Showing posts with label Progressives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Progressives. Show all posts

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Time For Progressives To Make Some Hard Choices

Facing a huge budget short fall, Chicago's Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Governor Quinn announced the closure of 6 city  and 7 state mental health facilities.Mental health activists and concerned citizens are justifiably indignant, because mental health services are already woefully inadequate. And even I, an ardent conservative am troubled by these cuts, because assisting those who are truly incapable of taking care of themselves is a legitimate function of the state. But, given that we are broke, progressives cannot defend their entire policy platform. They will have to make some hard choices in which programs and groups are most deserving of limited funds and which must be slashed. And they will have to implicitly acknowledge the concept of the (more and the less) deserving poor. Should economically unsustainable patterns of single motherhood be subsidized, when countless individuals suffer from untreated mental illness? Can we support lavish benefits for public workers, when basic public services (like schools, roads and the police) are in such a poor state? Progressives who are grounded in fiscal reality will have to consider traditionally conservative questions.


Aldermen unhappy about Emanuel’s mental health clinic closings

Story Image
Alderman Nick Sposato during todays City Council meeting in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Thursday, July 28, 2011 | Brian Jackson~Sun-Times
Updated: October 25, 2011 5:42PM


Chicago aldermen on Tuesday ripped Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s plan to close six mental health clinics, fully fund just two of them and have seven city health clinics partner with federally-qualified health centers.
“We’re leaving many people with nowhere to turn. In the long run, it’s going to be very costly in tax dollars and suffering because people will not get the care they need. They’ll be ending up in emergency rooms and jails,” said Ald. Nick Sposato (36th).
Ald. Walter Burnett (27th) focused on the 53 Health Department employees who stand to lose their jobs in 2012.
“Most of these layoffs are minorities. That’s a big concern,” Burnett said.
Ald. Scott Waguespack (32nd) warned that the consolidation of mental health clinics would force patients to travel long distances “outside their comfort zone” and asked Health Commissioner Bechara Choucair whether he had consulted with Chicago Police about the closing.
When Choucair said he had not, Waguespack pointed to the July 2008 death of Chicago Police Officer Richard Francis.
Francis was answering a disturbance call on a CTA bus when he was shot and killed by a woman with a history of violent seizures who grabbed his gun during a struggle. Just a few days before, the same woman had pulled a knife on one of her daughters.
“We’re putting police officers in a difficult position,” Waguespack said.
Over and over, Choucair insisted that the cuts were carefully considered and that mental health patients would be better served at lower cost to Chicago taxpayers.
“I’m confident we’re enhancing services,” the commissioner said.
Of all the cuts in the mayor’s first budget, the health and library cuts have drawn the most fire during City Council budget hearings.
Emanuel wants to lay off 53 Health Department employees and eliminate 25 vacant positions.
Six of the city’s 12 mental health clinics would be closed, and only two of the remaining six would be fully-funded. The budget also calls for implementing the mayor’s summer plan to have seven city health clinics partner with federally-qualified health centers.
Henry Bayer, executive director of AFSCME Council 31, called the Health Department cuts the most devastating cost-cutting in the mayor’s first budget.
“If you presented this budget to [Republican House Speaker] John Boehner in Congress, he’d pass it in a minute. I hope the City Council won’t,” Bayer said.
“The mayor is cutting into basic services and laying off hundreds of front-line employees who provide those vital services. When we actually see who is being laid off, I suspect it’ll be largely females and minorities.”
Top mayoral aides have insisted that the city was “reinvesting $500,000 in enhanced psychiatry services and care coordination” in the consolidated mental health clinics. That’s a move, they claim that would provide “improved service at a lower cost.”
“The city will maintain services for those most in need — uninsured patients — but provide the services in a more cost-effective manner. The city will actually be able to increase services provided and save $3 million,” Kathleen Strand, a spokesperson for the city’s Office of Budget and Management, said earlier this month.
She noted that all 3,000 uninsured patients would continue to be served by the city.

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Occupy Wall Street: Half Right



It would be unfair the speak of an Occupy Wall Street platform, because it is a diverse, decentralized movement, with more opinions than members. But, there are some commonly held beliefs of the protesters, which can roughly be divided into two categories: freedom from undue corporate influence in political life and an expansion of entitlements. I share the former set of grievances; tax payer funded government bailouts of politically connected corporations forced us to reckon with the extent to which powerful financial interests and their lobbyists control national policy. But, the protesters who believe that this an example of a "free market gone amok" are painfully mistaken, the socialization of private, corporate loss is a toxic examples of excessive government intervention in the economy. But, rather than simply protest the bailout of reckless Wall Street firms, a notable segment of protesters declare that bailouts and entitlements should be vastly expanded. They call for "free" education, including the forgiveness of all billions in student debt, "free" health care, "free" transportation and the creation of 25 million jobs via a New Deal Style program. They fail to see the inherent moral and economic hazards in a system that usurps wealth from one sector to subsidize another. And the more obvious question that eludes them is: "What part of broke don't you understand?" A nation already buried in debt cannot expand the largess of the state, it must embark on the path of austerity.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

A Classical Liberal (Libertarian) Approach To Fighting Racism


Pictured Above: The Great Martin Luther King JR.

As someone who detests the evils of racism and sexism, I very much looked forward to taking a pedagogy class which included an anti-bias curriculum. But, early on in the class I discovered that the curriculum was heavily ideological and used as a platform to promote other political and cultural agendas. Present in this vision was the belief that the American Way was innately racist and oppressive. The driving vision of this class was a multicultural ideology that indirectly encouraged teachers to view their students as members of groups, rather than unique individuals.Among the agendas that it promoted was a curricular transformation that encouraged teachers to de-emphasize "eurocentric literature" with a "white male perspective." While these view points are worthy of debate, one need not adopt them in order to live a life free of prejudice and discrimination. In fact, the strong vein of Cultural Marxism present in anti-bias curricula has done much to dissuade well meaning Americans from embracing its otherwise reasonable message.

Perhaps what I find most troubling about some university level anti-racist programs is their invasive focus on addressing "incorrect" private thoughts, attitudes and ideologies, rather than concrete behaviors. The University of Delaware's  resident life program  even bore resemble to a Maoist era struggle session, in which participants had to confess and atone for their prohibited thoughts. New students faced one-on-one interviews, in which they were questioned by their Resident Assistants (RA) on their views on race, gender, sexuality and the environment. The secession included deeply invasive questions like "when did you discover your sexual identity" and "race?" If the purpose of these invasive sessions were to facilitate open debate and exploration, perhaps they might have been acceptable, but their stated goals were for students to accept preordained conclusions like "systemic oppression exists in our society" and to "recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression." Even more troubling was the fact that RAs wrote up and delivered reports to their superiors, with one student even being written up for stating that she was "tired of having diversity shoved down her throat." 

