Published on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 by Inter Press Service

100 Days of Latitude

by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - One hundred days into his presidency, Barack Obama appears to have largely succeeded in putting U.S. ties with the rest of the world on a significantly more positive track, even as the foreign policy changes he has made thus far have been more rhetorical than substantive.

While Obama has delivered on various campaign commitments - such as closing the Guantanamo detention facility within a year of his inauguration, re-affirming his intent to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by 2011, and lifting restrictions on Cuban-American travel and remittances to their homeland - it remains unclear how far and how fast he is willing to push on key policy issues, such as the Middle East or climate change, once he runs into serious resistance.

Nor is it clear yet how committed he will be to the remarkable number of new policy directions he has announced since taking office, but which remain under formal review or have only just begun to be explored or implemented. These include engaging diplomatically with Iran and Syria, pressing urgently for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, conditioning future military aid for a Taliban-threatened Pakistan, and working for "a world without nuclear weapons".

"I think the tone and the atmosphere are on target and so the table has been set on many different fronts. But the hard part is implementation and there's no question that on some of the many fronts, Obama will not get he wants," according to Charles Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

"On many of these issues, he will, first, have to overcome both domestic and international resistance and, second, he will have to do triage and set priorities, because, at this point his plate is too full, and resources are too constrained," he added.

Still, the sheer number of new foreign policy initiatives that Obama has announced - in the face of a historic economic crisis that has necessarily consumed most of his time since he took the oath of office - has clearly conveyed a message of change, if not yet the concrete reality.

Obama, whose domestic approval ratings are hovering around 65 percent, has no doubt benefited from the mere fact that he is not George W. Bush, whose unilateralism, which reached its zenith in the 2003 Iraq invasion, and cowboy swagger brought U.S. standings in world opinion to by far their lowest point in modern polling history.

Indeed, just before he actually took office Jan. 20, an average of two out of three respondents in a BBC survey of opinion in 17 countries around the globe said they anticipated that U.S. relations with the rest of the world were bound to improve under Obama, prompting one of survey's consultants, Steven Kull of the Washington-based Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), to question whether could maintain "this enthusiasm given the complexities he now faces."

Judging from the rapturous popular welcome he received earlier this month in Europe - next to the Arab world, the region most critical of Bush's reign - as he made his way from London to Istanbul, as well as the warmth shown him by Latin American leaders, even including Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad two weeks later, it appears that the enthusiasm has endured.

Indeed, a Harris poll released in early April found that Obama enjoyed a much higher approval rating (80 percent) in the five most populous western European countries than any of their own, and that, of 19 leaders with whom he was compared, only the Dalai Lama approached him in public esteem (74 percent).

Even the Arab world, whose respondents in the BBC poll were most sceptical that Obama's election would bring positive change, has shown greater receptivity, according to one recent Dubai-based poll. More than four in 10 of its respondents said they had gained a higher opinion of the U.S. after three months with Obama in office.

Whether that goodwill will translate into greater actual cooperation with Washington, however, not only remains to be seen, but also depends a great deal on what specific policies Obama chooses to pursue and how hard he will pursue them.

Indeed, thus far he has hewed to what 'Newsweek International' editor Fareed Zakaria has called a "centrist" course that in many respects falls far short of the kind of decisive break from Bush (whose foreign policy moderated significantly in his second term) that many abroad - and many of Obama's core constituents in the Democratic Party - expected.

Thus, as noted by John Feffer of the left-wing Foreign Policy in Focus, when Obama "retired the aggressive phrase 'global war on terrorism' in favour of 'overseas contingency operations,' it didn't fundamentally change U.S. counter-terrorism policy." Indeed, some of Bush's staunchest supporters, including neo-conservative thinker Robert Kagan, has publicly praised his performance.

His deployment of 21,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, as well as the continued use of Predator drone attacks against suspected al Qaeda and Taliban targets in Pakistan -even if accompanied by promises of more non-military aid to its government - follow a trajectory that Bush and the Pentagon had initiated well before the November elections.

And while he has repeatedly made clear that, in contrast to Bush, he is determinedly multilateralist and sees the United Nations and international law as critical sources of legitimacy for U.S. action, he has declined to break from some of his predecessor's practices, such as "extraordinary renditions" of terrorist suspects to third countries. Obama has also discouraged talk of investigations, let alone prosecutions, of individuals who either directly violated or authorised violations of the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture under the Bush administration.

And while his appointment of former Sen. George Mitchell as Special Envoy for Middle East peace and his repeated statements in favour of a two-state solution have been widely applauded in Europe and the Islamic world as a refreshing and hopeful contrast to Bush, his administration's maintenance of a tough line against Hamas and his failure so far to prevail on Israel to ease its embargo against Gaza have created gnawing doubts about his willingness to exert serious pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if that means taking on the so-called "Israel Lobby" here whose influence among Democrats is just as great as it is among Bush's Republicans.

