Loss of High-speed Rail Funding is a Loss for America

Apr 25, 2011David B. Woolner

We're on the wrong track of forgetting our history of putting people to work building the infrastructure we need.

In the recent battle between the White House and Congress over the 2011 budget, one of the major casualties was high-speed rail. This is another sad indication of the lack of vision emanating from Washington. Not only will this cost thousands of good paying and highly skilled jobs, it also represents another step back in the need for the United States to cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce our energy consumption.

We're on the wrong track of forgetting our history of putting people to work building the infrastructure we need.

In the recent battle between the White House and Congress over the 2011 budget, one of the major casualties was high-speed rail. This is another sad indication of the lack of vision emanating from Washington. Not only will this cost thousands of good paying and highly skilled jobs, it also represents another step back in the need for the United States to cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce our energy consumption.

High-speed rail has also been in the news of late because of Florida Governor Rick Scott's decision to turn down funds that were already appropriated to build the first line between Tampa and Orlando. Taking his cue from the deficit hawks and proponents of limited government, Governor Scot claimed the plan would be too costly for Florida's state government -- a claim that has been disputed by a number of economists -- and rejected the federal dollars, in spite of the strong support from a significant portion of Florida's business community. Similar rejections of federal dollars for rail projects have come from the newly elected republican Governors of Wisconsin and Ohio, who together have turned away over $1.2 billion in federals funding for improvements in the nation's rail system, including a high-speed line between Madison and Milwaukee.

All three governors have cited economic reasons for their refusal to accept these funds, but as Stephen Harrod, Assistant Professor of Operations Management at Dayton University notes, the real reasons more likely stem from a deep-seated ideological and cultural bias against the very idea of high-speed rail among the American right. In a recent article on the subject, Professor Harrod observes that much of the conservative opposition to high-speed rail can be linked to the widespread and erroneous notion that the construction of such a system would lead the United States into "European socialism." As such, one of the rallying cries of Tea Party advocates is "Stop the Train." These same individuals are uncomfortable with the urban nature of rail travel, and because the establishment of a rail system requires a good deal of centralized planning it must, by its very nature, be "socialistic."

These arguments ignore the fact that the vast majority of European rail companies operate on a commercial basis. They also ignore the enormous contribution the federal government has made and continues to make in the construction of our nation's highways, best exemplified by the creation of the Interstate Highway System under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Not to mention federal support for the nation's air travel and the all important but long forgotten federal subsidies for the construction of the much celebrated transcontinental railroad in the nineteenth century.

It’s free! Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

In light of this, Professor Harrod says the tax-saving arguments used by Governor Scott and others ring hollow, as each of these governors is perfectly happy to accept federal dollars in support of their state's highway system. Hence, they are not opposed to government funding of transportation, they are opposed to government funding of rail transportation.

The popular view, of course, is that our nation's highways, including the vast network of rural roads, are paid for by fuel taxes equally shared by all. But as Professor Harrod points out, the vast majority of revenue collected from fuel taxes comes from the urban population, which means that most rural roads in America, which are often built as a spur to local economic development, are in effect subsidized by the federal government.

In FDR's day, similar arguments were used to try to bring an end to such programs as the Works Progress Administration (WPA), which used federal funds issued to localities to employ millions of Americans in a massive effort to build the nation's economic infrastructure. Critics charged that the WPA was simply engaged in a massive "make work" effort and many conservatives regarded it as major step towards socialism. This perception -- though wildly inaccurate -- remains with us to this day. The goal of the WPA was to get people off relief and into productive employment, not only to provide them with the income needed to help support their families, but also to maintain the skills of the nation's workforce and invest in the future expansion of the economy. As such, each project was carefully screened to ensure all facets of the labor needed to complete the work, from the design and engineering work down to the actual construction, came from the ranks of the unemployed. Moreover, many of the improvements made by the WPA -- including over 570,000 miles of rural roads, roughly 100,000 bridges, tens of thousands of schools, and hundreds of airports -- are with us still.

Thanks to this deep-seated bias against the culture of rail travel and the centralized planning required for the construction of an efficient high-speed rail system, the United States has once again fallen behind our European and Asian counterparts. Worse still, we risk losing the opportunity to employ the thousands of engineers, architects, machinists and other highly skilled workers required to build such a system. Most Americans still operate under the erroneous assumption that such federal programs as the New Deal's WPA or Interstate Highway System only involved the employment of low skilled and poorly paid labor. In doing so, we have turned away from our own legacy and have chosen to forget that the construction of our nation's economic infrastructure did not just happen by accident. It took planning, vision, a highly skilled work force, and a good deal of federal support.

David Woolner is a Senior Fellow and Hyde Park Resident Historian for the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

Showing Some FDR Pride

Apr 22, 2011

It turns out we're not the only ones who consider ourselves FDR's biggest fans. A car parked near NYU in New York City was recently spotted sporting this homage:

fdr-car

It turns out we're not the only ones who consider ourselves FDR's biggest fans. A car parked near NYU in New York City was recently spotted sporting this homage:

fdr-car

Guess we'll have to step up our game. FDR tattoos anyone?

