Category: Uncategorized

New Poll Shows Tradeoffs on Immigration

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It’s been pretty obvious for a while that there’s a major split between Hispanics and non-Hispanics on the immigration policy furor sparked by Arizona’s new law authorizing state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration laws.

A new MSNBC/NBC/Telemundo poll helps outline the political choices this situation poses for both parties.

To put it simply, white Americans tend to support the Arizona law while Hispanics tend to oppose it, by roughly even two-to-one margins. But the internals of the poll tell a more interesting story. The short-term advantage to Republicans of loudly backing the Arizona law is reinforced by the fact that many Democratic-leaning voters — notably suburban women and women over 50 — say they’d look favorably on candidates raising Arizona. And the long-term problem for Republicans is reinforced by the finding that hostility to the Arizona law — and to the GOP — is especially strong among younger Hispanics.

Complicating the picture further is the fact that a sizeable majority of all Americans (60-29) continue to support some sort of comprehensive immigration reform with provisions that include stronger border security and sanctions against both employers of undocumented workers and the workers themselves–short, however, of deportation. (This is what Democratic Strategist Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira has been pointing out). And big majorities want Congress to do something about the problem.

This last finding may tempt Democrats to move ahead with comprehensive reform in Congress, heightening Hispanic hostility to alternative approaches while convincing non-Hispanic voters that it’s possible to increase enforcement without deportation schemes or potential harrassment of citizens and legal immigrants. But as Jon Chait notes today, certain GOP obstruction of comprehensive immigration reform legislation might simply increase the frustration of both Hispanic and non-Hispanic voters about the status quo, while shifting attention away from Republican extremism on the subject. And as William Galston recently argued, highlighting this issue is a perilous strategy for Democrats, given the likely composition of the 2010 electorate.

There are big risks and big tradeoffs for both parties in making immigration a big issue in 2010. I doubt Republicans in most parts of the country are going to be able to keep themselves from expressing solidarity with Arizona and trying to make this a wedge issue. Democrats need to be more consciously strategic than that, which probably means a principled position that avoids the extremes of “amnesty” as well as deportation or ethnic profiling by law enforcement agencies — but that also makes Republicans play offense on immigration, and lets them become truly offensive.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

PPI Capital Forum Webcast

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Turnaround Schools: Rising to the Challenge

progressivepolicyinstitute on livestream.com. Broadcast Live Free

PPI’s forum examined the challenges facing administrators, students and teachers in bringing about lasting change to low-performing schools.

Download the full transcript.

Featured panelists:

Michelle Rhee
Chancellor, District of Columbia Public Schools
The Honorable Jared Polis (D)
U.S. Representative, Colorado
David Cicarella
President, New Haven Federation of Teachers
Justin Cohen
President, The School Turnaround Group, Mass Insight Education
Jordan Meranus
Partner, NewSchools Venture Fund

The Palin Steamroller Hits Speed Bump in Idaho

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Sarah Palin, political kingmaker (or queenmaker, as the case may be), has been on quite a roll lately. She was one of the very first national Republicans to endorse Rand Paul before he went on to trounce Trey Grayson and become the new face of the Tea Party Triumphant. And more recently, candidates for highly competitive June 8 primaries in California (Carly Fiorina) and South Carolina (Nikki Haley) have surged in the polls shortly after a Palin endorsement.

But Palin’s rep as someone with the political Midas Touch took a hit yesterday in, of all places, her native state of Idaho. In the Republican primary to face vulnerable Democratic congressman Walt Minnick, the candidate that Palin (like other national Republicans) endorsed and personally campaigned for, Vaughan Ward, lost yesterday to state Rep. Raul Labrador.

Vaughan had a very large financial advantage in the race, but succumbed in no small part because of high-profile stumbles, including a speech in which he (or his speechwriter) lifted whole lines from Barack Obama’s famous 2004 convention keynote address (!), and a debate where he insisted that Puerto Rico is a foreign country (which didn’t get past Labrador, who was born there).

You can rightly say none of that was Palin’s fault, but she did do her personal appearance with Ward after, not before, his most famous gaffes. Labrador had some Tea Party backing (though Minnick, who has voted against most of the top Obama administration initiatives, has actually been endorsed by Tea Party Express, which apparently wanted to boost its nonpartisan bona fides), and was also supported by the local conservative hero, former congressman Bill Sali. In any event, St. Joan of the Tundra couldn’t pull her guy across the finish line.