On Iran, which, along with Pakistan and the Israeli-Arab conflict, is seen as the most difficult and potentially most explosive foreign policy issue of the foreseeable future, Obama's remarkable Nowruz pledge to pursue engagement without "threats" and "grounded in mutual respect" appears increasingly at odds with Lobby-backed legislation to enact new economic sanctions against Tehran. And just last week, his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, voiced her support for imposing "crippling" international sanctions if Tehran does not agree to U.S. and western proposals to limit its nuclear programme.

"For the most part... the administration's Iran strategy remains reactive, ill-defined, and suspiciously similar to the Bush administration's carrot-and-stick diplomacy during its final years," wrote Suzanne Maloney, a fellow at the Brookings Institution who worked on Iran at the State Department.

Indeed, noted Zakaria approvingly, Obama's overtures toward Cuba, Syria and Iran have been "modest and preliminary," a stance that "has pushed the envelope to change policy ...yet always acting in a sober and calculating manner."

Jim Lobe's blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.

Copyright © 2009 IPS-Inter Press Service

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2009

What’s Obama Done for Workers in His First 100 Days? Plenty.

In the media frenzy over Obama’s first 100 days, his administration’s new direction for workers’ rights and safety concerns hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves.

While some in the labor movement are doubtless disappointed at the slow pace of the Employee Free Choice Act in moving through Congress, there are enough key figures in the administration, including Vice President Joe Biden and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, ensuring that the President keeps workers’ priorities very much alive. That’s why, in part, as the National Journal reported recently, “Labor Holds Its Fire: Despite setbacks, labor leaders have greeted the new administration as a liberator.” The magazine observed, “Having been frustrated and even angered by the last two Democratic presidents, labor activists have decided to accentuate the positive when talking about the Obama administration.”

There are a wide range of accomplishments that have already been enacted, from the $787 billion economic recovery package to initial reforms at OSHA to the passage of women’s pay equity and children’s health legislation. These and other initiatives justify the high marks labor leaders give President Obama. John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, pointed out, “Over their first 100 days in office, President Obama and Vice President Biden have laid down a foundation of change for America’s working families. They have taken big, concrete steps on the economy, health care and the protection of workers’ rights that will build a more prosperous and fair future for working people and America.” As Anna Burger, SEIU Secretary Treasurer, observed, “The fact that so many Americans are optimistic and involved despite tough times — that’s the hidden news in Obama’s first 100 days that holds such great promise for our country.”

With the glaring exception of the troubled, potentially disastrous bank bailout plan that could undercut any economic recovery, the Obama administration deserves at least an A- when it comes to taking action on behalf of workers. 

Among the accomplishments pointed to by the AFL-CIO and other leading labor groups, including SEIU, are these developments (some paraphrased by me) that would have been unimaginable under the pro-business crony capitalism driven by George Bush’s economic and labor policies:

* Pass economic stimulus plan that includes balanced tax relief for working people and investments in jobs, education, healthcare, roads and bridges - DONE

* Pass SCHIP so more children have the healthcare they need - DONE

* Strengthen the voice of Americans to fight discrimination with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - DONE

* Pass a budget that puts a real down-payment toward guaranteeing the quality, affordable healthcare Americans deserve - DONE

* Provide a significant investment in green jobs as a pathway to a strong middle class and a sustainable future - DONE 


Strengthening the Middle Class

White House Task Force On Middle Class Working Families. On January 30, President Obama established a cabinet-level task force, chaired by Vice President Biden, whose mission is to raise the living standards of middle class working families.

Building a Team of Worker Advocates

Hilda Solis. Rep. Hilda Solis was confirmed as Secretary of Labor on February 24. Secretary Solis will refocus the Department on its core mission: to defend workers’ basic rights in the workplace. Throughout her 15 years of public service, Secretary Solis has demonstrated a commitment to defending workers’ rights and has been a passionate advocate for working families. In the U.S. House of Representatives, she voted with working men and women 97 percent of the time. Secretary Solis is putting in place a terrific team of talented and committed people to lead the Labor Department.

Wilma Liebman. On January 20, President Obama designated Wilma Liebman chairman of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). It will be a refreshing change to have a labor board whose aim is to safeguard rather than undermine worker rights. Member Liebman has a long record of dedication to the Board’s work, and when she finishes her current term, she will be the third-longest serving Board member.

