On Monday, as tens of thousands of Egyptians took to the streets to demand a change in their autocratic, unresponsive and increasingly corrupt government, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a statement that has caused dismay and consternation among supporters of a more democratic Egypt.
Apparently taken aback by unexpected events in the streets of Cairo and other Egyptian cities, Secretary Clinton said: "the Egyptian Government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people." Given that these words were uttered at the time Egyptian state security forces were warming to their task of dispersing protesters with batons and tear gas, they were, at best, ill-judged.
What is the state of the union when a madman can come within a whisker of assassinating a member of Congress? When his rantings and ravings and drug use don't stop him from getting a high-capacity magazine? When a sophomore in high school can show up to school with a gun in his backpack, and accidentally shoot two of his classmates?
I'm not sure, but I know I'd really like to hear President Obama address this during his SOTU address--without platitudes, but with an actual plan of action. One which might include demanding that the Senate confirm his nominee to run the ATF forthwith, fixing gaps in government databases of mental health and criminal records, requiring states to share data on those who have been deemed mentally unfit, questioning the intelligence of selling high-capacity magazines to just anyone, allowing concealed carry without a permit, as Arizona and two other states do, wondering whether those with firearms should just be able to meander up next to their member of Congress, and closing loopholes that allow the crazed and criminal to get guns at gun shows while firmly ensconced on terrorist watch lists.
Oh yeah, it would also mean he is FAR to the Right of that key element in our democracy known as the American People:
"Large majorities of Americans agree with the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns, and Americans strongly oppose efforts to ban handguns," said Bob Carpenter, vice president of American Viewpoint, the Republican polling firm that joined with Democratic firm Momentum Analysis to conduct the survey. "But Americans and gun owners feel with equal fervor that government must act to get every single record in the background-check system that belongs there and to ensure that every gun sale includes a background check. Most Americans view these goals, protecting gun rights for the law-abiding and keeping guns from criminals, as compatible."
Some findings from the poll results, provided exclusively to The Huffington Post:
-- 90 percent of Americans and 90 percent of gun owners support fixing gaps in government databases that are meant to prevent the mentally ill, drug abusers and others from buying guns.
-- 91 percent of Americans and 93 percent of gun owners support requiring federal agencies to share information about suspected dangerous persons or terrorists to prevent them from buying guns.
-- 89 percent of Americans and 89 percent of gun owners support full funding of the law a unanimous Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed after the Virginia Tech shootings to put more records in the background-check database.
-- 86 percent of Americans and 81 percent of gun owners support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter who they buy it from.
-------
Closing the so-called "terror gap" has particularly strong support. A 2010 Government Accountability Office report found that during the past six years, individuals on the terror watchlist were able to buy firearms or explosives from licensed U.S. dealers 1,119 times.
The NRA has opposed bipartisan legislation closing the gap on the grounds that the list is flawed -- some individuals are put on the list by mistake, while many who pose legitimate threats are never added.
But this position puts the NRA far to the right of even its members. A survey last year by conservative pollster Frank Luntz found that 82 percent of NRA members supported "prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns." Eighty-six percent agreed with the statement that the country can "do more to stop criminals from getting guns while also protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them."
This folks, is about whether we want democracy by ballot or intimidation by bullet. It goes to the very heart of who we are and want to be, and it is most certainly an issue of National Security--or security for our democracy. Lets hope President Obama does the right thing.
So the marriage has been a little rocky here after the first couple of years. There's been some whining and screaming and throwing of plates; there's been some flirting with other suitors. But I still believe there is plenty of time to patch things up. Where does the relationship between Obama and the progressive community go now?
The answer will come down to the following things:
1. The response to hostage taking. The president set himself up with progressives, and the media in general, by using the hostage language. Because the president seemed to concede the fight early, and because of the terms of the deal, the perception among my fellow progressives has been that the Republicans got most of what they wanted on the tax cut fight, that the terms of the deal were set by them rather than the President. In other words, by his very own language, he gave into the hostage takers. Now every time the Republicans threaten a showdown -- on the debt ceiling, on the budget fights, etc -- he is going to look weak if he doesn't stand up to them at least in part.