In other news of Palin-backed candidates, the bizarre saga in South Carolina involving allegations by a political blogger (and longtime conservative activist) that he had an “inappropriate physical relationship” with Nikki Haley continues to hang fire. The site which originally published the allegations is now trickling out purported text message records involving conversations between the blogger and Haley’s campaign manager that indicate the two were collaborating very recently on efforts to supress rumors of an affair, but don’t really corroborate the affair itself. And the Palmetto State zeitgeist seems to be turning in Haley’s favor, in the absence, so far at least, of real evidence to back the allegations.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/savannahgrandfather/ / CC BY 2.0

PPI Capital Forum Livestream

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Watch live streaming video from progressivepolicyinstitute at livestream.com
The program will begin at 11:30 a.m.

PPI Capital Forum – Turnaround Schools: Rising to the Challenge

PPI’s forum will examine the challenges facing administrators, students and teachers in bringing about lasting change to low-performing schools.

Featured panelists:

Michelle Rhee
Chancellor, District of Columbia Public Schools
The Honorable Jared Polis (D)
U.S. Representative, Colorado
David Cicarella
President, New Haven Federation of Teachers
Justin Cohen
President, The School Turnaround Group, Mass Insight Education
Jordan Meranus
Partner, NewSchools Venture Fund

Polis, Rhee and Education Leaders to Speak on Turnaround Schools

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Wednesday, May 26, Representative Jared Polis (D-CO) and District of Columbia Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee along with leading experts on turnaround schools will join the Progressive Policy Institute Initiative to examine the challenge of turning around low-performing schools.

The United States has fallen behind as the world leader in educating students preparing for college or the workforce. The Obama administration, with the leadership of Department of Education Secretary Arnie Duncan, has made a commitment to improve America’s schools and provide every child with a world-class education. In the recently released education reform “blueprint,” President Obama noted that turning around low-performing schools is essential in providing America’s children with the education they deserve.

WHO

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO)
Michelle Rhee, Chancellor, D.C. Public Schools
David Cicarella, President, New Haven Federation of Teachers
Justin Cohen, President, The School Turnaround Group, Mass Insight Education
Jordan Meranus, Partner, NewSchools Venture Fund
Will Marshall, President, Progressive Policy Institute

WHAT

PPI will host a forum with education leaders and policy experts that will examine the challenges facing administrators, students and teachers in bringing about lasting change to low-performing schools.

WHEN

11:30 a.m. – 1:30 p.m. Wednesday, May 26

WHERE

Grand Ballroom, Mandarin Oriental Hotel, 1330 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, D.C.

MEDIA COVERAGE

The event is open to the press. Camera pre-set: 11:15 a.m. Media wishing to attend should contact Steven Chlapecka at schlapecka@ppionline.org.

For further questions, please contact Steven Chlapecka at schlapecka@ppionline.org, 202.525.3931 (office), 202.556.1752 (cell).

# # #

Hawaii Gets a GOP Congressman (for Six Months)

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Since my last update, there’s been a special election in Hawaii to fill the unexpired portion of Democratic Rep. Neil Abercrombie’s term (Abercrombie resigned to focus on his gubernatorial bid). And as widely expected, a split in the Democratic vote gave the seat to Republican Charles Djou, who won 39 percent of the vote, while state senator Colleen Hanabusa got 30 percent and former congressman Ed Case took 27 percent.

It was an embarrassing setback not just for Hawaii Democrats but for those in Washington, who eventually threw up their hands and got out of the race having failed to convince either Democrat to withdraw in favor of the other. The general election in November, however, will be a different matter, since only one Democrat will be on the ballot, so Djou is probably getting no more than an extended taxpayer-financed vacation in Our Nation’s Capital.

In Connecticut, the two parties held nominating conventions for the U.S. Senate, and recently embattled Attorney General Richard Blumenthal brushed off criticism over his “misstatement” about serving in Vietnam to win the Democratic nod. On the Republican side, self-funding conservative wrestling executive Linda McMahon upset the longtime front-runner, former Rep. Rob Simmons. Just today, after initially indicating he would fight for the nomination in a primary, Simmons suspended his campaign.

Now national political attention is being focused on a batch of upcoming primaries: notably Alabama (gubernatorial primaries in both parties) on June 1 and Arkansas (the Senate runoff), California (GOP primaries for governor and Senate), Iowa (Republican gubernatorial primary), Nevada (Republican gubernatorial and Senate primaries) and South Carolina (gubernatorial primaries in both parties) on June 8.