An approach to anti-bias and anti-racism that is more effective with and attractive to Americans is one that invokes the spirit of Classical Liberalism (Libertarianism), which affirms the importance of individual (economic and social) liberty and rule of law. A key component in the success of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was his ability to present racism as a failure to realize the American Way; for what can be more Anti-American than preventing others from enjoying "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? The engine for progress in the treatment of African-Americans has not been radical efforts to reject or redefine the Great American Vision, but to fully realize it, so that all Americans can enjoy its spiritual and material fruits. And without invoking multiculturalism and other divisive ideologies, we can and should call upon our fellow Americans to reject racist behavior as an affront to civility, fairness and individualism. 

While the constitution protects individual liberty from state and private oppression, it also guarantees freedom of belief and freedom of expression, even for those who hold racist and "incorrect" beliefs. Accordingly, most classical liberals (libertarians) are not so focused on the beliefs that one may hold about groups, but in the manner in which they behave towards individuals. For example, I am not so concerned about the "improper" beliefs that some of my clients hold about my group (Jews), because they fairly treat me as an individual. How is this possible, you may ask? An observant and intellectually honest person can recognize trends that they may or may not like about any given group, while still affirming the uniqueness of each individual and treating them accordingly. When I posed this very question to a client of mine who engages in racist rants against virtually every group, yet has employed and even befriended: African-American, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Polish and Jewish individuals, his response was "I may be racist, but I am not Stupid!!!" This seemingly paradoxical view highlights the fact that participation in a competitive free market is a far more effective antidote to racist behavior than hours of indoctrination at the University of Delaware. 

I will close this post with a thoughtful speech by Dr. Ron Paul that elaborates on the hazards that even well meaning collectivist campaigns against racism hold and reaffirms the surest protection being an affirmation of individual liberty:

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity."
  

Sunday, January 1, 2012

What is Liberalism? What is Conservatism?

I shy away from being excessively reductive, but if I had to define the political currents of the last century, in the United States it would be as follows:

Liberalism was the critique of the social, political and economic status quo from the turn of the century to the 1970's that resulted in an unparalleled growth in the size and scope of the state . During this time, Conservatism was by and large the defense of the status quo. 

Now we see that Liberalism has become a defense of an unsustainable status quo and at least the more dynamic branches of Conservatism has become its greatest challengers. 

Monday, May 16, 2011

The Progressive Contradiction: Undocumented Immigration



Underlying most progressive positions is a support for greater regulation and government planning. From finance to pharmaceuticals, fair housing to farming, health care to hiring practices, gas mileage to green house gases; it is a given that social, economic and environmental welfare are furthered by greater government involvement. Free markets must be tamed and guided by a wise use of subsidies and penalties. Little is left to choice or chance.The one exception to the rule is the manner in which most progressives approach undocumented immigration.

Those who seek to regulate virtually every facet of the lives of American Citizens refuse to support measures to control the unregulated entry of non-citizens. Those who are normally averse to free trade and free markets extol the virtues of the free movement of labor. Individuals who view permits and licenses as sacrosanct turn a blind eye to unlicensed activities of undocumented plumbers and carpenters. These same individuals fight for higher wages and better working conditions, yet refuse to address a phenomena that has eroded both. And those who promote the micromanagement of restaurants, via the elimination of trans fats and happy meals, ignore the proliferation of completely unregulated immigrant street vendors. Some may respond that they seek to take undocumented immigrants out of the shadows into the "regulatory light," but do not mention how they would address the future waves of individuals who would "fill the shadows."

I would welcome this laissez faire approach if it were applied across the board, if it originated in a new found respect for economic freedom. But, I believe that it stems from a vision in which diversity and a fear of being perceived as racist trumps all other values and social goods. Even though the progressive approach to immigration is motivated by humane sentiments and noble intentions, its unintended consequences are the de facto formation of different rules, standards and expectations for members of different groups. De factor sancutaries and other accommodations have their economic and social benefits, but we should take heed, because in the long run they are inimical to the rule of law and true equality.

Sunday, April 24, 2011

It's Ok To Be Progressive (Anywhere But Washington DC)



It will probably come as a surprise that I, the dreaded arch-conservative, the Grinch who stole progress, support progressive politics in any place but Washington DC. In fact, I positively view the efforts of the people of Portland Oregon and other towns, to limit sprawl, preserve green space and strengthen public transportation. If they decided to legalize the marriage of cats and dogs and men and monkeys, it would be their business and their business alone. And I even view the socialist kibbutzim with great favor.

The reason is that on a local level progressive initiatives are more democratic and represent true self governance. And although I am personally averse to high taxation, I respect the rights of local communities to determine what portion of their earnings they would like to invest in the public sphere. On the other hands, federal efforts to impose "progress" are by their very nature coercive, and less responsive to the needs, desires and cultures of local communities. And most importantly, those who are unhappy with local initiatives are always welcome to challenge them through the democratic process or to vote with their feet and find another town or state that better reflects their values. In contrast, nothing is as permanent as temporary federal program and when politicians in DC imposes their laws and taxes across the land, there is nowhere to run.

Sunday, February 6, 2011

A Libertarian-Progressive Alliance?



Ron Paul and Ralph Nader: A Libertarian-Progressive Alliance?

By RonPaul.com

January 20, 2011

Ron Paul and Ralph Nader joined Judge Andrew Napolitano on Freedom Watch to discuss the possibility of fighting the establishment through a libertarian-progressive alliance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwIZ4syCFLc

Transcript



Judge Napolitano [host of Fox Business “Freedom Watch”]: Tonight on Freedom Watch, a very special event: Libertarian and Tea Party hero, Ron Paul, and icon of the Left, Ralph Nader. Think they couldn’t disagree? Think again! Congressman Paul, Mr. Nader are with us now in a rare interview. Congressman Paul is the author of End the Fed. Ralph Nader is the author of Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us. Gentlemen, welcome to Freedom Watch.

Ron Paul: Thank you.

Ralph Nader: Thank you.

Judge Napolitano: Ralph, to you first. You have recently said that Congressman Paul and the Tea Party Republicans are different than the other Republicans in the Congress. What do you mean by that?

