Sunday, April 1, 2007; B08
Washington Post
While state and local governments are contemplating spending billions of dollars to keep traffic moving on the crowded roads of metropolitan Washington, the region's transportation gurus are ignoring a fast, cheap solution that would help traffic right now: Teach Washingtonians to drive better.
Too many of us drive as if we live in a small Southern city, or, worse, some crowded Third World megalopolis with goats in the road. Well, we don't. We live in a modern American city. It's time to drive like you mean it.
In short: Drive more like a New Yorker. When I learned how to drive in New York City in the 1960s, I was trained to be fast, efficient and decisive. If Washingtonians could drive like that, it would be the equivalent of adding a lane to the Beltway -- at zero cost!
At this point you might be thinking: I'd love to drive like a merciless New Yorker, but how can I do that?
Here's the key. Don't drive to inflict pain; drive to get there. Follow these 10 simple rules of engagement to keep traffic moving faster:
1. Don't rubberneck. How many times have you been delayed by rubes craning their necks at some fender bender? "Golly, Martha, that was terrible." What do you get out of staring at some broken glass? Get a life. Keep moving.
2. Know the right of way -- take the right of way. The main flow of traffic takes precedence over someone pulling in from a side road or driveway. Don't wait for them to move into your rightful place -- keep moving. At a four-way stop, if you got there first, you go first. If you got there at the same time, the driver on the right goes first.
3. Don't block the box. Sitting in the middle of an intersection blocking cross-traffic is stupid, rude and illegal. It can lead to true gridlock, which means you'll never get out of that intersection. It'll serve you right. This brings to mind a hidden truth of smart urban driving: Letting traffic move around you actually benefits you -- as long as nobody is cutting you off.
4. Case in point: When you're turning, pull far enough into the intersection to let the cars behind you pass around you. You gain nothing from blocking those cars. Plus, by angling into the turn you let your car's "body language" signal where you're going, which helps approaching drivers.
5. Speaking of turns: When making a left turn, and a car facing you is also making a left turn, turn in front of the other car, so you don't block each other's turns. This is not quantum mechanics.
6. Keep your attention on the road. The latest studies show that distracted drivers are bad drivers. Turn off the cellphone. Apply the makeup at home. Drive time is no time to multitask.
7. In stop-and-go traffic, drive smoothly to even out the flow. Speeding up to 40 mph and then slamming on the brakes makes the traffic jam worse. There are studies that show this.
8. Stop signs are not forever. When you get to a stop sign, stop for one second and, if you're not going to hit anyone, then go.
9. Drive defensively. There are lots of bad or wasted drivers on the road.
10. Plan your trips to combine errands. Do you really want to battle traffic for 40 minutes to buy groceries and then do the same thing an hour later to return that video?
With luck, if you follow these rules, your smart, efficient driving will be contagious and we'll all spend less time in traffic.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Thug Life
A journalist argues that the "ghetto mindset" isn't doing anybody any good.
Reviewed by William Jelani Cobb
Sunday, April 1, 2007; BW04
GHETTONATION
A Journey Into the Land of the Bling And the Home of the Shameless
By Cora Daniels
Doubleday. 205 pp. $23.95
It has been almost three years since Bill Cosby's infamous "Pound Cake Speech" -- his unfiltered chastisement of poor people who, in his estimation, "are not holding their end in this deal" -- and the howls have yet to fade. Academics (myself included), pundits and barbershop prognosticators are still arguing about the validity of Cosby's tirade, over whether racism or bad habits are responsible for the conditions of poor blacks in this country. Into this century's old tangle of intraracial anxiety falls Ghettonation, Cora Daniels's exploration of all that is gauche, urban and embarrassingly public.
For Daniels, "ghetto" is a condition -- an addiction, even -- that has metastasized throughout American popular culture. It is an impoverished mindset defined by conspicuous consumption and irresponsibility. Given the popularity of neo-minstrel fare such as VH1's "Flavor of Love" or the cringe-worthy spectacle of the rap group Three 6 Mafia singing "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" at last year's Oscars, it's easy to see why this phenomenon troubles her. In an era when we scarcely talk sympathetically about the conditions of poor black people, the entertainment value of their impoverished "lifestyle" has increased exponentially.
Much of what we learn about "ghetto" in this book comes from man-on-the-street interviews that Daniels conducts in her Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood in New York. We learn of neighborhood men who see the author's wedding band as an invitation to flirt (they prefer married women because adulterous relationships require less responsibility on their part). We meet Aisha, an 18-year-old working hard toward a nebulously defined goal of "success," Chris, a 16-year-old who frequently cuts class to play video games and has had 16 girlfriends in his young life, and Daniel Howard, a teenager who examined the violence in his Brooklyn community in an award-winning documentary. Daniels's profiles of the people she encounters and their thorny attempts to figure out the world they live in are the strongest portions of the book. When Aisha points out the pejorative sting of the G-word Daniels so liberally applies, you can almost feel the uncomfortable silence in the room.
Yet even as Daniels makes worthwhile observations and displays a wry wit about a troubling subject, Ghettonation falls into one of the most common and troubling pitfalls of these discussions: lumping damaging behaviors (criminality, drug abuse) together with simply distasteful ones. That is to say, bad etiquette is not shorthand for bad character, but the singular term "ghetto" irrevocably conflates the two. (Bill Cosby, for instance, linked people who steal with those who give their children colorful names such as "Shaniqua.")
Daniels wisely recognizes the responsibility we all share when two 9-year-old boys perform a mock stick-up on a crowded subway train (one that culminates in an all-too-real arrest when they exit the train). And you cannot help but lament the story of two 13-year-olds who set a fire in their housing project that takes the life of a security guard. But does this really belong to the same class of phenomena as the person who tastelessly broadcasts the intimate details of his personal life by talking too loudly on his cellphone or drives around blaring music from the studio-worthy sound system in his car?
Despite Daniels's protests to the contrary, a strong thread of class condescension runs through the book. This is partly a result of her loose definition of the term "ghetto." Early on, in an attempt to steer clear of accusations of simple class bias, she reports that since "ghetto is a mind-set," it can be found anywhere and everywhere. As proof of this, she points to an ostensibly affluent white suburb where the palatial homes remain empty because the over-extended owners cannot afford to furnish them. This, we learn, is the quintessence of ghetto. But herein lies the contradiction. Why stigmatize the behavior of middle-class people by hurling a term generally associated with the bad choices made by poor black people? We would never look at a poor single parent who purchased a high-end car she could not hope to pay for, shake our heads and say, "That is so suburban." Thus Daniels's catholic use of the term serves to heighten its power as a racial slur, not diminish it.
Still, it is difficult to disagree with Daniels's core thesis: that a blinkered mindset lies at the heart of many of the problems we see and associate with "ghetto." And in raising this point, she offers one insight that transcends the morass of racism-versus-personal-responsibility arguments that we are currently mired in. Whether the ghetto mentality is a product of limited opportunities or personal failings, changing one's mind is clearly the prerequisite to changing one's circumstances. ?
Reviewed by William Jelani Cobb
Sunday, April 1, 2007; BW04
GHETTONATION
A Journey Into the Land of the Bling And the Home of the Shameless
By Cora Daniels
Doubleday. 205 pp. $23.95
It has been almost three years since Bill Cosby's infamous "Pound Cake Speech" -- his unfiltered chastisement of poor people who, in his estimation, "are not holding their end in this deal" -- and the howls have yet to fade. Academics (myself included), pundits and barbershop prognosticators are still arguing about the validity of Cosby's tirade, over whether racism or bad habits are responsible for the conditions of poor blacks in this country. Into this century's old tangle of intraracial anxiety falls Ghettonation, Cora Daniels's exploration of all that is gauche, urban and embarrassingly public.
For Daniels, "ghetto" is a condition -- an addiction, even -- that has metastasized throughout American popular culture. It is an impoverished mindset defined by conspicuous consumption and irresponsibility. Given the popularity of neo-minstrel fare such as VH1's "Flavor of Love" or the cringe-worthy spectacle of the rap group Three 6 Mafia singing "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" at last year's Oscars, it's easy to see why this phenomenon troubles her. In an era when we scarcely talk sympathetically about the conditions of poor black people, the entertainment value of their impoverished "lifestyle" has increased exponentially.
Much of what we learn about "ghetto" in this book comes from man-on-the-street interviews that Daniels conducts in her Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood in New York. We learn of neighborhood men who see the author's wedding band as an invitation to flirt (they prefer married women because adulterous relationships require less responsibility on their part). We meet Aisha, an 18-year-old working hard toward a nebulously defined goal of "success," Chris, a 16-year-old who frequently cuts class to play video games and has had 16 girlfriends in his young life, and Daniel Howard, a teenager who examined the violence in his Brooklyn community in an award-winning documentary. Daniels's profiles of the people she encounters and their thorny attempts to figure out the world they live in are the strongest portions of the book. When Aisha points out the pejorative sting of the G-word Daniels so liberally applies, you can almost feel the uncomfortable silence in the room.
Yet even as Daniels makes worthwhile observations and displays a wry wit about a troubling subject, Ghettonation falls into one of the most common and troubling pitfalls of these discussions: lumping damaging behaviors (criminality, drug abuse) together with simply distasteful ones. That is to say, bad etiquette is not shorthand for bad character, but the singular term "ghetto" irrevocably conflates the two. (Bill Cosby, for instance, linked people who steal with those who give their children colorful names such as "Shaniqua.")
Daniels wisely recognizes the responsibility we all share when two 9-year-old boys perform a mock stick-up on a crowded subway train (one that culminates in an all-too-real arrest when they exit the train). And you cannot help but lament the story of two 13-year-olds who set a fire in their housing project that takes the life of a security guard. But does this really belong to the same class of phenomena as the person who tastelessly broadcasts the intimate details of his personal life by talking too loudly on his cellphone or drives around blaring music from the studio-worthy sound system in his car?
Despite Daniels's protests to the contrary, a strong thread of class condescension runs through the book. This is partly a result of her loose definition of the term "ghetto." Early on, in an attempt to steer clear of accusations of simple class bias, she reports that since "ghetto is a mind-set," it can be found anywhere and everywhere. As proof of this, she points to an ostensibly affluent white suburb where the palatial homes remain empty because the over-extended owners cannot afford to furnish them. This, we learn, is the quintessence of ghetto. But herein lies the contradiction. Why stigmatize the behavior of middle-class people by hurling a term generally associated with the bad choices made by poor black people? We would never look at a poor single parent who purchased a high-end car she could not hope to pay for, shake our heads and say, "That is so suburban." Thus Daniels's catholic use of the term serves to heighten its power as a racial slur, not diminish it.
Still, it is difficult to disagree with Daniels's core thesis: that a blinkered mindset lies at the heart of many of the problems we see and associate with "ghetto." And in raising this point, she offers one insight that transcends the morass of racism-versus-personal-responsibility arguments that we are currently mired in. Whether the ghetto mentality is a product of limited opportunities or personal failings, changing one's mind is clearly the prerequisite to changing one's circumstances. ?
