Sarkozy est Le Masque!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7910555.stm

Sarkozy's Talent for Reinvention

By Emma Jane Kirby

BBC News

February 28, 2009

Emma Jane Kirby reflects on why the unpredictability of Nicolas Sarkozy makes it difficult to define him.

It seems to me that almost every day, someone here coins a new nickname for the French president.

Many are just variations on the same theme.

His smallish stature has prompted scores of fairly predictable titles along the "dwarf", "mini-me", "built-up heels" variety and his unpopular policies have generated myriad epithets ranging from "Sarko the American" - referring to his fondness for closer transatlantic ties - to the more generalised "iznogoud" (pronounced "is no good" with a French accent), to the pretty all-encompassing "heap of dog's muck".

But what strikes me is that no-one really seems to agree on who or what Nicolas Sarkozy is.

If this was a French musical, perhaps now would be the moment when an exuberant nun or Mother Superior might burst into the song: "How do you solve a problem like Sarkozy?"

But since there are no willing Sisters in the vicinity, I shall try myself to catch the French leader and pin him down.

But how do you define a man who is at once described as "Super Sarko" and "Sarko the smurf", as "Nico Napoleon" and "Nico the nervous"?

The short answer, I believe, is that you cannot and this is exactly what makes the leader of the Fifth Republic such an infectiously alluring character.

Numerous faces

[See: The Many Faces of France's Sarkozy - Which One Can We Trust??, ITSSD Journal on Disguised Trade Barriers, at: http://itssddisguisedtradebarriers.blogspot.com/2009/02/many-faces-of-frances-sarkozy-which-one.html ].

Last summer I went to visit the cartoonist Jul at the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo.

I remember asking him how he set about drawing the president and whether he had any characteristics that really stood out.

Jul told me that when his subject matter was Nicolas Sarkozy, he could never plan his comic strip in advance.

The president, he said, was like a chameleon that changed every five minutes and if he drew too far ahead of time, his cartoon would simply be out of date.

And apart from one satirist who routinely draws Mr Sarkozy as the devil - albeit in a thousand disguises - it seems that none of Jul's fellow artists can classify or categorise him either.

While one is portraying him as the confident King of Bling, another is sketching him as a sad puppy rejected by women.

And that is exactly how President Sarkozy likes it. Predictability is not a word he recognises.

Endless reinvention

French journalists constantly complain they are unable to cover his story sufficiently because he is always on the go.

On Monday afternoon he is in Lille talking about the car industry, on Tuesday morning he pops up in Iraq.

The ink has barely dried on the headline "Protectionism" when the typeface has to be reset to "Reconstruction".

“ Get up close and you are not even sure you are following the same man as yesterday .”

And then quite suddenly he is on three television channels simultaneously, addressing the nation about the economic crisis.

It is an exhausting, punishing schedule... at least for those of us who are charged with reporting him. But the French leader himself appears to take it all in his stride. A keen jogger, he enjoys keeping the nation on its toes.

Catch me, he seems to be saying, if you can.

But you will never catch him. Get up close and you are not even sure you are following the same man as yesterday.

Apart from the children's TV character Mr Benn, who regularly visited a dressing up shop and became a different person each day, I can think of no-one who reinvents himself so frequently.

In just over 18 months of office President Sarkozy has already been the "happily-married-family-man", the "macho-man" (jogging round Paris in a sweat-stained New York Police Department T-shirt), the "business-man" reclining on yachts and dripping in Rolex watches and "super-man", heroically rescuing French hostages in Libya.

When his ex-wife was speedily replaced by the classy former supermodel and pop star Carla Bruni, there was a new metamorphosis. Nicolas Sarkozy began to read the classic literature he had previously scoffed at, he began to talk about the importance of faith in society and his explosive temper softened.

"I've changed," he told stunned reporters brusquely. And that was that.

Playing games

The first time I met the French leader, at an Elysee news conference with Gordon Brown, we did not see eye-to-eye.

I had asked the new prime minister whether he envisaged any problems working with Nicolas Sarkozy, who did not exactly share his own views about economic liberalism.

Although my question was not addressed to him, President Sarkozy took the microphone anyway and jabbing his finger at me angrily he swiftly qualified his views on competition, clearly irritated that I had dared to imagine I knew what his opinions were.

Just before Christmas I found myself again in a press conference at the Elysee with the same two leaders and as I was sitting in the front row. Nicolas Sarkozy caught my gaze.

He gave me a small but not unfriendly smile and then slowly, deliberately, he winked.

You think you are on to me, he seemed to be saying. And while I may know who you are, you will never know me.

From Our Own Correspondent was broadcast on Saturday, 28 February, 2009 at 1130 GMT on BBC Radio 4.

Please check the programme schedules for World Service transmission times.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7910555.stm

Published: 2009/02/28 12:03:33 GMT

Does Obama's Religious Faith & Political DNA Contain Elements of Early Radical European Socialism or Later 20th Century 'Soft' - 'New Left' Socialism?

[The following entries set forth a pattern of ideology and policy prescriptions that, in many ways, resembles the platform of the American Democratic Party and the campaign positions of new U.S. President, Barack Obama. If we are mistaken, we kindly ask the Democratic National Committee and the White House to appropriately correct us.]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.amazon.com/After-Progress-American-Socialism-Twentieth/dp/0195158598

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195158598/ref=kinw_rke_tl_1#reader

After Progress: American Social Reform and European Socialism in the Twentieth Century (Paperback)

by Norman Birnbaum

432 pp. New York:

Oxford University Press


Editorial Reviews


From Publishers Weekly

Birnbaum, a Georgetown law school professor who writes for the New Left Review and the Nation (The Crisis of Industrial Society; etc.), traces the decline and fall of social reform in Europe and America. At the beginning of the 20th century, he says, folks both here and abroad were committed to reforming society, to reining in the excesses of capitalism and improving life for all. Of course, with the great reformers came strident reactionaries. Birnbaum shows, for example, that William Howard Taft railed against socialism, by which he meant anything restricting the market. Birnbaum traces the limitations of the reforming impulse in America, saying that the New Deal was basically a wash: it created Social Security, and FDR acknowledged that America is not a classless society. But the language of class never really raised its head again, Birnbaum says, and social reform ended in 1938. Birnbaum's discussion of the post-WWII welfare state is provocative: the welfare model, he says, is preferable to unchecked capitalism. But at the same time that Europe and America embraced the welfare state, they also experienced a rising standard of living, and Birnbaum wonders if decades of social reform were destined to culminate simply in a consumerist orgy. Finally, he takes the United States to task, observing that America has the grossest economic inequalities, and the weakest left, of any industrialized country. Birnbaum offers a readable, if occasionally overgeneralized and superficial, history, and an inspiring call to arms for readers who still hope to see social and economic reform.
Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.
--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Library Journal
In this scholarly, detailed, and methodically written study, Birnbaum author of leftist critiques of democratic, capitalist societies (The Crisis of Industrial Society) documents and analyzes the successes and failures of social reform in America and Europe in the last 50 years. He concludes that both European welfare-state parliamentary democracies and American presidential administrations led by Democrats Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton have been undermined by an economic overemphasis on the value of consumption and the pervasiveness of an individualistic social ethic. Although Birnbaum has no magic solutions, he believes that government must act to control market forces to meet the social needs of its citizens and that government needs to focus on citizen education to create a citizenry that is "autonomous and critical," resulting in a rebirth of citizenship characterized "not by a promised land, but a terrain of dialogue and experiment." He believes that the majority of people living in democratic societies today fail to understand the delicate balance between their rights and their responsibilities as citizens of their country. For academic and large public libraries. Jack Forman, San Diego Mesa Coll. Lib., CA Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Review

"A sophisticated and wide-ranging study. It is erudite, melancholy, and bound to arouse interest and controversy."--Peter Gay

"A wonderful journey through the ins and outs of Western socialism and social reform by a participant-observer with educated eyes."--Immanuel Wallerstein, Yale University

"The book is to be celebrated for its astonishing synoptic powers, its erudition, and, not least, its political quotes and anecdotes."--Norman Mailer

"In this great synopsis of a century of reform movements in the U.S. and Europe, Norman Birnbaum gives an account of what has kept accumulating in the course of the cosmopolitan life of a scholar with that unique combination of talents in comparative social, political, and religious studies."--Jurgen Habermas

"Superb...presents the key events and players in left movements of the twentieth century in a way that helps us understand their importance.... An elegantly written and thoroughly researched work that goes well beyond the standard left-wing narrative of rapacious capitalists and heroic organizing drives."--Ruy Teixeira, The American ProspectProduct Description

Publisher Review (Oxford University Press)

The twentieth century witnessed a profound shift in both socialism and social reform. In the early 1900s, social reform seemed to offer a veritable religion of redemption, but by the century's end, while socialism remained a vibrant force in European society, a culture of extreme individualism and consumption all but squeezed the welfare state out of existence. Documenting this historic change, After Progress: European Socialism and American Social Reform in the 20th Century is the first truly comprehensive look at the course of social reform and Western politics after Communism, brilliantly explained by a major social thinker of our time. Norman Birnbaum traces in fascinating detail the forces that have shifted social concern over the course of a century, from the devastation of two world wars, to the post-war golden age of economic growth and democracy, to the ever-increasing dominance of the market. He makes sense of the historical trends that have created a climate in which politicians proclaim the arrival of a new historical epoch but rarely offer solutions to social problems that get beyond cost-benefit analyses. Birnbaum goes one step further and proposes a strategy for bringing the market back into balance with the social needs of the people. He advocates a reconsideration of the notion of work, urges that market forces be brought under political control, and stresses the need for education that teaches the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Both a sweeping historical survey and a sharp-edged commentary on current political posturing, After Progress examines the state of social reform past, present and future.

About the Author

Norman Birnbaum is University Professor at Georgetown University Law School and the author of The Crisis of Industrial Society and Toward a Critical Sociology (both from OUP). A founding editor of New Left Review, he has served on the board of Partisan Review and The Nation . He lives in Washington, D.C.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.times.com/books/01/04/08/reviews/010408.08diggint.html

A Secular Faith: A scholar urges a return to the radical socialism of Europe.


New York Times Book Review of After Progress: American Social Reform and European Socialism in the Twentieth Century


By John Patrick Diggins


April 8, 2001


Equating socialism with religion was once considered a double insult. Karl Marx, after all, drew on science for his analysis of history. To see socialism as a faith would be a case of ''the opium of the intellectuals.''


But Norman Birnbaum, a professor at Georgetown University Law School, proudly affirms the relationship of socialism to religion. Defining socialism as the historic effort to ''domesticate the market and terminate unnecessary human inequalities,'' Birnbaum sees it as our savior. ''The idea of redemption suggests that socialism has something religious about it. As a secular derivative of Judeo-Christian millennialism, socialism has had a theology, an account of first and last things, and its earthly bodies resembled churches and sects.''


Does the proposition of socialism become more palpable if we are taught to think of it as some kind of church? Religion, after all, is not about this world; Christianity dwells on pain, asking us to suffer and sacrifice. Perhaps Birnbaum has in mind social responsibility for the poor and oppressed. Contemporary America does indeed need a Michael Harrington, the revered conscience of American Socialism, and one of the people to whom the book is dedicated. But religion can live comfortably with poverty and inequality, whereas socialism cannot; and while the philosopher may question why God allows evil and suffering to endure, Birnbaum has no doubt that such offenses exist because we foolish mortals have ceased questioning capitalism.


''After Progress'' is a call to return to earlier times, when radical socialism was alive and well and living in Western Europe. Stuck, as many academics are, on theory, Birnbaum would have us ponder the writings of the Frankfurt School, that group of thinkers who escaped the Nazis to arrive in America with their gloomy notions about the future of industrial societies, as though all such societies were destined to the same totalitarian fate as Germany. Birnbaum also discusses Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Marxist who has been red-hot on the American campus with his message that it is up to students and academics to deliver us to socialism, not necessarily by changing the economy but by transforming a culture of competitive individualism. But Birnbaum wryly notes that it was Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher who actually changed popular attitudes. ''They created a structure of fact, a Darwinian system, and then pointed to it as evidence that ideas of a cooperative and just social order were fantasies.''


The value of Birnbaum's book lies in its comprehensive survey of socialism together with its intelligent commentary. But his message that America should turn to Europe would be more persuasive if he could convince readers that he is writing about success instead of flat failure. The mere existence of European Socialist parties tells us little about the validity of socialism as an ideal capable of realization.


Thus, Birnbaum acknowledges that even a modest plan in Sweden to transfer some stock ownership to workers not only was resisted by capitalists but met with ''indifference'' from labor itself. Similarly, Willy Brandt's Social Democrats in Germany could at most expand the welfare state while failing to alter the economy. When François Mitterrand was elected in 1981, Parisians danced in the streets. But the best his Socialist government accomplished was raising the minimum wage and increasing social benefits, not transforming society.


The record is no better in Spain and Italy. The Socialist Party of Felipe Gonzales turned the economy over to technocrats in search of international capital. The first Socialist prime minister of Italy, Bettino Craxi, fled prosecution for corruption and died in exile. Meanwhile, the Italian Communists became ''silent partners'' with the Christian Democrats, only to see workers aligning with right-wing parties in the prosperous 1990's. Birnbaum regards the Italian left as a ''tragedy,'' with Socialists unable to radicalize democratic liberalism and Communists unable to democratize geriatric Leninism.


In Britain, the Labor Party watched helplessly as once-militant workers moved into a new society of consumption. How, Birnbaum asks, could Labor talk about the demands of idealism in the face of the comforts of materialism? Under Tony Blair, Socialism has settled for managerial efficiency while distancing itself from the labor unions.


With Europe's Socialist parties moving away from socialism, why in the world does Birnbaum think that America should run after it?

[GOOD QUESTION!]

He is understandably outraged by our scandalous maldistribution of wealth and culture of avarice. But when it comes to American history, he offers us nostalgia in place of nerve. He thinks the Depression years of the 1930's were the best of times because they gave America a ''New Deal ideology of solidarity'' based on a generation's ''collective experience.'' Birnbaum's favorite expression, used throughout the book, is ''solidarity,'' but how inspiring is it to find in the Depression a solidarity of fathers in search of work and mothers standing in bread lines?


Why has socialism been so alien to America's political culture? Birnbaum describes Louis Hartz's book ''The Liberal Tradition in America'' as enjoying a ''canonical status,'' and he feels he can refute it with the following question and answer: ''Did American liberalism, as a structure of assumptions about the nature of humans and their societies, so shape American politics that a socialist alternative had no chance to develop? That certainly could be concluded from the insistence of the authors of the Constitution on curbing direct democracy.''


Birnbaum completely misunderstands Hartz's thesis. Drawing on Tocqueville, Hartz demonstrated that the checks and controls devised by the Constitution's framers, which did indeed aim to protect property owners from the popular masses, failed to curb democracy, and in the Jacksonian era people of all classes came to identify themselves with their possessions. The socialist simply cannot face the fact that there is no conflict between democracy and capitalism, and that there is no example in all of modern history of a country with an established liberal tradition leaving its political culture behind in order to move toward socialism. Therein lies Birnbaum's heartache.


John Patrick Diggins, a professor at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, is the author of ''On Hallowed Ground: Abraham Lincoln and the Foundations of American History.''

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2007/JF/Feat/birn.htm

An Interview with Norman Birnbaum


By Roger W. Bowen


Academe Online

January-February 2007


In this interview, Norman Birnbaum, one of the country’s foremost public intellectuals, brings to life the history of the United States and the European New Left. He takes us through U.S. and British higher education and politics from the McCarthy era through today, with personal and historical detail that reminds us that the tumult of today has precedent and, perhaps, roots in the 1950s and 1960s. Birnbaum is a founding editor of the New Left Review, was on the editorial board of the Partisan Review, and is on the editorial board of the Nation. Birnbaum was born in 1926 in New York City and educated at its public schools, Williams College, and Harvard University. He has taught at the London School of Economics, Oxford University, the University of Strasbourg, and Amherst College and is University Professor Emeritus at Georgetown University Law Center. His most recent book is After Progress: American Social Reform and European Socialism in the Twentieth Century, and he is working on a memoir titled From the Bronx to Oxford—and Not Quite Back. AAUP general secretary Roger Bowen interviewed Birnbaum in May 2006 in Washington, D.C.


Bowen: You just turned eighty this year, and you have had a very distinguished career. You advised Ted Kennedy’s presidential campaign. You consulted with the National Security Council during the Carter years.


Birnbaum: Yes, but I cannot claim that the foreign policy apparatus was very enthusiastic about it, and any advice I had to give was systematically not followed. And I was shuffled out in a remarkably rapid and smooth process.


Bowen: You’ve also advised the United Auto Workers, and you’ve served on the editorial board of the Partisan Review and the Nation for a great many years.


Birnbaum: Yes, the Nation for a very long period. I also think I may be one of the oldest living contributors to the Nation who is also compos mentis. But I’ve certainly been on the board since the 1970s—and remain today due to the generosity of editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel’s excellent regime. And, of course, I began to read the Nation when my father was a New York City school teacher. When it came into the house, I began to read it and the New Republic at the age of probably twelve. And now the Nation is in some danger, namely, of being in the black. We have got this awful experience and don’t know what to do with it.


Bowen: You can thank George Bush. You were also on the editorial board of the New Left Review.


Birnbaum: Well, I was on the founding editorial board of the New Left Review when it was launched in 1959 as a fusion of the New Reasoner and Universities and Left Review, which was done by a younger and somewhat more independent group from Oxford, including the late Raphael Samuel, Stuart Hall, and Charles Taylor. I joined Universities and Left Review with a lot of other people, like Ralph Miliband and Iris Murdoch in 1957, one year after both journals were founded.


Bowen: Okay. Let me ask the most obvious question. You have been on the left your whole life, your entire career. Why?


Birnbaum: When I think of the characters and ideas of many of those on the right, the left seems to be the only place anybody with self-respect could be. But, that apart, I think probably there is some religious ethnic inheritance, although I don’t go to synagogue. My grandfather was a member of the old Yiddish grouping. He was a house painter who came from Poland after having served his imperial majesty the tsar in the military service. My father was a New York City high school teacher who had studied at City College and liked the ideas of John Dewey. And, of course, Franklin Roosevelt was an iconic figure in the family. But I think we sensed that our fate depended upon the general installation of a regime of justice. And, of course, there was the atmosphere of American progressivism and then the New Deal. I think the first big books I read were things like the Beards on American civilization and Dos Passos’s U.S.A., which made a great impression on me. And I remember when I heard Thomas Mann speak—I think at age twelve—at the last rally for the Spanish Republic in New York. Andre Malraux was also among the speakers. But I remember my father’s astonishment when I said that Thomas Mann wasn’t Jewish. Gradually, there was the discovery that progressivism is at the center of a broad stream of American history. Being on the left was a way to join America, not to distance oneself from it.


Bowen: You identified somewhere three values of the left: emancipation, social solidarity, and democracy. I haven’t seen it put quite that way before. Of those three values, do you favor one over another?


Birnbaum: No, I think that a good society would provide for each of these. But, obviously, there are times when pursuing them involves situations where the context is unfavorable. After all, we have a long tradition of social Catholicism, not only in Europe, but even in this country, which is not necessarily conducive to emancipation but is conducive to a considerable amount of distributive justice that would be inconceivable without the social Catholics. And that’s also true of the European or postwar welfare states. Emancipation may be the most difficult to achieve of all these since we’re not quite agreed on what it means. That depends on one’s theory of human nature and human potential, or how much emancipation a society can stand.


Bowen: Are there moments in American history where the value of freedom and the value of equality are in direct conflict?


Birnbaum: Suppose there were a national referendum on civil unions or something like that. The value of democracy would conceivably dictate obedience to the majority rule, which I doubt would come out strongly in favor of civil unions. In that case, democracy needs to be strengthened by certain guarantees or certain institutional immunizations from majority rule. Anybody who lived through the McCarthy period, with its long institutionalized Cold War sequel, and who now has to endure tirades about how one is not loyal to the West because one doesn’t support the great struggle against Islamo-fascism, understands this. The impoverished defense of the West by persons who know little about fascism and nothing about Islam is grotesque. They may constitute a majority even though democracy is violated. There must be something else, namely, the dimensions of emancipation and solidarity. The other day, I was in Germany to celebrate the hundredth anniversary of a man long gone, Wolfgang Abendroth, who was the great leader of the academic left in the early years of the Federal Republic. One of the ceremonies was held at the rather nice, new headquarters of the metal workers’ union. It still has 2.5 million members. Abendroth was also a lawyer, a jurist, as well as a professor of politics, an adversary of the disciples of Carl Schmitt, who dominated the courts and law faculties after the war. In effect, I think the Europeans, with their notions of social democracy, which are widely shared although under attack, have an understanding of a democracy that is not reduced to formal voting. Their notion of civic society clearly entails the social provision of decent minima of the things necessary for the good life: education and health.


Bowen: You mentioned you were somewhat insulated from McCarthyism, because during the years when it was at its worst, you were at your best, teaching in Britain.


Birnbaum: I was insulated also because I never belonged to the American Communist Party. I was briefly a member of a Communist front group, the American Student Union, from 1939, when I entered high school, until 1940, when I felt that the party line on the Soviet Union’s alliance with Germany was intolerable and left. But I simply felt uncomfortable in the early McCarthy years and didn’t like what I saw. I had no difficulty when I got to Europe. When I began to teach in England in 1953, it was widely assumed I must be a political refugee, as there were some, like my late friend Moses Finley, the great classicist. I remember that a student who later became a distinguished anthropologist asked me how I stayed out of jail in America. In fact, one of my great early memories in England was having lunch with Mo in his rooms at his college at Cambridge University. At about 12:30, there was a knock on the door, and three servants marched in with silver platters, put them down, poured the wine, and discreetly withdrew. And he said, “I sure owe the House Un-American Activities Committee a lot.”


Bowen: You were first at the London School of Economics. From that vantage point, what did you think about McCarthyism?


Birnbaum: I think that the whole European experience was “deprovincializing.” It made me see there were other approaches to the Cold War, which in Europe were closer to what was then the mainstream of politics. I got to know people in the British Labor Party. I got to meet people in France, ex-communists like Edgar Morin and others, who had a different view of the Cold War. And I got to know the people in Germany from the Confessional Church who had resisted Hitler. They felt that the country could not continue divided, and that, therefore, efforts to talk with the other side were not treason but necessary. This gave me a view of the crabbed, narrow, anxious anticommunism, which persisted when McCarthy himself had fallen into disgrace. Also, when I was in England, the Congress for Cultural Freedom and the Central Intelligence Agency dispatched Irving Kristol to London to start Encounter. And I knew him and some of his group.
Bowen: But did you know that the CIA was sponsoring Encounter magazine?


Birnbaum: It got to be an open secret. As an eminent American social scientist whom I don’t feel like naming pointed out to me, “Given the money they’re throwing around, it must be from the CIA.” And later, there was a famous episode in which Dwight MacDonald came over to edit Encounter for a bit with some proposal that he should eventually replace Kristol. But the New York gang led by Sidney Hook fought tooth and nail against it, since Dwight was unreliable—that is, an independent thinker who rowed nobody’s party line. Dwight submitted a piece to Encounter that was later published in Dissent. Encounter didn’t print it, because it was thought to be too critical, and Dwight protested about this. I took up the protest by writing an open letter to the Congress, which was printed in Universities and Left Review, saying, “Come on, tell us where you get the money.”


Bowen: So you were attacked?


Birnbaum: I was. I think the year was 1958. I moved to Oxford in 1959.


Bowen: Did the term “New Left” originate around that time?

Birnbaum: Yes. The New Left had many sources in Europe and in the states. I taught in the summer of 1962 at Harvard and toured the states. I spoke at different universities. I went to Ann Arbor and met Tom Hayden, when he was writing the Port Huron Statement, the manifesto of Students for a Democratic Society. And I was treated as if I were an emissary from a brotherly cosmos in Europe. Among the many Europeans studying in the United States at the time was an anti-Franco physicist, Javier Solana, who brought the ideas back to Spain, to the antifascist turbulence of its sixties. I later met him when he was foreign minister, and he is now the senior foreign policy official of the European Union.

["Review' - Marcuse brought a forceful clarity to the leftist table, a classical Marxism willing to confront new realities. Several of his recurring points are worth remembering today.' - The Nation -- Marcuse brought a forceful clarity to the leftist table, a classical Marxism willing to confront new realities. Several of his recurring points are worth remembering today. - The Nation

Product Description - Marcuse embodied many of the defining political impulses of the New Left in his thought and politics - hence a younger generation of political activists looked up to him for theoretical and political guidance. The new material collected in this volume provides a rich and deep grasp of the era and the role of Marcuse in the theoretical and political dramas of the day.This volume contains articles, letters, talks an interviews including: "On the New Left," a transcription of the 1968 talk at The Guardian newpaper's 20th anniversary; "Reflections on the French Revolution" which contains comments on the 1968 French student and worker uprising; "Liberation from the Affluent Society" which presents Marcuse's contribution to the 1967 "Dialectics of Liberations" conference; and "USA: Questions of Organization and the Revolutionary Subject", a conversation between Marcuse and the German writer Hans Magnus Enzenburger, published here in English for the first time. Edited by Douglas Kellner this volume will be of interest to all those previously unfamiliar with Herbert Marcuse, generally acknowledged as a major figure in the intellectual and social mileux of the 1960s and 1970s, as well as to specialists who will here have access to previously disparate papers." http://www.amazon.com/New-Left-1960s/dp/B000OT7W0S ].

Bowen: You wrote that, for a time, the New Left provided you with a spiritual home. How so?

Rethinking the New Left: An Interpretative History


Van Gosse

MacMillan


August 2005

A Choice Outstanding Academic Title of 2006!

From the 1950s to the 1970s, a host of movements struggled to make democracy and equality realities in America. A radical conception of democracy animated the movements for civil rights and black power, for peace and solidarity with the Third World, and for gender and sexual equality. From Vietnam to the war at home against African and Native Americans, Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, and Asian Americans, from Women's to Gay Liberation, the New Left was the broadest-based movement for fundamental change in American history. This book synthesizes and chronicles those protests, confrontations, victories, and defeats over two decades and more. It has a much wider chronological focus than just the decade of the 1960s, and is the most inclusive and broadest ranging analytical synthesis of the New Left yet published.

"Gosse's rethinking of the New Left provides an interesting and provocative framework within which to view the Sixties."
--Register of the Kentucky Historical Society

"Van Gosse has long been the leading voice of the post-1960s generation of historians of the 1960s. In Rethinking the New Left he has written a clear, lively, provocative, and wide-ranging history of the New Left. Rethinking the New Left will become the first stop for those looking for a concise, yet comprehensive, introduction to social movements of the 1960s and how they changed America for the better."
--Roy Rosenzweig, Director, Center for History & New Media, George Mason University

"Rethinking the New Left is a compelling and rigorous study of what truly was a 'movement of movements.' Correctly rejecting the notion that the New Left was synonymous with white college students, Van Gosse offers an in depth historical analysis of the various forces and social movements that brought about the political earthquake that was the '60s. Rethinking the New Left is as exciting to read as it is thought-provoking in recounting the courage and audacity of overlapping generations of activists who refused to sit still in the face of domestic and global injustice. Rethinking the New Left leaves the reader with issues to ponder as progressives consider new directions for transformative politics in the 21st century."
--Bill Fletcher, Jr., President, TransAfrica Forum.

"Rethinking the New Left is a refreshing account of social movements that goes beyond standard mythologies about the tumultuous 1960's. Broad in scope and accessible as well as analytic, Van Gosse's book is both a fast-paced history of New Left radicalism and a provocation to think anew about its countours and long-term impact."

--Max Elbaum, author of Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals Turn to Lenin, Mao, and Che

"I'd like to echo van Gosse's very sensible plea that we focus primarily on the social movements that made 'the 60s' rather than on the possible limitations of the largely mythic idea of 'the 60s.' What's more, I highly recommend Rethinking the New Left: it is must read material for folks like ourselves."
--Jeremy Varon, author of Bringing the War Home - http://us.macmillan.com/rethinkingthenewleft].

Birnbaum: Well, it was “home” partly in the sense that I had membership in a group; our house in London was one of the meeting points. But it was my spiritual home in the sense that those in the New Left shared the conviction that although the Soviet Union had failed, liberal capitalism was not the only alternative. This was a period in which the great French social political scientist Maurice Duverger coined the phrase “fascisme á l’exterior,” meaning external fascism was a continuation of imperialism. The New Left included German Protestants and French left Catholics, as well as important segments of the British labor movement. I think I was particularly aware of the religious traditions, not just dissident Marxism.


Bowen: So this is a secular religion?


Birnbaum: Well, the older I get, the more bewildered and cautious I get about that term, which is still worth investigating. But let’s say that we subscribed to a secular set of beliefs that rest on metahistorical assumptions about human capacity.


Bowen: And who was part of that group at the time? And who among them are still close friends?