Compromises will have to made in divided government, but who gets the best of the compromises matters enormously. In 1995, President Clinton managed the compromise dance by having protracted showdowns with the Republicans at multiple key moments -- threatening vetoes, delivering vetoes even when they shut down the government. Even on welfare reform, which he eventually signed, he vetoed the first two versions of the bill the GOP passed, forcing real concessions before he agreed to sign it, which made it look like he was in charge.
Obama has to manage fights with Congress so that it looks like they are making compromises on his terms not the Republicans, which is what Clinton did on the budget fight and welfare reform. If Obama looks weak, if he looks like he is folding to the Republicans' main demands, progressives will rebel in a way that makes the tax cut reaction look like it was a big endorsement. The concession to Republicans on the tax cuts will smart for a while, but it will be forgiven if Obama shows strength and guts and resolve in future showdowns. And maybe he should just get started early: announce now that he will not allow the credit and financial standing of the United States to be held hostage, that he will only accept a clean, no amendment extension of the debt ceiling next year.
2. The response to the deficit commission. If the President decides to embrace all of what the deficit commission chairs proposed, including Social Security and Medicare cuts and an increase in the retirement age, all hell will break loose. Based on the conversations I have had with folks in the progressive community, this will be nothing like the tax cut deal, where progressives were actually quite divided because of the urgency of getting unemployment comp extended.
There is nothing in the deficit commission report progressives like well enough to be able to stomach cuts in Social Security and Medicare, the most core components of progressive movement identity. If Obama does this, it will truly be crossing the Rubicon, going on a bridge too far (and every other cliché imaginable). It would virtually guarantee a well-funded primary; it would provoke attack ads by Democratic base groups; it would generate millions in online contributions to groups and blogs to fight Obama. It would be civil war within the Democratic Party, the big one.
Along with the civil rights legislation of the mid 1960s, Social Security and Medicare are the ultimate achievements of the modern progressive movement, providing senior citizens (and the children who take care of them) a modest safety net as they grow older. Progressives will never sign off on cutting benefits for elderly Americans, most of whom make less than $20,000 a year with their Social Security, or raising the retirement age for working class folks who work long hours at demanding jobs if they are lucky enough to get full time employment at all. There are plenty of policy compromises and rhetorical moves to the center progressives could live with: this ain't one of them.
3. The response to the loss of immigration reform. For the last two years, the Obama administration has cracked down on undocumented immigrants, driving up deportations to record numbers. They have argued to Hispanics and progressives that doing this was the only way to get the political cover needed to pass comprehensive immigration, or more recently the DREAM Act.
With the sad death of the Dream Act last week and a far more anti-immigrant Congress coming to town in January, any hope of legislative progress on immigration is dead. Obama making preemptive concessions without getting Republican support on this and several other issues has become a real sore spot for progressives in general, but doing it on this issue is inflaming arguably the most politically volatile part of Obama's base. Hispanic voters turned out in big enough numbers, and voted strongly enough for Democrats, to save a bunch of western Senate, Governor's, and House seats for the party this time around, and they are going to be badly needed to do the same in 2012 for Obama to have a chance in states like FL, CO, NV, NM, AZ, and OR.
If Obama sticks with the tough-on-deportation political strategy while showing no progress on immigration overall over the next two years, it will irritate the entire progressive community, but it will enrage his Hispanic base most of all.
4. Which side is he on? On the most fundamental economic issues of our time -- jobs and the foreclosure crisis -- progressives along with middle and working class swing voters need to be convinced that the president is on their side. Because of TARP, the revelations about AIG's bonuses and paying back banks like Goldman in full, the administration not putting the big banks into receivership or demanding concessions from banks in return for saving them, because of opposing attempts to break up the banks during financial reform, and most recently, because of not supporting a freeze on foreclosures or other strong accountability measures on banks engaged in foreclosure fraud, progressives and middle class voters feel like the administration hasn't held the banks to account, hasn't been on their side when the banks are running roughshod over homeowners and regular folks.
It feels to a lot of progressives and working class folks like the president has fought hard to save the banks, but not for jobs or to help homeowners being victimized by bankers. Nothing would repair the breach between progressives and the White House more than taking actions on the foreclosure crisis that showed they were clearly, strongly, unequivocally on the side of the middle class instead of the banks on this foreclosure. As I have argued before, it is the great sleeper issue in American politics over the next two years. And in terms of the jobs issue, the president isn't going to have much success getting new jobs measures though Congress, but there is a great deal that the executive branch can do to promote a strong jobs agenda, and in every speech the president needs to be pushing everybody -- his own agencies of government, Congress, the private sector, even the non-profit sector -- to have a single-minded clarity about creating new jobs.
