2008

Words Continue to Have Consequences

Talk about a paradox: just days after Americans made history by electing the first black president, the AP reports that threats against a president-elect spike right after an election, but from Maine to Idaho law enforcement officials are seeing more against Barack Obama than any president-elect ever before. And in New York, seven teenage thugs in Patchogue replicated a shameful page of what we'd like to call "history" by forming what one prosecutor called a "lynch mob." Why are people bent on hate? More importantly - how do we fight ignorance and intolerance? A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil." A wise friend once said, "the same people who hate immigrants and immigration reform hate Latinos, and hate other races, and the people who hate these groups are the same who speak out against women's rights, and against choice, and against gay rights...." Arguing that any one group is better or worse than another constitutes hate speech, and hate speech has consequences.

A New York Times editorial this week, The High Cost of Harsh Words opens with the name of our column - words have consequences. And Steve Levy, the Suffolk County executive, is learning that the hard way. Seven teenagers were arrested and charged in the fatal stabbing last Saturday of Marcelo Lucero, an Ecuadorean immigrant, on a street in the Long Island village of Patchogue. Local lawmakers in Suffolk would speak out complaining about immigration, but Levy went farther - he founded a national organization to lobby for crackdowns. He went on "Lou Dobbs." He sought to drive day laborers from local streets, yet rigidly opposed efforts to create hiring sites. Even as tensions escalated in places like Farmingville, a hot spot for anti-immigrant resentment, Mr. Levy parroted extremist talking points, going so far as to raise the alarm, utterly false, that illegal immigrants' "anchor babies" were forcing Southampton Hospital to close its maternity ward. He now denounces racist hatred, yet his words have made him a hero to white supremacist hate groups, and certainly contributed to the atmosphere that allowed these men to feel angry enough to want to kill another human being, and protected enough to think that they could get away with it.

It's difficult to tell whether Levy even cares about the responsibility he bears in relation to this crime, immigrant advocates assailed him for having poisoned the atmosphere. Some called for his resignation, and with tactless self-pity, Mr. Levy complained to Newsday that the killing would have been a one-day story anywhere but his home turf. He insists that people have a distorted picture of him, but "Mr. Levy needs to realize that distortions cut both ways." Some white supremacists hide behind the alleged legal status argument - alleging Lucero was "illegal," so what if he was? If you think that his legal status excuses taking his life, then you are a racist. Then where do we draw the line? Is the life of a thief, an adulterer, or an unscrupulous wall street executive also expendable? And to further make the point - these thugs didn't stop to ask for papers before attacking, which would put you, or me, or anyone at risk. The murder is just the tip of the iceberg - it's not a "story" when Hispanics are assaulted and beaten, but don't die, or when rocks or other items are thrown at them in places like Suffolk around the country, or when a Latino family's house burns down because two teens thought it would be "cool" to throw firecrackers into the house and see the family scurry out.

Where is the outrage against the cruel murder of an Ecuadorian man? I applaud Peter Applebome, Angela Macropoulos, and Kirk Semple of the New York Times for reporting on it, but what about national news, national networks? Why isn't Lou Dobbs talking about this war by the middle class, against the Hispanic middle and poor class? Oh yes, he's against illegal and legal immigrants, I almost forgot. Where is the Hispanic Bill O'Reilly, angrily mobilizing mobs to speak out against this horrible crime? That's a rhetorical question, it would be awful for Latinos to fuel the fire by drawing additional racial divides - the idea is for no group to predicate division, but rather hold Dobbs, Beck and O'Reilly and people like them accountable for all acts like this murder, because words do have consequences.

On the day these men killed Mr. Lucero, they were identified by witnesses as having battered two other Hispanics earlier in the afternoon. What if the story had been the other way around, and a group of Latinos went out hunting for a U.S. born high school boy, or a "frat boy?" What kind of coverage would that story receive? Dobbs would have dedicated a month's worth of programming to it. And what kind of justice would those murderers get? I sincerely doubt a gang of Hispanics would get off on a first or second degree "manslaughter" indictment (only one of the seven attackers is charged with murder). A very unfair double-standard still exists, and it's appalling. Make no mistake, these weren't young kids who didn't know any better, they were a gang as defined in the U.S.: "a street-oriented youth group whose own identity includes the involvement in illegal activity." And to be clear, assault - which doesn't even involve putting a hand on someone, battery, murder, are all illegal activities.