The administration has also taken several regulatory actions to roll back some of the worst abuses and schemes of the Bush administration to strip workers of workplace safety and rights protections:

Reversing Anti-Worker Actions

Protection Against “Popcorn Lung.” On March 16, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced it was moving to protect workers from a serious lung disease caused by diacetyl, the artificial butter flavoring added to popcorn and other food products. In recent years, hundreds of workers in plants where diacetyl is produced or applied to food have developed the rare and sometimes fatal disease, bronchiolitis obliterans, also known as “popcorn lung.” Technically, OSHA withdrew a last-minute advance notice of proposed rule making issued by the outgoing Bush administration that could have added two years to the standard-setting process.

Revocation of Bush Executive Order on Regulatory Review. On January 30, President Obama revoked a Bush administration executive order on regulatory review that essentially enabled political appointees at the White House’s OMB to override agencies’ rulemaking in order to undermine everything from worker safety to environmental protection. As explained in one environmentalnewsletter, “President Barack Obama has tossed a Bush-administration executive order that had strengthened the White House’s role in federal rulemaking…Members of Congress, regulatory watchdog groups and other advocacy organizations have argued that the Bush amendments allowed the White House to stop important health and safety rules.”

Executive Orders: Federal Contractors. On January 30, President Obama signed three executive orders, including those that aim to reverse a Bush order aimed at limiting union representation on federal contracts; and moved to prevent federal contractors from being reimbursed for unionbusting propganda compaigns during collective bargaining.

Executive Order: Project Labor Agreements.On February 6, President Obama signed an executive order overturning the Bush administration’s ban on project labor agreements (PLAs) on federal and federally funded construction. Project labor agreements set wages and establish work rules and methods of settling grievances on large multi-contractor construction projects. For more than 70 years before the Bush order, project labor agreements benefited communities, employers and workers by ensuring fair wages and benefits and on-time completion of projects.

Even with all that, as the National Journal and others have noted, some labor officials would like to see more administration action taken on behalf of the Employee Free Choice Act. Yet both Obama and Biden have backed the bill, the union movement is building the Congressional support needed for passage , and its been encouraged by the appointment of such important pro-labor officials as Mary Beth Maxwell, the former executive director of American Rights at Work. So when the National Journal caught up with labor officials for comment, they were strikingly upbeat:

These days, even the most tough-minded labor leaders sound surprisingly patient with Obama.

Take Anna Burger, the hard-charging secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union and chairwoman of Change to Win, a coalition of seven unions. A few days after Obama

was elected, Burger made clear to a packed press conference that card-check legislation should be enacted within the first 100 days. Yet, as that magic number draws near, it is increasingly obvious that the legislation will not even be on the Senate floor until late June at the earliest.

Today, Burger is singing a different tune. When pressed in an interview about backtracking from her earlier stance, she said: “I would have thought we would have had Al Franken, to be perfectly honest, in by now. We don’t have him in the first 100 days. We need his vote to get things done. So I don’t think we will be able to vote the Employee Free Choice Act until we get Al Franken seated, and I think he will be seated next month. It isn’t a problem that we have had because of our president. It is a problem that we have had because a Republican [Sen. Norm Coleman] won’t let go of the fact that he lost the election.”

Elaborating on Burger’s theme, Bill Samuel, the AFL-CIO’s top lobbyist, said: “The White House has been clear that they continue to support the bill. It is our job to build support in Congress.”

And that’s just what organized labor and its allies, from students to civil rights leaders to clergy, did during the recent two-week Congressional recess. And that activism — and increased local media coverage on the legislation — has only been enhanced by Tuesday’s defection by Sen. Arlen Specter. Pro-labor observers say that the pragmatic Specter will be quite willing to help shape a compromise bill acceptable to unions, himself and his moderate Senate colleagues if he hopes to get elected in the Democratic primary.

It’s little wonder that labor leaders such as Stewart Acuff, the special assistant to the AFL-CIO’s President and a veteran of labor’s grass-roots organizing battles, remain so upbeat about both Obama and the labor agenda after 100 days. Noting the Republican-driven economic meltdown and other crises, he says, “He’s doing extremely well in very difficult circumstances. He continues to have our unwavering support and appreciation. He has done an awful lot in 100 days, but there is much to be done and we intend to do all we can to help him succeed.”

And if both labor and Obama succeed in achieving their goals (and the administration somehow fixes the banking mess), Obama’s first 100 days will be seen as a down-payment on a more prosperous, healthier and secure America.

posted by Art Levine

SPECIAL REPORT: President Obama's First 100 Days

First 100 Days: Obama's two biggest promises

By Bill Adair
Published on Tuesday, April 28th, 2009 at 4:22 p.m.