Corporations need to be pushed to spend some of last year's record profits on producing jobs. Banks need to be pushed to invest in and lend money to businesses that want to hire new workers. Non-profits need to be given incentives and grant money to help them hire more people. President Obama needs to be seen as fighting for jobs in every single thing he does, and he needs to be seen as taking a stand on behalf of workers and homeowners against banks that are taking advantage of them, and companies sitting on big profits but not hiring anyone.
Today, the president had a great signing ceremony of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". His speech was as strong and fired up as anything I have seen in a while. On that issue, it took a long time to get it done, with lots of frustrations along the way, and both the White House and the LGBT community had a lot of tense crabby times with each other. But through persistence and being aggressive, it got done. The president needs to carry that fire and that spirit forward in working with the broader progressive community. There aren't going to be a lot more clear progressive legislative victories over the next couple of years, but the President has plenty of time to rebuild the singed and broken bridge to the progressive community. He needs to show strength in dealing with the Republicans; he needs to not embrace things that progressives hold most dear; he needs to not move to the right on issues when there is no corresponding concession from the other side; and he needs to make crystal clear whose side he is on. That is not going to be easy with the Republicans running the House, and the David Broder's of DC constantly calling on him to move to some kind of mystical DC center with Republicans who keep moving the goalposts back. But this President still has plenty of opportunity, even in a divided government that will call for some compromise, to show progressives he is on their side in the things that matter the most, and they should be on his.
No president has ever won re-election with an estranged base, because it is a president's base that fights your battles for you, that stands with you and defends you when times get tough and the other side is on the attack, that gives you money and knocks on doors for you and talks neighbors and co-workers into voting for you. Mr. President, you can get your base back and you need to. If you show you are on our side, we will be on yours.
As of this morning it seems that Obama is ready to deal with the Right... extend the Bush tax cuts for a couple of years in exchange for one year's extension of Unemployment funding. The tax cut deal is tentative. It hasn't gone through Congress yet (although McConnell is probably dribbling with laughter in his office), but it probably will.
All the various kinds of professional leftist I know, are not sitting on their hands. No sirree. They are standing on their feet handing out campaign lit for Democratic candidates. They are on phones trying to get other Democrats and Democratic leaning independents to vote for Democratic candidates. They are toiling away at their computers sending out Dear Neighbor letters and emails to get those very same folks to come out on November 2nd to vote for Democrats. They are even, within their means, at fundraisers for Democrats.
THEY ARE OUT THERE DOING PRODUCTIVE ELECTORAL WORK. Why? One because they are always there, but this year they know the right is just populated by nuts who think the 19th century is too progressive. Because they are devoted to the issues that represent the Democratic party. Because they believe those principles can be used to animate people enough to go to the polls. Though, sadly at this point in time, it must only be to preserve what has already been accomplished. Some of it great like Social Security, yes, and even the not nearly good enough the health care bill. We know that these accomplishments may not be sturdy enough to survive the right wing Sherman's March to the sea. Without electing Democrats and keeping Democrats in control of Congress, they could well be gone with the wind.
(As the Obama Administration seeks to "normalize" the criminal practices of the Bush Administration, it seems that it may have a LITTLE problem with international law... - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
On Saturday, the New York Times reported that administration officials are "alarmed" by the military commission case of Omar Khadr, the Canadian citizen seized as a 15-year-old by U.S. forces in Afghanistan who's now spent a third of his life in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay. Trying an alleged child soldier based largely on confessions he made after being threatened with gang-rape and murder is not the case the Obama administration had hoped to showcase in its first military commission trial.
But the argument in a new paper published today by Loyola Law School professor David Glazier should give the administration even more cause for alarm. Glazier, an expert on international law and the laws of armed conflict, argues that the military commission trial of Omar Khadr is itself a war crime.