We Can Get Out of These Ruts
By Bill Bradley - Washington Post
Sunday, April 1, 2007; B03
Every time I talk to people who have no health care, or to families without the means to find a good education for their children, or to pensioners who have lost their pensions, I am reminded that we have lost our capacity to imagine something better for our country. But we don't have to keep doing things that aren't working.
In the same spirit, we don't have to accept our continued dependence on oil as an immutable fact of life. Nor do we have to live with our counterproductive tax code. There are good alternatives, if we can overcome the paucity of imagination that has afflicted us for too long. But we can break out of the ruts we are in only by improving our politics.
Given that real power rests with the people and not the elected, the most discouraging thing about our current politics is that fewer than half of those eligible to vote did so in 1996 and 2000, and only 61 percent voted in the heavily contested presidential election of 2004. Off-year congressional election turnout ranges from 35 to 40 percent.
The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance compared voter turnout in national elections from 1945 to 1998 in 140 countries. Italy ranked first, with 92 percent, and the United States was 139th, with an average turnout of 48 percent. Why is voter turnout so low here?
There is a practical reason. Tuesday is an inconvenient day for voting. Imagine men and women who have to be at work by 8 in the morning and who get docked or possibly fired if they're late. They awake an hour early to get to the polls, which generally open at 7 a.m. The long line moves slowly; some have to leave for work before they reach the voting booth. By the time they return at the end of the day -- if they make it through traffic and arrange for someone to pick up their kids from after-school activities -- they may find even longer lines of people like them trying to vote after work.
Why do we make a citizen's most sacred democratic duty so inconvenient? Why Tuesday? I'll bet you can't tell me. Be honest.
Tuesday was established as Election Day in 1845 so that all Americans could vote on the same day. So why Tuesday? Saturday was a workday. Sunday was the Sabbath. It could take a whole day to travel to the polls in that horse-and-buggy age, so Monday was out. That left Tuesday and Wednesday. Wednesday in many places was market day, so by default -- Tuesday.
It's still Tuesday, but the horse and buggy are gone and the two-earner family has arrived, juggling stressful professional and family responsibilities. While 94 percent of those surveyed in a joint poll in the fall of 2005 by the Tarrance Group and Lake, Snell, Perry, Mermin/Decision Research said that "voting is an important civic duty that everyone should do," more than a third of those who usually don't vote said that the reason is because they are "too busy/didn't have time/working."
The antidote is to make voting easier. Election Day should be moved to Saturday and Sunday. If we give people two weekend days, turnout should increase. Weekend voting would not disrupt the school day. People could take their children to the polls, thereby inculcating the importance of voting. The same poll found that those who said they would be more likely to vote on a weekend are in the largest nonvoter groups -- African Americans, 18- to 34-year-olds, Hispanics, singles and working women.
The answer to the problems of democracy is more democracy. As Stanford political scientist Morris P. Fiorina says, "If the presidential electorate were to double and the off-year electorate to nearly triple, it is likely that parties and candidates would make different appeals to capture the support of new voters who would now be showing up at the polls." Increasing the size of the electorate to 80 percent of eligible voters would have as big an impact on our democracy as enfranchising women and blacks did. If democracy is about all of us, then as many of us as possible must vote. Otherwise democracy functions only for some of us, and many of our basic problems don't get addressed -- our dependence on oil, for example.
President Bush correctly observed in 2006 that "America is addicted to oil." The United States is the world's most profligate consumer of oil, using 25 percent of the global supply. China, which has four times as many people, consumes 7 percent.
The largest tax that Americans have paid over the past five years has been assessed not by our government but by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. In 2001, OPEC's average price of crude oil was $23.12 per barrel. In 2005, it was $50.71, the equivalent of a tax increase of more than $55 billion. If you bought just 16 gallons of gas per week (a tankful) in 2005, you were paying $500 more per year for gasoline than you were in 2001. When you factor in the hundreds of billions paid for two wars in the Persian Gulf region in 15 years, a part of whose purpose related to oil, this addiction has cost taxpayers far more than costlier gasoline and heating oil. Yet our government has done almost nothing to deal with our dependence on oil, especially our dependence on insecure sources of foreign oil.
You would think that the Bush administration fails to see the connection between our oil addiction and the loss of American lives in Iraq. The administration apparently finds a war to sustain our oil dependence preferable to the exercise of leadership to reduce that dependence. It can muster the political will to go to war, but it can't muster the courage to tell the American people the truth about what is required of each of us to break our oil addiction. So it is enabling that addiction.
Transportation accounts for 67 percent of the oil we consume, and surface vehicles alone account for 56 percent. This fact means that a dramatic reduction in consumption is relatively simple to achieve. Cars and trucks in the United States have an average fuel efficiency of 25.2 miles per gallon. In Europe it is 43. A mandatory increase that would bring the U.S. average to 40 miles per gallon or more would reduce our oil consumption by one-fourth. In other words, a single piece of legislation would eliminate the need to import oil from OPEC. Let me repeat: No need to import oil from OPEC.
To encourage people to buy fuel-efficient cars, we should establish a fee-rebate system. The buyers of the least fuel-efficient cars should pay fees that would in turn be paid as rebates to those who buy the most fuel-efficient cars within that class -- a major incentive. Former CIA director R. James Woolsey Jr., an advocate of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, noted in testimony before the Senate Energy and National Resources Committee that a hybrid vehicle such as a Toyota Prius can get 50 miles per gallon, and if it were made of lightweight carbon composites used in the manufacture of aircraft, it could get 100 miles per gallon. He went on to say that if it were a plug-in, flexible-fuel vehicle, it could get an incredible 1,000 miles per gallon. It's an industry ready to be born.
We also need to change our tax system to reduce our oil dependence. In general, we ought to reduce taxes on things we need, such as wages, and raise taxes on whatever is dangerous to us, such as pollution and resource depletion. We could implement a $1 per gallon gasoline tax; or an equivalent carbon tax, which is a tax on any energy source that emits carbon dioxide; or equivalent taxes on other major air pollutants: volatile organics, nitrogen oxide, lead, sulfurous dioxide and particulates. These taxes could be phased in over five years, with the revenue going to reduce employment taxes (Social Security, Medicare or unemployment insurance) for employees and employers alike. The gasoline or carbon tax would encourage the nation to reduce its dependence on insecure sources of foreign oil, and with payroll taxes reduced to 15 percent of labor costs, businesses would have an incentive to hire workers.
Such a shift in taxation -- away from jobs and toward pollution, energy and natural resources -- would draw many of the 24 million part-time employees into the full-time workforce, and millions more who are not working would be more likely to find jobs. After a few years of adjustment in the case of a gasoline or carbon tax, cars would be more fuel-efficient, so consumers would pay what they used to pay for the same amount of driving, and the broad middle class would continue to pay lower employment taxes. The result would be increasing demand for goods and services; shrinking dependency payments such as unemployment compensation and welfare; lowered social costs, such as crime and avoidable illness; and a more equitable tax system that encourages rising employment.
Reducing employment taxes also makes sense on grounds of competitiveness and equity. Employment taxes now hit our most successful companies hardest. A company such as Microsoft or McKinsey desperately needs talented people, and there is a limited pool of those with the requisite skills. As a part of a company's compensation package, it has to pay enough to offset the employment taxes paid by the employee. If it doesn't make up the taxes in higher wages, the employee can go somewhere else where the employer will cover the taxes. Meanwhile, at a lumberyard where there is an excess of labor, the company doesn't have to pay higher wages and the bulk of the employment taxes hit the workers. Perversely, it is the lowest-paid workers and the companies most essential to economic growth that are hit hardest by employment taxes.
We will never make these simple changes in our political system or in our energy and tax systems if we don't tell the truth about our national circumstances. Political leaders should not arrogate to themselves, based on a desire to hold onto political power, the right to hide the truth from the people. If we tell people the truth we can trust them to do the right thing. Sounds like a radical notion, but it's really just common sense.
Once we face the truth about our abysmal voter turnout, our oil addiction, our health-care and education crises, and our inadequate national savings, there is good news. There are answers to all our current problems. It's not rocket science. What's required is the political will to enact policies that can allow us to thrive in the 21st century. An administration bold enough to tell the truth will find an audience ready for bold solutions.
Sunday, April 1, 2007; B03
Every time I talk to people who have no health care, or to families without the means to find a good education for their children, or to pensioners who have lost their pensions, I am reminded that we have lost our capacity to imagine something better for our country. But we don't have to keep doing things that aren't working.
In the same spirit, we don't have to accept our continued dependence on oil as an immutable fact of life. Nor do we have to live with our counterproductive tax code. There are good alternatives, if we can overcome the paucity of imagination that has afflicted us for too long. But we can break out of the ruts we are in only by improving our politics.
Given that real power rests with the people and not the elected, the most discouraging thing about our current politics is that fewer than half of those eligible to vote did so in 1996 and 2000, and only 61 percent voted in the heavily contested presidential election of 2004. Off-year congressional election turnout ranges from 35 to 40 percent.
The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance compared voter turnout in national elections from 1945 to 1998 in 140 countries. Italy ranked first, with 92 percent, and the United States was 139th, with an average turnout of 48 percent. Why is voter turnout so low here?
There is a practical reason. Tuesday is an inconvenient day for voting. Imagine men and women who have to be at work by 8 in the morning and who get docked or possibly fired if they're late. They awake an hour early to get to the polls, which generally open at 7 a.m. The long line moves slowly; some have to leave for work before they reach the voting booth. By the time they return at the end of the day -- if they make it through traffic and arrange for someone to pick up their kids from after-school activities -- they may find even longer lines of people like them trying to vote after work.
Why do we make a citizen's most sacred democratic duty so inconvenient? Why Tuesday? I'll bet you can't tell me. Be honest.
Tuesday was established as Election Day in 1845 so that all Americans could vote on the same day. So why Tuesday? Saturday was a workday. Sunday was the Sabbath. It could take a whole day to travel to the polls in that horse-and-buggy age, so Monday was out. That left Tuesday and Wednesday. Wednesday in many places was market day, so by default -- Tuesday.
It's still Tuesday, but the horse and buggy are gone and the two-earner family has arrived, juggling stressful professional and family responsibilities. While 94 percent of those surveyed in a joint poll in the fall of 2005 by the Tarrance Group and Lake, Snell, Perry, Mermin/Decision Research said that "voting is an important civic duty that everyone should do," more than a third of those who usually don't vote said that the reason is because they are "too busy/didn't have time/working."
The antidote is to make voting easier. Election Day should be moved to Saturday and Sunday. If we give people two weekend days, turnout should increase. Weekend voting would not disrupt the school day. People could take their children to the polls, thereby inculcating the importance of voting. The same poll found that those who said they would be more likely to vote on a weekend are in the largest nonvoter groups -- African Americans, 18- to 34-year-olds, Hispanics, singles and working women.
The answer to the problems of democracy is more democracy. As Stanford political scientist Morris P. Fiorina says, "If the presidential electorate were to double and the off-year electorate to nearly triple, it is likely that parties and candidates would make different appeals to capture the support of new voters who would now be showing up at the polls." Increasing the size of the electorate to 80 percent of eligible voters would have as big an impact on our democracy as enfranchising women and blacks did. If democracy is about all of us, then as many of us as possible must vote. Otherwise democracy functions only for some of us, and many of our basic problems don't get addressed -- our dependence on oil, for example.