For the final installment in our coverage of President Barack Obama's first 100 days, we decided to look at the 514 campaign promises in our Obameter database and choose two -- one Kept and one Broken -- that we consider the most significant because they illustrate the early accomplishments and setbacks of his presidency.

Choosing them wasn't easy. We convened a meeting of the PolitiFact staff and quickly got into a spirited discussion about which ones deserve top status. We wrestled with whether we should choose one involving troop withdrawal from Iraq, which was the signature issue in his early campaign. He's made two key promises on that topic and we debated whether his early steps to end the war should be our No. 1 Promise Kept.

But after a lively back-and-forth, we decided the collapse of the economy had so drastically changed the political landscape for Obama that we needed a promise tied to the economy and his stimulus package. So here are the two we chose:

Most Significant Promise Kept:
No. 458 - Invest in all types of alternative energy

At first glance, No. 458 doesn't look monumental and it seems an unlikely choice for our top Promise Kept. It's short and vague: "We'll invest in research and development of every form of alternative energy - solar, wind, biofuels."

It's a line from a campaign video that summarizes Obama's "Blueprint for Change" on energy.  The 2-minute video is a collection of Obama comments from debates and speeches, and it goes so fast that you might miss the line about alternative energy, which is squeezed between his promise to invest in "green energy" and his pledge to "find safer ways to use nuclear power and store nuclear waste."
 
But that simple, 15-word promise illustrates Obama's biggest achievement in his first 100 days, the way he has used the economic crisis to enact major elements of his agenda.

The $787 billion economic stimulus bill, which Obama and the Democratic leadership muscled through Congress in February, includes billions of dollars for alternative energy. At the bill signing on Feb. 17, Obama boasted it "will double the amount of renewable energy produced over the next three years."

The bill creates a Clean Energy Finance Authority to help energy companies through loan guarantees and other financial support. It also has $2.5 billion for research and development for alternative energy, including $800 million for biomass projects and $400 million for geothermal projects. And there's another $1.25 billion for solar and wind research.

And there's more: The bill includes billions for other Obama energy promises such as weatherizing 1 million homes and a tax credit for plug-in hybrid cars. And energy is just one part of the bill. The stimulus bill includes major initiatives in education, transportation and tax policy.

At the signing ceremony in Denver, Obama said the bill would have a sweeping impact, that it would begin "the essential work of keeping the American dream alive in our time."

That will be a matter for historians and pundits to explore, but for now, by fulfilling promises like the one on alternative energy, Obama has gained tremendous momentum in his first 100 days.

Most Significant Promise Broken:
No. 240: Toughen rules against former lobbyists

During the campaign, Obama talked tough against Washington lobbyists.

He said they had so much influence under the Bush administration that "your tax dollars have been turned over to wealthy CEOs and the well-connected corporations." Obama told campaign crowds that "we will tell Washington, and their lobbyists, that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. You have. They will not run my White House. "

On the campaign trail, lobbyists make convenient bogeymen. But lobbyists are a permanent part of the Washington power structure and have survived and prospered despite being the target of campaign rhetoric for decades. And in his first 100 days in the White House, it's clear Obama has developed a more nuanced approach to them. He has nominated several lobbyists to senior positions and, in our view, has broken his promise to toughen "revolving-door" rules.

He promised that "no political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration." 

And, on his first full day in office, he issued an executive order that did just that. We quickly (indeed, too quickly) moved the Obameter to Promise Kept.

But we soon realized that his policy had a big loophole that violates the basic principle of the promise. The waivers are granted by the Obama administration itself and are little more than the administration saying a former lobbyist is okay. Obama chose a former Raytheon lobbyist as deputy defense secretary and a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist became chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. So we moved the Obameter to Compromise and, later, to Promise Broken.

Promise No. 240 represents something of a baptism for Obama in the messy ways of Washington. It reminds us of a scene in The Natural, where Robert Redford's character Roy Hobbs comes to bat for the first time and doesn't agree when the umpire calls the first pitch a strike. The radio announcer says tartly, "Hobbs didn't like the call. Well, welcome to the majors, Mr. Hobbs."

Obama's approach to lobbyists represented an idyllic view of Washington. But once he got in office, Obama seems to have decided that lobbyists aren't all bogeymen. Indeed, he wanted several of them working in his administration.

Welcome to Washington, Mr. President.