"a 17-page framework for education reform being released Monday by a coalition of civil rights groups amounts to a thrashing of President Obama's education policies and it offers a prescription for how to set things right"
Excerpts from the report highlighted by Strauss . . .
on Race to the Top:
"By emphasizing competitive incentives in this economic climate, the majority of low-income and minority students will be left behind and, as a result, the United States will be left behind as a global leader."
on charter schools:
"while some charter schools can and do work for some students, they are not a universal solution for systemic change for all students, especially those with the highest needs."
on so-called reform:
""Rather than addressing inequitable access to research-proven methodologies like high-quality early childhood education and a stable supply of experienced, highly effective teachers, recent education reform proposals have favored "stop gap" quick fixes that may look new on the surface but offer no real long-term strategy for effective systemic change."
President Obama is giving a speech on the economy today in Wisconsin. Conveniently, is the home state of the lone Democratic Senator, Russ Feingold, who has vowed to block the Wall Street reform bill (Washington's Maria Cantwell is undecided). This trip is reminiscent of President Obama's visit to Ohio late in the health reform fight, a trip which played a role in persuading Representative Dennis Kucinich to vote in favor of that bill.
Don't expect any political pressure to move Feingold, however, given his long track record of taking iconoclastic positions. Feingold voted against using military force in the Balkans and Iraq, declined DSCC "soft money" in his 1998 re-election campaign, voted against 1999 financial deregulation, was lone vote against the Patriot Act in 2001, first Senator to propose a withdrawal timeline from Iraq in 2005, introduced a censure measure on Bush in 2006, voted against TARP in both October 2008 and January 2009, etc. Even if I do not approve of Feingold's actions on the Wall Street reform bill, his overall record is truly inspiring.
While the trip to Wisconsin may be just a coincidence, it could also be the start of a two week long fight over final passage of the conference committee report on the Wall Street reform bill. Continued demurring from a number of Senators (most notably Scott Brown), combined with memorial services for Senator Robert Byrd, has all but guaranteed that the Wall Street reform fight will continue over the July recess. Those are the signals coming from top Democrats, too:
As much as Senate Democrats wanted to pass their Wall Street reform bill by the end of the week, the death of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) Monday morning made that almost impossible. Byrd will lie in state in the Capitol for most of tomorrow, and senators will spend much of Friday at a ceremony in West Virginia, eating up a great amount of the week's remaining Senate floor time. As early as yesterday morning, Senate Whip Dick Durbin told reporters it would be difficult to finish up the bill before July 4, and last night after the conference committee adjourned, legislators suggested very strongly that the vote in the Senate would have to wait.
The House of Representatives is expected to pass the conference report today. When Congress returns on Monday, July 12th, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will most likely file for cloture on the conference report. This will set up a vote on either Tuesday, July 13th, or Wednesday, July 14th. This makes for an intervening period of at least 13 days when opponents of the bill will try to get three of the following five Senators to vote no on cloture: Scott Brown, Maria Cantwell, Susan Collins, Charles Grassley and Olympia Snowe. With Robert Byrd's replacement likely to be sworn in before the vote, Democrats will also need three of those five in order to reach cloture, and send the bill to President Obama's desk later in the week.
So, it's a two week fight, and the terms are best three out of five. We should be able to win this, but there is recent precedent for Democratic members of Congress getting scared by right-wing turnout at townhalls. As I said in the post just below this, it ain't over 'till it's over.
While attention remains on the Senate with Elena Kagan and Wall Street reform, this week the House is fighting over Afghanistan war funding. In a positive move, House Democrats are going to strip $3.9 billion in infrastructure funding in Afghanistan, due to widespread corruption in the government. Ryan Grim:
The House Democrat who oversees funding for Afghanistan's redevelopment and reconstruction said on Monday that she is stripping money from her foreign aid bill in reaction to pervasive corruption. Dave Obey, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, supports the move made by subcommittee chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), according to an Obey spokesman.
Lowey cited pervasive corruption in Afghanistan as the cause for her decision to pull the funding from the appropriations bill working its way through her State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee.
"I do not intend to appropriate one more dime for assistance to Afghanistan until I have confidence that U.S. taxpayer money is not being abused to line the pockets of corrupt Afghan government officials, drug lords and terrorists," said Lowey.
A Lowey spokesman said the restrictions would not apply to direct humanitarian assistance for projects such as refugee camps, but would limit funds for USAID and the State Department, which funnel money to reconstruction efforts -- money that is often siphoned many times over.