Birnbaum: Well, there are some people who are close friends whom I rarely see. Some I see more than others. In England, the late Raphael Samuel. Eric Hobsbawm sympathized with it. He stayed in the British Communist Party, but he probably belonged more to us than he did to mainline communism. Even though he stayed, Eric didn’t like the Soviet Union. But, I would say in England, there were Raphael Samuel and certainly Stuart Hall.

Bowen: Was Hobsbawm involved with Past and Present? You were on the editorial board there.


Birnbaum: Yes, he was very much involved with Past and Present.


Bowen: And Victor Kiernan was also on that board, was he not?


Birnbaum: Yes, Victor Kiernan was on the board. Past and Present opened up to people who weren’t quite Marxists but were certainly excellent social historians, like Lawrence Stone, who later went to Princeton.


Bowen: Kiernan, I know, left the party, I think in 1957.


Birnbaum: A lot of them did. Christopher Hill, who was also on the board, did. I knew him well at Oxford. Christopher is another person in England from that era who remained a friend. And of course, I knew and greatly respected and liked Charles Taylor. Charles moved in and out of England. He later came back from Canada and was a professor at Oxford. Charles had a very decided Catholic component in his beliefs and had good contacts with continental Catholicism.

Bowen: What about Americans?


Birnbaum: Certainly, I would say Christopher Lasch, although he later criticized it. Christopher and I were very close. We once collaborated, and we joined Partisan Review at the same time. Susan Sontag, too.


Bowen: Was Norman Podhoretz part of that movement?


Birnbaum: Podhoretz helped start the American New Left. He took over Commentary in 1961. I remember visiting the states in 1961 or 1962 and being received by the Kristols on the west side of Manhattan in their apartment, where I bumped into Bernard Malamud, who was going out. I remember being told by the Kristols in one voice, “You’ve come back at the right time. The whole country is pointing left. The Podhoretzes have just had the most ferocious argument with the Trillings.” The comment suggests that they had a rather village-like view of the country. Norman Podhoretz was very much at that time a part of the New Left. He published David Reisman and Michael Maccoby’s article on the American crisis, he published the first version of Paul Goodman’s Growing Up Absurd, and he published Staughton Lynd’s arguments against the war. He published critiques of the Kennedy administration, which displeased it very much. Norman’s turn to the right was precipitated, I think, by the New York City school strike and by the conflict with the blacks—between the Jewish community and the blacks. When large segments of the American non-Jewish left sympathized with the Palestinians after the 1967 war, his New Left period ended.


Bowen: I want to go back to Oxford for a second. You taught class with Iris Murdoch.


Birnbaum: Yes.


Bowen: You were friendly with Isaiah Berlin.


Birnbaum: Well, it was Isaiah who encouraged me to come to Oxford.


Bowen: Yet you two were not very close ideologically?


Birnbaum: That was increasingly and painfully apparent.


Bowen: But you got along quite well, generally?


Birnbaum: Well, for a while. Let’s just say that the left is frequently accused of combining high-flying, broad, generous, inclusive notions of humanity with fallible human behavior. Let us say that in my relations with Isaiah, I discovered that this could also apply to liberals. Briefly, Isaiah encouraged me to come to Oxford to start sociology as an undergraduate discipline, which I did. But when the time came to back me in certain academic quarrels, he wasn’t there. Part of this was my fault. It’s a very complicated story.


Bowen: If we set aside personality differences, what in your judgment differentiates a liberal from a leftist, or a liberal from a progressive?


Birnbaum: I think it is clear that many liberals emphasize the formal properties of democracy. Some of the ideological groups around the White House have an exclusive focus on things like voting. One hopes they are not just thinking of the electronic machines used and abused in Ohio in 2004. But I think liberalism is certainly contained in the kind of social democracy I would identify myself with. But I think we must go a step further and ask what institutions could, in fact, sustain individual freedom, particularly in the face of the pressures of the market. Liberals concentrate on free space against the state, splendid when we think of practices like wiretapping, but true individualism requires free space against any number of coercive institutions. There were plenty of liberals I met in England who were in the old Tory Party. McMillan was a liberal. Some of them, by the way, the so-called one-nation Tories, are quite attentive to social issues. The Tory Party had that tradition rather like some of the Gaullists and certainly the European Christian democratic parties, German and Italian, which I knew quite well.


Bowen: Let me move you from Britain to the United States. You left Oxford, and you took a teaching position at Amherst College?


Birnbaum: No. When I first left Oxford, I consoled myself for eleven years of British Sundays by teaching for two years at Strasbourg with Henri Lefebvre. I then came back and taught for two years in New York on the graduate faculty in the New School. And so I didn’t move to Amherst until 1968.


Bowen: Which is very similar to your undergraduate college,Williams?


Birnbaum: Yes, it was for me. I was very glad to do it, because it was a good return to my roots; I had a marvelous experience at Williams. At bottom, I like very much the notion of broadly liberal undergraduate education, and I was the first sociologist at Amherst. Well, once Oxford and Cambridge decided to teach it, Swarthmore, Williams, Wesleyan, and Amherst decided it was safe to do so—even though it had been taught at Harvard and Yale for a very, very long time.


Bowen: So you were at Amherst maybe one year before getting involved in a fascinating legal case that, in some ways, resembles recent events? And that was Mandel v. Mitchell in 1969. You, Robert Heilbroner, Noam Chomsky, Richard Falk, Robert Paul Wolfe, and other major intellectual heavyweights sued the U.S. government over the issue of ideological exclusion?


Birnbaum: Yes. The U.S. government excluded Mandel, the leader of world Trotskyism, especially because the attorney general, John Mitchell, said he was responsible for the student riots in France. We sued on the very liberal grounds that we were teaching about these social movements and about Marxist ideas to our students. And whether or not we agreed with them, or the government agreed with them, the students should hear these ideas first hand. We wanted Mandel to come talk to our students.


Bowen: You make my point here. Your argument was a classic AAUP academic freedom issue.


Birnbaum: It was an academic freedom issue.


Bowen: And you lost.


Birnbaum: Yes, we lost first. But Mandel later came. I remember him coming to Amherst and giving a very good talk in which he quaintly referred to the students as “comrades,” which I hadn’t heard for a long time. But that was much later. We lost, yes.


Bowen: Well, fast forward to a year ago, with Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan likewise being excluded, this time by the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department, which invoked article 411 of the Patriot Act, the ideological exclusion clause. And of course, the AAUP is suing, with the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups, on behalf of Ramadan. What explains this? Have we come full circle, or are we continuing on a crooked line? (On September 21, 2006, Ramadan received a letter from the U.S. government informing him that his visa had been denied. See the story in this issue of Academe.)


Birnbaum: Let’s go back to something really interesting. Years ago, the New York Times did a series on “Middletown,” which was actually Muncie, Indiana. Ball State College, which later became Ball State University, was there. The Times went and looked at it, and some parent from the vicinity told the newspaper, “There’s nothing I fear so much as the college professor,” in all seriousness. Think about the kids at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who didn’t want, in the first-year introductory program, to read about Islam. There is a certain tendency among Americans to resist ideas, different ideas, whether in the form of opposition to Marxists, opposition to alleged Islamists, or opposition to other things. Ban Mandel, ban readings about Islam. David Horowitz, for instance, believes college professors are “remote from American values,” and higher education, presumably, is safe only in his hands. So this tendency is there, and shrewd ideological marketers like Horowitz and Daniel Pipes exploit it to boost their careers and affirm their own political preferences. I am reminded that the giant John Kenneth Galbraith, who has just died, was fired from Harvard in the thirties for being a Keynesian and a New Dealer.


Bowen: Back to the issue of what makes ideas so threatening to the American public. What are they frightened of?


Birnbaum: Well, I think this is a good question. And I think it’s a question we ought to ask ourselves, because of the campaigns against the universities. The paradox is, and this was pointed out by Todd Gitlin in a review in the Chronicle of Higher Education, the only people who take the academic left’s political potential seriously are state legislatures, which are fighting this phantom. I think really one probably has to go back to two things: first, that sketched by Richard Hofstadter in the famous book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, that is, the premium on character, the suspicion of abstraction. Second is the notion of the United States as the achieved revolution, a religiously founded one. But is the American Revolution achieved, or is it still an open-ended project? But Hofstadter went back to the sources of the notion of America as a redemptive nation in the ideas of the people who fled Cromwell’s England because they thought that even Cromwell was betraying God’s cause. And I think the notion of the nation as a church means that dissent has very little or no place in it.


Bowen: You wrote, “Democratic socialism has suffered from the failure of modern liberalism to achieve its promise.” Let me ask, specifically, if modern liberalism had achieved its promise, what would the United States look like today?


Birnbaum: Well, if modern liberalism had achieved its promise, the United States certainly would be a society in which the differential in investment of resources between the elite sector of higher education and the kinds of colleges most people go to would certainly be far less. And there would also, I think, be a much greater diversity of opinion and cultural resources available on television and in the mass media rather than the anxious servility of those awful Washington journalists when they speak about political issues. I think more value would also be placed on cosmopolitan, international, innovative experimentation and culture.


Bowen: Conservatives today do not like the term “social justice.” The term gets them quite upset. Why is that term so upsetting to conservatives?


Birnbaum: I wish I knew, since, after all, people identify a certain type of old conservative who thought that the order conservatives proposed was the only one that would work and that it had its quantity of justice. These people were the patrician New Dealers led by Franklin Roosevelt. But it seems to me the kinds of conservatism now institutionalized in the Republican Party and its fellow-traveling institutes, research centers, and the like is based on anxiety and fear. Fear of change. These conservatives have profited pretty well from the present order. If you think of the recent tensions between, let’s say, the Jewish community and the black community, certainly, there’s a note of inappropriate triumphalism in the Jewish response, “We made it, why don’t they?” Of course, if we’re talking of Jews, we came from two thousand years of written culture, and when we came to this country, we weren’t brought here as slaves from primitive societies without a written tradition. And we weren’t confined to the South as agricultural laborers. It makes a difference, even though Norman Podhoretz and others won’t admit it. It does seem that an anxious conservatism may reflect on some people’s sense of the fragility of their acquisitions. What is going to happen in America? I’m reminded of a professor of economics at Wesleyan who two or three years ago wrote a letter to the Times severely criticizing those who didn’t understand that outsourcing was an economic good, that it brought cheaper goods, and asking why people shouldn’t have cheaper goods. And I replied, “Well, you know, you can outsource lots of things. With video, why couldn’t the very expensive price of education at Wesleyan be reduced by using people from India who have very good educations, and who, because of the time difference, would also be available to their students at all hours of the day and night?” Of course, the economists favor free trade: there are no $65-a-week Mexican economists to take their jobs. A lot of the anxiety is directly related to the sense of fragility. I think this probably has been true through much of American history. There were always challenges, there were always dangers, there were always political polarizations.


Bowen: Please give me your assessment of the state of higher education today and of the primary threats that we face.


Birnbaum: I think that what we have now is a very, very serious threat because of the organized nature of what were previously scattered vigilante responses. The David Horowitz phenomenon and the campaigns and activities of the people around Lynne Cheney and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni—these represent an organized danger. At the same time, however, they are very explicit in their ends and therefore, in some sense, easy to identify and fight. That’s one thing. Second, there’s another kind of danger to academic freedom. Everybody talks about the predominance of liberals in certain fields. Well, what about the predominance of market analysts in economics? A British thinker said that as long as the world profession of economics looks to Harvard and MIT for leadership, we’ll never get a social democratic revival in economics. The same might apply to fields like international relations. When Kissinger left the State Department with such obvious reluctance in 1976, he was asked in a notable interview whether he thought there would be new thought on foreign affairs in the universities. And Kissinger laughed and said derisively, “Don’t be silly. When every assistant professor in international relations thinks he can be a deputy assistant secretary of state or defense, why should he think any differently than the bureaucrats?” And he was right. Absolutely right on that. So that you have to ask yourself why this allegedly left-wing American university has produced Kissinger, George Shultz, Condoleezza Rice, Samuel Huntington, and James Schlesinger. How come this university produces the technocrats who run American capitalism and our empire? Wasn’t it William Buckley who coined the phrase, “We’d rather be governed by the first two thousand pages of the names in the phone book than by people who came from Harvard”? Well, his objection to being governed by fellow Yale alumni (Ford and two Bushes) is less. But there is a much more subtle danger to the university, and it comes from the inner stratification of American higher education. That is to say, the stratification and the allocation of resources, the fact that 46 percent of the people teaching are part time and without benefits.


Bowen: You referenced the American Counsel of Trustees and Alumni a moment ago. It would like to have a top-down management structure that prevents faculty from participating in the governance of institutions. And ACTA does not lament the fact that two out of three appointments today in the academy go to contingent labor.


Birnbaum: No, because contingent faculty have to struggle for existence; they haven’t got much time to develop broad, socially critical views. They tend to be people with great integrity, despite being under the most obvious kinds of pressures.


Bowen: Do you think faculty need collective bargaining today, at both public and private institutions?


Birnbaum: I would think so, yes. Given the tendency of trustees, state legislatures, and so on to try to decide how and when resources should be allocated. Second, given the ideological pressures, I think collective bargaining can secure tenure and thus academic freedom. It is interesting that those who would not dream of telling their physician what medicines to prescribe do not hesitate to tell professors of history, politics, economics, and literature what they should teach. It does seem to me that there is a direct connection between the preservation of academic freedom and faculty autonomy.


Bowen: Do you think, then, that collective bargaining by faculty is the best way to achieve academic freedom and protect faculty autonomy?


Birnbaum: That is a fair conclusion. It strikes me that probably in the long run, it is.


Bowen: Why do you, as a sociologist, think so many faculty are averse to collective bargaining?


Birnbaum: Well, let me speak about my own experiences at Amherst. When I arrived, we were quite well paid and had terrific resources, but there was tension with the board of trustees, some of whom were philistines who believed that the communists had a foothold at Amherst. The “communists” were me and my eminent colleague in American studies, Leo Marx. John J. McCloy of Wall Street fame was for a while the chair of the board of trustees. McCloy publicly declared that tenure was very bad, because it made for deadwood. And I said, “Well, the American ruling class is characterized by three things: one, its murderous hypocrisy; two, its total incompetence—this was the time of the last agonies of Vietnam; and three, its total absence of style.” McCloy had insulted the very people he wished to behave as servants. He shortly thereafter protested to the late Bill Ward, who was then college president, and told him to make me apologize. Bill said that’s the one thing he was sure he couldn’t do. Shortly thereafter, McCloy left the board of trustees.


Bowen: Is that when you first joined the AAUP?


Birnbaum: Yes, because I think it was the first time I had a full-time tenured job at an American university. There was a little group of us at Amherst. One of my dear friends at Amherst was Tom Yost, who later became AAUP president. He was a great guy, and we had marvelous times together at Amherst. But I think that some of my colleagues felt socially elevated by being allowed to teach the sons of the American upper-middle class, and they felt that we were at the apex of the American academic system. It was no problem flying somebody in to talk to our students, and I remember the large parade of great European left thinkers who visited.


Bowen: Amherst had incredible resources. The faculty were paid well, the students were very bright and highly motivated, and the faculty had a voice in governance. Why, then, would faculty at Amherst even consider collective bargaining?


Birnbaum: Well, that, I think, was what certain people thought. On the other hand, there were episodes. The trustees insisted they would name the president, and there was a conflict with faculty when Bill Ward resigned. The trustees advertised that they wanted, other things being equal, a graduate of Amherst College to be the next president, which excluded women, since no woman graduate of Amherst was old enough at that point. It excluded also any number of colleagues who had served the college for twenty or twenty-five years who would have been plausible candidates. I remember writing to the Chronicle of Higher Education, saying, “A liberal arts institution is an institution of learning, not a country club. This distinction, however, appears to have escaped our trustees.” Julian Gibb, chair of chemistry at Brown, got the job. Julian’s distinction was that he had been chair of chemistry and he was an Amherst graduate of 1946. Neil Rudenstine, who was then provost of Princeton, was turned down. Neil was later made president of Harvard, but he wasn’t thought to be quite qualified at Amherst. He wasn’t an Amherst man. It was preposterous. The faculty would have certainly taken Neil, and we’d have had a very, very good president. He might have even done better at Amherst than at the gigantic factory in Cambridge.


Bowen: Let me conclude by asking one last question. You left Amherst to go to Georgetown Law. You were a tenured full professor at Amherst and a prolific author. You were highly regarded throughout the academy. Why leave and go to Georgetown?


Birnbaum: There were several reasons. I had already made contact with mainline America, but as I had mentioned, I was working with the United Auto Workers, which was great for me. With the presidential bid by Ted Kennedy, I felt that if I went to Washington, I could do things of consequence for the Democratic Party. Too, I had tired of a certain localism at Amherst, which grew after the exciting days of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Let’s put it that way. And second, I greatly treasured my contacts among the Jesuits and American Catholicism. I went to Georgetown as a visitor for a couple of years. My colleagues at the law school felt that I should do what I had always done, general social commentary. I, at this point, was beginning to detach myself from American sociology, with its disciplinary emphasis. Somebody asked me why I didn’t write in sociological journals anymore, to which the answer was, “How many times can you write papers proving that (a) America has a class system, and (b) people are alienated? I have done that.” And I was quite interested in things like the Cold War, the critique of the Cold War. I was interested in doing a different kind of intellectual work that I learned from my Amherst colleague, Leo Marx. This discovery of America and American culture is somewhat reflected in my 1988 book, The Radical Renewal. So there were all kinds of reasons at that point, including personal ones, to make a change.


Bowen: How did a critical social scientist fit in at a law school?

Birnbaum: In the most famous line of German literature, Faust bemoans the two souls dwelling in his breast. Law professors are rigorous and dispassionate parsers of statutes and decisions, meticulous in dark suits, shirts, and restrained ties. They are also, however, in jeans and sports shirts, social thinkers and metahistorians, Platonic philosopher kings. I greatly enjoyed the company of my hospitable Georgetown Law colleagues and learned a lot from their inner union of opposites.


Bowen: Has writing your memoirs been a kind of self-discovery or rediscovery?


Birnbaum: Yes, it’s been very much a voyage of self-discovery, of reconsideration. For instance, the other night, I talked at the Oxford-Cambridge dinner and actually found benign words about my period at Oxford, which used to rankle to a certain degree. So it’s a work of not only self-discovery, but also of reconsideration and acceptance of one’s self.


Bowen: But you’re not softening politically, I sense.


Birnbaum: In brief, no, I am not softening politically. How could I? After all, I am only eighty years young.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/category/trotskyism

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=512&issue=121

Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist


Building the New Anti-capitalist Party


By François Sabado


Socialist International Magazine


Issue: 121

2 January 09

Alex Callinicos’s article1 in the most recent issue of International Socialism shows well the changes that have taken place in the radical left in recent months. The characteristics of the situation, and in particular the deepening of the crisis of the capitalist system and the social-liberal evolution of social democracy, confirm that there is a space “to the left of the reformist left”. This space opens up possibilities for the building of new political formations or for initiatives such as the conferences of the anti-capitalist left,2 processes that require clarification. Certain experiences involve a diversity of currents. Although the political frontiers between these currents do not always appear clearly, the question of support for, or participation in, centre-left or social-liberal governments is a fundamental dividing line in the politics of alliances or regroupment.


There are not only “paths that diverge”, but different politics and distinct projects. When Callinicos evokes “more positive experiences” in connection with Die Linke in Germany and the New Anti-capitalist Party (Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste, NPA) in France, he is, in fact, speaking of two different projects.


In the case of Die Linke we are dealing with a left reformist party. This is a party integrated into the institutions of the German state. The great majority of its members come from the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS)—the party of the bureaucracy of the former East Germany. Die Linke is a party that has come out in favour of a common government with the Social Democrats (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, SPD) and, finally, a party whose project comes down to a “return to the welfare state”. Admittedly this party also reflects, in the west of Germany, a movement of radicalisation of certain sectors of the social movement, a step forward for the workers’ movement. But revolutionaries should not confuse these processes with the leadership of Die Linke, its reformist policies, its subordination to capitalist institutions and its objective of participation in government with the SPD.


The NPA on the other hand presents itself as an anti-capitalist party. It is a party whose centre of gravity revolves around struggles, around social movements and not parliamentary institutions. The founding characteristic of this party is the rejection of any alliance or participation in government with the centre-left or social liberalism. The NPA does not stop at anti_liberalism. Its politics are directed towards a break with capitalism and the overthrow of the power of the ruling classes.


In each case we are confronted with political formations—there are delimitations, programmes, policies—but they are not the same ones.


Anti-capitalist party or united front of a particular kind?


Also we cannot share Callinicos’s characterisation of the new formations of the radical left as “united fronts of a particular kind”. The Socialist Workers Party’s (SWP) conceptions were formulated by John Rees as follows: “The Socialist Alliance [the precursor of Respect] is…best seen as a united front of a particular kind applied to the electoral field. It seeks to unite left reformist activists and revolutionaries in a common campaign around a minimum programme”.3 This conception, originally linked to the British experience, was generalised as “the SWP’s conception of the nature of the new formations of the radical left”. We disagree with this conception.


To use the term “united front” for the building of a party or a political formation really is a novelty.


The united front is a response to the problems that are posed by the united action or the unification of the workers or of the social movement and of their organisations. The united front and the building of a party are two distinct things. An anti-capitalist and/or revolutionary workers’ party, over and above its precise definition, is a delimited political formation, on the basis of a programme and a comprehensive strategy of conquest of power by and for the workers. An anti-capitalist party cannot be the organic expression of “the whole class”. Although it must seek to constitute “a new representation of the workers”, or the convergence of a series of political currents, it will nevertheless not make the other currents of the social movement, or even the organisations that are “reformist or of reformist origin” led by bureaucratic apparatuses, disappear. The question of the united front remains posed.


Why should we not consider anti-capitalist parties within the framework of the united front? Because, if that were the case, it would amount to regarding these parties as a simple alliance or unitary framework—even of a “particular kind”. This would mean underestimating their construction as a framework or mediation necessary for the emergence of the revolutionary leaderships of tomorrow. To consider the NPA as a united front would amount to “toning down” its political positions to make them compatible with the realisation of this united front. For example, we do not make the unity of action of the workers’ and social movements conditional on an agreement on the question of government. Is that a reason for the NPA to give up or even relativise a battle on the question of government? No, we do not think so. The NPA made the question of government—the refusal to participate in governments of class collaboration—a decisive delimitation of its political combat. This example obviously demonstrates, but we could also evoke other examples, that the NPA does not fit in a united front framework. We want to build it as a coming together of experiences, activists and currents, but especially as a party. To regard it as a “united front of a particular kind” amounts to underestimating the battles that are necessary in order to build a political alternative. This conception of “a united front of a particular kind around a minimum programme” led the leadership of the SWP to reproach the leadership of the LCR with having “a negative and sometimes ultimatist attitude towards the collectives”,4 when the LCR was putting at the centre of its political battle the refusal to take part in a government with the leadership of the Socialist Party (Parti Socialiste, PS). With hindsight, does the leadership of the SWP still think that these reproaches were well founded?


And today, when Jean Luc Mélenchon, one of the organisers of the socialist left, leaves the PS while maintaining the continuity of his reformist conceptions, his positions on participation in or support for the Mitterrand and Jospin governments, and declaring that he wants to build a “French Die Linke”, what should the attitude of revolutionaries be? Should we support him and join with his proposals and projects for alliances with the French Communist Party, which maintains the perspective of governing tomorrow—with the PS? Or should we take into account his break with the PS, have a positive approach to unity of action with his current but not confuse the building of an anti-capitalist left with the building of a left reformist party?


Once again, yes to unity of action—as we demonstrated at the time of the No campaign in the European Constitution referendum—and yes to debate, but we should also realise that differences on the relationship to representative institutions and the attitudes concerning the question of government separate the electoral alternatives and the projects of building parties. The building of a French Die Linke, in relation to the history of the revolutionary movement and to what has been accumulated by the NPA, would constitute a retreat from building an anti-capitalist alternative. When a whole sector influenced by the anti_capitalist left has distanced itself from the leaderships of the traditional left, to constitute a new left reformist force would represent a step backward for the workers’ movement. We would once again involve this sector in “reformist manoeuvres”. Concepts such as that of the “united front of a particular kind” could then disarm us in defining a clear policy towards this type of current.


This concept, which underestimates the strategic range of the differences on the questions of government and representative institutions, throws light on some of positions taken by the International Socialist Tendency5 on international questions. It can explain, in the policy of your comrades in Germany, a relativisation of the critique of the policies of the leadership of Die Linke on the question of participation in governments with the SPD.

In the same way, we can also note the indulgence of the IST towards the new leadership of Rifondazione Comunista in Italy. At the last congress of Rifondazione a “left” reaction by its members put the partisans of Bertinotti6 in a minority. However, the policy followed by the new leadership is in continuity with the historical positions of Rifondazione, and continues to endorse the policy of alliances with the Democratic Party7 in all the regional executives governed by the centre-left.


Lastly, didn’t this conception of “a united front of a particular kind around a minimum programme” contribute to disarming the leadership of the SWP in its relationship with George Galloway, for whom Respect had to sustain “alliances with local Muslim notables who could deliver votes”?


To consider an anti-capitalist party as a united front framework can also lead to sectarian deviations. If the united front is realised, even in a particular form, might we not be tempted to make everything go through the channel of the party, precisely underestimating the real battles for unity of action? The anti-capitalist party must combine the party activities of a party and an orientation of unitary action, because we have not forgotten, contrary to what Callinicos suggests, that reformism continues to exist, that the movement of the workers has divisions and differentiations, and that it is necessary to intervene to draw it together, to unify the workers and their organisations.

Once again, the united front, in all its varieties, is one thing. Building a political alternative is another. The latter is the choice of the NPA.


What kind of revolutionary party?


Callinicos tries to catch us out by explaining that, although the NPA is an anti-capitalist party, it is “not a revolutionary party in the specific sense in which it has been understood in the classical Marxist tradition”. Let us discuss the classical Marxist tradition, which is extremely rich in its diversity.


Within this history the degree of strategic clarification, on principles and organisational tactics, and not forgetting the various interpretations of this or that revolutionary current, there are several models. It is true that the NPA is not the replica of the revolutionary organisations of the period after May 1968. Anti-capitalist parties such as the NPA do not start from general historical or ideological definitions. Their starting point is “a common understanding of events and tasks” on questions that are key for intervening in the class struggle. Not a sum of tactical questions, but the key political questions, like the question of a programme for political intervention around an orientation of class unity and independence.


In this movement there is a place and even a necessity for other histories, other references coming from the most varied origins.


Does that make it a party without a history, a programme and delimitations? No. It has a history, a continuity—that of class struggles, the best of the socialist, communist, libertarian and revolutionary Marxist traditions. It situates itself in the revolutionary traditions of the contemporary world, basing itself, more precisely, on the long chain of French revolutions from 1793 to May 1968, via the days of 1848, the Paris Commune and the general strike of 1936.


The NPA is also a type of party that tries to answer the needs of a new historical period—which opened at the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century—and the need to refound a socialist programme faced with the combined historical crises of capitalism and of the environment of the planet.


Faced with such challenges, the NPA affirms itself as a revolutionary party rather in the sense given by Ernest Mandel:


What is a revolution? A revolution is the radical overthrow, in a short time, of economic structures and (or) political power, by the tumultuous action of broad masses. It is also the abrupt transformation of the mass of the people from a more or less passive object into a decisive actor of political life. A revolution breaks out when these masses decide to put an end to conditions of existence that seem to them unbearable. It thus always expresses a grave crisis of a given society. This crisis has its roots in a crisis of the structures of domination. But it also expresses a loss of legitimacy of governments, a loss of patience, on the part of broad popular sectors.


Revolutions are, in the end, inevitable—the real locomotives of historical progress—precisely because domination by a class cannot be eliminated by the road of reforms. Reforms can at the most soften it, not suppress it. Slavery was not abolished by reforms. The absolutist monarchy of the ancien regime was not abolished by reforms. Revolutions were necessary in order to eliminate them.8


It is true that this definition is more general than the strategic, even politico-military, hypotheses that provided the framework for the debates of the 1970s, which were at that time illuminated by the revolutionary crises of the 20th century.


Anti-capitalist parties such as the NPA are “revolutionary” in the sense that they want to put an end to capitalism—” the radical overthrow of economic and political structures (thus state structures) of power”—and the building of a socialist society implies revolutions where those below drive out those above and “take the power to change the world”.


They have a strategic programme and delimitations but these are not completed. Let us recall that Lenin, against even part of the leadership of the Bolshevik Party, changed or substantially modified his strategic framework in April 1917, in the middle of a revolutionary crisis. He went from calling for the “democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants” to the need for a socialist revolution and the power of the workers’ councils. Certainly Lenin had consolidated over the years a party based on the objective of a radical overthrow of Tsarism, on the refusal of any alliance with the democratic bourgeoisie and on the independence of the forces of the working class allied with the peasantry. And this preparatory phase was decisive. But many questions were decided in the very course of the revolutionary process.