Most of the news on these contests involves new polling data, and we’ll get to that in a moment. But aficionados of political sleaze and scandal are again being drawn to South Carolina, where front-running Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley, a Mark Sanford protégé, has been hit with allegations of an illicit affair by her alleged former lover, a political blogger who once worked for both Sanford and Haley. Haley has angrily denied the allegations, and has been backed up by prominent supporter Sarah Palin, who, like Haley, suggests the whole thing is a smear made up by Haley’s political enemies. The site that published the allegations is now indicating it has possession of verifying information in the form of emails and text messages between the alleged lovers, and is threatening to make it available to the courts (if sued), if not the public. The Columbia State’s front-page story on the furor says the allegations have plunged the gubernatorial race into “turmoil,” which seems a fair assessment.

Poll Watch

The timing of the Haley brouhaha is interesting: today a second consecutive poll (conducted before the story broke), this one from PPP, came out showing her opening up a big lead in the primary, though probably heading for a runoff (Haley’s at 39 percent, with three rivals — Attorney General Henry McMaster, U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett, and Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer — bunched together in the teens).

In other polling developments, SUSA’s got a new poll out in CA, which shows Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman and Senate candidate Carly Fiorina opening up sudden big leads. The last SUSA poll, just two weeks ago, had Steve Poizner closing to within the margin of error against Whitman, and Fiorina trailing Tom Campbell by 11 points. Now they have Whitman up 54-27, and Fiorina up over Campbell 46-23 (with Chuck DeVore at 14 percent). By contrast, the R2K/DKos poll released four days ago showed Campbell leading Fiorina 37-22 (with DeVore at 14 percent), and Whitman with a narrower 46-36 lead over Poizner. Will all this contradictory data swirling around, I suspect the expectations for the primary will be set once the more authoritative Field and LA Times polls come out, probably this week.

A new R2K/DKos poll of Alabama has a surprisingly close race for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, with U.S. Rep. Artur Davis holding a 41-33 lead over state Agriculture Secretary Ronnie Sparks. Sparks has been getting endorsements from African-American groups recently, though Davis, who has heavily outspent Sparks, is still the favorite to win without a runoff. On the Republican side, the poll confirmed months of data showing Bradley Byrne leading a large field (though with far less than necessary to win without a runoff) with 29 percent; Judge Roy Moore running second at 23 percent; and Tim James — Moore’s longtime rival for the Christian Right vote — third at 17 percent.

On the heels of Andrew Cuomo’s official announcement of candidacy for governor of New York, Siena has a new poll showing the Democrat trouncing likely Republican nominee Rick Lazio by a 66-24 margin. The same poll also shows big leads for two other Democrats, Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirstin Gillibrand.

And soon after Republican Dino Rossi’s long-awaited announcement that he would challenge Sen. Patty Murray, the University of Washington published a poll showing Murray leading Rossi 44-40 in what will likely be a long, tough race.

Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs every Tuesday and Friday.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell On Its Way Out

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

You’ve probably heard the news by now, but word is that President Obama and Congress have reached an essential compromise on the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), a law that keeps homosexuals in the military so long as they’re quiet about it, and kicks them out if they’re not. The new compromise allows homosexuals to serve openly:

The compromise was finalized in meetings Monday at the White House and on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers will now, within days, vote on amendments that would repeal the Clinton-era policy, with a provision ensuring that any change would not take effect until after the Pentagon completes a study about its impact on troops. That study is due to Congress by Dec. 1.

The Washington Post goes on to note that conservative Democrats claim that they would oppose DADT’s repeal unless military leaders support the new law. Guess what? They already have. Here’s Chairman of the Joints Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen in Senate testimony in February:

[I]t is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.

Republicans have tried to distort the issue, claiming that the integration of homosexuals into the military amounts to a “liberal policy agenda,” which of course contradicts the chairman. Not to mention the fact that it makes America’s military, and the country, stronger. Here’s what Kyle Bailey said on P-Fix in March:

Under DADT, almost 800 “mission-critical” troops have been discharged in the last five years, including at least 59 Arabic and nine Farsi linguists. These unnecessary discharges create additional challenges and risks for our brave young men and women on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. …

DADT unnecessarily limits the pool of potential recruits, including some of the best and brightest young minds we need to win the war on terror and run our military in the decades to come. According to recent estimates, some 4,000 service members each year choose not to re-enlist because of the policy, and 41,000 gay and bisexual men might choose to enlist or re-enlist if the policy were repealed.

Kyle’s right. This isn’t just about social policy — it’s about national security.

Photo Credit: Chairman of the Join Chiefs of Staff’s Photostream

Obama’s Commencement Address at West Point

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Over the weekend, President Obama gave a commencement address at West Point that continued to define his vision of America’s place in the world. This was really a coda to the speech he gave in Oslo when he received his Nobel Prize, in which he laid out the case for the morally justified use of force.