Share This

On Anniversary of FDR's Death, Remembering Leadership that Faced Down Economic Tyranny

Apr 12, 2011David B. Woolner

On this day one of the most visionary presidents in US history passed away while in office. Roosevelt historian David Woolner honors his legacy, and the legacy of the millions of Americans who grieved at his passing.

On this day one of the most visionary presidents in US history passed away while in office. Roosevelt historian David Woolner honors his legacy, and the legacy of the millions of Americans who grieved at his passing.

In his inaugural address on the 4th of March, 1933, Franklin Roosevelt -- who passed away 66 years ago today -- chastised the forces of wealth and power who, through their greed and avarice, led the United States into the greatest economic crisis of our history, the Great Depression. "Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership," he said, "they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They only know the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish."

Over the next twelve years FDR would articulate a vision for America that was based on the notion that every American deserved not just political rights, but the right to a measure of social and economic security. It was a theme that he returned to again and again, a theme that led to the banking and financial reforms that gave us the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission and which gave us such landmark pieces of legislation as the Social Security Act, the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The onset of the Second World War and a conservative backlash against the New Deal in the late 1930s limited FDR's ability to push through further reform legislation during the course of his unprecedented third and forth terms. But his belief in the link between political and economic freedom intensified, and it was during the war that his articulation of his vision for America and the world reached its greatest height. It was in January 1941, for example, that FDR expressed his view that the great sacrifices the democracies were making in their struggle against fascism were necessary so that humanity could one day establish a world based on "four fundamental human freedoms": freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. FDR reiterated much of this when he joined Winston Churchill in drafting the Atlantic Charter later that year. He backed up his call for a greater measure of global economic security through his support for the creation of such post-war institutions as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (which later became the World Bank).

Indeed, near the end of his life, the experiences of depression and war had convinced FDR that "true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence" as "necessitous men are not free men," but the stuff with which "dictatorships are made." Moreover, FDR became convinced that in a complex, modern industrial economy, providing such basic economic security is much more than a mere aspiration. It is a necessity, a right, which can and must be protected. Having reached the conclusion that in our own day "these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident," the President went on to make one of the most important -- and least known -- speeches of his career when he called for the establishment of "a Second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all [Americans] -- regardless of station, race, or creed."

With tremendous prescience, President Roosevelt then listed what he considered to be these essential rights, among which were included: the right to a useful and remunerative job; the right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing, and recreation; the right of every businessman to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies; the right to a decent home, adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment; and the right to a good education.

As Cass Sunstein has observed in his book "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it More than Ever", the Second Bill of Rights sought to protect both opportunity and security and to complete the unfulfilled promise of the American revolution, by making sure -- in an era of fascism -- that every American could enjoy the benefits of liberal, capitalist democracy. At the base of FDR's vision stood his faith in government as an active instrument of social and economic justice; government that was dedicated not to special interests, but to the common good.

It’s free! Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

In a world dominated by free-market fundamentalists, the notion of government as an instrument of economic revival and social improvement has almost disappeared from the public consciousness. Yet the problems that FDR sought to address remain with us still -- and in recent years have gotten worse. Today, for example, roughly twenty percent of American children live in poverty, the highest rate among any industrialized nation. We still have approximately 13.5 million people officially unemployed and the unofficial rate is estimated to be much higher. With the new health care reform bill there is some hope that the millions of Americans without health insurance will be covered in the future, but given the current political and legal challenges, this is by no means certain. In the meantime, the costs associated with a higher education continue to climb, as does student debt, which for the first time in American history topped a trillion dollars and now exceeds nation-wide credit card debt.

In Roosevelt's day, GIs returning from fighting overseas could look forward to going to college on the GI Bill (often referred to as "the GI Bill of Rights"), which also provided an array of housing, medical and other benefits. Thanks to the foresightedness of this legislation -- which was the first tangible consequence of FDR's Second Bill of Rights speech -- millions of young men attended college for the first time. In doing so, they not only improved their own lives, they also changed the face of America and drastically improved the productivity of the post-war workforce. All this thanks to a government program designed and dedicated to making higher education affordable for millions of middle and lower-income Americans.

Engaging in serious structural reform and fashioning programs that provide both security and economic opportunity for millions of Americans takes money, vision and leadership. As we struggle past one budget crisis and stumble our way toward the next, it appears that we lack all three of these key ingredients -- and millions continue to suffer because of it. Worse still, a new generation of "self seekers" has once again lured the American public to follow their false leadership, buying into the specious notion that the Great Recession was caused not by reckless bankers and hedge fund managers but by too much government spending. They claim that cutting government expenditures in an economic downturn will lead to more jobs and that the best way to ensure the long-term health of the economy is to shrink government, strip unions of their collective bargaining rights and make the tax cuts on the rich permanent.

Over six decades ago, in the face of a far greater economic crisis, FDR rose the occasion by convincing millions of Americans to follow his vision and to support the transformation of American society through the establishment of the New Deal. Looking back on the causes of the Great Depression, which are remarkably similar to those that cause our current economic crisis, FDR once observed that for too many Americans,

...the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor -- other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it.