President Bush correctly observed in 2006 that "America is addicted to oil." The United States is the world's most profligate consumer of oil, using 25 percent of the global supply. China, which has four times as many people, consumes 7 percent.
The largest tax that Americans have paid over the past five years has been assessed not by our government but by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. In 2001, OPEC's average price of crude oil was $23.12 per barrel. In 2005, it was $50.71, the equivalent of a tax increase of more than $55 billion. If you bought just 16 gallons of gas per week (a tankful) in 2005, you were paying $500 more per year for gasoline than you were in 2001. When you factor in the hundreds of billions paid for two wars in the Persian Gulf region in 15 years, a part of whose purpose related to oil, this addiction has cost taxpayers far more than costlier gasoline and heating oil. Yet our government has done almost nothing to deal with our dependence on oil, especially our dependence on insecure sources of foreign oil.
You would think that the Bush administration fails to see the connection between our oil addiction and the loss of American lives in Iraq. The administration apparently finds a war to sustain our oil dependence preferable to the exercise of leadership to reduce that dependence. It can muster the political will to go to war, but it can't muster the courage to tell the American people the truth about what is required of each of us to break our oil addiction. So it is enabling that addiction.
Transportation accounts for 67 percent of the oil we consume, and surface vehicles alone account for 56 percent. This fact means that a dramatic reduction in consumption is relatively simple to achieve. Cars and trucks in the United States have an average fuel efficiency of 25.2 miles per gallon. In Europe it is 43. A mandatory increase that would bring the U.S. average to 40 miles per gallon or more would reduce our oil consumption by one-fourth. In other words, a single piece of legislation would eliminate the need to import oil from OPEC. Let me repeat: No need to import oil from OPEC.
To encourage people to buy fuel-efficient cars, we should establish a fee-rebate system. The buyers of the least fuel-efficient cars should pay fees that would in turn be paid as rebates to those who buy the most fuel-efficient cars within that class -- a major incentive. Former CIA director R. James Woolsey Jr., an advocate of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, noted in testimony before the Senate Energy and National Resources Committee that a hybrid vehicle such as a Toyota Prius can get 50 miles per gallon, and if it were made of lightweight carbon composites used in the manufacture of aircraft, it could get 100 miles per gallon. He went on to say that if it were a plug-in, flexible-fuel vehicle, it could get an incredible 1,000 miles per gallon. It's an industry ready to be born.
We also need to change our tax system to reduce our oil dependence. In general, we ought to reduce taxes on things we need, such as wages, and raise taxes on whatever is dangerous to us, such as pollution and resource depletion. We could implement a $1 per gallon gasoline tax; or an equivalent carbon tax, which is a tax on any energy source that emits carbon dioxide; or equivalent taxes on other major air pollutants: volatile organics, nitrogen oxide, lead, sulfurous dioxide and particulates. These taxes could be phased in over five years, with the revenue going to reduce employment taxes (Social Security, Medicare or unemployment insurance) for employees and employers alike. The gasoline or carbon tax would encourage the nation to reduce its dependence on insecure sources of foreign oil, and with payroll taxes reduced to 15 percent of labor costs, businesses would have an incentive to hire workers.
Such a shift in taxation -- away from jobs and toward pollution, energy and natural resources -- would draw many of the 24 million part-time employees into the full-time workforce, and millions more who are not working would be more likely to find jobs. After a few years of adjustment in the case of a gasoline or carbon tax, cars would be more fuel-efficient, so consumers would pay what they used to pay for the same amount of driving, and the broad middle class would continue to pay lower employment taxes. The result would be increasing demand for goods and services; shrinking dependency payments such as unemployment compensation and welfare; lowered social costs, such as crime and avoidable illness; and a more equitable tax system that encourages rising employment.
Reducing employment taxes also makes sense on grounds of competitiveness and equity. Employment taxes now hit our most successful companies hardest. A company such as Microsoft or McKinsey desperately needs talented people, and there is a limited pool of those with the requisite skills. As a part of a company's compensation package, it has to pay enough to offset the employment taxes paid by the employee. If it doesn't make up the taxes in higher wages, the employee can go somewhere else where the employer will cover the taxes. Meanwhile, at a lumberyard where there is an excess of labor, the company doesn't have to pay higher wages and the bulk of the employment taxes hit the workers. Perversely, it is the lowest-paid workers and the companies most essential to economic growth that are hit hardest by employment taxes.
We will never make these simple changes in our political system or in our energy and tax systems if we don't tell the truth about our national circumstances. Political leaders should not arrogate to themselves, based on a desire to hold onto political power, the right to hide the truth from the people. If we tell people the truth we can trust them to do the right thing. Sounds like a radical notion, but it's really just common sense.
Once we face the truth about our abysmal voter turnout, our oil addiction, our health-care and education crises, and our inadequate national savings, there is good news. There are answers to all our current problems. It's not rocket science. What's required is the political will to enact policies that can allow us to thrive in the 21st century. An administration bold enough to tell the truth will find an audience ready for bold solutions.
Morality: All In Your Mind
By William Saletan - Washington Post
Sunday, April 1, 2007; B02
Imagine that killers have invaded your neighborhood. They're in your house, and you and your neighbors are hiding in the cellar. Your baby starts to cry. If you had to press your hand over its face till it stopped fighting -- if you had to smother it to save everyone else -- would you do it?
If you're normal, you wouldn't, according to a study published last month in Nature. But if part of your brain -- the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC) -- were damaged, you would. In the study, people were given hypothetical dilemmas: Would you throw a fatally injured person off a lifeboat to save everyone else? Would you kill a healthy hostage? Most normal people said no. Most people with VMPC damage said yes.
It's easy to dismiss the damaged people as freaks. But the study isn't really about them. It's about us. Neuroscience is discovering that the brain isn't a single organ. It's an assembly of modules that sometimes cooperate and sometimes compete. If you often feel as though two parts of your brain are fighting it out, that's because, in fact, they are.
Some of those fights are about morality. Maybe abortion grosses you out, but you'd rather keep it safe and legal. Or maybe homosexuality sounds icky, but you figure it's nobody's business. Emotion tells you one thing, reason another. Often, the reasoning side makes calculations: Throwing the wounded guy off the lifeboat feels bad, but if it will save everyone else, do it.
Philosophers have a name for this calculating logic: utilitarianism. They've been debating it for 200 years. Some say it's sensible; others say it's ruthless. Lately, however, the debate has been overrun by neuroscience. According to the neuroscientists, philosophers on both sides are wrong, because morality doesn't come from God or transcendent reason. It comes from the brain.
Three years ago in the journal Neuron, the neuroscientists illustrated their point. They showed that utilitarian decisions involved "increased activity in brain regions associated with cognitive control." From this and other data, they surmised that the moral debate reflects "tension between competing subsystems in the brain." On one side are "the social-emotional responses that we've inherited from our primate ancestors." On the other is a utilitarian calculus "made possible by more recently evolved structures in the frontal lobes." The war of ideas is a war of neurons.
That's where the new study comes in. The idea was to find out what happens when the emotional side, through the VMPC, gets knocked out. As predicted, calculation takes over. Take a kidney? Push a guy in front of a trolley? If it'll save more lives, sure.
Some of the study's authors think this finding vindicates emotions. Since people with VMPC damage are "abnormally 'utilitarian,' " they argue, emotions are necessary to produce "normal judgments of right and wrong." In fact, the authors add, "By showing that humans are neurologically unfit for strict utilitarian thinking, the study suggests that neuroscience may be able to test different philosophies for compatibility with human nature."
So brain science has discredited religion and philosophy, but don't worry: Morality won't disappear. Brain science is offering itself as the new authority. What's moral in the new world is what's normal, natural, necessary and neurologically fit.
The catch is that what's normal, natural, necessary and neurologically fit can change. In fact, it has been changing throughout history. As our ancestors adapted from small, kin-based groups to elaborate nation-states, the brain evolved from reflexive emotions toward the abstract reasoning power that gave birth to utilitarianism. The full story is a lot more complicated, but that's the rough outline.
And evolution doesn't stop here. Look around you. The world of touch, tribe and taboo is fading. Acceptance of homosexuality is spreading at an amazing pace. Trade is supplanting war. Democracy and communications technology are forcing governments to promote the general welfare. Utilitarians welcome these changes, and so do I.
But utility unchecked can become a monster. The Internet is liberating us from physical contact. Economic globalization is crushing resistance to the bottom line. Companies are sending employees abroad for cheap medical care. Brokers are buying organs from slum-dwellers. In a utilitarian world, you do what it takes. It's all about helping people.
If you're out of step with this world -- too squeamish to slash the payroll or pull the plug -- we can help. Books by neuroscientists will teach you the appeal of utilitarianism and the illogic of your aversion to it. If that doesn't work, maybe we can tweak your brain. Two months ago, when research showed that damage to another area of the brain could help people quit smoking, scientists inferred that therapy in that area might achieve the same happy result without the damage. Why not target the VMPC in a similar way? We won't even need drugs. Last year, psychologists proved they could boost willingness to kill in a utilitarian dilemma just by showing people a clip from "Saturday Night Live."
Not that we want you to go around killing people. At least, not until you join the military. Five years ago, in a government report, scientists proposed using microscopic technology to screen soldiers' brains for emotional interference. Today, the Neurotechnology Industry Organization is lobbying for a federal initiative to study the ethics as well as the mechanics of brain science. "Right now, we're discovering the seat of morality," warns NIO Director Zack Lynch. "In 10 to 15 years, we'll have the technologies to manipulate it."
But there's the other catch: Once technology manipulates ethics, ethics can no longer judge technology. Nor can human nature discredit the mentality that shapes human nature. In a utilitarian world, what's neurologically fit is utilitarianism. It'll become the norm, the standard of right and wrong. Sure, a few mental relics of our primate ancestry will be lost. But it'll be worth it. I think. human@slate.com
Sunday, April 1, 2007; B02
Imagine that killers have invaded your neighborhood. They're in your house, and you and your neighbors are hiding in the cellar. Your baby starts to cry. If you had to press your hand over its face till it stopped fighting -- if you had to smother it to save everyone else -- would you do it?
If you're normal, you wouldn't, according to a study published last month in Nature. But if part of your brain -- the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC) -- were damaged, you would. In the study, people were given hypothetical dilemmas: Would you throw a fatally injured person off a lifeboat to save everyone else? Would you kill a healthy hostage? Most normal people said no. Most people with VMPC damage said yes.
It's easy to dismiss the damaged people as freaks. But the study isn't really about them. It's about us. Neuroscience is discovering that the brain isn't a single organ. It's an assembly of modules that sometimes cooperate and sometimes compete. If you often feel as though two parts of your brain are fighting it out, that's because, in fact, they are.
Some of those fights are about morality. Maybe abortion grosses you out, but you'd rather keep it safe and legal. Or maybe homosexuality sounds icky, but you figure it's nobody's business. Emotion tells you one thing, reason another. Often, the reasoning side makes calculations: Throwing the wounded guy off the lifeboat feels bad, but if it will save everyone else, do it.