Obama used his December speech at West Point to announce a new strategy and troop deployment to Afghanistan, and this address provided the broader framework into which the Afghan strategy can be contextualized. It’s almost as if the president was saying, “Don’t worry, I’m not sending you off to war every time I speak here. I want you to understand the long-view, too.”

Some blogs, like over at HuffPo, have focused on Obama’s “repudiation” of Bush’s foreign policy. And there was certainly enough of that:

America has not succeeded by stepping out of the currents of cooperation — we have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice, so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities and face consequences when they don’t.

So we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation. We will be steadfast in strengthening those old alliances that have served us so well, including those who will serve by your side in Afghanistan and around the globe. As influence extends to more countries and capitals, we also have to build new partnerships, and shape stronger international standards and institutions.

This engagement is not an end in itself. The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times — countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing wounds. If we are successful in these tasks, that will lessen conflicts around the world.

That doesn’t sound much like Bush at all, particularly in the pre-2005 period. And that’s, of course, a good thing. The rhetoric of shock-n-awe has been replaced by calm recognition of the actual challenges of the 21st century.

Some on the right will undoubtedly attempt to cast the more reserved rhetoric as too dovish. But of course it’s difficult to argue that this reason-driven commander in chief was playing to a lefty crowd when he sent more troops to Afghanistan.

I was more struck by the parallels between Obama and Harry Truman. Both drew linkages between America’s domestic strengths and its ability to retain primacy in the international arena.

Here’s what Obama said this weekend:

[W]e must first recognize that our strength and influence abroad begins with steps we take at home. We must educate our children to compete in an age where knowledge is capital, and the marketplace is global. We must develop clean energy that can power new industry and unbound us from foreign oil and preserve our planet. We have to pursue science and research that unlocks wonders as unforeseen to us today as the microchip and the surface of the moon were a century ago.

American innovation must be the foundation of American power — because at no time in human history has a nation of diminished economic vitality maintained its military and political primacy. And so that means that the civilians among us, as parents and community leaders, elected officials, business leaders, we have a role to play. We cannot leave it to those in uniform to defend this country — we have to make sure that America is building on its strengths.

Now compare that to Truman’s 1949 State of the Union address:

Our domestic programs are the foundation of our foreign policy. The world today looks to us for leadership because we have so largely realized, within our borders, those benefits of democratic government for which most of the peoples of the world are yearning.

We are following a foreign policy which is the outward expression of the democratic faith we profess. We are doing what we can to encourage free states and free peoples throughout the world, to aid the suffering and afflicted in foreign lands, and to strengthen democratic nations against aggression.

It might be “democracy” to Truman and “innovation” to Obama, but that’s reflective of the times. The tie-in between domestic progress and international power remains strong and, as important as it is to distinguish between Bush and Obama, we should heed that lesson as well.

Photo credit: The U.S. Army’s photostream

You Don’t Have to Be Racist To Hate the 20th Century

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Before we move on from the controversy over Rand Paul’s comments on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it’s important to understand that controversy over his political philosophy is likely to persist. And ironically, that’s especially true if the accusations of active or latent racism on Paul’s part are completely unfair.

If Paul’s original observations on the Civil Rights Act were motivated by indifference to discrimination against minorities, or the conviction some conservatives share that any government action to protect minorities is itself racism, then the controversy is limited to this one topic. In that case, the damage is limited to those voters who care about civil rights, many of whom will not be voting for Rand Paul in Kentucky or Republicans anywhere else.

But if, as his defenders insist (and as the record seems to support), Paul is simply expressing the consistent view that the operations of free markets, not government, are the best guarantor of individual rights in general and the interests of the poor and minorities in particular, and that the U.S. Constitution, rightly interpreted, reflects this conviction, then other, equally controversial issues may come into play, and not just those that involve other types of discrimination.

Most immediately, it’s worth remembering that principled, non-racist opponents of civil rights laws have to accept responsibility for their tacit alliances with racists. Best I can tell, Barry Goldwater did not have a prejudiced bone in his body. But there can be zero doubt that thanks to his “principled” opposition to the Civil Rights Act, his 1964 presidential campaign was totally dominated by segregationists in five of the six states he carried in the General Election, and served as the “bridge” whereby segregationists eventually migrated from the Democratic to the Republican party. At some point, the subjective motivation of civil rights opponents, past, present or future, becomes rather irrelevant.