Murder is murder - manslaughter means you didn't intend to kill. A requirement of murder is that a person acts with intent to kill and knowledge that their actions will result in someone's death. And the police reports that this gang was out to - self-describedly - "kill a Mexican," and they stabbed the guy - they beat him, and then they stabbed him - let's not confuse things, they were out to kill. And if they can do this to another man for no reason, what's not to say that these same men would be just as willing to assault a woman just because they can, or a child? They are a menace to society, as is anyone who thinks like them. One of the killers, Chris Overton, 16 years old, is awaiting sentencing in another case. He pleaded guilty to burglary in another fatal attack in May 2007 in which a 38-year-old East Patchogue man was shot dead when a group of teenagers robbed his home. A neighbor found the victim, Carlton Shaw, dead in his backyard, his 3-year-old son sleeping on his chest.

But the Lucero murder was fueled by hate, and it's up to each community to not allow these crimes to go unreported, underreported, or unpunished. Let us not forget; now Levy plans to have a scholarship for children in honor of Marcelo Lucero, and that's all well and good, but I care more about what he personally is going to do to admit his rhetoric was hateful and unacceptable, and to change the atmosphere in Suffolk. Remember Luis Ramirez? The Mexican man who was also killed by another high-school age gang in Shenandoah, PA? The picture above is of Ramirez just before he died...let's not forget, and let's not allow hate crimes to become a "fact of life," let's stay vigilant in our communities to avoid adding another name to the list of victims.

If Detroit Goes Down, Will It Take the Economy -- and the GOP -- With It?

In a remarkable spectacle, an Administration with a sustained record of economic blunders and failures finds itself aghast at the mistakes and mismanagement of U.S. automobile companies. Imagine Confederate General John Pemberton, after leading his forces to an historic defeat at Vicksburg, dismissing his cook for squandering the rum rations.

Yes, America's big three automobile makers (with an assist from the auto workers' union) have been so consistently unimaginative, self-regarding and inept that they've brought themselves to the brink of bankruptcy. Now they find themselves pleading for a bailout which, under normal circumstances, most sane policy makers would dismiss out of hand. But circumstances today are as far from normal as most Americans have ever experienced, and the request requires a serious second look.

The automakers had been in deep trouble for some time; but until the economic crisis hit, their condition was far from terminal. The Bush Administration's inept strategies and incompetent management of the crisis then dealt a weak industry new, serious body blows. First, the sudden upheavals across the financial system, along with the Administration's inability to explain how it happened or how they intended to protect the rest of us from the fallout, bred such extreme caution and even panic among consumers, that most demand for Detroit's products dried up. Moreover, much of the shrinking cohort of Americans still prepared to purchase a new U.S.-made car can't find financing for it. That's because two decades of deep federal distrust of regulating most financial institutions allowed them to speculate so recklessly with borrowed funds, that now, even with the bailout, their balance sheets are so precarious that they won't provide a new loan to anybody who couldn't pay for a new car without one. Finally, the crisis turned off the lines of credit and other routine financing that auto manufacturers need to operate. All three blows are consequences of the remarkable failures by the White House, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve to comprehend the dangers of the sub-prime mortgage market as it began to unravel and address effectively those dangers as the crisis snowballed.

So, the American auto industry now faces a kind of life-or-near-death moment, and if the President and Congress turn their backs, the results could drive down the economy much further. That's the only reason to countenance a bailout for an old industry that doggedly resists modernizing itself -- but under the current circumstances, it's a compelling one.

American businesses and consumers remain dangerously vulnerable to yet another economically-bloody shock which could further shift expectations downward, which in turn could produce a Depression-like state of mind and what economists call a "sub-optimal equilibrium." That's a very unpleasant condition in which markets produce much less wealth, jobs and incomes than they could, because consumers, businesses and banks no longer believe that the conditions to support better times can be sustained.

