21st Century Agenda for America

There is coverage today of a new study indicating that Hispanics made up nearly half of the more than 1 million people who became U.S. citizens in 2008 - almost 1 of 2 new Americans are Latino.  Additionally, the number of Latinos who became American citizens in FY 2008 more than doubled from the previous year.  It stands to reason the sucess of ethnic media that reflects this growing multicultural reality. A piece by Mandalit de Barco today on NPR's morning edition focuses precisely on the growing market share of "ethnic media," happening for various reasons: 

Many of these newspapers and broadcast stations are doing well because they've tapped into an expanding audience - the sons and daughters of immigrants.  In Los Angeles, the No. 1 TV station isn't NBC, CBS, ABC or Fox - it's Spanish-language KMEX, the flagship of Univision. And it isn't just Los Angeles' top station - Nielsen says it's No. 1 in the U.S. with viewers aged 18-49. KMEX built big numbers with immigrant audiences, but is now drawing their sons and daughters - and even their grandchildren.

University of Southern California journalism professor Felix Gutierrez says it's more than just language that's attracting those younger viewers.  "I was watching last night, and they were talking about the border wars - drug smuggling and all that. But they were covering it from the Mexican side. They had the same kind of footage, but it was a different perspective, a different angle that I don't see on CBS, NBC, CNN and the other networks," Gutierrez says.

Largely in response to the ties of many immigrants, one will undoubtedly find that these multicultural outlets have a great deal more international news than local, and thus a wider breadth of stories.  They must cover the local school, storm, or kindapping, in addition to the elections in El Salvador, violence on the border, and new constitution in Bolivia.

Not only is the content more diverse than traditional media, these outlets are forced to be more dynamic and market to a more diverse, multigenerational, audience: 

Previously, these stations used to rely on ethnic audiences that had few other options because they weren't comfortable in English. But that's not necessarily true of immigrants' children.

"We know that the first generation watches us," [Eric Olander] says. "The second generation's much more difficult to capture, in part because they have language skills, which allow them to watch MTV, to go listen to NPR. They have a much wider array of choices. Not to mention, the second generation, which are younger, is watching less TV - they're on the Web, they're not reading the newspapers in the numbers they were. Their media patterns are changing."

That's why in addition to its broadcasts, KSCI now offers podcasts, blogs and video online in various Asian languages and in English.

The biggest Spanish language daily newspaper in the country, La Opinion, is also reaching out online. The Los Angeles paper's circulation has dipped, but it still has half a million readers.

Publisher Monica Lozano says the newspaper, which was started in 1926 by her grandfather, survived the Great Depression, battles over immigration and world wars, and it's now adapting to the recession and new media appetites. Lozano says Latino households tend to be multigenerational, multilingual and multimedia.

I caught some of his townhall from Strasbourg this morning - carried live on CNN and MSNBC but not Fox of course - and our President was simply amazing.  He was good as I've ever seen him, connecting with the audience, offering complex thoughtful answers to tough challenges.   And Barack seemed to be happy to be in front of people rather than as he said stuck in hotel rooms.  The crowd was wildly excited, applauding him in ways few politicians ever hear.  In many ways this event is how our President best demonstrates his power, and the power of the American ideal.  For any European watching and wondering whether it is a new day, they can only have concluded that is a new day indeed. 

It was an inspiring way to start the day, and I was, for the entire time I watched, as deeply proud of being an American as I have been in many many years.

And it feels like on this trip our young, new President has begun the transformation from President of the United States to the paramount leader of the world's peoples.   His ability to find common ground, to talk of our common aspirations, to make it clear that we are all in this together, is a message, delivered by this particular messenger, which the people of the world are very ready to hear.

If as Fareed Zakaria has argued, the defining geopolitical event of this era is the "rise of the rest," and as Brzezinski has argued rising standards of living throughout the world are creating a "global political awakening," what we may have seen today is the first global leader of this new rising era to emerge; one who can speak in universal themes; one who can through modern media speak directly to these aspiring people - more numerous and in more nations than any time in all of human history - of the world, transcending faction, race and nation, speaking of our universal common aspirations as people no matter where they live.  The ability for this particular man, at this particular moment in history, to lay out such a convincing case for the universal dignity and common aspiration of all men and women across the world is allowing to speak directly to this global political awakening, and emerge as the leader not of the nations of the world, but much more importantly, its people. 