But more importantly, Rand Paul’s concerns with the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act suggest a radical outlook with political implications that go far beyond civil rights. After all, the provisions of the Civil Rights Act that limit the right to discriminate by private property owners depend on the same chain of “activist” Supreme Court decisions that made possible the major New Deal and Great Society initiatives, involving interpretations of the General Welfare, Commerce and Spending clauses that today’s (like yesterday’s) “constitutional conservatives” routinely deplore. Rand Paul’s campaign platform reflects the common Tea Party demand that the federal government be restricted to the specific enumerated powers spelled out in the Constitution. This constitutional fundamentalism, which appears to object to every expansion of federal power enacted since 1937, is made more explicit by Rand and Ron Paul’s friends in the Constitution Party, which forthrightly calls Social Security unconstitutional and demands that it be phased out immediately.

So: instead of challenging Rand Paul’s latest backtracking on the Civil Rights Act, or calling him racist, progressives would be better advised to corner him on his attitude towards the constitutionality of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which, like the Civil Rights Act, reflect functions of the federal government that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

Add in the fact that Rand Paul has been calling for an immediate balancing of the federal budget without tax cuts, which would require some drastic action on federal spending, and it becomes plain that his honest and principled (at least up until his flip-flop on the Civil Rights Act) efforts to apply “constitutional conservative” doctrines to current affairs imply policies that when spelled out would repel many, many voters — just like Goldwater’s platform in 1964.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

Get Ready for School Turnaround Fight

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Improving urban schools is slow, laborious work, like turning around the proverbial supertanker. But last week brought heartening evidence that Washington, D.C.’s schools have a competent skipper at the helm.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reported that the District’s traditional public schools boosted fourth-grade reading scores faster than any of the 18 urban school districts taking its test. Those scores rose six points over the past two years, while eighth-grade reading scores increased by four points. These gains have been widely hailed as proof – even by erstwhile skeptics — that D.C. School Chancellor Michelle Rhee’s controversial efforts to boost student performance are beginning to get traction.

They are also good news for Mayor Adrian Fenty, who took over the schools three years ago and brought Rhee in to shake things up. Fenty is locked in a tough reelection fight with D.C. City Council Chairman Vincent Gray, who has sought to capitalize on a local backlash against the Fenty-Rhee reforms.

These changes, however, are likely to look like child’s play compared to the challenge Rhee faces now. She and other school leaders are under mounting pressure from the No Child Left Behind law and the Obama administration to turn around the city’s worst-performing schools. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has challenged struggling districts to turn around the nation’s 5,000 lowest-performing schools, and he’s dangling big carrots as an inducement.

What exactly does ”turning around” schools mean? In order for districts to get the federal money, they must choose one of four strategies to improve their worst schools: turnaround, restart, closure or transformation. Under turnaround and transformation, districts must fire principals, reform instruction and expand learning time. Turnaround also requires that they fire 50 percent of teachers in failing schools. Closure entails shutting such schools down and sending students to better schools in the district. Restart means closing the schools and reopening them as public charter schools or under another type of education management organization.

Why such drastic measures? Because a quarter-century of national attention on such schools, including big increases in funding, haven’t made much of a dent in the large achievement and graduation gaps between suburban, largely white students and urban minorities. Despite the gains in D.C. students’ NAEP scores, for example, the District still ranks well below the average of all U.S. schools, as well as schools in comparable large cities. Says Rhee, with characteristic bluntness, “We still have a ridiculously long way to go.”

It’s not that there haven’t been plenty of individual success stories, especially in the charter school sector which now includes more than 1.5 million students. The big question now is how to scale up the number of high-performing schools available to low-income kids, while dealing with chronic underachievers.

Progressive school reformers, led by President Obama and Duncan, have grown impatient with the agonizingly slow pace of improvement in poor urban and rural areas. With its $3.5 billion Race to the Top Fund, the administration is offering districts incentives to speed things up.

But not all Democrats are ready for more radical, and disruptive, change. Rep. Judy Chu of California last week released a report criticizing school turnaround approaches as unduly drastic and rigid. She won backing from the big teachers’ unions, including Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers.

Skepticism about turnarounds isn’t confined to Democrats, either. Andy Smarick of the American Enterprise Institute believes that efforts to raise the bar for low-performing public schools almost always fail. The more realistic solution, in his view, is to shut them down and replace them with new and better ones, including charters.

But other reformers point to encouraging signs of successful turnarounds in places like Los Angeles, New York and Philadelphia. A key obstacle to success, they say, are district bureaucracies and collective bargaining agreements that undercut the autonomy of school leaders and prevent them from firing bad teachers, extending school days and assessing teachers on the basis of growth in student performance.

PPI will illuminate the pros and cons of school turnarounds in a Capital Forum this Wednesday in Washington. It will feature Chancellor Rhee, Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), and several prominent turnaround experts and critics. The event will be webcast on ProgressiveFix.com starting at 11:30 a.m.