Since the Bush Administration is at least partly responsible for what now faces the auto industry -- and now faces the rest of us, too - they should put their weight behind new help for automakers and auto workers. But the bailout shouldn't be a handout. The industry needs both a shake-up and a technological shift, and strings tied to the federal assistance can help make both happen. The first part of the shake-up is simple: the current executive teams are out, and everybody takes real pay cuts -- including some workers who at GM reportedly earn an average of $71 per hour (including benefits), compared to Toyota's U.S. workers at $49 per hour. The aid also should be tied to a greater commitment to develop and produce new engines and cars with extremely high mileage per gallon and a small carbon footprint, because that's the market being created by high energy prices and climate change. And to provide additional motivation, the government can conduct the kind of competition the Pentagon carries out routinely, in which the first automaker to produce a 75- or 100-mile-per-gallon, low-carbon automobile wins a 10-year contract to supply the federal government fleet. And the taxpayers providing the aid should not only get an equity share in return for their investments, but public-representative seats on their boards, to keep watch and keep tabs. Finally, the government should commit itself to cajoling or coercing the Big Three's lenders to enter into debt-equity swaps with the auto companies, and so improve their balance sheets enough to attract new private investors (and so avoid a second bailout).

Rescuing the auto companies is, of course, a slippery slope, but the alternative may be to skip past the slope and head directly for the cliff. As it is, it still may not be enough. Home foreclosures continue to rise, and the additional losses to mortgage-backed securities and their derivatives may soon absorb much of the current Wall Street bailout. Further, the global recession has pushed a number of emerging-market and transition economies perilously close to sovereign debt defaults, which would deal another serious blow to the financial institutions that today hold the debt of those countries. At a minimum, neither the economy nor the auto industry will tread water while Americans wait for the new President and new Congress to take office. That's why, this time, the extraordinary conditions to justify bailing out a failing industry are present. And if a Republican President and his party in Congress keep their ideological blinders on and ignore those conditions, Detroit's demise could take the GOP with it for a long time.

Obama's Text Guru Goodstein Joins Thursday's NDN/NPI Forum: New Politics of Obama Age

UPDATE: Be sure to attend (or watch) our March 10, 2009 event with Joe Rospars, the new media director of the Obama Presidential Campaign and founder of Blue State Digital, one of the nation's leading new media consulting firms. There will also be a live Web cast of the event, for those of you that can't make it in person. 

***

NDN is pleased to announce that Scott Goodstein has been added as a panelist -- his first appearance since returning home from the campaign -- at our Thursday, November 20, forum on the New Politics of the Obama Age. Goodstein was External Online Director for Obama for America, and developed the campaign’s social networking platforms. His pioneering work  included running the first political campaign to launch niche based social networks like BlackPlanet, Eons, MiGente, AsianAve, Disaboom, etc. He built the campaign's lifestyle marketing strategy and developed the "street team" materials used in battleground states.

Scott GoodsteinGoodstein also created and implemented Obama Mobile, an advanced communication strategy that included text messaging, downloads, interactive voice response communication, a mobile web site (WAP), and even an iPhone application. To read more about the amazing work Scott did for the Obama campaign, check out this article by the Washington Post's Jose Antonio Vargas. The article also quotes Tim Chambers, who is a panelist at the event on Thursday as well. To read about Obama's entire new media team in a larger profile by Vargas, click here.

Prior to his work at Obama for America, Goodstein was founder of Catalyst Campaigns, a public relations firm that specialized in lifestyle marketing and online organizing. In 2004, Goodstein co-founded Punkvoter.com & Rock Against Bush and evolved these organizations into becoming a $4 million young voter mobilization effort.

Goodstein will join Simon Rosenberg, President of NDN, Andrew Rasiej, founder of Personal Democracy Forum and Chambers, co-founder of Media 50 Group and Principal at Dewey Digital, to discuss how we expect the lessons of this historic campaign and its use of new media to shape domestic and global politics in the years to come.

Thursday's event is from 12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. at NDN, 729 15th St., NW, 1st FL. Space is extremely limited, so please click here to RSVP and arrive early to ensure a seat. See you Thursday for what promises to be a truly compelling discussion.

It’s Official: Millennials Realigned American Politics in 2008

The 2008 election not only marked the election of America's first African-American president, it also saw the strong and clear political emergence of a new, large and dynamic generation and the realignment of American politics for the next 40 years.