More from PolitiFact:

• First 100 Days: Obama and the big picture
• First 100 Days: Obama's Promises Broken
• First 100 Days: Obama's Promises Kept
• The Obama White House vs. the Truth-O-Meter
• President Obama's promises: the Top 25
• Obama's overseas travel sets off the Obameter
• If you're a smoker, Obama raised your taxes
• 'Light switch tax' isn't what Republicans claim
• Tale of tumbleweed farmer earns Pants on Fire
• Progress Report: Obama's Top 10 Promises

Obama vs. the Truth-O-Meter

Here's how President Obama and other senior administration officials have fared on our Truth-O-Meter

• True7
• Mostly True4
• Half-True4
• Barely True2
• False4
• Pants on Fire!0

Top 25 Promises

Here's how President Obama's top 25 Promises have been rated on our Obameter

• Promise kept2
• Compromise1
• Promise broken1
• Stalled0
• In the Works9
• No Action1
  
  
  
  
  
  

Give President Obama a Grade

I'm giving the President a B, just so all my readers will know.

MSNBC has a poll concerning the President's first 100 days. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29493093/

Interactive: 100 days timeline
Promises made — The First 100 days
Interactive: White House cabinet

Obama's Legacy: Progressivism Goes Mainstream

Mainstream legacy may bite back if Obana holds to a conservative centrism...

New research on ideology refutes the conservative myth that America is a "center right" nation.

President Barack Obama's stimulus package, his joint address to Congress, and his 2010 budget have sent conservatives into fits of indignation over the supposed radicalism of the new president's agenda. Dusting off red-scare rhetoric from the early years of Franklin Roosevelt's presidency, Minority Leader John Boehner declared Obama's initiatives on energy, health care, and education to be "one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment." At the Conservative Political Action Conference held at the end of February, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina implored the young activists to "take to the streets to stop America's slide into socialism." Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee added, "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics may be dead, but the Union of American Socialist Republics is being born!"National Review, taking a slightly more measured tone in confronting the specter of collectivist tyranny, asked historians and other academics, "Is Ayn Rand freshly relevant in the Age of Obama?"

How do we make sense of all this righteous anger? Are conservatives tapping into a deep-seated aversion to progressive government among the electorate? Hardly. Not unlike the characters in Rand's various fantasies of libertarian anarchy, conservatives today are living in an alternative universe. And the sooner they wake up to this reality the better off they will be.

The 2008 presidential election not only solidified partisan shifts to the Democratic Party, it also marked a significant transformation in the ideological and electoral landscape of America. In two major studies of American beliefs and demographic trends--the State of American Political Ideology, 2009 and New Progressive America, both conducted by the Progressive Studies Program at the Center for American Progress--we found that the president's agenda reflects deep and growing consensus among the American public about the priorities and values that should guide our government and society. Not surprisingly, conservatives are the ones who are out of line with the values of most Americans.

***

The rise of progressivism in America today is reflected most directly in public ratings of various ideological approaches. Today more than two-thirds of Americans rate a "progressive" approach to politics favorably, a 25-point increase in favorability over the last five years, with gains coming primarily from those who were previously unaware of the term. "Progressive" now equals "conservative" in terms of overall public favorability (67 percent, respectively). Both the "liberal" and "libertarian" labels enjoy much lower overall favorability, with only a plurality of Americans rating each positively. (As a side note, conservative elites might want to rethink their Ayn Rand obsession: a mere 35 percent of self-identified conservatives rate the term "libertarian" favorably, only 10-points higher than their rating of "liberal.")

Employing an innovative measurement of Americans' ideological self-identification, our study expanded the traditional liberal-moderate-conservative test with a five-point measure that more accurately reflects the dominant ideologies in politics today. Under this approach, roughly a third of Americans classify themselves as "progressive" or "liberal," a third are self-described "moderate" or "other," and just over a third label themselves "conservative" or "libertarian." After a follow-up question that pushes moderates to choose between the other ideological approaches, a roughly even left-right breakdown surfaces: 47 percent of Americans are "progressive" or "liberal" and 48 percent are "conservative" or "libertarian." The notion that we are a center-right nation is certainly exaggerated.

On a more substantive level, beyond ideological labels, we presented Americans with a series of 40 statements, split evenly between progressive and conservative ideas. Examining the results, it is clear that public acceptance of the Reagan-Bush model of conservatism--limited government, tax cuts, traditional values, and military strength--has given way to a broad and deep cross section of the American public now holding solidly progressive attitudes about government and society.

Nearly 80 percent of Americans agree that "government investments in education, infrastructure, and science are necessary to ensure America's long-term economic growth." Overall, the unanimity of opinion found on this issue is rare, showing that conservatives are out of step with the rest of the country in opposing new government investments. More than two in three Americans agree that "government has a responsibility to provide financial support for the poor, the sick, and the elderly," while 15 percent are neutral and another 15 percent disagree. Democrats remain almost unanimously supportive, and independents lean strongly toward this progressive position. A slim majority of Republicans similarly agree.

