Broadcasting Humanity: An Interview With Link TV's David Michaelis

Two years ago, David Michaelis, an Israeli citizen and Jamal Dajani, a Palestinian-American traveled to their mutual birthplace in Jerusalem and filmed a groundbreaking documentary called "Occupied Minds". The film originally aired in 2005 and powerfully illustrated the widening gulf between two entangled peoples in pain.

Both men grew up in Jerusalem just a few miles apart but in entirely different universes. Jamal’s roots in Jerusalem can be traced to the 7th century, while Michaelis was born in Jerusalem to parents who left Germany in the 1920’s because of escalating anti-Semitism.

For Michaelis, “Occupied Minds” easily fits into the tapestry of his career. Born in 1945, Michaelis earned a degree in philosophy and sociology at Hebrew University. He has produced and directed documentaries on social-political issues for the BBC Channel 4 in the UK as well as for ARD and ZDF in Germany. Michaelis also served as a news editor in London and Washington for ARD. The primary focus of the documentaries and talk shows he’s worked on is to legitimize the rights of minorities in Israel.

Michaelis is currently on the Board of Directors for Internews and is the Director of Current Affairs for Link TV in San Francisco. Link TV is a network dedicated to presenting global news, issues and culture. Before co-founding Link TV, Michaelis was the producer of “Popolitika,” the most popular news program on Israeli TV.

At Internews, Michaelis created the first satellite two-way link between Tunis and Jerusalem in October 1993. He also helped produce, with the Jerusalem Film Institute, the Palestinian Broadcasting Conference held in Jerusalem in January 1994.

Michaelis and Dajani met at Link TV six years ago. At Link TV in San Francisco, they are the only Palestinian-Israeli team working together in American media. Dajani, as Director of Middle Eastern Programming, produces the 2005 Peabody Award-winning daily newscast— Mosaic: World News from the Middle East. This program highlights daily TV news broadcasts from the Middle East, including, Egypt, Lebanon, Israel, Syria the Palestinian Authority, and Iran, among others.

After four years of professional collaboration, Michaelis and Dajani became friends and decided to combine their talents. “Occupied Minds” gives voice to a diverse range of views: a wanted Palestinian gunman, an Israeli soldier who served in the Occupied Territories, an Israeli surgeon who lost his eyesight in a suicide bombing, an Israeli mother who lost her son in the conflict, and a Palestinian activist who lost her cousin are among those interviewed. Their documentary went above and beyond the political leaders to reach the hearts and minds of those existing inside the ongoing conflict.

Michaelis generously agreed to answer questions about his life experience and perspective of the Middle-East:
*********************************************************************************

ILJ: Typically we focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but you’ve dedicated much of your career to minority-rights in Israel. Are minority immigrants from Africa such as the Sudanese or Ethiopian Jews second-class citizens in Israel?

MICHAELIS: Well I think it would be more correct to focus on the Ethiopians because they have the longer history but also to be sure about their capability to integrate into Israel. Because of a long history they’re not really always welcome in every place. It varies from city to city from school to school. The first generation especially doesn’t feel like they are totally equal. The second generation, which already is integrated in the army and schools feel they are much more welcome. So there is a generational difference. But legally of course they are totally equal. The issue is social.

ILJ: Is there a racism problem with Ethiopian Jews in Israel?

MICHAELIS: Be careful not to translate into American terms of black and white relationships. Because that is what immediately any American readers or anyone who studies the black/white relationship here would interpret it in this way. It’s not that kind of … there is no background of exploitation. There are issues of color of skin of course. But it varies again from city to city. And also depending on religious background, I’ll say that secular people are much more open to receive people from outside. People from a more religious background might have doubts about the Jewishness of immigrants from Ethiopia. So, I’ll say there is a difference of attitudes between people with a more traditional religious background and secular people.

ILJ: Why did minority rights in Israel become so important to you? Was there a defining moment during your youth that served as a catalyst?

MICHAELIS: I think it’s more about the education that I got at home. And awareness that once you’re a majority you have to take responsibility. The most important turning point in my awareness has been the awareness that we have been 2000 years in minority and we were always shouting and screaming about our rights. And once we became a majority we didn’t fully internalize the responsibility of a majority to be treating minorities not only on a legal level but also on a social level such as employment and housing as totally equal citizens. It’s very interesting what happens when you’re so many centuries in the minority and you’re still thinking as a minority when you’re fully in control of the country that you’re ruling. So that has been a major issue for the last forty years especially since Arabs and Israel became aware of their rights, foreign workers became aware of their rights, women became aware of their rights. It didn’t always go as it should go - the equal rights perception not only on a religious level but also on the day-to-day level.

ILJ: Would you say that minorities have viable representation in Israeli politics?

MICHAELIS: Yeah, viable in terms of representation in the parliament - yes. But are they planted really in the power center, the financial power center, the political power center? That’s a very different story. When people vote minorities into … the Israeli Knesset as you know has many different parties and many chances for different voices to be heard. But does that translate into equal treatment? That’s another issue.

ILJ: Moving on to another topic. Did your work on “Occupied Minds” make you more or less optimistic for the prospects of peace between Israelis and Palestinians?

MICHAELIS: Well, since the film was actually done during the Intifada when things were in such a situation of regression that it couldn’t of led to any clearer position of optimism. It was so bleak during the first four or five years – 2001 to 2005.

ILJ: Right

MICHAELIS: It was so violent that it made me more pessimistic actually in many ways.

ILJ: Are you still pessimistic or has your optimism increased in the past year?

MICHAELIS: No definitely not. Because I think the leadership on both sides is still not talking to each other and not seriously building bridges. And Hamas victory added another complication on top of the … if it was complicated before, the icing on the cake was the election of Hamas. It’s become really very dicey. Both sides are exhausted from the fighting and that is the only positive thing I can say. It is not as violent as it used to be.

ILJ: How do you think the international community should deal with the newly elected Hamas government? Should they wait until Hamas recognizes Israel’s right to exist and only talk to President Abbas? Or is it better to engage Hamas now?

MICHAELIS: Better to engage them now. But it depends how. Not to make promises but to try to find political inroads through a Palestinian coalition to encourage them to work as one unity government between Abu Mazen and Hamas. So in this situation you can’t have an easy solution. It was surprised it won – the Hamas I mean. Until they figure out their act, until they will understand the responsibilities of being in government. This will take time. Everyone is counting weeks and months. I think it will take a year for the Palestinians themselves to figure out how they cope with each party inside the Palestinian social structure.

ILJ: Are the Palestinians poised for civil war between Hamas and Fatah? What would the consequences of a civil war between those two factions be?

MICHAELIS: That would be terrible. It would be a very bad outcome for the democratic process inside the Palestinian Authority territories. I think that “poised” is … I’m not sure is the right term. I think there is a power struggle but it will shy away from an open civil war. That is my assessment.

ILJ: Until the Palestinians sort out their political turmoil, what options do the Israelis have beyond unilateral disengagement?

MICHAELIS: What they should’ve done some time ago is to realize that there are leaders such as Abu Mazen and others who are really very keen to talk and avoid unilateral steps. This has not been related too seriously neither by Sharon and not by Olmert. They’re not taking any constructive steps really to talk to them. They’re walling them off. There is no dialogue. Instead of unilateral steps you can start a dialogue with people you can talk to. And it’s not happening.

ILJ: Does Abbas have any political capital in Palestine to be able to deliver peace and be a viable partner for the Israelis to engage with?

MICHAELIS: He has some. I don’t know how much. I don’t know how much capital he has. He definitely has some because people don’t want to starve. People don’t want to be cut off from foreign aid. People realize that it’s best not to be closed behind a Gaza prison and closed behind an Israeli wall. There is some hope that he would be the only sane guy with the only sane group of people who will try to mediate inside Palestine. But I can’t assess how much capital he has.