Philosophers have a name for this calculating logic: utilitarianism. They've been debating it for 200 years. Some say it's sensible; others say it's ruthless. Lately, however, the debate has been overrun by neuroscience. According to the neuroscientists, philosophers on both sides are wrong, because morality doesn't come from God or transcendent reason. It comes from the brain.
Three years ago in the journal Neuron, the neuroscientists illustrated their point. They showed that utilitarian decisions involved "increased activity in brain regions associated with cognitive control." From this and other data, they surmised that the moral debate reflects "tension between competing subsystems in the brain." On one side are "the social-emotional responses that we've inherited from our primate ancestors." On the other is a utilitarian calculus "made possible by more recently evolved structures in the frontal lobes." The war of ideas is a war of neurons.
That's where the new study comes in. The idea was to find out what happens when the emotional side, through the VMPC, gets knocked out. As predicted, calculation takes over. Take a kidney? Push a guy in front of a trolley? If it'll save more lives, sure.
Some of the study's authors think this finding vindicates emotions. Since people with VMPC damage are "abnormally 'utilitarian,' " they argue, emotions are necessary to produce "normal judgments of right and wrong." In fact, the authors add, "By showing that humans are neurologically unfit for strict utilitarian thinking, the study suggests that neuroscience may be able to test different philosophies for compatibility with human nature."
So brain science has discredited religion and philosophy, but don't worry: Morality won't disappear. Brain science is offering itself as the new authority. What's moral in the new world is what's normal, natural, necessary and neurologically fit.
The catch is that what's normal, natural, necessary and neurologically fit can change. In fact, it has been changing throughout history. As our ancestors adapted from small, kin-based groups to elaborate nation-states, the brain evolved from reflexive emotions toward the abstract reasoning power that gave birth to utilitarianism. The full story is a lot more complicated, but that's the rough outline.
And evolution doesn't stop here. Look around you. The world of touch, tribe and taboo is fading. Acceptance of homosexuality is spreading at an amazing pace. Trade is supplanting war. Democracy and communications technology are forcing governments to promote the general welfare. Utilitarians welcome these changes, and so do I.
But utility unchecked can become a monster. The Internet is liberating us from physical contact. Economic globalization is crushing resistance to the bottom line. Companies are sending employees abroad for cheap medical care. Brokers are buying organs from slum-dwellers. In a utilitarian world, you do what it takes. It's all about helping people.
If you're out of step with this world -- too squeamish to slash the payroll or pull the plug -- we can help. Books by neuroscientists will teach you the appeal of utilitarianism and the illogic of your aversion to it. If that doesn't work, maybe we can tweak your brain. Two months ago, when research showed that damage to another area of the brain could help people quit smoking, scientists inferred that therapy in that area might achieve the same happy result without the damage. Why not target the VMPC in a similar way? We won't even need drugs. Last year, psychologists proved they could boost willingness to kill in a utilitarian dilemma just by showing people a clip from "Saturday Night Live."
Not that we want you to go around killing people. At least, not until you join the military. Five years ago, in a government report, scientists proposed using microscopic technology to screen soldiers' brains for emotional interference. Today, the Neurotechnology Industry Organization is lobbying for a federal initiative to study the ethics as well as the mechanics of brain science. "Right now, we're discovering the seat of morality," warns NIO Director Zack Lynch. "In 10 to 15 years, we'll have the technologies to manipulate it."
But there's the other catch: Once technology manipulates ethics, ethics can no longer judge technology. Nor can human nature discredit the mentality that shapes human nature. In a utilitarian world, what's neurologically fit is utilitarianism. It'll become the norm, the standard of right and wrong. Sure, a few mental relics of our primate ancestry will be lost. But it'll be worth it. I think. human@slate.com
Sky's the Limit at Claude Moore
New Rec Center Boasts Rock Wall, Pools, Elevated Track
By Arianne Aryanpur - Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 25, 2007; LZ01
The python-shaped, 150-foot covered slide looks more like a ride at a water adventure theme park than a product from the local parks and recreation department. And who would expect a rock-climbing wall?
Designers of the Claude Moore Recreation Center wanted to offer much more than the standard amenities, and Loudoun County residents soon will be able to cast a critical eye on all its features. The $24 million facility in Sterling will have its grand opening next weekend, more than five years after voters authorized the project.
The center's indoor water park, which has been dubbed the "leisure pool," also has a hot tub for adults. County officials are hoping that the center brings in lots of local families, and enough revenue that the parks and recreation department can operate it without a subsidy.
The 28-foot climbing wall, hand-built in Colorado, is expected to be very popular.
"There is no other recreation center that I know of in Northern Virginia that has a rock-climbing wall," said Sky Dantinne, the manager at Claude Moore.
For the serious swimmer, there is an Olympic-size lap pool. The center also has a fitness area with flat-screen TVs and the latest exercise equipment, an elevated indoor track, a gym for basketball and volleyball, rental rooms for parties and special events, drop-in child care and a teen center.
Parks and recreation officials received funding for the 84,000-square-foot building in 2001 through voter-approved bonds and developer proffers. They hired a team of architects that year and later had input sessions to gauge public interest.
They found there was an overwhelming desire for swimming facilities, said Diane Ryburn, the county's director of parks and recreation. So in 2004, the Board of Supervisors appropriated an additional $1.8 million to expand the pool from 37 meters to 50 meters.
The lap pool will host the swim teams from all of Loudoun's public high schools and four Loudoun swim clubs. Starting on April 9, it will offer water aerobics and scuba lessons. In the fitness area, there will be personal training, classes in yoga and tai-chi, and dance workouts.
For those who prefer outdoor exercise, the center has a 3.2-mile jogging trail on the surrounding 357-acre property.
The recreation center is part of Claude Moore Park, an expanse of wetlands, meadows and forests donated by Claude Moore, a physician and landowner, to the National Wildlife Federation in 1975. Loudoun County purchased the park in 1990 and divided it into a nature area -- with hiking trails, an education center and the Loudoun Heritage Farm Museum -- and a recreation area, with baseball and football fields and a concession stand.
To maintain the park's rustic feel, the architects of the recreation center incorporated a silo and red paneling into its design. In addition to the main entrance off Cascades Parkway, parents and children can get to the center from a trail network that connects to Sterling Elementary School and Park View High School.
Parks officials said they expect large crowds at the grand opening, scheduled for 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Saturday.
"I think the community has been waiting for a long time, and this fills a certain niche for families," said Steve Sawyer, division manager in the parks department.
The last phase of the project will be completed in December: a 9,000-square-foot building next to the recreation center that will take over the services now offered at the Sterling Community Center Annex, including aerobics classes and licensed child care.
"It's really going to make us one-stop shopping," Dantinne said.
The center is at 46105 Loudoun Park Lane, Sterling. Tours are available from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. today. Normal hours will be 5:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. weekdays, and 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. Daily admission is $5.50 for Loudoun residents and $3.75 for children and seniors. For nonresidents, admission is $8.25 for adults and $5.75 for children and seniors. For more information on classes and membership fees, call 571-258-3600. The center is also hiring lifeguards, child-care professionals, personal trainers and fitness instructors. To apply, visithttp://www.loudoun.gov/hr/applic.htm.
By Arianne Aryanpur - Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 25, 2007; LZ01
The python-shaped, 150-foot covered slide looks more like a ride at a water adventure theme park than a product from the local parks and recreation department. And who would expect a rock-climbing wall?
Designers of the Claude Moore Recreation Center wanted to offer much more than the standard amenities, and Loudoun County residents soon will be able to cast a critical eye on all its features. The $24 million facility in Sterling will have its grand opening next weekend, more than five years after voters authorized the project.
The center's indoor water park, which has been dubbed the "leisure pool," also has a hot tub for adults. County officials are hoping that the center brings in lots of local families, and enough revenue that the parks and recreation department can operate it without a subsidy.
The 28-foot climbing wall, hand-built in Colorado, is expected to be very popular.
"There is no other recreation center that I know of in Northern Virginia that has a rock-climbing wall," said Sky Dantinne, the manager at Claude Moore.
For the serious swimmer, there is an Olympic-size lap pool. The center also has a fitness area with flat-screen TVs and the latest exercise equipment, an elevated indoor track, a gym for basketball and volleyball, rental rooms for parties and special events, drop-in child care and a teen center.
Parks and recreation officials received funding for the 84,000-square-foot building in 2001 through voter-approved bonds and developer proffers. They hired a team of architects that year and later had input sessions to gauge public interest.
They found there was an overwhelming desire for swimming facilities, said Diane Ryburn, the county's director of parks and recreation. So in 2004, the Board of Supervisors appropriated an additional $1.8 million to expand the pool from 37 meters to 50 meters.
The lap pool will host the swim teams from all of Loudoun's public high schools and four Loudoun swim clubs. Starting on April 9, it will offer water aerobics and scuba lessons. In the fitness area, there will be personal training, classes in yoga and tai-chi, and dance workouts.
For those who prefer outdoor exercise, the center has a 3.2-mile jogging trail on the surrounding 357-acre property.
The recreation center is part of Claude Moore Park, an expanse of wetlands, meadows and forests donated by Claude Moore, a physician and landowner, to the National Wildlife Federation in 1975. Loudoun County purchased the park in 1990 and divided it into a nature area -- with hiking trails, an education center and the Loudoun Heritage Farm Museum -- and a recreation area, with baseball and football fields and a concession stand.
To maintain the park's rustic feel, the architects of the recreation center incorporated a silo and red paneling into its design. In addition to the main entrance off Cascades Parkway, parents and children can get to the center from a trail network that connects to Sterling Elementary School and Park View High School.
Parks officials said they expect large crowds at the grand opening, scheduled for 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Saturday.
"I think the community has been waiting for a long time, and this fills a certain niche for families," said Steve Sawyer, division manager in the parks department.
The last phase of the project will be completed in December: a 9,000-square-foot building next to the recreation center that will take over the services now offered at the Sterling Community Center Annex, including aerobics classes and licensed child care.
"It's really going to make us one-stop shopping," Dantinne said.
The center is at 46105 Loudoun Park Lane, Sterling. Tours are available from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. today. Normal hours will be 5:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. weekdays, and 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. Daily admission is $5.50 for Loudoun residents and $3.75 for children and seniors. For nonresidents, admission is $8.25 for adults and $5.75 for children and seniors. For more information on classes and membership fees, call 571-258-3600. The center is also hiring lifeguards, child-care professionals, personal trainers and fitness instructors. To apply, visithttp://www.loudoun.gov/hr/applic.htm.
Too Little to Fly in Size-Obsessed America
2007 Chevrolet Matiz 0.8 SE
By Warren Brown Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 11, 2007; G01
LAUSANNE, Switzerland Small cars abound in this city along the shores of Lake Geneva. I chose to drive one of the smallest, the 2007 Chevrolet Matiz 0.8 SE.
The number refers to the volume of air and gas than can be accommodated by its three cylinders -- 800 cubic centimeters, or less than one liter of capacity. That means it is a putt-mobile with a maximum output of 51 horsepower.