Ralph Nader: To the extent that they are genuine libertarian conservatives and not corporatists—corporatists believe in corporate government—they are great allies with many liberals and progressives to challenge the bloated, wasteful military budget, to challenge undeclared wars overseas, to challenge hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare, handouts, giveaways, bailouts, to challenge the invasiveness of our civil liberties and civil rights by the notorious PATRIOT Act, to challenge the sovereignty-shredding, job-destroying NAFTA and World Trade Organization Agreements—and also, too, the first victory will be a powerful whistleblower bill, that libertarian conservatives and liberals and progressives in the Congress almost got through last year, to let government employees ethically blow the whistle on corporate rapaciousness and contracts and government misdeeds. Just think of that agenda for a dynamic political force!

Judge Napolitano: All right, Ralph, you have given enough topics there for us to talk to for two hours. We only have about ten minutes. And you’re both friends of mine, and we both have chatted about these issues. But Congressman Paul, almost everything that Ralph Nader just said, you could have said. And you have said. Is this a coalition of the leading libertarian in the Congress and one of the leading progressives in American culture today?

Ron Paul: Well, I believe in coaltions. You know, they always talk about “We need more bipartisanship.” And I say we have too much bipartisanship, because the bipartisanship here in Washington endorses corporatism, which Ralph and I disapprove of. But, you know, coalitions are different. Ralph and I do have some disagreements. But that list he just made, I agree with him on that. So I think we should come together and work together, and I think we can. Matter of fact, we had a little project during the last campaign where I got progressives and libertarians and conservatives together, and we actually had an agreement that we shouldn’t be having deficit financing. We didn’t agree on where to spend and who to tax and all-not. But we had an agreement that these runaway deficits are horrible for us. And of course, we even mentioned the Fed and we got in agreement. So I think there’s a lot of room for progressives and libertarian conservatives to work together on it.

Judge Napolitano: Ralph, Congressman Paul, of course, has been the leading member of Congress on auditing the Fed and on ending the Fed. You probably support him on both of those, don’t you?

Ralph Nader: Well, the Fed is completely out of control! It’s not under any legal controls that Congress can really enforce. I mean, look at the bailouts over the weekend, last year—a year and a half, little over a year ago—on Citigroup, $350 billion bailout in secret. The banks fund the Fed. It doesn’t go through the congressional appropriations process, as it should under our Constitution. It needs an audit. And I think Congressman Paul is teaming up with hyper-progressive Senator Sanders to bring the Fed into openness and greater accountability. So that’s another political dynamic that can increase in force and power in Congress.

Judge Napolitano: All right, Congressman Paul, the last time we talked about—since the last time we talked about this—there’s been a change. And that is, the new Congress has come in. The Republicans are numerically superior in the House, and as a result of this, you are chair of a subcomittee of the House, one of whose jobs is to monitor the Fed. Question: Will you succeed in serving subpoenas on Ben Bernanke, to show up and have a chat with you, under oath, and to bring his ledger sheets with him? And will comply with those subpoenas? And if he does do that, can Ralph Nader sit in the front row?

Ron Paul: Well I’ll tell you what. I’ve been doing some checking, and I’ve been informed that the Federal Reserve Board Chairman and the Secretary of Treasury and officials in the Cabinet go to the full committee, so I will not have that authority. But I may be able to do somebody that is not the full chairman of the committee, but if he does, it will have to come from the chairman of the committee. But that doesn’t mean that we’ll go lightly on digging up for this information, because Ralph is absolutely right on this thing. Actually, the Federal Reserve can have a bigger budget than the Congress. I mean, they can spend three, four trillion dollars in a year, and then they don’t want to tell us. Now, one thing, I did get a gentleman’s agreement with, on many members on the Banking Committee already, is, I made a suggestion. I said, “Why don’t we ask the Fed what they’re going to do? If they’re going to spend a certain amount of money, get approval from the Congress. If they plan to give $10 billion out, why should they do that without Congressional approval? It’s totally out of control. It was never meant to be. And it was never the Founders’ intention to have the system that we have today.

Judge Napolitano: All right, last question on the Fed, and then I want to change the subject. Ralph, would you support—would progressives support—a repeal of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913? Stated differently: Literally, legally, ending the Fed?

Ralph Nader: Well, I can’t speak for all of them. But clearly, in my judgment, the Fed should be a—whatever it does—should be a Cabinet-level accountable institution. Right now, it’s a private bank government inside the federal government, funded by fees from the banks and thumbing its nose at Congress! But its worst nightmare is Congressman Ron Paul, who now is head of the subcommittee overseeing the Fed. Watch for the fireworks!

Judge Napolitano: All right. Let’s switch gears and talk about fireworks. Congressman Paul, if we ended our military ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow, could that not provide us the substantial and deep budget cuts that we need to prevent further borrowing, and perhaps to spend less than we actually take in in tax dollars?

Ron Paul: Absolutely. And I think it’s the easiest place to cut. I mean, we as Libertarians might not approve of some of these medical programs. But is that the place to start? Or should it be overseas spending, and should we have a stronger national defense by bringing our troops home? And I say that is the place to go. We should cut from overseas, and bring the troops home. And I think the world would be more at peace. I was complaining today—they had questions about China. I said, “They’re getting to be good capitalists. They work hard, they save money, and they buy up resources. What do we do? We send our troops out and say, ‘We’re protecting our oil in the Middle East,’ and we’re draining our resources. That does contribute significantly to the bankruptcy. All wars are fought with inflation, destruction of the money, which is the reason we have unemployment today.

Judge Napolitano: Ralph, I know—

Ralph Nader: Just to punctuate—

Judge Napolitano: I know how you feel about the wars, Ralphh. I want to switch gears a little bit—

Ralph Nader: Just to punctuate: $30 million an hour! 24 hours a day, we’re spending on those two wars. $30 million an hour!

Judge Napolitano: Ralph… Wikileaks. Is it a good thing, for mature people, in a mature democracy, to know what their government is up to, let the chips fall where they may?

Ralph Nader: Of course! Information is the currency of democracy. Without information, you don’t what the government is doing, you don’t know how to check it, you don’t know how to improve it. And, as Congressman Ron Paul said memorably a few days ago, the Bush-Cheney administration lied their way to the Iraq War, and lying is covering up the truth, and lying is secrecy. And the same is true for millions of Americans being, been subjected to surveillance, in violation of Federal law, which is a five-year felony. So, you know, here they’re worried about Wikileaks, when we’ve gotten into war because of secrecy and cover-ups, illegal wars, and we are putting Americans under unconstitutional surveillance?