ILJ: Do you consider yourself a Zionist?

MICHAELIS: Yeah, a minimalist (laughs). I would say I think that Israel should be a land of minimal injustice. Because from the getgo it’s obvious that when you fight for the same piece of land there will be injustice. So try to be more realistic and just about what you’re doing. It took Mr. Olmert almost forty years to say, excuse me I don’t think I can hold all these territories and all these settlements. So, forty years is a very normal pace for the Middle-East. People change very slowly. But if you look at it from a western point of view forty years is a long time to learn lessons. We could have been spared lots of bloodshed if many people gave up their greater land dreams ages ago. But it doesn’t work that way apparently in real life.

ILJ: Golda Meir once said there will be peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate ours.

MICHAELIS: Oh my God yeah. It’s part of the demonization. Arab leaders
would say that when Israelis start to understand what a refugee is … it’s sloganeering. It’s demonizing the other side, which has proven to be destructive. So this kind of “they would love” and “they would hate.” It’s simplification and painting black and white colors about everyone and it’s very dangerous and very destructive.

ILJ: Do you have any sources informing you about what is happening inside Iran? Have you heard anything about a viable dissident movement for democracy emerging?

MICHAELIS: First of all I can tell you that my only alternative sources for information that I know there, are bloggers like you (laughs), active in Iran. And they are writing and they are expressing themselves. But I don’t really have any special information of how big this movement is and how serious it is.

ILJ: Regardless of whether you supported President Bush’s war in Iraq or not, is a sovereign democracy truly achievable there as well as a positive ripple effect for the Mid-East? Or has President Bush condemned the Iraqis to decades of sectarian violence and terrorism?

MICHAELIS: Very risky venture because he walked into a society and didn’t understand what their rules are and what their history is. And by walking into something where you’re like an elephant in a china chop you create a whole mess, but I don’t know if he “condemned” them to it. That’s a strong term. But he definitely created a tribal and nationalistic and religious based mess that will take a long time to resolve. You can’t transplant democracy into tribal societies by force or by torture or through the gun. You know there is an old saying, that you can fight with a bayonet, you can’t sit on it. So, basically he’s trying to sit on a bayonet which is really impossible. Not advisable for you to try.

ILJ: What is the most common misconception you encounter about Israel and the Mid-East?

MICHAELIS: Two different kinds of misconceptions. Misconception that is the easiest to point out is that the Israeli-Palestinian fight is a symmetrical conflict -which is totally wrong. I come from a country that has nuclear power. Very well financed armed forces. And science is far ahead. And is fighting a country with a third world economy and third world weapons. And it’s totally a fight between … it’s not equal. So I don’t say who is just or unjust but just in terms of force and power, the misconception I hear many times is “oh this side is this,” “this side is that,” as if the fight is equal. But it’s very unequal.

And about the Mid-East the biggest misconceptions are more in terms of ignorance. Knowing what the Muslim religion is about. What the differences between the Muslim countries are. When I tell people the Iraqi president is actually friendly to Israel they say, why? Why would an Arab be friendly to Israel and I say he’s not an Arab. He’s a Kurd. And the Kurds have a long relationship with Israel. And people don’t realize what it means. The internal divisions in terms of not just tribes but in terms of history of people. The Kurdish people have a long history. They are part of Iraq now because of the British division of making borders on the map. And it’s very unclear if Iraq can function like that. And people just don’t know.

I think many people believe Iran is an Arab country, which it isn’t. It has 5000 years of Persian history. So the misconceptions are more in the direction of ignorance and understanding the cultural, political, linguistic and religious differences between the different groups in the Mid-East. It’s not one blob (laughs). It’s not just one big mess. You have to know who’s who. And why.

And I think we Israelis often many times always talk about “the Arabs” It’s not such a simple a thing to talk about the Arab world.

That’s the work I’m doing on television in the Mosiac program. We compare every day for thirty minutes different points of view on the conflicts and the issues as broadcast by secular young women on TV in Lebanon and deeply religious preachers in Saudi Arabia. So it’s the way someone might say the Canadians and Americans and all the North Americans are all the same. It’s ignorance if you don’t’ see the different colors. It’s not all one color.

ILJ: You mention the Mosaic program. It’s fascinating and I’m providing a link for it on this posting (click here). Watching the recent broadcasts about Zarqawi I was struck how Jordanian television almost seemed like Fox News in a way.

MICHAELIS: Yeah. (laughs)

ILJ: The anchor was going out of his way to explicitly say Zarqawi did not represent the principles of Islam. And so forth …

MICHAELIS: Well he was clearly an enemy of the king and the kingdom and the concept of Jordan as it is. He was an enemy of the state. Grew up in Jordan. When someone from your own country turns against you, you become even more hostile than usual. He wasn’t an outside enemy. Someone who knew Jordan very well. Someone released from the prisons a few years ago. So they were definitely very, very hostile to him. So you were struck in the right way. This is more than Egypt but I don’t know who you were comparing it to. But for Jordan, Zarqawi was a major target because he would also encourage the people of Jordan to rebel. And that’s the last thing they wanted.

ILJ: Do you believe there was sympathy for Zarqawi among the people of Jordan?

MICHAELIS: I really don’t know. Basically in it’s tone it’s a very moderate country. Fanaticism is not welcome there. But I’m sure he had some people who sympathized with him either because they don’t like the king or they liked to side against the Americans. So I’m sure he had some followers. But I can’t tell you how big or small.

ILJ: How have your views about Israel’s place in the world changed during your life? And how has your views of the Palestinian people changed during your life?

MICHAELIS: Oh! You have to read my biography. Three volumes! (laughs). I’m joking but it’s a big question. Basically, I don’t know if you saw some of the “Occupied Minds” film … my views have changed mainly after ’67. Because before ’67, I believed all Arabs are the same and they’re our enemies and and there is no one to relate to. And in ’67 they came under our occupation and I was part of the occupying army in the West Bank … I went into the villages and I went into the homes of people. Of course it was in my army service but then also as a journalist and I learned who the Palestinian people are and what their story is.

And that changed me radically in my way … and I thought well I have to coexist with these people. They’re not anonymous people or Jew haters as Gold Meir defined them. They are people on the same land and we have to give them a rising chance to exist. And I with other people, since ’68, immediately like, a year after the war we said if we start settling in this land it means we have ambitions for land and not for peace. And so I have not changed one inch since ’68 to today. I still think and as I said it took Olmert 40 years ... it was one of the biggest mistakes that we’re paying for until now. To not relate to them as equals with rights and settle on their land beyond the ’67 borders. This was a turning point for me in a major way.

*********************************************************************************
The ongoing struggle between Israelis and Palestinians is a flash point for all that is wrong with humanity. Two aggrieved peoples are unable to peacefully co-exist on a small piece of land. As Michaelis pointed out, this conflict is not equal in terms of force. Israel clearly holds the upper hand militarily. Both societies however appear to lack an indispensable ingredient for peace: empathy for the other. Without empathy, a just and peaceful resolution appears beyond the grasp of my lifetime.

Perhaps, one may find hope in the example of David Michaelis himself. As he noted, Michaelis served in the Israeli army in 1967. The experience however did not dehumanize him. Instead, he became an advocate for human rights. As Americans are learning, soldiers of an occupation can be dehumanized very quickly. Also, the example of his partner Jamal Dajani merits respect. Dajani became friends with someone he easily could’ve viewed as an occupier of his people. Both men learned to see the other as more than clichéd abstractions but as individual human beings. They built a visceral bridge, which is far stronger than any diplomatic piece of paper, or agreement could ever be. It is the bridges of individuals such as Michaelis and Dajani that must become the building blocks for peace.
******************************************************************************
SIDEBAR: On May 20th, author Robert Fuller agreed to an interview on this blog about his new book, "All Rise" and the quest to replace "rankism" with a "dignitarian culture." He is also responsible for introducing me to David Michaelis. Mr. Fuller will be attending a publicity event for his book at the KGB Bar in New York City on Tuesday, June 20th. The address is 85 East 4th Street and the event is scheduled between 7:00 PM and 9:00 PM.