Yet, the Matiz and similar automobiles have found favor in Europe, where unleaded regular gasoline can cost the U.S. equivalent of $7 a gallon. It is developing an audience in this fabled city, where hours can be spent in contemplative view of the majestic Savoy Alps across the lake, where unleaded regular sells for a bit more than $5 a gallon.
People here seem to have a sense of balance, which is what I discovered in a day's wandering behind the wheel of the Matiz. There is a love for automotive power, as evidenced by the many BMW and Mercedes-Benz cars that also occupy the roads. But there seems to be a greater love of destination than there is an affection for the mechanics of getting there.
Put another way, people here are motivated by the expectation of pleasure at the end of the trip. If they must walk to get where they're going, they walk. If a bicycle is more efficient, they pedal. If mass transit will do the job, they use it. If they want and can afford the grandness of arrival in a luxury sedan or sports car, they will choose one of those carriages. But many of them, living within wage-defined budgets, if they need a car, buy and drive something like the Matiz.
There is an awareness, an understanding -- a certain communal courtesy that goes with that approach to transportation. The front-wheel-drive Matiz, for example, scoots along nicely in city traffic where it does its best work. It is quite nimble in that environment. It parks easily. It does not get in the way.
But on highways and mountain roads, where its little engine becomes a bit asthmatic, the Matiz can be an impeding slug. No problem. On lowland highways, the Matiz driver stays in the right lane. On mountain roads, where the Matiz is at its worst, other motorists maintain a reasonable distance behind the little car until they can pass it safely -- an event sometimes facilitated by the Matiz driver pulling to the side of the road to allow faster vehicles to pass.
It's a matter of balance -- motorists respecting each other's right to use the road and cooperating in its use so that everyone can get to where he or she is going safely, most efficiently, within his or her respective fuel budget.
But if something like that works in Switzerland, why can't it work in the United States?
At the moment, the answer is that we in America are unbalanced. We have developed a cult of bigness, largely afforded by cheap gasoline.
We are convinced -- indeed, we hold almost as an article of religious belief -- that big is best and that any request or suggestion that we downsize is unsafe, unreasonable, un-American. We have no patience for little cars, such as the Matiz, getting in the way of our large sedans and sport-utility vehicles. We have equated small with cheap, cheap with poor, and poor with unworthy.
It matters not that Europeans are willing to pay the U.S. equivalent of $11,861 to $15,925 for a micro gasoline-powered car that seats four people and gets a combined city-highway mileage of 50 miles per gallon. By American standards, it's too small and too underpowered to cost that much. We want something larger for that money, something more powerful. But if it can be made to get 50 miles a gallon, if it can be made injury-proof in a crash against a giant Toyota Tundra CrewMax pickup truck, and if U.S. gasoline prices can be kept at or below $2.50 a gallon, we want all of that, too.
So, Europe can keep the little Matiz and all of the other little cars like it that get great fuel economy, but that do little to satisfy America's lust for power, speed, size, motorized invulnerability, and plentiful, eternally cheap fuel.
After all, what do the Europeans know about the good life?
By Warren Brown Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 11, 2007; G01
LAUSANNE, Switzerland Small cars abound in this city along the shores of Lake Geneva. I chose to drive one of the smallest, the 2007 Chevrolet Matiz 0.8 SE.
The number refers to the volume of air and gas than can be accommodated by its three cylinders -- 800 cubic centimeters, or less than one liter of capacity. That means it is a putt-mobile with a maximum output of 51 horsepower.
Yet, the Matiz and similar automobiles have found favor in Europe, where unleaded regular gasoline can cost the U.S. equivalent of $7 a gallon. It is developing an audience in this fabled city, where hours can be spent in contemplative view of the majestic Savoy Alps across the lake, where unleaded regular sells for a bit more than $5 a gallon.
People here seem to have a sense of balance, which is what I discovered in a day's wandering behind the wheel of the Matiz. There is a love for automotive power, as evidenced by the many BMW and Mercedes-Benz cars that also occupy the roads. But there seems to be a greater love of destination than there is an affection for the mechanics of getting there.
Put another way, people here are motivated by the expectation of pleasure at the end of the trip. If they must walk to get where they're going, they walk. If a bicycle is more efficient, they pedal. If mass transit will do the job, they use it. If they want and can afford the grandness of arrival in a luxury sedan or sports car, they will choose one of those carriages. But many of them, living within wage-defined budgets, if they need a car, buy and drive something like the Matiz.
There is an awareness, an understanding -- a certain communal courtesy that goes with that approach to transportation. The front-wheel-drive Matiz, for example, scoots along nicely in city traffic where it does its best work. It is quite nimble in that environment. It parks easily. It does not get in the way.
But on highways and mountain roads, where its little engine becomes a bit asthmatic, the Matiz can be an impeding slug. No problem. On lowland highways, the Matiz driver stays in the right lane. On mountain roads, where the Matiz is at its worst, other motorists maintain a reasonable distance behind the little car until they can pass it safely -- an event sometimes facilitated by the Matiz driver pulling to the side of the road to allow faster vehicles to pass.
It's a matter of balance -- motorists respecting each other's right to use the road and cooperating in its use so that everyone can get to where he or she is going safely, most efficiently, within his or her respective fuel budget.
But if something like that works in Switzerland, why can't it work in the United States?
At the moment, the answer is that we in America are unbalanced. We have developed a cult of bigness, largely afforded by cheap gasoline.
We are convinced -- indeed, we hold almost as an article of religious belief -- that big is best and that any request or suggestion that we downsize is unsafe, unreasonable, un-American. We have no patience for little cars, such as the Matiz, getting in the way of our large sedans and sport-utility vehicles. We have equated small with cheap, cheap with poor, and poor with unworthy.
It matters not that Europeans are willing to pay the U.S. equivalent of $11,861 to $15,925 for a micro gasoline-powered car that seats four people and gets a combined city-highway mileage of 50 miles per gallon. By American standards, it's too small and too underpowered to cost that much. We want something larger for that money, something more powerful. But if it can be made to get 50 miles a gallon, if it can be made injury-proof in a crash against a giant Toyota Tundra CrewMax pickup truck, and if U.S. gasoline prices can be kept at or below $2.50 a gallon, we want all of that, too.
So, Europe can keep the little Matiz and all of the other little cars like it that get great fuel economy, but that do little to satisfy America's lust for power, speed, size, motorized invulnerability, and plentiful, eternally cheap fuel.
After all, what do the Europeans know about the good life?
Developing Boomerang Mothers
By Amy Joyce - Washington Post
Sunday, March 11, 2007; F01
Jennifer Allyn has a job at PricewaterhouseCoopers that didn't even exist until recently: director of gender retention and advancement.
Parse the human-resources jargon, and you'll discover she was hired to find ways to persuade highly skilled and experienced female managers to return to work after maternity leave -- no matter how many years that may take.
We've all seen them disappear from desks around us. But now some companies -- mostly large, influential ones -- have begun to replace informal arrangements to get women back at work after having a child with written policies and systems. PWC is among them.
"We can't run our business without women," says Allyn. "Fifty percent of the talent pool in the last two decades is women. That's who's studying accounting, who's going to college."
Last year, Allyn introduced PWC's Full Circle program, offering women up to five years of leave -- without pay or health benefits. The company pays for training or certifications to keep the women on top of their field, invites them to company events and gives them a mentor who will keep them clued in to happenings at the accounting firm. Since its start in July, 16 women have been approved. Allyn expects to have 25 to 30 enrolled by the program's one-year anniversary.
"It benefits us to make this happen," Allyn says. "Just imagine the kind of loyalty we can inspire."
Booz Allen Hamilton, Goldman Sachs and Ernst & Young are among the businesses doing the same, offering unusual support and accommodations more than a dozen years after the Family and Medical Leave Act forced companies to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to new moms.
"There's a feeling among companies that there is a huge investment they make of their top talent. And they've all experienced women -- and men -- leaving who they didn't want to leave," says Ellen Galinsky, president of the Families and Work Institute.
At PWC, the onslaught of accounting regulations brought on by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act meant the firm could not afford to lose experienced people who could handle the complicated work. Not to mention the $80,000 it costs to hire and train a replacement.
It sought expertise in Allyn, hiring her away from Catalyst, an organization that studies women at work.
Jeanne Boram might never have found her way back to Booz Allen had it not been for its ComeBack Kids program. She was at home for four years to raise two children born a year apart. When Boram, who had been a senior consultant before quitting, decided she was ready to work again, she could only find temporary positions that paid well below what she had earned. It was as if she had lost all her skills as soon as she picked up her babies.
"It was only a couple of years," she says, "but it was a crucial couple of years."
When she heard about ComeBack Kids, she sent in her résumé and was soon hired for a position similar to her previous one.
At Deloitte & Touche, women are also offered up to five years of unpaid leave with no health benefits. Through its Personal Pursuits program, which began last year, women are also given the option of "kitchen table" work that they can do while they are out of the office. That gives them a chance to keep their skills sharp and their toes in the Deloitte water.
As part of a pilot program, Deepa Varadarajan, formerly a manager in the audit practice, was offered the leave when her twin sons were born prematurely in 2004. "I jumped at it," Varadarajan says. "This was a way for me to get first-hand information about what's happening in the market on projects while taking this sabbatical."
The company has paid for credentials she needed and picked a senior manager to be her mentor.
The new programs have already spawned their own jargon. Instead of taking leave, women "off-ramp." When ready to work, they "on-ramp."
"We've all seen the statistics about who dropped out or off-ramped, and it's very hard for them to get back in," says Cathy Benko, national managing director for Deloitte's initiative to retain and advance women. "I'm one of the few career moms in my son's sixth-grade class. I talk to the moms, and they're looking to get back in and now they can't."
Lehman Brothers began its program last year, calling it Encore. "We've spent a lot of time and money recruiting at college campuses and the MBA level. We pay premiums to convince women to move laterally," says Anne Erni, Lehman's managing director and chief diversity officer. "Why not formally recognize women who have off-ramped as a fourth legitimate pool of talent?"
So far, the programs are small. Goldman Sachs has hired about 10 women through its program and Lehman has hired about 20. Deloitte and PWC's extended leaves are open only to women who have received outstanding reviews and have permission from their manager or partner.
The Center for Work-Life Policy, a New York research organization, found that two-thirds of women who left work to raise children want to reenter professional life but think that companies are reluctant to hire them, or will offer them less-stimulating work than they had before.
Most of the women who take leave have every intention of returning to work, but only 74 percent were able to do so, according to the 2005 study.
"We have, over the years, had that concern about losing women," says Billie Williamson, gender equity and flexibility strategy leader at Ernst & Young, which sponsored the study. "But part of this is really helping women feel confident they can continue to succeed at the firm."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Sunday, March 11, 2007; F01
Jennifer Allyn has a job at PricewaterhouseCoopers that didn't even exist until recently: director of gender retention and advancement.
Parse the human-resources jargon, and you'll discover she was hired to find ways to persuade highly skilled and experienced female managers to return to work after maternity leave -- no matter how many years that may take.
We've all seen them disappear from desks around us. But now some companies -- mostly large, influential ones -- have begun to replace informal arrangements to get women back at work after having a child with written policies and systems. PWC is among them.