If we are going to reclaim our mandate to end economic domination by the rich and put our nation back on the path to equality, we are going to need much more than endless calls for tax cuts and an end to government intervention in the economy. We are going to need leaders strong enough to take on the forces of wealth and greed; leaders who will not merely trumpet their ability to cut government spending in a recession, but instead defend the right of government to act directly and decisively to put people to work; leaders dedicated to bringing an end to the increasingly unequal distribution of wealth that has robbed Americans of the purchasing power they need to restore the health of the economy and achieve the same standard of living as their parents. In short, we are going to need leaders with vision, for as FDR said all those years ago, "when there is no vision, the people perish."

David Woolner is a Senior Fellow and Hyde Park Resident Historian for the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

Corey Robin Calls on Progressives to Reclaim Freedom

Apr 8, 2011

Roosevelt Institute Visiting Fellow Corey Robin articulated a plan for progressives to conquer politics in The Nation that falls exactly in line with the goals and work of the Roosevelt Institute and us here at ND20. Taking a page from FDR himself, Robin calls on progressives to talk about the state not as an equalizer, but as an enabler, and to view the enemy not as the Republican party, but as businessmen who subject American workers to their whims.

Roosevelt Institute Visiting Fellow Corey Robin articulated a plan for progressives to conquer politics in The Nation that falls exactly in line with the goals and work of the Roosevelt Institute and us here at ND20. Taking a page from FDR himself, Robin calls on progressives to talk about the state not as an equalizer, but as an enabler, and to view the enemy not as the Republican party, but as businessmen who subject American workers to their whims. After all, he notes, in FDR's 1936 acceptance speech at the DNC, "he was careful to take aim not simply at the rich but at 'economic royalists,' lordly men who take 'into their own hands an almost complete control over other people’s property, other people’s money, other people’s labor -- other people’s lives.'"

The problem is that Republicans claim freedom equals free markets, and rather than confront the allure of this idea, liberals have "tried to co-opt the discourse of traditional values." And the results of this are clear: "When right-wing ideas dominate, we get right-wing policies," he notes. It's time to get on the offense about what we stand for and how progressivism not only helps but empowers the average American.

It’s free! Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

Robin posits questions to the reader: "First, how do we formulate this argument in an age when capitalism goes unquestioned?... Second, and perhaps more important, can we formulate this argument at all?" ND20 and the Roosevelt Institute will answer him with a resounding yes through the people and ideas that question unbridled markets and empower Americans.

Take some time to read the full article: "Reclaiming the Politics of Freedom".

Share This

The Tragedy of Defensive Politics

Apr 8, 2011Jeff Madrick

The challenges the Obama presidency has faced are an opportunity to get mad, not to compromise.

The challenges the Obama presidency has faced are an opportunity to get mad, not to compromise.

A New York Times story today is titled, "On Budget Dispute, Obama Casts Himself as Mediator in Chief." To me this is chilling, if obvious. He has long been the mediator, as if he were a Sunday morning talk show host. The attitude that he must always appear calm, always work toward compromise and avoid at all costs appearing to be a rabble-rouser, is now taking an enormous toll.

Like today's media, he gives equal time to the opposition. Now we have someone representing the anti-gravity point of view, says the allegedly objective talk show host. Tell us, why do you believe gravity is a myth? Obama wants to compromise with the anti-gravity extremists rather than calling them out in a loud and angry voice, calling them what they really are.

Many of his supporters lament that Obama took the presidency in the face of a daunting agenda, from wars to a credit crisis. The truth is something of the opposite. All these were extraordinary opportunities. He could have come down hard on the banks, but he didn't. He could have wound down the war in Afghanistan, but he didn't. He could have closed Guantanamo, as he said he would, but he didn't. And on. He could have won the people's backing for real reform, a new day in America. He didn't even fully stick up for his original Obamacare program.

Has it been all bad? No. He did get the stimulus passed in early 2009. We do have something of a universal health care system, if one full of potential potholes. He has at least avoided a gung-ho American chauvinism about Egypt and Iraq.

But the so-called unprecedented number of hurdles were, as I say, the perfect opportunities to get angry, to tell Americans who was really undermining their dreams and security -- the perfect opportunity to get Americans angry at those who harm them.

Why didn't he get angry over the lightweight and damaging Paul Ryan proposals, which so many in the media called courageous? Why isn't he attacking Republicans hard for even the threat of closing the government?

It’s free! Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

He has chosen the mediator path. This has always been his way. But the new element is the election campaign. He is playing defensive politics, and America is suffering badly as a result. Better I compromise than chance alienating some of those in the middle. At least if I lose some major battles I will keep a Republican from winning office.

Years ago, there was a good book published on how to manage investments. It took its lessons from tennis. If you are a club player, you will win if you play defensively. Don't go for winners, just avoid mistakes. That was also the best way, the author insisted, to manage a mutual fund, for example. Slow and steady, defensive, no big ambitions, don't try to beat the market badly. That's now the Obama game plan.