While conservative elites have long held government regulation as an impediment to economic growth, nearly three in four Americans disagree, believing instead that "government regulations are necessary to keep businesses in check and protect workers and consumers." Once again, there is surprising partisan and ideological harmony among Americans, with agreement topping 60 percent among both Republicans and conservatives. Seventy-six percent of Americans also agree with the president's argument that "America's economic future requires a transformation away from oil, gas, and coal to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar," with 12 percent neutral and just 11 percent who say such a transformation is not needed. A major pillar of Obama's economic vision, and the key to his cost-containment strategies, is ensuring affordable health coverage for all Americans. Nearly 65 percent of Americans are on board with this goal, including 44 percent who strongly agree that "the federal government should guarantee affordable health coverage for every American."

Complementing these consensus political values are significant demographic and electoral shifts that favor progressives. Obama's 53 percent of the popular vote in 2008 represents the largest share of the popular vote received by any presidential candidate in 20 years. The last candidate to register that level of support was George H. W. Bush, who won by an identical 53 percent-to-46 percent margin in 1988. Separated by 20 years, the two elections are mirror images of one another, but with conservatives on the winning end of the first and progressives on the winning end of the second.

What happened to create such a reversal? In those intervening 20 years, a new progressive America has emerged, with a new demography, a new geography, and a new agenda. The share of black, Asian, and Hispanic voters in presidential elections has risen by 11 percentage points, while the share of increasingly progressive, white, college-graduate voters has risen by four points. But the share of white working-class voters, who have remained conservative in their orientation, has plummeted by 15 points. This pattern is repeated in state after state, helping to send these areas in a progressive direction. For example, in Pennsylvania the white working-class population declined by 25 points between 1988 and 2008, while white college graduates rose by 16 points and people of color rose by 8 points. And in Nevada, the white working class is down 24 points over the same time period, while voters of color are up an astounding 19 points and white college graduates are up by 4 points.

This shift strengthens the progressive agenda and will continue to strengthen it in the future as the decline of the white working class and the rise in more progressive populations continues. By 2050, the country will be 54 percent people of color as Hispanics double from 15 percent to 30 percent of the population, Asians increase from 5 percent to 9 percent, and African Americans move from 14 percent to 15 percent.

Other key progressive constituencies are expected to grow as well. The millennial generation--those born between 1978 and 2000--gave Obama a stunning 66 percent-to-32 percent margin in 2008. Between now and 2018, millennials of voting age will increase by 4.5 million a year. Professionals, single women, and college-educated women are other growing groups that heavily favor progressives.

Geographic trends are equally important. Progressive gains since 1988 have been heavily concentrated in not just the urbanized cores of large metro areas but also the growing suburbs around them. Even in exurbia, progressives have made big gains. Only in the smallest metro areas and in rural America were progressive gains minimal. And only in the most isolated, least populated rural counties did progressives actually lose ground.

Within states, there is a persistent pattern of strong progressive shifts in fast-growing metropolitan areas. In Colorado, Obama improved over Kerry's margin by 14 points in the fast-growing Denver metro area and made his greatest gains in the even-faster-growing Denver suburbs. In Nevada, Obama carried the Las Vegas metro area by 19 points, which was 14 points better than Kerry did in 2004 and 35 points better than Michael Dukakis did in 1988. In Florida, Obama won the Orlando metro area by 9 points, a 17-point gain over 2004 and an amazing 48-point shift since 1988. In Virginia, Obama dominated the D.C. suburbs, the growth engine of the state, by 19 points--15 points more than Kerry and 38 points more than Dukakis. The story is the same in state after state: Where America is growing the most, progressives are gaining strength and gaining it fast.

***

As the country is evolving, so are the American people's views on what government can and should do. Start with the likely diminution in the culture wars that have bedeviled American politics for so long. While cultural disagreements remain, their political influence is being undermined by the rise of the millennial generation, increasing religious and family diversity, and the decline of the culturally conservative white working class. Culture-war issues such as abortion and gay marriage, which so conspicuously failed to move many voters in the last couple of elections, will lose even more force in years to come.

Instead, we are likely to see more attention paid to health care, energy, and education--issues Americans care about and in which government has a positive role to play. The public holds distinctly progressive views in each of these areas, supporting health care for all, a transition to clean energy, and building a 21st-century education system, including a major infusion of resources to improve K-12 education and college access. The public's commitment to these progressive goals is only likely to intensify, since rising demographic groups tend to be especially supportive.