Many things have changed compared to the period after May 1968 and more generally compared to the whole historical period marked by the driving power of the Russian Revolution. It is more than 30 years since the advanced capitalist countries have experienced revolutionary or pre_revolutionary situations. The examples that we can use are based on the revolutions of the past. But, once again, we do not know what the revolutions of the 21st century will be like. The new generations will learn much from experience and many questions remain open.


What we can and must do is to solidly base the parties that we build on a series of strong references, drawn from the experience and the intervention of recent years, which constitute a programmatic and strategic foundation. Let us recall them: an anti-capitalist transitional programme which combines immediate demands and transitional demands— [1] a redistribution of wealth, [2] the challenging of capitalist property, [3] social appropriation of the economy, [4] class unity and independence, [5] a break with the economy and the central institutions of the capitalist state, the rejection of any policy of class collaboration, the taking into account of the ecosocialist perspective, the revolutionary transformation of society…


Recent debates have led us to make our conceptions of violence more precise. We have reaffirmed that “it was not the revolutions that were violent but the counter-revolutions”, as in Spain in 1936 or in Chile in 1973, when the use of violence aimed to protect a revolutionary process against violence from the ruling classes.


So in what respect does the new party constitute a change compared to the LCR? It must be a party that is broader than the LCR; a party that does not incorporate the entire history of Trotskyism and that has the ambition of making possible new revolutionary syntheses; a party that is not reduced to the unity of revolutionaries; a party in dialogue with millions of workers and young people; a party that translates its fundamental programmatic references into popular explanations, agitation and formulas. From this point of view, the campaigns of Olivier Besancenot9 constitute a formidable starting point. It must also be a party that is capable of conducting wide-ranging debates on the fundamental questions which affect society: the crisis of capitalism, global warming, bioethics, etc; a party of activists and adherents, which makes it possible to integrate thousands of young people and workers with their social and political experience, preserving their links with the backgrounds they come from; a pluralist party that brings together a whole series of anti_capitalist currents.


We do not want a second LCR or an enlarged and broader version of the LCR. To make a success of the gamble we are taking, the new party must represent a new political reality, following in the tradition of the revolutionary movement and contributing to inventing the revolutions and the socialism of the 21st century.


Avoid reformist temptations: build an anti-capitalist party!


In spite of these delimitations, Callinicos remains sceptical: “The LCR’s solution to the problem seems to be to install a kind of programmatic security_lock—commitment to anti-capitalism and opposition to centre-left governments. But this is unlikely to work: the more successful the NPA, the more it is likely to come under reformist pressures and temptations.”


Why such fatalism? Why would the development of the NPA automatically lead to reformist temptations? It is necessary from this point of view to consider the difference between a “spontaneous trade unionism”,10 to take up a formula of Lenin, and reformism as a political project and organisation, and even an apparatus. This “spontaneous trade unionism”, although it can form an environment favourable to reformist ideas, can also, faced with the increasing alignment of the reformist apparatuses to capitalist politics, move towards radical anti-capitalist, even revolutionary, positions, especially when the capitalist system is entering a phase in which it is reaching its historical limits. It is logical, if we build a popular, pluralist, broad, open party, that this party will come under all sorts of pressures. If it did not, that would be abnormal. But why should these pressures be expressed in crystallised reformist positions? There is and there can be a tension between the anti-capitalist character of the new party and the fact that workers, young people, even a series of personalities, join the new party quite simply because they seek a real left party, starting in particular from the interventions of Olivier Besancenot.


These new members can indeed be combative but full of illusions. This is the case with every mass party, even one that is in a minority. That is when it will be necessary to discuss and educate. That implies even more the need for a strong content to the political responses of the NPA and the careful maintenance of the radical character and the independence of the party.


In the same way, if these parties want to play a part in the reorganisation of the social movements, they must be pluralist. Many sensibilities must find their place in their ranks, including “consistent reformist” activists and currents, but that does not automatically mean that the problem is posed in terms of struggles between the revolutionary current and crystallised reformist currents that would have to be fought. The key question is that all the currents and activists of the NPA, over and above their positions on “reform and revolution”, put the class struggle at the centre and subordinate their positions in representative institutions to struggles and social movements.


Of course, we cannot exclude the hypothesis of a confrontation between reformists and revolutionaries. But it is not very probable, with the present political delimitations of the NPA, that bureaucratic reformist currents will join or crystallise. In a first historical phase of building the party the role of revolutionaries is to do everything they can so that the process of constituting the party really does give birth to a new political reality. That implies that revolutionaries avoid projecting the debates of the former revolutionary organisation into the new party. As soon as the NPA has taken off there will, of course, be discussions, differentiations, currents. Perhaps certain debates will correspond to cleavages between revolutionary perspectives and more or less consistent reformism. But even in these cases, the debate will not take the form of a political battle opposing a bureaucratic reformist bloc to the revolutionaries. Things will be more mixed, depending on the experience of the new party itself.

A revolutionary current in the NPA?


Here too there is no model. In many anti-capitalist parties there are one or more revolutionary currents, when these parties are in fact fronts or federations of currents. This is the case of the militants of the Fourth International in Brazil in the “Enlace” current.11 Without organising themselves as political currents related to the national political life of these parties, certain sections of the Fourth International can be organised through ideological associations or sensibilities. This is, for example, the case of the Revolutionary Socialist Political Association (Associação Política Socialista Revolucionária) within the Left Bloc in Portugal and of the Socialist Workers’ Party (Socialistisk Arbejderparti) within the Red-Green Alliance in Denmark. We can also find this type of current in other broader organisations or parties. This schema does not work for the NPA.


There are fundamental reasons for this. First, and fundamentally, there is the anti_capitalist and revolutionary character of the NPA, in the broad sense, and the general identity of views between the positions of the LCR and those of the NPA. There are and there will be political differences between the LCR and the NPA, with a greater heterogeneity and diversity of positions within the NPA, but the political bases under discussion for the founding congress of the new party already show political convergences between the ex-LCR and the future NPA.


Also, even though the NPA already constitutes another reality than the LCR, even though it is the possible crucible of an anti-capitalist pluralism, it is not justified today to build a separate revolutionary current in the NPA.


There is also a specific relation between the ex-LCR and the NPA. The ex-LCR represents the only national organisation taking part in the constitution of the NPA. There are other currents, such as a fraction of Lutte Ouvrière, Gauche Révolutionnaire, communist activists and libertarians, but unfortunately there are not, at this stage, organisations of a weight equivalent to that of the LCR. If that had been the case, the problem would be posed in different terms. In the present relation of forces, the separate organisation of the ex-LCR in the NPA would block the process of building the new party. It would install a system of Russian dolls which would only create mistrust and dysfunction.


Finally, the NPA does not come from nowhere. It is the result of a whole experience of members of the ex-LCR and also of thousands of others who have forged an opinion in a battle to defend their independence with respect to social liberalism and reformism.

There is thus a militant synergy within the NPA, where revolutionary positions intersect with other political positions coming from other origins, other histories and other experiences. Only new political tests will lead to new alignments within the NPA, not former political attachments.


It is an unprecedented gamble in the history of the revolutionary workers’ movement, but the game is worth the candle.


We will advance as we walk…

Notes
1: Callinicos, 2008. This comment by François Sabado of the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire (LCR) is an edited version of the translation by Murray Smith.
2: For instance, the conference “May 1968-May 2008” held in Paris earlier this year.
3: Rees, 2001, p32.
4: The “collectives” were the bodies that drove the successful No campaign in the French referendum on the European Constitution in 2005.
5: The international grouping of the which the SWP is a member.
6: Fausto Bertinotti led Rifondazione into a disastrous coalition with the centre-left in Italy.
7: The Democratic Party is a grouping of centre-left currents formed in 2007.
8: Ernest Mandel, “Why are we Revolutionaries Today?”, La Gauche, 10 January 1989.
9: The LCR’s candidate in recent presidential elections and its most well known figure.
10: Lenin used the phrase to evoke the spontaneous trade union reaction or the feeling of workers who wished to defend conditions in the workplace.
11: A current within the Brazilian Socialism and Freedom Party (Partido Socialismo e Liberdade).
References
Callinicos, Alex, 2008, “Where is the Radical Left Going?”, International Socialism 120 (autumn 2008), www.isj.org.uk/?id=484
Rees, John, 2001, “Anti-capitalism, Reformism and Socialism”, International Socialism 90 (spring 2001), http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj90/rees.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=5714

Universal Health Care: A 100 Year Plan


By Ethan Allen


Blacklisted News


Feb. 26, 2008


“…There's been a driven agenda by the Fabian socialists to create national health care systems throughout the world, including the United States…The march towards complete integration of the United States into global socialism has been an age old battle going back to the early 1900s, and doesn't look to stop any time soon. The modern socialist agenda masks itself in the humanist platform, of helping those that cannot help themselves. When the curtain is pulled back to show who's been behind social health care reforms, the secret reveals a power elite of bankers, socialists, and industrialists who only crave power and total control. History shows this to be true, and if we don't learn from history, we're doomed to repeat it…”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism

Types of Socialism
The word "socialism" has been used by many political movements throughout history to describe themselves or their goals, generating numerous types of socialism. Different self-described socialists have used the term socialism to refer to different things, such as an economic system, a type of society, a philosophical outlook, a collection of moral values and ideals, or even a certain kind of human character. Some definitions of socialism are so vague that they may include anything and everyone on Earth,[1] while others are so specific that they only include a small minority of the things that have been described as "socialism" in the past.


There have been numerous political movements who called themselves socialist under some definition of the term; this article attempts to list them all. Some of these interpretations are mutually exclusive, and all of them have generated debates over the "true" meaning of socialism.


Democratic socialism and social democracy


Main articles: Democratic socialism and social democracy


Modern democratic socialism is a broad political movement that seeks to propagate the ideals of socialism within the context of a democratic system. Many democratic socialists support social democracy as a road to reform of the current system. Other groups within democratic socialism support more revolutionary change in society to establish socialist goals. Conversely, modern social democracy emphasises a program of gradual legislative reform of the capitalist system in order to make it more equitable and humane, while the theoretical end goal of building a socialist society is either completely forgotten or redefined in a pro-capitalist way. The two movements are widely similar both in terminology and in ideology, though there are a few key differences.


Many who describe themselves as "socialists" disagree with the terminology of "democratic socialism" because they believe that socialism necessarily implies democracy. For many years, though, the terms "democratic socialism" and "social democracy" were used interchangeably to describe the same overall political movement, but in modern times, social democracy is considered to be more centrist and broadly supportive of current capitalist systems (for example, the mixed economy) and the welfare state, while many democratic socialists support a more fully socialist system, either through evolutionary or revolutionary means.


The term social democracy can refer to the particular kind of society that social democrats advocate. The Socialist International (SI) - the worldwide organization of social democratic and democratic socialist parties - defines social democracy as an ideal form of representative democracy, that may solve the problems found in a liberal democracy. The SI emphasizes the following principles[1]: Firstly, freedom – not only individual liberties, but also freedom from discrimination and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of abusive political power. Secondly, equality and social justice – not only before the law but also economic and socio-cultural equality as well, and equal opportunities for all including those with physical, mental, or social disabilities. Finally, solidarity – unity and a sense of compassion for the victims of injustice and inequality.


Democratic socialists and social democrats both advocate the concept of the welfare state, but whereas most social democrats view the welfare state as the end itself, many democratic socialists view it as a means to an end. Democratic socialists are also committed to the ideas of the redistribution of wealth and power, as well as social ownership of major industries, concepts widely abandoned by social democrats. As of current, there are no countries in the world that could qualify as a "democratic socialist" state, though many European nations are considered to be socially democratic or nearly so.


The prime example of social democracy is Sweden, which prospered considerably in the 1990s and 2000s. Sweden has produced a robust economy from sole proprietorships up through to multinationals, while maintaining one of the highest life expectancies in the world, low unemployment, inflation, all while registering sizable economic growth. Many see this as validation of the superiority of social democracy. However, many others point out that in comparison with other developed countries Sweden did fall behind in that period [2]. Also, Sweden experiences welfare dependency of around 20% of the working age population according to the Swedish Trade Union Confederation. Likewise, crime has been steadily rising since the 1960s, and during the past decade has grown ever more violent.


[edit] Religious socialism
[edit] Christian socialism


Main article: Christian socialism


There are individuals and groups, past and present, that are clearly both Christian and Socialist, such as Frederick Denison Maurice, author of The Kingdom of Christ (1838), or the contemporary Christian Socialist Movement (UK) (CSM), [3] affiliated with the British Labour Party.


Distributism, is a third-way economic philosophy formulated by such Catholic thinkers as G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc to apply the principles of social justice articulated by the Roman Catholic Church, especially in Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum.

Various Catholic clerical parties have at times referred to themselves as "Christian Social." Two examples are the Christian Social Party of Karl Lueger in Austria before and after World War I, and the contemporary Christian Social Union in Bavaria. Yet these parties have never espoused socialist policies and have always stood at the conservative side of Christian Democracy[10].


Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is an advocate of a form of Christian socialism as he claims that Jesus Christ was a socialist.


Further information: Christian left and social gospel


Irish Republican socialism
Socialism has traditionally been part of the Irish Republican movement since the early 20th century, when James Connolly, an Irish Marxist theorist, took part in the Easter Rising of 1916. Today, most Irish nationalist and Republican organizations located in Northern Ireland advocate some form of socialism, both Marxist and non-Marxist. The Social Democratic and Labour Party, which until recently was the largest nationalist party in Northern Ireland, promotes social democracy, while militant Republican parties such as Sinn Féin, Republican Sinn Féin, and the 32 County Sovereignty Movement all promote their own varieties of democratic socialism intended to re-distribute wealth on an all-island basis once a united Ireland has been achieved (by force). The Irish Republican Socialist Movement, encompassing the Irish Republican Socialist Party and Irish National Liberation Army, has an ideology which combines Marxist-Leninism with traditional militant Republicanism and is said to be the most direct fulfillment of Connolly's legacy.


[edit] Eco-socialism
Main article: Eco-socialism


Merging aspects of Marxism, socialism, environmentalism and ecology, Eco-socialists generally believe that the capitalist system is the cause of social exclusion, inequality and environmental degradation. Eco-socialists criticise many within the Green movement for not going far enough in their critique of the current world system and for not being overtly anti-capitalist. At the same time, Eco-socialists would blame the traditional Left for overlooking or not properly addressing ecological problems[12].


Eco-socialists are anti-globalisation. Joel Kovel sees globalisation as a force driven by capitalism - in turn, the rapid economic growth encouraged by globalisation causes acute ecological crises[13].


Eco-socialism goes beyond a criticism of the actions of large corporations and targets the inherent properties of capitalism. Such an analysis follows Marx's theories about the contradiction between use values and exchange values. As Joel Kovel explains, within a market economy, goods are not produced to meet needs but are produced to be exchanged for money that we then use to acquire other goods. As we have to keep selling in order to keep buying, we must persuade others to buy our goods just to ensure our survival, which leads to the production of goods with no previous use that can be sold to sustain our ability to buy other goods. Eco-socialists like Kovel stress that this contradiction has reached a destructive extent, where certain essential activities - such as caring for relatives full-time and basic subsistence - are unrewarded, while unnecessary economic activities earn certain individuals huge fortunes[13].


Agrarian socialism is another variant of eco-socialism.


[edit] Differences between various schools


Although they share a common root (as elaborated upon in the above sections), schools of socialism are divided on many issues, and sometimes there is a split within a school. The following is a brief overview of the major issues which have generated or are generating significant controversy amongst socialists in general.


[edit] Theory


Some branches of socialism arose largely as a philosophical construct (e.g. utopian socialism); others in the heat of a revolution (e.g. early Marxism, Leninism). A few arose merely as the product of a ruling party (e.g. Stalinism), or a party or other group contending for political power in a democratic society (e.g. social democracy).

Some are in favour of a socialist revolution (e.g. Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, revolutionary Marxism), whilst others tend to support reform instead (e.g. Fabianism, reformist Marxism). Others believe both are possible (e.g. Syndicalism, various Marxisms). The first utopian socialists even failed to address the question of how a socialist society would be achieved.


Socialists are also divided on which rights and liberties are desirable, such as the "bourgeois liberties" (such as those guaranteed by the U.S. First Amendment or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union). Some hold that they are to be preserved (or even enhanced) in a socialist society (e.g. social democracy), whilst others believe them to be undesirable (e.g. Maoism). Marx and Engels even held different opinions at different times, and some schools are divided on this issue (e.g. different strains of Trotskyism).


All socialists criticize the current system in some way. Some criticisms center on the ownership of the means of production (e.g. Marxism), whereas others tend to focus on the nature of mass and equitable distribution (e.g. most forms of utopian socialism). A few are opposed to industrialism as well as capitalism (common where socialism intersects green politics)? Utopian Socialists, like Robert Owen and Saint-Simon argued, though not from exactly the same perspective, that the injustice and widespread poverty of the societies they lived in were a problem of distribution of the goods created. Marxian Socialists, on the other hand, determined that the root of the injustice is based not in the function of distribution of goods already created, but rather in the fact that the ownership of the means of production is in the hands of the upper class. Also, Marxian Socialists maintain, in contrast to the Utopian Socialists, that the root of injustice is not in how goods (commodities) are distributed, but for whose economic benefit are they produced and sold.


[edit] Implementation


Most forms and derivatives of Marxism, as well as variations of syndicalism, advocated total or near-total socialization of the economy. Less radical schools (e.g. Bernsteinism, reformism, reformist Marxism) proposed a mixed market economy instead. Mixed economies, in turn, can range anywhere from those developed by the social democratic governments that have periodically governed Northern and Western European countries, to the inclusion of small cooperatives in the planned economy of Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito. A related issue is whether it is better to reform capitalism to create a fairer society (e.g. most social democrats) or to totally overthrow the capitalist system (all Marxists).


Some schools advocate centralized state control of the socialized sectors of the economy (e.g. Leninism), whilst others argue for control of those sectors by workers' councils (e.g. syndicalism, Left and Council communism, Marxism, Anarcho-communism). This question is usually referred to by socialists in terms of "ownership of the means of production." None of the social democratic parties of Europe advocate total state ownership of the means of production in their contemporary demands and popular press.

Another issue socialists are divided on is what legal and political apparatus the workers would maintain and further develop the socialization of the means of production. Some advocate that the power of the workers' councils should itself constitute the basis of a socialist state (coupled with direct democracy and the widespread use of referendums), but others hold that socialism entails the existence of a legislative body administered by people who would be elected in a representative democracy.


Different ideologies support different governments. For example, in the era of the Soviet Union, western socialists were bitterly divided as to whether the Soviet Union was basically socialist, moving toward socialism, or inherently un-socialist and, in fact, inimical to true socialism. Similarly, today the government of the People's Republic of China claims to be socialist and refers to its own approach as "Socialism with Chinese characteristics," but most other socialists consider China to be essentially capitalist. The Chinese leadership concurs with most of the usual critiques against a command economy, and many of their actions to manage what they call a socialist economy have been determined by this opinion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society

Fabian Society - Socialism

The Fabian Society is a British intellectual socialist movement, whose purpose is to advance the principles of Social democracy via gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary means. It is best known for its initial ground-breaking work beginning late in the 19th century and continuing up to World War I. The society laid many of the foundations of the Labour Party and subsequently affected the policies of states emerging from the decolonisation of the British Empire, especially India. Today, the society is a vanguard "think tank" of the Centre-left New Labour movement. It is one of 15 socialist societies affiliated to the Labour Party. Similar societies exist in Australia (the Australian Fabian Society), Canada (the Douglas-Coldwell Foundation and in past the League for Social Reconstruction) and New Zealand.


The group, which favoured gradual incremental change rather than revolutionary change, was named – at the suggestion of Frank Podmore – in honour of the Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus (nicknamed "Cunctator", meaning "the Delayer"). His Fabian strategy advocated tactics of harassment and attrition rather than head-on battles against the Carthaginian army under the renowned general Hannibal Barca.


The society was founded on 4 January 1884 in London as an offshoot of a society founded in 1883 called The Fellowship of the New Life.[1] Fellowship members included poets Edward Carpenter and John Davidson, sexologist Havelock Ellis, and future Fabian secretary, Edward R. Pease. They wanted to transform society by setting an example of clean simplified living for others to follow. But when some members also wanted to become politically involved to aid society's transformation, it was decided that a separate society, The Fabian Society, also be set up. All members were free to attend both societies. The Fabian Society additionally advocated renewal of Western European Renaissance ideas, and their imposition on the rest of the world.


The Fellowship of the New Life was dissolved in 1898[2], but the Fabian Society grew to become the preeminent academic society in the United Kingdom in the Edwardian era, typified by the members of its vanguard Coefficients club.


Immediately upon its inception, the Fabian Society began attracting many prominent contemporary figures drawn to its socialist cause, including George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, Annie Besant, Graham Wallas, Hubert Bland, Edith Nesbit, Sydney Olivier, Oliver Lodge, Leonard Woolf and Virginia Woolf, Ramsay MacDonald and Emmeline Pankhurst. Even Bertrand Russell briefly became a member, but resigned after he expressed his belief that the Society's principle of entente (in this case, countries allying themselves against Germany) could lead to war.


At the core of the Fabian Society were Sidney and Beatrice Webb. Together, they wrote numerous studies of industrial Britain, including alternative co-operative economics that applied to ownership of capital as well as land


…Through the course of the 20th century the group has always been influential in Labour Party circles, with members including Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee, Anthony Crosland, Richard Crossman, Tony Benn, Harold Wilson, and more recently Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. The late Ben Pimlott served as its Chairman in the 1990s. (A Pimlott Prize for Political Writing was organized in his memory by the Fabian Society and The Guardian in 2005, and continues annually). The Society is affiliated to the Party as a socialist society. In recent years the Young Fabian group, founded in 1960, has become an important networking and discussion organisation for younger (under 31) Labour Party activists and played a role in the 1994 election of Tony Blair as Labour Leader. Following a period of inactivity, the Scottish Young Fabians were reformed in 2005.


The ideology of the Fabians can be encompassed in the famous quote, " Fabianism feeds on Capitalism, but excretes Communism ".

^ Pease, Edward (1916). A History of the Fabian Society. New York: E.P. DUTTON & COMPANY. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13715/13715.txt.
^ Pease, 1916

Political Surrealism Meets Political Reality: Opportunism

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/the_case_for_cooperation.html

An Opportunity for Cooperation?


By Jack Kelly


RealClearPolitics.com


January 17, 2008

"He is so well informed, and he loves to deal with both sides of an issue," said Larry Kudlow, conservative economist and CNBC talk show host. "I was honored to meet him. He is a very impressive man."


He is President-elect Barack Obama, with whom Mr. Kudlow and other conservative opinion leaders, including columnist Charles Krauthammer, Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot, Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol and National Review Editor Rich Lowry, dined Tuesday night at the home of columnist George Will.


The dinner caused consternation among partisans left and right. Some liberals wondered if it didn't presage a further trimming of the promises Mr. Obama made during the campaign. Some conservatives groused the pundits were trading in their principles for greater standing in the D.C. social circuit.


But as a matter of both policy and politics, the dinner was exactly the right thing for both Mr. Obama and his frequent critics to do.


Mr. Obama spoke often in the campaign of his intent to listen to all sides in the American conversation. This is apparently one campaign promise he intends to keep.


The likelihood the dinner conversation changed anyone's mind about big issues is exceedingly small. But what almost certainly will happen is that the pundits will be quicker to praise Mr. Obama when they think he is right, more gentle in their criticism when they think he is wrong. That's certainly worth the investment of an evening's time.


And it's worth the investment of an evening to try to change the tone in Washington. I blame the poisonous atmosphere in the capital more on his critics than on President Bush, but Mr. Obama's efforts to change that atmosphere are welcome. America has real enemies. But Democrats and Republicans are not among them. Extreme partisans on both sides could profit from the example of civility and outreach set by the president-elect and the conservative pundits.


Yes, it's all symbolism. But symbolism is important. I think the greatest failure of the Bush administration was his failure to communicate effectively what he was doing, and why. He spent little time talking to his friends, much less to his critics. It would be an exaggeration to say Barack Obama already has spent more effort in outreach to conservative opinion leaders than Dubya did in his eight years in office, but it wouldn't be much of an exaggeration.


And Mr. Obama displays an exquisite subtlety in his symbolism. The day after the dinner at the Will home, he met with liberal pundits, which is wholly appropriate. But the meeting with the liberals didn't last as long, and no refreshments were served. Both evangelical Pastor Rick Warren and gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson will pray at the Inaugural, but Pastor Warren has the more prominent role.


Beneath the symbolism there is the slim possibility of substantive cooperation from time to time. The Obama administration appears likely to occupy ground between the Democratic leadership in Congress and Republicans. So on some issues -- like, for instance, on the size and nature of tax cuts in the stimulus package -- it might be the president and the GOP against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.


The dinner at the Will home may have been part of Mr. Obama's effort to obtain GOP support for his stimulus plan, from which he has much more to gain than Republicans do. If it works, Mr. Obama will get all the credit. If it doesn't, GOP participation will make it harder for Republicans to criticize him at election time.


The most juvenile assumption partisans make is that the people who disagree with them are stupid. Republicans will be in big trouble if they fail to recognize that Mr. Obama is a formidable political talent. Republicans should accept the hand he extends to them, because it is far, far more important that the economy recover than that Democrats be blamed for its failure to do so. But Republicans should count carefully their fingers afterward.

Move Aside Aquaman! Here Comes America's Caped Climate Crusader & the Environmental Justice League!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28141383/

Barack Obama, Climate Crusader: Major Policy Shift Coming, But Quick Enough for Treaty by December 2009?

msnbc.com staff and news service reports


Dec. 12, 2008


Al Gore has a competitor for title of America's climate crusader. His name is Barack Obama, and of all his immediate foreign policy changes none will mark as big a shift from the Bush administration as his approach to cutting carbon emissions, the leading cause of global warming.


"President Obama will be like night and day compared to President Bush," Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., told reporters this week at U.N.-sponsored climate talks in Poznan, Poland.


Obama's administration will mark a new era in U.S. climate policy, one eagerly awaited by countries and environmental groups that believe global warming is the most urgent problem facing the world today.

[NO. BASED ON OBAMA'S VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT JOE BIDEN, UNOFFICIAL CLIMATE CZAR, AL GORE & HIS OFFICIAL CABINET CHOICES - A VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTAL 'JUSTICE LEAGUE' - HILLARY CLINTON AS SECRETARY OF STATE, BILL RICHARDSON AS SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, STEVEN CHU, AS SECRETARY OF ENERGY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY PHYSICIST JOHN HOLDREN AS PRESIDENTIAL SCIENCE ADVISER and OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY MARINE BIOLOGIST JANE LUBCHENCO AS HEAD OF THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT'S NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION - IT WILL MARK A CONTINUATION OF THE PRIOR CLINTON-GORE ADMINISTRATIONS' CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES! SEE: BELOW]

The Bush administration has steadfastly refused to sign on to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which requires the 37 industrial nations that have agreed to the pact to reduce emissions to just below 1990 levels by 2012.


Obama wants to cut U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases back to 1990 levels by 2020. [THIS WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY RAISE THE COST OF LIVING FOR ALL AMERICANS DURING A PROFOUND ECONOMIC CRISIS]. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol. U.S. emissions now run 17 percent above 1990 levels, and his policies would allow them to keep rising until 2025.


Obama's approach would set a cap on emissions but also allow companies to share emission allowances if one company runs over its limit and another is below its ceiling. Bush opposed such mandates and instead promoted finding technological solutions.


Obama also is betting that pumping public money into "green jobs" tied to climate and energy policies can help pull the country out of recession.

The Senate and House are controlled by Democrats, so a green stimulus and a cap-and-trade program are on a fast track.


Obama has nominated an alternative fuels guru, Nobel-award winning physicist Steven Chu, to be the nation's energy secretary, and is creating a White House office on energy and environment to be run by Clinton-era EPA chief Carol Browner.


Buzz in the air... (cont'd below following commentary)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[WE SURMISE THAT THE 'BUZZ IN THE AIR' IS LIKELY CAUSED BY THE WHIRLING SOUND OF BLACK HELICOPTER BLADES FROM THE ADVANCE-TEAM 'COMING TO TAKE THEM AWAY HA-HAAA!]

