Category: Uncategorized

Top 10 Pragmatic Progressive Ideas from the National Security Strategy

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Since copies of the Obama administration’s new National Security Strategy began to circulate, there’s been a lot of cheering about how different from Bush’s it is. And true, it is. That’s made clear in the letter from the president on the document’s first page. And my hunch is that people stop there — you get your headline, and you run with it, not bothering to read the rest of the document.

Well, guess what? I just cozied up with a chicken sandwich, a Diet Coke and a bag of chips and read the whole enchilada.

It’s long and at times unwieldy. I understand, for example, that “spending taxpayer’s dollars wisely” is important, but not sure the White House should be compelled to include it in the strategy text. But that’s indicative of Obama’s style — when you seek input from everyone, you’ll tend to end up with a longer list.

But after digging through the document, it’s worth pointing out the specifics of how the strategy has a distinctly pragmatic progressive outlook. With that, here are the top 10 examples:

1. It reaffirms that America’s values are the source of its power, and that American exceptionalism endures:

[T]he work to build a stronger foundation for our leadership within our borders recognizes that the most effective way for the United States of America to promote our values is to live them. America’s commitment to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law are essential sources of our strength and influence in the world.  America has always been a beacon to the peoples of the world when we ensure that the light of America’s example burns bright.

2. It prioritizes terrorism, Iraq, and Afghanistan while weighing them in the context of the 21st century’s other threats:

[T]hese wars—and our global efforts to successfully counter violent extremism—are only one element of our strategic environment and cannot define America’s engagement with the world. Terrorism is one of many threats that are more consequential in a global age. The gravest danger to the American people and global security continues to come from weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons. The space and cyberspace capabilities that power our daily lives and military operations are vulnerable to disruption and attack. Dependence upon fossil fuels constrains our options and pollutes our environment. Climate change and pandemic disease threaten the security of regions and the health and safety of the American people.

3. America will only be secure if all government agencies coordinate effectively:

To succeed, we must update, balance, and integrate all of the tools of American power and work with our allies and partners to do the same. … We are improving the integration of skills and capabilities within our military and civilian institutions, so they complement each other and operate seamlessly. We are also improving coordinated planning and policymaking and must build our capacity in key areas where we fall short.

4. It is comfortable with, but prudent about, the use of force:

While the use of force is sometimes necessary, we will exhaust other options before war whenever we can, and carefully weigh the costs and risks of action against the costs and risks of inaction. When force is necessary, we will continue to do so in a way that reflects our values and strengthens our legitimacy, and we will seek broad international support, working with such institutions as NATO and the U.N. Security Council.

5. It’s tough as nails on al Qaeda:

[W]e reject the notion that al-Qa’ida represents any religious authority. They are not religious leaders, they are killers; and neither Islam nor any other religion condones the slaughter of innocents.

6. It advocates the responsible, measured pursuit of a world without nuclear weapons:

As long as any nuclear weapons exist, the United States will sustain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal, both to deter potential adversaries and to assure U.S. allies and other security partners that they can count on America’s security commitments.

7. The Obama administration trusts the UN:

We are enhancing our coordination with the U.N. and its agencies. We need a U.N. capable of fulfilling its founding purpose — maintaining international peace and security, promoting global cooperation, and advancing human rights. To this end, we are paying our bills. We are intensifying efforts with partners on and outside the U.N. Security Council to ensure timely, robust, and credible Council action to address threats to peace and security.

8. “Democracy promotion” — a term that became identified with the Bush administration — isn’t a dirty phrase:

The United States supports the expansion of democracy and human rights abroad because governments that respect these values are more just, peaceful, and legitimate. We also do so because their success abroad fosters an environment that supports America’s national interests.

9. The United States’ security is closely linked to clean energy:

As long as we are dependent on fossil fuels, we need to ensure the security and free flow of global energy resources. But without significant and timely adjustments, our energy dependence will continue to undermine our security and prosperity. This will leave us vulnerable to energy supply disruptions and manipulation and to changes in the environment on an unprecedented scale.  The United States has a window of opportunity to lead in the development of clean energy technology.

10. It calls on politicians to stop being ridiculous and put country above politics:

Throughout the Cold War, even as there were intense disagreements about certain courses of action, there remained a belief that America’s political leaders shared common goals, even if they differed about how to reach them. In today’s political environment, due to the actions of both parties that sense of common purpose is at times lacking in our national security dialogue. This division places the United States at a strategic disadvantage.