The request that Lowey is rejecting amounts to $3.9 billion for the 2011 fiscal year.
Good. In addition to the corruption issue, I also like this since Republicans, Blue Dogs and Ben Nelson managed to kill all new stimulus spending in the United States. It simply feels stupid that we would be funneling infrastructure spending to the Afghanistan government while denying it domestically.
Additionally, Speaker Pelosi and President Obama sounded different rhetorical tones on withdrawal from Afghanistan next summer. While both are still talking about starting withdrawal next July, the different way they chose their words is notable.
In some of the strongest terms she has used to date, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared last Friday that the United States will see "a serious drawdown" of forces in Afghanistan by July 2011 and that the House may use the power of the purse to ensure the drawdown takes place.
In an exclusive interview with the Huffington Post, Pelosi made clear that while recent talk has hinted that the administration's stated goal of a June 2011 start date for a troop drawdown may be open to change, her commitment to it remains firm.
"I think we'll have a serious drawdown, I don't think it'll be, as [the president] said, turning out the lights," said Pelosi.
"I believe we'll need to provide assistance to Afghanistan for a long time to come," Obama said at a news conference following the conclusion of the G-20 summit. "We do not expect because of our involvement in Afghanistan that the country is going to completely transform itself in a year or two years or five years."
Obama chastised what he dubbed a current "obsession" over a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops. "My focus right now is how do we make sure what we're doing there is successful," he said. "By next year we will begin a transition."
Technically they both mean the same thing: withdrawal will start next year, but we will not pull out completely. However, Pelosi focuses on the drawdown, using the word "serious," while Obama talks of a long-term commitment, and even derides a focus on withdrawal. If you are looking to read the future between the lines, President Obama's language is not very encouraging.
Allow me to second David Sirota on twitter, and applaud President Obama's remarks on the civilian control of the military in his speech yesterday, when he accepted the resignation of General Stanely McChrystal:
The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general. It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. And it erodes the trust that's necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan.(...)
It is also true that our democracy depends upon institutions that are stronger than individuals. That includes strict adherence to the military chain of command, and respect for civilian control over that chain of command. And that's why, as Commander-in-Chief, I believe this decision is necessary to hold ourselves accountable to standards that are at the core of our democracy.
I disagree with our continued presence in Afghanistan, but it is laudable that President Obama emphasized how keeping McChrystal on as commander threatened civilian control of the military. If Generals can use the media obsequiousness to dictate military policy, and then stay on as commanders after denigrating virtually the entire civilian leadership of the military, then we would be at an extremely dangerous moment for our democracy.
Now, being in Afghanistan endangers us in multiple ways too, but credit where credit is due on this matter.
President Obama's speech on the BP disaster starts tonight at 8pm eastern, 5pm Pacific. It is expected to be 18 minutes in length. Shortly afterward, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs will answer questions about the disaster.
If, like me, you do not have access to television (in the middle of a move), but you do have access to the Internet (couldn't go without it), here is a livestream. The stream will feature both Obama's speech and the Gibb's follow-up:
David Dayen offers up a pretty detailed preview of what to expect. I will post the text of the speech in the extended entry, once the embargo is released shortly after 8pm.
This is an open thread. Make a comment on the speech!
Update: The complete text of the speech can be found in the extended entry.
I guess we'll know tomorrow with his "speech to the nation," as it is being called by the TV Pundits. It's been 56 days now since the explosion that started the oil eruption under water and just about everything that has been tried has been functionally useless (there's a cap of sorts taking our a small percentage of the flow, but not enough to make a difference, and two relief wells are being drilled to cut off the leak itself, but we're about two months away from it happening).
This week, Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski is set to get a vote on her bill to strip the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gasses. Because of an odd proceduiral quirk (this is "a disapproval resolution," not an actual bill), the bill cannot be amended or filibustered, and thus requires only 51 votes to pass. As such, it may actually pass the Senate. Already, four Democrats--Blanche Lincoln (ugh), Mary Landrieu, Jay Rockefeller and Ben Nelson--have given the bill their public backing. Many others remain undecided.
In fact, the White House might have inadvertently provided the biggest help possible to the congressional passage of the bill, by cryptically vowing to veto it:
However, the White House issued a statement yesterday underlining its opposition to the resolution and hinting strongly that the president would use his power of veto if it is passed.
