On Healthcare ( although this clip to be fair is on his radio show)

On President Obama:

Foreign Policy: ( With a head of state “in that area”)

On the rising “Oligarhy(sic)”

photo credit: the_repairman

What connects U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, renowned physicist Stephen Hawking and your Grandma? The answer, if you’re a right-wing American, is that all three would be left to die if the NHS – Britain’s world famous universal health service – had its way.  Yes, that’s right, welcome to the madness that is the current debate in the US over health-care reform: a bizarre dumping ground for crazy that has now – thanks to self-serving Republican politicians and the loonier fringes of the right – set its cross-hairs on Britain’s health care.

Thus Kennedy, who is battling a brain tumour, was cited by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley last week as someone who would be denied treatment for his tumour if he had the rotten luck to find himself in England. Grassley is one of the leading Republican players in negotiating a health-care bill. Needless to say, his claim is a lie.  Then there’s the claims that the NHS has “death panels” that refuse costly treatment for old people, thus sentencing them to a premature death. Another lie.

And Stephen Hawking? According to a now legendary editorial by the Investor’s Business Daily, people such as Hawking  “wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.” Unfortunately for the editors of this fine publication Hawking is, obviously, British and has lived in Britain, under the Nazi-like grip of the NHS, his whole life.  Oops. “I wouldn’t be alive were it not for the NHS” was his rather definitive response.

Naturally, these kind of accusations tend to focus the debate on the relative merits of the NHS . Defenders of British health-care can point to the incredible, mind-boggling cheapness of the system compared to America: according to OECD figures, in 2007 Britain spent a staggering $4000 dollars less on health-care per person than the U.S. And yes, there is rationing in the British model (a logical inevitability in a universal, free system) but the common sense, cost-effective decisions of NICE – the body that gives advice on the effectiveness of treatments – are much preferable to America’s idea of rationing which is, you know, leaving 45 million people without any form of health care. And considering how incredibly cheap it is, Britain’s health-care is not that far behind America in terms of patient outcomes and even ahead of it in many areas.  Moreover, despite its lower levels of health spending, Britain still manages to be second only to the US in terms of pharmaceutical innovation, which rather puts a sword to the lie that government health-care stagnates medical progress.

But all this is in danger of overlooking what is surely the most startling element of America’s health-care debate, which is that so much is being made of the merits of the NHS despite the complete absence of anything at all like it in any of the health-care reform proposals. This is a really crucial point, so I’ll say it again: Nothing remotely like the NHS is being considered, in even the smallest measure, in any of the health-care bills currently on the table.  The current debate, then, is like attempting to reform the rules of cricket and getting mired in a row over the merits of baseball. It’s just not relevant.

To understand quite how far off-kilter right-wing American critics are when they drag the NHS into the debate, we need to go back to (health-care) basics. The British system is an example of socialised medicine, where the government doesn’t just pay for your health-care but also owns everything involved with it – the doctors, the hospitals, the equipment. Nothing like this is in on the table in America. Nothing remotely like this is on the table. Indeed, the most liberal alternative present in the debate is a “single payer” system, in which a single body – i.e. the government – pays for everyone’s health-care. Just pays for it. Doesn’t own it. America already has a single-payer model for all those over 65; if you get to that ripe old age without your morbid obesity seeing you off, then the U.S. government covers your health-care from there on in. It’s called Medicare and is an immensely popular and by all accounts politically untouchable programme. Yet bizarrely even a single-payer system, which is the closest America is ever likely to come to the NHS,  is so far off the table it never got into the room in the first place, considered too radical to ever get the votes in Congress.

So what do the current plans envisage? They all share the same  general features, which is to say that the dominant system of health-care payment in America – private insurance – is getting a bit of a regulatory smack-down to ensure that American insurers no longer do  the disgusting things that everyone loves them for, such as refusing to cover people if they’re too sick or revoking your insurance once you get too sick . Other than that, if you’re covered through your employer – which the vast majority of insured Americans are – then you’ll see no change. None. If you have individual insurance or no insurance at all, then you’ll be able to choose between private insurers in a consumer friendly  “health-care exchange” , with generous government subsidies for those who can’t afford insurance. Note, in all of this, the emphasis on private insurers  – the vast majority of the bills’ provisions are centred on the private, not the public, sector.

The only real expansion of government contained in any of the bills is the presence of a controversial “public option” – government insurance that is meant to compete with the private insurers and thus keep their costs down. Liberals have set their store on the public option, partly because it’s seen as a stealth mechanism to introduce single payer – the idea being that faced with the government’s power to offer lower cost quality insurance, the private insurers will be put out of business  and suddenly America becomes Canada (but still not Britain). However, the public option will only  be available in the health exchange – which those insured by their employer (the vast majority) won’t have access to -  and according to the Congressional Budget Office, by 2019 only 27 million will have the choice of going for the public option, and only 13.5 million are likely to actually go for it . Out of a population of 300 million . Hardly a government takeover, is it?

So, to cut a long (and very wonkish) story short,  a mainly private sector overhaul of the health service – with the only sign of government intervention being a public insurance option open to a small minority  of Americans – is being treated as similar to a system where the government owns everything. The last time a public debate was so skewed from reality was, uh, well the last time Democrats tried to reform health-care, really.

This is all well and good I hear you cry, but apart from proving that the American right just makes stuff up, what’s the point to all this? Simply put, the point is this. It’s very clear that conservatives are, for the most part, forming their opposition to health-care reform based not on the actual content of the bills on the table but on a fictional narrative built to be scary, effective and loosely designed around a single messages: THE GOVERNMENT IS COMING FOR YOUR HEALTHCARE… RUN!!!!

Some Democrats have decided that the best response to this is to make big, up front concessions- like getting rid of the public option – in a bizarre attempt to placate the people who are basing their criticisms not on the bill at hand but on some mythical socialist tract. But this is stupid. Clearly, the real lesson Democrats should take from is that since  Republican opposition is based on a mythical bill, there’s no point in watering down the current bills in order to curry their favour. In other words,  Democrats are in a perfect position to hold their hands up and say: “these guys can’t be compromised with. They’re off in their own world, so we’re just going to go ahead and bring a final bill to a vote”. At which point healthcare-reform will surely be on the verge of becoming reality, since with a healthy majority in the House and a filibuster-proof 60 Democrats in the Senate, it would take a Senator from Obama’s own party to jeopardise the bill. Which, given that this would make them a pariah in Democratic circles, simply isn’t going to happen.