"We can't run our business without women," says Allyn. "Fifty percent of the talent pool in the last two decades is women. That's who's studying accounting, who's going to college."
Last year, Allyn introduced PWC's Full Circle program, offering women up to five years of leave -- without pay or health benefits. The company pays for training or certifications to keep the women on top of their field, invites them to company events and gives them a mentor who will keep them clued in to happenings at the accounting firm. Since its start in July, 16 women have been approved. Allyn expects to have 25 to 30 enrolled by the program's one-year anniversary.
"It benefits us to make this happen," Allyn says. "Just imagine the kind of loyalty we can inspire."
Booz Allen Hamilton, Goldman Sachs and Ernst & Young are among the businesses doing the same, offering unusual support and accommodations more than a dozen years after the Family and Medical Leave Act forced companies to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to new moms.
"There's a feeling among companies that there is a huge investment they make of their top talent. And they've all experienced women -- and men -- leaving who they didn't want to leave," says Ellen Galinsky, president of the Families and Work Institute.
At PWC, the onslaught of accounting regulations brought on by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act meant the firm could not afford to lose experienced people who could handle the complicated work. Not to mention the $80,000 it costs to hire and train a replacement.
It sought expertise in Allyn, hiring her away from Catalyst, an organization that studies women at work.
Jeanne Boram might never have found her way back to Booz Allen had it not been for its ComeBack Kids program. She was at home for four years to raise two children born a year apart. When Boram, who had been a senior consultant before quitting, decided she was ready to work again, she could only find temporary positions that paid well below what she had earned. It was as if she had lost all her skills as soon as she picked up her babies.
"It was only a couple of years," she says, "but it was a crucial couple of years."
When she heard about ComeBack Kids, she sent in her résumé and was soon hired for a position similar to her previous one.
At Deloitte & Touche, women are also offered up to five years of unpaid leave with no health benefits. Through its Personal Pursuits program, which began last year, women are also given the option of "kitchen table" work that they can do while they are out of the office. That gives them a chance to keep their skills sharp and their toes in the Deloitte water.
As part of a pilot program, Deepa Varadarajan, formerly a manager in the audit practice, was offered the leave when her twin sons were born prematurely in 2004. "I jumped at it," Varadarajan says. "This was a way for me to get first-hand information about what's happening in the market on projects while taking this sabbatical."
The company has paid for credentials she needed and picked a senior manager to be her mentor.
The new programs have already spawned their own jargon. Instead of taking leave, women "off-ramp." When ready to work, they "on-ramp."
"We've all seen the statistics about who dropped out or off-ramped, and it's very hard for them to get back in," says Cathy Benko, national managing director for Deloitte's initiative to retain and advance women. "I'm one of the few career moms in my son's sixth-grade class. I talk to the moms, and they're looking to get back in and now they can't."
Lehman Brothers began its program last year, calling it Encore. "We've spent a lot of time and money recruiting at college campuses and the MBA level. We pay premiums to convince women to move laterally," says Anne Erni, Lehman's managing director and chief diversity officer. "Why not formally recognize women who have off-ramped as a fourth legitimate pool of talent?"
So far, the programs are small. Goldman Sachs has hired about 10 women through its program and Lehman has hired about 20. Deloitte and PWC's extended leaves are open only to women who have received outstanding reviews and have permission from their manager or partner.
The Center for Work-Life Policy, a New York research organization, found that two-thirds of women who left work to raise children want to reenter professional life but think that companies are reluctant to hire them, or will offer them less-stimulating work than they had before.
Most of the women who take leave have every intention of returning to work, but only 74 percent were able to do so, according to the 2005 study.
"We have, over the years, had that concern about losing women," says Billie Williamson, gender equity and flexibility strategy leader at Ernst & Young, which sponsored the study. "But part of this is really helping women feel confident they can continue to succeed at the firm."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
From Here to Home
By Dina ElBoghdady - Washington Post
Sunday, March 25, 2007; R01
As Jeff Gill tells it, he grew up in a family that does not believe in renting.
His older brother bought a condominium soon after college. His older sister recently bought a condo. His parents constantly laud the benefits of homeownership.
"I would have never heard the end of it from anybody if I rented," said Gill, 24. "They all think rent is a waste of money, and they would have kept bugging me about it."
So after graduating from George Mason University two years ago, Gill moved in with Mom and Dad, whittled down his debt and pocketed enough money for a decent down payment that his parents have agreed to supplement.
"Now, my biggest concern is about what I can afford given my salary," said Gill, a human resources professional who earns about $50,000 a year. "At what point would I be pushing the envelope?"
People often consult a mortgage broker or lender before they start house hunting to answer that question. Gill spoke to James E. Hensley, a managing director at the McLean office of First Savings Mortgage.
Gill told Hensley he wants a condominium for about $275,000 in Arlington, not far from his office. That's doable, Hensley concluded after examining Gill's finances.
For starters, Gill's credit score, used to measure creditworthiness, is an impressive 767 out of 850.
His monthly debt-to-income ratio, meaning how much debt he owes compared with how much money he earns, should be no cause for alarm.
A mortgage for the kind of home Gill wants would eat up a good chunk of his salary, Hensley said. That makes his debt-to-income ratio high, but it would still be at an acceptable level because Gill carries no other debt.
"He's a little tight, but that's not uncommon for somebody at his stage in his career, where he still is not making a lot of money," Hensley said. "Most likely, he will grow into the mortgage."
Besides, Gill appears to be a saver. He has already stashed away $5,300 in an individual retirement account, and he has about $400 in a 401(k) plan. It's not much, but it shows the kind of financial discipline that puts lenders at ease.
"It's money that can be used for reserves," Hensley said. "We always check to see if a person has something to fall back on, even if it is money for retirement."
As Gill tells it, his record has not always been perfect.
During college, he rented a room in a friend's condo for about $500 a month. Though Gill had a full-time job at the time, he sometimes fell behind on payments.
"So I would borrow money from my parents," Gill said. "I was putting myself in debt with my father, and I already owed him money for buying my car halfway through college."
Dad, an accountant, bought the car and Gill paid him $475 a month.
"At first, he would charge me interest so I understood that it made sense to pay off as much as I could," Gill said. "Then after a while he made it interest-free."
Gill won't have that luxury with his mortgage, of course. His parents plan to kick in $10,000 toward a down payment, and Gill expects to contribute a few thousand dollars of his own and pay the closing costs.
Assuming Gill puts down 5 percent, or $13,750, Hensley suggested a first mortgage of 80 percent of the purchase price -- $220,000 -- and a second mortgage of 15 percent, or $41,250. That way, he will not have to pay for private mortgage insurance.
Buyers who put down less than 20 percent of the purchase price of a home otherwise must pay that kind of insurance, meant to protect the lenders from the added risk they're taking on. In Gill's case, the insurance would add about $108 to his monthly payments.
With these two mortgages, Gill would pay a slightly higher interest rate on the second mortgage, "but having mortgage insurance would be a more expensive option," Hensley said.
In the current market, he said, the first mortgage could be a fixed-rate 30-year loan at 6.25 percent with interest-only payments for the first 10 years. That would cost $1,146 per month, as opposed to $1,355 for a traditional fixed-rate loan at that rate. The second mortgage could be a 25-year fixed-rate loan at 8.25 percent with interest-only payments the first five years. That would be $279 per month.
With both loans, when the interest-only period ends, Gill would either need to refinance or face much higher monthly payments. For now, though, Hensley said the arrangement, "helps him qualify for more and keeps his payments lower."
Sunday, March 25, 2007; R01
As Jeff Gill tells it, he grew up in a family that does not believe in renting.
His older brother bought a condominium soon after college. His older sister recently bought a condo. His parents constantly laud the benefits of homeownership.
"I would have never heard the end of it from anybody if I rented," said Gill, 24. "They all think rent is a waste of money, and they would have kept bugging me about it."
So after graduating from George Mason University two years ago, Gill moved in with Mom and Dad, whittled down his debt and pocketed enough money for a decent down payment that his parents have agreed to supplement.
"Now, my biggest concern is about what I can afford given my salary," said Gill, a human resources professional who earns about $50,000 a year. "At what point would I be pushing the envelope?"
People often consult a mortgage broker or lender before they start house hunting to answer that question. Gill spoke to James E. Hensley, a managing director at the McLean office of First Savings Mortgage.
Gill told Hensley he wants a condominium for about $275,000 in Arlington, not far from his office. That's doable, Hensley concluded after examining Gill's finances.
For starters, Gill's credit score, used to measure creditworthiness, is an impressive 767 out of 850.
His monthly debt-to-income ratio, meaning how much debt he owes compared with how much money he earns, should be no cause for alarm.
A mortgage for the kind of home Gill wants would eat up a good chunk of his salary, Hensley said. That makes his debt-to-income ratio high, but it would still be at an acceptable level because Gill carries no other debt.
"He's a little tight, but that's not uncommon for somebody at his stage in his career, where he still is not making a lot of money," Hensley said. "Most likely, he will grow into the mortgage."
Besides, Gill appears to be a saver. He has already stashed away $5,300 in an individual retirement account, and he has about $400 in a 401(k) plan. It's not much, but it shows the kind of financial discipline that puts lenders at ease.
"It's money that can be used for reserves," Hensley said. "We always check to see if a person has something to fall back on, even if it is money for retirement."
As Gill tells it, his record has not always been perfect.
During college, he rented a room in a friend's condo for about $500 a month. Though Gill had a full-time job at the time, he sometimes fell behind on payments.
"So I would borrow money from my parents," Gill said. "I was putting myself in debt with my father, and I already owed him money for buying my car halfway through college."
Dad, an accountant, bought the car and Gill paid him $475 a month.
"At first, he would charge me interest so I understood that it made sense to pay off as much as I could," Gill said. "Then after a while he made it interest-free."
Gill won't have that luxury with his mortgage, of course. His parents plan to kick in $10,000 toward a down payment, and Gill expects to contribute a few thousand dollars of his own and pay the closing costs.
Assuming Gill puts down 5 percent, or $13,750, Hensley suggested a first mortgage of 80 percent of the purchase price -- $220,000 -- and a second mortgage of 15 percent, or $41,250. That way, he will not have to pay for private mortgage insurance.
Buyers who put down less than 20 percent of the purchase price of a home otherwise must pay that kind of insurance, meant to protect the lenders from the added risk they're taking on. In Gill's case, the insurance would add about $108 to his monthly payments.
With these two mortgages, Gill would pay a slightly higher interest rate on the second mortgage, "but having mortgage insurance would be a more expensive option," Hensley said.
In the current market, he said, the first mortgage could be a fixed-rate 30-year loan at 6.25 percent with interest-only payments for the first 10 years. That would cost $1,146 per month, as opposed to $1,355 for a traditional fixed-rate loan at that rate. The second mortgage could be a 25-year fixed-rate loan at 8.25 percent with interest-only payments the first five years. That would be $279 per month.
With both loans, when the interest-only period ends, Gill would either need to refinance or face much higher monthly payments. For now, though, Hensley said the arrangement, "helps him qualify for more and keeps his payments lower."