The budget confrontation is not about economics, of course. Budget cuts in the midst of a weak economy are dangerous and potentially tragic. The long-term budget deficit should be addressed when the economy is running strongly. And it should be addressed honestly -- rapidly rising health care costs are the issue.

The confrontation is simply the same old Republican game. Starve the beast. It is all about reducing government, nothing about economic health. It is about ideology, not prosperity. It is bad economics, in fact.

Will lower taxes produce economic growth sufficient to reduce the unemployment rate rapidly? No. It seems people can't get this simple fact in their head. After the Bush tax cuts at the start of the last decade, the U.S. economy grew more slowly than in any other expansion since World War II. If we had better data, it would be probably show that it was slower than any other expansion since the 1870s. This is between the end of the last recession and the beginning of the new one in 2007, when the economy was growing. It does not include the credit crisis debacle and Great Recession, for which Bush deserves plenty of blame.

The creation of jobs was unprecedentedly weak as well. Employment grew far more slowly than in any other expansion, as did industrial production. Even capital investment, despite rising profits, grew more slowly than in all but one previous expansion.

So this budget exercise, and a Paul Ryan budget plan of big tax cuts, is likely a disaster. And whatever you do, don't think this confrontation is purely about economics. It is entirely about cutting the size of government and those awful social programs. Down to the wire, we now know the Republicans' real strategy is to attack abortion and the anti-pollution regulation. It is not even about budget balancing.

Obama is again being outmaneuvered. As a close friend says, Obama is playing checkers, the other guys are playing chess. But the root causes are the insupportable strategy of being calm 24/7, avoiding angry attacks, and ultimately accepting compromise with those who don't believe in gravity. This is not leadership. I yearn for FDR more every day.

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick is the author of The Case for Big Government.

Share This

Will the Florida GOP Dishonor the Greatest Generation?

Apr 4, 2011Harvey J. Kaye

harveys-fatherTo truly honor our World War II heroes, we also have to honor their progressivism that made this a freer and more equal country. **Photo is Harvey's father, Murray N. Kaye (1923-1990), from his days in the US Army during WWII.

harveys-fatherTo truly honor our World War II heroes, we also have to honor their progressivism that made this a freer and more equal country. **Photo is Harvey's father, Murray N. Kaye (1923-1990), from his days in the US Army during WWII. He was drafted out of college, trained as an engineer with the ASTP at Washington State, and then served with the 11th Armored Division in the Battle of the Bulge where he was wounded, for which he was awarded a Purple Heart.

This past Saturday, April 2, Florida Republicans launched a six-months-long, seven-city "Greatest Generation Tour" in Pensacola's Veterans Memorial Park. Declaring their intention to recognize and honor the patriotic sacrifices and achievements of those who served the country in World War II -- and noting that more than 1,000 of those veterans are passing away each day -- state GOP spokesperson Don Salter stated that "we need to show our appreciation before it's too late."

Nice words -- spoken, I am sure, with the utmost sincerity. And yet I seriously doubt that the Sunshine State Republicans will -- or even can -- properly recognize and honor the achievements of those whom we have come to call the "Greatest Generation." It's not simply that previous celebrations and commemorations have repeatedly failed to fully appreciate what those then-young Americans actually accomplished. It's also that Republican conservatives -- no, let's face it, reactionaries -- essentially have placed the memory and legacy of those who confronted the horrors of the Great Depression and the Second World War under siege.

Over and over again, Americans, both right and left, have failed to properly acknowledge how much the men and women of the 1930s and 1940s actually accomplished. Against historical expectations, in the face of powerful opposition, and despite their own terrible faults and failings, those Americans not only rescued the nation from economic destruction, defended it against political tyranny, and turned it into the strongest and most prosperous country on earth, but at the very same time made it freer, more equal, and more democratic than ever before. Arguably the most progressive generation in U.S. history, they not only rejected the easy temptations of authoritarianism and isolationism and responded with courage and determination to Franklin Roosevelt's democratic New Deal and vision of the Four Freedoms. They also subjected big business to public account and regulation, empowered the federal government to address the needs of working people, organized labor unions, fought for their rights, reconstituted the "We" in "We the People," established a social security system, expanded the nation's public infrastructure, improved the environment, and -- having imbued themselves with fresh democratic convictions, hopes, and aspirations -- went on to fight and defeat Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan.

Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s most important headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

I feel confident that the Florida GOP's Greatest Generation Tour will both warmly register our shared admiration and affection for our parents', grandparents', and great-grandparents' wartime labors and sacrifices and clearly highlight their faith, courage, and determination. However, if past events of this sort are anything to go by, I do not imagine it will recount our elders' achievements in regulating capital, creating Social Security, securing the right to bargain collectively, and pursuing the vast array of New Deal public works projects that transformed the American landscape and public good for the better. I doubt that it will recount the energies, efforts, and enactments of relief, recovery, reconstruction, and reform that not only rebuilt America and enabled the country to turn itself into the "Arsenal of Democracy" and then destroy its enemies on two fronts, but also enabled millions of veterans, boosted by the grand public initiative known as the G.I. Bill, to get educated, housed, and ready to work and thereby turn themselves into the great American middle class.