Bush Yoyos While the U.S. Burns: An Interview With Economist Jared Bernstein

The conservative shift in American politics undermined the economic security of working people. Increasingly, individuals are absorbing more risks, working longer hours and earning less. Meanwhile, corporations and government benefit from less accountability to tax payers, consumers and employees. Renowned economist Jared Bernstein proposes in his new book, All Together Now: Common Sense For A Fair Economy, (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.) that we're ensnared in a "YOYO economy". The acronym YOYO means, "You're On Your Own." Bernstein's book illustrates how the "YOYOists" have schemed to transfer the burden of economic risk onto individuals and their families.

Former Senator John Edwards said that,

"Jared Bernstein provides a smart look at the American economy, one deeply rooted in American values. All Together Now explains the importance of having an economy that puts people first and ensures a fair shake for all."

Bernstein draws on his experience as an economic policy analyst to reveal that the majority of Americans are fed up with the "hyper-individualism" ethos promoted by corporatists and the political class. From health care to globalization, Bernstein maintains that Americans yearn to replace our YOYO economy with a society based on the values of "WITT" (We're All In This Together"). He presents both an economic plan and political strategy to alleviate the burdens of risk from working people and their families.

Bernstein also provides anecdotes from focus groups he helped run in the Midwest and South on the economic challenges confronting middle-income families. His encounters have persuaded Bernstein the public is ready to embrace an agenda that balances the burdens of risk:

"For a beltway wonk like myself, the discussions were revealing and important. Those on the project with more focus group experience warned me to be careful not to over interpret these results. After all, went their caveats, we ultimately spoke with fewer than a hundred people. As an economist with lots of experience crunching data sets with hundreds of thousands of observations, surely I appreciated the risk of extrapolating beyond the sample.

You'd think so. But I'm choosing to ignore their starchy warning and offer this conclusion, because my gut tells me I'm right: people are not nearly as divided along WITT and YOYO lines as you'd think, given partisan rancor, tight election results, and all that blue-state/red-state stuff. They, and by `they' I mean a majority of the electorate, see a role for both dynamics, and they feel the pendulum has swung too far toward YOYOism. They are thus open to a moderate agenda that provides them with the opportunity to get a fair shake. They'll take it from there."

Bernstein has promoted economic fairness on the national scene for over a decade. In 1992, he joined the Economic Policy Institute to direct their research on living standards. He is a widely published author in both the popular press and academic journals. Bernstein is also a frequent commentator for CNN and has been interviewed on PBS and National Public Radio. He earned a Ph.D in social welfare from Columbia University and is the coauthor of The State of Working America (Economic Policy Institute). Kevin Phillips, an esteemed conservative scholar praised the most recent edition:

"The State of Working America is the ultimate authority on what the American economy means to ordinary Americans."

Bernstein generously agreed to respond to questions about his current book, the economy, and politics.

***********************************************************************************

ILJ: Typically our national conversation about deficits refers to the federal budget. Aren't we also confronting a fiscal crisis in state and local governments? In late March, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a report that estimates that new tax cuts in Bush's 2007 budget will cause states to lose $38 billion over the next ten years. By the year 2016 they estimated the states will lose $8.1 billion in revenues annually. How significant is the revenue shortfall on the state level for the national economy and what is the potential impact for society? Do we need a federal bail out of state governments along the lines implemented by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton in the early days of the republic?

BERNSTEIN: I wouldn't say we need the feds to bail out the states as much as we need some grown ups to take charge of Federal fiscal policy. A key point here is that state fiscal problems are always going to be intimately connected with that of the federal government. For e.g., as the document you link to points out, many states base their tax collections on federal tax policy. It's an important example of how these reckless tax cuts reverberate throughout the country. In fact, I would argue that progressives should carefully follow the money on this one. While federal tax and spend policy probably seem pretty disconnected from people's lives, diminished state and local services do not. If the library has fewer hours, or the quality schools, parks, and roads are diminished by cuts like these, it will be important to tie such developments to the tax cuts.

The trillions of dollars of tax cuts since 2001 seem painless because we've not cut spending. So we're enjoying $400 billion more government per year than we're paying for. Of course, the arithmetic of all this is as simple as it is unforgiving. Unless things change in unforeseen ways (the baby boom finds a new planet to settle for their later years), at some point you either have to cut spending or raise taxes.

And of course, you can already here the chorus by policy makers: "We'd love to pay for all kinds of medical care and programs for disadvantaged folks and so on, but we simply don't have the money." I don't buy it and neither should anyone else. As my colleague Max Sawicky writes, "He who names the constraints controls the debate"

ILJ: Your book doesn't cover the bankruptcy legislation signed into law last year. Under the new rules an entrepreneur now assumes far more risk if his business fails and therefore has less incentive to start a new business and create jobs. Meanwhile, banks and credit card companies are assuming virtually no risk as they solicit cash strapped working people with poor credit history. Shouldn't your WITT program include scrapping the so-called bankruptcy reform passed by Republicans and some Democrats?

BERNSTEIN: Most definitely. It's a classic example of the risk shift that myself and others (Peter Gosselin, Jacob Hacker) are documenting. Like most such legislation passed over the last few years, it's basically structured to reduce the financial exposure of businesses, especially consumer credit providers, and shift that exposure onto borrowers. Look for the nation's private insurers to be up next at the Congressional trough for this kind of package. They're already engaging in a similar risk shift operation re homeowners in coastal areas.

ILJ: Do you believe nationalized healthcare would liberate small business entrepreneurs to create more jobs? Could universal healthcare actually serve as a job stimulus? Have you seen data from other countries that provide universal healthcare to suggest more jobs are created in the private sector when the government assumes the risks and financial burdens of healthcare?

BERNSTEIN: As I stress in the book, seeking a more efficient way to provide health care coverage is as much a competitiveness issue as it is one of social justice. Though I haven't thought enough about the large v. small business differences, there are a few ways in which smaller entrepreneurs would meaningfully benefit. First, compared to larger firms, small firms don't have access to a large risk pool and thus cannot spread costs around more broadly. Under universal coverage, all players access the benefits of large-scale risk pooling and avoid adverse selection. Second, as it is, smaller firms are less likely to provide coverage, and thus suffer a competitive disadvantage in terms of the quality of the jobs they offer. A universal coverage program would level that playing field.

ILJ: Do you agree with the new law passed by the Massachusetts legislature and signed by Governor Romney requiring all citizens to obtain health insurance? Will that lower the cost of healthcare or create additional hardships for the poor?

BERNSTEIN: I do support the new law. There are challenges to be worked out--will premiums be set at a level affordable to low-income families? But even in Massachusetts, in this day and age, it's tremendously complicated to build the political coalition to pass legislation like this.

Regarding the characteristics of the bill, I wouldn't get too hung up on them. Throughout our history, the state's have served as laboratories for what's to come at the national level. In my book, I argue for what I think is a simpler, more efficient approach to solving the growing problem of the uninsured: Medicare for All. But I'm all for an incremental, bottom-up approach for getting there.

ILJ: Where do you stand on the current immigration debate? Are advocates for a guest worker program correct that immigrants perform work most Americans won't do? Or is that merely an excuse so the business community can import cheap labor? How can America improve Mexico's economy so their citizens won't need to cross our borders?