["'They're Coming To Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa!' is a hit 1966 novelty song by Napoleon XIV (aka Jerry Samuels)...The song was a worldwide hit. Kim Fowley recorded a cover version produced by Mark Wirtz in 1966 which charted in Denmark and New Zealand. Shortly after, German act Malepartus II released "Ich glaab, die hole mich ab" (I think they're coming to get me) in Hessian dialect on Telefunken's record label. Mexico's Los Ovnis recorded the song "Napoleon XIV" in Spanish the same year. Tiny Tim has allegedly recorded a cover of this song, but the only copy is said to be in the possession of author Samuels himself...Released on Warner Bros. Records, the bizarre depiction of mental illness became an instant hit in the United States that summer, reaching number 3 on the Billboard Hot 100 pop singles chart...The song, mostly set to a rhythm tapped out on a snare drum and tambourine, deals with mental illness, seemingly brought about by the singer's lover. The singer speaks rhythmically rather than singing the lyric, over a sparse, multitracked percussion track dominated by drum kit and tambourines with a siren sounding in and out of the "chorus". According to Samuels, the vocal glissando, signifying the vocalist's plunge into insanity, was achieved by Samuels manipulating tape recording speeds, a variation on the technique used by Ross Bagdasarian in creating the original Chipmunks novelty hits. Supposedly, the song's thumping beat derives from or was inspired by the Scottish marching song "The Campbells Are Coming".]

'THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE ME AWAY' LYRICS:

By: Napoleon The 14th

----------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTKq4uMB-QQ&feature=related

Remember when you ran away

And I got on my knees and begged you

Not to go because I'd go berserk?

-----------------------------

WELL,

------------------------------

You left me anyhow and

Then the days got worse and worse

And now you see I've gone completely

out of my mind,

-----------------------------
AND
-----------------------------

[chorus 1]

They're coming to take me away,

Haha, they're coming to take me away,

Ho ho, hee hee, ha ha,

To the funny farm

Where Life is Beautiful all the time

And I'll be happy to see

Those Nice Young Men

In their Clean White Coats

And they're coming to take me AWAY,HA HAAAAA

-------------------------------

You thought it was a joke,

and so you LAUGHED, YOU LAUGHED

When I had said that losing you

Would make me flip my lid,

--------------------------

RIGHT?

-------------------------

You know you laughed.

I HEARD you laugh, you laughed

And laughed and laughed

And then you left,

And now you know I'm Utterly Mad

-------------------------

AND

--------------------------

[chorus 2]

They're coming to take me away,

Haha, they're coming to take me away,

Ho ho, hee hee, ha ha,

To the Happy Home with Trees and Flowers

And Chirping Birds and basket weavers

Who sit and smile and

Twiddle their thumbs and toes

And they're coming to Take me Away,

HAHAAAAAAAAA

---------------------------

I cooked your food,I cleaned your house,

And this is how you pay me back

For all my kind unselfish loving deeds

---------------------------

HUH?

-------------------------

Well, you just wait,

They'll find you yet,

And when they do, they'll put you in

the ASPCA, you mangy MUTT,

-------------------------

AND

-------------------------

(chorus 1)

(chorus 2)

(chorus 1 trailing into mumbles in the distance)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(continued from above article)

...Abroad [ABOARD], Obama will have plenty of support for his dramatic departure from Bush's policies.


"As I walk around the hallways, I hear lots of different dialects and languages — and then 'Obama, Obama, Obama,'" Gustavo Silva-Chavez, a climate analyst with Environmental Defense, said during the Poznan talks. "So definitely a lot of the negotiators here understand that it's the end of the Bush era and the beginning of the Obama era, and they're very excited about that."


Brice Lalonde, the chief French delegate to the talks, said Europe was "thrilled" with Obama's promises to pursue renewable energies. If the U.S. commits itself to ambitious environmental goals, other countries will be forced to take bold steps themselves, he said.

Obama has promised to invest $15 billion each year to support private-sector efforts toward clean energy, arguing that tackling climate change can create millions of new jobs as the U.S. invests in technologies to promote solar and wind power, biofuels and cleaner coal-fired plants.

[BUT THE CAPED CLIMATE CRUSADER WILL BE HARDPRESSED TO DELIVER THE MILLIONS OF NEW 'GREEN-COLLAR AMERICAN JOBS' HE HAS PROMISED. UNFORTUNATELY, THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES: WINDMILLS, COMPACT FLUORESCENT LIGHTBULBS, & ELECTRIC CAR BATTERIES ARE ALL PRIMARILY MANUFACTURED IN ASIA & EUROPE AND MUST BE 'OUTSOURCED'. BY DEFINITION, 'GREEN-COLLAR JOBS' ARE JOBS THAT CANNOT BE OUTSOURCED!]

[See: Holy Guacamole Batman! Those Electric Auto Battery Manufacturing Jobs You Promised Are NOT American GREEN, But Rather Foreign RED, BLUE & ORANGE!! ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/12/holy-guacamole-batman-these-electric.html ; How Many New Obama Administration-Created American Jobs Will it Take to Change an Imported Chinese Compact Fluorescent Lightbulb?, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/12/how-many-new-obama-administration.html ].

Hurdles ahead

But there are obstacles. With a recession and financial bailouts at home, Obama might not get as much funding as he'd like.

[WELL, IF THE CAPED CLIMATE CRUSADER USES HIS 'GREEN POWERS' TO PRINT MORE 'GREENBACKS', PERHAPS, THEN, HE WILL BE BETTER ABLE TO 'SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND'!]

Activists also fear Obama will not be able to quickly reduce the U.S. appetite for coal and oil, increase the fuel efficiency of American cars or fight powerful economic interests like the oil industry.

[THE CAPED CLIMATE CRUSADER WILL HAVE TO BALANCE THE NEED TO SECURE THE COUNTRY'S ENERGY SECURITY WITH HIS CONSTITUENTS' ZEAL TO SAVE THE PLANET AND BANKRUPT THE COUNTRY IN ORDER TO DEFEAT THE FORCES OF EVIL - AMERICA'S ENERGY PROVIDERS & CONSUMING PUBLIC].

The talks on where to go after the Kyoto pact expires in 2012 are behind schedule due to bickering. Participants had hoped to have a new roadmap by December 2009.


Kerry, in Poznan as soon-to-be chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said it was "absolutely essential" that China, which has overtaken the United States as the world’s top carbon dioxide emitter, gets more involved in combating global warming to win U.S. endorsement of any new treaty.


China, however, insists that rich nations should first make deep cuts at home. India happens to back China on this.


The transitional state of U.S. politics hasn't helped speed things up, either.


"The immediate effect is a stalling of discussions," said Kim Carstensen, the World Wildlife Fund's chief official on climate change. "It's a sort of black hole. But in the larger picture, we are definitely hopeful."


Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, shares that longer-term view. Obama "gets global warming," he said, "and understands that its solutions are also at the heart of solving our financial situation through the creation of millions of green jobs."


msnbc.com's Miguel Llanos, The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.themoneytimes.com/articles/20081219/advocates_of_grave_global_warming_issues_to_be_obama_s_top_science_advisers-id-1045187.html

Advocates of Grave Global Warming Issues to be Obama’s Top Science Advisers

by Shikha P


Money Times


December 19, 2008

Washington, December 19: Determined to reverse Bush’s anti science policies, President-elect Barack Obama has included prominent anti-global warming scientists in his administration to be his top science advisers.

[MAY WE ASK, WHAT ARE 'ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS'??? HOW CAN TRUE SCIENTISTS BE ANTI-ANYTHING IF SCIENCE IS SUPPOSED TO BE OBJECTIVE AND FACT-BASED??? ISN'T THE MONIKER 'ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTIST' AN OXI-MORON?? ISN'T IT MORE CREDIBLE THAT 'ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS' ARE THOSE THAT HAVE A PRECONCEIVED IDEA OR IDEOLOGY THAT PRESUPPOSES A CERTAIN SCIENTIFIC OUTCOME???]

While Harvard University physicist, John Holdren, is named as the presidential science adviser, Jane Lubchenco, marine biologist at Oregon State University, would be the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Their appointments are due to be announced tomorrow.


John Holdren has deep understanding of global environmental changes and energy technologies and his work has always focused on nuclear proliferation and science and technology policies. After serving as the chairman of the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and as the director of the Woods Hole Research Center, now he is all set to address global warming issues more vigorously under Obama’s patronage.


Jane Lubchenco would further strengthen the flagship operation with her immense knowledge in environmental science and marine ecology, as she becomes one of the key science advisers of the president. She would also happen to be the first woman to hold that position.


Holdren and Lubchenco have argued consistently for a mandatory limit on greenhouse gas emissions to prevent cataclysmic climate change, Bush administration always turned a deaf ear.


In October, Lubchenco was quoted as saying, “The Bush administration has not been respectful of the science. But I think that's not true of Republicans in general. I know it's not.”


Bush’s administration has always been criticized for being anti-science. Nobel laureate David Baltimore, former president of the California Institute of Technology commented, “the Bush administration has been the most remarkably anti-science administration that I've seen in my adult lifetime".


On the other side, Barack Obama has always made it his agenda to reverse Bush’s global climatic notions. “This is our generation’s moment to save future generations from global catastrophe by creating a market for clean-burning fuels that can stop the dangerous transformation of our climate,” said Obama in 2007, while unveiling his global warming plan during his campaign in California.


Keeping up to his agenda, Obama has acted wisely by including prominent scientific personalities to his administration. Holdren and Lubchenco may work with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Commerce Secretary Bill Richardson to reform global warming policies of the government for better solutions.


Holdren and Lubchenco have started churning best possible solutions for controlling the catastrophic climatic changes by involving best scientists worldwide. Holdren has been attending international climate talks and has helped coordinate a statement on the subject from scientific academies around the world. Lubchenco has also formed the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program to teach mid-career scientists how to participate in public policy debates.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://uk.reuters.com/article/burningIssues/idUKTRE4BI5UZ20081220

Obama picks climate specialist as science adviser


By Ross Colvin


Reuters


Sat Dec 20, 2008

CHICAGO (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama underscored on Saturday his intent to push initiatives on climate change by naming John Holdren, an energy and climate specialist, as the new White House science adviser.


Holdren is a Harvard University physicist who has focused on the causes and consequences of climate change and advocated policies aimed at sustainable development. He has also done extensive research on the dangers of nuclear weapons.

[WELL, IF DR. HOLDREN HAS FOCUSED ON THE IMPORTANT SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT OF 'CAUSATION', WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN THE SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT OF 'CORRELATION', THEN HE MUST ADMIT TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT HE CANNOT ESTABLISH THAT HUMAN ACTIVITIES HAVE PRIMARILY OR EVEN SUBSTANTIALLY' CAUSED' GLOBAL WARMING, SINCE HE AND OTHER CLIMATE SCIENTISTS HAVE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT OTHER INDIVIDUAL INTERVENING CAUSES ARE TO BLAME. ALSO, DR. HOLDREN & OTHER CLIMATE SCIENTISTS HAVE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT NON-CYCLICAL GLOBAL WARMING ATTRIBUTABLE TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES ARE, IN FACT, THE PRIMARY 'CAUSE' OF OBSERVABLE NON-CYCLICAL CLIMATE CHANGE. WHILE DR. HOLDREN AND OTHER CLIMATE SCIENTISTS HAVE ARGUABLY FOUND A 'CORRELATION' BETWEEN HUMAN ACTIVITIES, OBSERVABLE GLOBAL WARMING & OBSERVABLE CHANGES IN CLIMATE, THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS PROVING 'CAUSATION', WHICH ENTAILS A HIGHER SCIENTIFIC STANDARD OF PROOF.]

[THIS INDICATES THAT PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA HAS SELECTED THESE INDIVIDUALS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHANGING U.S. NATIONAL SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS FROM THE MORE RIGOROUS 'CAUSATION' TO THE LESS RIGOROUS 'CORRELATION', AS A BASIS FOR U.S. SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY POLICY!! THIS, IN TURN, ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF GLOBAL WARMING & CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATES (it must be kept in mind that these two terms are different), SIGNIFIES AN INTENTION TO FOCUS NO LONGER ON PROVING ENVIRONMENTAL & HEALTH 'RISKS', BUT RATHER, ENVIRONMENTAL & HEALTH 'HAZARDS', IN ORDER TO ULTIMATELY ESTABLISH EUROPE'S EXTRA-WTO PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AS U.S. LAW!!]

Obama pledged to put a priority on encouraging scientific breakthroughs in areas such as alternative energy solutions and finding cures to diseases, as he announced the pick of Holdren and other top science advisers in the Democratic weekly radio and video address.


"Today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation," Obama said. "It's time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America's place as the world leader in science and technology."


"From landing on the moon, to sequencing the human genome, to inventing the Internet, America has been the first to cross that new frontier," Obama said.


Obama said that government has played an important role in encouraging those breakthroughs and could do so in the future.


The Bush administration has had a rocky relationship with the scientific community and was at times accused by critics of ignoring scientific evidence in its efforts to make political points on issues such as global warming.


Holdren, who teaches at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, will head the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. He is a former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.


Obama, who takes office on January 20, this week finished naming Cabinet secretaries for his incoming administration.


On Friday, he introduced his choices of Illinois Republican congressman Ray LaHood to head the Transportation Department and California Democratic Rep. Hilda Solis to be secretary of labor.


HAWAII VACATION


After working for weeks in his hometown of Chicago to assemble his team, Obama leaves on Saturday morning for Hawaii for a Christmas vacation with his family.


Obama has named Steven Chu, winner of the 1997 Nobel Prize in physics who was an early advocate for finding scientific solutions to climate change, to head the Energy Department.


He has also tapped former Environmental Protection Agency head Carol Browner for a new post that will coordinate White House policy on energy and climate change.


In addition to the pick of Holdren, Obama also announced that marine ecologist Jane Lubchenco of Oregon State University would be his nominee for head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.


Obama also named two people to work with Holdren to lead the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, also known as PCAST.


One of them, Eric Lander, is founding director of the Broad Institute, a collaboration of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University that focuses mapping the human genome.


The other is Harold Varmus, a former director of the National Institutes of Health who won a Nobel Prize for his studies on cancer and genetics. For the past nine years, Varmus has served as president and chief executive officer of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.


(Writing by Caren Bohan; Editing by Eric Beech)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=azT0MzwSNKwM&refer=us

Holdren as Obama Science Pick Adds Climate Activism (Update2)


By John Lauerman and Brian K. Sullivan


Dec. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Harvard University Professor John P. Holdren, President-elect Barack Obama’s pick as his top science adviser, will push for action on climate change and embryonic stem cell research in the White House.


Holdren, 64, a professor of environmental policy, will be named to the post in a radio address by Obama tomorrow, Harvard, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, said today in a statement. His appointment to the position of assistant to the president for science and technology depends on confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Obama assumes office Jan. 20.


Holdren, former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, is a specialist in energy and climate change who advised Al Gore on the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” His appointment signals a sharp about- face from President George W. Bush’s approach to greenhouse gases and global warming.


“The disruptions and its impacts are growing more rapidly than anyone expected, even just a few short years ago,” Holdren said in an interview last year. “There is already widespread harm.”


Holdren uses a U.S. map in global warming presentations to show areas of Cape Cod and Florida that would vanish if temperatures continue rising. “Global warming” is too mild a term to describe climate changes happening now, he said.


‘Rapid’ Warming


“It implies something gradual, something uniform, something quite possibly benign, and what we are experiencing is none of those,” Holdren said. “It is rapid in relation to the capacity of societies and eco-systems to respond, it is highly non- uniform, and it is certainly not benign.


Calls and e-mails to Holdren’s office today weren’t returned.


Scientists and former colleagues praised Holdren’s experience and familiarity with top scientific issues. Obama’s pick of Holdren and the appointments of Steven Chu as Energy Secretary and Jane Lubchenco as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief complete a “science dream team for the new administration,” Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy for the advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement.


Holdren is “absolutely the right person at the right time,” said Alan Leshner, chief executive officer of the AAAS, the science advocacy group where Holdren formerly served as president. “He’s an expert not only in energy climate and environment but also in national security, nuclear arms and nuclear energy.”


‘World-Class’


William K. Reilly, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator under President George H. W. Bush and now a San Francisco-based senior advisor to the private equity firm TPG, praised Holdren as a “world-class scientist” who is “extremely knowledgeable about energy research needs and quite critical of the decline in support for energy research since the late- 1970s.”


Reilly and Holdren co-chair the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan group of energy experts that released energy policy recommendations in 2004.


Holdren is the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy program in the School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. He admonished politicians last year to show stronger leadership on climate change, which the AAAS called a “growing threat to society.”


Great Challenges


“None of the great interlinked challenges of our time -- the economy, energy, environment, health, security, and the particular vulnerabilities of the poor to shortfalls in all of these -- can be solved without insights and advances from the physical sciences, the life sciences, and engineering,” Holdren said in today’s statement.


Holdren’s views on another controversy, embryonic stem cell research, also are likely to run contrary to those of Bush, who has restricted U.S. funding to minimize the number of embryos destroyed to create new colonies of cells.


Holdren has already said he thinks the research should advance without the funding restrictions, said David Baltimore, the 1975 Nobel Prize winner who is now a biology professor at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.


“I’m a great fan of John,” Baltimore said yesterday in a telephone interview. “He’s an extraordinary thinker and he also has just the right kind of background to play a role in the energy area that’s so important right now.”


Truth-Tellers [OR TRUE-BELIEVERS???]


Jonathan Lash, president of the Washington-based environmental advocacy group World Resources Institute, cited the choices of Holdren and Chu as signs the new administration will aggressively act on climate change and other scientific issues.


“They will tell the president and the American people the truth about the scientific findings on our most important challenges,” Lash said. “Each of them has shown a deep understanding of the risks created by human pressure on our environment, and each has experience and skill in helping policy makers understand and base their decisions on science.”


Holden’s appointment also was cheered by George Daley, an embryonic stem cell researcher at the Harvard-affiliated Children’s Hospital in Boston.

“It’s very exciting to have a really formidable scientific intellect in that position,” Daley said in a telephone interview today. “It says the administration clearly wants to hear from the most credible scientists, whether its on energy, climate change or, we hope, on stem cells.”

[THIS COMPARISON IMPLIES THAT ONLY 'CREDIBLE' SCIENTISTS AGREE THAT ACTION NEED BE TAKEN ON BOTH CLIMATE CHANGE & EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH. IF A SCIENTIST GOES AGAINST 'CONSENSUS' AND ADVOCATES FOR OTHER THAN IMMEDIATE ACTION ON EITHER, HE OR SHE IS 'DEEMED' NONCREDIBLE. THIS WOULD APPEAR TO HARKEN BACK TO THE 1950'S MCCARTHYISM DURING WHICH THOSE WHO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE 'COMMUNIST (RED) THREAT' CONSENSUS WERE DISPARAGED AND MARGINALIZED PROFESSIONALLY.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/04/convincing_the_climate_change_skeptics/

Convincing the climate-change skeptics


By John P. Holdren


Boston Globe

August 4, 2008


THE FEW climate-change "skeptics" with any sort of scientific credentials continue to receive attention in the media out of all proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of their arguments. And this muddying of the waters of public discourse is being magnified by the parroting of these arguments by a larger population of amateur skeptics with no scientific credentials at all.


Long-time observers of public debates about environmental threats know that skeptics about such matters tend to move, over time, through three stages. First, they tell you you're wrong and they can prove it. (In this case, "Climate isn't changing in unusual ways or, if it is, human activities are not the cause.")


Then they tell you you're right but it doesn't matter. ("OK, it's changing and humans are playing a role, but it won't do much harm.") Finally, they tell you it matters but it's too late to do anything about it. ("Yes, climate disruption is going to do some real damage, but it's too late, too difficult, or too costly to avoid that, so we'll just have to hunker down and suffer.")


All three positions are represented among the climate-change skeptics who infest talk shows, Internet blogs, letters to the editor, op-ed pieces, and cocktail-party conversations.


The few with credentials in climate-change science have nearly all shifted in the past few years from the first category to the second, however, and jumps from the second to the third are becoming more frequent.


All three factions are wrong, but the first is the worst. Their arguments, such as they are, suffer from two huge deficiencies.


First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that variations in the sun's output might be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)

[DEAR PROFESSOR, THE PHRASE YOU HAVE USED, 'TIED BEYOND DOUBT', IS LOOSELY BORROWED FROM THE LEGAL PROFESSION WHERE IT HAS A MUCH MORE PRECISE MEANING IN CRIMINAL and CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & PROCEDURE. (See, e.g.: IN RE WINSHIP , 397 U.S. 358 (1970), at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=397&invol=358 .) SINCE WORDS AND THEIR USAGE ARE IMPORTANT TO ANY MEANINGFUL DEBATE, LET US EXAMINE WHAT THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF 'BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT' REALLY MEANS: IT IS DEFINED AS AN ADJECTIVE EMPLOYED AS "part of jury instructions in all criminal trials, in which the jurors are told that they can only find the defendant guilty if they are convinced 'beyond a reasonable doubt' of his or her guilt. Sometimes referred to as 'to a moral certainty,' the phrase is fraught with uncertainty as to meaning, but try: 'you better be damned sure.' By comparison it is meant to be a tougher standard than 'preponderance of the evidence,' used as a test to give judgment to a plaintiff in a civil (non-criminal) case." See: Law.Com Dictionary at: http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=59 .]

[IN OTHER WORDS, FIRST, WE SEE THAT YOU ARE IMPLYING THAT CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS HAVE ESTABLISHED GUILT IN A 'CRIMINAL' SENSE, THAT GREENHOUSE GAS BUILDUPS IN THE ATMOSPHERE HAVE BEEN MEASURED AND TIED 'BEYOND DOUBT TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES' [SUGGESTING THAT THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY HAS SATISFIED AN EVEN GREATER STANDARD THAN THE LEGAL 'BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT' STANDARD]. AND SECOND, WE SEE THAT YOU ARE IMPLYING THAT CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTIST OBSERVATIONS HAVE ESTABLISHED, THAT GREENHOUSE GAS BUILDUPS IN THE ATMOSPHERE THUS TIED TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES, HAVE, 'BEYOND A DOUBT', DISRUPTED GLOBAL CLIMATE. HOWEVER, CLIMATE SCIENTIST 'OBSERVATIONS' OF CLIMATE DISRUPTION, DO NOT, IN FACT, SCIENCE OR LAW, COUNT AS PROOF 'BEYOND A (REASONABLE) DOUBT' THAT HUMAN-INDUCED GLOBAL WARMING HAS CAUSED CLIMATE DISRUPTION.]

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven't even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong.


Members of the public who are tempted to be swayed by the denier fringe should ask themselves how it is possible, if human-caused climate change is just a hoax, that:

 The leaderships of the national academies of sciences of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Russia, China, and India, among others, are on record saying that global climate change is real, caused mainly by humans, and reason for early, concerted action.


 This is also the overwhelming majority view among the faculty members of the earth sciences departments at every first-rank university in the world.

 All three of holders of the one Nobel prize in science that has been awarded for studies of the atmosphere (the 1995 chemistry prize to Paul Crutzen, Sherwood Rowland, and Mario Molina, for figuring out what was happening to stratospheric ozone) are leaders in the climate-change scientific mainstream.

[JUST BRING OUT THE 'BIG NAMES' IN ACADEMIA, SCIENCE & POLITICS TO SUBDUE & 'RE-EDUCATE' THE PUBLIC WHEN THE TRUE SCIENCE ARGUMENT CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED! THIS IS ONE OF THE OLDEST TRICKS IN POLITICS!!]

US polls indicate that most of the amateur skeptics are Republicans. [IS THIS THE TYPE OF 'SCIENCE' ('POLITICAL' & 'SOCIAL' SCIENCE) THAT DR. HOLDREN REPRESENTS???] These Republican skeptics should wonder how presidential candidate John McCain could have been taken in. He has castigated the Bush administration for wasting eight years in inaction on climate change, and the policies he says he would implement as president include early and deep cuts in US greenhouse-gas emissions. (Senator Barack Obama's position is similar.)


The extent of unfounded skepticism about the disruption of global climate by human-produced greenhouse gases is not just regrettable, it is dangerous. It has delayed - and continues to delay - the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge. The science of climate change is telling us that we need to get going. Those who still think this is all a mistake or a hoax need to think again.


John P. Holdren is a professor in the Kennedy School of Government and the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard and the director of the Woods Hole Research Center.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/18/AR2008121803640.html?wprss=rss_politics

Advocates for Action on Global Warming Chosen as Obama's Top Science Advisers


By Juliet Eilperin and Joel Achenbach

Washington Post Staff Writers

Friday, December 19, 2008; A06


President-elect Barack Obama has selected two of the nation's most prominent scientific advocates for a vigorous response to climate change to serve in his administration's top ranks, according to sources, sending the strongest signal yet that he will reverse Bush administration policies on energy and global warming.


The appointments of Harvard University physicist John Holdren as presidential science adviser and Oregon State University marine biologist Jane Lubchenco as head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which will be announced tomorrow, dismayed conservatives but heartened environmentalists and researchers.


Like Energy Secretary-designate Steven Chu, who directs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Holdren and Lubchenco have argued repeatedly for a mandatory limit on greenhouse gas emissions to avert catastrophic climate change. In 2007, as chairman of the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren oversaw approval of the board's first statement on global warming, which said: "It is time to muster the political will for concerted action."


In October, Lubchenco told the Associated Press that she believed public attitudes on climate change were shifting, adding: "The Bush administration has not been respectful of the science. But I think that's not true of Republicans in general. I know it's not."


The Bush administration's political appointees have edited government documents to delete scientific findings and to block scientists' recommendations on issues involving climate change, endangered species, contaminants in drinking water and air pollution.


"The Bush administration has been the most remarkably anti-science administration that I've seen in my adult lifetime," Nobel laureate David Baltimore, former president of the California Institute of Technology, said in an interview. "And I do think that there will be a sea change in the Obama administration with the respect shown for the findings of science as well as the process of science."


But Bush's science adviser, John H. Marburger III, challenged that assessment. "There are stupid and foolish things that have been perpetrated by employees of the federal government in the executive branch, but it doesn't mean that the president is anti-science," he said. "The president is getting blamed for every little thing that happens that people don't like in the administration."


Marburger added that because of the president's opposition to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and mandatory curbs on greenhouse gas emissions: "It was easy [for opponents] to infer that he was negative toward science. . . . The president respects science; he likes science."


Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, predicted that Obama's latest nominees would work with a Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and a Commerce Secretary Bill Richardson to change how government addresses global warming.


"You can see the elements coming together," Meyer said. "It means you've got people in key places across the administration that get the urgency of the climate issue and get the need for aggressive policy to move climate solutions forward, both in the U.S. and internationally."
But Holdren's reported selection inspired no joy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market advocacy group that denounces global warming "alarmists" and opposes many environmental laws. Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at CEI, said, "I think he's a very bad choice. His views are extreme, they're not based in fact, and he's a ranter."


Of the overall Obama team, Ebell said, "They will pursue an anti-energy agenda that is designed to constrict energy supplies and raise energy prices."


Lubchenco did not draw the same level of criticism from conservative groups as Holdren yesterday, but she represents just as radical a departure for NOAA, which oversees marine issues as well as much of the government's climate work. While NOAA has traditionally favored commercial fishing interests in policy disputes, Lubchenco has consistently called for conservation measures to safeguard ocean ecosystems in the face of industry opposition.


Joshua S. Reichert, managing director of the Pew Environment group, said NOAA officials have too often set aside scientific considerations when deciding how much fish to extract from the sea. "For too many years, politics has played a greater role in fisheries management than science," he said. "This appointment carries with it the hope that this may soon change."


Holdren and Lubchenco have pushed other scientists to play a more active policy role. Holdren has attended international climate talks and helped coordinate a statement on the subject from scientific academies around the world. Lubchenco founded the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program to teach mid-career scientists how to participate in public policy debates.


Andrew Rosenberg, who was deputy director of NOAA's Marine Fisheries Service under President Bill Clinton and is professor of natural resources and the environment at the University of New Hampshire, said that by selecting Lubchenco -- someone who is a respected researcher and an active player in national policy discussions -- "it's saying that science agencies have a role in policy."


Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2008/12/obamas-new-ocea.html

Obama’s New Hotshot at NOAA


By Kenneth R. Weiss


LA Times


December 18, 2008


Jane Lubchenco, one of the nation's top marine ecologists, has been picked to lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, sources say, an indication that President-elect Barack Obama wants to restore integrity to the science-based agency buffeted by politics in recent years.


Her appointment, and the likely appointment of John Holdren of Harvard and Woods Hole Research Center, signals a U-turn in the federal government's approach to greenhouse gases and global warming. Holdren, rumored to be named Friday as Obama's science advisor, has likened our current situation to "being in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."


The two anticipated appointments have been met with relief -- and even glee -- among scientific and environmental organizations. Their members have spent a half-dozen years hand-wringing over the politicization of science and worrying about lost opportunities to preserve remnants of nature and the resiliency of the planet.

[SPEAKING OF THE 'POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE'...]

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which makes up the largest portion of the Department of Commerce, does much of the federal government's research on global warming, as well as regulate fisheries. Lubchenco, among her various efforts to protect the abundance and diversity of marine life, has led a team of researchers at Oregon State University studying the link of climate change devastating sea life in coastal waters off the Pacific Northwest.