Is passing health-care reform really that easy? Well, no. Nothing is ever that simple in Washington. Democrats may still find some way to screw it up.  Given that an average family’s annual insurance premiums have almost trebled since 1996 to $17,000 and are set to rise to an unimaginably catastrophic $45,000 by 2040, this would be a very sad state of affairs. At which point Republicans may want to reflect that, thanks to their predictions of English-style health-care dooming the US, it turned out that the American economy was humbled instead by the status quo, private sector version.

Oh, the irony.

Newcomers tuning in to the G8 meeting may have been surprised by recent events. On balance it looks like an event where things get done, everything about it oozes action and dynamism. Firstly, just who they are ought to be enough: USA, UK, Russia, France, Germany, Canada, Japan and errr Italy ( it is rich at least). Secondly, there are as the name would suggest, only 8 of them. 8 is quite small, not like the UN, a system perfectly matched to ensure gridlock if any real global policy ever had to take place. Just 8, market based democracies this ought to be packing with leadership and vision.

Unfortunately, reality is different and while the world is cooking, the G8 kindly offered some token money to help agriculture in developing countries and to promise to keep global temperatures down to a mere 2C rise, no policy, no action or room for vision rather a an extended press conference, suitably vague to offend nobody and of course hopelessly lacking in leadership.

With Climate Change’s effects flexing their muscles, declining ice in the Arctic, water crises from Northern India, to Australia and the US west, rising sea levels and things only set to get worse, it was disheartening to say the least that the top 8 richest countries in the world apparently struggle to lay out any plan that might make them have to take Climate Change seriously. Why was this so?

Apart from the G8’s careful ability to rarely achieve much, this G8 with a focus on Climate change had several factors that damaged it from the start:

1. The US the only chance of any global leadership, has yet to pass a Climate bill at a federal level, and has recently been delayed, in reality removing much of the the US’s strength in International negotiations.
2. Russia, amusing ( black comedy style) Russia has announced that by allowing emissions to increase up to 2020 at predicted level it will still achieve its kyoto targets  due to so much soviet heavy industry closing down.
3. Japan, promised to reduce emissions by 15% on 2004 baselines, essentially then reducing 4% emissions since 1990.
4. Canada, ranked bottom of the G8 group by the WWF-Allianz group, this affluent state is unfortunately ruled by a Stephen Harper’s minority coalition government whose biggest contribution to Climate change discussions has been to a) admit Climate Change exists and b) be reassured that soundsbites are becoming more robust ( but god forbid they translate into policy).

Amusingly, that leaves the European contingent as leaders, now on the one hand, as a cautious EU supporter I’m proud we’re leading the field, on the other hand UK, Germany, France and Italy reads like who’s who of 19th/20th century has beens and are woefully incapable of providing the true leadership we need.

What are the positives then?

Firstly is that we are in a recession and that may make policy makes especially cautious to be seen to be making any moves on Climate Change that could hamper economic recovery, or even sound like it might, if the US in particular begins to pull out in the next 4 months it may even be able to sneak a bill through congress. If it does this, this could easily provide the catalyst for for key developing countries such as China and India to begin managing targets.

Secondly, Canada could get a new government, actually quite likely and while Mr Ignatieff is still a fan of Alberta’s tar sands, he is a world apart from Mr Harper when it comes to actually tackling Climate Change.

Finally, the debate will continue to roll on, Climate Change will not be going away, slowly but surely people are coming to terms with the need for policy action and I see domestic movement having a positive reciprocal relationship with International policy, if something however disappointing but vaguely substantial can be agreed at Copenhagen, this will strengthen the case for domestic politicians to go back home and bolster their own efforts which should be able to feed back into International negotiations. We won’t get this right with one swing but slowly our pleasantly inadequate politicians might manage to avoid total catastrophe.

photo credit: db™

Ronald Reagan, that master of the quotable quip, once said that the nine most terrifying words in the English Language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”. But if the Gipper were alive today and in President Obama’s shoes he might well change his mind, since right now there’s only one phrase that should strike fear into the hearts of all, and this time it’s only eight words: “The bill will now move to the Senate”.

Last week America’s first real legislation aimed at tackling climate change – The American Clean Energy and Security Act, better known as the Waxman-Markey Bill – passed the House of Representatives by a razor thin margin of 219-212. It will now move on to the Senate, which is often said to be the place where good legislation is sent to die. Where the House of Representatives is full of progressive reformers, the Senate is full of cautious moderates. Where the House often sees bills passed largely to the whipping efforts of Speaker Pelosi, the Senate is full of obstinate minded grand-standers who won’t be corralled by their party leaders.

It’s no understatement to say that the final bill that lands on Obama’s desk could well determine the future success of world efforts to halt global warming. The problem is, not only is it at risk of being sautéed à la Senate, but it’s not exactly in the best of states after having been through the meat grinder of various House committees. Legislation is often said to be like a sausage – you don’t want to watch it getting made. True to form, the various special interests and lobbyists that virtually own many key committee members have managed to make a meaty mess of the bill as it made its torturous way through the House. And you know what? It wasn’t even the most ideal piece of work to begin with.

♦♦♦

The key mandate of the bill – a 17% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and  an 83% cut by 2050 – is also one of its biggest problems. These cuts are based on 2005 emission levels.  But multiple scientific bodies such as the IPCC have recommended that by 2020 there needs to be, at the very least, a 20% cut of 1990 levels. The bill , however, only has  a 4% cut. That’s a big difference. Indeed, it’s led many progressives and environmental groups to question whether the bill will do anything to halt climate change. But that’s not the only provision in the bill which seems rather weak. The first draft had weak but acceptable mandates for renewable energy and efficiency savings:  utilities had to ramp up renewable energy to 25% of their portfolio by 2025, and increase efficiency savings to 15% by 2020. But now those two standards have been combined, to a measly 20% total by 2025.