With Rhee driving change in traditional schools, and one of the nation’s largest public charter sectors, Washington is on the front lines of the school reform debate. Stay tuned for the coming battle over turnarounds.

Photo credit: The National Academy of Sciences

Cutting the Tether: Enhancing the U.S. Military’s Energy Performance

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

“Unleash us from the tether of fuel.”

—Gen. James Mattis, former commander of the 1st Marine Division, during the drive to Baghdad, March 2003

 

Executive Summary

The Defense Department has embarked on an important set of reforms that focuses on the impact of our energy policies on our armed forces. However, while there is wide agreement on the objectives, and brilliant efforts have already led to some victories, successes are still few and far between. There are islands of excellence, but we are in need of a continent.

The need for action is clear. First and foremost, we need to reduce the vulnerabilities to our armed forces posed by 20th-century strategies regarding energy. A prime example is the high casualty levels suffered by troops guarding oil and water convoys.

Second, we need to reduce overall fuel cost and price volatility. For decades, the Pentagon has failed to accurately capture the cost of fuel. This failure has consequences for both our actual budget as well as our strategic posture.

Third, we must increase energy security. Our foreign policy and national security decisions too often are influenced or even driven by concerns about our fuel supply.

Fourth, we need to adapt and cope with climate change. The dangers of “climate refugees,” changing borders and aggravated social problems in the developing world present an active and increasing security threat for the U.S. and our allies, and perceived indifference will only diminish global respect for the U.S.

In this paper, we recommend that the Pentagon redouble its efforts on energy as part of a larger strategy to achieve a more efficient and effective security posture. This paper focuses on the concept of “energy performance,” which encompasses where the military gets its energy and how it uses it. We believe that maximizing energy performance will require, in large part, increasing the use of renewable energy, energy efficiency and more strategically favorable sources of energy. After a summary of the current costs and liabilities associated with the Pentagon’s energy posture — and some of the efforts already taken to strengthen it — this paper gives an explanation of several potential solutions going forward:

  • Reform the acquisitions process. The Pentagon should fully account for the cost of battlefield fuel in all purchasing and logistical decisions.
  • Improve in-theater energy performance. The military should implement new energy-performance technology at forward operating bases and other battlefield locations.
  • Boost clean energy and efficiency at all Defense Department installations. For domestic bases, in particular, decreasing dependence on fossil fuels and the public electricity grid removes potential liabilities.
  • Strengthen research and development and enhance commercialization of nascent clean energy technologies. By taking an active role as developer and customer, the Pentagon can help scale up clean tech innovations.

These efforts would ultimately save considerable taxpayer dollars, strengthen the resilience of U.S. forces and yield innovations that not only would enhance the military’s energy performance but also boost American competitiveness.

Download the full report.

Post-Primary Polls: Reading the Tea Leaves

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Tuesday’s round of primaries and special elections was pretty momentous, though the chattering classes continue to argue over their larger meaning, if any.

In Pennsylvania, Rep. Joe Sestak edged incumbent, party-switching Sen. Arlen Specter, ending his long and contentious political career. More exciting to political junkies was the relatively easy Democratic victory in a special election in the twelfth congressional district, in Western Pennsylvania, which Republicans had expected to win. Depending on your point of view, this result either meant that Republicans aren’t going to win the kind of landslide in November that so many have predicted, or that Democrats have to separate themselves from the Obama agenda to survive. Meanwhile, in a very low-key primary, Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato won the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, and begins the general election as an underdog against Republican Attorney General Tom Corbett.

In Kentucky, of course, Rand Paul trounced Secretary of State Trey Grayson, Mitch McConnell’s protégé, for the Republican nomination to succeed Jim Bunning, and instantly became the national symbol of the Tea Party. Attorney General Jack Conway’s strong showing in the Louisville area helped him edge Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo for the Democratic nomination in a race largely devoid of substantive differences between the candidates.

In Arkansas, after an expensive campaign all but dominated by out-of-state interests, labor-backed Lt. Gov. Bill Halter forced business-backed Sen. Blanche Lincoln into a runoff three weeks from now.  A third candidate, the very conservative D.C. Morrison, took 13 percent of the vote but refuses to endorse either candidate in the runoff.

And in Oregon, former Gov. John Kitzhaber easily won the Democratic gubernatorial nomination over former Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, while former NBA player Chris Dudley beat conservative activist Allen Alley for the GOP nod.

This has been a very active week for political pollsters. One of the most controversial surveys was, typically, done by Rasmussen, which did a snap poll after the Kentucky primaries and showed Rand Paul with an astonishing 25-point lead over Jack Conway, for a deconstruction of this survey, see Nate Silver.