“Our oceans are experiencing the effects of global climate change –- melting sea ice, acidification, and coral loss," said Vikki Spruill, president of the Ocean Conservancy. "It is especially reassuring to have a world-renowned ecologists as NOAA administrator who knows where the biggest environmental challenge of our lifetime is taking place: beneath the sea and along our coastlines."


Both Lubchenco and Holdren have fat resumes, with a long list of degrees and awards, and both previously held the post of president of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science.

Did the Founders Envision a Filibuster-Proof Congress (Senate) as Being Good for the Republic?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/11/should_barack_obama_go_to_geor.html?nav=rss_blog

Should Barack Obama Go To Georgia?


By Chris Cillizza


The Fix - Washington Post Political Blog


November 20, 2008, 6:30 pm


UPDATE, 6:30 pm: Barack Obama has cut a new 60-second radio ad in support of former state Rep. Jim Martin's Senate campaign in Georgia. In the ad, which was obtained by The Fix moments ago, Obama thanks everyone who voted for him on November 4 and then adds: "The elections aren't over....I want to urge you to turn out one more time and help elect Jim Martin to the United States Senate."


A radio ad is not a personal visit by the president-elect but Martin's campaign will gladly take it.


ORIGINAL POST


Even as President-elect Barack Obama continues to rapidly fill out his White House staff and Cabinet picks, the buzz around whether he will spend some of his prized political capital on behalf of former state Rep. Jim Martin (D) in Georgia continues to grow.


Martin is taking on Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R) in a Dec. 2 runoff occasioned by the fact that the GOP incumbent was unable to win 50 plus one percent of the vote on Nov. 4.


Martin clearly benefited from Obama's presence at the top of the ticket -- particularly in the black community -- and Democrats eyeing a 60-seat filibuster proof majority believe an Obama appearance may be the only way Martin can come close to re-creating the sort of base turnout he needs to beat Chambliss next month.


To date, Obama and his transition team have been non-committal about such a visit so soon after he was elected the 44th president of the United States.


For Obama, it may not make sense to head to Georgia as it would be painted by Republicans -- rightly, so -- as a partisan act inconsistent with the president-elect's post-partisan message. And, if Martin winds up losing, which conventional wisdom suggests he will, then some of Obama's luster will have worn off before he even takes the oath of office.


But, with Democrats currently holding 58 seats, Sen. Norm Coleman's (Minn.) margin over entertainer Al Franken narrowing and polls showing Martin within shouting distance, the pressure on Obama to make a visit to get Democrats to 60 seats in the 111th Congress is sure to increase.


"When you're President of the United States it pays to remember who your friends are," said one senior Democratic operative granted anonymity to speak candidly about the president-elect. "Thinking Barack Obama has anything to risk by campaigning for Jim Martin is like most conventional wisdom -- just plain wrong."


Another Democratic Senate insider was more measured about Obama's impact. "Obama could make a big difference with a visit, but it's not the only way he can help," said the source. "Fundraising or appearing in ads would be enormously beneficial to Martin as well."


Obama is already an issue in the runoff campaign as Martin is attacking Chambliss in a television ad for his opposition to the "Obama economic recovery plan." The ad's narrator adds: "Jim Martin will help Barack Obama cut taxes for the middle class and get our economy moving again."


The Martin campaign is also recycling a radio ad that Obama did for them in the general election. (It began airing Tuesday in the state.)


During the campaign, Obama turned down a series of requests for appearances or television ads in support of Democratic candidates -- picking and choosing only a few races in which to engage.
The most prominent was the television ad Obama cut in support of Oregon Sen.-elect Jeff Merkley; he also lent his voice to a radio ad for Rep.-elect Jim Himes in Connecticut.


Whether Obama travels to Georgia may well depend heavily on whether he views the Senate contest as the last race of 2008 or the first race of 2010.


Because Obama did take the time to lend his voice to radio ads for Martin during the campaign, his political operation could well point those ads -- and the burdens of filling out a new government between now and January 20 -- as reasons why he simply can't make the time to come down to the Peach State.


If Georgia is seen as the first race of the 2010 cycle, however, Obama could use it as an opportunity to flex his political muscles for Republicans (and Democrats) in Congress; if Martin won due to an Obama visit, there would be significant trepidation -- among vulnerable Democrats and Republicans -- to cross his legislative priorities

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/11/19/georgia%E2%80%99s-us-senate-runoff-has-broader-political-importance

Georgia’s US Senate runoff has broader political importance


By Patrik Jonsson Staff writer


Christian Science Monitor


November 19, 2008 edition


The post-election vote could tighten Democrats’ grip on Capitol Hill while giving GOP stars a chance to shine.


Atlanta


The last voters in the historic 2008 election headed back to the polls in Georgia on Tuesday, ready to decide the extent of the Democrats’ grip on Washington and give Republican standard-bearers clues as to how to operate as outsiders.


“I don’t mind voting again,” says Democrat James Cato, an Atlanta travel agent, braving a brisk morning to file an early vote for the Dec. 2 runoff between Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss and Democratic challenger Jim Martin. “I tend to come out when I feel my vote is really going to count.”


The Senate runoff between two former University of Georgia fraternity brothers is the first election after Barack Obama won the presidency. It’s become increasingly important as Democrats won the Alaska recount this week, putting them within two seats of gaining a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. That makes the Georgia runoff the last seat to be decided by voters as the disputed Minnesota race now heads to a recount.


As the GOP’s current panoply of stars – Gov. Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee – prepare to stump for Mr. Chambliss, the Georgia runoff has become a stage for potential Republican national candidates to find their footing, hone their messages, and begin formulating the answer to a vexing question: How to marshal the vaunted independent vote and rebuild the party from what Duke University political scientist Michael Munger calls “the smoking ruins.”


GOP stars play to larger audience


“This is the first quick election after the Obama victory,” says Mr. Munger. “So when we see these people coming in and trying out messages … they’re trying out messages for a larger stage.”


To be sure, that stage is looking dusty, even in this Republican shoo-in state. “The really bad thing for Republicans is that there’s any runoff at all – this was thought to be a completely safe seat,” says David Rohde, also a Duke election expert. “For the Republican party and for the way each party can see itself in the national context, it has a lot of implications.”


It’s personal between Chambliss and Mr. Martin, who have run a series of highly negative ads attacking each other’s characters and associations.


Chambliss, who was first swept into office as part of the Republican revolution in 1994, is having an image crisis of his own making – testing even Republicans’ patience. At a recent Senate hearing, he defended corporations by berating a safety whistle-blower. Many conservative Georgians are upset about Chambliss’s support for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout.


“A major part of the advertising from [Chambliss] is that this [runoff] is now the front line for the battle of ideological control of the nation,” says Charles Bullock, a political science professor at the University of Georgia in Athens. “So if you’re a conservative and worried about what the Democrats may do with the White House and [Congress], here’s where you could make a difference.”


Martin faces his own challenges.


Chambliss seems to be winning points by drawing Martin into a debate over a “fair tax” proposal that shows some promise as a future Republican drawing card.


Still, says Munger, “The Republicans are demoralized, it’s hard to get partisans out, and Democrats could win by a ton of votes.” Thus, the parade of stars on behalf of Chambliss.


Last week, Zell Miller, the former Democratic senator who blasted John Kerry at the 2004 Republican convention, stumped for Chambliss. “I don’t like this ‘spread the wealth,’” Mr. Miller told a raucous partisan crowd. “To steal from Peter to pay Paul, even if it gets Paul to vote for you, is wrong, wrong, wrong.”


John McCain, Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Romney split the Republican ticket by thirds in the Georgia primary, with Huckabee eking out the win. Former Arkansas governor and pastor Huckabee now has a show on Fox News; Romney is the economic strategist and corporate turnaround artist; and Ms. Palin, who had a rough entry into national politics, can also find a stage in Georgia unshackled from McCain.


Party unity is being tested


They all appeal to various strands of the fractured GOP coalition. But the question, especially in light of the primary results, is whether one of them can unite the GOP.


They’re likely to test their chances in Georgia, says Napp Nazworth, a political science lecturer at the University of Georgia. Huckabee’s message is, “I’m conservative, but I’m not angry about it,” says Mr. Nazworth. For Palin, he says, “it depends on her being able to reinvent herself as someone who can appeal beyond the base.”


For their part, Democrats have been begging Mr. Obama to come, but he has so far demurred. But Bill Clinton was scheduled to speak at Clark Atlanta University on Wednesday, providing a foil to the Republican heavyweights.


Victor Davis Hanson, a political commentator and classics professor at the University of California, Fresno, says the runoff here will give clues as to how deep the Republican dilemma really runs, and who might be best to carry the GOP standard forward.


“For now,” Mr. Hanson writes in an e-mail, “Republicans can’t agree whether (1) much needs changing ideology-wise … since many conservative ballot measures passed, or (2) Democratic success … proves that the [Republican] base and its ideas are hopelessly unappealing to growing numbers of youth, minorities, and women, or (3) the conservative message is fine but needs to be repackaged for the times with better spokespeople.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/2008/11/19/nra_chambliss_senate.html

NRA backs Chambliss in U.S. Senate runoff


By JIM THARPE


The Atlanta Journal-Constitution


November 19, 2008


The National Rifle Association on Wednesday threw its support behind incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss in Georgia’s Dec. 2 runoff, saying he fears Democratic challenger Jim Martin would help erode Second Amendment protections for gun owners.


“We’re going to have some real battles in Washington,” Wayne LaPierre, executive vice-president of the NRA, said Wednesday morning in Atlanta before traveling to Perry for a Chambliss rally.


LaPierre, speaking to reporters at Chambliss’s Cobb County headquarters, said he thinks President-elect Barack Obama will “break his promise” to protect gun rights. And he said that if Martin is elected, the Atlanta attorney and former state lawmaker will help hasten the erosion of gun rights in the United States.


Martin’s campaign immediately rejected that idea, saying Martin is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.


“Jim supports the Second Amendment and will protect the rights of all law-abiding citizens to bear arms,” said Martin spokesman Matt Canter. “Saxby Chambliss is the one who wants to raise taxes on guns and ammunition with his support of a national sales tax.”


The NRA has about 150,000 members in Georgia and about 4 million nationwide.


LaPierre was in town a few hours before former President Bill Clinton arrives in Atlanta to campaign for Martin.


“That’s the same Bill Clinton who for eight years tried to destroy our rights,” NRA executive director Chris Cox said.


The Georgia Senate runoff is attracting a lengthening line of political A-listers as Democrats push for a 60-vote, filibuster-proof “super majority” in the upper chamber and Republicans pull out all stops to hold Chambliss’s seat.


The possibility of a 60-vote majority shot up overnight as Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens lost his seat in Alaska to a Democrat. The Democrats now have 58 seats - only races in Minnesota and Georgia have to be decided.


“If the Minnesota race is lost and this race is lost, they (Democrats) will have a blank check,” Chambliss told reporters and about three dozen gun-rights supporters who attended LaPierre’s endorsement.


Charles Bogle Jr., 75 of Sandy Springs came up to shake LaPierre’s hand at the end of the press conference.


“Don’t give up,” Bogle, a gun owner and hunter, told the NRA official.


“I won’t,” LaPierre replied. “This thing is going to be a battle. They (Democrats) are going to break their promises.”


Bogle said he fears a Democratic congress and president will work together to raise taxes on guns and ammunition. He said he thinks they will also place additional restrictions on gun ownership and tighten registration requirements.


“They will take them away from us,” Bogle said. “These people scare me to death.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/111408/edi_483365.shtml

Georgia Senate runoff crucial to nation: Chambliss re-election may prevent a filibuster-proof Democratic majority


Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff


November 14, 2008


So you thought the election was over? No way. One of the most important elections of the year is taking place right here in Georgia in the runoff between Republican U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss and challenger Jim Martin.


The race is important enough for President-elect Barak Obama to flood the state with "community organizers," including 15 sent to Augusta, to get out the vote for Martin.


And Republicans are sending in heavy hitters to stump for Chambliss, including John McCain, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee.


The stakes couldn't be higher. There are still undecided Senate races in Alaska, Minnesota and Georgia. If all three go Democratic -- and the first two are trending that way -- Democrats will have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, giving Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, both far-out liberals, unbridled congressional power, even if Obama disagrees with them.


This is why the re-election of Chambliss is a must. He may be all that stands between the American people and congressional tyranny.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_10978721

Democrats hopeful about filibuster-proof Senate


By Paul Kane


Washington Post


Posted: 11/13/2008 06:50:04 PM PST


WASHINGTON — In a strange turn of events, the Democrats' pursuit of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate — left for dead after last week's election results — now is back on course.


The road to 60 seats will now go through an Anchorage election office, the Minnesota state courts, a runoff in Georgia next month and, ultimately, a tense caucus meeting next week in which Democrats must deal with a renegade lawmaker who is making noise about crossing the aisle to join Republicans.


"Let me beat you to the punch: Will we get 60 seats?" said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, cutting off reporters Thursday before they could ask the question everyone wants answered. "It's possible, but unlikely."


This seemed impossible last week, when Democrats appeared to gain six seats, to reach 57 for the 111th Congress starting in January, failing to secure a filibuster-proof majority for President-elect Barack Obama.


Now, the terrain has changed in the three remaining undecided Senate races, where Republican incumbents finished ahead on election night but local rules have given Democrats the chance to add one to three seats to their majority.


In Alaska, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich pulled 814 votes ahead of Republican Sen. Ted Stevens late Wednesday night after officials tallied 59,000 votes that included absentee, early and questionable ballots whose validity was verified.


An additional 40,000 votes are set to be counted in the days ahead.


Final results are expected Wednesday, with a certified winner Dec. 1. That is one day before the runoff election in Georgia, where Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss led initial voting but did not clear the required 50-percent mark. As a result, he must once again face Democratic former state representative Jim Martin.


The most legally complex battle is in Minnesota, where a recount process is about to start amid echoes of the controversial Florida 2000 presidential recount. Democrat Al Franken remains 206 votes behind Republican Sen. Norm Coleman. More than 24,000 ballots that electronically recorded votes in the presidential race but did not record any vote in the Coleman-Franken contest will now be examined, and legal challenges have been lodged. Hundreds of attorneys on both sides are volunteering to help resolve the dispute.


So, more than a week after Election Day, the Democratic and Republican senatorial camps are furiously raising money for ads and get-out-the-vote efforts in Georgia and for attorneys in Minnesota.


The first sign of clarity may come in Alaska. There, almost 100,000 ballots were left to count after the Nov. 4 election, mostly because the state's absentee-voter laws allowed ballots to be postmarked up until that day.


If the race is decided by less than 0.5 percent, the loser can ask for a state-funded recount, which would not be complete until January.


But Democrats have their own internal dispute that could derail their pursuit of 60 seats as early as next week.


Some Democrats want to punish Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, who caucuses with them, for his support of the GOP presidential ticket by stripping his chairmanship of a key committee. But Lieberman has balked at such a move, amid whispers that he would instead caucus with Republicans.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/politics/2008/November/Democrats-Near-Filibuster-Proof-Senate.html

Democrats Near Filibuster-Proof Senate


By Lindsey Chapman


Finding Dulcinea – Internet Librarian


November 5, 2008


Democrats recorded considerable gains in Election 2008. With the 111th Congress in place, what will its members work on first?


Votes Still Left to Be Counted (and Recounted)


Democrats are still waiting to learn whether they will gain enough seats in the 2008 election to have a filibuster-proof Senate. But even if they don’t hold 60 seats, they “were within reach of a working coalition on major policy issues,” according to The New York Times.


Republican losses like those by Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina and John E. Sununu in New Hampshire helped the Democratic cause.


But a few more cliffhangers remain undecided. In Minnesota, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and Democratic challenger Al Franken will have to wait awhile longer for the final results of their race. Early Wednesday, Coleman was ahead by less than 1,000 votes out of the 2.9 million-odd ballots cast, a margin small enough to require a recount under Minnesota law, according to the Associated Press.


Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie said the recount could last into December. “No matter how fast people would like it, the emphasis is on accuracy,” he said.


Meanwhile, Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens holds a slim lead over Anchorage mayor Mark Begich, with 99 percent of Alaska’s precincts reporting. Another 40,000 absentee ballots remain to be counted, though. If he wins, Stevens will be the first senator found guilty of criminal charges to be re-elected to office, the Boston Herald wrote.


Analysis: Hoping for a filibuster-proof Senate


Sources in this Story


o The New York Times: Senate Races Hang in Balance; Democrats Gain
o findingDulcinea: Elizabeth Dole Loses Senate Seat to Democrat Kay Hagan
o FOXNews.com: AP Pulls Result of Minnesota Senate Race
o Boston Herald: Sen. Ted Stevens holding thin margin in Alaska
o The Austin American-Statesman: Democrats strive for filibuster-proof Senate
o The Oregonian: Smith warns of a "Pres. Obama with no brakes"
o MarketWatch: Broken Congress will have chance to fix itself
o findingDulcinea: Ted Stevens to Seek Re-election Despite Conviction
o International Herald Tribune: In U.S. Congress, Democrats reap substantial gains


In the days before the election, Republicans, Democrats and political analysts were eyeing the possibility of a “filibuster-proof Senate,” according to The Austin American-Statesman.


With 23 of 49 seats up for re-election, Senate Republicans had more work to do this year than the Democrats, who only had 12 of their 51 seats to protect. Both parties were interested in maintaining their influence “because the Senate can make or break a presidency,” the paper reported.


Opinion: Things to fix


The possibility that one party could dominate both houses of Congress and the White House was worrisome to some election candidates. Sen. Gordon Smith, the Republican incumbent in Oregon, warned, “One-party dominance, a blank check, no checks and balances, could be a very unfortunate thing for our country,” according to Jeff Mapes of The Oregonian.


The new Congress has a “poor image” to repair, writes Robert Schroeder of MarketWatch. Some of the first issues lawmakers will be expected to address are the economy and the Iraq War, along with corruption scandals such as the case involving Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens.


“What they need is the appearance of dealing with and finding solutions to the nation’s toughest problems,” Stuart Rothenberg of the Rothenberg Political Report told MarketWatch.


The House of Representatives will also have “more maneuvering room” with Democrats picking up additional seats there, the International Herald Tribune reported. Analysts had predicted that a gain of 30 seats was possible, but it appeared the party would fall short of that number the day after the election.


Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the Democrats’ gains could “increase bipartisanship, civility and fiscal responsibility,” she was quoted as saying by the International Herald Tribune.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06senate.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Senate Races Hang in the Balance


By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN


New York Times


November 5, 2008


It will probably be weeks before Democrats learn the scope of their collective triumph in the Senate races on Tuesday, with doubts remaining about the outcome in four states. But it was clear on Wednesday that the party had picked up at least five seats in the chamber, building a commanding advantage where they held only a razor-thin 51-49 margin before the election.


Republican incumbents clung to the barest of leads in Minnesota, Oregon and Alaska, and will probably face a runoff election in Georgia on Dec. 2. A recount loomed in the Minnesota race, where Senator Norm Coleman led his Democratic challenger, the comedian-turned-politician Al Franken, by fewer than 600 votes out of nearly 3 million cast.


But there was no doubt that Democrats had ousted Republican incumbents in New Hampshire and North Carolina and had captured seats in Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico that were being vacated by Republicans.


From the White Mountains of New Hampshire to the Rocky Mountains in the West and the glaciers of Alaska, Democratic candidates rode a wave of dissatisfaction with Republicans and the Bush administration, and mounted competitive challenges to many a formerly safe Republican seat, surprising even their own party leaders in some cases.


For all their success, however, the Democrats appeared to fall several seats short of the 60-vote majority that would enable them to push bills to a vote by overcoming filibusters. And it appeared that they had failed to topple one of their biggest targets, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, the longest-serving Republican in Senate history, despite Mr. Stevens’s recent conviction for violating federal ethics laws.


With 99 percent of Alaska’s precincts reporting, Mr. Stevens was ahead of Mark Begich, the mayor of Anchorage, by 48.2 percent to 46.7 percent, with the remaining votes going to fringe candidates. Since thousands of absentee ballots remained to be counted, the final outcome may not be known for days. Should Mr. Stevens indeed prevail, and should he reject the many calls for his resignation, the Senate would probably vote on whether to expel one of its members for the first time in many decades.


In the Minnesota race, the margin separating Mr. Franken and Mr. Coleman was slight enough to set the stage for a recount under state law.


“Let me be clear,” Mr. Franken said. “This race is too close to call, and we do not yet know who won.” He said his goal in demanding a recount was “to ensure that every vote is properly counted.” The results of the recount are not expected to be known for weeks.


Another contest still undecided by Wednesday morning was in Oregon, where Senator Gordon Smith, a Republican, led his Democratic challenger, Jeff Merkley, by less than one percent.


Even if none of the four remaining unsettled races goes the Democrats’ way, the party’s gains on Wednesday put it within reach of a working Senate coalition on major policy issues, given the defeat of the Republican incumbents John E. Sununu of New Hampshire and Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, and the election of former Gov. Mark Warner in Virginia as well as the congressmen-cousins Mark Udall in Colorado and Tom Udall in New Mexico.


The Democrats’ triumph began with frustration over the war in Iraq and broadened into fury and dismay over economic turmoil at home, with home prices falling, unemployment on the rise and consumer confidence shattered. But even as the Democrats celebrated their early victories on Tuesday night, one of their most highly prized targets proved out of reach: the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, beat back a serious challenge by Bruce Lunsford, a wealthy businessman.


“Winston Churchill once said that the most exhilarating feeling in life is to be shot at — and missed,” Mr. McConnell said in a victory speech in Louisville. “After the last few months, I think what he really meant to say is that there’s nothing more exhausting.”


At the headquarters of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in Washington, the mood on Tuesday night was less exhaustion than glumness. A handful of young aides milled around watching election returns on Fox News until Senator John Ensign of Nevada, the committee’s chairman, emerged to make a brief statement.


“Obviously we expected this sort of night,” Mr. Ensign said. “The political winds, I’ve said for some time, were blowing in our face.”


“We caught a very, very tough cycle,” he added, “tougher than even Watergate was.”


Mr. Ensign and other Republican senators have made no secret of their desire that Mr. Stevens resign because of his conviction for accepting but not reporting gifts related to extensive remodeling of his Alaska home. The senator has wielded great power because of his senior seat on the Appropriations Committee, commanding respect and sometimes fear.


The Senate has expelled only 15 members since 1789, most for supporting the Confederacy. In recent years, senators who have run afoul of the law have generally resigned rather than face expulsion, a step that requires 67 votes. Mr. Stevens said after his conviction that he would not step down voluntarily.


But even without a filibuster-proof majority, and without a defeat of Mr. McConnell or Mr. Stevens to crow about, Democrats were jubilant nonetheless.


“The days of obstruction are over,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “And in a bipartisan way, we in the Senate and our colleagues in the House will work together to turn America in the right direction after eight long years.”


Since winning control of the Senate in 2006, the Democrats have had little breathing room, holding their 51-to-49 edge only because two independents, Senators Bernard Sanders of Vermont and Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, chose to caucus with them. Mr. Lieberman has consistently voted against the Democrats on bills related to the Iraq war and national security, giving Republicans and President Bush an edge on those issues.


Now Mr. Lieberman, a close ally of Senator John McCain, faces considerable uncertainty about where he stands with the Democratic caucus; some colleagues have talked about stripping him of his post as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee because his vote is no longer essential to their majority.


In New Hampshire, the Democrat, former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, defeated Mr. Sununu in a bitter rematch of their 2002 contest by repeatedly tying him to President Bush on the war, national security, economic policies and energy. She becomes the first female senator in the state’s history and the first Democrat elected to the Senate from New Hampshire in more than 28 years.


Mrs. Shaheen, 61, capitalized on a huge transformation of the electorate in recent years that has shifted the state solidly into the Democratic column. Mr. Sununu, who at 44 is the youngest senator, had hoped to ride Mr. McCain’s coattails, but found himself battling alone as support for Mr. McCain dissipated and Senator Barack Obama opened up a wide lead in most polls.


In North Carolina, Kay Hagan, a little-known state senator, dealt a stunning defeat to Mrs. Dole, a former Transportation secretary and Republican candidate for president who has one of the most famous names in modern Republican politics.


Ms. Hagan portrayed Mrs. Dole — the wife of the former Senate majority leader and presidential candidate, Bob Dole — as a Washington insider and suggested that she had fallen out of step with the people of her state. Mrs. Dole, in turn, was unable to counter the rising enthusiasm for Mr. Obama among the state’s Democrats. Nor was she helped by running a campaign advertisement on television that labeled Ms. Hagan “godless.”


In Virginia, Mr. Warner, a popular former governor, had been heavily favored all year. He easily defeated another former governor, James S. Gilmore III, to succeed Senator John W. Warner (no relation), who is retiring after five terms as one of the Republican Party’s most respected voices on military affairs.


The Democrats came into the 2008 contests benefiting from a clear numerical advantage, with just 12 seats to defend, compared with 23 for the Republicans. And while five of those Republican seats were left vacant by retirees, every one of the dozen Democratic incumbents up for re-election chose to run for another term.


In one bright spot for Republicans, Senator Susan Collins of Maine easily beat back a challenge by Representative Tom Allen, a Democrat whose campaign fizzled even as Mr. Obama won the state by a sizable margin.


In another, Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia appeared to pull ahead in his race against Jim Martin, a former Democratic state legislator, and a minor-party candidate, the Libertarian Allen Buckley. But it appeared that Mr. Chambliss would fall just short of winning the 50 percent of the vote required for election under Georgia law, necessitating a runoff against Mr. Martin on Dec. 2.


Mr. Chambliss could have an advantage in such a runoff, since Mr. Martin probably benefited from a coattail effect with Mr. Obama on the top of the ticket on Tuesday. On the other hand, President-elect Obama and his political advisers could use their influence against Mr. Chambliss, who unseated the Democrat Max Cleland in a bitter contest six years ago.


In South Dakota, Senator Tim Johnson, a Democratic incumbent who nearly died of a brain hemorrhage two years ago, easily won re-election. His victory was dramatically different from his 2002 triumph, when he defeated then Representative John Thune by a mere 524 votes in the closest Senate race in the country. (Mr. Thune, a Republican, was elected to the Senate in 2004, ousting Senator Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader.)


Bernie Becker and David Stout contributed reporting from Washington, and Jack Healy from New York.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html

A Liberal Supermajority: Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933


Editorial


Wall Street Journal


October 17, 2008


If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.


Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.


The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.


- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.


Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.


The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.


- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.


The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.


- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.


The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.


- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.


- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.


- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.


Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.


- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.


It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.


In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://blog.lehighvalleylive.com/committeeofcorrespondence/2008/08/a_filibuster_proof_congress.html
A Filibuster Proof Congress


Posted by Chris Miller


August 28, 2008 08:40AM


While most of us are looking at the presidential race between Barack Obama and John Mccain, few are paying attention to the various races going on in Congress and particularly in Harry Reid's Senate. At this moment 23 Republican senators up for re-election that the parrty will have to assist and support. The Democrats have but 12 seats up for re-election.


There are 435 House seats up for re-election. Currently the Democrats control 235 seats while the Republican have 199 seats. There is one vacancy. This year there were three special elections held and the Democrats won all three including the seat held by former speaker Dennis Hastert in a strong Republican district. The Republicans hope to regain their majority position or at least gain additional seats.


What many voters are unaware of is that the Democrats are spending as much money on the Congressional races as they are on the Presidential race. The reason for this is that the Democrats are determined to obtain a filibuster proof Congress. This would mean that the real power would be in the hands of Reid and Pelosi no matter who becomes the president. If that happens I believe that this nation would become a complete socailist nation, a path we have been on since the Great Depression and the era of FDR.


When the Democrats took power in 1932 they had a filibuster proof Congress for the first time in the nation's history. The citizens had elected a very liberal Democrat, some say fascist, as president. Roosevelt proposed and Congress approved that massive and expensive program known as the New Deal that called for massive subsidies of farmers something that we still do today. It increased the bureaucracy of the Federal Government that simply continues to grow. Roosevelt was also bold enough to attack the Supreme Court calling for a major alteration of that body. In the process of all of this he created the administrative state that enhanced the power of the Federal Government over the citizens.


Flash forward to November of 1963. In that month John Kennedy was assassinated and Lyndon Johnson was sworn as President of the United States. Johnson was the Democrat presidential nominee in 1964 and this nation, still weeping over the death of Kennedy, not only elected Johnson, they gave him, for the second time in our history, a filibuster proof Congress. With that in place Johnson declared that we would be able to afford guns and butter. He placed this nation on a path to disaster with a welfare program he called "THE WAR ON POVERTY". We spent trillions of dollars on this welfare state and in the process of all this generosity damn near broke the bank while reducing the population of the inner cities to a dependant class that was not changed until 1994 when the Republicans took over the House and forced Bill Clinton to sign Welfare Reform legislation.