Judge Napolitano: Got it. All right. You two have been agreeing on a lot. Now, the hot topic of the day, on which, I suspect, you disagree—well, maybe I can find some common ground. I think you are both in favor of repealing the Health Care Law: Congressman Paul, because he wants the free market to address healthcare; Mr. Nader, because he wants universal healthcare, paid for by the government, which this legislation doesn’t accomplish. Ralph, to you first: Healthcare. If you were in the Congress today, would you vote to repeal it?

Ralph Nader: Yes. In favor of single-payer. Full Medicare for all, with free choice of doctor and hospital, by everybody—everybody in, nobody out. The insurance companies have defaulted. They’ve demonstrated they cannot be trusted in terms of establishing a “pay-or-die,” or “pay-or-get-sick” system, which is costing 45,000 American lives a year who cannot get insurance to get diagnosed and treated. But there’s a better—

Naplolitano: Okay. Congressman Paul, I suspect you don’t agree with anything Ralph just said. You have the last word.

Ron Paul: Well, we both oppose the corporatism that’s involved in medicine, and that’s one thing we agree on. But no, I disagree with the delivery of healthcare by the government. Any time the government delivers a service, the cost goes up and the quality goes down—and whether it’s education or whether it’s medical care. So I want medical care delivered more like cellphones and TVs and computers. Because there, there’s the least amount of regulation, the prices keep dropping, and poor people end up with TVs and cellphones. That’s what would happen with services, too, and would maintain the services.

Judge Napolitano: Congressman Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, thank you for joining us on Freedom Watch.

Ralph Nader: It’s public funding and private delivery, is what “single-payer” is.

Judge Napolitano: Got it, Ralph. Got it. Coming up, a man who refused to let the President take away his GM car dealship—

http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-01-20/ron-paul-and-ralph-nader-a-libertarian-progressive-alliance/

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Saluting Bernie Sanders!



Holy cow, I agree with Senator Bernie Sanders (I - Vermont), a self styled "socialist democrat"! Although we differ on a vast array of topics, I admire Mr. Sanders for his commitment to promoting government transparency. This was demonstrated during a hearing in which he grilled Douche Vader (Ben Bernanke), pressing him to reveal which banks received $2.3 Trillion dollars from the Federal Reserve. To view the hearing, click on the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOpQkRsEfaU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Implied Progressive Racism? (part I)

During a discussion led by David Horowitz, he asked a Muslim American college student if she was for or against Hezbollah's stated goal that all Jews should gather in Israel so that he wouldn't have to hunt them down globally. In other words, Mr. Horowitz sought to determine if she supported the genocide of Jews. To this she responded she was "for it."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n91ih3_Yy5Y

Can you imagine the protests, condemnations and calls for action if a Christian student called for the genocide of Jews or Muslims? Campus progressives would demand that the university reprimand the individual, make them attend diversity seminars and then investigate the "right wing Christian student groups" that incited them. Clearly not all individuals and communities are held to the same standards.

This hearkens me back to the Los Angeles Riots when mostly African-American and Hispanic mobs plundered predominantly Korean owned shops. Rather than condemn the (small minority of) individuals who chose to steal, a litany of socio-economic explanations were used to absolve them of their crimes. The first problem that we encounter with this narrative is that it fails to take into account the vast majority of African-Americans and Hispanics who chose to address their grievances in an intelligent, constructive fashion. And if one individual is responsible for their wise decisions, is not the other equally responsible for their foolish ones?

In the past when white mobs terrorized African-Americans and other groups, progressives correctly reproached them as individuals who were morally responsible for their abhorrent behavior. So, why then do most progressive narratives present minorities as passive groups, rather than as morally engaged individuals?

I believe that the problem is that many progressive can only conceptualize minorities as victims rather than perpetrators. And when they do acknowledge examples of hate and violence, usually it is explained away a response to socio-economic injustice. Of course I do not deny the existence of racism and injustice, but such explanations fundamentally reduce individuals to passive agents, products of their environment. By failing to treat individuals as active, intelligent moral agents who are responsible for their actions, we negate their individuality and treat them like children, an endeavor which is implicitly racist and demeaning.

Sunday, September 5, 2010

Where's Jesse (and the Progressives)?



A few years ago when Kramer (Michael Richards) uttered a hateful racial epitath against African-Americans, his outburst was widely condemned by journalists and politicians. And of course Jesse Jackson thrust himself into the limelight, using this incident to highlight (I paraphrase) the ongoing racism against African-Americans that pervades American Society. So, when I read about racist attacks against Asian-Americans students in a Philadelphia high school that left 30 injured and 7 hospitalized, I was certain that Mr. Jackson and his progressive compatriots would rush to the scene and condemn the attackers. I was certain that a certifiable race riot would be avidly discussed on every major media outlet and used as a teachable moment to address the evils of racism. After all, we can be certain if 30 African-American students were injured in racially motivated attacks, President Obama would hold a solemn press conference and initiate a major federal initiative. But, it wasn't. At first I assumed this was because the perpetrators were not white, they were African-Americans and the victims were not part of an "oppressed group." And I assumed that the lack of widespread progressive indignation stemmed from the fact they implicitly conceive of African-Americans as being passive agents who are not responsible for their actions, but products of their environment. But, then I decided to give Jesse the benefit of the doubt; perhaps he has been too busy chatting with Kramer, George and Jerry over a cup of coffee and tuna sandwich to take notice of a race riot.

Racial violence changes student — and school

By JESSE WASHINGTON

The Associated Press

updated 9/5/2010

PHILADELPHIA — Duong Nghe Ly can't wait to begin his senior year at South Philadelphia High School. A day of violence there last year changed his life, and he wants to learn if his school has been transformed as well.

Last Dec. 3, after years of attacks on Asian immigrant students, something finally snapped.

Fueled by rumors, a group of students roamed the halls searching for Asian victims until one was attacked in a classroom. Later, about 70 students stormed the cafeteria, where several Asians were beaten. About 35 students pushed past a police officer onto the so-called "Asian floor," but were turned back. After school, Asians being escorted home were attacked anyway by a mob of youths.

Almost all the attackers were black — but few observers believe the violence was due to racial hatred. Instead, they cite isolation of different groups within the school, certain students' warped "gangster" values, and for some, simmering resentments over perceived benefits for Asian students.

About 30 Asians were injured that day; seven went to hospitals. Past attacks had been reported to administrators and police, but students say nothing seemed to change.

..Ly (pronounced LEE) was in the lunchroom for what he calls "the riot." Days later, he was followed home from school and punched in the face on his front stoop.

He had arrived from Vietnam two years earlier, speaking nearly no English, the son of poor, uneducated parents. He thought America would be like the "Hannah Montana" TV episodes he had watched in Vietnam. What he found was closer to "The Wire." So he kept his head down, sought silent refuge among his countrymen and tried to make his way through the broken system.

