Edwards on privatization of security tasks (4.00 / 4)

http://johnedwards.c...

John Edwards' Plan to End the Current System of Outsourcing Security Missions to Private Contractors

  "The recent incidents of violence involving Blackwater contractors in Iraq, including the shooting of Iraqi civilians in Baghdad last month, have caused tremendous damage to America's battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqis. These incidents hurt America's moral standing, both in Iraq and around the world. And they serve as a tragic reminder of how the Bush Administration has outsourced our military responsibilities to corporate contractors and political cronies who operate outside of the rules of engagement and without any meaningful oversight." -- John Edwards

About 50,000 private contractors are currently working on security and military missions in Iraq. Their tasks can include loading weapons systems, operating combat systems and guarding diplomats. In many instances, security contractors actually engage in combat. However, they frequently lack rules of engagement, an operational command and legal oversight. [The New York Times, October 1, 2007; Singer, 2007]

The Bush Administration's outsourcing of security tasks to private industry and political cronies, combined with its poor management and oversight, has led directly to disasters like the recent tragedy involving a convoy operated by Blackwater, an independent contracting firm that guards State Department employees. In September 2007, a Blackwater convoy was involved in a firefight in Baghdad that left at least 8 Iraqi civilians dead. And this is not the first time Blackwater has gotten into trouble. Blackwater contractors have been in nearly 200 shootings in Iraq in the last two yearsâ€"in most cases firing from moving vehicles without stopping to count the dead or assist the wounded. Their forces have been involved in the shootings of innocent bystanders, a traffic accident where an Iraqi vehicle went up in flames, and an incident in which a drunken Blackwater contractor allegedly killed a security guard of the Iraqi vice president in 2006. Other security contractors were involved in the Abu Ghraib interrogator scandals. [House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 2007; Singer 2007]

Events like these have caused tremendous damage to America's battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqis. Even worse, security contractors can escape responsibility for alleged misconduct. There does not appear to be any clear legal authority to prosecute Blackwater for the recent event in Baghdad, or the operational command to prevent such incidents in the future.

Such catastrophes have at least three causes. First, the president's disastrous management of the Iraq War and the administration's poor intelligence and planning of missions has required the outsourcing of security functions from the professional military. Second, President Bush has pursued an ideological doctrine that enriches corporate cronies at the expense of good governance and sound policy. Third, Republican policymakers have made an end-run around the main purpose of the modern, post-Vietnam all-volunteer force: that we should not go to war without the backing and involvement of the people. [Singer, 2007]

We must end our current system of outsourcing security missions to private contractors. John Edwards believes we need to return to a military that responds to the will of the American people and that puts all personnel under clear operational command and the rule of law. As president, he will fundamentally reform our system for security contractors by restoring democracy, expanding the rule of law, getting cronyism out of the system and ensuring accountability.
Restore Democracy to Our Military Decisions About the War

We must put the democracy back in our military and prevent a disaster like the continuation of the Iraq War â€"despite the opposition of the overwhelming majority of Americans â€" from ever happening again. Because contractors neither enlist in the services nor have servicemembers' substantial training or service requirements, they can be used without accountability. As president, Edwards will transfer most security missions currently performed by contractors back to military command, narrowly limit the circumstances under which security contractors can be engaged, and bring all security contractors within the Pentagon's chain of command.
Expand Legal Oversight and Prosecutions

The Military Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) covers contractors, but only those employed by the Department of Defense. As president, Edwards will ask Congress to amend MEJA to cover contractors employed by any U.S. agency. He will also work with his Attorney General to ensure criminal allegations involving contractors are always investigated and, when appropriate, prosecuted. Finally, there should never be a mystery about when contractors can use force and the penalties for improper actions. Edwards will charge his Secretary of Defense with establishing clear rules of engagement for contractors.
Get Cronyism out of Security Contracts

Political cronyism has no place when America's moral reputation, as well as the lives of our brave servicemembers, are at stake. As president, Edwards will ask Congress to pass legislation prohibiting campaign contributions by applicants for and recent recipients of security contracts, extending the ban to current contractors. He will also ask Congress to pass legislation to close the revolving door for government contractors by prohibiting former officials from working as contractors with business before their former offices for five years.
Establish Strong Quality Control and Accountability Measures

