Three Steps Forward

This morning, President Obama will pave the way to increasing fuel efficiency standards in California and thirteen other states that have repeatedly petitioned the U.S. government for such emissions restrictions.

While working for an environmental organization in northwest Michigan in 2006, I wrote about a Supreme Court case in which the State of Massachusetts (and 12 other states) sued the Environmental Protection Agency for neglecting to regulate automobile emissions. At that point, the EPA said that it would not regulate greenhouse gasses "until more is understood about the causes, extent, and significance of climate change, and the potential options for addressing it."

Since this time, everyone who is respected in the scientific community has confirmed that climate change is facilitated by human activity, including the harmful effects of automobile emissions. This led to the Supreme Court's decision - in April 2007 - that the EPA does, in fact, have the authority to regulate greenhouse gasses. Still, the EPA under the Bush administration dragged its feet and refused to support the states asking for higher emissions standards.

Obama's directive will likely result in the reversal of Bush's rejection of higher emissions restrictions. In the 13 states included in the California-led petition, which includes Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, the average mile per gallon will increase from 27 to 35 in cars and light trucks.

This is an enormous improvement and will certainly help the larger goal of reducing the impact of global warming. But I hope that we will see more environmentally-minded directives from President Obama specifically designed to increase the United States' public transportation infrastructure.

To make a permanent impact to reverse the trend of global warming, increasing automobile efficiency must go hand in hand with lowering the number of people who use personal vehicles.

Former DNC Chair Howard Dean's 50-state strategy is generally regarded as the non-Obama reason for the Democrats' success last November. By putting representatives in every single state, Democrats were able to turn states like Virginia, North Carolina, and Colorado from red to blue.

In a video released recently, the new DNC chairman, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine praised the 50-state strategy for its overwhelming success but said that it would be scaled back because "You never should just do what you did yesterday."

Tremayne of Open Left mocks this response perfectly:

So, bottom line: it was really important and successful and we'll be doing something that we'll call a 50-state strategy but it won't look like it did before. Because "you never should just do what you did yesterday" even if what you did yesterday worked really well.

The idea behind the 50-state strategy is that voters in states like Alabama, Idaho, and Oklahoma are never going to vote for a Democrat unless they meet a Democrat once in a while. If you send two or three Dems to a rural town in red states like Nebraska, though, then you just might change some minds.

I'm worried that without the 50-state strategy, the Democratic Party will not maximize its potential in states like Georgia, Missouri, North Dakota, and Montana, all of which were very close this year. With just a little more attention (and some luck with the economy), those could really turn blue in 2012.

Three Steps Forward

The Washington Independent has a fantastic article today about the race for Chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), specifically Michael Steele's consistent assertion that the Republican Party does not take Blacks seriously enough.

Three Steps Forward

For much of his career, Steele argued the opposite, that Democrats took Black voters for granted, promising ambitious policies to extend government programs further into urban neighborhoods, but delivering on very few of these promises. In essence, he argued, "Don't give your vote over to the Al Sharptons and the Reverend Jacksons and all the other folks who are advocating on behalf of Kerry just because."

Well, it's not just because. It's true that Democrats have a troubling tendency to ignore African American voters and inner-city programs simply because blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. But the fact is that even if Democrats deliver 25% of what is promised, progressive policies (even those not directly aimed at minorities) are far superior for minority populations than the conservative agenda.

Healthcare reform is a prime example that will disproportionately benefit minorities. According to a 2004 study, although Hispanics comprise 14% of the population, 30% of the uninsured are Hispanic. Although African Americans make up 12% of the population, 15% of the uninsured are Black. Conversely, although 67% of the population is White, only 48% of the uninsured are White.

So with African American support firmly behind the Democrats, and the election of the first Black President on the Democratic ticket, Steele is correct to change his tone. The Republican Party cannot, as Tim Pawlenty warned, thrive as the party for rich white people.

But to do this, the GOP needs to embrace policies that help people who aren't rich and white. It is not sufficient to elevate token minorities to prominent positions within the Republican bureaucracy.
The Republican Party will not bounce back with small, aesthetic changes. It needs to drastically change its agenda to try and become the party for rich and poor Americans, young and old Americans, and Americans of all colors.

But I won't hold my breath.