What a Difference an Election Makes
By Edward M. Kennedy - Washington Post
Sunday, March 11, 2007; B07
Rome wasn't built in a day, but if this new Congress had been its architect, it might have been. It has been just 66 days since Congress changed hands, and already the results are remarkable. In my 45 years in Congress, I have never seen the Senate turn so rapidly from stalemate toward real progress. While the daily media focus may be on our internal debates or the next presidential election, the biggest news of 2007 is that the election mattered and that the Democrats have already delivered for the American people.
The biggest reason is that the election replaced a do-nothing Congress with the kind of Congress that our Founding Fathers intended: an equal branch of government that takes seriously its responsibility to exercise oversight over the executive branch and to legislate in the public interest. The progress of the past few months only underscores how much our country has needed an active and alert Congress. The examples are numerous.
Last week, the Senate and the House held hearings on the inexcusable conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. We have a lot of work to do to keep faith with our wounded soldiers. But it took a Democratic Congress to uncover what had been concealed by the do-nothing Republican Congress -- that this administration has been warehousing instead of rehabilitating wounded soldiers who return from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hearings and the threat of legislation by the new Congress have forced the mighty banking industry to admit that credit card fees and interest rates are far too high and to pledge to end some of its worst practices. By taking the problems of ordinary Americans seriously, the Democratic Congress will save consumers tens of millions of dollars in credit card fees and interest. We're working toward similar reform of the student loan system. Our hearings have already paved the way for change by demonstrating that this system is serving the interests of banks while failing our students.
Just last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee provided a forum for U.S. attorneys who were fired for political reasons. The Justice Department initially pretended these firings were based on performance, and it threatened the U.S. attorneys who tried to set the record straight. Hearings called by the Democratic Congress were the difference between uncovering the truth and sweeping it under the rug. The testimony of these Bush appointees made clear that the Justice Department had been caught playing partisan politics -- and then trying to cover its tracks. Because Congress exposed the truth, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales reversed course and agreed that the president should seek Senate approval for any new U.S. attorneys.
The balance of powers set forth in the Constitution is starting to work again. By far the strongest message from the election is that Americans want a change in Iraq. It is a tremendous challenge to get any administration -- especially one as stubborn as this one -- to change course during wartime. But Congress is now performing its constitutional role as a check on the executive. The administration is being asked the hard questions and being held accountable for its answers.
We have also demanded accountability from ourselves by requiring that each member of Congress go on the record as supporting or opposing President Bush's escalation of our involvement in Iraq's civil war. The fact that a majority of both houses of Congress voted against the surge is a powerful statement to the president and to the country. More important, there is broad consensus on the Democratic side of the aisle that our combat troops should be redeployed by 2008. We will work to make that goal a reality. And let's not forget that the very first accomplishment of the new Congress was to force the president to find a new defense secretary.
While we have much further to go, we are finally moving in the right direction globally. The administration has finally heeded the call of many of us in Congress and agreed to talk to Iran and Syria. Congress has also prodded the State Department to turn its attention to the growing Iraqi refugee crisis. Before our hearings on the issue, the United States had largely ignored the plight of 2 million Iraqis, many of whom were chased from their homes for assisting U.S. forces. Finally, the fact that a Democratic Congress will not rubber-stamp a decision to invade Iran is already serving as an important -- and constitutionally mandated -- check on the president.
This short list doesn't do justice to our partners in progress, the House of Representatives led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The House has not only joined the Senate in vigorous oversight but has passed a Sept. 11 bill that finally takes the steps to make us safe, a prescription drug bill that will lower the cost of medicine and a minimum-wage increase that will help millions get the raises they deserve. The list goes on and on. And we've only just begun.
Sunday, March 11, 2007; B07
Rome wasn't built in a day, but if this new Congress had been its architect, it might have been. It has been just 66 days since Congress changed hands, and already the results are remarkable. In my 45 years in Congress, I have never seen the Senate turn so rapidly from stalemate toward real progress. While the daily media focus may be on our internal debates or the next presidential election, the biggest news of 2007 is that the election mattered and that the Democrats have already delivered for the American people.
The biggest reason is that the election replaced a do-nothing Congress with the kind of Congress that our Founding Fathers intended: an equal branch of government that takes seriously its responsibility to exercise oversight over the executive branch and to legislate in the public interest. The progress of the past few months only underscores how much our country has needed an active and alert Congress. The examples are numerous.
Last week, the Senate and the House held hearings on the inexcusable conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. We have a lot of work to do to keep faith with our wounded soldiers. But it took a Democratic Congress to uncover what had been concealed by the do-nothing Republican Congress -- that this administration has been warehousing instead of rehabilitating wounded soldiers who return from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hearings and the threat of legislation by the new Congress have forced the mighty banking industry to admit that credit card fees and interest rates are far too high and to pledge to end some of its worst practices. By taking the problems of ordinary Americans seriously, the Democratic Congress will save consumers tens of millions of dollars in credit card fees and interest. We're working toward similar reform of the student loan system. Our hearings have already paved the way for change by demonstrating that this system is serving the interests of banks while failing our students.
Just last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee provided a forum for U.S. attorneys who were fired for political reasons. The Justice Department initially pretended these firings were based on performance, and it threatened the U.S. attorneys who tried to set the record straight. Hearings called by the Democratic Congress were the difference between uncovering the truth and sweeping it under the rug. The testimony of these Bush appointees made clear that the Justice Department had been caught playing partisan politics -- and then trying to cover its tracks. Because Congress exposed the truth, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales reversed course and agreed that the president should seek Senate approval for any new U.S. attorneys.
The balance of powers set forth in the Constitution is starting to work again. By far the strongest message from the election is that Americans want a change in Iraq. It is a tremendous challenge to get any administration -- especially one as stubborn as this one -- to change course during wartime. But Congress is now performing its constitutional role as a check on the executive. The administration is being asked the hard questions and being held accountable for its answers.
We have also demanded accountability from ourselves by requiring that each member of Congress go on the record as supporting or opposing President Bush's escalation of our involvement in Iraq's civil war. The fact that a majority of both houses of Congress voted against the surge is a powerful statement to the president and to the country. More important, there is broad consensus on the Democratic side of the aisle that our combat troops should be redeployed by 2008. We will work to make that goal a reality. And let's not forget that the very first accomplishment of the new Congress was to force the president to find a new defense secretary.
While we have much further to go, we are finally moving in the right direction globally. The administration has finally heeded the call of many of us in Congress and agreed to talk to Iran and Syria. Congress has also prodded the State Department to turn its attention to the growing Iraqi refugee crisis. Before our hearings on the issue, the United States had largely ignored the plight of 2 million Iraqis, many of whom were chased from their homes for assisting U.S. forces. Finally, the fact that a Democratic Congress will not rubber-stamp a decision to invade Iran is already serving as an important -- and constitutionally mandated -- check on the president.
This short list doesn't do justice to our partners in progress, the House of Representatives led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The House has not only joined the Senate in vigorous oversight but has passed a Sept. 11 bill that finally takes the steps to make us safe, a prescription drug bill that will lower the cost of medicine and a minimum-wage increase that will help millions get the raises they deserve. The list goes on and on. And we've only just begun.
It's Uphill for the Democrats, They Need a Global Strategy, Not Just Tactics for Iraq
By Tony Smith - Washington Post
Sunday, March 11, 2007; B01
The Democrats' victory last November obviously reflected popular sentiment against the war in Iraq, but nothing seems obvious now as Democrats try to exploit their new majority status in Congress.
Iraq had flustered the congressional Democrats because Democrats don't have an agreed position on what America's role in the world should be. They want to change the Bush administration's policy in Iraq without discussing the underlying ideas that produced it. And although they now cast themselves as alternatives to President Bush, the fact is that prevailing Democratic doctrine is not that different from the Bush-Cheney doctrine.
Many Democrats, including senators who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, embraced the idea of muscular foreign policy based on American global supremacy and the presumed right to intervene to promote democracy or to defend key U.S. interests long before 9/11, and they have not changed course since. Even those who have shifted against the war have avoided doctrinal questions.
But without a coherent alternative to the Bush doctrine, with its confidence in America's military preeminence and the global appeal of "free market democracy," the Democrats' midterm victory may not be repeated in November 2008. Or, if the Democrats do win in 2008, they could remain staked to a vision of a Pax Americana strikingly reminiscent of Bush's.
Democratic adherents to what might be called the "neoliberal" position are well organized and well positioned. Their credo was enunciated just nine years ago by Madeleine Albright, then President Bill Clinton's secretary of state: "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further into the future." She was speaking of Bosnia at the time, but her remark had much wider implications.
Since 1992, the ascendant Democratic faction in foreign policy debates has been the thinkers associated with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and its think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI). Since 2003, the PPI has issued repeated broadsides damning Bush's handling of the Iraq war, but it has never condemned the invasion. It has criticized Bush's failure to achieve U.S. domination of the Middle East, arguing that Democrats could do it better.
Consider a volume published last spring and edited by Will Marshall, president of the PPI since 1989. The book, "With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty," contains essays by 19 liberal Democrats.
"Make no mistake," write Marshall and Jeremy Rosner in their introduction, "we are committed to preserving America's military preeminence. We recognize that a strong military undergirds U.S. global leadership." Recalling a Democratic "tradition of muscular liberalism," they insist that "Progressives and Democrats must not give up the promotion of democracy and human rights abroad just because President Bush has paid it lip service. Advancing democracy -- in practice, not just in rhetoric -- is fundamentally the Democrats' legacy, the Democrats' cause, and the Democrats' responsibility."
In the volume, a Muslim American calls on us to prevail in the "cosmic war" with terrorism by winning "The Struggle for Islam's Soul." Stephen Solarz worries about Pakistan; Anne-Marie Slaughter would "Reinvent the U.N." Larry Diamond and Michael McFaul defend "Seeding Liberal Democracy." Kenneth Pollack, whose 2002 book, "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq," was as influential as any single writing in urging the invasion of Iraq, presents "A Grand Strategy for the Middle East."
"For better or worse, whether you supported the war or not, it is all about Iraq now," writes Pollack. The goal of this Democrat who helped bring us Iraq? "The end state that America's grand strategy toward the Middle East must envision is a new liberal order to replace a status quo marked by political repression, economic stagnation and cultural conflict." His problem with the Bush administration? "It has not made transformation its highest goal. . . . Iran and Syria's rogue regimes seem to be the only exceptions. The administration insists on democratic change there in a manner it eschews for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other allies. . . . The right grand strategy would make transformation of our friends and our foes alike our agenda's foremost issue."
This is not a fringe group. Many prominent Democrats are PPI stalwarts, including Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Evan Bayh, Thomas R. Carper and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, published a book last year, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," co-authored by Bruce Reed, editor of the PPI's magazine Blueprint and president of the DLC.
Emanuel and Reed salute Marshall's "outstanding anthology" for its "refreshingly hardnosed and intelligent new approach . . . which breathes new life into the Democratic vision of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy." Not a word in their book appears hostile to the idea of invading Iraq. Instead, the authors fault Bush for allowing a "troop gap" to develop (they favor increasing the Army by 100,000 and expanding the Marines and Special Forces) and for failing to "enlist our allies in a common mission." The message once again is that Democrats could do it better.