Of course, it must be granted that the majority of 1930s Republicans despised both the New Deal and working people's struggles to extend and deepen American freedom, equality, and democracy. Indeed, all but writing the script for today's political and economic right, they charged that FDR's New Deal was leading the country to either fascism or communism and that President Roosevelt himself was intent upon establishing a dictatorship. So, having opposed the Greatest Generation's Depression-era labors back then, why should we expect them to make much of those things now?

But in that case, why do today's conservative Republicans feel empowered to make so much of the Greatest Generation's wartime struggles when their political ancestors opposed not only the initiatives of the New Deal but also, right up until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, the prospect of the United States standing forcefully against Hitler, Mussolini, and Japan's ruling military clique? Committed to isolationism and eager not to antagonize the Axis powers, most GOP congressmen voted against FDR's defense requests to revise America's neutrality laws, expand the American military, institute a military draft, and create a "Lend-Lease" program for Britain and its allies to sustain their resistance to fascism. They voted against it even as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were overrunning Europe and East Asia, respectively, and showing every likelihood of coming after us next.

Lest I be misread, let me make myself absolutely clear. I heartily endorse the Florida GOP's efforts to honor the Greatest Generation. However, I urge them not to slight those same men and women by failing to appreciate all that they actually achieved for this country, for themselves, and for us. And having said that, I urge Republicans from Florida to Alaska to stop dishonoring the memory and legacy of the Greatest Generation with their assaults on Social Security, the rights of working people, and the public good.

Harvey J. Kaye is the Rosenberg Professor of Democracy and Justice Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay and the author of Thomas Paine and the Promise of America. He is currently writing The Four Freedoms and the Promise of America. Follow him on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HarveyJKaye

Share This

Time for a New Manhattan Project?

Apr 1, 2011David B. Woolner

To solve our energy problem, President Obama must bring together the country's best and brightest and devote significant government resources.

To solve our energy problem, President Obama must bring together the country's best and brightest and devote significant government resources.

In a speech before students at George Washington University this week, President Obama insisted that it was time for the United States to develop a new national energy policy that would reduce our nation's dependence on oil. "We've known about the dangers of our oil dependence for decades," he said, with presidents and politicians having promised time and time again to secure America's "energy dependence." But so far, "that promise has gone unmet."

He then went on to say that we "cannot keep going from shock to trance on the issue of energy security, rushing to propose action when gas prices rise, then hitting the snooze button when they fall again." To solve our energy challenge, the president then announced that his administration was releasing a "Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future," which provides the framework for a comprehensive national energy policy. The new framework includes a number of ideas and programs, from setting a goal to cut our dependence on foreign oil by one third over the next decade, to ensuring America's homes and offices are more energy efficient. The plan also calls for an enhanced effort to secure domestic supplies of energy -- including oil, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear power -- as well as the development of alternative sources of energy, such as wind, solar power and biofuels. In the long run, however, the president insisted that the best way for the United States to secure its energy future would be for the country to tap into its most valuable commodity: American ingenuity.

The notion that the United States can use its scientific, intellectual and entrepreneurial power to solve its most complex and pressing problems is not a new one. But to a large extent, President Obama's call for the research and development of new sources of energy relies on the encouragement of the private sector to do so through the establishment of a Clean Energy Standard. He does observe that government funding in R&D will be critical to this effort and notes with pride the investments his administration has already made in renewable energy research under funds provided by the 2009 stimulus act. But his calls for additional federal support of this effort -- characterized as one of his "budget priorities" in an age of fiscal austerity -- may lack the dynamism and inspiration needed to get the American people behind it.

It is true that the Americans are remarkably ingenious. But it is also true that some of our most important technical and scientific advancements have come about not through the profit-seeking initiative of the private sector, but rather through the marshaling of intellectual, scientific and financial resources under the direction of the federal government. One example is the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), established by Congress in 1958 under the leadership of President Dwight David Eisenhower. A second, and far more significant example, can be found in the launch of FDR's Manhattan Project -- the wartime effort to develop the atomic bomb.

Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s most important headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

The Manhattan Project was inspired to a large extent by a letter that President Roosevelt received in the fall of 1939 from Albert Einstein and a small group of international scientists. The letter took note of the recent discovery of nuclear fission and warned the president of the possibility that this discovery might lead to the creation of extremely powerful weapons. It also alluded to the fact that German scientists were working in this area.

In response to this news, FDR immediately established an Advisory Committee on Uranium, while a similar effort was launched in Great Britain. By 1942, the two efforts had merged into what was called the Manhattan Project. Centered in the United States, it involved scientists working at labs in a number of leading universities in the U.S., Britain and Canada. It also led to the creation of a number of significant federal facilities, such as the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Oak Ridge City, which grew from empty Tennessee farmland to a city and scientific facility of over 75,000 people between 1943 and 1945; the Hanford Engineering Works, located in south-central Washington, which employed over 50,000 workers in the construction of the world's first full-scale nuclear reactor; and the Los Alamos National Laboratory, which employed over 5,000 scientists and engineers.