Education Week: What, Exactly, Does School ‘Turnaround’ Mean?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Education Week‘s Lesli Maxwell covers the PPI Capital Forum on turnaround schools:

That, to me, was the key question raised, but not really answered, at an edu-salon convened yesterday by the Progressive Policy Institute.

And the question didn’t come from any skeptic on whether or not turning low-performing schools around is an achievable goal. It came from Justin Cohen, who as the president of the School Turnaround Group at Mass Insight Education and Research Institute, is working closely with educators in a half-dozen states on this very difficult endeavor.

With $3.5 billion in stimulus-funded Title I School Improvement Grants flowing to the states and local districts to fix chronically low-performing schools, U.S.
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and his team at the Education Department have focused heavily on how you turn schools around, and are requiring one of four ways to do it. Their four endorsed school-improvement models are also part of the Obama administration’s blueprint for renewing ESEA. (Those models, of course, have been gaining more detractors lately, especially inside the halls of Congress.)

Read the entire article.

Congress Puts the Breaks on Iran Sanctions – But Is the UN’s Deal Any Better?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2009, a potentially counterproductive Iran sanctions bill working its way through Congress, has been delayed. Versions of the law had been passed by both houses and were being reconciled in conference committee. A staffer I spoke to a few weeks ago suggested that the bill would be signed by Memorial Day.

But no longer. My friend Brian Wingfield at Forbes reported this week that bill sponsors Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) have delayed their bill for at least a month.

A delay, and potential scuttling of the law, may not be the worst thing in the world. Read Pirooz Hamvatan’s and Ali K‘s piece on P-Fix a few weeks ago, where they point out the current bill’s flaws:

The new bill aims to cripple Iran’s economy in response to Iran’s refusal to halt its nuclear program. But the sanctions being proposed are not the right answer. Such a sweeping measure would end up only hurting ordinary Iranians, especially the middle class that the U.S. must shore up to improve Iran’s chances for reform.

The delay is thanks to the UN Security Council, which announced it had reached a multilateral sanctions deal with China and Russia. Dodd and Berman say they preferred the multilateral approach all along, and seem content to let that process play out. Both China and Russia have been reluctant partners, so the deal is a potentially big diplomatic win for the Obama administration.

However, it raises the question — why would these holdouts acquiesce to the UN sanctions package now? Did they suddenly see the light? With all the exemptions and loopholes for Chinese companies, it’s doubtful in at least Beijing’s case. Check out this TIME article for a good explanation:

Beijing extracted a significant price for its support. Not only has Beijing watered down the sanctions to be adopted by the Security Council in order to ensure they don’t restrain China from expanding its already massive economic ties with Iran; Chinese analysts also claim that, in the course of a protracted series of negotiations with Washington, their government also won undertakings from Washington to exempt Chinese companies from any U.S. unilateral sanctions that punish third-country business partners with the Islamic Republic.

The Russians must have not gotten such a great deal. Iranian President Ahmadinejad singled out Moscow as a “historic enemy” for supporting UN sanctions, but seems to have forgotten to mention Beijing.

In the end, we’re left with a potentially counterproductive bill out of Congress, or an imperfect UN package. I’ll take the UN version any day of the week — even though Chinese companies get exemptions, it’s better to forge a strong international coalition against Iran’s nuclear program.

And members of Congress who supported that bill can still campaign on their vote, whether or not it ever gets to the president.

Photo credit: Daniella Zalcman/ CC BY-NC 2.0

Defense Spending Fight Could Turn Nasty

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The following is an excerpt from Jim Arkedis’s op-ed in Forbes online:

The infamous Iron Triangle of Pentagon spending has officially challenged Defense Secretary Bob Gates.  This week, the House Armed Service Committee approved its FY2011 budget authorization, which funds certain high-visibility weapons systems explicitly cut by Gates in this year’s budget request.

Here’s how this works.  The Secretary of Defense submits a budget to Congress every year.  Then, the military services essentially go behind the Secretary’s back and provide Congress with a list of “unfunded requirements,” a wish-list of weapons that the services want Congress to buy, but that the Secretary has chosen not to ask for.  Congress is all too happy to provide money for these systems of dubious strategic or tactical merit because politically savvy defense contractors fill campaign coffers and open offices in most districts.