The first large wave of the Millennial Generation, about one third of the young Americans born from 1982-2003, entered the electorate to decisively support President-elect Barack Obama. Young voters preferred Obama over John McCain by a greater than 2:1 margin (66% vs. 32%). This is well above the margin given by young voters to any presidential candidate for at least three decades, if not at any time in U.S. history. In 2004, young voters preferred John Kerry to George W. Bush by a far more narrow 10 percentage points (55% to 45%). Moreover, the support of young people for Obama crossed all ethnic lines: he won the votes of a majority of African-American (95%), Latino (76%), and white (54%) young people.

Dispelling the myth that young people never vote, Millennials cast ballots in larger numbers than young voters had in any recent presidential election. About 23 million young people, an increase of 3.4 million over 2004, accounted for almost two-thirds of the overall 5.4 million increase in voter turnout. Their participation increased at a rate greater than older generations. As a result, young voters increased their overall share of the vote from 17 percent in 2004 to 18 percent in 2008. In contrast to previous recent presidential elections, a majority of young people voted in 2008 (53%), and in the competitive battleground states, youth turnout was even higher (59%). This was significantly above the 1996 (37%), 2000 (41%), and 2004 (48%) levels. In the earlier elections, "young people" were primarily members of Generation X, an alienated and socially uninvolved cohort; by contrast, the young voters of 2008 were mostly members of the civic-oriented Millennial Generation.

Their unified support for Barack Obama combined with their high turnout made the Millennial Generation the decisive force in his victory. Young voters accounted for about seven million of Obama's almost nine million national popular vote margin over John McCain. Had young people not voted, Obama would have led McCain by only about 1.5 percentage points instead of seven. Republican Internet guru Patrick Ruffini pointed out that without Millennials, Obama would not have won the combined 73 electoral votes of Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and North Carolina. While he may still have won in 2008 without young voters, Obama's margin and his political mandate would have been far narrower.

Contrary to the hopes of many Republicans, the Millennial Generation's support for Barack Obama is not a one-time phenomenon. Millennials are every bit as supportive of the Democratic Party as they are of Obama personally. Millennials identify as Democrats over Republicans by a 2:1 margin and Pew survey results indicate that they have done so since at least early 2007, well before Obama emerged as a well-known national political figure. More of them consider themselves liberals rather than conservatives (31% to 18%), as well. When it comes to policy, Millennials are liberal interventionists on economic issues, active multilateralists in foreign affairs and tolerant non-meddlers on social issues-a profile that most closely matches the Democratic Party's platform as well as the new President's agenda. Their propensity to vote straight Democratic was clearly evident in 2008 when young voters supported Democratic congressional candidates by about the same margin that they did Obama (63% vs. 34%).

What's more, as with previous civic generations, they are likely to vote a straight ticket for their preferred party for the rest of their lives. The Millennial Generation is ready to take its place as America's next great Democratic civic generation, just as their GI Generation great grandparents did nearly 80 years ago. Welcome to the Millennial Era.

President-elect Obama Delivers First Weekly Address Via YouTube

Today, President-elect Obama delivered the first weekly presidential YouTube address in history. Watch it here:

 

This is an historic moment in American politics. In the past weeks at NDN, we have been speculating about how Obama might use the internet to govern, and one of the things we envisioned was in fact a weekly YouTube address. To understand why we think this is such an important moment in the history of American politics, check out some recent articles on the topic here in my latest New Tools Feature, or watch Simon's recent video blog below:

In his first address, President-elect Obama discusses his plan for getting the economy back on track. His plan includes a stimulus package focusing on long-term investment, which he says will be the first thing he does in office if Congress fails to pass such legislation before then. To see what such a plan might look like, read Simon and Rob's recent essay, A Stimulus for the Long Run, or Michael's essay, Accelerating the Development of a 21st Century Economy: Investing in Clean Infrastructure.