Employing more than 130,000 people at a cost of roughly $2 billion in 1940s dollars, the Manhattan Project was one of the largest scientific endeavors ever undertaken. Its successful development of atomic weapons and the US decision to use them will forever remain controversial, but the project also ushered in the nuclear age, which brought us a host of scientific advances above and beyond the development of nuclear energy. These include significant developments in medicine, electronics and nanotechnology, all of which have had an enormous impact on our quality of life and our understandings of the workings of the universe.

Establishing a Clean Energy Standard that will require the private sector to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and our dependence on foreign oil is an important first step in our effort to secure what the president calls our "energy independence." But if we wish to use our innate ingenuity to truly wean ourselves off our dependence on fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine, then something more than marginal support for basic scientific and technical research will be required. President Obama alluded to this when he said we need "to dream big;" to summon the same spirit of unbridled optimism and bold willingness that allowed "previous generations to rise to greatness -- to save democracy, to touch the moon, to connect the world with our own science and imagination."

As we look to the past for inspiration, it is important to remember that many of the accomplishments the president refers to would not have been achieved without the strong financial support of the federal government. To "dream big" means trying to achieve not the greatest profit, but the greatest good for all Americans. This requires much more than faith in science; it also requires faith in our collective wisdom and the benefits that can accrue from a government that is truly dedicated to the common good of all.

David Woolner is a Senior Fellow and Hyde Park Resident Historian for the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

The Unfinished Business of Making the World's Women Citizens

Mar 29, 2011Allida Black

world-hand-200Recognizing Women’s History Month, New Deal 2.0 tells the surprising story of how women became citizens -- and how their economic lives have evolved along with their rights. Allida Black urges action on UN Resolution 1325, which ensures equal citi

world-hand-200Recognizing Women’s History Month, New Deal 2.0 tells the surprising story of how women became citizens -- and how their economic lives have evolved along with their rights. Allida Black urges action on UN Resolution 1325, which ensures equal citizenship for women across the globe.

The monumental elections of Presidents Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (Liberia), Roza Otunbayeva (Krygyzstan), Dilma Rousseff (Brazil), and Prime Minister Julia Gillard (Australia) and the game-changing appointments of Dr. Michelle Bachelet as Under-Secretary General of the United Nations and Executive Director of UNWomen and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State proved that women can govern, run preeminent human rights organizations, set international policy, and place women at the center of diplomacy, development, and peace.

But the question remains -- if women can be president, why can't they be citizens? Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and in rights." Yet it took another twenty years after its signing to get the international conventions on political and civil rights and on economic, social and cultural rights -- and, in the United States, another twenty plus years for Congress to adopt legislation ensuring women's political and economic rights. It took another thirteen years for the United Nations to ratify (without the support of the United States) the Convention to End All Forms of Discrimination against Women. And in 2011, the US House of Representatives and other foreign governing bodies still toy with legislation essential to women's identities, ranging from limiting access to reproductive health services and marriage to crafting sentencing guidelines that treat girls and women as felons and charges those that have abducted and abused them with misdemeanors.

In a 1946 column, written before she joined the UN Commission on Human Rights, Eleanor Roosevelt urged women to "call on the Governments of the world to encourage women everywhere to take a more conscious part in national and international affairs, and on women to come forward and share in the work of peace and reconstruction as they did in the war and resistance." More than fifty years later, at the dawn of a new century, the UN Security Council -- pressured by a well-organized international women's lobby, Hillary Clinton, and other stateswomen and embarrassed by the rampant use of rape and genital dismemberment as tools of war -- adopted Resolution 1325. It urged "Member States to ensure increased representation of women at all decision-making levels in national, regional and international institutions and mechanisms for the prevention, management, and resolution of conflict."

Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s most important headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

Now ten years later, the campaign -- indeed the struggle -- to enforce this resolution rages across the United States as much as it does across Egypt or the Congo or Afghanistan.

It is tempting to construct this resolution narrowly -- to see it as a tool of armistice rather than reconstruction, as a vehicle to protect women rather than empower them. To do so, to paraphrase Albus Dumbledore, would be to do what is easy rather than what is right.

UN1325 is on the front line in the campaign for women's citizenship. It is a battle to ensure that economic, social and cultural rights cannot be divorced from, or considered separately from, political and civil rights. It is the struggle to reclaim democracy promotion away from post-Cold War politics, self-interested development and the campaign against terror and place it at the heart of citizen participation.

Just as important, it is a campaign to ensure women's rights as citizens as much as it is a campaign to force governments to act responsibly to all its citizens. While equality and human dignity have no sex, policy designed without taking stock of gender differences often perpetuates discrimination.

As Eleanor Roosevelt would say, both citizens and governments must "recognize that the goal of full participation in the life and responsibilities of their countries and of the world community is a common objective" and one "which the women of the world should assist one another" in achieving.

Allida Black is a director of the Roosevelt Institute and founded the Eleanor Roosevelt Project.

Share This

Obama's Stance on Libya: Channelling Reagan and Clinton

Mar 28, 2011Chuck Spinney

military-tank-150Without informing Congress, Obama has given the defense sector a huge win.

military-tank-150Without informing Congress, Obama has given the defense sector a huge win.