BERNSTEIN: Myself and my colleagues at EPI have written on the topic on the Viewpoints section of our website, epi.org. I think `guest workers' are a mistake. I just can't see a rationale for creating a new, clearly inferior status for people who are living here and working and paying taxes. To the contrary, it sound like a great way to preclude economic and social intergration. No, there is no relation between where you were born and the type of job you might do--that's just political nonsense. True, if you degrade the quality of a job down to the point where only the most desperate person will accept the job, then by definition, only someone in dire straights do the job. Needless to say, that's not a basis for crafting useful policy. Re reducing the push from Mexico, read Jeff Faux's oped on our website.

ILJ: Is the immigration issue a potential wedge for your WITT coalition?

BERNSTEIN: To the contrary, it fits right in. The WITT agenda argues that we use the breadth and scope of federal government to might the challenges we face, and immigration is no different. It's important not to view this issue in a vacuum. One of the points I stress in my book is the importance of a full employment economy. We had very large immigrant flows in the latter 1990s yet wages were rising in the low wage sector at the rate of productivity growth for the first time in decades (click here for an op-ed Bernstein wrote about this topic).

So here's my program. A path to citizenship for those who are here already and are willing to work, pay taxes, etc. No guest workers, and we wrest control of the border by getting serious about employer sanctions.

Sounds easy, right?

ILJ: Are the doomsayers correct that the eminent retirement of the baby boom generation has put the future of Social Security and Medicare in jeopardy? Or is that merely propaganda? What needs to be done to insure the solvency of Social Security and Medicare for Generation X?

BERNSTEIN: First of all, in the spirit of my response to question 1, I want to be very clear that this is a YOYO framing of the question (I know--them's fighting words...let me explain).

Why don't you ask me if the future of the defense build-up is jeopardized by the need to provide a comprehensive, equitable, and efficient system to deal with the challenge of the baby boomers' retirement and health care needs?

How about, "Does meeting future health care needs mean that we won't be able to spend $280 billion making the estate tax cut permanent?"

If the Bush tax cuts are made permanent, they will cost three times as much as the Social Security shortfall over the next 75 years. Just the value of the cuts to the top 1%--about 0.5%--would be enough to offset most of the Social Security shortfall.

To address your points, I'd say Social Security is not in jeopardy in a fiscal sense in that some well-considered and worthwhile policy changes could ensure the programs fiscal health over the long-term. For example, raising the salary cap on payroll taxes would go a long way, as would embedding more realistic assumptions into the actuarial forecasts. (Click here and here to read two pieces about this topic as recommened by Bernstein.)

Health care spending, however, is on an unsustainable track, but it's not just Medicare: private sector health care is on the same path, and given the Promethean inefficiencies in that system, as I articulate in the book, it's even more scary. Since unsustainable trends are just that, something's gotta give. The YOYOs have a plan: Health Savings Accounts, designed to make us all better `health care consumers.' But as every other advanced economy on the planet has realized, market solutions alone simply won't cut it.

Here's an excerpt on this from the book:

"...the YOYOs think individual savings accounts and more head-to-head competition will solve the [health care] problem. That approach works wonderfully for millions of commodities in our economy, from pork belly futures to toothpaste at the drugstore. But access to health care is not a commodity; it's a basic human right in an advanced society like ours. So we need to take it out of the market and ensure that it's delivered equitably and efficiently. At least in this regard, we are simply not that different from every other industrialized economy that figured this one out long ago."

ILJ: What if the federal government funded a program to underwrite 401K pension plans for small businesses so all levels of employees from low skilled labor to high skilled workers could benefit? Is that plausible? Could we establish a system in which even workers earning minimum wage might have wealth generated for their future retirement? Why not combine the insurance provided by Social Security with a wealth generating initiative for the entire workforce?

BERNSTEIN: It's a fine idea, especially in combination with a strengthened Social Security system. The key word in your question is "combination." Savings, pensions, and Social Security are the three legs of the retirement stool, and all need strengthening. As a guaranteed pension system, Social Security is particularly important, but as you suggest, we ought to have a universal system along side to encourage wealth accumulation. There's tons of good work on this. Google "Individual Development Accounts" or look for the work of Ray Boshara at the New America Foundation regarding such programs for low-income persons.

Also, see the work of the Hamilton Project, a DC based policy group, on this point.

ILJ: Are there any policies or issues on economics that upon reflection you no longer hold? How has your views evolved and changed over time? Or has your philosophy remained consistent?

BERNSTEIN: I think my views have evolved over time. I certainly hope so! For example, early in my career, I think I initially had less of an understanding and appreciation for the importance of a well-functioning macro-economy. Like many in my field, I pretty much assumed that was "taken care of elsewhere" and that, except for recessions, we were always generating enough growth to meet society's needs.

I've come to recognize that over the last 30 years, we've often been underutilizing our human resources. Plainly put, we simply have not invested enough in quality jobs and quality skills to create the necessary opportunities for all our fellow citizens to realize their potential.

YOYO economics, as I stress in Chapter Two of the book, is a big reason. Here's an excerpt from that chapter:

"Today's economics also has two goals: (1) getting rid of the policy set associated with the old economics and (2) making sure that individuals are offered the optimal incentives, the ones that should lead them to behave in ways that, according to the mathematical models, bring about the most efficient results.

When the goal of economic policy makers shifted from full employment for the society to the optimal incentives for the individual, YOYO was born. Today, we're seeing the outcomes: greater inequality, a fiscally bankrupt government, the shifting of risk from the government and the firm to the individual, and the loss of the systems and institutions--like pension coverage, minimum wages, overtime rules, and a durable safety net--that insulated workers from market failures and inequities.

With this change in the thrust of economic thinking, the central question of economic policy went from, What can government do to be sure that everyone can contribute to and benefit from the available resources? to, What can government do to get out of the way? The former question considers the challenges inherent in national economies since Adam (Smith, of course) and points to collaborative solutions; the latter, especially when mixed with our unique brand of heavily lobbied government, ignores workers except to tell them, 'You're on your own. Here's a tax cut. Now go out there and optimize.'

It is extremely unlikely that we as a society will be able to implement WITT policies under the current economic regime. What's needed is a shift in the way we talk, think, and plan for dealing with the risks and opportunities in today's economy. The first step to building an All Together Now movement requires exposing the class biases inherent in YOYO economics and stressing the advantages of a different approach to government, economic policy, and risk sharing. A brief history of how we got to the present state of affairs should help set the stage."

***********************************************************************************
For too long conservatives dominated the market place of ideas by controlling the terms of the debate. Their communications infrastructure of think tanks, corporatist media collaborators and special interests machine has successfully shifted the center of gravity to the far right. However, five and half years of GOP hegemony have thoroughly discredited conservative ideology. Bernstein's book presents a viable alternative because it is based upon decency and common sense. What ultimately replaces the conservative era will evolve over time. Decency and common sense is a good place to start.

Remember the Survivors

It is important to remember that soldiers operate in an environment beyond our comprehension. Our current mission in Iraq is ill defined and the enemy unseen. Daily existence under such circumstances can’t help but grind away at one’s humanity. Furthermore, immoral leadership from the top condoning torture (Bush’s so-called “regrets” notwithstanding) has filtered down to the ranks.

The recent allegations of cold-blooded murder perpetrated upon Iraqi civilians by American soldiers are the direct result of the Bush Administration’s moral bankruptcy. Atrocities happen in all wars on all sides but this may be the tip of the iceberg and only what has been exposed to date. Yet while their actions should not be excused, the real blame for their crimes truly resides with the political leadership that launched an illegitimate war. Both Iraqi civilians and American soldiers are victims of George Bush’s foolish imperialism.