Although these attitudinal and demographic trends strongly suggest a rising progressive America, the emergence of this new coalition and agenda is neither assured nor automatic. Conservatives are not out of the ideological hunt altogether. Majorities of Americans, ranging from 55 percent to 58 percent, agree with a cluster of conservative ideas about the role of markets, taxes, Social Security, and limited government. Nearly two-thirds of Americans agree with the conservative stance on free trade, and another six in 10 support the conservative view that "government spending is almost always wasteful and inefficient."

Similarly, recent political history from both the Clinton and Bush years shows us that voters are often fickle and prone to significant shifts in opinion if their demands and desires are not met or if leaders fall short of their expectations. Voter antipathy toward Bush and conservatives could easily shift toward Obama and progressives if they are not careful. The economy, public spending, and the financial bailouts are the most likely issues to trip up progressives; they are areas where our study found clear undercurrents of anti-corporate, anti-bailout populism across many segments of the electorate.

The research also reveals an interesting complexity in American ideology that could alter the political calculus in important ways. For example, we find that majorities of self-identified conservatives agree with four out of five progressive perspectives on the role of government, while majorities of self-identified progressives and liberals agree with conservative economic positions on trade and Social Security.

Conservatives could possibly take advantage of these ideological complexities with a leader who reconfigured the Republican Party to better address progressive goals through conservative means, as has David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party in Britain. However, given the ideological sentiments enveloping the GOP today, this transformation seems unlikely in the short term. Unless and until conservatives recognize the depth of affinity between Obama's ideological progressivism and that of the American electorate, conservative ideas likely will remain in secondary status for years to come.

As for progressives, they have a marvelous opportunity. If Obama and his supporters can deliver on his ambitious agenda, with the very real changes that it would bring to our country, these changes will reinforce the progressive values that are now ascendant. This reinforcement of progressive beliefs, bolstered by ongoing demographic trends, would, in turn, create the possibility of more progressive change. Such a virtuous circle could lead to a real and durable political realignment.

Americans voted for a Savior, not a president.

April 19, 2009

America's 'November Revolution'

By John Griffing

"Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste.  They are opportunities to do big things."
  - Rahm Emmanuel

In our recent election, many Americans voted for a Savior, not a president. 

Americans were enamored with the idea of making history in this election, and in that sense we have gotten what we wanted.  Unfortunately, Barack Obama is the wrong man, and this is definitely the wrong time.

In fact, the timing couldn't be worse.  We have in recent years vastly expanded the powers and autonomy of the Executive Branch, removing checks and balances along the way.  Owing in part to well-intentioned conservative attempts to more effectively fight Islamic terrorism, the machinery of US dictatorship is already in place.  Security measures like The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, recent revisions of the Posse Commitatus Act, and National Presidential Directive 51 have all served to strengthen our national security in the short term, but with long-term threats to our individual liberties and great risk of abuse in the wrong hands.  Now we have handed this power over to the most unabashedly leftist radical ever to hold Presidential office.

America is now seeing the results of its own revolution, a peaceful November Revolution unlike Russia's of almost a century ago, responding to multiple staged crises with pleas for our new leader to save us from ourselves.  Our leader is ready and willing, and we have given President Obama the keys to the kingdom.  Many of us warned of the dangers of expanding presidential powers, arguing that what might work under a trustworthy administration might be dangerous in the hands of an unscrupulous one.  But even we could not have imagined the speed with which our most dire warnings might come true.  Had Obama's ascendency been foreseen, we'd have won that argument hands-down.  He's the poster-child for the worst case scenario.

Barack Obama has shown remarkable skill in manipulating domestic events and creating artificial crises to enhance his own power.  And what he plans to do with that power, evidenced by his own words and actions, is alarming.

Obama's most transparent strategy, about which much has been written, is to cement American citizens' economic dependence on the government, and therefore on him.  In order to achieve this, Obama has deepened and prolonged an otherwise fixable economic crisis, creating menacing conditions for social disintegration and chaos. His tax policies and private sector takeovers ensure jobless rates that will rival those of the Depression era, greatly increasing the number of individuals who will look to government for their survival.

But Obama's strategies go far beyond mere economic control.

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Obama has followed through on this pledge, and with the passage of H.R. 1388 the Obama youth corps has been born, with a stated purpose to "combine the best practices of civilian service with the best aspects of military service."  The bill mandates that 50 percent of the new corps will be comprised of "disadvantaged youths," including high-school drop-outs, those with limited English proficiency, and those with criminal records.  No offense to these disadvantaged youths, but won't this dramatically increase the probability that armed groups of malcontents with grudges against America will be policing the streets under the guise of "disaster relief?"   

Add Obama's willingness to take away citizens' use of guns for self defense, and the possibility of reinstating the Clinton assault weapons ban, and suddenly the words "it can't happen here" ring hollow.