Any discussion about Libya is incomplete without mentioning Congress or the Constitution, as the Constitution specifically assigns Congress the war making decision. The President, as Commander in Chief, can only commit forces to "repel sudden attacks," to use James Madison's term. There was considerable debate at the Constitutional Convention and in the Federalist Papers on this question. The original intent is clear, and 'repelling sudden attacks' on our forces was certainly not the case in Libya.

Given the clear requirement, it's my view that David Woolner should have mentioned the Constitution in his discussion of how Obama's stance on Libya is taking a page from Roosevelt's book. Invoking FDR's memory without explaining these omissions may add weight to the charge made by conservatives that Roosevelt held the Constitution in contempt (a charge that I do not believe to be true).

Roosevelt went to Congress before he went to war. On December 8, 1941, the Congress of the United States declared war with Japan, on December 11 with Germany and Italy, and on June 5, 1942, with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. It declared war against Japan after the surprise bombing of Pearl Harbor and against Germany and Italy after those nations, under the dictators Hitler and Mussolini, declared war against the United States. It declared war against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania in response to the declarations of war by those nations against the United States. It was all quite formal and in accordance with the Constitution.

To be sure, FDR involved the US Navy in convoy escort duty and attacked German U boats before we declared war and many, including myself, believe this to be an unauthorized act of war. FDR was criticized, quite rightly, over this point. But Pearl Harbor and WWII silenced these criticisms and rendered any follow-on action mute. American ships like the Robin Moor, Sessa, Steel Seafarer, Greer, Montana, Pink Star, I. C. White, W. C. Teagle, Bold Venture, Kearny, Lehigh, Salinas, and Reuben James (a warship) were all bombed or torpedoed -- and, in most cases, sunk by Germany from May 21 to October 31, 1941. Does Woolner think FDR's slipperiness in this convoy escort mission should take precedence over Roosevelt's association with Congress's formal declarations when invoking his memory?

As far as Obama is taking pages out of a predecessor's book, Truman went to war in Korea without Congressional authorization, but at least there was a clear case of aggression by North Korea and the UN/US had previously assumed responsibility for South Korea (which is very different from Obama in Libya -- Gaddafi is putting down an internal revolt, and we don't like it, but it is not aggression; he is reacting). Johnson lobbied Congress for passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. (To be sure, he lied to Congress about the attacks on the Turner Joy and the Maddox, and a friend of mine was a radar operator in the combat info center on the Turner Joy and they knew at the time there was no attack! In fairness, it is not clear what Johnson knew, but MacNamara knew.) Reagan got Congress's permission to send troops into Lebanon, but only informed Congress after the fact when he bombed Libya, and he invaded Granada at the invitation of the OAS (but not the UN). Bush I consulted Congress before the First Iraq War. Clinton, using NATO as an umbrella, went to war in Kosovo without Congressional or UN approval (and basically cooked the rationale for the war by inserting a last minute poison pill that killed Serbia's pending agreement to Ramboullet negotiations -- more on this below). Bush II went to Congress for the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq (although he lied like Johnson in the case of Iraq, and completely ignored the possibility of a negotiation with the Taliban for turning over Osama bin Laden to an international court).

Given these precedents, I would argue that rather than taking a page out of FDR's book, Obama took a modified page out of Reagan's book on Grenada. Like Reagan, Obama had the approval of a local national organization; unlike Reagan, Obama also had UN approval, but neither consulted Congress. And Obama took a modified page out of Clinton's book on Kosovo by using the NATO umbrella, but Obama had UN and Arab League approval. It must be underscored that Kosovo, in particular, is a terrible precedent. But it's not surprising that Obama would resort to it, given that he has also borrowed a lot of Clinton's terrible neoliberal policies.

Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s most important headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

Now a lot of liberals think Kosovo was a good precedent and a justification for 'humanitarian intervention' -- particularly the likes of Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power, who were part of the group that convinced Obama to go into Libya. But the reality is that Kosovo was a bloody disaster based on contrived circumstances and distortions. (Note that Dennis Kucinich, interestingly, also objected vehemently to Kosovo -- in fact, I first met him in 1999 when I was a speaker at a congressional symposium he held lambasting this issue). Indeed, Kosovo is a case study in the failure of high complexity weapons and organizational arrangements (NATO C3 in Libya is unbelievably complex) to deliver their promised performance. U.S. military planners predicted a "precision" bombing campaign would force the Serbians to capitulate in only two to three days, but the air campaign grinded on for 79 days. When the Serbians did not collapse as predicted, the target list grew exponentially (as it did in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, and WWII). The conduct of the bombing campaign was shaped more by the speed with which targets got through the approval cycle than any strategy linking a particular target's destruction to a desired tactical or strategic effect. As a result, NATO bombers effectively destroyed the economic infrastructure of a tiny nation with an economy smaller than that of Fairfax County, Virginia. Anyone who has spent any time studying air power knows that its promises of quick easy victories are illusory -- but they are great for the weapons contractors.