****************************************************************************************

When otherwise morally upstanding people are compelled to behave immorally their souls is damaged. The stress of combat is horrific enough. Supplementing that trauma with the lingering despair of guilt is irreparable.

The mental anguish resulting from combat is well chronicled. After the Civil War, it was known as “soldier's heart.” In World War One it was labeled” shellshock.” Veterans of World War Two and Korea were described as suffering from “battle fatigue.” After Vietnam it became Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

The American Psychiatric Association officially acknowledged PTSD in 1980. Symptoms include emotional numbing, quick tempers and re-experiencing traumatic situations through flashbacks. Such Symptoms may not surface for years but emerge with a disruptive vengeance.

People with acute PTSD typically recover in three to six months, but chronic PTSD can remain for decades. Combat situations in Afghanistan and Iraq are already generating psychological casualties at an alarming rate.

A study by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research conducted in 2003 and
published in the New England Journal of Medicine in July 2004, found that 15% to 17% of returning Iraq veterans showed symptoms of PTSD, anxiety or depression. Another 11% of Afghanistan vets showed the same symptoms. Since that study was published the situation on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan has worsened and one may surmise the PTSD rate will increase over time.

One tragic victim of PTSD was Jeffrey Lacey. His highly publicized suicide was hauntingly described by the January 2006 edition of the Physchiatric Times:

“When he returned home to Belchertown, Mass., he began drinking heavily and suffering from insomnia, night sweats, hallucinations and panic attacks. He received treatment at a Veterans Affairs facility, where he was described by one physician as having PTSD, depression with psychotic features, suicidal ideation and acute alcohol intoxication. One day, Lucey's father came home to find his son had hung himself in the cellar. On Lucey's bed were the dog tags of two unarmed Iraqi prisoners he said he had been forced to shoot.”

****************************************************************************************
Sadly, the improved performance of our military’s medical personnel in saving lives from physical injuries has served to increase the percentage of veterans victimized by PTSD. It is imperative to recognize that any soldier returning from war is forever changed and may need support to reintegrate with civilian life again.

That requires funding to provide the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) infrastructure and trained personnel equipped at treating this disorder. In September 2004, the Government Accounting Office reported that,

“The VA does not have a count of the total number of veterans currently receiving PTSD services at its medical facilities and Vet Centers — community-based VA facilities that offer trauma and readjustment counseling. Without this information, VA cannot estimate the number of new veterans its medical facilities and Vet Centers could treat for PTSD.”

As the aforementioned January 2006 article in the Psychiatric Times reported, in August 2005 the VA, acting on its Inspector General (IG)'s report, said it would audit files of 72,000 veterans who were receiving full disability benefits for PTSD. Veterans groups protested that the review of PTSD cases was simply a pre-text to cut benefits for older veterans and raise the bar for future ones. Thankfully, the VA dropped its audit plans in November 2005 stating that most of the problems did not result from fraud.

However, the VA's auditing controversy illustrates that Republican fiscal mismanagement is forcing older and younger veterans to compete for a shrinking pie. On March 1st, American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry (AAGP) President Christopher Colenda testified before the House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and described the challenges confronting the VA:

“Of the nation’s 25.5 million veterans, nine million—approximately 35 percent—are seniors who served in World War II or the Korean War. Another eight million Vietnam era veterans are will soon join the population of older adults, a phenomenon of the Baby Boom generation that begins turning 60 this year and will have a massive effect throughout our society. In this context, it is important to note actions relating to late life mental health addressed by the White House Conference on Aging, which was convened by President Bush in December 2005. Recognizing the current health and mental health needs of older Americans and the challenges awaiting as the Baby Boom generation ages, delegates placed mental health and geriatric health professional training issues at the forefront by voting them among their top 10 resolutions. The VA must be able to provide the specialized care in geriatric mental health that this generation of aging veterans will need and deserve.

More than half a million veterans are 85 years of age or older, and the VA predicts that this oldest group will grow to 1.2 million by 2010. Historically, as many as one-third of all veterans seeking care at the VA have received mental health treatment, and research indicates that serious mental illnesses affect at least one-fifth of the veterans who use the VA health care system. In addition, those who are older often suffer from co-existing medical conditions such as heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, lung disease, debilitating arthritis, or other conditions. For these patients, treatment of their medical illnesses is often complicated by psychiatric disorders. Conversely, their psychiatric care is more complex because of the co-occurrence of medical illness, which commonly requires treatment with multiple medications. Thus, for older veterans with mental health problems, psychiatric treatment must be integrated and coordinated with their general medical care needs.

Between the years 1990 and 2000, the number of veterans in the 45-54 year-old age group who received mental health services from the VA more than tripled. The Vietnam era veterans are entering late life and are a cohort bringing new challenges to the VA, such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in the elderly and perhaps a higher burden of substance abuse. Not only does the VA need to prepare for services for these challenges, it needs to allocate funds for research as well.

As the nation pursues the war in Iraq, thousands of younger veterans may soon turn to the VA for the special care and services only it can provide. All of these individuals will swell the ranks of those who will ultimately require geriatric care. However, the most rapid growth in demand during the last decade was among the oldest veterans. During that time, there was a four-fold increase in the number of veterans aged 75-84 who received VA mental health services.

This substantial increase in utilization is even more striking when one considers that research has revealed an ongoing problem with under diagnosis of mental disorders in older age groups. Despite the increasing need for coordinated mental health and general health care services for rapidly growing numbers of older veterans, funding for VA mental health services, training, and research remains disproportionately low and is inadequate to meet the needs of the aging veteran population.”

Early in 2005, President Bush opted to expend his "political capital" on hyping a generational crisis with Social Security that did not exist. Thanks to his misguided foreign and domestic policies a real generational crisis is manifesting itself among those Americans who have sacrificed the most for our freedom. Meanwhile, the rest of us exist in a sea of relative tranquility and Memorial Day is simply a warm weather respite. Just one of many sins committed during America’s current reign of indecency.
***********************************************************************************
SIDEBAR: Special thanks to cyperspace compadre Bob Higgins who kindly displays my posts on his blog, Worldwide Sawdust. Bob's prose is both irreverent and poignant. My favorite example of Bob's work was his April 30th post entitled "Guernica."

Dignity's Apostle: My Interview With Author Robert W. Fuller

Progressives are struggling to synthesize a movement that can rise above identity politics and mobilize people under a unified theme. Robert W. Fuller, Ph.D. argues in his newly published book, All Rise (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.), that simple dignity is an elusive need that cuts across demographics of race, gender, age, and class. Fuller attributes this void to a culture of “rankism” which he defines as “abuses of power associated with rank.” In his writings Fuller advocates for a grassroots effort to establish a “dignitarian society.”

Essentially, Fuller is labeling an ongoing human experience. He notes that we’ve all been victimized by the institutional structures of rankism in our lives as well as being abusers ourselves. This is true in our jobs as well as personal or family relationships.

For society at large there are broader implications because rankism breeds incompetence. Fuller cites deadly examples such as the Challenger space shuttle flight in 1986 and the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe as resulting from the direct result of a culture of rankism. Talented individuals were in each instance discouraged from criticizing the hierarchies they served. One can certainly identify rankism as a component of the culture of crony capitalism inside the Republican Party and the corporate world.

Fuller first wrote about the concept of rankism in his 2003 book, Somebodies and Nobodies: Overcoming the Abuse of Rank (New Society Publishers). The inspiration for Fuller’s book was his own life in which he experienced being both a “somebody” and a “nobody.”

Fuller earned his Ph.D. in physics at Princeton University and taught at Columbia where he co-authored the renowned text Mathematics of Classical and Quantum Physics. During the social tumult of the 1960s, Fuller became interested in educational reform and at the age of 33 he was appointed president of Oberlin College, his Alma Mater.