We have seen too much mismanagement and poor personnel choices under the Bush Administration, with a system that lacks clear and consistent measures to insure the quality of contractor operations. As president, Edwards will charge his National Security Advisor with establishing a regular system of Quality Assurance Evaluations of contractors and will make sure that agencies exercise oversight.
Implement a Formal Evaluation of the Role of Contractors

Today, we do not have complete information on the role of security contractors in our security operations, as the Department of Defense appears incapable of even reporting how many are working for us in Iraq. As president, Edwards will order his Secretary of Defense to deliver a comprehensive accounting of all contractors performing security operations within the first six months of his administration. Edwards has also proposed the creation of a new National Security Budget that will include all security activities by the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies. Edwards will require this budget to include all funding requests for all contractors, so that Congress can better evaluate the role and value of security contractors in the future.

 

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:52:31 AM CST

Diplomacy would be another factor here (0.00 / 0)

Very interesting post.

I would say better relations with the UN and with countries all over the world is key here.

Obviously Clinton loses out in this department for her Iran Vote, and obviously Obama and Edwards have made a big deal about this vote. Of the two, I would say Obama has been more aggressive, introducing a bill which explicitly declares Bush does not have authority to attack Iran. http://www.cnn.com/2...

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:53:57 AM CST

Diplomacy (0.00 / 0)

Yes, I agree, diplomacy must be on the list. Building better foreign relations is key to ending the causes of war.

Great post by the way, it's nice to look at an issue this way. I wish there could be some of this kind of disucssion in the debates. NPR was a disappointment, too many "gotchya" questions imo.

---

by: GreenVTster @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:35:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Diplomacy and Support for Humanity (4.00 / 1)

Yes, diplomacy and making the world more equitable will lessen wars over resources. But not diplomacy the way Bush does it: "Give us what we want or we'll bomb you or put sanctions on your government". No, we need real diplomacy that involves talking to people and finding out why they are unhappy and then trying to work with them to alleviate their unhappiness.

Peace Action has been calling for a New Foreign Policy based on these four things:

1) Providing for everyone in the world (food, energy, living wages, etc.) so people won't feel the need to invade/attack others. Free trade policies, World Bank restrictions on loans, etc. make life miserable for people around the world.

2) Supporting human rights -- no more torturing people the US doesn't like which tends to make them very angry with the US; also, opposing dictatorships, oligopolies, etc. instead of supporting governments like the Musharraf government in Pakistan. For example, US support of the coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 and US support of the Shah of Iran is still remembered by the people of Iran even if most Americans know nothing of it.

3) Working with our allies through the United Nations (and in other ways).

4) Negotiating with adversaries (without onerous pre-conditions).

As far as I know, none of the top three Democratic candidates has really embraced these four points. I think Kucinich has.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 13:49:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

John Edwards has from the start (0.00 / 0)

of his campaign --
On Global Poverty:

"John Edwards... followed [up on his health care plan] yesterday with an excellent speech on poverty at home and abroad, with some good and specific ideas." --Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times

John Edwards believes that the United States must be a global leader in the fight against poverty. Solving global poverty is a moral imperative, but it is also a security issue. Global poverty increases the risk to America by providing a safe harbor for instability, extremism, and terrorism. Edwards' strategy against global poverty will require every weapon in our national security arsenal. For the last six years, too many burdens have been placed on the Department of Defense-not because it has asked for this mission or is the best suited to handle these challenges, but because it has been the most capable and well-funded national security institution.

As president, John Edwards will fundamentally transform America's approach to the world. As part of his $5 billion initiative, he will bring high-level attention to help people in three priority areas: primary education, preventive health, and greater economic and political opportunity.

On the Constitution and Human/Civil Rights:

"We are not the country of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. We are not the country of secret surveillance and government behind closed doors. We are Americans, and we're better than that." -- John Edwards

America must do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism, but securing a lasting victory will take moral as well as military strength. President Bush's failure to respect the Constitution and our commitment to the fundamental rule of law has badly damaged our security and our standing in the world. President Bush has sent a message that torture and other human rights violations are acceptable, creating a precedent of disregard for the law that is being exploited by terrorists and repressive governments across the world. We must restore our moral leadership in the world, and we should begin here at home. If we want to spread democracy abroad, we must strengthen democracy in America, including our constitutional freedoms and the rule of law.