Yesterday, Chris Bowers of OpenLeft wrote a piece about the future of Israel. He presented two scenarios for what will become of the Jewish State.

1. An autonomous, Jewish majority Israel bordering an autonomous, Palestinian majority Palestine, with neither under occupation or threat of invasion. Essentially, a two-state solution. This is the outcome currently desired by 60-70% of both Palestinians and Israelis.

2. A single, democratic state with a Palestinian majority that encompasses all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. This is not a commonly discussed outcome now, but it is more possible down the road than most people think.

Neither side is perfect. In the first case, both states, Israel and Palsestine, would take a huge economic hit. Palestine, first of all, would suffer a major loss of economic infrastructure that Israel has provided for the past sixty years. And Israel would be crippled by the lack of service professionals, an industry which is largely manned by Palestinian workers. But I think that Bowers is correct that, if this two-state solution was somehow brokered, both sides would generally live in peace.

The second scenario seems most likely. The Palestinian population has been growing steadily for decades and it has been estimated that Palestinians will become the majority in Israel by 2040 or 2050. Banning Arab political organizations from the upcoming elections was a shameful decision for the Israeli government that symbolizes the rising dominance of Palestinians in Israeli elections. Whether or not you are pro-Israel, everyone can agree that deliberately disenfranchising voters is undemocratic, autocratic, and cruel.

Operating under the assumption that a one-state, one-vote-one-person solution is imminent, what can Israel do to engender a moderate Palestinian population, rather than a Hamas-controlled political organization that will seek revenge and perpetuate the cycle of violence that has plagued the middle east for centuries?

   
1. Ceasefire Now. As the death toll rises, more Palestinians are rushing to the anti-Israel cause. And much of the international community no longer supports Israel.

   
2. Begin legitimate peace talks with Fatah in the West Bank. And give Fatah more than might feel comfortable. If they are seen as the political party that is getting results for Palestinians, then many will flock to support Fatah. The fault with this argument is that many Palestinians are critical of Fatah simply because they are open to diplomacy with Israel. For some, pursuing peace means surrender. But if the Palestinian population sees some tangible benefits of working with Israel, then they might begin to support the more moderate Fatah.

We must remember that Hamas is not a political organization, it is a racist, terrorist organization. Clearly, that does not justify the slaughter in Gaza. But it makes the prospects of meeting with Hamas leaders more complicated. Hamas becoming a leader in the region - which could be the result of the Gaza invasion due to increased fervor against the Jewish state - would be a devastating blow to the future of Jews in Israel.

Jeffrey Goldberg writes in a Times op-ed about the difficulties securing a lasting peace with Hamas. They center on the fact that Hamas does not seek a compromise peace, they are looking for the elimination of the Jewish state. One Hamas leader said,

Allah changed disobedient Jews into apes and pigs, it is true, but he specifically said these apes and pigs did not have the ability to reproduce," Mr. Rayyan said. "So it is not literally true that Jews today are descended from pigs and apes, but it is true that some of the ancestors of Jews were transformed into pigs and apes, and it is true that Allah continually makes the Jews pay for their crimes in many different ways. They are a cursed people.

Goldberg also writes,

The moderate Arab states, Europe, the United States and, mainly, Israel, must help Hamas's enemy, Fatah, prepare the West Bank for real freedom, and then hope that the people of Gaza, vast numbers of whom are unsympathetic to Hamas, see the West Bank as an alternative to the squalid vision of Hassan Nasrallah and Nizar Rayyan.

He's absolutely right. If Israel can begin a legitimate peace process with Fatah, based on a permanent ceasefire and tangible benefits for both sides, then Hamas will fall further and further into irrelevance. If it continues to kill hundreds of civilians, on the other hand, the anti-Israel, anti-Jew position will only grow stronger and seriously threaten the future of Jews in Israel.

Three Steps Forward

Watching 24 definitely makes you think about the morality of torture in a fictional world. But as a liberal in the real world, is it possible to enjoy 24 despite its implicit support for terrorism? This week's season 7 premier proves the answer to be yes, but AmericaBlog asks this difficult question.