In fact, these neoliberals are nearly indistinguishable from the better-known neoconservatives. The neocons' think tank, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), often salutes individuals within the PPI, and PPI members such as Marshall signed PNAC petitions endorsing the Iraq invasion. Weeks after "With All Our Might" appeared, the Weekly Standard, virtually the PNAC house organ, gave it a thumbs-up review. And why not? The PPI and PNAC are tweedledum and tweedledee.
Sources for many of the critical elements of the Bush doctrine can be found in the emergence of neoliberal thought during the 1990s, after the end of the Cold War. In think tanks, universities and government offices, left-leaning intellectuals, many close to the Democratic Party, formulated concepts to bring to fruition the age-old dream of Democratic President Woodrow Wilson "to make the world safe for democracy." These neolibs advocated the global expansion of "market democracy." They presented empirical, theoretical, even philosophical arguments to support the idea of the United States as the indispensable nation. Albright's self-assured declaration descended directly from traditional Wilsonianism.
Talking in the refined language of the social sciences about "democratic peace theory," neolibs such as Bruce Russett at Yale maintained that a world of democracies would mean the end of war. Neolibs such as Larry Diamond at Stanford also posited the "universal appeal of democracy," suggesting that "regime change" leading to "the democratic transition" was a manageable undertaking. Anne-Marie Slaughter at Princeton asserted that "rogue states" guilty of systematic human-rights abuses or that built weapons of mass destruction had only "conditional sovereignty" and were legally open to attack. These views were echoed in the columns of Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. Here was the intellectual substance of much of the Bush doctrine, coming from non-Republicans.
Dealing with Serbia in the 1990s cemented the neocon-neolib entente. By Sept. 11, 2001, these two groups had converged as a single ideological family. They agreed that American nationalism was best expressed in world affairs as a progressive imperialism. The rallying call for armed action would be promoting human rights and democratic government among peoples who resisted American hegemony.
And so we may appreciate the Democrats' difficulty in their search for an exit strategy not only from Iraq but also from the temptations of a superpower.
Ironically, the neolibs are more powerful today in the Democratic Party than the neocons are among Republicans. Senior Republicans such as Brent Scowcroft, James A. Baker III and the late Gerald R. Ford seem more skeptical about an American bid for world supremacy than do comparable senior Democrats. "I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford told Bob Woodward in 2004. But the former president doubted "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one of what's in our national interest. And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our national security."
There is a precedent for the Democrats' dilemma as 2008 approaches. When Richard M. Nixon ran for president 40 years ago, he, too, needed to formulate a policy that distinguished him from the unpopular war in Vietnam prosecuted by an unpopular Democratic administration. He promised that "a new leadership will end the war," hinting that he had a secret plan to do so. But it turned out that Nixon's "new leadership" was as committed to prevailing in Southeast Asia as Lyndon B. Johnson had been.
The early positions of the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates illustrate their party's problem. The front-runner, Hillary Clinton, has not moved from her traditional support of the DLC's basic position -- she criticizes the conduct of the war, but not the idea of the war. Former senator John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama are more outspoken; both call the war a serious mistake, but neither has articulated a vision for a more modest U.S. role in the world generally.
It isn't easy to offer a true alternative. The challenges to world order are many, as are the influential special interests in this country that want an aggressive policy: globalizing corporations, the military-industrial complex, the pro-Israel lobbies, those who covet Middle Eastern oil. The nationalist conviction that we are indeed "the indispensable nation" will continue to tempt our leaders to overplay their hand. The danger lies in believing that our power is beyond challenge, that the righteousness of our goals is beyond question and that the real task is not to reformulate our role in the world so much as to assert more effectively a global American peace.
Sunday, March 11, 2007; B01
The Democrats' victory last November obviously reflected popular sentiment against the war in Iraq, but nothing seems obvious now as Democrats try to exploit their new majority status in Congress.
Iraq had flustered the congressional Democrats because Democrats don't have an agreed position on what America's role in the world should be. They want to change the Bush administration's policy in Iraq without discussing the underlying ideas that produced it. And although they now cast themselves as alternatives to President Bush, the fact is that prevailing Democratic doctrine is not that different from the Bush-Cheney doctrine.
Many Democrats, including senators who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, embraced the idea of muscular foreign policy based on American global supremacy and the presumed right to intervene to promote democracy or to defend key U.S. interests long before 9/11, and they have not changed course since. Even those who have shifted against the war have avoided doctrinal questions.
But without a coherent alternative to the Bush doctrine, with its confidence in America's military preeminence and the global appeal of "free market democracy," the Democrats' midterm victory may not be repeated in November 2008. Or, if the Democrats do win in 2008, they could remain staked to a vision of a Pax Americana strikingly reminiscent of Bush's.
Democratic adherents to what might be called the "neoliberal" position are well organized and well positioned. Their credo was enunciated just nine years ago by Madeleine Albright, then President Bill Clinton's secretary of state: "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further into the future." She was speaking of Bosnia at the time, but her remark had much wider implications.
Since 1992, the ascendant Democratic faction in foreign policy debates has been the thinkers associated with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and its think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI). Since 2003, the PPI has issued repeated broadsides damning Bush's handling of the Iraq war, but it has never condemned the invasion. It has criticized Bush's failure to achieve U.S. domination of the Middle East, arguing that Democrats could do it better.
Consider a volume published last spring and edited by Will Marshall, president of the PPI since 1989. The book, "With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty," contains essays by 19 liberal Democrats.
"Make no mistake," write Marshall and Jeremy Rosner in their introduction, "we are committed to preserving America's military preeminence. We recognize that a strong military undergirds U.S. global leadership." Recalling a Democratic "tradition of muscular liberalism," they insist that "Progressives and Democrats must not give up the promotion of democracy and human rights abroad just because President Bush has paid it lip service. Advancing democracy -- in practice, not just in rhetoric -- is fundamentally the Democrats' legacy, the Democrats' cause, and the Democrats' responsibility."
In the volume, a Muslim American calls on us to prevail in the "cosmic war" with terrorism by winning "The Struggle for Islam's Soul." Stephen Solarz worries about Pakistan; Anne-Marie Slaughter would "Reinvent the U.N." Larry Diamond and Michael McFaul defend "Seeding Liberal Democracy." Kenneth Pollack, whose 2002 book, "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq," was as influential as any single writing in urging the invasion of Iraq, presents "A Grand Strategy for the Middle East."
"For better or worse, whether you supported the war or not, it is all about Iraq now," writes Pollack. The goal of this Democrat who helped bring us Iraq? "The end state that America's grand strategy toward the Middle East must envision is a new liberal order to replace a status quo marked by political repression, economic stagnation and cultural conflict." His problem with the Bush administration? "It has not made transformation its highest goal. . . . Iran and Syria's rogue regimes seem to be the only exceptions. The administration insists on democratic change there in a manner it eschews for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other allies. . . . The right grand strategy would make transformation of our friends and our foes alike our agenda's foremost issue."
This is not a fringe group. Many prominent Democrats are PPI stalwarts, including Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Evan Bayh, Thomas R. Carper and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, published a book last year, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," co-authored by Bruce Reed, editor of the PPI's magazine Blueprint and president of the DLC.
Emanuel and Reed salute Marshall's "outstanding anthology" for its "refreshingly hardnosed and intelligent new approach . . . which breathes new life into the Democratic vision of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy." Not a word in their book appears hostile to the idea of invading Iraq. Instead, the authors fault Bush for allowing a "troop gap" to develop (they favor increasing the Army by 100,000 and expanding the Marines and Special Forces) and for failing to "enlist our allies in a common mission." The message once again is that Democrats could do it better.
In fact, these neoliberals are nearly indistinguishable from the better-known neoconservatives. The neocons' think tank, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), often salutes individuals within the PPI, and PPI members such as Marshall signed PNAC petitions endorsing the Iraq invasion. Weeks after "With All Our Might" appeared, the Weekly Standard, virtually the PNAC house organ, gave it a thumbs-up review. And why not? The PPI and PNAC are tweedledum and tweedledee.
Sources for many of the critical elements of the Bush doctrine can be found in the emergence of neoliberal thought during the 1990s, after the end of the Cold War. In think tanks, universities and government offices, left-leaning intellectuals, many close to the Democratic Party, formulated concepts to bring to fruition the age-old dream of Democratic President Woodrow Wilson "to make the world safe for democracy." These neolibs advocated the global expansion of "market democracy." They presented empirical, theoretical, even philosophical arguments to support the idea of the United States as the indispensable nation. Albright's self-assured declaration descended directly from traditional Wilsonianism.
Talking in the refined language of the social sciences about "democratic peace theory," neolibs such as Bruce Russett at Yale maintained that a world of democracies would mean the end of war. Neolibs such as Larry Diamond at Stanford also posited the "universal appeal of democracy," suggesting that "regime change" leading to "the democratic transition" was a manageable undertaking. Anne-Marie Slaughter at Princeton asserted that "rogue states" guilty of systematic human-rights abuses or that built weapons of mass destruction had only "conditional sovereignty" and were legally open to attack. These views were echoed in the columns of Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. Here was the intellectual substance of much of the Bush doctrine, coming from non-Republicans.
Dealing with Serbia in the 1990s cemented the neocon-neolib entente. By Sept. 11, 2001, these two groups had converged as a single ideological family. They agreed that American nationalism was best expressed in world affairs as a progressive imperialism. The rallying call for armed action would be promoting human rights and democratic government among peoples who resisted American hegemony.
And so we may appreciate the Democrats' difficulty in their search for an exit strategy not only from Iraq but also from the temptations of a superpower.
Ironically, the neolibs are more powerful today in the Democratic Party than the neocons are among Republicans. Senior Republicans such as Brent Scowcroft, James A. Baker III and the late Gerald R. Ford seem more skeptical about an American bid for world supremacy than do comparable senior Democrats. "I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford told Bob Woodward in 2004. But the former president doubted "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one of what's in our national interest. And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our national security."
There is a precedent for the Democrats' dilemma as 2008 approaches. When Richard M. Nixon ran for president 40 years ago, he, too, needed to formulate a policy that distinguished him from the unpopular war in Vietnam prosecuted by an unpopular Democratic administration. He promised that "a new leadership will end the war," hinting that he had a secret plan to do so. But it turned out that Nixon's "new leadership" was as committed to prevailing in Southeast Asia as Lyndon B. Johnson had been.
The early positions of the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates illustrate their party's problem. The front-runner, Hillary Clinton, has not moved from her traditional support of the DLC's basic position -- she criticizes the conduct of the war, but not the idea of the war. Former senator John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama are more outspoken; both call the war a serious mistake, but neither has articulated a vision for a more modest U.S. role in the world generally.
It isn't easy to offer a true alternative. The challenges to world order are many, as are the influential special interests in this country that want an aggressive policy: globalizing corporations, the military-industrial complex, the pro-Israel lobbies, those who covet Middle Eastern oil. The nationalist conviction that we are indeed "the indispensable nation" will continue to tempt our leaders to overplay their hand. The danger lies in believing that our power is beyond challenge, that the righteousness of our goals is beyond question and that the real task is not to reformulate our role in the world so much as to assert more effectively a global American peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)