Friday Buzz: Millennials, Hispanics, and the First YouTube President

Since my last roundup on Tuesday, we've been in several stories that have really picked up and advanced NDN's narrative. Simon was in a great Associated Press video about how Obama will use the internet to govern, in which he predicted that the weekly radio address would also be broadcast on YouTube. His analysis of the subject was also featured in RCR Wireless, and in a whole host of other pieces over the past several weeks.  From the RCR article:

New Democratic Network President Simon Rosenberg offered a different view in foreseeing that Obama’s tech innovations have paved the way for “a completely different relationship between the President and the public.” Presidential “Fireside Chats” by radio initiated during the 1930s Depression will be out in this scenario. They would be supplanted by an entire array of interactive and citizen-empowering communications tools already tested during the campaign that convinced 55+ million voters to be Obama supporters. Pipedream or prediction? We’ll all soon see.

And indeed, with Obama instituting a weekly YouTube address this weekend, we are seeing sooner than most expected.

Simon was also in a great story in Salon, entitled "A Permanent Democratic Majority?", about the role of Hispanics in creating a lasting progressive majority coalition. From the article:

...None of this means that Democrats can take the Hispanic vote for granted. In fact, the party's success this year comes in large part because it began a concerted effort focusing on Hispanics. Simon Rosenberg, the president of the New Democrat Network, which has been studying the changing electorate and especially the impact of the Hispanic vote, says, "Increased turnout happened because Democrats finally woke up to this Hispanic opportunity ... It's really only in the last few years that Democrats woke up to this new reality. If you're a Hispanic voter, particularly in the Southwest or the West, the Democratic Party sort of woke up and started to speak to you."

NDN's work on Hispanic issues was also featured in the Boston Globe, the Examiner, the Latino Journal, Talk Radio News Service, Capitol Hill Blue, ScrippsNews, and VotoLatino.

Simon was also quoted in Mathaba on how Millennials and Hispanics have permanently changed American politics. NDN Fellows Morley Winograd and Mike Hais were quoted in great article in Forbes, entitled "Young Voters Turn America Left." And Rob was quoted in the Kansas City Star, and had a featured guest blog in the Houston Chronicle.

NDN's work has been featured in many narrative-shaping stories over the past week and a half. If you haven't gotten a chance to check them out yet, you can do so here, here, here, and here.

The Current Dialogue of U.S. & Latin American Relations

Recently a panel of current and former George Washington University Elliott School of International Affairs deans offered foreign policy advice for the next president. The America in Transition: Foreign Policy Advice for the New President panel made some practical and feasible recommendations for what President-elect Barack Obama can do to tackle issues of international security and diplomacy. The discussion had great points, focusing on Russia, China, and Iraq -- but absent from the discussion was Latin America. A similar tendency can be observed in national discussions and debates. Latin America is mentioned intermittently. But a further lack of active diplomacy may leave the United States losing further financial and political capital in the region to countries such Iran, China, and Russia and hinder crucial counternarcotics programs. As John Kiriakou cautions in the Los Angeles Times, a further lack of official focus on Latin America may make counter terrorism efforts more difficult as well.

Thursday New Tools Feature: e-Pluribus Unum

In a previous New Tools feature, I discussed the launch of Web sites like WhiteHouse2.org, and wondered whether an Obama administration would be open to using tools like this to amplify the public's voice and increase its role in governing.

That very much remains to be seen, but President-Elect Obama's background in community organizing, his groundbreaking use of the Internet during the campaign, and the launch of his new site, change.gov, seem to bode well for the possibility of a more open-source style presidency (although I hope change.gov evolves to become much more interactive and participatory than it is at the moment). Of course, Obama was elected to lead, and in order to be effective leader he will ultimately have to make his own judgments and decisions. But the more voices and opinions he hears in the course of his deliberations, the better.

If he chooses to do so, Obama can certainly use technology to give people a greater voice in government. But he can also use it to spread his message and to build support for his initiatives. Simon predicts that Obama will do with the Internet what FDR did with radio and what JFK did for television, using the web to reach people in new ways. He envisions a weekly YouTube address that could be instantly viewed by millions of people around the country and the world. This kind of direct reach would be an incredibly powerful tool in advancing the administration's agenda.

In the past few weeks, we at NDN have talked a lot about the ways an Obama administration is likely to use technology to govern: in addition to the aforementioned New Tools post, Simon and Joe Trippi discussed this at our NDN election forum, and Simon did a great video blog about it, entitled "Obama to Reinvent the Presidency."