On Reengaging with the World:

"Our nation now stands at the pinnacle of its power, but it also faces serious challenges. Today, we need a national security policy for the twenty-first century that will not only respond to threats but apply all our resources to the critical goal of preventing such threats in the first place. We can be strong, secure, and good, and we can build a more hopeful future. Our national security policy should be designed to reach these goals. We must do everything in our power to reclaim the United States' historic role as a beacon for the world and become, once again, a shining example for other nations to follow." -- John Edwards

At the dawn of a new century and on the brink of a new presidency, John Edwards believes the United States today needs to reclaim the moral high ground that defined our foreign policy for much of the last century. We must move beyond the wreckage created by one of the greatest strategic failures in U.S. history: the war in Iraq. Rather than alienating the rest of the world through assertions of infallibility and demands of obedience, as the current administration has done, U.S. foreign policy must be driven by a strategy of reengagement.

I hope you'll find these helpful in evaluating John Edwards' views and plans in these different areas.

---

by: edgery @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:50:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Edwards also demands paper ballots (4.00 / 1)

I can't find a link to his election reform plank right now, but it's good.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:54:01 AM CST

Here it is (4.00 / 1)

Too lengthy to cut and paste here, but here's the link.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

---

by: clarkent @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 13:27:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

To get a handle on the root causes of US wars, check out... (4.00 / 1)

Ernest Mandel's "Late Capitalism."  Also, check out David Harvey's "The New Imperialism." Harvey's book is somewhat more accessible than Mandel's, and talks about the deep structural causes of US imperialism in the context of the Iraq war and the GWOT (whereas Mandel's work is a bit dated at this point). 

Basically, both of these historians conclude that the amount of money spent by the US on weaponry and warfare is largely determined by the structural requirements of the international capitalist system (the massive expenditures on war enable the maintenance of labor discipline [which social expenditures would undermine] and prevent, or at least forestall, economic downturns caused by overproduction).  While Harvey argues that the expenditures on the Iraq war are actually becoming a drag on the international capitalist system, he nevertheless argues that there is a structural imperative inherent in the system towards warfare and the massive production of weaponry.

Needless to say, none of the Democratic candidates have a plan to move away from an international capitalist system (nor could they succeed in carrying out this plan on their own, even if they did have one).  That is not to say that, for those of us who are working to overcome capitalism (as well as the system of warfare and weapons production inherent in this form of society), the 2008 election is immaterial.... But it does put the conversation about the relationship between the election and the root causes of US wars on a somewhat different playing field than the one outlined by Chris.... 

---

by: seabrook @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:14:18 PM CST

Moving "away" is not enough (0.00 / 0)

You say: "Needless to say, none of the Democratic candidates have a plan to move away from an international capitalist system (nor could they succeed in carrying out this plan on their own, even if they did have one). "

But, what would you suggest they move towards?  While I agree with the premise that militaristic capitalism is a deeply flawed and regressive system, without providing a vision of the alternatives, I can't say whether I'd buy what you're selling (pun intended).


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 08:38:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I eagerly await your conclusion. (0.00 / 0)

Haven't been 100% able to commit to any candidate.  Greatly respect your opinion, and just might go up to help someone in NH if I can settle on someone.

---

by: Cat Servant @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:15:54 PM CST

How is Chris Bowers like Iowa? (0.00 / 0)

While there's no clear first place, Edwards seems to be his leading second choice.

Sorry, I think I've got a horserace infection.  Anyway, Cat, I second your statement (I live in VT, work in NH).  Been trying to work up the desire to volunteer for someone, but without more distinction on sustainability issues it's been hard to get feel passionate enough.  I feel silly, since my only voice in the primary would be my service, but for who?

Now that it looks like NH will end up be the definitive battleground for whoever wins in IA vs Clinton (assuming it isn't her) I feel a little more motivated... if only one of them would do something to stick out just a little -- say, by talking about revitalizing local agriculture markets, or  showing that they follow peak oil issues -- I would be there. 