'If the president is presented with this Resolution of Disapproval, which would seriously disrupt EPA's ability to address the threat of GHG (greenhouse gas) pollution, as well as the multi-agency Federal GHG and fuel economy program, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the resolution,' the statement said.
Don't get me wrong--it is good that the White House will veto this bill. With a substantive climate bill unlikely to pass the Senate, new EPA regulations are the best bet to instituting public policy that will address climate change in a meaningful way.
However, because of the way politics works on Capitol Hill, this veto threat effectively frees up Senators to vote in favor of the disapproval resolution. Since there is no chance the EPA's authority will be stripped by this legislation, many Senators looking to burnish their credentials as "independent" Democrats can now do so, for free, by voting with Senate Republicans on this bill.
This is a phenomenon we often see in Congress, no matter which party is in charge. Once the leadership thinks it has the votes to pass a bill, it frees up undecided members in competitive districts to vote their conscience. In fact, in some cases the leadership will actively encourage these members to vote against the party line, as a cynical means of demonstrating their independence from the party leadership.
Don't be surprised if the same thing happens on Murkowski's disapproval resolution. Because of Obama's veto, this legislation will not become law. However, because of Obama's veto threat, it may well pass the Senate later this week.
By Neil Hicks, International Policy Advisor
Crossposted from Huffington Post
This week, one year after President Obama's "remarks to the Muslim world" delivered at Cairo University on June 4, 2009, Egypt has made little or no progress in political reform, human rights or democracy advancement. In fact there has been retrenchment.
On May 11, the Egyptian government extended the near permanent State of Emergency for a further two years, prolonging the suspension of basic political freedoms for all Egyptians. In addition, it is painfully clear - and has been ever since the Egyptian government rammed through constitutional amendments stripping the Judiciary of powers to supervise the electoral process in 2007 - that elections that begin this month with the upper house of parliament, move on to the larger People's Assembly in October and culminate with the presidential elections in 2011, will be less free and fair than those held in 2005. Civil unrest and popular protests are on the rise, and protesters are routinely beaten into silence by security forces with scant regard for legal niceties or basic rights. Incidents of sectarian violence are also on the rise and Egypt's Coptic Christian minority is increasingly vulnerable to religiously motivated acts of violence.
Last week, the Obama administration's new National Security Strategy outlined an effort to combat such unrest though support for basic rights and freedoms and put forth a broader narrative of securing U.S. interests through strengthening multilateral institutions and building stronger relationships with partners and allies. This may well be a more palatable framework for the United States government to exert positive influence abroad than the sometimes abrasive unilateralism of its predecessor, but the administration will face the challenge of producing results early, especially in the broader Middle East, where cynicism about U.S. claims to be acting to support human rights and democracy runs deep, and most imminently in Egypt as it deals with the momentous issues surrounding succession.
Egyptian politics entered a state of fretful paralysis several years ago when President Mubarak's health began to weaken and the question of succession became the major preoccupation of Egypt's political classes. In the shadow of the momentous question of who will guide the ship of state when the 30 year president, third in an unbroken line of military autocrats dating back to the 1952 revolution, steps aside, political reform and the advancement of human rights and democracy has little chance. In the pervasive atmosphere of uncertainty about what will happen after Egypt's longest serving ruler since Muhammad Ali Pasha steps aside, Egypt's rulers have become resistant to political reform that might loosen the ruling elite's grip on power.
The choice confronting the Obama administration is clear. One option is to continue to support what Steven A. Cook has called "authoritarian stability" in Egypt. This has been the settled U.S. policy towards Egypt since President Sadat brought Egypt into the western camp in 1979. The problems with this approach have been apparent for years. Egypt's lack of political reform has led to decline and mounting social problems. Persistent regional instability and the Egyptian government's adeptness at making itself useful to the United States in managing regional crises have shielded the Cairo government from sustained U.S. pressure to make good on its always postponed promises to move forward with reform.
After 9/11, the Bush administration faced up to the reality that authoritarian stability was not only bad for Egypt, but also came with a price that could even include encouraging extremists to attack the United States. The Bush administration confronted the problem head on and proclaimed a new approach that would put advancing democracy and freedom in Egypt and the other countries of the region as a national security priority of the United States. Secretary of State Rice delivered a devastating critique of authoritarian stability theory in Cairo, and this view was expressed by other spokespeople and in policy documents, notably the National Security Strategy of the United States from March 2006.