Now we have a Democrat Party that is looking to put into place, for the third time in our history, a filibuster proof Congress. Harry Reid will not need to have 60 Democrat Senators because with the RINOs there he will be able to pick off the likes of Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, or Arlene Specter to get legislatlion passed contrary to the good of the nation and its people. Reid and Pelosi will become the KingPins of Congress and will have THE ONE in the White House. The question, therefore, is where do you think we will be in two to four years of an Obama administration with a filibuster proof Congress.


I would remind you that until he joined forces with Hitler, Benito Mussolini was beloved by the likes of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. The national and world press wrote glowingly of Mussolini. He even came to the US and made a movie. Roosevelt was compared to him to the point that his advisors had to remind FDR that that was not a good thing. Now we have in Barack Obama and others who call themselves Progressives. Their goal, to turn us into a socialist state. With a filibuster proof Congress that is possible. So along with the presidential race bear in mind that the Congressional races are just as important as the presidential maybe even more so.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/27/schumer-urges-filibuster-proof-senate-dems

Schumer urges filibuster-proof Senate for Dems: Calls for party to add to slim Senate cushion

By Kevin Flynn


Rocky Mountain News


August 27, 2008


PEPSI CENTER -- Hillary Clinton’s New York Senate colleague urged the party to work for a filibuster-proof upper house to help usher Democratic programs through Congress next year.


“Barack Obama cannot do it alone,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “Without a strong Democratic majority in the Senate, is ambitious agenda will be thwarted by the defenders of the status quo whose goals can be boiled down to a single word: No.


“Without a large Democratic majority, President Obama might even have to pare back the breadth and strength of what he proposes.


“We know what John McCain and his friends in the Senate will do, because we’ve seen it far too many times in the last two years. Ninety-two times, they filibustered important legislation to change the direction of this country.”


Currently there are 49 Democrats and 49 Republicans in the 10-member Senate, but two independents, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, caucus with the Democrats to give them a nominal 51-member majority.


But under Senate rules, legislation can be stopped from moving forward unless 60 members vote to end debate.


There are 35 Senate contests in November. Twenty-one are held by Republicans, and Schumer said Democrats are hopeful of picking up several of them.


“There are 17 states where we have a good chance to beat Republicans,” he said, including retiring Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard’s seat, long held by Republicans. “This is, ladies and gentlemen, a once in a generation opportunity.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OThhODViNWRiYzEzNDgwZmFiZGMxZWFkMDg4ZjliNWM=

A Filibuster-Proof Congress? A sinkhole has opened under Congressional Republicans


By Mona Charen


March 28, 2008


There are dozens of reasons for John McCain to be gloomy this spring. So many of the structural factors at work in this election redound to his disadvantage. To name just a few: 1) he seeks to succeed a very unpopular two-term president of the same party; 2) he is a member of a body (Congress) whose approval ratings are even lower than those of the president; 3) poll after poll suggests that Republican identification among voters is plunging; 4) the economy is skidding; 5) money is cascading into Democratic sacks and only trickling into Republican hands; and 6) large majorities (66 percent in a recent poll) say they think the country is on the wrong track — a number that does not bode well for the party holding the White House.


And yet, McCain is riding high because the two Democratic front-runners are chewing each other’s ankles and actually drawing blood. And there is every reason to believe that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will hold their mutual death grip for several more weeks or even months — pointing out for voters the other’s unfitness to serve as president. It’s a long way to November, but it is certainly possible now to envision how McCain could come out on top.


What seems less foreseeable is a concomitant revival in the fortunes of Congressional Republicans. While national attention has focused on the presidential race, a sinkhole has been opening under the Republicans in Congress. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and its Senate counterpart have reportedly raised $66 million for this election cycle so far. The Republican committees have raised $20 million. While the seesaw is somewhat righted by fundraising by the Republican National Committee ($22 million versus only $3 million for the Democrats), the rest of the picture is pretty alarming for Republicans.


As Jonathan Salant of Bloomberg news reports, Democrats had more cash on hand at the start of 2008 in 31 of the 41 most competitive House and Senate races. And Republican House members keep doing something that increases the Democrats’ chances — resigning. A total of 26 incumbent Republican members of Congress have announced their intention not to seek reelection this year whereas only five Democrats have done the same. This almost reaches the record set in 1952, when 27 incumbents left the Capital. Former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert left office midway through his term. In a special election to fill his seat in a Republican district that voted 55 percent for Bush in 2004, Democrat Bill Foster won with 52 percent of the vote.


The public holds Congress in low esteem, but this is not apparently harming the party in control as much as it is Republicans. An ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 54 percent of respondents preferred to see Democrats maintain control of Congress in 2008. The current balance is 51-49 in the Senate and 233-198 (4 vacant) in the House.


Among the Senate seats Republicans may have trouble holding are the open seats in Virginia, New Mexico, and Colorado. Also considered vulnerable because their states are trending more liberal are incumbents John E. Sununu of New Hampshire, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, and Susan Collins of Maine. In order to obtain the magic number of 60 — a veto-proof majority — the Democrats will have to win nine contests. That’s a tall order, but far from out of the question.


Some of the talk about excitement on the Democratic side — particularly the focus on huge disparities in voter turnout — is simply an artifact of this year’s close contest between Clinton and Obama. Voters in many primaries who hadn’t shown up in past years did so in 2008 because their votes really mattered. On the other hand, the party identification and fundraising numbers are sobering.


It would be nearly impossible for the minority party in Congress to run on its own platform (like the Contract with America) in a presidential year. Republicans therefore find themselves in the peculiar position of having to hope for salvation from a “maverick” who has never been much of a party man. But in this strange year, anything is possible.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://hnn.us/articles/12012.html

Excerpts: The Senate Filibuster Debate


George Mason University’s History News Network

5-19-05

In the course of the opening Senate debate concerning the nomination of Priscilla Richman Owen to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth District senators frequently invoked history. Excerpts follow.


Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader (R-TN)


In the last Congress, for the first time in history a minority of Senators obstructed the principle of a fair up-or-down vote on judicial nominees. That was unprecedented. Never in 214 years of Senate history had a judicial nominee with majority support been denied an up-or-down vote. Yet it happened--again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again. A minority of Senators denied an up-or-down vote not just once to one nominee but 18 times on 10 individual nominees. ...


I have to believe the Senate will make the right choice. We will choose the Constitution over obstruction. We will choose principle over politics. We will choose votes over vacillation. And when we do, the Senate will be the better for it. The Senate will be, as Daniel Webster once described it: ". . . a body to which the country looks, with confidence, for wise, moderate, patriotic, and healing counsels."


To realize this vision, we don't need to look as far back as the age of Webster or Clay or Calhoun. All we must do is look at the recent past and take inspiration from the era of Baker, Byrd, and Dole. For 70 percent of the 20th century, the same party controlled the White House and the Senate. Yet during that period, no minority ever denied a judicial nominee with majority support an up-or-down vote on this floor. Howard Baker's Republican minority didn't deny Democrat Jimmy Carter's nominees. Robert Byrd's Democratic minority did not deny Republican Ronald Reagan's nominees. Bob Dole's Republican minority did not deny Democrat Bill Clinton's nominees. These minorities showed restraint. They respected the appointments process. They practiced the fine but fragile art of political civility. Sure they disagreed with the majority at times, but they nonetheless allowed up-or-down votes to occur.


Harry Reid, Minority Leader (D-NV)


Mr. President, the majority leader said that during the Dole years, Clinton nominees were treated fairly. Sixty-nine Clinton nominees were not even given the decency of a hearing. They never saw the light of day. We have participated in hearings. The matters have come to the floor. For my friend to say that Clinton was treated fairly under the Dole years is simply untrue....


The first filibuster in the Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress. Since then, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times. It has been employed on legislative matters. It has been employed on procedural matters relating to the President's nominations for Cabinet and sub-Cabinet posts. And it has been used on judges for all those years. One scholar estimates that 20 percent of the judges nominated by Presidents have fallen by the wayside, most of them as a result of filibusters....


A conversation between Thomas Jefferson and George Washington I believe describes the Senate and our Founding Fathers' vision of this body in which we are so fortunate to serve. Jefferson asked Washington: "What is the purpose of the Senate?" Washington responded with a question of his own: "Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?" Jefferson replied: "To cool it." To which Washington said: "Even so, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."


That is exactly what the filibuster does. It encourages moderation and consensus, gives voice to the minority so cooler heads may prevail. ...


I spoke yesterday about Senator Holt and his 1939 filibuster to protect workers' wages and hours. There are also recent examples of the filibuster achieving good. In 1985, Senators from rural States--even though there were few of them--used the filibuster to force Congress to address a major crisis in which thousands of farmers were on the brink of bankruptcy. In 1995, 10 years later, the filibuster was used by Senators to protect the rights of workers to a fair wage and a safe workplace.


I cannot stand here and say the filibuster has always been used for positive purposes. It has not. Just as it has been used to bring about social change, it was also used to stall progress that this country needed to make. It is often shown that the filibuster was used against civil rights legislation. But civil rights legislation passed. Civil rights advocates met the burden. It is noteworthy that today, as I speak, the Congressional Black Caucus is opposed to the nuclear option--unanimously opposed to it. ...


For 200 years, we have had the right to extended debate. It is not some ``procedural gimmick.'' It is within the vision of the Founding Fathers of this country. They did it; we didn't do it. They established a government so that no one person and no single party could have total control.


Some in this Chamber want to throw out 214 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power. They want to do away with Mr. Smith, as depicted in that great movie, being able to come to Washington. They want to do away with the filibuster. They think they are wiser than our Founding Fathers. I doubt that is true....


For further analysis, let's look at Robert Caro. He is a noted historian and Pulitzer Prize winner, and he said this at a meeting I attended. He spoke about the history of the filibuster. He made a point about its legacy that was important. He noted that when legislation is supported by the majority of Americans, it eventually overcomes a filibuster's delay, as a public protest far outweighs any Senator's appetite to filibuster.


But when legislation only has the support of the minority, the filibuster slows the legislation--prevents a Senator from ramming it through, and gives the American people enough time to join the opposition....


The Senate is now being threatened with a fundamental change through a self-inflicted wound. ``Master of the Senate'' author Robert Caro recalled an important chapter in the Senate and the Nation's history. Consider this and contrast it with what is happening here today.


When Senator Lyndon Johnson of Texas left the Senate, he was the most powerful majority leader in the history of this country. When he was elected Vice President with President Kennedy and he was preparing to leave the Senate, he told his protege and successor, Senate Mansfield of Montana, that he, Johnson, would keep attending the Democratic luncheons and help his successor as majority leader in running the Senate. Senator Mansfield said no, Vice President Johnson was no longer a Member of the Senate, but an officer of the executive branch and by means of that office was accorded the privilege of presiding over the Senate.


What a contrast Senator Mike Mansfield's respect for the separation of powers and checks and balances is from those in power today. I say that as one who was privileged to serve here with Senator Mansfield. Instead, this White House took an active role in naming the present Senate leadership and this White House regularly sends Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove to Republican caucus luncheons to give the Republican majority its marching orders. What a difference from the days of Mike Mansfield and Lyndon Johnson.


Arlen Specter (R-PA)


As a starting point, it is important to acknowledge that both sides--Democrats and Republicans--have been at fault. Both claim they are the victims and that their party's nominees have been treated worse than the other's. Both sides cite endless statistics. I have heard so many numbers spun so many different ways that my head is spinning. I think even Benjamin Disraeli, the man who coined the phrase, there are ``lies, damn lies, and statistics,'' would be amazed at the creativity employed by both sides in contriving numbers in this debate.


In 1987, upon gaining control of the Senate and the Judiciary Committee, the Democrats denied hearings to seven of President Reagan's circuit court nominees and denied floor votes for two additional circuit court nominees. As a result, the confirmation for Reagan circuit nominees fell from 89 percent prior to the Democratic takeover to 65 percent afterwards. ...


A well-known story is told about Benjamin Franklin. Upon exiting the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, he was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of a government the constitutional delegates had created. Franklin responded, ``A Republic, if you can keep it.''

In this brief response, Franklin captured the essential fragility of our great democracy. Although enshrined in a written Constitution and housed in granite buildings, our government is utterly dependent upon something far less permanent, the wisdom of its leaders. Our Founding Fathers gave us a great treasure, but like any inheritance, we pass it on to successive generations only if our generation does not squander it. If we seek to emulate the vision and restraint of Franklin and the Founding Fathers, we can hand down to our children and grandchildren the Republic they deserve, but if we turn our backs on their example, we will debase and cheapen what they have given us.


At this critical juncture in the history of the Senate, let us tread carefully, choose wisely, and prove ourselves worthy of our great inheritance. Since the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics avoided a nuclear confrontation in the Cold War by concessions and confidence-building measures, why should not Senators do the same by crossing the aisle in the spirit of compromise?...


Patrick Leahy (D-VT)


What the White House ignores is that President Bush completed his first term with the third highest total of confirmed judges in our history--in our history--and more Federal judges on the courts than at any time in our history. The truth is, Senate Democrats have cooperated extensively in confirming more than 95 percent of this President's judicial nominees--208 of them.


George Washington, the most popular and powerful President in our history, was not successful in all of his judicial nominations. The Senate rejected President Washington's nomination of John Rutledge to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. For example. And certainly I would hope that the current President would not assume he stands higher in our history books than George Washington.


The truth is, in President Bush's first term, the 204 judges confirmed were more than were confirmed in either of President Clinton's two terms, more than during the term of this President's father, and more than Ronald Reagan's first term when he had a Republican majority in the Senate. By last December, we had reduced judicial vacancies from the 110 vacancies I inherited in the summer of 2001 to its lowest level, lowest rate, and lowest number in decades, since President Ronald Reagan was in office. ...


How can any Senator look himself or herself in the mirror if they weaken the Senate, if they allow the Senate to no longer be the check and balance it should be? Why would anyone want to serve here if they come to this body with that in mind?


James Madison, one of the Framers of our Constitution, warned in Federalist Number 47 of the very danger that is threatening our great Nation, a threat to our freedoms from within: "[The] accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."


That is what they are trying to do, put all the power into one hand. All of us should know enough of history to know we should not do that. George Washington, our great first President, reiterated the danger in his famous Farewell Address to the American People: "The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism."


Now, our freedoms as Americans are the fruit of too much sacrifice to have the rules broken in the Senate, especially to break them in collusion with the executive branch. What ever happened to the concept of separation of powers?...


Charles Schumer (D-NY)


The Senator from Tennessee, our majority leader, who got on the floor earlier today and said for 214 years there have not been filibusters of judges, has a very short memory. I asked him this morning, Did you not, on March 8, 2000, vote in favor of a filibuster of Richard Paez to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? Here is a copy of the vote. Voting no: Frist, Republican of Tennessee. Did he think it was unconstitutional then? He said on the floor, in answer, Well, some are successful, some are not. I have never known the Constitution to say that something is unconstitutional if it fails and constitutional if it succeeds.


One out of every five Supreme Court nominees did not make it to the Supreme Court. That is part of the tradition of this country. Should the Senate have majority say? No. Should we have the say the majority of the time? No. Should we have the say some of the time? Yes. And there is the balance. The more a President consults, the more the President nominates moderate nominees, the more likely his nominees will succeed.


Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)


I think John Adams, in 1776, made it very clear on the point of checks and balances and an independent judiciary, when he said:


"The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people and every blessing of society, depends so much upon on upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, as both should be checked upon that . . . [The judges'] minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent upon any man or body of men."


Now, that is the clearest statement of intent from our Founding Fathers, that the judiciary should be and must be independent. That is what is being eroded with the partisanship and with the nuclear option. The Senate was meant to play an active role in the selection process. The judiciary was not solely to be determined by the executive branch. Last week, I described how, in the Constitutional Convention, the first effort put forward was actually to have the Senate nominate and appoint judges. Then it was later on, with the consideration of others, changed to allow the President to nominate. But the explanation in the Federalist Papers is all centered around the Senate having the real power to confirm, and that power is not a rubberstamp....


I pointed out earlier where, in 1881, President Hayes nominated a gentleman to the Supreme Court. That was successfully filibustered throughout President Hayes' term. When President Garfield then came into office, he renominated the individual, and the Senate then confirmed that individual. But that does not negate the filibuster. It was the first recorded act of a filibuster of a judicial nominee, and it, in fact, took place and was successful for the length of President Hayes' term.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.judgingtheenvironment.org/assets/files/Conservative_Anti-Nuclear_Quotes.doc

Conservative and Republican Concern and Opposition to the “Nuclear Option” [ELIMINATING FILIBUSTERS]


George Will in Newsweek (December 6, 2004):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6596229/site/newsweek/


The filibuster is an important defense of minority rights, enabling democratic government to measure and respect not merely numbers but also intensity in public controversies. Filibusters enable intense minorities to slow the governmental juggernaut. Conservatives, who do not think government is sufficiently inhibited, should cherish this blocking mechanism. And someone should puncture Republicans' current triumphalism by reminding them that someday they will again be in the minority.


The promiscuous use of filibusters, against policies as well as nominees, has trivialized the tactic. But filibusters do not forever deflect the path of democratic government. Try to name anything significant that an American majority has desired, strongly and protractedly, but has not received because of a filibuster.


Former Senators Jim McClure (R-ID) and Malcolm Wallop (R-WY) in the Wall Street Journal (March 15, 2005):
http://www.wallstreetjournal.com/


“Conservatives, in and out of the Senate, are now being assured that this extraordinary approach will not be applied to the legislative filibuster, which, in the not-so-distant past, was our only defense against the excesses of a bipartisan liberalism. There are several problems with that argument. First and foremost, as a matter of principle, we should not accept the contrary-to-fact assertion that the Senate and its rules do not continue from election to election.


Second, setting aside principle -- ouch! -- it is naive to think that what is done to the judicial filibuster will not later be done to its legislative counterpart, whether by a majority leader named Reid, or Clinton, or Kennedy.


Third, even if a senator were that naive, he or she should take a broader look at Senate procedure. The very reasons being given for allowing a 51-vote majority to shut off debate on judges apply equally well -- in fact, they apply more aptly -- to the rest of the executive calendar, of which judicial nominations are only one part. That includes all executive branch nominations, even military promotions. “


Former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) in an appearance on NPR’s The Connection (April 26, 2005):
http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2005/04/20050426_b_main.asp (audio)
http://judgingthefuture.net/2005/05/a_little_good_a.php (transcript)


“They [Republicans] will be out of power one day, and there’ll be tears as big as golf balls streaming down their cheeks as they look and say “we put this in motion and we’re sitting here immobilized, neutered in this game.” I can promise you.”


“But there isn’t a question in my mind that when the Republicans go out of power and they, they’re looking for a protection of minority rights, they’re going to be alarmed and saddened. So when they pull the trigger, the boomerang may not come back for a few years but when it does it will get them right in the back of the neck.”



Former Senator Bill Armstrong (R-CO) quoted in Roll Call (April 25, 2005):
http://www.rollcall.com/


“Having served in the majority and in the minority, I know that it’s worthwhile to have the minority empowered. As a conservative, I think there is a value to having a constraint on the majority.”


Former Senator David Durenberger (R-MN) writing in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune (with former Vice-President Walter Mondale) (May 5, 2005):
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5385977.html


“The American people should know that the proposed repeal of the filibuster rule for judicial nominees by majority vote will profoundly and permanently undermine the purpose of the U.S. Senate as it has stood since Thomas Jefferson first wrote the Senate's rules.”


Former Senator Charles “Mac” Matthias (R-MD) writing in the Washington Post (May 12, 2005):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/11/AR2005051101764.html


“Make no mistake about it: If the Senate ever creates the precedent that, at any time, its rules are what 51 senators say they are -- without debate -- then the value of a senator's voice, vote and views, and the clout of his state, will be diminished.”


Former Congressman Mickey Edwards (R-OK) quoted in the Washington Post (May 10, 2005):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/09/AR2005050901126.html


“It's a total disavowal of the basic framework of the system of government. It's much more efficient [for Bush], but our government was not designed to be efficient.”


“Every president grabs for more power. What's different to me is the acquiescence of Congress.”



Ed Rollins (former aide to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and H.W. Bush) quoted in the Denver Post (April 10, 2005):
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E28203%257E2808623,00.html?search=filter


“The latest gambits - DeLay's proposed inquisition of the federal judiciary and Majority Leader Bill Frist's planned attempt to change the legislative rule on filibusters to ram conservative judicial nominees through the Senate - could further polarize and alienate Americans, says Rollins.”


“’If Republicans change the filibuster rule, there will be nothing that gets done in this town for two years,’ Rollins predicts.”


"’The country is not as concerned about judges as it is about Congress showing some fiscal responsibility and doing what it is supposed to do,’ he says.”


David Hoppe (former Chief of Staff to Sen. Lott (R-MS)) in an appearance on The Journal Editorial Report on PBS (April 1, 2005):
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/journaleditorialreport/040105/briefing.html


[T]he system is broken. The question is, how do you try and fix the system. I keep going back, as I consider this, to a line from the play A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, "Richard, after you've cut down all the trees, where will you hide when the devil comes after you?"

That's the problem with the nuclear option, because it will not stop there. The next step when somebody needs it will be to get rid of the filibuster on legislative issues. Say a president seven, eight years in the future decides that his national health care program just has to be done, and they've got the might to make right of 51 senators. Should they get rid of the filibuster on legislative items? That's the way we're headed here if we do it this way.

Christine Todd Whitman, Former Republican Governor of New Jersey and EPA Administrator speaking to Virginia Conservation Network as quoted in the Richmond Times-Dispatch (April 29, 2005):
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031782426426&path=!news&s=1045855934842


“Huge political mistake”


“[I]f the Senate's Democratic minority is stripped of the power to filibuster against Bush picks for the federal courts, it will be ‘portrayed as Republicans trying to railroad through certain ideological justices.’”


Stephen Moore, President, Free Enterprise Fund, Founder and Past-President, Club for Growth writing in the Washington Post (with Wade Henderson, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights) (April 17, 2005):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57777-2005Apr15.html


“What troubles us most is that the "nuclear option" could become a routine tactic for the majority party in the Senate to push legislation through with only a 51-vote requirement for passage. The Senate was always envisioned by the Founders to be the deliberative body in Congress, in which the heated emotions of the moment's debate could cool before new laws or judges were approved. The filibuster and the 60-vote cloture rule are nearly indispensable in facilitating full debate and strong consensus for legislative action.”


“Eviscerating the filibuster would violate the spirit of the Constitution and endanger our rights as individuals against excessive governmental power.”


Michael Hammond, Gun Owners of America (and former General Counsel to Senate Steering Committee [1978-89]) in Kill the Filibuster?
http://www.gunowners.org/a031505a.htm


“The reason the Second Amendment is still viable today is, in large part, because of the Senate filibuster.”


“If any Senate rule, at any time, can be eliminated, without debate, by fifty senators, the Senate rules –- all of them –- effectively become meaningless in any context in which they would matter.


The legislative filibuster will die the first time it becomes important –- perhaps in connection with Social Security reform, perhaps after the Democrats regain control of the Senate.”

Mark Mix, President of National Right-to-Work Committee (March 14, 2005):
http://www.right-to-work.org/content.php3?id=350


“For Right to Work supporters, the filibuster rule has been and remains a vital safety net. We would be extremely foolhardy to stand by while anyone, regardless of how good their intentions, proceeds to tear holes in it.

And make no mistake. If a bare majority of senators vote now to eliminate judicial filibusters, legislative filibusters will not stand for long. If the Senate’s presiding officer can rule, with the consent of 51 senators, that only a bare majority vote is needed to end debate on judicial nominees, then he can also rule that only a bare majority is needed to end debate on legislation.
Jim Boulet, Executive Director of English First, in his memo titled: How Liberals Could Thrive in a Post-Nuclear-Option Senate [Oppose the Nuclear Option (web page title)] (March 29, 2005):


http://www.englishfirst.org/nuclear_option/nuclear%20_option_memo32905.htm
“[O]nce such at precedent is established, any legislation which commands the support of 51 but not 60 Senators could provoke a similar request for a ruling that requirements for a supermajority are not ‘in order.’”


“Keep in mind that much of the Democratic "wish list" involves sweeping new legislation which will be heavily supported by the mainstream media. The Republican agenda, by contrast, tends to involve incremental changes to existing programs.”


Linda Chavez, Syndicated Columnist, former Bush nominee for Labor Secretary writing in the Washington Times (April 29, 2005):
http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050428-095317-7482r


“The more I think about it, the more I am convinced Republicans would make a mistake getting rid of the filibuster. Republicans won't be in the majority forever, and they may rue the day they deprive themselves of the ability to block a candidate to some future Supreme Court. Worse, they may end up making themselves look like the heavies instead of forcing the Democrats to take center stage as the real fanatics. Let the filibuster stay -- and force the Democrats to actually use it.”


Judge Kenneth Starr, Former DC Circuit Judge, Former Independent Counsel, Dean, Pepperdine Law School on the CBS Evening News (May 9, 2005):
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007217&docId=l:279226796&isSearch=true

“It may prove to have the kind of long-term boomerang effect, damage on the institution of the Senate that thoughtful senators may come to regret.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=7326906

JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS


Text From the Congressional Record


C-Span Congressional Chronicle


4-21-05


Mr. REID. I understand we are in a period for morning business. I will use leader time. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for my friend from South Dakota, but his assertion of facts is simply without foundation. When the Democrats took the majority in the Senate, I, along with others, said that this was not payback time; we were not going to treat the Republicans the way they treated us during the Clinton years. During those years, they did not have the decency even to have hearings for judicial nominations; they simply left them, 60 in number, in the committee. We thought that was inappropriate, and that is the reason during the time that President Bush has been President--we were in the majority, and we are now in the minority--we have approved 205 judges for President Bush and turned down 10, which is a pretty good record.

For people to say there have not been judicial filibusters in the past is simply without historical foundation. In the early days of this Republic, there was no way to stop a filibuster. The only way one could stop a filibuster on judges or anything else was by virtue of agreeing to stop talking. Many judges were simply left by the wayside. They were talked out and they simply never came forward for a vote before the Senate.

The most noteworthy filibuster of a judge that would require a vote that failed was in 1881. There was a filibuster of a judge that went to a vote. Prior to that time, they never even went to a vote.

It was determined in the Senate in 1970 that it would be appropriate to figure out some way to break a filibuster--on judges, on Cabinet nominations, and on legislation. At that time the Senate changed its rules by a two-thirds vote and had filibusters broken, then, by 67 votes. In the 1960s it was determined that was a burden that was no longer necessary, and it was changed to 60 votes. From that time to today, there has been the ability to break a filibuster by 60 Senators voting.

There have been filibusters since that rule was changed in 1960, filibusters of judges. The most noteworthy, of course, was Abe Fortas. There was a filibuster, and there are wonderful statements in the Congressional [Page: S4043]Record by Howard Baker at that time, who extolled the virtues of the filibuster.

During the time I have been in the Senate there have been filibusters of judges. I can name two that come to my mind: Berzon and Paez. We had a vote to break those here, on the filibuster. The majority leader voted against breaking those filibusters. So we have had votes on many occasions dealing with filibusters of judges. This is no new thing.

What we have to keep in mind is that we, the legislative branch of Government, are separate but equal. That is what checks and balances are all about. The President should not have, from the Senate, a rubberstamp for everything he wants. We have the advise and consent clause in the Constitution and we have the obligation to look at these judges. We have approved 205 and turned down 10. For people to suggest that you can break the rules to change the rules is un-American.

The only way you can change the rule in this body is through a rule that now says, to change a rule in the Senate rules to break a filibuster still requires 67 votes. You can't do it with 60. You certainly cannot do it with 51. But now we are told the majority is going to do the so-called nuclear option. We will come in here, having the Vice President seated where my friend and colleague from Nevada is seated. The Parliamentarian would acknowledge it is illegal, it is wrong, you can't do it, and they would overrule it. It would simply be: We are going to do it because we have more votes than you.

You would be breaking the rules to change the rules. That is very un-American. I ask my friends to look at what is going on in the press. In the Post today, David Broder, a nationwide columnist, talks about how bad it would be. Dick Morris, who certainly is no lapdog for the Democrats, has stated very clearly it would be the wrong thing to do. The political damage would be done to Republicans for many years to come.

This is something we should work out. This is something that should not cause the disruption and dysfunction of our family, the Senate family. If this is done, the Senator from South Dakota is absolutely right; we will be working off the Democrats' agenda. We will let things go forward. Of course, we will let things go forward to take care of the troops and let us make sure the Government is funded. We are not going to do the Gingrich plan.

But things around here work by unanimous consent. Maybe the majority wants an excuse not to complete business because most of their business is a little faulty anyway. But we have worked very hard and showed our good faith in the first quarter of this Congress. We have passed, for example, the class action bill; we passed the bankruptcy bill--both of which were 15 years in the making. These are bills the majority of the Senators on this side of the aisle opposed. But I thought it was appropriate that we do business the way we should be doing business: have people speak, debate the issue, and take your wins and losses as they come. We had a couple of losses. But the fact is, we believe the business of the Senate should be conducted in this manner.
I do not know what is going to happen in the Foreign Relations Committee as it relates to Bolton, but the fact is, that is how things should be decided. They should debate publicly and openly and then make a decision as to whether he is good or bad for the United Nations. They are going to have some more hearings in that regard. I think that is appropriate. But to think that just because you do not get your way that you are going to change the rules is wrong.