But I like Bowers' holistic approach to peace, domestic and foreign, and his decision will undoubtedly influence me.

Tim Wolfe

---

by: bruorton @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 13:46:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Preventing more war (0.00 / 0)

As you know, I think that Obama is the candidate who will make the best president.  I will frame my preference on your list of issues, particularly the last two mentioned.

Think Tank and Advisor Reform:
As you acknowledge Obama opposed the war from the start unlike any other candidate besides Kucinich and Ron Paul.  What concerns me about the war vote is the willingness to oppose foolish violence when that is the popular choice, the ability to recognize that the Iraq War Resolution was a blank check, and the possible motives that those who voted for the war might have had.

You and I opposed the war from the moment it was made public as a possibility.  Unlike many of our senators and our fellow citizens, we knew better.  We opposed it for the reasons that it turned into a disaster.  The case for WMDs was weak, occupations in not in the American character, and violence is the last resort of the incompetent.  Why should we have to settle for a president who lacks the judgement that we have on important issues like this.

Perhaps they felt that the IWR was not an authorization for war.  Some of the Senators running to president claim to have thought so.  Like us, they preferred the democratic version of the bill which required the President to return to the Senate for an authorization of force.  Are they foolish enough to believe that Bush was going to fight for the removal of that provision if he really intended to go back to Senate?  Will they make similar errors in judgement when negotiating with foreign leaders?  Perhaps we can yield on tough treaty negotiations on their word that some clause or another will not be invoked, or will be respected despite their refusal to sign a version of the treaty with includes some required provision.

What is the explanation for these two errors in judgement?  Perhaps they honestly thought it was a good idea, or they honestly trusted the president.  Well they made a mistake, one which I fear they may make in the future.  Some of them have owned up to that mistake and have spoken in terms which make me think they are unlikely to make a similar one as president.  My real worry is that to some extent their political considerations and their desire to run for president may have motivated their vote.

Many democrats learned the wrong lessons from the first Iraq War, they regretting the political cost that they paid for opposing that war.  They were afraid of being on the wrong side of another war.  Well they were on the wrong side of this one.  Wrong politically, morally, and for purely practical reasons.  It scares me that people who claim to be out leaders may have taken a position which has killed thousands of American men and women in uniform for reasons of political calculation.

Constitutional Restoration:
We certainly need a president who understands the importance of civil rights and civil liberties which have been eroded under the current administration.  As a lecturer on constitutional law at U. of Chicago he is very conversant in the rights we need to protect.  He was not part of congress when we rushed to pass the Patriot act, so we don't know how he would have voted under those conditions.  His rejection of the false dichotomy of Human rights and national security at the Nevada debate gives me more hope than the answers of the other candidates, besides Richardson, who seemed to clearly state that they would still sacrifice rights for the illusion of security.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

---

by: Luam @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:19:10 PM CST

Election Reform (4.00 / 1)

I think for better or worse, at least Edwards' stand on campaign contributions and his actions on public financing should earn him a clear lead on that issue on your list.

---

by: GreenVTster @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:32:06 PM CST

Very insightful (4.00 / 2)

of you to point out that "ending the causes of the war" has to be a critical criterion in choosing the Democratic nominee. But I would add an eighth issue to your list:
Curbing the Influence of the Military-Industrial Complex: The partnership between the Pentagon and enormous multinational corporations is one of the root causes of the perpetual state of militarism that dominates our country's policies and actions both at home and abroad.
Seantor Clinton is clearly the favorite of the M-I Complex as Thomas Edsall points out at Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingto...
Edwards on the other hand seems to be the candidate who is most apt to challenge the M-I Complex. His call for Americans to be "patriotic about something other than war" is a direct appeal for solutions that defy the traditional M-I complex-backed approaches that our country relies on to address democratic reform in other countries, energy development, economic prosperity and other issues. Edwards has also delivered the most detailed policy statement on reforming our military for a security policy that's not based on fear:
http://www.foreignaf...