In 1971 Fuller served as a consultant to Indira Gandhi and witnessed the famine resulting from India’s war with Pakistan over the fate of Bangladesh. When President Carter was elected, he initiated a campaign to persuade the president to end world hunger. Fuller’s meeting with President Carter in 1977 helped facilitate the establishment of the Presidential Commission on World Hunger.

During the 1980s Fuller often traveled to the Soviet Union working as a “citizen-scientist” to reduce cold war tensions. His work combined with other like-minded professionals led to the creation of the nonprofit global corporation venture Internews, which promotes democracy through free and independent media. He served as the Chairman of Internews for several years.

Fuller has certainly led an impressive and compelling life. Yet when the Soviet Union collapsed, Fuller found himself adrift and marginalized. As Fuller reflected upon his own life experience, he had an epiphany about how our society is ordered. It would be only human to ponder how he went from persuading an American President to questioning his own relevance. Fuller’s journey appears to have engendered both a personal commitment to empathy and the ambition to quantify the most subjective human perspective of all – dignity. He graciously agreed to respond to questions about his new book as well as his opinions regarding current events:
**************************************************************************************

ILJ: In the opening Chapter of All Rise, you wrote “Each of us has an innate sense that we have the same inherent worth as anyone else, regardless of our particular characteristics or our status. Every religion teaches us so.” Couldn’t one argue that religion has historically been guilty of imposing rankism more than any other institution? The Koran essentially legitimizes the abuse of women for example and women priests are often frowned upon.

Fuller: Religion teaches dignity; theology sometimes promotes indignity. When Islam was first introduced it championed women’s liberation (See Huston Smith’s “Religions of the World” which points out that Mohammed’s wife had a very big hand in writing it). Some Islamic theologians have since interpreted it in ways that oppress women, but that’s politics operating under the guise of religion (as it does in every religion). In their core beliefs, religions have all been a powerful force for recognizing the universal and non-negotiable dignity of Man.

ILJ: You strongly emphasize that you’re not anti-hierarchy or utopian. But as President Kennedy once noted, “life isn’t fair.” Is a dignitarian society absent of rankism truly possible in a world in which there will always be winners and losers?

Fuller: Dignity is not dependent on winning. You can lose a contest and not feel your dignity has been affected one way or the other. In a fair competition, your performance is apt to be improved by virtue of competing with the other entrants, and for that you are grateful. Many losing athletes experience gratitude to winners—for raising their game. The problem is that winners may then abuse their rank, and that IS a problem! But so long as rank is legitimately earned and properly used, rank is an important—often indispensable—organizational tool for accomplishing group goals. Not every assertion of rank is rankist—only those that put the dignity of the high-ranking above that of those they serve. We rightfully admire and love authorities—parents, teachers, bosses, athletes, political leaders—who hold their rank and use the power that comes with it in an exemplary way. Accepting their leadership entails no loss of self-respect or opportunity on the part of subordinates. It is when people abuse their power to demean or disadvantage those they outrank that seeds of indignity are sown. Over time, indignity turns to indignation, and smarting victims may be left thirsting for vengeance. The consequences can range from relatively benign foot-dragging all the way to genocide.

ILJ: John Lennon once wrote, “women are the niggers of the world.” Yet your book notes women are typically bullied more from other women in the work place then men. Does this surprise you? Women it seems have been chronically victimized by rankism in society so why do they turn on each other?

Fuller: Rankism is caused by indignity, and indignity festers, gradually congealing into indignation. That’s why rankism causes more rankism. Rankism’s victims are likely to turn into perpetrators as soon as they can get away with it – to even the score, so to speak. This is why rooting out rankism is difficult.

ILJ: When Bush campaigned in 2000, he boasted about learning management skills as an MBA from Harvard and his ability to govern like a CEO. Is the Harvard/MBA model discredited in promoting quality, efficiency, and professional mobility based on merit?

Fuller: If a single graduate’s performance discredited a school, there would be no creditable schools left standing. For many graduates, the imprint made by their Alma Mater is very slight, almost undetectable. And even where the impact is strong and clear, beliefs change over time and what’s good business practice in one setting, may not be in another.

ILJ: Do you believe the cause of gay rights would garner more sympathy if presented in the context of combating rankism and seeking dignity instead of being associated with identity politics?

Fuller: Yes, indeed. That is exactly the right strategy at this point: for gays, for immigrants, for all put-upon groups. People are sick of identity politics. They have come to see it as synonymous with demanding special treatment. The way around this objection is for identity groups to insist that everyone’s dignity be respected equally, including their own.

ILJ: If I’m sitting on top of the social strata why is it in my best interest to replace rankism with a dignitarian society? Why should Dick Cheney’s successor at Halliburton care about other people’s dignity?

Fuller: If you are at the top, it won’t be, in the short run. For the most part, Kings resisted the formation of parliaments. But some of them lost their heads in the process. A longer-run strategy foresees the power of numbers and yields gracefully. Enlightened leaders put getting the job done well above self-aggrandizement and in the name of such success, they shun rankism.

ILJ: Karl Marx championed the concept of “class consciousness” empowering the proletariat. But class solidarity has typically surrendered to individual ambition. Even as we’re victimized in our jobs or personal relationships by rankism, don’t we also crave the very status held by others that we resent?

Fuller: We crave it because rankism is so common that we see status as the only way to shield ourselves from its humiliations. As rankism diminishes, we will be more content to serve in whatever position in the hierarchy best matches our talents and the energy we have for that role. Many people don’t want to lead on the job; they prefer to put their energy into family, an avocation, etc. and are glad to follow at work so long as they are not bullied, harassed, and “indignified.”

ILJ: What corporations have cultures that you most admire and which corporations do you believe to be the worst offenders of rankism?

Fuller: Corporations cited in the media, at various times, for having a relatively non-rankist culture include Whole Foods, Intel, Google, CostCo. But I am not in a position to testify to this. Likewise, Wal-Mart has gotten a lot of bad press lately for a rankist work environment. Jim Collins, in Good to Great, points out that leaders of great companies eschew rankism, both in their own treatment of subordinates, and all the way down the line.

ILJ: Are there any societies in the world today that you believe have models that can be referred to as a dignitarian society? For all of our problems in the United States, it appears the whole world is struggling with human dignity. France for example has alienated their Muslim population. The entire European continent contains Muslims who feel disconnected from their home societies even if they’re enjoying economic success. In the scheme of things might one argue that the United States is far ahead of other nations in cultivating a merit-based culture that facilitates dignity?

Fuller: Yes, the world is struggling with dignity. No nation has yet built a dignitarian society. Doing so is democracy’s next step. Some Scandinavian societies seem to be moving in that direction. The bottom line of a dignitarian society is that everyone’s dignity is afforded equal protection. People can still hold unequal ranks, but in those ranks, dignity is equal from top to bottom. At a minimum, this means that regardless of rank, everyone is paid a living wage, has access to good health care and education. (See “All Rise” for details.)

ILJ: A conservative might argue that rankism doesn’t exist in the United States. Our Constitution guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Newt Gingrich once noted soon after becoming Speaker that the Constitution did not mention the “Department of Happiness” or advocate for the “government happiness program.” It’s not difficult to imagine conservatives snickering that in America we rise or fall based on our own abilities. In their worldview respect is earned and not a right. Why is dignity a universal right?

Fuller: Dignity deserves to be made a universal right because that generates loyalty, productivity, creativity. What’s guaranteed is not outcomes, but membership in the tribe. A dignitarian society promises not to ostracize any group or individual. Everyone has a place. Even prisoners are treated with dignity, as they serve their terms. It is very hard for people who have grown up with libertarian values to get this distinction, but getting it is the next step for democracy.

ILJ: Has the culture of rankism impacted academia and the quality of education in this country?