In the final two years of the Bush administration, democracy and human rights promotion efforts were overtaken by events. The Egyptian government again demonstrated its usefulness to U.S. policy imperatives like containing intra-Palestinian violence or stabilizing Iraq, and was able to play its perennial trump card, through the carefully stage-managed results of the 2005 parliamentary elections: that the only alternative to the authoritarianism you know is an empowered Muslim Brotherhood you certainly will not like.
President Bush's Freedom Agenda died a death unacknowledged by its authors, but President Obama has returned to some of the same themes, albeit it in a more conciliatory tone, in his Cairo remarks and other speeches setting out this administration's policies for promoting human rights and democracy abroad. Not only did President Obama pledge to support human rights everywhere, he also explained why this was important - governments that promote and protect human rights are "more stable, successful and secure."
Unless the Obama administration finds a way to use the succession from thirty years of rule by President Mubarak as an opportunity to place U.S. relations with Egypt on a different footing, such that they contribute to genuine political reform, greater democracy and improved respect for human rights over time, then by the administration's own arguments, Egypt will be at risk of greater instability, economic decline and greater insecurity. Moreover, a failure to rise to the challenge at such a pivotal moment in a key bi-lateral relationship would not go unnoticed and would undermine one of the central pillars of the new National Security Strategy before its ink is dry on the page.
If you look at any of the 24X7 news shows or even the Today Show, you will see everyone proclaiming that there is an anti-incumbent mood spreading across America. There is good reason to say that as evidenced by the size of Tea Party rallies and even a few of the races last Tuesday. But, my personal opinion is that this is less about an anti-incumbent mood and more about a "pro-change" disposition. Voters are angry about the current state of blame and stall politics. They expect elected officials to keep their promises - and that extends to clean energy and climate legislation.
Even though clean energy and climate issues are rarely at the heart of the anti-incumbency rhetoric, the frustration with all things Beltway could block comprehensive energy legislation this year.
President Obama's leadership is the only force that can change that.
You see, when the electorate turns anti-Washington, Congressmen freeze up. They get scared of taking bold steps and they start saying "no" to everything.
Even on a good day, the odds of passing any bill in Congress--no matter the issue--starts at about 5 percent. Smart gamblers always bet the no vote in Congress.
But being a naysayer becomes even more attractive to politicians when they think their job is at risk. Voting "no" on a big, transformative bill allows them to give the illusion that they are "playing it safe" and to keep the bull's-eye off their back for potential mid-term popularity contests.
"No" may be an easy decision for politicians, but it is the wrong choice for the American people.
We need to say yes to a clean energy and climate bill that will generate nearly 2 million jobs, put our nation at the forefront of one of the biggest markets of the 21st century, end our reliance on oil, and reduce dangerous pollution. Yet so many lawmakers are in a panic over elections that they can't see these benefits.
They need to snap out of it. In a movie, this is the moment when someone would come along and slap the panicking person in the face. In politics, that slap is leadership.
President Obama must take charge of clean energy and climate legislation. The only major bills that pass through Congress are the ones with White House support. We are fortunate that President Obama backs climate action, but given this anti-incumbent mood, we need him not just to support it; we need him to lead it.
What would that look like? We saw it in the heath care debate. President Obama went into campaign mode and stumped on that bill every single day. He called in political chits. He got people in the same room to negotiate. He dragged it over the finish line because he went farther than asking for change. He demanded it.
That is what we need him to do for a clean energy and climate bill. Because let's be frank: either we see some leadership or we call it a day.
If we don't pass the bill this year, we won't get another chance for years. Dave Robert's painted the grim prospects for national climate action given the likely outcomes of future election cycles in his Grist blog this week. It doesn't look good for another eight years - at least.
We need to get America moving right now toward a clean energy future, and we need President Obama to lead the way.
This week, Robert Redford appeared in a television ad for the NRDC that has already been written about in the Washington Post and New York Times. Interestingly, he didn't call on Congress to take clean energy and climate action. He called on President Obama.
The president is the one with the bully pulpit. Tell him to use it on behalf of clean energy and climate solutions. Securing our future depends on it.
STATE BLOGS