Wherever you land on that important issue, it is difficult to deny that by far the most horrendous legacy of President Bush's two terms is the torture at Guantanamo Bay that was not only approved by the President, but became de-facto law. AmericaBlog reports that Obama will announce his plans to close Guantanamo after he is inaugurated on January 20. This does not mean that the detention facility will close immediately. President-elect Obama has already said that it could take a year to finalize the end of Guantanamo Bay because of the deeply complicated nature of international law and the difficulty of placing the 250 terrorist suspects, many of whom have not been charged with any crime, in an appropriate setting.

Although it is not soon enough, this is an extremely encouraging development that says a lot about the Obama administration. First, the United States no longer supports torture. Throughout the campaign I was surprised by how few times Obama, Biden or other democratic surrogates mentioned torture. Under the leadership of George W. Bush, this country that has stood as a beacon and freedom for so many across the world for hundreds of years, embraced torture as national policy. The reality of that is both terrifying and deeply sad. Though closing Guantanamo Bay does not make up for that, it shows that we are at least willing to admit this error and attempt to rebrand our moral image.

It will be interesting to see how Obama closes the detention facility. Back in November, the newly elected Obama unveiled plans to pursue out-of-the-box methods of prosecuting terrorists. They endorsed a "hybrid approach" which would combine necessary aspects of military courts with the liberties associated with civilian courts. As I wrote back in November, Republicans oppose this approach because it could bring terrorist suspects to US soil, and Democrats are weary about it because these suspects would not receive all the rights guaranteed for American citizens. For that reason, the plan is constitutionally unstable and, if implemented, would probably require the Supreme Court's attention.

The closing of Guantanamo Bay also indicates, as AmericaBlog writes, "that Team Obama is starting to realize that it needs to reach out to the left, and not just the right." This is the third issue that surfaced in the past few days on which Obama has made statements that satisfied the liberal base of the Democratic party.

But the meaning of closing Guantanamo Bay seriously transcends politics. It shows that Obama might make good on the hope that he inspired during his campaign to begin a process that re instills pride in our country.

In an interview with The Atlantic this week, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the internationally acclaimed peace activist, spoke of his disappointment that the United States now uses torture.

He must close Guantanamo Bay immediately. That must be one of the first things he does. You know, for someone who comes from South Africa, it is one of the greatest letdowns I've ever experienced that America, Britain, whom we had regarded as--I mean, they were our starlode. Or is it lodestar?

Hoo hoo! Yes, our lodestar. These countries were so insistent in the days of apartheid. When we had detention without trial in South Africa, they condemned it out of hand. I mean, it is one of the greatest letdowns that these countries should, without batting an eyelid, be using the same arguments that were used by the apartheid government. You feel so, so despondent.

Three Steps Foward

It's not incredibly easy to be pro-Israel lately. Of course, there are very powerful big picture reasons to side with Israel. But with the death toll raising above 800, more than half of whom are civilians, the heart revolts against the logic of supporting Israel from time to time. I just wanted to highlight some powerful Pro-Israel arguments from the past week.

Most significantly is the campaign of J Street, the self proclaimed "political arm of the pro-Israel pro-peace movement." They have started an online ceasefire petition that argues that a ceasefire is politically and morally the right move for Israel. They also provide answers to frequently asked questions about being pro-Israel during this campaign in Gaza.

From M.J. Rosenberg at TPM Cafe:  "Ceasefire Now!"

Also, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic:"The Moral Responsibilities of Israeli Soldiers"

You're not Hamas. You're better than Hamas. So act it. [...] So when you operate, operate with the children in mind. It's a burden Hamas has placed on you -- it's no joy to fight an enemy who hides behind his children. But that's what you're facing. And when you come across scenes like the one described in this Washington Post story, help the children.

You can protect your country and be the moral superior at the same time. Ruthlessly target those responsible for anti-Israel attacks. But do everything possible to reduce civilian casualties, especially among children. And help the innocents of the other side whenever possible. That's how you earn the trust of international public opinion.

Three Steps Forward

Have you ever noticed how bread does not last long enough? You'll buy a loaf, use four slices immediately, and then let it sit on the shelf for two weeks. By the time you try to use the remaining slices, its stale, or even worse, moldy. Well this loaf is a lot like Barack Obama's political capital if it is not used quickly and correctly. In his first 100 days, President Obama could make delicious tuna and PB&J sandwiches. But recently it looks like he'll let the bread mold grasping for bi-partisanship.