The Public Policy Institute of California released a major new poll this week, showing a competitive Republican gubernatorial race between former eBay CEO Meg Whitman and Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner. Whitman has already spent $68 million on her campaign so far, and Poizner’s spent $24 million; their highly negative attack ads against each other are dominating the California airwaves. Meanwhile, Democratic candidate Jerry Brown has moved ahead of both Republicans in PPIC’s general election trial heat. PPIC also showed a close three-way race for the Republican Senate nomination in California, as former Rep. Tom Campbell and former Hewlett Packard executive Carly Fiorina fight for the lead, while conservative hard-liner Chuck DeVore moves up rapidly into contention.  Barbara Boxer, meanwhile, has re-established a lead over all the GOP candidates.

Rasmussen conducted the first poll in several months of the very competitive South Carolina Republican gubernatorial primary, indicating that right-wing favorite Nikki Haley, who trailed the field initially, has leapt into the lead, with Attorney General Henry McMaster, who is the closest thing to a moderate in the race, running second. Controversial Lt. Gov. Andre “Stray Animals” Bauer is running last, with high unfavorables. In a separate poll, Rasmussen found Rep. Vincent Sheehan now running ahead of early front-runner and State School Superintendent Jim Rex in the Democratic gubernatorial contest in South Carolina. Both contests could well be heading for runoffs.

Next door in Georgia, Insider Advantage’s poll of the Republican gubernatorial race shows little change from earlier surveys: State Insurance Commissioner Jim Oxendine leads the field, while former U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal and Secretary of State Karen Handel are battling for second place.  Many Democrats are hoping that Oxendine and Deal, both of whom have been struggling with ethics charges, wind up in a runoff.

And finally, the first post-primary poll in the Pennsylvania Senate race, again by Rasmussen, shows Democrat Joe Sestak running ahead of former U.S. Representative and Club for Growth president, Pat Toomey by four points. This is the first time in many months that Toomey has trailed any Democrat in general election polls, and a very good sign for Sestak.

Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, Resigns

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It would be easy to draw a straight line between the alleged “intelligence failures” of the last six months and Dennis Blair’s resignation. Let in the Underwear Bomber and the Times Square bomber, and heads should roll, right?

Well, not so fast my friend.

Any alleged failing on Blair’s part is a minor reason for his departure. If Faisal Shahzad was the reason, we’d have expected Mark Leiter — head of the National Counter Terrorism Center, NCTC, which falls under the DNI’s purview — to go first.

Blair left because of power, authority and personality conflicts with the White House. More specifically, the DNI position has little power or authority, and Blair got outmaneuvered personally by savvy bureaucratic operators like CIA Director Leon Panetta and White House counter terrorism advisor John Brennan.

Politico reported on Blair’s struggles back in January:

“One reality is Blair is really not political; he is really not good on the Hill,” said one former counterterrorism official. “He doesn’t know how to build coalitions on the Hill. He is really just out there swimming on his own, and he is not doing a very good job for the people who might have pushed expanding the DNI’s power to get behind him on this.”

On the one issue where Blair really chose to take a stand — appointing Chiefs of Station at CIA offices abroad — the White House sided with Panetta. And then there’s the big elephant in the room — budget authority.

Despite being the nominal Director of all 16 US intelligence agencies, the DNI doesn’t control their individual budgets or personnel, except for those under NCTC. That’s a big problem, causing the “boss” to be subject to the machinations of his de facto subordinates. Sure, the DNI has the authority to facilitate collaboration between those individual agencies, but if those agencies’ heads retain enough authority to run their own little fiefdoms, that creates uncomfortable tensions. And Blair didn’t seem politically savvy enough to navigate that mine field.

So, on the personality front, Blair, though a highly respected professional, seems to have been a bit of a fish out of water in this job. Then again, is the DNI job too small a fish in a big ocean?

Defining the DNI’s role from a budgetary point of view should be the next intelligence community reform.

Photo credit: Robert Huffstutter / CC BY-NC 2.0

Rand Paul and the Constitution Party

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

I don’t know how long it’s going to take before the past views and associations of new Republican superstar Rand Paul all come to light, but he’s currently on track to serve as the living link between all sorts of older forms of radical conservatism and the contemporary Tea Party movement. Indeed, it appears that his Lester Maddox-ish instincts about the supremacy of private property rights could be the least of his problems. Now it transpires that just last year he was guest speaker at an event held by the Constitution Party.

