a coming together of leaders who will engage the conversation as statespersons rather than partisans, seeking a balance that preserves the interest of the nation, ensures long-term environmental sustainability, protects national security and stimulates economic prosperity… and earns the US a mantle of world leadership on an issue that affects every corner of the globe.
It can be said that this is just a pipe dream, that it can never happen. But if we don’t seriously engage our energy policy we are endangering the health, economic opportunities, freedom and security of our grandchildren’s children.
It will take courage and leadership from the Democratic senators to get a substantive energy bill passed. But that is what we elected them to do, and it is time for them to focus more on serving the needs of the American people than on appeasing their colleagues on the right and rewarding the big-buck lobbyists. Please offer your comments and the bottom of the page.
Most of us— those who support President Obama and those who oppose him— were caught by surprise when we awoke on Friday morning to the news that he had won the Nobel Peace Prize. One question was repeated over and over again in conversations, on the airwaves and over the internet: What has he done in less than a year in office to deserve this award?
In a culture that wants clear, tangible results there is disbelief that a person who inspires us toward new visions of peace, and restores our hope for the future, is worthy of honor. And the most vocal and disparaging criticism comes from those who are doing everything in their power to keep his vision from becoming tangible reality.
Remember the world that President Obama stepped into as a leader. The United States was not respected, and in many places was despised… and not, as President Bush declared, because of our wealth and our freedom. We were despised because of our bellicose arrogance, our insistence that we (and only we) had all the right answers to everyone else’s problems. Discussions about global issues and relationships began and ended with “do it our way, or get out of our way”.
A pervasive, xenophobic fear seemed to be gripping the USA. We saw and heard the people of other cultures solely through the filters of our own experiences, and we made policy decisions from the belief that what is good for us is good for the world. President Obama has challenged America to wake up and grow up, to understand that our leadership role in this ever-shrinking world must be focused more on collaboration than coercion.
Discussions about global relationships usually focus on political ideology, sovereignty, competition, trade, environmental concerns and technology. These discussions, however, often become fierce debates that exacerbate the red flags of parochial politics, terrorism and xenophobia. The President has challenged us to restart at a radically different point: with the attitudes, hopes and desires of people in our nation and across the globe.
It is the attitude of the people that determines political outcomes, and hopefulness is an antidote to terrorism. Understanding and appreciating the value of diverse cultures, and how much we can improve our own lot through relationships with those cultures, will dissolve xenophobia.
Policies created to govern competition, trade, the environment and technology need to be formed around serving the hopes and desires of people, rather than forcing people into corporate-serving economic boxes that create wealth for the few while leaving too many behind. But first, the attitudes, hopes, and desires of people from different cultures must be heard, understood and responded to… and President Obama has done and is doing this.
This transformation in the attitude and the practice of the world’s most powerful nation in its relationship with the international community… and the replacing of fear with hope within the USA… is, in my opinion, the reason that President Obama was voted the Nobel Peace Prize. It is, as he proclaimed, a “call to action.” But a transforming vision always calls us away from the status quo, and those who hold positions of power within that old order will fight to the death to hold their privileges and perks. And the reaction from the political right to the President’s award makes this case:
Bill Kristol thinks that the wrong American won the prize: It should have gone “to Senator John McCain for having the guts to push through the surge in Iraq…”
Rush Limbaugh said that awarding the Peace Prize to President Obama was a greater embarrassment for the USA than losing the Olympics. “This fully exposes the illusion that is Barack Obama” Limbaugh told Politico (www.politico.com) , and with this award the elites of the world are urging Obama, the man of peace, to not do the surge in Afghanistan, not take action against Iran and its nuclear program and to basically continue his intentions to emasculate the United States… They love a weakened, neutered US, and this is their way of promoting that concept…”
Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee Chairman asked “What has President Obama actually accomplished? It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain— President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.”
Craig Shirley wrote on Politico “Utterly ridiculous. The credibility of the Nobel Peace Prize… has hit rock bottom.”
And from www.talkingpointsmemo.com, South Carolina Republican Congressman Gresham Barrett said “Congratulations to President Obama on his prize. I am not sure what the international community loved best: his waffling on Afghanistan, pulling defense missiles out of Eastern Europe, turning his back on freedom fighters in Honduras, coddling Castro, siding with Palestinians against Israel, or almost getting tough on Iran.”
The editor of RedState suggested that the Nobel Committee must have adopted an affirmative action quota. And Republican Senator James Inhofe from Oklahoma said that Obama received the prize as a reward for making the USA weaker. Former Bush war monger and unconfirmed UN ambassador John Bolton suggested that he, not President Obama, should have won the Peace Prize.
The Democratic National Committee’s Communications Director responded to the deluge of rightwing hysteria on Huffingtonpost.com with the following words: “The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists— the Taliban and Hamas (the only foreign leaders to criticize Obama’s honor)— Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize— an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride— unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It is no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans— it’s an embarrassing label to claim.”
I suspect that the reaction of foreign leaders stoked even more fury in the hearts and minds of America’s conservative leaders (gleaned from Politico, Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo):
French President Nicholas Sarkozy stated that the President was recognized because of his “determined commitment to human rights, justice and the promotion of peace in the world… the prize does justice to (Obama’s) vision of tolerance and dialogue between states, cultures and civilizations.
Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said that “What Obama did during his presidency is a big signal, he gave hope. In these hard times people who are capable of taking responsibility, who have a vision, commitment and political will should be supported.”
Mohamed ElBaradei, the outgoing head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said that he “cannot think of anyone today more deserving of this honor. In less than a year in office he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in, and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself. President Obama has provided outstanding leadership on moving towards a world free of nuclear weapons. He has shown an unshakeable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts. He has reached out across divides and made clear that he sees the world as one human family, regardless of religion, race or ethnicity.”
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel told the President “You have already inspired so many people around the world, and I know that this award also expresses hope that your Presidency will usher in a new era of peace and reconciliation…”
Massimo Teodori, an Italian scholar of US history, suggested that the Peace Prize award to Obama was a clear rejection of George Bush’s “unilateral, antagonistic politics… The prize is well deserved after the Bush years, which had antagonized the rest of the world. President Obama’s policy of extending his hand has reconciled the United States with the international community.”
David Ignatius of the Washington Post wrote that President Obama won the award for “reconnecting America to the world and making us popular again… Obama’s achievements are in the ‘good intentions’ category, but that doesn’t mean they are insignificant.
I agree, and I am delighted that my President has been recognized by the world as a man of peace, and that by extension my country is becoming an agent of peace. Congratulations, Mr. President.
Please add your thoughts and comments below, or send me an e-mail at email@example.com.