More problems lie with the bill’s headline feature: a cap and trade system designed to achieve the mandated cuts in carbon emissions. Cap and trade is by far the least understood legislative concept that’s in the public eye, but it’s really not that complicated. It’s simply a system that creates a market for carbon emissions. The “cap” involves  the government setting a carbon emission limit beyond which no polluter can pass. Anyone that exceeds this limit will have to buy a carbon permit off someone who’s not polluting as much – that’s the “trade” part. The idea is that by creating a carbon market like this it will become cheaper for a company to pollute less than it is to have to keep buying more permits. Even if this incentivising doesn’t work, you’re still ensuring less pollution, since no-one’s allowed to go beyond the cap.

So far so good. But the controversial part of this system is whether the government should auction off the carbon permits -raking in some revenue in the process – or gives them to polluters for free. The first draft of the Waxman-Markey bill allowed for 100% of the permits to be auctioned. This concerned the big utility companies, all of whom have a powerful influence on many members of the key energy committee. Therefore, by the time the bill finally escaped committee the cap and trade system was magically transformed into one where only 15% of the allowances  were auctioned, with the other 85% doled out free to various big polluters, most notably power companies. Outraged, this was the final straw for many environmental groups. Greenpeace withdrew their support entirely from the bill, with a slightly bizarre warning that it now threatens to do more harm than good.

However, it’s important to be clear on how bad this change is. It shouldn’t affect the incentive system behind cap and trade, since companies given permits for free will still want to reduce their emissions so they can sell their carbon allowances for a hefty profit – go capitalism! Moreover,the cap is still the cap – emissions will still be reduced. So, beyond sheer disgust at big polluters getting a free handout, it’s not really clear why this was the last straw for groups like Greenpeace. Nevertheless, it is unsettling, because the smaller the percentage of permits that go to auction, the less money the government takes from their sale; money which could then be reinvested into renewable energy. At the moment, however, the small amount of revenue the government would makes from auctions is aimed at refunding households that would otherwise be hit by an increase in their energy bills. In terms of potential investment in clean energy, that’s a real missed opportunity.

I could go on – and on. There’s plenty more things wrong with the bill, and astonishingly they’ve all appeared before it’s even got to the Senate.  The question now becomes what damage the venerable upper chamber will do to the legislation. The omens, it has to be said, don’t look so good. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which serves largely at the behest of the oil and coal lobbies, recently released a bill of their own which included even worse renewable energy targets than Waxman-Markey. It’s possible that the faults with the cap and trade system may be somewhat rectified, since this will be the prerogative of Barbara Boxer’s relatively progressive Environment Committee. But waiting in the wings when the bill comes out of committee onto the Senate floor, like a troupe of grandstanding pantomime villains, are several centrist, business-serving Democrats who are waiting to do to a climate change bill what was done to February’s stimulus package – i.e. lop some good bits off.  The only person who can really guarantee that the bill comes out of the Senate better, not worse, is Obama and he’s had – and will have – his hands full with the immensely complex issue of health-care reform, which is running concurrent with climate change legislation. Moreover, Obama’s so far shown absolutely no sign that he wants a good climate change bill as much as he wants a good health-care bill.

♦♦♦

Given that a climate change bill is unlikely to end up on the President desk in a state as good as it should – and needs – to be, does this mean that it’s a complete failure? This question matters right now, because the answer tell us whether progressive and environmental groups should be advocating for perfection or searching for compromise. Paul Krugman has argued in the New York Times that we shouldn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good, and that this is a decent bill that can be built upon in the future. Is he right?

Well, first it’s important to remember that the bill – so far – isn’t completely terrible. The long term target of an 80% emissions cut by 2050 is still a respectable one. The fact that there are mandates to reduce emissions in the first place – and a cap and trade system to implement  them – is an achievement in itself given the immense power of energy lobbyists. If either the targets or method of delivery are weak, then they can be improved upon in the future. After all, it’s not like this is the only chance Obama will have to combat climate change. He’s going to need something to do once he’s reformed healthcare, got the economy back on track, made peace in the middle East and fixed the financial sector, less he run out of things that need fixing and has to spend his second term shooting hoops on the White House court. And though he probably won’t sustain the enormous levels of popularity he has at the moment, there are still going to be times when he has political capital to spend on further legislation – most notably after his inevitable re-election come 2012.

Moreover, Democrats are still on target for a net gain of 2-4 Senators in the 2010 midterms, so you would hope that any future bills that arise in the next three years will have a better chance of not being held hostage by the business lapdogs of the Senate.  I suspect many groups currently demanding perfection are at the mercy of the “Big Bang” theory of legislation that says everything must be done at once, before the window of opportunity closes. Sadly, it just doesn’t look like this will be possible with climate change.

Finally and perhaps most crucially, America needs a bill – however imperfect it is – in time for December’s climate change summit in Copenhagen, where the world’s nations will come together to agree on a strategy to fight global warming. After all, the likes of China and Russia are hardly going to make their gardens green if it’s obvious that America isn’t tending it’s own backyard. And America could shut off all its carbon emissions tomorrow, but if China doesn’t do squat then we’re in for a very bad few centuries.

♦♦♦

All the above may well be true. But it doesn’t change the fact that there’s a very scary disconnect between the apocalyptic predictions of most reputable climate scientists and the moderate-to-weak provisions in the Waxman-Markey bill.  For example, check this quote out from Obama’s own energy chief, the Nobel Laureate scientist Stephen Chu: (emphasis mine)

Right now, the climate scientists feel that if all humans shut off carbon emissions today, it will still glide up by about 1 degree centigrade. In the business-as-usual scenarios, Nicholas Stern says there’s a 50 percent chance we may go to 5 degrees centigrade. We know what the Earth was like 5 or 6 degrees centigrade colder. That was called the Ice Ages. Imagine a world 5 degrees warmer. The desert lines would be dramatically changed. The West is projected to be in drought conditions. And certain tipping points might be triggered. We can adapt to 1 or 2 degrees. More than that, there is no adaptation strategy.

Actually, if our only chance to fully adapt to global warming comes if we shut off all emissions right now, then maybe groups like Greenpeace aren’t so much being perfectionist as they are being ridiculously over-accommodating.