Dec. 3 was a turning point. He realized the system must change — and that he and his fellow immigrants were the ones to make that happen.

Their method? Guided by local activists, and despite reservations from some parents, about 50 Asian students boycotted school for a week.

"Before, I was timid. I didn't really want to get myself into trouble," says Ly, 18. Then he realized, "If everybody's silent, nobody speaks up, the problem keeps going on without being resolved. I feel like I or my friends have to speak up and organize to tell people this is not right.

"We had to fight for it."

___

Duong Ly's parents, ethnic Chinese who grew up in Vietnam, worked 27 years to grasp the bottom rung of the ladder to American success.

His mother, Phung Mac, attended school through the second grade, when her family ran out of money to pay for more. His father, Tu Ly, made it through the sixth grade. In 1981, they submitted their first paperwork to immigrate to the United States.

"You had to have a certain background to go to school, be in the Communist Party," Tu Ly says in Cantonese as his son translates. "Your grandparents had to be a party member for you to get into good schools. Otherwise it cost a lot of money to get an education."

Ly's parents lived in Ho Chi Minh City, eking out a living selling "pho" noodle soup, rising at 5 a.m. and working in their shop until 9 or 10 at night. All extra money went toward school for Duong (pronounced YUHNG) and his older brother, and fees for immigration paperwork. At times they could not pay their rent and were forced to move, but they always made sure their boys stayed in school.

Ly's mother developed painful hip problems. Her younger brother, who had already moved to America, sent money to pay for an operation. It was unsuccessful — the doctor said it was "an experiment. If you want a better ... operation, you need to pay more money," she says in Cantonese.

In 2008, after spending about $20,000 on immigration fees, the family was approved and came to Philadelphia. "We finally achieved our wish: freedom," Tu Ly says. "We finally had a chance for a better education."

South Philadelphia High looms over an entire city block in a poor section of South Philadelphia long populated by descendants of voyagers from Italy, other European nations and the black American South. Asians and Latinos are now coming in greater numbers. Today, the school is about 70 percent black and 18 percent Asian.

During Duong Ly's first year, there were 45 reports of "dangerous incidents" such as weapons possession or assaults at the school of about 1,000 students, enough to earn a "persistently dangerous" label from the state. There also were 326 reports of lesser crimes such as fighting, threats or robberies. The graduation rate was 48 percent. Only 16 percent of students were proficient or better in reading and 8 percent in math, according to state test results.

Within weeks of starting school, Ly was robbed in the bathroom. His older brother was punched in the face. "Our friends told us, 'Just suffer it,'" Ly says.

They didn't report either incident.

___

Duong Ly speaks dispassionately, expressing no racial animosity, when asked to explain how fellow students could commit such vicious attacks.

"Because they live in a violent environment," he suggests. "Maybe their parents have problems and troubles, so they want to express their anger by violence."

His father also declines to condemn the attackers. "In Vietnam," he says, "the original Vietnamese people don't like us because we are a different ethnicity. People from the countryside who move to the city get discrimination from city people. It's the same here. They don't have an understanding about who we are. Discrimination happens in every society."

About a dozen black students were suspended or expelled after Dec. 3. Their names have been kept secret, and they have not commented publicly.

Some other black students show little sympathy for them. "They're just hating on other races. They don't have anything better to do with their lives," says Tyreke Williams, who graduated last June.

Wali Smith makes no excuses for the attacks, but understands where they come from. A community specialist who holds workshops on anger management and conflict resolution in various schools, he witnessed the Dec. 3 violence.

The South Philly native says blacks have always felt marginalized in the neighborhood dominated by Italians and Irish. Now, some students feel an almost unconscious resentment when they see their Asian counterparts studying on their special second-floor sanctuary, which was established to provide language programs and provide a more welcoming environment.

"Those (black) kids feel the majority of the staff there does not care about their education," Smith says. "They see these Asian kids come in and be nurtured, and they want that same kind of comfort."

Then there is a small group of troublemakers with a value system that says, "it's cool to be gangster," Smith says. "But really you're afraid, a scared coward. So you take advantage of weak people."

"It's not based on race, it's based on opportunity," Smith said of the history of violence against Asians. "If they go to the bathroom and take your money, and you don't report it, they'll just keep riding it until the wheels fall off."

___

The Asian students and activists reserve almost all of their criticism for administrators and the school district, which they say consistently failed to protect students.

A school district spokesman did not return a call for comment. Administrators have insisted that they responded to Asian students' complaints and tried their best to combat violence that has become part of the culture for some Philadelphia youths.

"These problems are long-standing and go beyond the school and into the community," district superintendent Arlene Ackerman said a week after the attacks.

A report by a retired judge, which was commissioned by the district, said there were confrontations between a small group of black and Asian students on Dec. 2 that led to the widespread Dec. 3 attacks on random Asians. The report was criticized by Asians who say it failed to account for years of documented violence and that investigators did not interview many student victims and witnesses.

Yet Duong Ly is still enthusiastic about his school. He says the English as a Second Language program is good, the teachers care, there are plenty of computers with Internet access — and it's all free.

"If I study hard I will get a lot of opportunities, scholarships, grants...," he says. "It's rewarding to work hard and study hard here, more than in Vietnam. I can go to a better school, go to college, get a career, then I can take care of my parents. So I like it more here."

He also likes his new home, a narrow, two-story row house bought from his uncle. They are the only Asians on the block.

The front door opens into the living room, where the family's bicycles (they have no car) share space with an old, fat television, couches and a folding table for meals. On the far wall is a handsome curio cabinet of polished wood, ornately carved, holding photographs of ancestors.

Tu Ly works as a cook in an Asian supermarket. His wife is unemployed. The family has permanent resident status and expects to become naturalized citizens within a few years. Recently, Medicaid paid for a hip replacement for Duong's mother.

"We owe this country a lot," Tu Ly says. "The government paid a lot of money for my wife's operation. We will work our best to contribute to society. My children can choose whatever job they like, as long as they do something to contribute to this country."
___

The boycott was not an easy step to take. Some students were afraid of being expelled. Many parents were against it, fearing their children would become even more conspicuous targets. Some said local activists were making the situation worse.

Once it started, though, attitudes changed. "After the boycott, I felt much more confident and powerful because our voices were heard by the people," Duong Ly says.

The district installed 126 security cameras. A "50-50 club" took Asian and black students on group outings. More bilingual staffers and diversity training were added. Principal LaGreta Brown was forced out on the eve of a faculty no-confidence vote after a local newspaper discovered her certification had lapsed.