I have said once or twice on the Senate floor, when I was a little boy I took a big trip. My brother was 10 or 12 years older than I. He was working for Standard Stations in a place in Arizona. It was a little town. It seemed like a big town coming from Searchlight. It took quite a few hours
to drive over there. I spent a week with my brother. I thought it was going to be a week, but he had a girlfriend and I didn't spend much time with him at all. I spent time with his girlfriend's brother. I could beat her brother in anything--all card games, board games, running, jumping, throwing. But I could never win because he kept changing the rules in the middle of the game. That is what is happening in the Senate. The majority can't get what they want so they break the rules to change the rules.

We believe the traditions of the Senate should be maintained. We believe if you are going to change the rules in the Senate, change them legally, not illegally.

I hope my friends, people of goodwill on the other side of the aisle, will take a very close look at this and see if it is the right thing to do. I think we do have people of goodwill on the other side of the aisle who understand the importance of maintaining the integrity of this body.

As Senator Dole said when asked on Public Radio last week what he thought about the so-called nuclear option, He said: Watch it because we are not going to be in the majority all the time. It will come back--these are my words, not his but the same meaning--it will come back to haunt us because the majority changes all the time.

I think it would be wrong for the Democrats to be able to do what the Republicans are talking about doing. I think it would be wrong for the Republicans to do what they are talking about doing. That is why we, Senator Frist and I, working with our caucus, have to try to tamp down the emotions on this issue and do what we can to bring the Senate family together and do things the right way so we can continue to do legislation.

I spoke to the distinguished majority leader a few minutes ago. We want to do the highway bill. We have the Energy bill. Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman are working hand in hand, more than they have in many years. They are going to come up with the Energy bill. The Senators are going to bring it to the floor and we will debate it.

As the President was told several days ago by Senator Baucus when they were called to the White House, Senator Baucus said: You do the nuclear option, there will be no Energy bill. That is the way things are and that is wrong.

(Ms. MURKOWSKI assumed the Chair.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=7326903

JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS


Text From the Congressional Record


C-Span Congressional Chronicle


4-21-05


Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise today in morning business to speak about a matter of great importance, and that is our broken judicial nomination and confirmation process. As Senators, we have sworn to support and defend the Constitution, and on the issue of judicial nominations the Constitution is straightforward. It states that the President nominates judges and the Senate has the duty to give its advice and consent on those nominations. For over 200 years, that is exactly how it worked, regardless of which party was in power.

Over the past 2 years, the Democrat minority has attempted to change the rules and stand 200 years of Senate tradition on its head. The Democrat minority now thinks that 41 Senators should be able to dictate to the President which judges he can nominate. The minority also thinks that it should be able to prevent the rest of the Senate from fulfilling its constitutional duty of voting up or down on judicial nominees.

The Democrats' position is contrary to our Constitution, our Senate traditions, and the will of the American people as expressed at the ballot box this past November. It must stop. [Page: S4042]The advice and consent provision in the Constitution has served us for over 214 years up until the last Congress. That meant that the Senate should vote, and for over 200 years no nominee with majority support has been denied an up-or-down vote in this body, zero.

The Democrats have said that they have confirmed 98 percent of the President's nominees. The actual number is 89 percent. But even at that, are we to say that we are only going to follow the Constitution 89 percent of the time? Furthermore, this Senate's record on dealing with the President's appellate court nominees is the worst for any President in modern history. This President's record of having his appellate court nominees voted on is 69 percent, which ranks him lowest of any President in modern history.

It would be one thing if these nominees did not have the votes for confirmation, but they do. These nominees will have 54 or 55, 56, 57 votes for confirmation. It is wrong to deny them what the Constitution says they deserve and for us to ignore our constitutional responsibility to see that they have an up-or-down vote in this body.

The Democrats have said that it is their prerogative to debate. Well, that is great. Let us debate them on the floor of the Senate. But before they can be debated, a nomination has to be brought to the Senate floor for debate. We have a right to debate under the Constitution in the Senate.
They have also suggested that judges ought to have broad support; that they ought to have more than the necessary 51 votes for the simple majority that has traditionally been the case in the Senate. There is nothing in the Constitution about filibustering judges. There is nothing in the Constitution about requiring a super-majority to confirm judges. If the Founders had wanted judges to get a super-majority vote, they would have put that in there. They did it for treaties, for constitutional amendments, and for overriding a Presidential veto. Clearly, that was not the case with judges. It was the Founders' intention that the Senate dispose of them with a simple majority vote.

The Democrats in the Chamber have said that what we are trying to accomplish is ``the nuclear option,'' suggesting that somehow this is a radical process that we are trying to implement. Well, simply, that is not true. There is nothing nuclear about re-establishing the precedent that has been the case, the practice, and the pattern in this Senate for over 200 years.

What is nuclear is what is being discussed by the Democrats in this body, and that is shutting the Senate down over the issue of judicial nominees, which means important legislation to this country, such as passing a highway bill that will create jobs and growth in this economy, could get shut down, or an energy policy which is important in my State of South Dakota. We have gas prices at record levels, we have farmers going into the field, the tourism industry is starting its season, so we need to do something to help become energy independent. I am very interested in the issue of renewable fuels. I want to see as big a renewable fuels standard as we can get on the Energy bill, but we have to get it on the floor to debate it first. We cannot have these attempts, these threats--and I hope they are just that: threats--because it would be tragic, it would be nuclear, if the other side decided to shut this Senate down over the issue of judicial nominees.

The Democrats in this Chamber have tried to confuse the issue of legislative and judicial filibusters, clearly trying to confuse the public about what this means. Well, what we are talking about is simply the narrow issue of judicial nominees. It is part of this Senate's constitutional responsibility and duty, and we must take it very seriously. However, in the last Congress that became extremely politicized.

What we are talking about again is simply the issue of judicial filibusters. Incidentally, it was the Democrats who last voted on the filibuster in the Senate to do away with it back in 1995. It was a 76-to-19 vote. It had to do with the whole issue, not just judicial but legislative filibusters as well. Many of those Democrats who voted to end the filibuster still serve in this institution today.

The American people see this as an issue of fundamental fairness. They understand that this body's constitutional obligation, responsibility, and duty is to provide advice and consent, and that means an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

The Democrats in the Senate have said that this President's nominees are extreme. There are going to be a couple of them reported out of the Judiciary Committee today. Janice Rogers Brown received 76 percent of the vote the last time she faced the voters in California, which is not exactly a bastion of conservatism. Her nomination in this Senate has been stalled out for 21 months. Priscilla Owen will also be reported out today. She received 84 percent of the vote the last time she faced the voters in Texas. She has been waiting around for 4 years in the Senate to get an up-or-down vote on her nomination. She was endorsed by every major newspaper in the State of Texas. These nominees are not extreme. What is extreme is denying these good nominees a vote, and it betrays the role and responsibility the Founders gave the Senate.

So as we embark upon and engage in this debate that is forthcoming on judicial nominees, let us keep in sight and in focus the facts, and the role and responsibility this institution has to perform its duty. And that is to make sure that when good people put their names forward for public service, they at least are afforded the opportunity that every nominee with majority support throughout this Nation's history has had, and that is the chance to be voted on in the Senate.

I fully support what the other side is saying about wanting to debate these nominees. Let us do it. I am certainly willing and hopeful that we will be able to engage in a spirited and vigorous debate. Let us debate, but then let us vote.

I yield the floor.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/hatch200501120729.asp

Crisis Mode: A fair and constitutional option to beat the filibuster game

By Senator Orrin G. Hatch


National Review Online


January 12, 2005, 7:29 a.m.


Judicial nominations will be one of the most important issues facing the Senate in the 109th Congress and the question is whether we will return to the tradition of giving nominations reaching the Senate floor an up or down vote. The filibusters used to block such votes have mired the judicial-confirmation process in a political and constitutional crisis that undermines democracy, the judiciary, the Senate, and the Constitution. The Senate has in the past changed its procedures to rebalance the minority's right to debate and the majority's right to decide and it must do so again.

Newspaper editorials condemning the filibusters outnumber supporting ones by more than six-to-one. Last November, South Dakotans retired former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, in no small part, because he led the filibuster forces. Yet within hours of his election to succeed Senator Daschle as Minority Leader, Senator Harry Reid took to the Senate floor to defend them. Hope is fading that the shrinking Democratic minority will abandon its destructive course of using filibusters to defeat majority supported judicial nominations. Their failure to do so will require a deliberate solution.


DIAGNOSING THE CRISIS


If these filibusters were part of the Senate's historical practice or, as a recent NRO editorial put it, merely made confirming nominees more difficult, a deliberate solution might not be warranted. But this is a crisis, not a problem of inconvenience.

Senate rules reflect an emphasis on deliberation and debate. Either by unanimous agreement or at least 60 votes on a motion to invoke cloture under Rule 22, the Senate must end debate before it can vote on anything. From the Spanish filibustero, a filibuster was a mercenary who tries to destabilize a government. A filibuster occurs most plainly on the Senate floor when efforts to end debate fail, either by objection to unanimous consent or defeat of a cloture motion.

During the 108th Congress, Senate Democrats defeated ten majority-supported nominations to the U.S. Court of Appeals by objecting to every unanimous consent request and defeating every cloture motion. This tactic made good on then-Democratic Leader Tom Daschle's February 2001 vow to use "whatever means necessary" to defeat judicial nominations. These filibusters are unprecedented, unfair, dangerous, partisan, and unconstitutional.


A Political Crisis


These are the first filibusters in American history to defeat majority supported judicial nominations. Before the 108th Congress, 13 of the 14 judicial nominations on which the Senate took a cloture vote were confirmed. President Johnson withdrew the 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas to be Supreme Court chief justice the day after a failed cloture vote showed the nomination did not have clear majority support. In contrast, Democrats have now crossed the confirmation Rubicon by using the filibuster to defeat judicial nominations which enjoy clear majority support.

Focusing on President Clinton's judicial nominations in 1999, I described what has been the Senate's historical standard for judicial nominations: "Let's make our case if we have disagreement, and then vote." Democrats' new filibusters abandons this tradition and is unfair to senators who must provide the "advice and consent" the Constitution requires of them through a final up or down vote. It is also unfair to nominees who have agreed, often at personal and financial sacrifice, to judicial service only to face scurrilous attacks, trumped up charges, character assassination, and smear campaigns. They should not also be held in permanent filibuster limbo. Senators can vote for or against any judicial nominee for any reason, but senators should vote.

These unprecedented and unfair filibusters are distorting the way the Senate does business. Before the 108th Congress, cloture votes were used overwhelmingly for legislation rather than nominations. The percentage of cloture votes used for judicial nominations jumped a whopping 900 percent during President Bush's first term from the previous 25 years since adoption of the current cloture rule. And before the 108th Congress, the few cloture votes on judicial nominations were sometimes used to ensure up or down votes. Even on controversial nominees such as Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon, we invoked cloture to ensure that we would vote on confirmation. We did, and both are today sitting federal judges. In contrast, these new Democratic filibusters are designed to prevent, rather than secure, an up or down vote and to ensure that targeted judicial nominations are defeated rather than debated.

These filibusters are also completely partisan. The average tally on cloture votes during the 108th Congress was 53-43, enough to confirm but not enough to invoke cloture and end debate. Democrats provided every single vote against permitting an up or down vote. In fact, Democrats have cast more than 92 percent of all votes against cloture on judicial nominations in American history.


A Constitutional Crisis


Unprecedented, unfair, and partisan filibusters that distort Senate procedures constitute a political crisis. By trying to use Rule 22's cloture requirement to change the Constitution's confirmation requirement, these Democratic filibusters also constitute a constitutional crisis.

The Constitution gives the Senate authority to determine its procedural rules. More than a century ago, however, the Supreme Court unanimously recognized the obvious maxim that those rules may not "ignore constitutional restraints." The Constitution explicitly requires a supermajority vote for such things as trying impeachments or overriding a presidential veto; it does not do so for confirming nominations. Article II, Section 2, even mentions ratifying treaties and confirming nominees in the very same sentence, requiring a supermajority for the first but not for the second. Twisting Senate rules to create a confirmation supermajority undermines the Constitution. As Senator Joseph Lieberman once argued, it amounts to "an amendment of the Constitution by rule of the U.S. Senate."

But don't take my word for it. The same senators leading the current filibuster campaign once argued that all filibusters are unconstitutional. Senator Lieberman argued in 1995 that a supermajority requirement for cloture has "no constitutional basis." Senator Tom Harkin insisted that "the filibuster rules are unconstitutional" because "the Constitution sets out...when you need majority or supermajority votes in the Senate." And former Senator Daschle said that because the Constitution "is straightforward about the few instances in which more than a majority of the Congress must vote....Democracy means majority rule, not minority gridlock." He later applied this to judicial nomination filibusters: "I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination." That each of these senators voted for every judicial-nomination filibuster during the 108th Congress is baffling indeed.

These senators argued that legislative as well as nomination filibusters are unconstitutional. Filibusters of legislation, however, are different and solving the current crisis does not require throwing the entire filibuster baby out with the judicial nomination bathwater. The Senate's authority to determine its own rules is greatest regarding what is most completely within its jurisdiction, namely, legislation. And legislative filibusters have a long history. Rule 22 itself did not even potentially apply to nominations until decades after its adoption. Neither America's founders, nor the Senate that adopted Rule 22 to address legislative gridlock, ever imagined that filibusters would be used to highjack the judicial appointment process.


TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT


Liberal interest groups, and many in the mainstream media, eagerly repeat Democratic talking points trying to change, rather than address, the subject. For example, they claim that, without the filibuster, the Senate would be nothing more than a "rubberstamp" for the president's judicial nominations. Losing a fair fight, however, does not rubberstamp the winner; giving up without a fight does. Active opposition to a judicial nomination, especially expressed through a negative vote, is the best remedy against being a rubberstamp.

They also try to change the definition of a filibuster. On March 11, 2003, for example, Senator Patrick Leahy, ranking Judiciary Committee Democrat, used a chart titled "Republican Filibusters of Nominees." Many individuals on the list, however, are today sitting federal judges, some confirmed after invoking cloture and others without taking a cloture vote at all. Invoking cloture and confirming nominations is no precedent for not invoking cloture and refusing to confirm nominations.

Many senators once opposed the very judicial nomination filibusters they now embrace. Senator Leahy, for example, said in 1998: "I have stated over and over again...that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported." Since then, he has voted against cloture on judicial nominations 21 out of 26 times. Senator Ted Kennedy, a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in 1995 that "Senators who believe in fairness will not let a minority of the Senate deny [the nominee] his vote by the entire Senate." Since then, he has voted to let a minority of the Senate deny judicial nominees a vote 18 out of 23 times.

Let me put my own record on the table. I have never voted against cloture on a judicial nomination. I opposed filibusters of Carter and Clinton judicial nominees, Reagan and Bush judicial nominees, all judicial nominees. Along with then-Majority Leader Trent Lott, I repeatedly warned that filibustering Clinton judicial nominees would be a "travesty" and helped make sure that every Clinton judicial nomination reaching the full Senate received a final confirmation decision. That should be the permanent standard, no matter which party controls the Senate or occupies the White House.


SOLVING THE CRISIS


The Senate has periodically faced the situation where the minority's right to debate has improperly overwhelmed the majority's right to decide. And we have changed our procedures in a way that preserves the minority's right to debate, and even to filibuster legislation, while solving the crisis at hand.

The Senate's first legislative rules, adopted in 1789, directly reflected majority rule. Rule 8 allowed a simple majority to "move the previous question" and proceed to vote on a pending matter. Invoked only three times in 17 years, however, Rule 8 was dropped in the Senate rules revision of 1806, meaning unanimous consent was then necessary to end debate.

Dozens of reform efforts during the 19th century tried to rein in the minority's abuse of the right to debate. In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson described what had become of majority rule: "The Senate of the United States is the only legislative body in the world which cannot act when its majority is ready for action.... The only remedy is that the rules of the Senate shall be altered." Leadership turned gridlock into reform, and that year the Senate adopted Rule 22, by which 2/3 of Senators present and voting could invoke cloture, or end debate, on a pending measure.

Just as the minority abused the unanimous consent threshold in the 19th century, the minority abused the 2/3 threshold in the 20th century. A resolution to reinstate the previous question rule was introduced, and only narrowly defeated, within a year of Rule 22's adoption. A steady stream of reform attempts followed, and a series of modifications made until the current 60-vote threshold was adopted in 1975. The point is that the Senate has periodically rebalanced the minority's right to debate and the majority's right to decide. Today's crisis, with constitutional as well as political dimensions and affecting all three branches of government, presents an even more compelling case to do so.

These filibusters are an unprecedented shift in the kind, not just the degree, of the minority's tactics. After a full, fair, and vigorous debate on judicial nominations, a simple majority must at some point be able to proceed to a vote. A simple majority can achieve this goal either by actually amending Rule 22 or by sustaining an appropriate parliamentary ruling.


A Simple Majority Can Change the Rules


The Senate exercises its constitutional authority to determine its procedural rules either implicitly or explicitly. Once a new Congress begins, operating under existing rules implicitly adopts them "by acquiescence." The Senate explicitly determines its rules by formally amending them, and the procedure depends on its timing. After Rule 22 has been adopted by acquiescence, it requires 67 votes for cloture on a rules change. Before the Senate adopts Rule 22 by acquiescence, however, ordinary parliamentary rules apply and a simple majority can invoke cloture and change Senate rules.

Some object to this conclusion by observing that, because only a portion of its membership changes with each election, the Senate has been called a "continuing body." Yet language reflecting this observation was included in Senate rules only in 1959. The more important, and much older, sense in which the Senate is a continuing body is its ongoing constitutional authority to determine its rules. Rulings by vice presidents of both parties, sitting as the President of the Senate, confirm that each Senate may make that decision for itself, either implicitly by acquiescence or explicitly by amendment. Both conservative and liberal legal scholars, including those who see no constitutional problems with the current filibuster campaign, agree that a simple majority can change Senate rules at the beginning of a new Congress.


A Simple Majority Can Uphold a Parliamentary Ruling

An alternative strategy involves a parliamentary ruling in the context of considering an individual nomination. This approach can be pursued at any time, and would not actually amend Rule 22. The precedent it would set depends on the specific ruling it produces and the facts of the situation in which it arises.

Speculation, often inaccurate, abounds about how this strategy would work. One newspaper, for example, offered a common description that this approach would seek "a ruling from the Senate parliamentarian that the filibuster of executive nominations is unconstitutional." Under long-standing Senate parliamentary precedent, however, the presiding officer does not decide such constitutional questions but submits them to the full Senate, where they are debatable and subject to Rule 22's 60-vote requirement. A filibuster would then prevent solving this filibuster crisis. Should the chair rule in favor of a properly framed non-debatable point of order, Democrats would certainly appeal, but the majority could still sustain the ruling by voting for a non-debatable motion to table the appeal.

Democrats have threatened that, if the majority pursues a deliberate solution to this political and constitutional crisis, they will bring the entire Senate to a screeching halt. Perhaps they see this as way to further escalate the confirmation crisis, as the Senate cannot confirm judicial nominations if it can do nothing at all. No one, however, seriously believes that, if the partisan roles were reversed, Democrats - the ones who once proposed abolishing even legislative filibusters - would hesitate for a moment before changing Senate procedures to facilitate consideration of judicial nominations they favored.


A FAMILIAR FORK IN THE ROAD


The United States Senate is a unique institution. Our rules allowing for extended debate protect the minority's role in the legislative process. We must preserve that role. The current filibuster campaign against judicial nominations, however, is the real attack on Senate tradition and an unprecedented example of placing short-term advantage above longstanding fundamental principles. It is not simply annoying or frustrating, but a new and dangerous kind of obstruction which threatens democracy, the Senate, the judiciary, and even the Constitution itself. As such, it requires a more serious and deliberate solution.

While judicial appointments can be politically contentious and ideologically divisive, the confirmation process must still be handled through a fair process that honors the Constitution and Senate tradition. If the fight is fair and constitutional, let the chips fall where they may. As it has before, the Senate must change its procedures to properly balance majority rule and extended debate. That way, we can vigorously debate judicial nominations and still conduct the people's business.

— The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch is a Republican senator to the United States Senate from Utah. Senator Hatch is former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200412150737.asp

Let Them Filibuster: A Senate rules change may not be wise


Editorial


National Review Online


December 15, 2004, 7:37 a.m.


Democrats have waged an "unprecedented" campaign against Bush's judicial nominees — to quote an accurate observation that Democratic senator Jon Corzine made in a fundraising letter. They have denied up-or-down votes to several Bush nominees who had the support of a majority of senators. They have made scurrilous charges against nominees. Priscilla Owen was said to be an enemy of women because, as a judge in Texas, she had interpreted a state law to grant parents a stronger right to be notified of their children's abortions than Democrats would like. Democrats sought to breach the confidentiality of Miguel Estrada's work for the Justice Department in a desperate search for embarrassing material on him. The effect of the Democratic campaign, and probably the intent, has been to intimidate some qualified conservative jurists from putting themselves in the line of fire.


So we sympathize with those Republicans who have been proposing to change the Senate rules to make it easier to confirm nominees who have majority support. Nevertheless, we think the idea is a mistake.


Under current Senate procedures, it takes 60 votes to end a debate and move to a vote. It takes 67 votes to change the procedures. Some conservatives argue that the 60-vote rule to cut off debate, when applied to judicial nominations, violates the Constitution. The "advice and consent" of the Senate, they say, implies that it should only take a majority of the Senate to confirm a judge. The use of the filibuster effectively creates a supermajority requirement, which, on this argument, is unconstitutional.

It is, in our view, an implausible argument. The Constitution does not forbid the Senate from setting its own procedures.


Republicans should insist on political accountability for filibusters instead of a rules change.


Conservatives are on stronger ground in arguing that a simple majority of senators should be able to rewrite the rules. But whether it would be prudent for Republicans to act on this insight is another question.


It may be wiser to insist on political accountability for filibusters of judicial nominees than to change the rules to prevent them. In the 2002 and 2004 elections, Republicans took Senate seats from the Democrats. The Democrats' filibusters against Bush's judge picks were an issue in all of them.


The consequences might be worse for the Democrats in the case of a Supreme Court vacancy. Only small portions of the electorate have paid attention to the political battles over appellate-court nominations. The public will be paying attention during a Supreme Court fight. Many voters will root for Bush's nominee and many will root against. But it is unlikely that middle-of-the-road voters will have much tolerance for attempts to block a vote.


Consider the Ashcroft precedent. Liberals were incensed over Bush's nomination of John Ashcroft to be attorney general. They were energized by their strong showing in the 2000 Senate elections and angered by the Florida recount. They demanded a filibuster of Ashcroft. The Democratic Senate leadership refused to take this step, rightly calculating that the public reaction would be negative.


The Democrats will probably not be able to resist the liberal pressure to wage a filibuster when a Supreme Court vacancy arises. But at some point, we strongly suspect that the filibuster would collapse. That collapse would do more for Republicans — and for the cause of confirming conservative judges — than a rules change. (A rules change might demoralize Democrats, but it would also enrage them. An unsuccessful filibuster would just be demoralizing.)


Republicans could change the rules, but they have no constitutional obligation to do so. And the best moment for changing the rules, during a Supreme Court fight, would also be the moment when a change would be least necessary. So let the Democrats filibuster — and pay the price.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a7.html

U.S. Constitution Online: Answers From the FAQ, Page 7


This page is one of the answer pages for the USConstitution.net's Constitutional FAQ. There have been so many questions and answers over the years, that it was best to split them among several files.


Q139. "Why can't I find anything about filibusters in the Constitution?"


A. The short answer is because there is nothing there to find: the Constitution does not contemplate the filibuster in any way, directly or indirectly. So, then, what is all this talk about the Framers, the Senate, the filibuster, and its relationship to the Constitution?

By way of definition, the filibuster is a delaying tactic that is a part of the rules of the Senate. It is a word that comes from the Spanish word for "freebooter," which means "pirate." The origin seems to be that a person who filibusters is plundering the time and focus of a deliberative body, like a legislature. Specifically, in the U.S. Senate, a filibuster is used by a single Senator or group of Senators to stop or delay action on a piece of legislation. It has long been the tradition of the Senate that debate may not be stopped unless those taking up the debate allow it to be stopped. In other words, once a Senator has the floor, he or she may continue to talk forever. This rule goes back to the very beginnings of the Senate.


The Constitution allows each house of Congress to set its own rules. Early on, both houses had unlimited debate provisions. The House of Representatives, however, as a much larger body, found this rule unworkable and rules to limit debate came into effect. The Senate, until recently, never created such a rule. The term for the use of unlimited debate as a legislative tactic became known as a filibuster in the 1850's. The first attack on the filibuster came in 1841, by no lesser a figure than Henry Clay. It survived, though, until 1917, when the Senate adopted a rule allowing a filibuster to be stopped by a two-thirds vote. Such a vote is known as "cloture." Cloture ended the ability of a single Senator to hold up Senate business, but since a two-thirds vote can be difficult to get, it certainly did not stop the filibuster.


In 1975, the two-thirds rule was changed to three-fifths. Today, the three-fifths rule allows cloture on the basis of the vote of sixty Senators. In 2005, the filibuster again came under attack when threats to filibuster judicial appointments prompted calls for a rule change specifically against filibusters on judicial appointments.


So the filibuster has it constitutional origins in the ability of each house of Congress to set its own rules. It has its origins in the framers in that they saw the Senate as a place where extended debate and discussion would have a cooling effect on the actions of the more "heated" House. And it has its origins in the concept ingrained in our political system that the rights of the minority must be protected from the force of the majority.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.php

Standing Rules of the Senate

RULE XXII - PRECEDENCE OF MOTIONS

1. When a question is pending, no motion shall be received but

• To adjourn.
• To adjourn to a day certain, or that when the Senate adjourn it shall be to a day certain.
• To take a recess.
• To proceed to the consideration of executive business.
• To lay on the table.
• To postpone indefinitely.
• To postpone to a day certain.
• To commit.
• To amend.

Which several motions shall have precedence as they stand arranged; and the motions relating to adjournment, to take a recess, to proceed to the consideration of executive business, to lay on the table, shall be decided without debate.


2. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question:


"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.


Thereafter no Senator shall be entitled to speak in all more than one hour on the measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, the amendments thereto, and motions affecting the same, and it shall be the duty of the Presiding Officer to keep the time of each Senator who speaks. Except by unanimous consent, no amendment shall be proposed after the vote to bring the debate to a close, unless it had been submitted in writing to the Journal Clerk by 1 o'clock p.m. on the day following the filing of the cloture motion if an amendment in the first degree, and unless it had been so submitted at least one hour prior to the beginning of the cloture vote if an amendment in the second degree. No dilatory motion, or dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane shall be in order. Points of order, including questions of relevancy, and appeals from the decision of the Presiding Officer, shall be decided without debate.


After no more than thirty hours of consideration of the measure, motion, or other matter on which cloture has been invoked, the Senate shall proceed, without any further debate on any question, to vote on the final disposition thereof to the exclusion of all amendments not then actually pending before the Senate at that time and to the exclusion of all motions, except a motion to table, or to reconsider and one quorum call on demand to establish the presence of a quorum (and motions required to establish a quorum) immediately before the final vote begins. The thirty hours may be increased by the adoption of a motion, decided without debate, by a threefifths affirmative vote of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, and any such time thus agreed upon shall be equally divided between and controlled by the Majority and Minority Leaders or their designees. However, only one motion to extend time, specified above, may be made in any one calendar day.


If, for any reason, a measure or matter is reprinted after cloture has been invoked, amendments which were in order prior to the reprinting of the measure or matter will continue to be in order and may be conformed and reprinted at the request of the amendment's sponsor. The conforming changes must be limited to lineation and pagination.


No Senator shall call up more than two amendments until every other Senator shall have had the opportunity to do likewise.


Notwithstanding other provisions of this rule, a Senator may yield all or part of his one hour to the majority or minority floor managers of the measure, motion, or matter or to the Majority or Minority Leader, but each Senator specified shall not have more than two hours so yielded to him and may in turn yield such time to other Senators.


Notwithstanding any other provision of this rule, any Senator who has not used or yielded at least ten minutes, is, if he seeks recognition, guaranteed up to ten minutes, inclusive, to speak only.


After cloture is invoked, the reading of any amendment, including House amendments, shall be dispensed with when the proposed amendment has been identified and has been available in printed form at the desk of the Members for not less than twenty four hours.