This doesn’t mean, however, that America’s first stab at climate change legislation shouldn’t be embraced as a step in the right direction. But it does mean you might want to start saving up for that condo on Mars.

Read More:  The Ethical argument for tackling global warming

Waxman-Markey Bill: Crunch Time

photo credit: Thomas Roche

Last month Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor, a federal appeals court judge, to replace the retiring David Souter on the Supreme Court. As battles go, the battle between Democrats and Republicans over Sotomayor hasn’t been particularly hard-fought so far – at least in comparison with some of the legendary heated nominee battles of the past. This is because, with 60 Democrats in the Senate,  Republicans have about as much hope of sinking her confirmation as the media does of pronouncing her name correctly (for the record, it’s Soh-toh-my-YOR). However, this hasn’t stopped the Right from attacking her and it’s important that Democrats are effective in rebutting these attacks, especially since they won’t always have the votes to waltz through their chosen nominee in the years to come.

Luckily for liberals the main form of attack on Sotomayor – aside from a liberal dose of racism & sexism from the ever-vocal conservative fringe – has come from the worn, dog-eared folder marked “judicial activism”.  Accusations of being an “activist judge” are par for the course for liberal nominees to any high court in America.  But what is judicial activism? In the fevered minds of conservative Republicans, activist judges are those who frequently strike down state or federal legislation so they can impose their liberal policy agenda on America. Instead of acting like judges, they act more like politicians: legislating from the bench. They are frequently contrasted with conservative-minded judges, who simply “apply the law of the land”.  The nomination of Sotomayor has brought these old accusations back into the open, with a new twist that as part of her liberal activism Sotomayor favours the rights  of minorities over those of whitey.

The main problem with the “activist judge” critique is that it’s really, really dumb. For a start, the idea that judges, when faced with controversial cases, should simply “apply the law” doesn’t make any sense. The whole point behind the kind of case that ends up in an appeal court is that it’s impossible to “apply the law”, since the application of the law in this case isn’t particularly obvious – thanks in no small part to the fact that the constitution is full of phrases that are incredibly vague (hello, second amendment!). Indeed, the existence of these “hard cases” is virtually the first thing a law student of any legal system learns about, but the last thing that many conservatives would ever acknowledge. But those attacking Sotomayor aren’t (just) making this attack out of stupidity; they are using it as a way to disguise their real, extremist aspirations within misleading but effective populist rhetoric. To see the proof of this deceit in action, we need only do something that the American Right (and in large part the American media) can’t really be bothered with: that is, actually examine the cases decided by Sotomayor that have got conservatives so hot under the collar.

Perhaps the most high-profile case that’s been used by Sotomayor’s Republican critics to attack her has been the case of Ricci v DeStefano, which concerns the always explosive issue of affirmative action. In this case, a group of white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut took an employment test that was meant to go towards considering promotions. However, the city decided not to accept the test results, since they would have meant that none of the African Americans who took part would be eligible for promotion. Thus they feared that the test would be discriminatory and in breach of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The firefighters took the city to court, and a district court voted in their favour. When the case went to appeal, a seven judge majority (including Sotomayor) upheld the district court’s decision, noting – in a controversially brief opinion – that though the judges were  “not unsympathetic to the plaintiff’s expression of frustration,” it simply did not follow that he had a valid claim under the Civil Rights Act.

Conservatives were furious – to them this was a classic example of activist judges screwing over the white man in order to further a liberal agenda of excessive affirmative action (or “positive discrimination” as those on the Right call it). Fuelling their anger was the fact that the plaintiff, Ricci, was an extremely sympathetic character who had dyslexia and had gone to tremendous effort to receive special training so he could pass the test.

The problem for those who would use this case to beat up on Sotomayor is that it really isn’t an example of judicial activism. What the  court was essentially deciding was that the city was right to fear that the test might be in breach of the Civil Rights Act. At no point were they asked to defend the constitutionality of the act itself. And as for the plaintiff, he may have been an incredibly sympathetic character but, if the judges had overlooked the small matter of the relevant provisions in the Civil Rights Act in order to help him out,  then they would have been guilty of  judicial activism. What this case shows more than anything is the hollowness of cries of “activist judge” – it’s clear that conservatives’ real beef in this case was with the Civil Rights Act itself, and the way in which certain portions of it support the affirmative action policies they so despise. They would like nothing other than for a judge to strike down several parts of that historic piece of legislation. In other words, they are the ones who would promote judicial activism, not the likes of Sotomayor.

But it’s not just the case of Ricci that exposes the real agenda behind those who cry “activism”. In Maloney v Cuomo, a New York attorney claimed that a state law prohibiting the  possession of everyone’s favourite martial arts weapon – nunchuks -  violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. A distict court rejected his claim, and an appeal panel that included Sonia Sotomayor affirmed the decision. Conservatives were up in arms: surely this was a classic example of liberal judicial activism attempting to strike down an American’s constitutionally protected right to fill his house with enough guns to arm a small revolution? Except, um, no it wasn’t. The panel were relying on a previous 19th century Supreme Court case that ruled that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seek to impose – in other words individual states  can do what they like. Since a second circuit appeal court can’t overule the Supreme Court (it wouldn’t be very supreme otherwise, would it?), their only option was to follow that decision. In other words, far from dabbling in a spot of judicial activism,  Sotomayor’s court was  .. dutifully following the precedent laid down by a higher court.

As part of their criticism, conservatives pointed to a recently decided Supreme Court case District of Columbia v Heller, which overturned a Washington D.C. state ban on handguns.  Except, as the appeal court in Maloney pointed out, it’s highly questionable whether that changes the long-held principle that the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. So in other words, the conservatives who point to this case and accuse Sotomayor of judicial activism are themselves relying on a currently vague case at the expense of solid legal precedent. Calling this hypocritical is like saying that Mike Tyson has a questionable attitude to women. Once again, the motive of conservatives is clear: they’re not worried about strictly applying the law, they’re concerned about protecting their own interpretation of the constitution by any means necessary. Cries of judicial activism with regards to Maloney are simply a disguise for the conservative belief that the Supreme Court itself needs to change its mind and firmly apply the Second Amendment to states as well  (which it may well do, worse luck, when the case of Maloney reaches it later in the year).