All eyes are on the incoming principal. Otis Hackney III is 37, a black Philadelphia native, fresh from two years as principal of a mostly white suburban high school. He got the call from Philly one night when he was standing on the sidelines of his school stadium, watching a lacrosse game under the lights.

"My first thought was, you've got to be kidding me," Hackney says during an interview in his new office, the cinderblock walls bare except for a picture of the singing legend Marian Anderson, class of 1921.

Soon, though, Hackney accepted the challenge. His immediate agenda includes building a relationship with the Asian community and creating a group of school stakeholders who meet regularly to set goals.

Hackney says all students should feel comfortable approaching him: "I want to listen more than I speak. Students are often much more honest than adults." He bought a new conference table and spiffed up a room for community meetings: "The message is, this is an important place where we talk about important things." He's getting Asians out of their special floor and into the rest of the building. He's looking at United Nations-style translation headphones for immigrant parents.

He is the fifth principal in six years, and he wants to stick around.

There is much to heal. The Vietnamese embassy has complained to the U.S. State Department. The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a complaint with the Justice Department, which on August 27 found merit in the claims and advised the district to settle the matter. An investigation by the state Human Rights Commission is pending. The dynamic that exploded on Dec. 3 has not disappeared.

"If you're that angry and frustrated about something that your behavior manifests itself that way, what are we not addressing as a school, as a community?" asks Hackney. "As African-Americans, we can't forget our own struggle to the point that we become what we fought so hard against."

"That's one side. The other side is, when you have an immigrant population that comes in, what are the skill sets they need to function in this society? It can be very difficult for that child and that family to function in schools. So how do you put all that together? That's my job.

"Part of it is getting people to see the human side in every person, identifying with their struggle. Once people begin to do that, you realize folks aren't as privileged as you think they are. They don't speak the language. They don't have that many advantages over you. You're just not taking advantage of the ones you have."

Duong Ly had a busy summer: An internship at the University of Pennsylvania on Asian health issues; a psychology class at a community college; trips to conferences in Houston and Boston to discuss his new activism; being photographed for a Philadelphia magazine story that labeled the boycotters "heroes." In between, he spent a little time working on his college essays and a lot of time on Facebook.

On Wednesday, he will walk through the battered metal doors of South Philadelphia High to start his senior year at what he hopes is a changed school.

"I'm really looking forward to it," he says.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39017234

Sunday, August 8, 2010

From Taboo Breakers, to Taboo Makers (part I)

For many years, liberals and leftists were viewed as taboo breakers, as individuals who bravely explored, debated and deconstructed social, cultural and economic edifices. From race, to religion, to culture, to gender, all topics and traditions were subject to the light of reason. In a sense, the conclusions were less important than the process of self reflection and debate. This process led many Americans to see, feel and ultimately diminish the gaping chasm between the noble ideals of the American Republic and our actual practices. Atrocious, illogical ideas and practices, such as state sponsored segregation of African-Americans could not stand up to the light of reason and over time public opinion and practices markedly changed. Even in areas were liberal challenges against tradition, such as religion and sexuality, have been less successful, they have dramatically changed the nature of the debate. Subject to the discipline of the marketplace of ideas, the majority of conservatives now must defend their positions with reason, rather than use the mantle of tradition to justify them.

Over the last three decades, we have witnessed a fascinating phenomena; many of the liberals and progressives who challenged American institutions in the 1960's, have gained ascendancy over those very institutions. Their ascent has been most felt in academia, government and large swaths of the media. The influence of liberals in corporate life is less direct, but also noteworthy, as demonstrated by the "commitment to diversity" that most larger corporations proclaim and the hundreds of millions spent on affirmative action and diversity management programs. This begs the question - how have the taboo breakers and free thinkers of the past responded to challenges to their cultural and institutional authority? How have they responded to evidence of the short comings of their policies? Have they maintained the same self reflectiveness, intellectual honesty and openness that they championed in the past?

In most instances, I believe that the answer is "no." The taboo breakers of yesteryear, have become the taboo makers of today. No where is this more clearly seen than in issues of race, culture and ethnicity. The admirable commitment to anti-racism has rendered many progressives unable to seriously explore and debate issues of race and culture. The almost religious like fear of uttering a word or even thinking a thought that could misconstrued as racist leads many to avoid making negative observations or drawing conclusions about diverse groups or even diversity in general. Rather than allow data and reason to draw them to reasonable conclusions, those who are beholden to a taboo, be it religious or secular in nature, will engage in mental gymnastics to avoid conclusions that contradict their rigid worldviews. And like the religious zealots of the past, few progressives respond with reason to those who challenge their taboos, instead relying on ad homonym attacks and vitriolic labels. Whereas the zealots of the past terminated debates and tarred their opponents with the label "heretic," the label "racist" or "nativist" are now used in lieu of serious discussions. The end result is that serious exploration and real debate on race and culture are nearly impossible.

Before we continue, we must briefly digress and touch up the difference between race and culture. Race tells us nothing about the beliefs or behavior of a group or individual. In contrast, culture implies values and visions that have a tremendous impact on the social, economic and political life of a nation. Culture speaks of the means in which individuals and groups approach the unique as well as universal challenges that we face, such as providing for the material and spiritual needs of its members and resolving conflicts both within a group and between groups.
If you doubt the power of culture, ask yourself this question: would the United States have achieved the same level of freedom, peace and prosperity if the founders fathers and the dominant population had been Arab Moslems, Russian Orthodox or Spanish Catholics, rather than English Protestants? Is it by sheer coincidence that it has proven to be far more challenging to establish democracy, rule of law, women's rights and free markets in nations dominated by Arab-Islamic culture than it has been in nations dominated by western, Judeo-Christian culture? To declare that one race is superior to another is repulsive and irrational, however reason and good conscience allows us to judge the relative merit of different cultures in promoting positive social, economic and political outcomes. Successive waves of immigration have rendered Anglo-Saxon Protestants a minority, yet classical American values, visions and institutions have remained dominant. Why? Because the majority of immigrants and their descendants were assimilated to the core American values and visions. How? For much of its history, American political, economic and educational elites were committed to assimilation. Theodore Roosevelt best embodies this spirit in the following quote:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag..."

So, to the racists and xenophobes, I declare: today's waves of immigrants are no different than your ancestors. Their ethnic and racial composition may be different, but just like your ancestors they have come here seeking the American Dream. However, to progressives I must ad: America's political, economic and educational elites have changed. The majority are no longer committed to promoting the American Way to immigrants or even to native born Americans. Those entering the United States now encounter teachers, politicians and corporations that have subscribed to multi-culturalism, ethno-identity politics and a corrosive welfare state.