NDN's thinking in this area has also been featured in a host of press stories in recent days: Simon was interviewed in an Associated Press video segment today that asked, "How much will President Obama embrace Internet?" and has also been quoted in Wired, the National Journal's Tech Daily Dose, the Washington Times, the San Jose Mercury News, Agence France Press, the Houston Chronicle, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, TCMNet, Business Intelligence Middle East, and Real Clear Politics on the topic. 

Friday morning UPDATE: Jose Antonio Vargas of the Washington Post reports this morning that

Today, President-elect Obama will record the weekly Democratic address not just on radio but also on video -- a first. The address, typically four minutes long, will be turned into a YouTube video and posted on Obama's transition site, Change.gov, once the radio address is made public on Saturday morning."

 

It’s 1980 Again, Not 1932

While nearly everyone recognizes that the current financial crisis is the worst since the Great Depression, the economic challenges and the changes in the political landscape hearken back more to 1980 than to 1932. The distinction matters, because a misplaced metaphor or inapt historical analogy that takes hold of the political imagination can produce serious missteps.

In 1932 and 1980 -- and again less than two weeks ago -- the country strongly rejected an incumbent presidential party, with the White House and substantial majorities in both houses shifting, respectively, to Democrats, then the Republicans, and now the Democrats again. In retrospect, it’s clear that the political realignment of 1980 and the years following was not the political upheaval of 1932 and the decades which followed it. 1932 began a revolution in the federal government’s role in economic and national life that persists today, while 1980 jumpstarted a continuing shift in political preferences from center left to mainstream right, with policy evolving within a familiar framework.

If our times were truly most like the turmoil of the early 1930s, the basic character of government, the basic path for the economy, and the country’s role in the world would all be at stake. Times like that require deep and fundamental changes in both policy and politics, with a realigned electorate eager to back seismic shifts. And that’s what we hear from some members of Congress, urging President-elect Obama to make deep and fundamental changes in the economy, the health care system, the way we use energy, and the Middle East--and do as much of it as possible as soon as he takes office. If this were 1932, we would need such basic changes to head off profound social divisions and political upheaval – and a president like Franklin D. Roosevelt who could recognize that need and take it on.

1980 provides a different model which seems much closer to the country’s present predicament. There’s no popular demand to change the government’s essential role in national life and the nation’s basic role in the world. Instead, much as in 1980, the public demands major improvements in the quality of the President’s economic performance and the success of his foreign policies. Yes, the economic crisis almost certainly will be the most damaging since the 1930s. But still there’s a profound difference between unemployment rates of 7 percent or even 10 percent, and the 25 percent jobless rates of the 1930s. One reason is that today we understand much of the sources of our economic failures–which we didn’t in 1932—and so we can reasonably expect to be able to address them without fundamentally changing the government’s role in our lives. Similarly, we know that we face profound problems with our health care system, especially with the financing to ensure its universality and sustain its quality. If this time were a political and economic reprise of the 1930s, the health care debate would revolve around a government-run, single-payer system with comprehensive price and wage controls. Instead, President-elect Obama –and every other serious presidential candidate this year--could and did promise to address these problems in a serious way without fundamentally changing the government’s role there, too.

If our economic and political conditions recall 1980 and not 1932, what’s the best course for the new administration? The President-elect should be able to draw on an extraordinary level of public and congressional support for some time; and he has said, so many times and in so many ways, that his presidency will tackle the country’s problems from inside the policy discussions the two parties have carried on for the last decade. If that’s the path, the new President’s best strategy is to press for change step-by-step, rather than try to drive a wave of sweeping congressional actions in the storied, first 100 days. For one thing, when a president fails at sweeping initiatives, his political support for another go at it usually disappears. Anyway, step-by-step change doesn’t mean marginal or modest changes. Rather, it can describe a political process where the President’s initial round of reforms in, say, health care, regulation, energy and tax policies over the first year are followed by a second round of reforms the following year. And if the nation is lucky, there can even be a third and fourth round after that. This is the time for an Obama administration and Congress to finally fix the systems we have--and not, as it was for FDR, the moment to invent wholly new ones.

Unpublished
n/a
Syndicate content