As far as Sotomayor’s case history is concerned, the examples of her not being  a judicial activist go on and on. When it comes to the hot potato of abortion she’s not ruled on the issue directly but did rule, in Centre for Reproductive Policy v Bush , that a US policy of prohibiting foreign organisations that receive U.S. funding from supporting abortions did not violate the first amendment rights of  a pro-abortion group. In doing so, Sotomayor relied on the solid precedent of  an identical case from the same court. So much for the old trope of a liberal judge forcing pro-abortion policy onto the courts! In Pappas v Guiliani, Sotomayor asserted the first amendment, free speech rights of an employee who’d been dismissed for racist language; resisting the urge, unlike her colleagues in that decision, simply to use the court to punish a white bigot. (This case also rather puts a dent in the line of attack that says that Sotomayor overly favours racial minorities.)

It should now have become clear that the modus operandi of conservatives is clear and follows a predictable pattern: accuse a liberal judicial nominee of being an activist judge, putting policy before the law. Under the guise of this populist attack,  promote your archaic interpretation of the constitution. It’s a great shame to see the national debate over judges dominated by this self-evidently illogical rubbish, since there is a genuine debate to be had between the opposing sides of the judicial spectrum. This often revolves around the battle between the “living constitution ” theory – a progressive view of the constitution that puts it in context of the social realities of today – versus theories like “originalism” or “textualism”, conservative legal philosophies which emphasise loyalty to the originally intended meaning of the constitution.  You could argue all day how much these theories are genuine or simply a product of a judge’s ideological leanings but the point is that, unlike the fake debate of “judicial activism” versus “applying the law”, they actually mean something.

Thus, by obscuring the debate with ridiculous and illogical cries of “judicial activism”, conservatives poison the debate about how judges should decide their cases and reduce it to inane, opportunist drivel. It’s not surprising that they should resort to this tactic, since a majority of the American public are pro-choice, supportive of reasonable affirmative action and generally sane – thus it’s hard for conservatives to be honest about their real agenda. With the nomination of Sotomayor, Democrats have an opportunity to rebut these tactics and show them up for the empty politicking that they really are. It might be tempting in this case just to let the votes do the talking – but sooner or later liberals are going to have a real judicial battle on their hands, and they could do with the practice.

Related Posts: It’s Supreme Court time again: But what does this mean for Obama’s agenda?

It’s crunch time on capital hill as the Obama administration puts its political capital on the line for the House to pass the Waxman-Markey bill. For those of you who don’t know, the Waxman-Markey bill is the first Climate Change bill to be introduced in the US ( on a federal level).

So what does it promise? (See here for a more comprehensive overview)

• To reduce US emissions on 2005 levels by 17% by 2020
• To bring US emissions down by 80% by 2050
• 25% of US energy by 2025 must be renewable
• A Cap and Trade system, 85% of permits will be auctioned off
• 2 Billion tons worth of carbon offsets
• A whole host of other measures from building efficiency, fuel standards and even a new technology bank!

Ok it’s been watered down, see Kelly McManus’ coverage at Climatico to,how its been watered down. Worse the Senate will be an even tougher battle with a smaller Democratic majority, and still no Al Franken *sigh*, but make no mistake, this bill is a game changer.

For a long time, I’ve had a list of things I would like Obama to do ( not including saving the US economy):

1. Health care
2. Climate Change bill
3. Immigration Reform
4. Gay rights

That isn’t a definitive list but if he got those down, that would do for me. Although far from perfect, this Climate Change bill is the only realistic chance of success in combatting Climate change, not simply because the US is the world’s second largest polluter but because it is the world’s superpower and the largest economy. If the US  was not willing to take serious action against Climate Change, China India and the rest will never get on board. As we head towards crucial Climate negotiations at the end of this year and the beginning of the next this is probably the only chance the US has of passing a serious Climate Change bill in time, to show it is willing to take serious leadership

And to be honest, the Democrats won’t have it this good for a long time, at best they will keep a hold in the 2010 mid terms, there is a small chance they’ll be able to expand and a good chance they will slip a little bit. They have a large majority in the house and IF Franken were ever seated would be looking at filibuster proof majority in the Senate. The time really is now.

So if it passes what then? Well if it passes, it still ahs to go and get watered down in the Senate, but if it survives that and the Republicans don’t use the fillibuster than a framework has been set for the US to reduce Climate emissions. With luck this will change the nature of debate for further incremental legislation to strengthen the legislation, critical to this will be:

• Proven success of green jobs, already a growing number of economists and think tanks ( e.g. Pew Research) have come out in support – that green can be good for the economy.
• An economic upturn in general, weakens the hand of those who oppose the bill purely on economic grounds.
• The continual reduction in climate sceptics as evidence already insurmountable continues to pile over, until Republicans realise that opposing near total majority of world scientific research is ridiculous, this could take a long time, but if enough of the American public are convinced, Republicans may eventualyl change their tune. Then the debate will be about the type of policy rather than the exisitence of Carbon Dioxide :-p

The House votes tommorow, fingers crossed.

photo credit: Mariano Kamp

Climate Change is buzzing across the US political sphere at the moment,  so are torture issues, the Afghanistan war is never too far from the media’s mind, the next Supreme Court nomination is doing the rounds and North Korea just exploded a nuclear bomb. But wait! Climate Change IS buzzing, not even a debate about its existence, at least not in the mainstream, nor its role as global conspiracy but actual Climate Change or related policy has landed.

For those of us who follow the environmental issue, the US has been a sore spot to say the least, and while Obama promised much and seemed to understand it, (by which I mean he did not flat out deny mountains of scientific evidence),  but with the global recession, “sceptical” Republicans in congress etc,  many of us had doubts that Obama would expend serious capital pushing it through. In some ways we were right, he hasn’t expended his capital per se, rather he has revealed his strategic cunning to begin pushing through legislation and shape the debate early on.

The two big Climate Change issues at the moment is the Waxman-Markey bill, proposing a US wide Cap and Trade policy, this one passed its first major hurdle which was making it out of comittee, it has an arduous journey ahead of it but don’t be fooled,  from the Bush administration’s denial of Global warming and paltry increase in renewable energy funding, a debate on a nationwide Cap and Trade is a huge leap forward.

