Features of progressivism in the Obama era.

The conventional wisdom around town is that President Obama’s approval ratings are dropping and he is facing resistance because he “hasn’t done anything” with his presidency so far. This statement belies the fact that enormous amounts of progress have been made on what were historically very large issues; because this progress happened not to have ticker-tape legislation attached to it, it’s often overlooked. The occasion for these reflections is the recent extension of federal hate crime protections to gays and lesbians. While the Violent Crime Control and Enforcement Act of 1994 granted hate crime protections to victims of crime targeted at race, religion, and sex, sexual orientation was omitted until Thursday when it was attached as a rider to a defense appropriations bill. Of course, this is not how the Shepard Act should have passed, but pass it did. Those who remember the battles over hate crimes and thought crimes in Congress in the early nineties know that this is no marginal step. Jim DeMint knows it too, in his perverse way, saying “the bill was a ‘dangerous step’ toward thought crimes. He asked whether the bill would ’serve as a warning to people not to speak out too loudly about their religious views.’”

The broader point is that hate crimes legislation is sneaking in largely under the radar. This White House has proven extraordinarily deft at directing attention toward certain efforts, allowing them to pursue deep changes in areas that would otherwise have been controversial. Here’s a doozy: despite being the major cleavage during two years of campaigning for the Presidency (to say nothing of the campaign four years prior), withdrawal from Iraq is proceeding with hardly a hitch. American society is not engulfed by caustic battles over its efficacy or the future of Iraq or Middle East stability or a democracy agenda. Here are a couple more: the FCC has moved to codify net neutrality regulations (which Jon McCain is currently trying to roll back); the EPA has classified a broad range of carbon emissions as harmful pollutants, on the way to pursuing to stricter regulations on greenhouse gases; SCHIP was renewed; tough steps have been taken to end the use of torture by America’s armed services; new ethics regulations for White House employees were put in in place, as were new standards on transparency and the release of Presidential documents; the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act expanded funding for promising forms of alternative energy; and he has taken steps to roll back subsidies to large agribusiness firms. As always, PolitiFact.com maintains a list of Obama’s kept promises and failures, for those anxious for a deeper look.

But I think the broader point stands: a great deal has been done, and very quickly. So why does the perception of inactivity persist? I actually think it has less to do with direction and misdirection of the public’s attention and more to do with the fact that many of these were the right steps and so have become unobjectionable, even obvious, fairly quickly. This is an enduring feature of progressivism: while most progressive initiatives are controversial when proposed, and mistaken initiatives rightly provoke backlash, well-conceived progressivism tends to become part of the fabric of our identity relatively quickly and thoroughgoing dissent fails to materialize. (Notice that it is not only progressivism that has this feature, but also some fiscal measures like tax cuts or subsidies; expansions of human rights, like hate crimes protections, are particularly felicitous examples.) This is not to say that Obama does not have tough fights ahead; what it does mean is that he has sequenced things in such a way that he could continue to progress on a number of fronts while fighting one top line progressive battle at a time. That’s just good politics, it’s good for the country, and it’s good for the world.

a.j.m.

Filed under: Domestic, Liberalism , hate crimes, human rights, progressivism

A Theory of Change

Today, as we steer a new course at the United Nations, our guiding principles are clear: We value the U.N. as a vehicle for advancing U.S. policies and priorities, and universal values…We work for change from within rather than criticizing from the sidelines. We stand firm in defense of America’s interests and values, but we don’t dissent just to be contrary. We listen to states great and small. We build coalitions. We meet our responsibilities. We pay our bills. We push for real reform. And we remember that in an interconnected world, what’s good for others is often good for America as well.

—UN Ambassador Susan Rice, speaking today at NYU.

Brian

Filed under: Grand Strategy, International Organization, Liberalism, Practicing Politics, Who We Are, the next order

Arrest them all and let God sort it out

While Adam’s right that the problem with the purported rise in fraud, conflicts of interest, bribery, etc., is basically ethical, it’s worth emphasizing the liberal response must be fundamentally economic. This isn’t just because liberal governments aren’t in the business of deciding whether it’s moral to cheat: fraud and other forms of economic cheating usually have adverse effects on social welfare. I’m not saying all questions of morality manifest themselves in material externalities, but with these particular sins the proper response should be a mix of economic incentives and, more importantly, effective regulation. It’s not the sexiest solution, but it’s the only one that keeps the state from having to arbitrate shifting standards of good behavior while minimizing the externalities of what may be unethical behavior.