Recently, it was announced in various newspapers that by 2042 whites were projected to be a minority in the United States. This transformation of the United States that is without precedence in the annals of history. This shift began with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which increased the volume and radically altered the ethnic composition of America's immigration flow. And in recent decades, changes in the federal government's policies towards undocumented immigrants and shifts in in fertility patterns, have accelerated the demographic transformation. Pundits of every political persuasion are virtually unanimous in the belief that this will have a major impact on social, cultural, economic and political life in the United States. Yet, we encounter a dearth of serious exploration and serious questions about the ramifications of these changes. The majority of progressives offer pollyannish exhortations that we must "celebrate diversity," while most Americans nervously avoid the topic and a small minority gravitating towards blatant racism. In other words, race, diversity and culture have become the great taboos of our age and progressives have become their steadfast guardians.

Progressive critics will most likely respond "we do not treat the topic of diversity and demographic change as taboos, we merely view them as social and economic goods." To this I respond - I am not concerned about progressive answers; because the said demographic change may very well offer net benefits to the United States. However, I am concerned about the lack of serious questions posed by progressives. And I am concerned that their obsession with race and ethnicity has left them unable to focus on the relevant economic core of this debate. Whether my neighbor is black or white, native born or immigrant are irrelevant, but the extent to which they burden or benefit my community are vital questions. Those seeking to determine the impact of the projected demographic changes should look to the cities and states that have already experienced them. The clearest examples are Los Angeles and California, which in the last two decades have been transformed into a minority-majority city and state, in which no ethnic group enjoys a majority status.

A serious exploration would ask questions like: Relative to the national average, what is the poverty, graduation and incarceration rate of rapidly growing demographic groups? What have the economic, social and environmental impact of these changes been? Has it strengthened or strained the public health and education systems? How (if at all) has it contributed to California's current fiscal emergency? Has it aggravated or ameliorated the city and state's growing poverty and economic inequality? Has it strengthened or weakened the rule of law? Has it increased or decreased social cohesion and the vitality of community life? Has it contributed to the net exodus of native born Americans from California and especially from Los Angeles? And if so, why? Have the states and localities that have experienced more modest demographic transfomration in better social and economic shape? A serious investigation would also pose more speculative questions like: Is it more challenging to maintain a republican form of government in a more diverse nation? Will the erosion of a majority population impede the capacity of the United States to assimilate diverse groups towards classic American values and visions. If so, will this diminish our capacity to maintain the culture and institutions that have contributed to the unparalleled peace, prosperity and freedom that we enjoy? Will a milieu of multiculturalism that downplays assimilation, allow the negative aspects of some diverse cultures to thrive? For example, will the misogyny and disregard for freedom of expression present in much of Islamic culture thrive, if the "flames of the melting pot are allowed to dwindle?"

Perhaps free and open debate will prove that the concerns towards diversity and demographic change are groundless. We can hope that free and open debate will disarm much of the racial and ethnic tension that lurks beneath the surface of American life. The problem is that well meaning progressive taboos on race and ethnicity have made it all but impossible to ask these questions in polite company. And if those who desire peace and prosperity for all Americans, regardless of race, color and creed are afraid to ask difficult questions, then only the most racist and xenophobic among us will provide the answers.This is a fate that our great nation cannot afford.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=afLRFXgzpFoY&refer=home

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-29-hispanics_N.htm

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=5353

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=afLRFXgzpFoY&refer=home

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7422672/US-reaches-tipping-point-as-minority-births-set-to-outnumber-white-births.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/10/national/main6284387.shtml

Monday, June 7, 2010

Progressive Tenets of Economics & Governance.



I came across an interesting article that outlines some core progressive tenets of economics and governance. Unlike socialists, most progressives do not call for the outright government ownership of businesses, but in their vision the government has a major role in regulating, coordinating and controlling larger economic forces. The movement of capital is not left to "wild market forces," but rather to the social and economic calculations of "wise planners" in the form of subsidies for favorable enterprises and penalties for unfavorable enterprises. And in order to achieve positive social and economic ends, the progressive state increasingly directs the more minute practices of private companies, from who they hire and how they fire them, to the extent of compensation, to the manner of production and even the cost of their products. Some of the goals that drive modern planners are: ensuring that private and public institutions are representative of our increasing diversity, income distribution is fair, vital goods and services are affordable and production is green. In addition, some seek to promote less tangible goods, like greater compassion. From era to era the goals and the titles of dirigistes may change, but their underlying principles do not: economic and social life should be driven more by public minded central planners and less by private initiative and impersonal market forces.

"Economic initiatives cannot be left to the arbitrary decisions of private, individual interests. Open competition, if not wisely directed and restricted (regulated), actually destroys wealth instead of creating it...The proper function of the state...is that of supervising, regulating and arbitrating the relationship of capital and labor, employers and employees, individuals and associations, private interests and national interests...More important than the production of wealth is its right distribution, distribution which must benefit in the best possible ways all the classes of the nation, hence the nation itself. Private wealth belongs not only to the individual, but , in a symbolic sense, to the state as well..."

Now, guess were I found this progressive gem?

It's from Mario Palmieri's The Philosophy of Fascism (1936).

No, I am not saying that progressives are fascists (sorry Glenn Beck); most are supporters of civil liberties. Most have positive ends. After all, who does not want a greener, more equitable society, free from scarcity and poverty? But, progressives must be aware of the risks and limitations inherent in the means that they seek to employ. Although they are quite distinct fascism and progressivism has common corporatist roots. In the formal corporatist model, the state is focused less on the individual and more on corporate groups and interests. It's important to note that corporate does not only denote corporations, it also includes other social and economic bodies (corporis in Latin), be they social, ethnic or economic. The state is granted greater power in coordinating and enforcing social contracts between corporate groups, such as labor, business and bureaucratic interests. A recent example is seen in the push for health care reform in which the Obama Administration sought to negotiate (and later impose) health care mandates between entire industries and organizations, such as insurance firms, pharmaceuticals, businesses, bureaucracies and unions. Many conservatives look at these developments with alarm, not because they oppose Obama's goals, but rather because they are aware of the history of corporatism. More specifically, they like the founding fathers are aware of the dangers that corporatism poses to social and economic liberty, as well as long term prosperity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Monday, January 11, 2010

On My Own Dime



A friend of mine was taken back when I revealed to him that I strive to consume seasonal foods that are locally grown. Apparently he was surprised that someone who advocates such conservative policies could be so "progressive" in some of their personal practices. If we would have delved deeper into my consumer philosophy, he would have learned that I generally avoid shopping at large chains such as Walmart, instead directing my dollars towards smaller, independently owned businesses. I can understand how this may come off as strange to my readers, considering my staunch opposition to legislation, primarily sponsored by Alderman Joe Moore, to block the entry of Walmart into Chicago.