As an example, the “alternate engine” for the Joint Strike Fighter (Lockheed Martin) has become this year’s poster child for unfunded requirements.  Gate’s budget request cut funding for one of the two engine designs under consideration — the F135 engine (Pratt & Whitney) was prioritized over the F136 engine (GE, Rolls-Royce).

Read the full column at Forbes.

Make Life Math Mandatory in Our Schools

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The single greatest threat to our security and prosperity might not be terrorism or biological warfare — it just might be financial illiteracy. Our current economic crisis has myriad causes, but it can be traced to the failure of many Americans to make smart financial decisions. In light of this epidemic of financial recklessness, education leaders should consider making “life math” curriculum mandatory in our schools.

The standard mathematical curriculum in high schools — algebra, geometry, trigonometry, statistics, calculus — is designed to give students the building blocks necessary to further their education and, for some, eventually launch successful careers in science, medicine, engineering and other important fields. For the rest of us, mathematics beyond the basics is mental exercise that keeps us intellectually spry.

I had a great math teacher in high school, Mrs. Wanda Dostall, who helped me achieve the only “A” I ever earned in a math course. While I don’t remember a single algebraic or trigonomic function, the courses I took stimulated my critical thinking skills and challenged me to embrace complexity and search for answers. But that didn’t mean that I didn’t (frequently) ask the question (quietly to myself, and aloud), “When am I going to use this in the real world?”

And that’s why throughout high school, I looked forward to Mrs. Dostall’s “life math” course for seniors. ”Life math” was designed to give students the real-world math skills they would need to manage their personal finances and, hopefully, enjoy financial security. Unfortunately, school administrators decided the course was not “college preparatory” — and I never had the chance to take it.

It’s a shame because I, like most Americans, could have benefited from it. As an adult, I manage multiple checking and savings accounts, pay bills and taxes, and save for my retirement. I have multiple credit cards with varying interest rates. I have applied for and taken out loans, managed and paid down debt, purchased multiple types of insurance policies, and invested in the stock market – and these are just some of the many types of financial decisions that I have made, and many more that I will make in the future.

I also vote for leaders who make critically important financial decisions for our government and economy – they manage budgets, adjust tax rates, negotiate trade policies, administer jobs and safety net programs, regulate financial institutions, monitor fiscal policy, and so on.

This is real-world mathematics. But I never learned this type of real-world math in school. And to me, that’s problematic.

Why Financial Literacy Means a Better Citizenry

I remember Mrs. Dostall’s frustration with our high school’s decision to terminate the “life math” course. She understood that a course in financial literacy, while perhaps not “college preparatory,” was in fact “life preparatory,” and that the mathematics department in our public school had a responsibility to prepare young people for the real world.

I think she also understood that financial literacy is necessary to fulfill civic responsibility. Take a look at what’s been going on the last couple of years. Americans are angry about the Wall Street bailout, and rightfully so. But it’s not just the bailout that worries Americans. Our fiscal house is not in order. Our elected leaders spend more money on government programs, while they cut taxes. To fund the resulting budget shortfalls, they mortgage our future to China.

There’s much to be angry about, and sure, we can play the blame game. We can even attack government as the problem, as the right continues to do. Or, we can act like adults, face reality and own up to our own mistakes.

For too long, too many of us have chosen to live beyond our means. To get more non-essential goods and services too many of us can’t afford — but claim we can’t live without — we have amassed huge sums of debt. Too many of us have taken out loans we can’t pay off and taken on mortgage payments that consume half or more of our monthly incomes. We’ve made poor investments and failed to properly save for retirement.

And what’s really scary is that too many young Americans today, from the “me” generation of the ‘80’s through Generation X, were raised in working- and middle-class families that adopted materialism without consequence as a norm — a way of life that too many young Americans have come to expect.

If that’s not enough to convince you that we need our Mrs. Dostalls to once again teach “life math,” you can see how our poor financial decisions at home reflect the poor financial decisions made by our leaders in government and business. The culture of financial recklessness in Washington and on Wall Street is rooted in our own individual failings — and threatens the prosperity of all, including those who live responsibly and plan for the future.

I think Mrs. Dostall would tell us that we can prevent another prolonged recession; avoid another housing bubble, mortgage crisis and financial meltdown; restore fiscal responsibility; return to the surpluses we experienced in the Clinton years and pay down our debt; and secure our prosperity in a global economy. But for all that to happen, we must first take steps to increase our financial literacy, and make sure our government does the same and regulates Wall Street to balance short-term and long-term gains.