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:36:47 PM CST

Reform of the Global economic system (0.00 / 0)

Really interesting diary, I really like the idea of looking at the total picture of what allows this type of war to occur. I would add in my list their efforts in ending the enforcement of the neo-liberal economic model on the developing world. Much of the anti-American sentiment in the world is a result of our global economic policy, and changing that would go a long way towards preventing potentially volatile confrontations with the world community in the future.

---

by: Jay Jay @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 13:51:47 PM CST

Edwards against military contractors (0.00 / 0)

In a Candidates@Google lecture last May, Edwards confirmed he would end the use of military contractors. It's near the end of the clip, during Q&A.

http://www.youtube.c...

---

by: Crumpley @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 15:02:19 PM CST

How are we getting this stuff through the Senate? (4.00 / 1)

A fair amount of it doesn't need to, of course: a prez doesn't need a res to pass authorizing him not to preventively bomb the ever-loving bejasus out of a country - or withdraw troops from Iraq.

But a fair amount does, so far as I can see.

Take the first item: a prez espousing this policy would have wide leeway (post Mukasey!) to choose three Dem FCC Commissioners who enthusiastically supported it.

But - I can't see a way you could force GE to divest itself of NBC without legislation.

And that would pass how?

The FCC obviously have some leeway about deconsolidation. But, again, I struggle (largely due to negligeable expertise in the subject!) to see how legislation would not be required for this mammoth task, too.

Obviously, the sort of reforms which are likely to be most heavily contested are those that involve depriving big companies of rights they have (or think they have).

Not unreasonable, surely, to ask candidates proposing such reforms to be walked through how think they could be put into practice.

---

by: skeptic06 @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 16:07:16 PM CST

You've inverted the question..... (0.00 / 0)

..............generally when you want to solve a problem you start with what the problem is and what you want to do about it.

After that step is taken they you look at how to implement your solution.

Nothing on Chris's list would stand a ice-cube's chance in hell of being passed by the current Congress nor implemented by the Executive. The MIC  totally controls both branches of government and both parties.

This is a great step in the direction of using OpenLeft to start the dialogue on what a progressive America would look like and Chris has nailed the essential roadblock to any substantive change:

The Military Industrial Complex and it's bought and paid for servants.

Here's a post I did some time ago on this:

http://takeaction.wo...

and a graphic post to try and get the cost over to the average reader:

http://takeaction.wo...

As I say, I very much doubt you will find any support on either 'side of the aisle' for anything like what Chris is outlining. Maybe some of the New Populists like Tester or McNerney.Webb is a creature of het MIC and is doubtful but he might 'see the light'. So what? By tackling the policy changes needed to cut out the cancer of the MIC from our Republic we can start the dialogue, create the policy and identify our friends and, just as importantly, our enemies.

Good start Chris. I'll have more to add later and will ask my blogmates to participate.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 18:16:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's an iterative process (0.00 / 0)

I'm not saying that discussion of what progressive is should be limited to what is possible given the current political situation - otherwise, there'd truly be no hope!

On the other hand, without keeping the limits of the current political situation clearly in mind, you're liable to take up permanent residence in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

I agree absolutely that the dialogue on what a progressive America would look like needs to take place, and that here is an excellent place for that to happen.

I do have to say that, as I point out over here, discussion of definitions of progressive in the lefty sphere that I've seen have usually left a good deal to be desired.

All the more reason to deal with the question effectively now. 

---

by: skeptic06 @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 17:15:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Boycotts and Public Shame (0.00 / 0)

"But - I can't see a way you could force GE to divest itself of NBC without legislation."

Not all political/social solutions come from the US Congress or the White House.  Some things the people have to do by themselves.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 08:42:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Best at ending causes of war (0.00 / 0)

I find your comments valuable both for what you successfully put into words, and for what you attempt to put into words.

There is a quality needed for a leader to end the war on terror that does not seem to appear under the topics that you have listed.  Let me try to express what I have in mind:

The bedwetting neocons have set up a trap: either you do what they say or you are weak, a sissy, not a very serious person, or one of the other ways to characterize someone as not protecting us.  The general public needs someone who can avoid this trap.  The leader needs to speak of themes that free us from being held hostage to such fears. 