Now this is hardly a surprise, since his old man has long been friends with CP founder Howard Phillips, and endorsed that party’s presidential candidate in 2008. But most people don’t know much about the CP, which combines limited-government conservatism with the peculiar doctrines of Christian Reconstructionists, for which a simpler term is Theocrats. And no, I’m not using “Theocrats” as an insult, but as a technical description of what they support.

Here, right off the Constitution Party’s web page, are the opening words of its party platform:

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

What the Constitution Party means by “Constitutional boundaries” is made clearer in the later sections of its platform, particularly this section:

Social Security is a form of individual welfare not authorized in the Constitution.The Constitution grants no authority to the federal government to administrate a Social Security system. The Constitution Party advocates phasing out the entire Social Security program, while continuing to meet the obligations already incurred under the system.

Do you suppose Rand Paul would like to go on Rachel Maddow’s show and discuss the constitutionality of Social Security or the Dominion of Jesus Christ and His Believers over the United States? Probably not. Theocracy and abolishing Social Security don’t poll well. And maybe he doesn’t actually believe this stuff, but simply enjoys the company of extremists.

But Paul does not have some sort of inherent right to pose as a victim when he own words and his own associations come back to haunt him. And I suspect we are just at the tip of that particular iceberg.

This item is cross-posted from The Democratic Strategist.

South Korea’s Response

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

An international investigation has just definitively concluded that North Korea deliberately sunk a South Korean ship with a torpedo. In short, this is bad. Really bad.

I have a theory — only a theory — that this whole kerfuffle might be a tragic case of misinterpretation and over-reaction. Initial reports suggest that South Korean troops fired from their ship at what may have been a flock of birds that had produced an “image” in the ship’s radar.  But if the flock was actually a North Korean sub, it might explain why a nervous Northern skipper — not a coordinated attack directed from Pyongyang — might have returned fire before thinking through the consequences.

In a way, that’s beside the point — the government in Seoul is in a tough spot.  North Korea claims the South has fabricated evidence of the torpedo and is threatening “all out war” if the South deploys “any” retaliation.

That still doesn’t change the fact that we’re left with a very guilty-looking North Korea and a South Korean government treading a very fine line in response.  We know that South Korea has suffered a military attack and doesn’t want to rekindle an all-out war with the North, but is still determined to show South Koreans that their government takes North Korean aggression seriously.

If handled correctly, this event might provide a teachable moment that could begin to rebalance the North-South relationship.

From my perspective, here’s how to thread that needle:

  1. Despite North Korea’s blustery — and empty — rhetoric about retaliation, the South should provide it with the opportunity to admit the error, accept responsibility and explain its side of the story.
  2. The South should make clear that an official apology and offer of remuneration to the sailors’ families would significantly decrease tensions.  Furthermore, if North Korea admits guilt and takes responsibility, the South should offer to not only work with the U.S. to block any U.N. Security Council condemnation, but offer to actually repeal a sanction or two.  No major sanction would be repealed, but the Security Council should find something significant enough to repeal that shows Pyongyang a cooperative, mutually-beneficial relationship with the international community is desirable.
  3. If, however, the North rejects the opportunity to accept responsibility, the South should adopt an aggressive posture by:
–Imposing further unilateral sanctions
–Taking the case to the U.N. Security Council for international condemnation
–Commencing war-games off the North Korean coast

This is basic carrot and stick diplomacy.  Reward the North Koreans for cooperation, and punish them for further obstruction.  There’s a chance — perhaps a very small one — that North Korea will calculate that it’s better to cooperate with the international community, and if so, then some good will come of this tragedy.

Turnaround Schools: Rising to the Challenge

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Wednesday, May 26,  11:30 a.m. — 1:30 p.m.

Click here to RSVP for this event.

The United States has fallen behind as the world leader in educating students preparing for college or the workforce. The Obama administration, with the leadership of Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan, has made a commitment to improve America’s schools and provide every child with a world-class education. In the recently released education reform “blueprint,” President Obama noted that turning around low-performing schools is essential in providing America’s children with the education they deserve.

Please join PPI for a forum with education leaders and policy experts that will examine the challenges facing administrators, students and teachers in bringing about lasting change to low-performing schools.

Featured panelists:

Michelle Rhee
Chancellor, District of Columbia Public Schools
The Honorable Jared Polis (D)
U.S. Representative, Colorado
David Cicarella
President, New Haven Federation of Teachers
Justin Cohen
President, The School Turnaround Group, Mass Insight Education
Jordan Meranus
Partner, NewSchools Venture Fund

Location:

Mandarin Oriental Hotel
1330 Maryland Avenue SW
Grand Ballroom
Washington, DC 20024

Space is limited. RSVP required. Lunch will be provided.

For more information, please contact 202-525-3926.

Click here to RSVP for this event.