There are telling patterns in Obama's methods, such as his repeated willingness to utilize tactics of intimidation.  His abuses of power against Stephen Pidgeon and Orly Taitz, plaintiffs' attorneys in his citizenship eligibility case, have been remarkably brazen.  As have the steps he's taken to fund and support ACORN's widely acknowledged abuses.

Obama is also moving quickly to fundamentally alter our educational system.  As Vladmir Lenin once remarked, "Give me...the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted."  Obama is making Orwellian calls for "cradle to career" education, much longer school days, and live-in state officials to "prepare" the minds of our children.  Prepare them for what?  Phonics?  Red herrings like the "give us more time" argument divert attention away from the real objective: driving a wedge between children and their parents. 

The President has also begun an aggressive campaign against free speech, moving to ramrod a bill through Congress that will nationalize the press. This move is in addition to the united assault from those on the Left seeking a resurrection of the "Fairness Doctrine."  And now a new bill introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) will give the President the legal authority to shutdown the internet in the "interest of national security," a limitless grant of power. 

If our new President can go this far this fast in subverting the First Amendment, can attacks on political opponents be far off?  If you think this is alarmist overstatement, note that Homeland Security is already all but labeling Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) a potential domestic terrorist, along with millions of Americans concerned about abortion, immigration, and other issues.

The President has unconstitutionally targeted specific individuals with a 90 percent tax, and boldly intruded into the private sector, firing the head of a private sector company.  After bank CEOs met recently with the President he remarked, "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."  The President doesn't jest.  AIG executives received countless death threats in the bonusfuror.  How can a sitting American President get away with threatening the heads of private businesses with even figurative "pitchforks?"

President Obama has even begun making preparations for martial law, stationing 80,000 troops in the US as a part of his new "Consequence Management Response Force" to deal with the domestic upheaval and strategic social chaos caused by mass unemployment and a vacuum of public morality.  

In a great twist of irony, his blatant violation of laws restricting the domestic use of the US military was made possible by the convenient revisions of the Posse Commitatus Act under the Bush Administration.  Now the man of the hour is Barack Obama, and he is looking for an opportunity to cross the Rubicon. 

Barack Obama is now the most powerful man in the world.  We must work tirelessly, through all available legal and political means, to reverse the policies that have placed such unprecedented power in the hands of this one man.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/americas_november_revolution.html

POLITICO | Ben Smith's Blog | As expected, Obama admin to boycott Durban II

April 18, 2009
Categories: Barack Obama

As expected, Obama admin to boycott Durban II

Goldfarb has one less thing to hit the Obama admin on:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The State Department says the Obama administration will boycott a U.N. racism conference next week over objectional language in the meeting's final document. 

Spokesman Robert Wood said Saturday that despite improvements from an earlier draft, the changes in the final text do not address U.S. concerns of anti-Israel and anti-Western bias. The administration had lobbied hard for more revisions so that it could participate.

UPDATE: Ben emails in:

This strikes me as another instance where Obama has tacked (a little) right on symbolism -- Durban is about as purely symbolic as it gets -- winning points in domestic constituency politics as he tries inching left on a matter of real substance -- engaging Iran.

The statement:

The United States is profoundly committed to ending racism and racial discrimination. This abiding commitment to the fight against racism and all forms of discrimination arises from the most painful pages of our history, and the most cherished values of our nation. We believe that people of every color and creed are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that equality and nondiscrimination are fundamental principles of international law.

The United States will work with all people and nations to build greater resolve and enduring political will to halt racism and discrimination wherever it occurs.

The United States is deeply grateful to the many country delegations, including Russia as chair, and senior United Nations officials who have worked steadfastly to improve the review conference outcome document and to re-focus the Durban Review Conference squarely on racism and discrimination. We applaud the progress that has been made. The current document is significantly improved compared with prior versions, which is an accomplishment for all who aim to build a world free of every form of discrimination.

However, the text still contains language that reaffirms in toto the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) from 2001, which the United States has long said it is unable to support. Its inclusion in the review conference document has the same effect as inserting that original text into the current document and re-adopting it. The DDPA singles out one particular conflict and prejudges key issues that can only be resolved in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. The United States also has serious concerns with relatively new additions to the text regarding “incitement,” that run counter to the U.S. commitment to unfettered free speech.

Unfortunately, it now seems certain these remaining concerns will not be addressed in the document to be adopted by the conference next week. Therefore, with regret, the United States will not join the review conference. The United States remains fully committed to upholding the human rights of all individuals and to fighting racial discrimination of every form in every context. We will continue to work assiduously in all United Nations fora and with all nations to combat bigotry and end discrimination.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21393.html