When Kosovo ended, NATO intelligence determined only tiny quantities of Serbian tanks, armored personnel carriers, self-propelled artillery, and trucks -- all high priority targets -- were destroyed, in part because the Serbs spoofed our complex surveillance and precision guidance technologies with simple decoys.

There are even reports that they used cheap microwave ovens as decoys to attract our enormously expensive radar homing missiles. Serbian troops marched out of Kosovo in good order, their fighting spirit intact, displaying clean equipment, crisp uniforms, and in larger numbers than planners said were in Kosovo to begin with. Moreover, the terms of the Serbian "surrender," which the undefeated Serbian military regarded as a sell-out by President Milosevic, were the same as those the Serbians agreed to at the Rambouillet Conference, before U.S. negotiators led by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright inserted a poison pill (in the form of an intrusive military annex that would allow NATO troops unfettered access to Serbia proper) to queer the deal, so we could have what the politically troubled Clinton administration thought would be a neat, short war. The result is a narco-mafia state in the heart of the Balkans, whose leader has been accused of trafficking in human organs (taken from Serbians held captive).

This is the war that the "humanitarian interventionists" think is the model for meddling in countries like Libya.

So it should be no surprise that Obama's attack on Libya is not delivering its promise of an easy victory and that the target list is now expanding beyond the suppression of air defense systems (justified technically by the establishment of a no fly zone) to attacks on supply dumps, tanks, artillery pieces, navy yards, command posts, and the national command authority (Qadafi's compound -- a euphemism for targeted assassination), etc. These latter targets have nothing to do with establishing a no fly zone. Anyone who seriously studied Kosovo or the history of air power would not be surprised by this evolution. Predictably, some at the White House are now saying this is not war.

To be sure, the Libyans are not as skilled at fighting as the Serbs, and Obama may well pull this off, but that only makes the emerging debacle even more disgraceful. FDR's memory ought not be linked to this one.

One final point: FDR was a successful war president, but the spirit of New Deal 2.0 is more in line with his domestic policies and progressive spirit of experimentation of the original New Deal. President Obama has inherited the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression, a crisis that has been building up for at least 30 years. Readers of this site understand the systemic pattern of deregulation, privatization, deindustrialization, union busting, stagnant wages, skyrocketing income inequality, etc. are undoing the achievements of New Deal and the Great Society. The huge increases in the defense budgets since 1980 are part and parcel of this evolution. Today the US is spending almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. The military-industrial-congression complex is seamlessly woven into our political economy, yet defense manufacturing distorts our economy. As I explained in the "Domestic Roots of Perpetual War", defense manufacturing firms cannot convert to commercial production and their survival depends on ever-increasing defense budgets. The deficit hawks are lining up to cut social programs, including our safety nets, but pressure was building to include the defense budget. Readers can rest assured that the Libyan war will take the defense budget off the table. The battle between Social Security and Medicare on the one side and the Defense budget and the special interests of the MICC on the other is gearing up -- and President Obama has just taken defense off the table. Score MICC one and Social Security/Medicare zero.

Chuck Spinney is an American former military analyst for the Pentagon and has been a fierce critic of wasteful defense spending.

Share This

What a Woman! Farewell to Geraldine Ferraro

Mar 28, 2011Lynn Parramore

ferraro1-sizedGeraldine Ferraro altered America for the better.

ferraro1-sizedGeraldine Ferraro altered America for the better.

Long before there was Sarah Palin, there was Geraldine Ferraro, a woman who changed electoral politics forever and inspired a generation to believe that America could finally achieve democracy's most elusive goal: the full participation of female leaders.

I was just fourteen when Walter Mondale chose her as his running mate, and I recall thinking: 'Wow! Who is this feisty woman on TV talking about the White House?!?' A woman running for vice president was something new and exciting. Everybody knew she had to be tough as nails and whip smart to navigate the minefields of such an unprecedented candidacy. What was more amazing than her poise was her plausibility. To hear her speak was to take her seriously. In fact, there were times when she seemed more plausible as a leader than the other candidate on her ticket. This was a woman who had been a mother, a lawyer, a successful Congresswoman. She was a tough-talking New Yorker, but the fact that she had stayed home until her kids were school age made it harder for conservatives to paint her as something unnatural and unwomanly -- though many tried anyway, like Barbara Bush, who famously declared that Ferraro made her think of a word that 'rhymed with rich'.

Toughness and smarts she had in spades. And a deep sense of fairness, too. As a congresswoman representing New York's 9th district, she spent six years pushing for causes that Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt would have applauded: fair pay for women, dignified retirement, and decent health care. It was a feeling of connection to the Roosevelt legacy that prompted her to join the board of the Roosevelt Institute, where she did her part to make sure that the New Deal would live on and benefit future generations.

Women like Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Sarah Palin, have stood on the shoulders of this path-breaking figure. Her zest for life, her tireless activism, and her unyielding belief in a better future will be deeply missed. "America is the land where dreams can come true for all of us," she told the crowd at the Democratic Convention in 1984. We honor her life and work today by holding these words close to our hearts.

Lynn Parramore is the editor of New Deal 2.0, Media Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute fellow, co-Founder of Recessionwire, and the author of Reading the Sphinx.

Share This

Pages