The second, is the fuel standards or CAFE legislation. This surprised many by its boldness. Fuel standards were first introduced after the OPEC oil crisis and were successful in the short term of reducing US consumption. Since then however, the framework for fuel efficiency standards became a patchwork with a lack of movement at a federal level, eventually this resulted in the California face off with the EPA over the latter’s refusal to grant a waiver  for California for higher fuel efficiency standard than the underwhelming Bush proposals. What took commentators by surprise was that Obama passed the CAFE 4 years before it was mandated by law to be revised and with more far reaching standards than many had hoped for, essentially from 2012, fuel efficiency will be raised 5% each year. Although this would still put it behind Europe, after literally  of little to no progress this is a remarkable step forward and has the double effect of changing the Canadian car market ( the two are so closley linked that major Canadian states,  just match their fuel standards to the US).

President Obama undoubtedly realised that on any single front, intransigent Republicans and conservative Democrats could be enough to water down any particular piece of legislation. Which is why Obama has decided to pursue the policy on numerous fronts,  in the hope to reach a more ambitious target.

While the Waxman-Markey bill will continue to endure a very tough battle, setting an ambitious target to raise fuel standards Obama has effectively passed a Climate Change and energy security bill in one:

Obama mentioned that 1.8 billion barrels of oil will be saved over the lifetime of vehicles sold in the next 5 years (this is the equivalent of shutting down 194 coal plants or taking 58 million cars off the roads for a year

In addition to this, the stimulus bill contained approximately $60 billion will go towards green projects from renewable energy investment, research as well as other environmental efforts.

As with all things Obama, the it’s not just about the legislation but changing the the whole framework of the debate. Many have noted that for Climate Change policy to be sustained across the political spectrum and over time it cannot simply rely on Climate Change as a goal, rather it needs to be recast with concomitant values that can unite people across the political spectrum. Obama no stranger to the power of words has placed his bets: Jobs and energy security.

“It’s the economy stupid” may be cliché but it’s the language that wins elections, especially in an election, Obama has promised 5 million green energy jobs and frequently discusses the clean energy market as one America can’t afford not to invest in, describing it as a cornerstone of America’s economic recovery and an excellent future market for investment.

While his first language is positive, Obama takes a more serious tone when he discusses energy security. Although discussed during the campaign, the Obama administration has continued this line and begun to back it up with investment and the CAFE standards.  He’s met with considerable success with some veteran groups coming out in favour of renewable energy investment to prevent future energy wars. Democracy Corp recently found Obama had higher approval on National Security than he did on his job approval , with 50% of American’s saying Obama was doing better than Bush on national security. While this will obviously focus much more on traditional military issues, Obama has nevertheless been able to cast renewable energy and fuel standards as essential tools in strengthening America’s strategic position and subseqeuntly casting those who allowed oil dependency to continue  as damaging to America’s national security *cough* Bush-Cheney *cough*.

He’s got a long road to tread, but Obama is no stranger to playing the longer game.

photo credit: premasagar

In a few hours time, American President Barack Obama will welcome Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu to the White House for talks that may well signal the start of a series of negotiations that will result in that most elusive of political outcomes: an independent Palestinian state.

Of course, we’ve been here before. The history of the Middle East over the past twenty years is a series of stuttering half-chances for peace; the promise of a solution just round the corner inevitably giving way to mixed progress and disappointment. But this time the signs are really there that the time has come for a peaceful resolution. In Barack Obama, America has a president who seems to be committed to getting his hands dirty and to doing more than just utter platitudes about the peace process. Around the Middle East, leaders are beginning to show signs of being ready and willing to play a meaningful role in a negotiated settlement between Israel and Palestine. Moreover, there seems to be a growing sense amongst most of the parties involved that the current situation is no longer sustainable; that the region has run out of second chances and that there will never be a better time for an agreement that results in two states – the only solution where everybody wins.

But hanging over today’s meeting is a series of questions that that we don’t yet know the answer to: How willing is America to really apply pressure on Israel? Does Netanyahu believe in two states and if so how far is he willing to go? And the question that haunts everyone: how does Iran figure in all this? The answers to such questions may well determine whether today is the beginning of a new era, or just another false dawn.

Now or never

It’s a good job that the conditions are in some ways very favourable to real progress on the Palestinian issue, since it really is now or never when it comes to the chances of a two-state solution. The demographic realities of the West Bank are increasingly stark for Israel: if Palestinians don’t already outnumber Israeli Jews in “Greater Israel” (Israel + the West Bank), then they soon will do since the average Palestinian woman now has 4.6 children compared to her Israeli counterpart’s 2.6. Furthermore, an increasing numbers of Israeli Jews are choosing to leave their homeland for foreign climes.

This means that it will soon become very difficult for Israel to avoid going down the road of giving Palestinians the vote, a move which would no doubt result in the creation of a binational state. The only other option would be attempting to continue the status quo, with the Palestinians labouring under an increasingly colonial and unsustainable system. However, such a situation is essentially apartheid and would be considered unacceptable by America. And if you think that’s too strong a verdict, then listen to the words of Netanyahu’s predecessor Ehud Olmert, himself no peace-loving lefty, back in 2007:

“If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights… then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished”

It’s therefore becoming increasingly clear that if Israelis want to keep in place the dream of a Jewish state – as opposed to a binational hybrid or apartheid-style monstrosity – then they need to ensure that progress is made towards a two state solution sooner rather than later.