Transatlantic Convergence, Fücks

http://www.aicgs.org/analysis/c/fuecks112108eng.aspx

Transatlantic Convergence

By Ralf Fücks

American Institute For Contemporary German Studies

November 21, 2008, AICGS Advisor

With Barack Obama the U.S. will become both more American and more European

Until only very recently the consensus was that Europe and America were growing ever further apart. The key words of unilateralism, Guantanamo, International Criminal Court, war on terror, and climate policy were plenty of evidence of the transatlantic divide, and all those wanting to further underline the deep foreign policy differences pointed out the shift in the growth momentum from the American east coast westwards. It seemed that Europe was becoming less important for the U.S. by the same measures that Asia was becoming more important.

[THIS IS STILL THE CASE]

Yet this picture was distorted even before the next president of the United States was elected. And all the more so now that Barack Obama and his team are preparing to assume power. The troika of France, Great Britain, and Germany negotiated with Iran in the name of the U.S. as well. During the Georgian crisis it was European multi-talent Nicolas Sarkozy who brokered an agreement with Russia to end the war, while the White House remained in the background. And when the credit crisis came, the cooperation between the U.S. and Europe was decisive in containing the panic in the markets. China, India and other threshold countries have not become less important, but Europe will remain the U.S.'s central partner in many major international questions.

With Obama's election the U.S. will become both more American and more European. It will become more American because he has rehabilitated the values of the American constitution and given the country its self esteem back, [??? HE HAS???] as he represents the ethnic diversity of America and has brought sections of society into national politics that were previously on the sidelines. The basis of American democracy has become broader. At the same time, the U.S. will move closer to the European model in terms of both social policy and foreign policy.

The new U.S. administration will place greater emphasis on international cooperation and stop seeing international law as an unwelcome nuisance. This is not in any way saying that America will not act in what it considers to be its national interest in cases of conflict; in the future the U.S. will continue to refuse to bow to international bodies. But the Obama administration will listen to others and seek a joint approach. By entering into dialogue with its partners, America will also expect them to shoulder more of the responsibility. This will not necessarily be comfortable for Europe - but it does open up the opportunity for frank dialogue and constructive cooperation. This applies equally to international policy on climate and the restructuring of the financial markets, to a new approach in Afghanistan, as well as the resurrection of active disarmament policy. There will also be fresh impetus for policy in the Middle East once the taboo of negotiating with Damascus is dropped. The sooner Europe develops initiatives of its own on these questions and adopts a proactive approach to the new administration instead of one of wait-and-see what they will be confronted with, the better.

Redistributor in Chief

The preoccupation with America's global foreign policy tends to overshadow the paradigm shift in social policy that is soon to occur. The room for a change of direction in the area of foreign policy is substantially smaller than what exists in the area of issues that the Obama team now intends to address in order to remedy the mistakes of the past years and decades. With Barack Obama the neo-liberal revolution that began in the eighties will finally come to an end. Not since Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal will an American president take up office with an agenda that has such a decided focus on social policy issues: equal opportunities, general health insurance, good and affordable education for everyone, modernization of public infrastructure, and greater compatibility of family and work. Barack Obama is prepared to tackle the taboo of "redistribution of wealth," and branding him as a "socialist" or "Redistributor in Chief" did nothing for the Republican cause. Once this would probably have cost a Democratic candidate for president the election, but not this time.

The way the Bush administration reacted to the threatened collapse of the banking system showed in itself that "times are changing" in the U.S. as well: an end to the wave of privatizations and the orgy of deregulation, recognition that the market needs regulation backed by politicians [??? SINCE WHEN DO AMERICANS HAVE RESPECT FOR POLITICIANS THAT WISH TO DICTATE TO THEM???] and the law [WHEN THE LAW IS FOUNDED ON POLITICAL WHIM, RATHER THAN OBJECTIVE SCIENCE OR ECONOMICS???].

The relationship between the market and the state will also be redefined in the home of capitalism. This does not mean that America will copy the old-school style of the European welfare state. The U.S. will remain a country in which initiative, self-responsibility, and the entrepreneurial spirit have a major role to play. [THANK YOU, SIR, FOR THE REASSURANCE!!] And this is where Europe could learn something from America.

But the draining of public infrastructure, the deep divide between sections of society, and the economic uncertainty that is spreading have all now reached a point where they threaten both the social cohesion and the economic future of America. This was the core message of the Obama campaign and it was well-received, even among the privileged.

[THERE IS NO ACCOUNTING FOR THE LACK OF COMMON SENSE & EDUCATION POSSESSED BY TODAY'S AMERICANS WHO ARE SEDUCED BY GRANDE & SULTRY ORATORY DEVOID OF SUBSTANCE & EXPERIENCE. THIS HAS RESULTED, SADLY, IN THE FAILURE OF MANY, EVEN THOSE PRIVILEGED, TO SEE THE SUBTLE RISE OF LIBERAL FASCISM, A COUSIN OF THE MORE MUSCULAR RIGHT-WING FACISM THAT ELIMINATED PUBLIC DISSENT AND DEBATE THROUGH REPUTATION DISPARAGEMENT, LEGAL PROSECUTION AND EVEN PERSECUTION, AS IT SWEPT THROUGH GERMANY, MUCH LIKE A TSUNAMI WAVE, DURING THE 1930'S.]

Green Wave in the White House

Transatlantic convergence seems to be likely in the fields of climate and energy policies as well. The way ahead had already been prepared over the last few years by initiatives taken by cities, states, and businesses that saw climate protection not as an unavoidable necessity but as an economic chance. This green wave has now reached the White House. A few days before Barack Obama was elected, the head of his transition team, John Podesta, spoke at an event of the Heinrich Böll Foundation in Washington. He announced that Barack Obama, if elected, would make climate protection a top priority, made the connection between dependence on oil, climate change and increasing competition to gain resources in short supply, announced the introduction of a national CO2 emission trading (cap & trade), and pleaded for greater energy efficiency.

What was striking was the connection he made between averting a looming recession and making "green investments." According to Podesta, it is not about kick-starting consumption but about investment in education, science, and the ecological modernization of the economy in order to stimulate growth that can be sustained. Hopefully this message will also be heard in Europe.

Washington's expectations of a renewed transatlantic partnership are huge. Podesta expressed this in the formula that Europe should not use the past as an excuse to evade future cooperation. This does not only apply to Afghanistan and Iraq. The door for transatlantic initiatives is open and the courage to make changes should not just come from the American side.

Ralf Fücks is on the executive board of the Heinrich Böll Foundation, which is affiliated with the German Green Party, and is a regular participant in AICGS events.

This essay appeared in the November 21, 2008, AICGS Advisor. For the original German version, please click here.

Mission Accomplished: Bush Administration Delivers American Sovereignty on a Silver Platter to Socialist Europe

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/bushs-legacy-european-socialism-2008-11-18.html

Bush’s legacy: European socialism


By Dick Morris


Posted: 11/18/08 07:10 PM [ET]

The results of the G-20 economic summit amount to nothing less than the seamless integration of the United States into the European economy.

In one month of legislation and one diplomatic meeting, the United States has unilaterally abdicated all the gains for the concept of free markets won by the Reagan administration and surrendered, in toto, to the Western European model of socialism, stagnation and excessive government regulation. Sovereignty is out the window. Without a vote, we are suddenly members of the European Union.

Given the dismal record of those nations at creating jobs and sustaining growth, merger with the Europeans is like a partnership with death.

At the G-20 meeting, Bush agreed to subject the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and our other regulatory agencies to the supervision of a global entity that would critique its regulatory standards and demand changes if it felt they were necessary. Bush agreed to create a College of Supervisors.

According to The Washington Post, it would “examine the books of major financial institutions that operate across national borders so regulators could begin to have a more complete picture of banks’ operations.”

Their scrutiny would extend to hedge funds and to various “exotic” financial instruments. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), a European-dominated operation, would conduct “regular vigorous reviews” of American financial institutions and practices. The European-dominated College of Supervisors would also weigh in on issues like executive compensation and investment practices.

There is nothing wrong with the substance of this regulation. Experience is showing it is needed. But it is very wrong to delegate these powers to unelected, international institutions with no political accountability.

We have a Securities and Exchange Commission appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, both of whom are elected by the American people. It is with the SEC, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve that financial accountability must take place.

The European Union achieved this massive subrogation of American sovereignty the way it usually does, by negotiation, gradual bureaucratic encroachment, and without asking the voters if they approve. What’s more, Bush appears to have gone down without a fight, saving his debating time for arguing against the protectionism that France’s Nicolas Sarkozy was pushing.

By giving Bush a seeming victory on a moratorium against protectionism for one year, Sarkozy was able to slip over his massive scheme for taking over the supervision of the U.S. economy. All kinds of political agendas are advancing under the cover of response to the global financial crisis.

Where Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism by regulating it, Bush, to say nothing of Obama, has given the government control over our major financial and insurance institutions. And it isn’t even our government! The power has now been transferred to the international community, led by the socialists in the European Union.

Will Obama govern from the left? He doesn’t have to. George W. Bush has done all the heavy lifting for him. It was under Bush that the government basically took over as the chief stockholder of our financial institutions and under Bush that we ceded our financial controls to the European Union. In doing so, he has done nothing to preserve what differentiates the vibrant American economy from those dying economies in Europe.

Why have 80 percent of the jobs that have been created since 1980 in the industrialized world been created in the United States? How has America managed to retain its leading 24 percent share of global manufacturing even in the face of the Chinese surge? How has the U.S. GDP risen so high that it essentially equals that of the European Union, which has 50 percent more population?

It has done so by an absence of stifling regulation, a liberation of capital to flow to innovative businesses, low taxes, and by a low level of unionization that has given business the flexibility to grow and prosper. Europe, stagnated by taxation and regulation, has grown by a pittance while we have roared ahead. But now Bush — not Obama — Bush has given that all up and caved in to European socialists.

The Bush legacy? European socialism. Who needs enemies with friends like Bush?

Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6607757.stm

US and EU agree 'single market'

BBC News

April 30, 2007

The United States and the European Union have signed up to a new transatlantic economic partnership at a summit in Washington.


The pact is designed to boost trade and investment by harmonising regulatory standards, laying the basis for a US-EU single market.


The two sides also signed an Open Skies deal, designed to reduce fares and boost traffic on transatlantic flights.


But little of substance was agreed on climate change.


However, EU leaders were pleased that the US acknowledged human activity was a major cause.


Richest regions


Economics rather than the environment or politics was the focus of the summit, says the BBC's Europe correspondent, Jonny Dymond, from Washington.


The two sides agreed to set up an "economic council" to push ahead with regulatory convergence in nearly 40 areas, including intellectual property, financial services, business takeovers and the motor industry.


Without the US there can't be any success in coping with a globalised world European diplomat


The aim is to increase trade and lower costs.


Some reports suggest that incompatible regulations in the world's two richest regions add 10% to the cost of developing and producing new cars.


German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose country holds the EU's rotating presidency, said last month that if the US and EU could set business norms today, they would "secure the markets of tomorrow".


Since she came to office 18 months ago, she has made repairing damaged relations with the US a top priority.


Emission cuts


The Europeans said they were pleased that the US now officially acknowledged that climate change was happening and that human activity was a major cause of it. "We agree there's a threat, there's a very serious global threat," said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. "We agree that there is a need to reduce emissions. We agree that we should work together."


But behind the scenes, says our Europe correspondent, officials were saying that not much had changed. Ms Merkel will try to nudge the US towards a global approach to climate change before a G8 summit Germany is chairing in six weeks' time, says our correspondent. But the US has consistently rejected the European approach of imposing national limits on greenhouse gas emissions, saying they would harm the international economy.


Visa hope


The Open Skies agreement will take effect on 30 March 2008 and will allow EU carriers to fly to anywhere in the US and vice versa.


The deal promises to lower airfares and widen choice for passengers on both sides of the Atlantic.


The EU hopes to go further and create an "Open Aviation Area" between the two sides "in which investment can flow freely and in which European and US airlines can provide air services without any restriction," said a EU statement.


The EU is also hoping that the US will agree to withdraw its visa requirement for travellers from a number of EU states.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[READERS SHOULD CAREFULLY REFLECT UPON, IF NOT STUDY, THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF PRIOR TRANSATLANTIC REGULATORY SUMMITS. A REVIEW OF STRICT EU REGULATIONS ON DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS WILL SHOW HOW AMERICANS' 'HEALTH FREEDOM' CAN BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED.]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/us/summit07/index.html

EU-U.S. Summit Signals New ThreatsTo Natural Health Therapies

By Paul Anthony Taylor

Dr. Rath Health Foundation

April 2007

New transatlantic economic integration agreement and secret FDA-EU ‘confidentiality arrangement’ threaten the harmonizing of U.S. dietary supplement legislation to restrictive European regulations

June 2006 – The European Union and the United States recently announced the signing of a Framework for Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration at a summit in Washington. Describing the agreement as “a statement of the importance of trade”, President Bush, speaking at the post-summit press conference, claimed that it was “a commitment to eliminating barriers to trade” and “a recognition that the closer that the United States and the EU become, the better off our people become.”


Because the signing of this agreement received only minimal media coverage, U.S. consumers could perhaps be forgiven for assuming that its potential to affect the regulation of dietary supplements was negligible. In reality, however, not only does the existence of a secret “confidentiality agreement” signed by the FDA with its European counterparts in 2005 now threaten the harmonizing of U.S. dietary supplement legislation to restrictive European regulations, but the European Commission President, José Manuel Barroso, has specifically stated that the pharmaceutical sector will be one of the areas that would benefit the most from transatlantic regulatory cooperation.


German Chancellor Angela Merkel, US President George W. Bush and European Commission President José Manuel Barroso at[ttended the] EU/US Summit, April 30, 2007, at the White House, Washington, DC. The agreement they signed threatens the harmonizing of U.S. dietary supplement legislation to restrictive European regulations.


Economic integration – the new threat to natural health therapies


Historically speaking, regulatory threats to natural health therapies have almost exclusively been of a national, as opposed to an international, nature. In the United States (U.S.), for example, the pharmaceutical industry-inspired Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) that was published by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 1993 - which suggested, among other provisions, that vitamins and minerals contained in dietary supplements be limited to low multiples of the Recommended Daily Intakes (RDIs) – would not, had it been implemented, have directly affected consumers living outside of the U.S.. Similarly, in the United Kingdom (UK), the unsuccessful attempt by the Blair government to limit the maximum permitted level of vitamin B6 in supplements to 10 mg in the late 1990s would not, had the proposal become law, have affected the freedom of choice of consumers living in other countries.


Meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in Rome, July 2005. Following the Commission’s adoption of its restrictive ‘Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements’ as the new global regulatory standard for dietary supplements, the threats to natural health therapies are becoming increasingly international in nature.


Following the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, however, and the subsequent adoption by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, in 2005, of the controversial Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements, regulatory threats to natural health therapies are becoming increasingly international in nature. The WTO uses Codex standards as the benchmark in its adjudication of international trade disputes involving foods and, as such, Codex standards that had once been entirely voluntary now have the bite of law in the global trade system - thus giving Codex coercive authority and WTO Members very real incentives to harmonize their regulations by adopting its standards.


Moreover, the key methodology via which countries are increasingly harmonizing their domestic regulations with those of their neighbors is by organizing themselves into regional trading blocs. Membership of such blocks - which can take the form of free trade areas, customs unions, common markets and other forms of economic integration – increases the pressure upon countries to harmonize their regulations and, in the case of food and dietary supplements legislation, to base them upon Codex standards.


The influence of the European Union


The European Union (EU) is the world’s largest - and arguably the most powerful - trading block. Established by the Treaty of Rome in 1957, its number of member countries has grown over the past fifty years from the original six participants to a current total of twenty-seven.


Six nations established the European Economic Community by signing the Treaty of Rome, above, in 1957. Now consisting of 27 member countries, the European Union is the world’s largest trading block. Its restrictive Food Supplements Directive was used as the blueprint for the controversial Codex ‘Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements’.


This dramatic growth has naturally resulted in a parallel increase in the EU’s economic and political power, the most obvious example of which - from a natural health perspective - being at Codex meetings, where it is now effectively able to shape the drafting of global food and dietary supplement standards to reflect European law.


In this respect, it is particularly notable that the Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements (which, unlike the United States’ relatively liberal Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), contain a requirement for maximum nutrient levels to be set) utilizes the EU’s highly restrictive Food Supplements Directive as its blueprint. As such, it is with these facts in mind that the signing of the new transatlantic agreement - and the commercial and political influences that led to it - must be examined.


Laying the basis for a U.S.-EU single market


The agreement signed by U.S. President George Bush, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso and German Chancellor Angela Merkel as head of the German term of the rotating EU Presidency has three main components.


The new Transatlantic Economic Council will be chaired by U.S. National Economic Council director Allan Hubbard (left) and European Commission Vice President Günter Verheugen (right). Together, they will oversee the efforts to achieve transatlantic regulatory convergence in nearly 40 areas.


Firstly, it has a regulatory focus on finding ways to converge the different regulatory structures and regulatory approaches of the United States and the European Union. In this respect, it is significant that the Senior Administration Officials who conducted the post-summit press briefing specifically stated that they had “interacted with the business communities on both sides of the Atlantic” and that the feedback that they’d received was that the different regulatory frameworks of the United States and European Union “pose real barriers to economic advancement and growth.” Perhaps not surprisingly, therefore, and as we shall discover, the pressure to deliver this agreement came from some of the world’s most powerful multinational corporations, including the pharmaceutical industry.

The second key component of the agreement is a set of priority projects focused on intellectual property rights, trade, financial markets, consolidation, investment promotion and technology.


Finally, the agreement also includes the setting up of a Transatlantic Economic Council, to be chaired by U.S. National Economic Council director Allan Hubbard and European Commission Vice President Günter Verheugen. The Council will be a permanent body and will oversee the efforts to meet the agreement’s objectives, with the goal of accelerating progress and achieving regulatory convergence in nearly 40 areas.


Notably, therefore, within only hours of the pact being signed, the BBC was already describing it as “laying the basis for a US-EU single market.”


The influence of the TransAtlantic Business Dialogue

[PROTECTIONIST-MINDED U.S. & EU INDUSTRIES INFLUENCED THE TERMS OF EU-US REGULATORY INTEGRATION WITHOUT PUBLIC INPUT]

Originally the idea of the late U.S. Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown, it has long been the stated goal of the TransAtlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) to establish a Barrier-Free Transatlantic Market. Given this objective, it is hardly surprising that TABD’s Executive Board Companies comprise some of the world’s richest and most powerful corporations and include the pharmaceutical manufacturers Merck, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and BASF.


In the run-up to the April 30 summit, TABD issued no less than three separate press releases in which it recommended that a barrier-free transatlantic market should be established, urged that time was running out for the U.S. and EU to tackle trade barriers and stated that it was time for the transatlantic political process to catch up with the deep integration already achieved by the business community. Clearly, given the size and economic power of its Executive Board Companies, these press releases translated into a great deal of pressure upon President Bush, President Barroso and Chancellor Merkel to deliver what TABD required.


That said, however, there can be little doubt that all three of the signatories were fully supportive of the agreement’s aims - particularly so Chancellor Merkel, who had already promoted the idea in a previous meeting with President Bush at the White House in January, only four days after Germany assumed the rotating presidency of the 27-nation European Union. Moreover, a mere eight days after the signing of the agreement, in a further demonstration of TABD’s political influence, Merkel, accompanied by European Commission Vice President Günter Verheugen - who along with U.S. National Economic Council director Allan Hubbard will chair the new Transatlantic Economic Council set up by the agreement – was a guest at TABD’s Innovation Conference Healthcare in Berlin.


The closing speech at the TABD Conference was given by Verheugen, who especially stressed “the crucial role of Chancellor Merkel and the German Presidency in catalysing the new EU-US Framework” and praised “Its organiser, the Transatlantic Business Dialogue which has been central in making the case for transatlantic economic integration.” Even more significantly, perhaps, a large proportion of Verheugen’s speech was given over to a discussion of the benefits of regulatory cooperation in which he specifically cited pharmaceuticals as an example.


President Bush, meanwhile, is already known to have his own close links to the TABD Executive Board, having previously met with it to discuss TABD’s recommendations for a barrier free transatlantic market at an EU-U.S. summit in Ireland in June 2004.


Crucially, therefore, and as we shall discover, although dietary supplements are not specifically mentioned in the agreement itself, the paper trail that led to its signing strongly suggests that they may already be scheduled for transatlantic regulatory harmonization in the not-so-distant future.


The “roadmap” to harmonization


Achieving harmonization of the regulatory framework for vitamin and mineral food supplements on both sides of the Atlantic - including the setting of maximum levels - has been a specific aim of TABD since at least November 2000.


However, whilst the passing of DSHEA in the U.S. in 1994 created what is still arguably the most liberal regulatory environment for dietary supplements in the world, the current situation in Europe could hardly be more different. In the majority of European countries, for example, the availability of dietary supplements is far more limited and, in those that are available, the doses are frequently limited to amounts that are below therapeutic levels. Worse still, even those few European countries where supplements have traditionally been regulated in a relatively liberal fashion – such as the UK, Ireland, Netherlands and Sweden – are now at risk of losing their access to effective supplements as a result of the passing by the European Parliament of the highly restrictive Food Supplements Directive in 2002.


However, as well as requiring the setting of maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals in supplements – the specific amounts for which are expected to be announced later this year by the European Union’s executive body, the European Commission - the Food Supplements Directive also restricts the sources of these nutrients to those (largely synthetic varieties) that are contained on its so-called “positive list”. Under the Directive’s requirements, any manufacturer wishing to use types of vitamins or minerals other than those specified on this list is required to submit a safety dossier for evaluation by the European Food Safety Authority.


Moreover, because the Directive was used as the blueprint for what is now effectively the global standard for dietary supplement regulations – the Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements – European regulations are, by definition, already compliant with that standard. As such, it is clear that in order to achieve the goal of transatlantic harmonization, American dietary supplement legislation will have to be harmonized to the restrictive European model, as opposed to the other way around.

Given this reality, one should perhaps not be surprised to discover that regulatory cooperation between the FDA and DG SANCO (the European Commission’s Health and Consumer Protection Directorate) is already well advanced.


Close examination of the 2005 Roadmap for EU-U.S. Regulatory Cooperation and Transparency, for example, reveals the following information:


Objective: Cooperation between FDA and DG SANCO on issues of mutual interest in the field of nutritional labelling.

Progress/Results: Experts from FDA and DG SANCO are engaged in discussions on regulatory issues relating to health claims, nutrition labeling, fortification, supplements, and infant formula. Specific areas under discussion include: 1) possible collaboration on the EU’s Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) and the U.S. Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA) for nutrients; and 2) cooperation on food labels.

Next Steps: Identify specific activities for cooperation on technical issues such as reference values for nutrient labeling, nutrient definitions, and energy conversion factors. Pursue a confidentiality arrangement to facilitate the sharing of non-public information in this subject area.


Ironic, isn’t it, that regulatory bodies supposedly promoting transparency find it necessary to pursue a “confidentiality arrangement” and the sharing of non-public information when dealing with issues related to nutrition and supplements?


In addition, however, the 2005 Roadmap also reveals extensive cooperation between the FDA, the European Commission’s DG Enterprise and Industry/Pharmaceuticals Unit and the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) in relation to pharmaceutical products. It also contains proof that personnel exchanges, joint meetings and the sharing of documents are all now taking place between these agencies.


Further evidence in respect of these activities was subsequently revealed in the June 2006 Joint Report on the Roadmap for EU-US Regulatory Cooperation, which discloses that the “confidentially arrangement” for the sharing of non-public information in relation to nutritional labeling was concluded in 2005.


The April 2007 Joint Report on the Roadmap for US-EU Regulatory Cooperation, meanwhile, released to coincide with this year’s summit meeting, shows that over the past two years, U.S. and European authorities have expanded their joint activities significantly. In the area of pharmaceuticals, for example, FDA, EMEA and DG Enterprise staff have engaged in over 800 interactions on almost 200 topics and conducted nearly 20 scientific staff exchanges and visits in the past year alone. In the area of nutritional labeling, meanwhile, the 2007 Report ominously reveals that an “Implementation Plan” has now been completed under the confidentiality arrangement.


Is ‘Free Trade’ really ‘free’?


In the opinion of this writer, the principle of transatlantic harmonization of dietary supplement regulations is not in itself inherently a bad thing. From the point of view of health freedom campaigners in Germany, for example, who are currently subject to some of the most restrictive dietary supplement legislation on the entire planet, the harmonization of their country’s regulations to those of the United States - DSHEA – would clearly be a cause for major celebration.


The problem, therefore, lays not so much in the actual concept of harmonization, but rather in the way in which it is applied. In other words, if the transatlantic harmonization of dietary supplement regulations truly resulted in – to borrow the words of President Bush - “eliminating barriers to trade”, then this writer, at least, would be amongst the very first to celebrate.


The more likely outcome, however, according to many of those in the health freedom community on both sides of the Atlantic who have been following these issues closely for many years now, appears to be that rather than “eliminating barriers to trade”, the harmonization of transatlantic dietary supplement regulations will instead – via the banning of the most effective higher-dosed products - result in the actual creation of them.

Should this happen - and regardless of whatever ‘consumer protection’ spin the political and regulatory elite may try to put on it – then only the most extreme advocates of globalization would surely argue that restricting consumers’ freedom of choice by the illiberalization of a market constitutes the elimination of trade barriers. More to the point, if the transatlantic harmonization of dietary supplement regulations results in the hard-won health freedoms of Americans being lost, then by no rational means could the trade that results from such an outcome even remotely be described as “free”.


All of which simply begs the question: “Who benefits?” Clearly, to answer this, one only needs to look as far as those companies who are the most vocal in support of transatlantic economic integration – especially so given that they include amongst their number some of the most powerful players in the global pharmaceutical industry.


Seeing things in context


In some senses, the signing of this transatlantic agreement allows us a glimpse of the bigger picture, thus enabling us to see other current natural health and health freedom-related issues in the United States in better context.


For example, whilst there can be little doubt that the FDA is now hell-bent upon eliminating the ability of American consumers to purchase non-patentable natural alternatives to the pharmaceutical industry’s multi-billion dollar market in patented drugs – in that virtually its every action appears to be consistent with this assumption – it can be seen that issues such as the Draft Guidance for Industry on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Products and Their Regulation by the Food and Drug Administration and Bill S. 1082 (the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act) are each but single steps in a highly coordinated ongoing plan, as opposed to separate ends in themselves.


This being the case - and bearing in mind the signing of the new transatlantic agreement and the existence of the aforesaid FDA-DG SANCO “confidentiality arrangement” - the ultimate aim behind the recent increase in domestically-based attacks on supplements in the U.S. can be seen as being to prepare the ground for the eventual dismantling of DSHEA and the harmonization of the U.S. dietary supplement market to the more restrictive legislative regimes that exist in Europe and - via the planned North American Union – Canada and Mexico.


As such, although neither the Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements – the global standard – or the Food Supplements Directive – the European standard – have as yet set any maximum permitted doses for nutrients contained in supplements, it would seem reasonable to conclude that whatever levels are announced later this year by the European Commission could - as a result of both European political power at Codex meetings and the trans-Atlantic regulatory cooperation outlined above - eventually be exported to, and implemented in, the United States.


Dr. Rolf Grossklaus [is the] Chairman of the German-based Codex committee that drafted the controversial Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements by using the European Union’s restrictive Food Supplements Directive as its blueprint. Harmonization to these regulatory standards could eliminate health freedom in America.


Focus your attention on your elected officials, not unelected bureaucrats


There is a growing realization in the U.S. health freedom community that future access to effective dietary supplements and other natural health therapies is increasingly under threat. However, the question as to how best to deal with this threat is currently the subject of significant disagreement.


Some health freedom organizations, for example, urge people to voice their objections directly to the FDA and/or USDA. On occasion, such as where these agencies have specifically asked for public comment on a document, it is true that such responses are sometimes warranted. In reality, however, the FDA and USDA are simply not accountable to ordinary citizens in the way that elected congressional officials are. As such, even when these agencies ask for public comments, the fact is that industry – specifically the large multinational food, drug and agricultural corporations – and the government are far more influential with them than is the voting public.


Direct the majority of your energies into writing and lobbying your Senators, Congressmen and elected State officials. Unlike unelected bureaucrats from the FDA and USDA, elected officials know that if their actions and voting records are not in accordance with the wishes of the majority of their constituents, they risk losing their jobs at the next election.


By way of contrast, elected State and Congressional officials are directly and democratically accountable. Unlike unelected bureaucrats from the FDA and USDA, elected officials know that if their actions and voting records are not in accordance with the wishes of the majority of their constituents, they risk losing their jobs - and hence, their livelihoods – at the next election.


As such, in this writer’s opinion, American citizens would be best advised to direct the majority of their energies into writing and lobbying their Senators, Congressmen and elected State officials. Remember that the FDA consensually agreed – in 2004 and again in 2005 - to the adoption by Codex of its EU-inspired global Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements. As such, elected government officials – not unelected FDA bureaucrats – are now the last line of defense against the harmonization of U.S. dietary supplement legislation to restrictive European standards.

By Paul Anthony Taylor