Fuller: Students put more energy into defending their dignity in classrooms than they put into learning. This is a tragedy. Schools that rid themselves of rankism are going to be far more effective than schools of the past. Also, tenure is an inherently rankist institution—because it eliminates accountability to those professors are entrusted to serve. In eliminating tenure, great care must be taken to protect the dignity of those who have enjoyed it. The guarantee in a dignitarian society is to dignity, not to a particular role or rank.

ILJ: You noted in your book that a victim of rankism on their job might become the abuser of rank in their home as a parent or spouse. Do you believe that an employment culture based on dignity might also facilitate better parenting and healthier marriages?

Fuller: Precisely!

ILJ: What are some concrete steps our elected representatives can take to combat rankism and promote a culture of dignity?

Fuller: If you’re in electoral politics you can point the way to a dignitarian society, even if your colleagues aren’t yet ready to embrace your ideas. Treat your opponents with dignity. Don’t sneer, mock, or condescend. Avoid patronizing or posturing. When politicians affect moral superiority, they extend rankism’s lease. Since rankism is an attack on both liberty and dignity, denounce it along with the other isms. Explain to your constituents why you’re against it—in all its forms—and then go after them one by one. Be the leader you wanted to be when you first imagined running for office. Be willing to lose an election for your dignitarian convictions. If you do, run for office a few years later, and win! To paraphrase Victor Hugo, dignity is an idea whose time has come.

ILJ: I’d like to pick your brain about India. Early in your career you served as a consultant to Indira Gandhi. Today India is acknowledged as an information technology power possessing a high skilled and educated work force. Has this translated into a more egalitarian model of society for them that should be emulated? Or has the social stratification of their culture worsened? The gap between rich and poor certainly remains high.

Fuller: India is too big and complex to generalize about. Its legacy of caste still makes for lots of rankism. On the other hand, technology—wherein the young have so much to contribute—militates against the rankism of age. So my guess is that India is will overcome the caste-based rankism that has held it in its grip for centuries.

ILJ: How much feedback have you received internationally about the concepts of rankism and a dignitarian culture? Is it possible to facilitate an international movement of dignity that transcends boundaries?

Fuller: Rankism is universal. It knows no international borders. Societies that may appear non-rankist turn out to be rankist upon closer examination. That’s because rankism is defined as abuse of the power inherent in rank, and it is human nature to abuse power—so long as we can get away with it. After all, what are human beings but predators, and exceedingly good ones at that. Racism and the other isms are types of predation, but we are overcoming them. They are not written in our genes. As survival strategies, they have long since ceased being successful. Rankism will go the same way, and eventually follow the familiar isms into the doghouse. We learn; we evolve; we change. We will overcome rankism not only because that’s the right thing to do, but more fundamentally because dignitarian workplaces, schools, and societies are more productive and creative, more powerful and successful than are rankist workplaces, schools, and societies.

***********************************************************************************

Robert W. Fuller is the proprietor of a website called Breaking Ranks which is dedicated to educating the public about rankism and promoting a dignitarian society. The primary contributor to his site is a close personal friend of mine who skillfully comments on how current events both illustrate the social dysfunction of rankism and the need for establishing a culture of dignity.

*************************************************************************************

SIDEBAR: This topic received some feedback from cross postings in the community blogs. Once again "Susan G" rescued me in Daily Kos. There was also some interest from a cross posting in My Left Wing. My thanks to Wulingren from the wonderful blog Mandate of Heaven, as well as friend and sage Joe Irvin for acknowledgments on their respective sites. Wulingren is quite the world traveler and has interesting postings from Tawain where he's currently working. Joe Irvin is a retired journalist from Quincy, Illinois and his blog is a wonderful resource about timely articles and commentary worldwide.

SIDEBAR II: Also a special thanks to "Nanette" from Man Eegee's blog for citing the Robert W. Fuller interview on their "Are You Ready To Ramble?" feature today. Man Eeegee's blog is always informative and a catalyst for provocative and interesting debate.

SIDEBAR III: Robert W. Fuller has entered the blogosphere and posted a diary of his own on the five community blogs linked below.

Daily Kos

My DD

My Left Wing

Booman Tribune

European Tribune

The Law of Competitive Balance, Howard Dean, and the Democratic Party's Washington Establishment

I was an avid reader of Bill James’ annual Baseball Abstract while growing up in the 1980s. As both a nerd and baseball fanatic, his methodical statistical analysis and incisive prose influenced me almost as much as listening to the Beatles. Perhaps the most memorable essay of James’ career was in his 1983 abstract when he wrote about, “The Law of Competitive Balance.” Twenty-three years ago I copied words of wisdom from that essay into the spiral notebook I was supposed to use for algebra:

“The Law of Competitive Balance: There develop over time separate and unequal strategies adopted by winners and losers; the balance of those strategies favors the losers, and thus serves constantly to narrow the difference between the two.”

James utilized several hypothetical examples to illustrate his point. A basketball team that is well behind will make tactical adjustments. The team that is ahead has succeeded with the status quo and is less likely to change. Hence, the team that is behind will eventually make the game more competitive. A baseball team that finishes twenty games out of first place is more likely to shake up their roster and replace veterans with youth. The team that wins it all prefers to maintain continuity and is more susceptible to decline.

James’ law proves true in many aspects of life as well. The struggling salesman will change his approach until he finds success while someone else earning top commissions can become complacent and rely on the same accounts. A business that is enduring hard times will reassess its’ efficiency and marketing while another grows fat and spends money foolishly until they’re blindsided by a cash crunch.

Until Howard Dean became head of the DNC, the Law of Competitive Balance didn't apply to the Democratic Party. Instead the Democrats lived by the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Dean has the nerve to challenge the party’s orthodoxy and transition the Democrats from a Washington centric party addicted to wealthy contributors to a states oriented party funded by a citizens donor base. It’s remarkable to me how some Democrats whine over McCain/Feingold and long for the old days of soft money donations to the national party. Dean didn’t whine. He adjusted and myopic Washington Democrats remain clueless.

Dean is the first Democrat to think “globally” by acting “locally.” The key to power and a better nation is by strengthening state parties and taking the country back one precinct at a time. It’s basic blocking and tackling in the ground game that has eluded the Democrats for a generation, as the establishment prefers to mobilize the same special interests coalition and rally behind the politics of expediency. Dean’s way is to craft a message of truth about the public interest and fight for every neighborhood. Hence his states oriented strategy has a better chance of transforming the Democratic Party into a national majority.

Today both the Washington Post and New York Times reported about the rift between Dean and the respective heads of the Democrat’s House and Senate Campaign Committees, Rahm Emanuel and Charles Schumer. The progressive blogosphere has rallied to Dean’s defense. I thought Mole333 wrote an especially fine diary on this topic in My Left Wing.

Dean is hardly a perfect messenger for the Democratic Party. He’s impulsive and occasionally suffers from foot in mouth disease as we saw during the 2004 campaign and his recent appearance on the 700 Club.

Nonetheless, Dean’s 50 state strategy makes both short term and long term sense and even a pretty good political tactician named Bill Clinton has signed onto it. Thankfully, Dean doesn’t need the good will of the proven losers inside the Democratic Party. As the state parties continue to be enhanced the Rahm Emanuels, Charles Schumers and Joe Bidens will be marginalized in favor of Democrats on the local level.

Sadly too many Washington Democrats and consultants prefer their status as kings of the hill inside a minority party instead of making this a better country and standing for principle. The message that needs to be sent to these people is this: lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

SIDEBAR: This topic was cross posted on Daily Kos and once again my diary was "rescued" by the blogosphere's Angel of CPR, "SusanG". She performs an invaluable service because Daily Kos has a million visitors per day and many fine diaries dissappear from the board without making the recommended list. I heartily recommend others look for her open threads at Daily Kos because she provides an indispensable portal for work easily missed. Thanks to her efforts I've learned much from posted diaries I would not have otherwise read.