The mysterious Mr. Netanyahu

Perhaps the key question that will be at the forefront of everyone’s minds when Obama and Netanyahu meet later today is how likely, if at all, it is that Israel’s Prime Minister will support some kind of two-state solution. The omens don’t look too good. Netanyahu campaigned on a platform of opposition to the two-state solution, favouring instead something he calls “economic peace” – essentially, sustaining the status quo but increasing the economic and structural freedom of the Palestinians, an outcome which fits nicely into the “apartheid” option described above. Since coming to power he hasn’t exactly moderated his stance. For a start, he hasn’t once mentioned the prospect of an independent Palestinian state. The focus of his administration can be summed up by the words of his interior minister last month, who insisted: “the preferable course of diplomatic action at this time is two economies for two peoples and not two states for two peoples.”

photo credit: World Economic Forum

But this is where it gets a bit confusing, since there are some who assert that Netanyahu, despite his hard line credentials,  is more open to negotiation than most people realise and is merely playing hardball so as to avoid conceding too much too early. For evidence of this, the example of Hebron is often used – the large West Bank town from which Netanhyahu, in his last stint as Prime Minister in the late 90s, withdrew Israel’s presence.  Others point to the inherent vagueness in Netanyahu’s talk of economic peace.  Tony Blair, (pictured, right) in his role as Middle East Special Envoy was rather mysterious on this front when intervied by Time magazine last month:

There are one or two things that [Netanyahu's] term “economic peace” can mean. One, that economic development is a substitute for state, and that’s obviously not acceptable. I personally think he wants the second, to build the [Palestinian] state from the bottom up. I understand and buy into that. It’s important for the Israeli government to come out and say we want a two-state solution, but the circumstances have got to be right

Moreover, recent events suggest Netanyahu appears to be ready to provide Obama with the terms by which he would be willing to conduct negotiations with the Palestinians towards some form of a two-state solution. Indeed, he’s apparently come up with a laundry list of demands in return for Israel’s commitment towards two states. How much of this is simply diversionary tactics on the part of an unwilling Netanyahu, however, is another question entirely.

The Art of Feet-Dragging

An examination of the red lines that Netanyahu appears to have drawn prior to his meeting with Obama leads inevitably to the suspicion that they have been carefully crafted in order to give him, at the very least, a little more time before he has to commit Israel to making any real sacrifices. First, Netanayhu wants the Palestinians to officially recognise Israel as the sovereign state of the Jewish People in perpetuity. If you’re wondering what could be so problematic about this, then the answer is that the Palestinians already recognises the state of Israel and have done so ever since the 1993 Oslo Accord.  Netanyahu’s demand, therefore, is simply an unrealistically-framed step beyond this; he must know- and may well be counting on – the fact that, as a matter of pride, the Palestinians will never agree to recognising Israel in such a manner. Indeed, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said recently in response to this: “We say that Israel is a state and the Israelis have the right to call themselves whatever they wish. But I don’t accept this (Netanyahu’s demand).”

Next, Netanyahu wants Israel to be able to maintain a certain “limitation of sovereignty” over any Palestinian state. This includes prohibiting it from maintaining an army or forging military agreements or alliances and Israel continuing to monitor its external borders, airspace and electromagnetic spectrum. This would be quite a restriction on the independence of a Palestinian state – the kind of thing which makes the word “independent” seem a little out of place. Then there’s Netanyahu’s stance on Iran: he has made it very clear that he sees Israel’s commitment to two states as part of a deal in which America does something about the nuclear threat to Israel coming from Tehran, a stance which, as we will see later, is potentially problematic.

Netanyahu has also come out against giving the Golan Heights back to Syria; a harsh stance given that the return of the Heights – taken in the 1967 war – has often been thought of as the first piece of land that Israel might give up in a bona fide peace process.  Certainly, stubbornness on this issue would remove Syria as a potential regional ally for the peace process, so whether by design or not this is a red line that stings. Finally, Netanyahu will not allow Jerusalem to be divided into two separate capitals. Unfortunately this is seen as a necessity by many of Israel’s neighbours and is enshrined in the Arab League’s 2002 peace initiative, a fairly reasonable road map to a two state solution that has been endorsed by Obama himself.

Given this (exhaustingly) lengthy list of pre-conditions, it’s hard not to concur with Harvard professor of International Relations Stephen Walt :

Netanyahu clearly wants to avoid an open rift with the Obama administration, which has forcefully reiterated its commitment to negotiating a two-state solution. To do that, he has to pay lip service to the peace process. But because Netanyahu has long opposed the creation of a viable Palestinian state and instead wants to extend Israel’s control of the West Bank, he has to lay out a set of demands that will endlessly delay the process and make it hard for Obama to put meaningful pressure on him

Under Pressure

Despite Netanyahu’s seeming intransigence, there is a still a tremendous amount of hope and expectation surrounding today’s meeting and the events that will follow it. This is largely thanks to the Obama administration’s increasing determination to forcefully pursue a two-state solution – even if it involves having to crack down on America’s greatest ally Israel. Whereas past administrations – most notably George W. Bush’s – have been content to let Israel more or less do what it wants, Obama’s team have been showing promising signs of late that they will no longer tolerate Israel’s leaders running rings around Washington.

photo credit: U.S. Department of State

Obama has already announced that in his eyes, nothing less than a two-state solution will suffice – according to Tony Blair, the creation of an independent Palestinian state is considered a US national security interest in the President’s eyes. But it’s not just Obama. At the recent summit of AIPAC – the American pro-Israel lobby largely used to having US politicians bend over backwards to please it -  Vice-President Joe Biden left the audience under no illusion that the administration would support the status quo, insisting that Israel must  “work toward a two-state solution, not build settlements, dismantle outposts and allow Palestinians access to freedom of movement.” He even prefaced his remarks by saying “You won’t like this…”

Then there’s Secretary of State Hilary Clinton (pictured above, with Netanyahu). Traditionally a staunch ally of Israel, she has recently taken a much stricter approach. Her recent remarks have been particularly pointed, condemning the expansion of West Bank settlements and telling Netanyahu to “get off the sidelines”. When she visited the West Bank recently, she was reported to have been shocked by the third-world conditions and troubled by the humiliation around her. It’s perhaps no surprise that the veteran Israeli journalist Eitan Haber recently warned  Netanyahu, “prepare yourself for change … This is not the America you used to know.”

A great indicator of how seriously the Obama administration is taking the issue is their rumoured willingness to make progress in America’s relations with Hamas, the militant Islamists who control the Gaza strip. Previously the US’s stance has been that Hamas, despite being democratically elected, are terrorists. And America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists (except when they do). But in light of the fact that Hamas may be ready to form a unity government with the moderate Palestinian Authority that controls the West Bank, the Obama administration – to Israel’s great consternation – are showing signs of being willing to negotiate with a unity government that includes Hamas and are even willing to fund it.