At the same time, Bush has driven American popularity into the toilet all over the world.  We need a leader who can speak to the rest of the world, and be friendly, without appearing to be needy for foreign approval. 

Ignoring the words, as if the sound were turned off, the Obama visual would seem to fit the bill best as a face seen from abroad as "NOT BUSH."  At the same time, for the very same reason, Obama would seem least able to reassure the very afraid American people and provoke the most suspicions because fearmongers and neocon bedwetters will have opportunity to swift boat him on "Muslim" schooled, and a name game linking with Osama and Saddam. 

Conversely, Hillary would seem to have some potential to be an American Margaret Thatcher, while she does not act needy for affection, at home or abroad, as Bill always has.

One could ponder that this is a point at which Biden can shine, but absent his having a well established public identity, it is impossible to tell what he would make of his potential.

---

by: wind off the lake @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 16:15:32 PM CST

which candidate will get us 60 votes in the Senate? (0.00 / 0)

since the policy differences between the 3 main candidates are really quite marginal, a 2nd question needs to be asked that has to do with effectiveness?  One way of asking this in purely political power terms is who will not just win the presidency but who will have the biggest coat tails in 2008 and 2010?

Hillary may have a long term effect in locking in a greater women's (and young girls) vote for Dems.
Obama has potential to move young people and the next generation...and probably the fast growing muslim voting block which has been so reluctant to move away from the Republicans until recently.
Edwards-Working/middle class Southern whites...and younger voters.
I don't see any of the 3 candidates with a comparative advantage in the Latino vote department. Richardson of course might be able to make this claim.

So yes let's ask the policy difference questions, but let us not forget the strategic electoral question as well. Which candidate is going to get us to 60 votes in the Senate?

---

by: amberwaves @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 23:44:48 PM CST

Conceptual Problem (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for a valuable post. I don't have an opinion as to who would be best, except it isn't Clinton. She is too tied in to the foreign policy establishment.

That leaves Edwards or Obama among the leading, electable candidates (if your sole criteria were policy positions, you'd have to consider Kucinich seriously). Some case has been made for Obama that he is the only candidate who can heal the breach with the Muslim world. Edwards has been most forthright in challenging the "war on terror." Obama has a better set of foreign policy advisors. It matters that all three leading candidates, on the other hand, have relatively good policies on combatting climate change, because that is going to be the key "security" threat and alternative to the "war on terror" as the key issue facing the United States and the world. That's hopeful.

All that said, however, there's something fundamentally wrong with posing the question in this way. Candidates and presidents aren't in the business of ending the causes of war. That's the role of social movements, in particular of peace movements. A better way of posing the question, or at the least an additional factor to consider, is which candidate is most open to the arguments of the peace movement and to alternative foreign and military policies? Because it's going to take an alliance of the peace movement, the president, and Congress (as well as the international community) to challenge the causes of war. I can't really tell between Obama and Edwards who is better on this. More broadly, which candidate is more open to the claims and influence of social movements generally? Here, I'd have to give the nod to Edwards.

This leads to another factor to consider in evaluating candidates: What is their social base, and how will that affect their policies? For example, what does it mean for Obama's policies that he appeals to young people? There may be an argument for Clinton if she mobilizes women, who have always been the key or fundamental constituency for peace. On the other hand, the fact that she is a woman candidate for president makes her think she needs to put a premium on being tougher on military and foreign policy issues.

The way I read the founding purpose of Open Left, it was to become a place for dialogue among the broad progressive movement, including not only the arena of electoral politics but that of social movements as well. If I'm correct in this, I'd encourage the latter element to be integrated into more posts.

If you want to know more about why movements matter, read David Cortright's excellent book, Peace Works: The Citizen's Role in Ending the Cold War, especially the conclusion. It's a well-researched (and inspiring) account of what the nuclear freeze movement of the 1980s accomplished.

 

---

by: johnraymond @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:06:22 AM CST

Good issues (0.00 / 0)

To focus on. I'd put way more focus on election reform and less on residual forces. Residual forces is a temporary issue and as Matt posted about we need to go beyond that and end the root causes of war. Here's my case for Obama on those issues though because I think he is probably the best on all of them of the major candidates.