The answer to these seeming contradictions is found in my belief that I only have the right to be "progressive" on my own dime. Or more importantly, it originates in the strong reservations that I and many other libertarians have about limiting the freedom of choice of others. I may be willing and able to pay more to shop at a mom-and-pop shop, but I have no right to limit the freedom of poor and working class families who rely on the savings provided by big box chains. I would never choose to work for a large corporation, but what right do I have to infringe upon the freedom of others to make that choice? And I may choose to subsidize less competitive local farmers and producers with my purchases, but what right do I have to force other tax payers to do so?

Some may say if this approach is too individualist, after all we lives in a society of interconnected individuals and communities? Don't you want more people to engage in socially responsible behavior such as directing more of their resources towards the growers, manufacturer and entrepreneurs that live and work in their communities?"

My answer is "yes, I do, however a just state is one that seeks to minimize the extent to which it coerces its citizens and usurps the fruits of their labor." Real change must come through engaged and educated citizenry working for change within the context of a vibrant and free civil society. This might sound like a tall order, but look at how many individuals have freely joined and formed organizations, contributing their time and money to educate and inform their fellow citizens to take action about pressing social matters, such as combating pollution and working towards a cure for breast cancer.

By looking at the state as the primary engine to express care and compassion for our neighbors, we in effect become socially and morally disengaded from our fellow citizens. This helps explain why conservatives are more likely to contribute to charities that their liberal counterparts.(http://chicago-freedom-forum.blogspot.com/2009/04/i-nearly-soiled-myself.html) And this also explains why those who freely and directly fund charities and not-for-profits guard against waste and ineffectiveness, whereas most people are indifferent to the billions of dollars of other people's money that the federal government wastes in programs of questionable effectiveness.

In contrast to most of other societies, the free hand of civil society is almost always the engine of positive change, rather than the heavy hand of the state. Does this mean that the state should never seek to promote common welfare through (for example) mandating clean air and water standards? Of course not. It simply means that our first instinct should be to convince our fellow citizens, rather than coerce them, our first impulse should be to spend our dime in the pursuit of progress, rather than that of our neighbor. Evolution from below may be a slow and at times painful process, but the temptation of the "wise" to impose a revolution from above must be avoided, for it is antithetical to a free and democratic people and provides a poor foundation for "real change that we can believe in."

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Progressives & Libertarians: Eye to Eye



Although their philosophical foundations are dramatically different, there are a surprising number of issues that progressives and libertarians see eye to eye on. Whereas the majority of Democrats and Republicans have implicitely supported America's increased military presence across the globe, most progressives and libertarians are aghast at America's transition into an empire. The founding fathers wisely admonished the United States to not get embroiled in the military and political conflicts of other nations, sentiments that both of the said groups share. While not everyone is as isolationst as Dr. Ron Paul, that Iraq and Afghanistan have became black holes swallowing up countless lives and billions of dollars with few benefits. Yet, we continue our expansionist policies, as seen by America's increasing military presence in Pakistan, Yemen and even Colombia. I am hoping that progressives and libertarians can join together to oppose this expansion, because very few Republican and Democrats are willing to do so.

Increased U.S. Military Presence in Colombia Could Pose Problems With Neighbors

By SIMON ROMERO

Published: July 22, 2009

CARACAS, Venezuela — A plan to increase the American military presence on at least three military bases in Colombia, Washington’s top ally in Latin America, is accentuating Colombia’s already tense relations with some of its neighbors.

Venezuela, Ecuador and Nicaragua, which are members of a leftist political alliance that is led by President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and backed by his nation’s oil revenues, have all criticized the plan, saying it would broaden the military reach of the United States in the Andes and the Caribbean at a time when they are still wary of American influence in the region.

Despite a slight improvement in Venezuela’s relations with the United States in recent months, Mr. Chávez has been especially vocal in lashing out at the plan. Speaking on state television here on Monday night, he put Venezuela’s diplomatic ties with Colombia under review, calling the plan a platform for “new aggression against us.”

Colombia’s foreign minister, Jaime Bermúdez, on Tuesday defended the negotiations, which are expected to produce an agreement in August, asking neighboring countries not to interfere in Colombia’s affairs. “We never expressed our opinion in what our neighbors do,” he said, pointing to Mr. Chávez’s attempts to strengthen ties with non-Western nations. “Not even when the Russian presence became known in Venezuelan waters, or with relations with China,” he added.

The United States has been negotiating the increase of military operations in Colombia in recent weeks, faced with Ecuador’s decision to end a decade-long agreement allowing E-3 AWACs and P-3 Orion surveillance planes to operate from the Manta Air Base on Ecuador’s Pacific Coast.

While American antidrug surveillance flights would sharply increase in Colombia, the world’s top producer of cocaine, the agreement would not allow American personnel to take part in combat operations in the country, which is mired in a four-decade war against guerrillas. A limit of 800 American military personnel and 600 American military contractors would also remain in place, officials involved in the talks said.

Still, depending on how the accord is put in place, American troop levels in Colombia could climb sharply. The United States currently has about 250 military personnel in the country, deployed largely in an advisory capacity to Colombia’s armed forces, William Brownfield, the United States ambassador to Colombia, said last week.

Colombia, which has already received more than $5 billion in military and antidrug aid from the United States this decade, has found itself isolated diplomatically as Mr. Chávez presses ahead with his efforts to expand Venezuela’s oil diplomacy while eroding American influence in the hemisphere.




Other countries chafe at Colombia for different reasons. Colombia’s diplomatic relations with Ecuador have soured since Colombian forces carried out a raid on a Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, rebel camp on Ecuadoran territory last year. A festering boundary dispute with Nicaragua has also made for tensions between Colombia and Nicaragua’s president, Daniel Ortega, an ally of Mr. Chávez.

But with Venezuela itself, Colombia remains locked in a complex game of interdependence.

Its sales of manufactured and agricultural goods to Venezuela remain resilient despite Mr.Chávez’s occasional outbursts directed at his ideological opposite, Colombia’s president, Álvaro Uribe. And faced with disarray in its oil industry, Venezuela relies on imports of Colombian natural gas, narrowing the possibility of a severe deterioration in ties between the two countries despite their sharply different views of cooperation with the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/world/americas/23colombia.html