However one question remains: if Netanyahu proves to be as slippery and as uncompromising as many suspect he will, will Obama and his administration have the strength to increase the pressure on Israel? In other words, are they prepared to actually penalise Israel for non-compliance in the negotiations ahead? There are certainly many options available to the President. He could, for example, reduce the voluminous amount of aid America gives to Israel each year. Whether he is prepared to go to these lengths, however, is another question entirely but it could be an interesting test of how strong America’s new backbone really is.

Iran or Bust

One thing is certain about today’s meeting:  Obama won’t be able to treat Iran as the (nuclear) elephant in the room.  For better or worse, Netanyahu considers dealing with the threat of a nuclear Iran to be of greater importance to Israel than making peace with the Palestinians. Indeed, one of the troubling things about Israel’s perception of Iran is that the largely rational, cautious and conservative clerics who control the country are seen by Israel as raving nutters itching to blow them all to kingdom come (and presumably all the Muslim holy sites of Jerusalem as well). But whatever the merits of Israel’s fears, it’s looking likely that dealing with the threat of Iran will go hand in hand with forging a two-state solution. The White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has said that the administration plans to use the promise of progress on Iran as a way to ensure Israel’s co-operation, although since, as I discussed earlier, Netanyahu is setting a commitment to dealing with Iran as a precondition to an eventual peace deal,  it’s not entirely certain whether it’s Israel or America who is dangling the carrot.

photo credit: iVoryTowerz

In any event, it may be a grave error on the part of America to tie the fate of the two-state solution to the resolution of the Iran problem. This is because, as Stephen Walt has argued, if negotiations with Iran should flounder – and goodness knows they might – then the hopes of an independent Palestinian state would flounder with them. Furthermore, treating a deal with Iran as a pre-condition to progress with Israel doesn’t really make sense. A two-state solution on its own would take away much of Iran’s regional power and thus make a deal with America easier to come by. Equally, resetting America’s relationship with Iran – and thus reducing its baleful influence on the Middle East – would make it that much easier to pursue peace in Palestine. Either way you put it, therefore, it doesn’t make sense to use Iran as a bargaining chip for a palestinian peace process, or vice versa, since indendently pursuing one will always lead to the other.

Moreover, making a deal with Iran a pre-condition to progress with Palestine would put the pressure on Obama to get results from Tehran and may therefore lead to a continuation of the failed, patronising “carrot and stick” approach that has dominated American/Iranian relations over the last few years. This would be a great mistake because, as many experts are now arguing, the best path for dealing with Iran is to tackle all the issues between Tehran and Washington at once via a groundbreaking, brave “Grand Bargain”. The idea behind this approach is that,  in return for Iran agreeing to let the foreign community supervise their nuclear process and reducing its malign influence on the Palestinian and Iraq conflicts, America agrees to stop treating Iran as a security threat and deal with as an ally with all the benefits that entails – including the cessation of current sanctions. Tying Iran to Palestine could jeopardise the hopes for such a grand bargain, however unlikely they may be.

So to summarise: tying Iran to the Palestinian conflict as a deal breaker could either ruin chances of a rapprochement with Tehran or stop the peace process in its tracks – or both! Will the Iran issue be the downfall of the two-state solution? Let’s hope not…

The meeting of the century

What, then, can we expect – and hope for – from today’s meeting in the Oval Office of the White House? Well, for a start it would be nice to hear Netanyahu actually say the words “two state solution” or “independent Palestinian state” in a positive manner. A commitment to a two-state solution in no uncertain terms would also be welcome, as would a reaffirmation by Obama of America’s new, no-nonsense attitude to Israel. It’s even possible that Obama might choose today to unveil the framework for the entire peace process, though this is unlikely at best.

photo credit: Just a guy who likes to take pictures

What we might see, however, are commitments to take the actions that need to be done before any process begins in earnest.For example, if Obama is planning to agree some form of policy with Netanyahu, then he may well press for a settlement freeze. He would certainly be wise to do so. The continuing expansion of Israel’s settlements in the West Bank – a process that has been going on for years and has not even halted for past negotiations with the Palestinians – is perhaps the main impediment to any peace process. The harm it causes cannot be understated. It undermines the credibility of moderate Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, it exacerbates Palestinian hatred for Israel and every time a new Israeli building is built the possibility of eventually withdrawing from the West Bank is made that much more difficult. The Palestinian conflict is a battle over a small slice of land. At the very least, Israel should be making the commitment not to take any more of it.

Of course, today’s discussions are only the start of a lengthy diplomatic process. In the weeks to come, Obama will meet with King Abdullah of Jordan and Egypt’s president Hosni Mubarak. Then, on June 4th, he will dramatically unveil his Middle East “new deal” in a speech in Cairo – an event that has “history-making” written all over it. But though today is just the beginning, it’s nonetheless true that both parties need to make a flying start.

It has been reported that Obama’s been furiously reading up on all aspects of the Palestinian quagmire. If so, then he will know that time has run out on the issue: there are no more second chances. When it comes to the Middle East, he will either be remembered as the President who solved the most intractable conflict of the past 100 years, or else as the guy who was in charge when the dream of a Jewish state faded to black. Let’s hope he’s up for the challenge…

photo credit: laviddichterman

impassioned blog piece on gay rights underlines how important it is to look at things objectively. There is a sense that when Obama came in everyone could take a back seat as there was a leader in place, but remebering that his most-likened to figure, Kennedy would not have been the great liberal without a congress and beneath that the fierce demand for equality and social reform that boiled over in the 60s. Obama will be no different.

I lived through eight years of the Clintons and then eight years of Bush. Through it all, gay people were treated at the federal level like embarrassments or impediments. With Clinton, we were the means to raise money. With Bush, we were the means to leverage votes by exploiting bigotry. Obama seemed in the campaign to promise something else.

Naturally as he mentions Obama has had more on his plate than few Presidents have had to tackle, a global recession, two wards Climate Change but nevertheless when you read Sullivan’s articles on gay rights in America it brings home the importance of fighting for civil rights on a new front.