At age 27 with five years of experience in the workforce — and after some personal financial missteps — I am taking proactive steps to increase my own financial literacy. Looking back, I wish there had been a “life math” course available to me in high school, one that would have helped me understand how to create a realistic personal budget; taught me about credit, debt, loans and insurance; and given me lessons in investing for retirement. To equip the next generation with the skills and tools needed to succeed in the real world and chart our nation’s course to fiscal responsibility and prosperity, we should think seriously about making a “life math” curriculum mandatory in secondary education.

The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Progressive Policy Institute.

Photo Credit: Maximalideal/ CC BY-NC 2.0

Bagram Detainee Case Likely Headed to the High Court

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In 2008, the Supreme Court decided that detainees held at Guantanamo Bay had the constitutional right to challenge the legality of their detention. Thus ended the question of whether all detainees in the fight against terrorism had a right to habeas corpus, right? As with all complex legal questions, the answer is never that simple.

The federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia added to the complexity of the habeas corpus issue when it ruled last Friday on a case filed by three detainees being held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. Bagram is not only the largest American military base in Afghanistan, it also serves as a major detention center for those taken prisoner there, and allegedly holds some prisoners captured in other countries as well. In an opinion by Chief Judge David Sentelle, a Reagan appointee, the court found that the constitutional right of habeas corpus does not extend to detainees being held at the base.

The court made three central determinations in its decision. First, it found that the current procedure used at Bagram to deal with the detainees is even worse than the procedure that was used at Gitmo, which the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional. The procedures at Gitmo, referred to as Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs), did not allow detainees access to an attorney and severely restricted a detainee’s right to present evidence on his behalf or rebut evidence by the government. The court in this case found that the procedures at Bagram, called Unlawful Enemy Combatant Review Boards (UECRBs), were even less sufficient than the CSRTs, and found that this factor initially favored giving Bagram detainees habeas corpus.

But despite that finding, the court found that two other factors weighed against granting the right. It concluded that Bagram is in fact different from Gitmo because the U.S. does not intend Bagram to be a permanent base similar to Gitmo, which has been operating for over a hundred years. More importantly, it found that giving Bagram detainees the right to habeas corpus could adversely affect the military’s ability to carry out operations in Afghanistan.

It is true that giving the detainees at Bagram the right to habeas corpus could cause a host of problems. It would require giving the detainees access to attorneys, and creating that system could eat up badly needed military assets. Also, Bagram detainees whose detentions were invalidated would most likely be released inside Afghanistan. This could put enemy fighters directly back on to the battlefield.

However, as the D.C. Court of Appeals admits, the fact still remains that the Bagram detainees are being held without constitutionally sufficient procedures available to them. If the U.S. is going to operate a prison where habeas corpus does not apply, what is to stop it from shipping all future terrorist detainees to Bagram to avoid giving them the right?

That’s why this case is on a beeline to the Supreme Court. While the Court has disagreed with the D.C. Court of Appeals on detainee cases, it is far from clear how it will come out on this issue. One factor making it hard to predict is that the Court’s makeup will be different from when it decided its last major detainee case with the addition of Justice Sotomayor and – almost certainly – Elena Kagan.

In its last major detainee case, the Court split down ideological lines, with Justice Kennedy writing the opinion and siding with the more liberal justices. It is likely that Justice Sotomayor, as part of the liberal bloc, would vote for extending habeas corpus to the Bagram detainees. Similarly, soon-to-be Justice Kagan would almost certainly be in favor of extending the right to Bagram detainees — in 2005, while dean of Harvard Law School, she joined in a letter with three other law school deans stating that detainees should be allowed access to federal courts for review of procedures such as CSRTs and UECRBs.

That said, neither are very experienced with national security cases, so one can’t say for sure how each will vote. Another factor making it difficult to predict the outcome is the fact that Bagram and Gitmo are situated differently. Both are active military bases, but Bagram is operating in a theater of war. Allowing detainees at Bagram to engage in the habeas corpus process could affect the military’s war effort in Afghanistan, a fact that could sway one or more of the liberal justices to the other side.

The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Progressive Policy Institute.

Photo Credit: U.S. Army Africa’s Photostream

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