  * Media Reform: This is one of my pet issues and belive me Obama is by far the leader on this. Edwards is good and of course Kucinich is good but out of the leading canidates it's Obama for sure. Here's what he had to say on consolidation to Common Sense Media:

"Excessive media consolidation is a problem. We should be doing much more to encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, to promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints and to establish greater clarity in the public-interest obligations of broadcasters occupying the nation's spectrum.

I believe the nation's media-ownership rules remain necessary and are critical to the public interest. Instead of allowing greater consolidation, such as the current administration has done, I fully endorse the call for new rules promoting greater coverage of local issues and greater responsiveness of broadcasters to the communities they operate in.

I also believe broadcaster license-renewal requests -- the periodic review required to ensure that broadcasters are complying with their public-interest obligations to local communities for using the public spectrum -- should require greater FCC scrutiny and public input and occur more frequently.

Recently, I sent a letter to FCC chairman Kevin Martin calling on him to launch an independent review panel to develop proposals to further promote media-ownership diversity. According to press accounts, following an insufficient 30-day review, the FCC intends to modify existing ownership rules by allowing even greater media-market consolidation. This would allow large media outlets to become larger, potentially cutting out small business and women- and minority-owned firms.

I also asked for the FCC to reconsider the chairman's proposed consolidation time line and start a public review of any specific proposed rule modifications. Finally, I requested that chairman Martin complete a study of the responsibilities that broadcasters have to the communities in which they operate."

He is a co-sponsor of the bill to block Martin's Big Media giveaway: http://thinkontheset...
And he has worked a lot with John Kerry who is great on this issue. Here's a link about his stance on the issue, basicly he lines up with Copps. I can't wait until Copps is FCC Chair under Obama :)

  * Sustainable Energy Development: They all have good plans but I think Obama at least understands the issue of climate change more deeply. On this issue though I can't really claim he stands out hugely from Edwards or Clinton, they are about the same.

  * Ending Military Privatization: Again I can't claim any of the candidates are amazing but Obama introduced the bill to bring Blackwater under the law and Jan Schakowsky is a close friend. If she was able to get HR 4102 passed I find it hard to believe Obama would veto it. I can't say the same for the other major candidates.

  * No residual forces: I don't really see why Edwards is better. Obama has said we need people to guard the ambassadors and maybe a training force that could be put in  Kuwait. Edwards has said protect ambassadors, humanitarian workers, keep trainers in Iraq and have a small strike force. That doesn't sound much better then Obama.

  * Election reform: This is so much Obama it's not even funny. Only Russ Feingold has done the same amount of stuff as Obama on this issue. He's been a leading advocate of election reform in the Senate. Public financing? Only he and Russ have sponsored or co-sponsored every bill. Instant Runnoff Voting? Only major canidate to support it. Blocking partisan vote suppressing FEC nominees like Hans von Spakovsky? Obama and Feingold at it again (By the way you should cover that issue more). You get the picture. Basically Obama rocks on this issue. I could go on for a long time about other things he's done on this if you want but I think you can see his strength on the issue already.

  * Think Tank and Advisor Reform: Obama is advised by people like Samantha Power who is probably the more awesome forign policy guru ever. Seriously read her book. The rest of his advisers are the same story. Clinton's advisers were generally pro-war, Obama's were anti-war or restrained. That's just on Iraq. Obama clearly has a edge over Clinton in this category (Talk to Matt Y about it) but it's hard to tell anything about Edwards because he doesn't have a whole lot of advisers. If he won the primary it's hard to tell from who's set of advisers he'd draw. I'd guess more Obama's set then Clinton's but in his past he's shown a tendency of hawkishness (IWR co-sponsorship, Iran comments earlier this year) so I don't know. He cares much more about domestic policy though and doesn't seem to have a grand vision for the future like Obama.

  * Constitutional Restoration: It's hard to tell how they'll be in office but besides Kucinich's impeachment stance and Dodd's admited leadership it's hard to see were they differ. And Dodd has lead but all the candidates agree with him so I don't see how it matters in anything other then style. So again this really isn't a issue were anyone but Kucincich is much different.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 17:23:49 PM CST