Shirin Ebadi: The Light At the End of the Tunnel

During the Cold War it was a dissident movement of human rights activists, writers and political agitators such as Andrei Sakharov, Vaclav Havel, Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn and Lech Walesa who were largely responsible for bringing down the Iron Curtain.

America’s steadfast counterweight to the Soviet Union certainly buttressed their efforts with the support of the western alliance. Yet for all of the Cold War intrigue, espionage, dramatic summits with men wearing high priced business suits, regional conflicts and billions spent on defense appropriations, it was the efforts of courageous souls who transcended superpower might on behalf of human dignity.

Such people are rare gems in humanity’s tapestry. They jeopardize their own lives to champion the cause of freedom and remind all of us that liberty is a privilege to be cherished and defended. Sakharov for example could have enjoyed a comfortable life as a nuclear physicist but instead became a dangerous irritant to the Kremlin. Shi Tao of China had the option of pursuing a career in poetry or simply being a careerist with the press. He chose to expose truth on behalf of a cause bigger than himself and is currently in jail.

Shirin Ebadi’s path to dissidence in Iran is unique. In March 1969 she became the first woman in Iranian history to serve as a judge. Under the Shah’s rule her career prospered and in 1975 Ebadi became the President of Teheran’s City Court. The rise of Khomeni and the Islamic Revolution in 1979 forever changed her life as women were no longer permitted to serve as judges.

“I and other female judges were dismissed from our posts and given clerical duties. They made me a clerk in the very court I once presided over. We all protested. As a result, they promoted all former female judges, including myself, to the position of ‘experts’ in the Justice Department. I could not tolerate the situation any longer, and so put in a request for early retirement. My request was accepted. Since the Bar Association had remained closed for some time since the revolution and was being managed by the Judiciary, my application for practicing law was turned down. I was, in effect, housebound for many years. Finally, in 1992 I succeeded in obtaining a lawyer's license and set up my own practice.”

In private practice she stood up for the rights of women in Iran’s theocracy, advocated on behalf of abused children, and dissidents from all corners of society. Embadi also unapologetically promoted human rights in her prodigious writings: The Rights of Refugees (Published by Ganj-e Danesh in 1993), History and Documentation of Human Rights in Iran, (Published by Roshangaran in 1993) and The Rights of Women, (Published by Ganj-e Danesh in 2002) are among her most important works.

In 2000, Ebadi received a suspended jail sentence for promoting evidence that conservative mullahs were instigating attacks on pro reform leaders. Ziba Mir Hosseini, of the School of Oriental Studies in London, and a friend of Ebadi’s noted that,

"She is a popular figure in Iran and also she's a key figure in reformist movement and like many other key figures in the movement she's been harassed by the conservative forces who control the judiciary."

Ebadi is currently in the United States to promote her new book, Iran Awakening (refer to the advertisements in the lower left sidebar from Amazon). Last night Margaret Warner on the PBS News Hour With Jim Lehrer interviewed Ebadi. As of this writing a transcript of the interview was not available online. However, click here and you can listen to the interview in its’ entirety. Below I transcribed as best I could a few of the more interesting quotes.

When Warner asked about the progress of democracy in Iran since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became President, Ebadi answered,

“Democracy in Iran is not moving forward because censorship is being applied in Iran more seriously.”

Ebadi further noted that human rights activists were imprisoned and during the interview it was revealed that she was targeted for assassination. When Warner inquired about how she could function in such a hostile environment, Ebadi’s dignified strength presented itself:

“It is in these bad situations that people like me have to work. If Iran was it’s own democracy or an advanced democracy than people like me don’t have to be active.”

Ebadi further noted that,

“Human rights activists regardless of where they are in our world will feel danger.”

Warner proceeded to ask a series of questions about American policy towards Iran and the diplomatic impasse regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Ebadi is not enamored of Bush’s policy to spend 75 million to promote democracy in Iran.

“No I don’t think that it benefits me or people like me because whoever speaks about democracy in Iran will be accused of having been paid by the United States.”

Warner followed up and asked what Ebadi thought about Bush calling for further democracy in the Muslim world:

“Can democracy be brought to a people by bombs? Democracy is a culture. It has to come from within a society. Not to be brought by America to society.”

Warner inquired how much Ebadi hoped to accomplish by herself in Iran:

“I do count on the help of the people of the world but not on the help of governments.”

Ebadi then returned to the topic of American policy:

“America’s approach on democracy is not a correct approach as I’ve told you. You cannot bring democracy through bombing people. The countries in the region that are allies of the United States do not enjoy an advanced democracy like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.”

Her observation about the current diplomatic crisis regarding nuclear energy was especially interesting:

“The government of Iran claims that it has peaceful purposes for nuclear energy. But the world does not buy that claim. The solution to this problem is bringing an advanced democracy in Iran. In a democracy people have a say in the government and they will not permit the government to abuse its power. For example France has a nuclear bomb but the world is not scared of France because France is a democracy and people supervise what their government is doing. And if the government of Iran wants the world to buy their word and accept their claim they have to move towards an advanced democracy in Iran.”

Sadly, I don’t agree with Ebadi that in a democracy the people “will not permit the government to abuse its power.” I used to feel that way but five years of Bush rule has disabused me of that notion because the American people were content to remain comatose while we invaded another country that did not threaten us abroad and curtailed personal freedoms at home. Nevertheless, an “advanced democracy” in Iran with nuclear weapons would be far easier to stomach.

Warner asked Ebadi what she thought America and the world should be doing about Iran’s nuclear program:

“Instead of putting pressure on Iran to terminate its’ nuclear program the pressure must be put to the government of Iran to bring democracy to Iran this is what I say to America and the world have forgotten about the human rights situation in Iran. Now that they feel they’re in danger they bring up the issue of human rights in Iran. And we should not accept that there is only one police for the whole world and that police can decide on everything.”

Warner inquired as to whether the majority of Iranians believe they should have a nuclear weapon:

“No. They don’t think so.”

I wonder about that response. She’s an Iranian citizen and would know better than any of us but that doesn’t sound likely to me. The people of China for example are very nationalistic. It would be understandable if most Iranians believed nuclear weapons might enhance their international prestige.

Ebadi warned that,

“An attack on Iran can have bad implications on the whole region. And can cause riots in the region.”

When asked how the Iranian people would respond to being attacked:

“The people of Iran criticize their government. Political criticism. However, not withstanding the criticisms the people of Iran will defend their country and will not let the aliens prevail.”

In the ‘70s, President Carter used his office to empower Andrei Sakharov because he recognized that the human spirit was the best weapon America had against totalitarianism. Years later Carter’s putting human rights on the international map paid dividends. Islamic fascism is unmitigated evil and we will not defeat it with gratuitous violence and pre-emptive war. Our best hope is to prevail by empowering an army of Shirin Ebadis.

A real President would empower Ebadi’s status by meeting with her publicly in a Rose Garden ceremony. A real President would also genuinely listen to what she has to say and not simply use her as a photo op for the evening news.

Our best asset is a commonality of values with heroic figures such as Shirin Ebadi. In a crazy world in which reactionary men such as Bush and Ahmadinejad became national leaders, she is the light at the end of a long dark tunnel.

SIDEBAR: It took a couple of days but cross postings for this topic in the community blogs did finally generate some interest. On European Tribune it was front paged by their resident sage, "Whataboutbob." It was also a "rescued diary" on Daily Kos by their CPR expert, "Susan G." and received some feedback in My Left Wing. My thanks to Whataboutbob and Susan G. for the exposure.