UPDATE—What got buried in the heart of this post was the point I intended on making in the first place, namely, that the moral ills of graft and theft distort markets and damage the expectations of members of society. The reason to punish and regulate fraud isn’t because it’s immoral, but because fraud makes society less prosperous. Transparency and fairness are implicit goods for many of us, but they should be top priorities of policy makers because people are better off when they’re not getting stolen from.

—Brian

Filed under: Domestic, Economics, Liberalism

Fourty-four.

I realize I’ve been very quiet around here lately. Part of that is a function of the academic calendar, but at least as important is that I’m still reeling from the events of earlier this month. I’m not sure there is much to be said; I haven’t got my head all the way around it yet. Except to say this: it’s expected that this will be the first time in the history of the country that the National mall will be filled—from the steps of the capitol, past the Washington monument, to the steps of the Lincoln memorial—with four million exuberant American souls. 

Maybe not since Lincoln has our country had such need of leadership. Our world is safe, but has been set on fire by the poor management of the our economy and a national ethic of selfish entitlement. We need to change the way we power this country; how we feed ourselves; how we transport ourselves. We need to learn to raise the eyes of our society beyond the narrow present and consider the weight of our actions on future generations. We live in a time when our understanding of politics and policy have nearly solved some of the basic problems of human existence; war, privation, repression, the unknown, the future—these feel quite distant for many in the industrialized world. To be complacent about the necessity for a progressive politics is such an easy thing in a time like this, but the problems we face are vast, complex, and elusive and are defended by the accumulated weight of a society that thinks it has conquered the world. 

It is a time of enormous possibility and a time for monumental purpose. And it is in this situation, in the last month while I was wondering what to say, I’ve been elated by the thought that Obama is precisely the man for our time. 

—a.j. mount

Filed under: Liberalism , 44, NGL

The simple solutions to impossible problems.

The Economist, in a quick profile of Giant bikes’ record year, runs the exhilarating attached graphlet showing bicycle adoption; it should remind us that the sheer breadth of the problems we face should not obscure the fact that many of them share common—and sometimes very simple—solutions:

“Suddenly a bicycle seems like the remedy for many modern ills, from petrol prices to pollution and obesity.”

Path dependency, of course, is a constant concern: we are bound by our previous lack of foresight and failure to plan for a future world. In this case, think of how we designed our cities, and how phenomenally constrictive this is: in service to an ethic of personal freedom, each citizen buys one or more personal automobiles and then conveys themselves on enormous streets which take up some large percentage of the space within cities and devotes them to the production of noise and burning fossil fuels. Our cities are built this way and it can’t be changed. The choice now becomes whether we choose to reclaim this redundant unnecessary space as communal parks and playgrounds and and gardens and walk a couple of extra blocks to a public transit system.

I mean, come on! The primary benefit of a city is that you can take advantage of economies of scale! If nothing else, a city should rationalize the transportation system such that most people can be moved to most places most efficiently. The day a major American metropolis bans cars in its borders will herald a revolution in how we live our lives.

This, again, is the lesson of the Economist quote: thought of properly, many of the overwhelming problems we face are susceptible to common, simple solutions. Slowing climate change also helps us achieve energy independence, which can help promote human health through increased exercise and a better diet, produced closer to home—all four issues can help improve our national security. A healthy society, in other words, will prevent problems from occurring, and find ways to solve existing ones concurrently.

The concept of the international interest outlined here applies a similar perspective to international security. When we face these types of positive sum solutions, but seem unable to grasp them, the solution must be political leadership. I hope to spend some time very soon explicating the tradition of and the prospects for just this type of national greatness liberalism.

Filed under: Energy, Liberalism , bikes, cities, climate change, food, NGL, TII