It's clear that Obama's economic stimulus plan doesn't cut the mustard. By trying to get 80 votes in the Senate, he risks losing too much trying to appease Republicans. Obama doesn't have to do this. The stimulus plan will pass easily with the 59 Democrats and a handful of moderate Republican Senators who support it.

But Obama is making good on the promise to be the President for everyone, not just liberals. While this is a laudable goal, Obama risks wasting his mandate even before his first term begins. When you have political capital, use it to make big advances on important issues, not to grab 15 unnecessary votes that will only weaken a desperately needed economic stimulus plan.

Obama's popularity complex worries John Judas, too. He is concerned that "<span><span>the president elect is underestimating the problem he and the country faces.</span>" Judis calls for a much more extensive stimulus plan that includes funds to increase high speed public transportation. The closest equivalent we have to Europe's impressive example is Amtrak's Acela line, which is limited largely to the northeast corner of the country and is very expensive. But the extension of high speed transit would require a massive investment, which Congress has not even come close to supporting. </span>

Judas continues:

Investing in high-speed rails would be very expensive, but unlike tax cuts--the benefits of which can be siphoned off in the purchase of imported goods--the money spent would go directly to reviving American industry and improving the country's trade balance. That doesn't just mean jobs creating dedicated tracks or new rail stations: Though the U.S. abandoned train manufacturing decades ago to the French, Germans, Canadians, and Japanese, this kind of production could be undertaken by our ailing auto companies or aircraft companies--if the federal and state governments were to place orders. And building trains that would run on electricity would be a paradigmatic example of the "green jobs" that Obama often touts.

In short, its worth the investment. Krugman agrees. $800 Billion is a lot of money, but if it funds an incomplete and insufficient plan, then it is wasted. I'd rather see a more expensive stimulus plan that serves as the final word and gets us back on track. We can kill two birds with one giant, expensive stone. Build a much-need U.S. high-speed transit system and stimulate the economy. This is possible without pandering to Senate Republicans.

Congressional Democrats are rightly frustrated by Obama's concessions, and they are not afraid to show it. The stimulus issue was the final and most important disappointment in a week of Democratic division which included the Blago/Burris Illinios scandal, the Panetta/Fienstein miscommunication, and the choice of TV star Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon General.

Obama is the President of all Americans, red, blue, and purple. But he won a huge mandate in November's election, supported by large majorities in the House and Senate. Obama needs to use that advantage to pass a working stimulus plan, even if it squeaks by with 61 votes.

Otherwise, he's wasting perfectly good bread.

Read more: Three Steps Forward

Projectile Politics

Josh Marshall of TPM wrote today that the Joe Biden model of the Vice Presidency could be closer to the Dick Cheney model than we might hope. It's an interesting argument based largely on the fact that Joe Biden is old enough that he would likely not run for President in 2016 (he would be 74) and therefore does not have to weigh the politics of extensive VP involvement, just as Cheney did not.

Vice President Cheney's clout within the Bush administration is heavily tied to the fact that the he early -- and quite credibly because of his medical history -- disavowed any plans to seek the presidency in his own right. We're in the midst of a four decade trend toward more and more powerful and influential vice-presidents (in the sense of clout not constitutional prerogative). But the big brake on the veep's role in decision-making has always been the fact that everyone else who wants to be president someday has a strong interest in keeping his power in check.

But I think that Biden will only have as much power as President-elect Obama allows. The Obama machine has been incredibly well oiled since it began more than two years ago and I don't think this will change after Obama is inaugurated. From what I can tell, Cheney was so involved in the Bush presidency because Bush wanted and needed that. He simply did not have the knowledge and political ability to do it by himself.

But despite his inexperience, Obama is a competent leader and skilled politician. I don't see Biden making a play for extensive powers without Obama squashing it. But if Obama wants an involved VP, then it will happen.

There are a few areas in which Obama could use the Vice President's help. First, there is foreign policy, Biden's strong suit. As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the choice of Biden as VP was a clear sign that Obama would look to his running mate for support on issues of national security and international diplomacy. But some early Obama cabinet picks shows that he would also look elsewhere for help. This was especially apparent in his choice for Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, another high profile foreign relations authority.

It's still early to predict what Biden's role will be in the White House. But I predict that Obama will set the tone for that role and Biden, whether he wants to or not, will have to obey.

NYTimes on VPs