The politics of the bottom-up go global. 

Yesterday, Representatives Waxman and Markey, Chairmen of the House Energy and Commerce Committe and Energy and Environment Subcommittee, respectively, introduced draft energy legislation.  The ambitious bill lays out a sweeping agenda for energy reform that shows the intensity of commitment in this Congress to energy reform and dramatically increases the chance for passage of important energy legislation this year.  Today, the White House endorsed the legislation, further increasing the chances of action.

Key proposals include a cap and trade system to reduce emissions 83% by 2050, modernization of the grid, a renewable portfolio standard and support for new energy technologies including the politically important one of clean coal.  Coming on the heels of the major investments in clean energy included in the $787 billion ARRA legislation passed earlier this year, America is on the verge of the largest transition in energy priorities in our history--away from carbon based energy--toward new cleaner forms of energy.

Speaker Pelosi has already signaled her intent to move the legislation forward in the House where it will likely pass.  As usual, the key battleground will be the Senate where cap and trade legislation appears to be about four to five votes short of the 60 needed for cloture.  If cap and trade falls short, the Senate could move forward on the energy portions of a bill.  However, this would weaken the US negotiating position in Copenhagen next year.  Bringing a few more Senators on board is thus the key to comprehensive action.

The four titles of the bill map the major countours of the energy discussion, support for clean energy and clean technology including electric cars and a modernized grid, energy efficiency, a cap and trade system to limit heat-trapping pollutants and a transition title to minimize the disruptive impact of change this large on industry and consumers.

In addition to the Waxman-Markey bill, a variety of bills on the smart grid, grid modernization, renewable fuels, energy writ large and the reduction of carbon emissions through cap and trade or a carbon tax are also in play.  Some, such as Senator Harry Reid's transmission bill and Senator Bingaman's energy legislation have the imprimateur of highly influential legislators. 

While the Waxman Markey draft legislation is not designed to be the final say and leaves some details unspecified, we at NDN look forward to working with these leaders, the Administration and others to advance the legislation's critical energy goals.

The time has never been more ripe for moving America and the world decisively away from the carbon-laden fuels of the 19th and 20th Centuries toward a new, low carbon, renewable energy future.  That, in turn, should help drive the next great wave of economic growth one would expect from a major leap forward in the single most import imput--after people--in the economy, energy.

I have written before about the Center for Immigration Studies, CIS, recognized as part of a hate group network, as anti-Hispanic and self-describedly anti-immigrant.  Their latest study, covered by the CQ Weekly, finds that - even in this time of economic crisis - wages actually rose at packing plants after immigration raids.  What does this tell us? It does not tell us that raids are a good idea, but rather, this conclusion gets to the point that a legal work force is a higher paid, more secure work force - and this is good for all workers and business owners.  It tells us that not only is immigration reform the right and humane thing to do, but it is in the best interest of all American workers in order to further elevate the wages and conditions of all our work force.  Per CIS, after the raids:

"Swift also has recruited a large number of refugees who are legal immigrants," to replace its undocumented work force; and "at the four facilities for which we were able to obtain information, wages and bonuses rose on average 8 percent with the departure of illegal immigrants...There is a widespread perception among union officials, workers, and others in these communities that if pay and working conditions were improved, it would be dramatically easier to recruit legal workers (immigrant and native)."

I never thought I'd say this, but CIS's findings demonstrate that we are actually all in agreement! "Conservative" and "liberal," "anti-immigrant" and "pro-immigrant," and everyone in between - we all want to look after our workers' and our businesses' best interests to improve the U.S. economy.  This study demonstrates that legalizing all our work force and having sufficient (realistic) legal channels for workers is the best way to ensure the best wages, bottom line. The study's author, Jerry Kammer, says that unscrupulous employers will never go along with higher wages without the threat of enforcement - "There's always new guys coming in willing to work for less," he says.  So then we're in agreement - we have to fix our broken immigration system; let's pass comprehensive immigration legislation that legalizes all our workers, that sanctions bad-actor employers, provides an earned path to citizenship, and provides sufficient legal channels to address economic demand for workers in the future. Based on this report, there is no legitimate policy (or political) reason why the status quo makes more sense than comprehensive immigration reform.

The gutting of the US auto industry is a negative development for the economy, the consequences of which have not, I believe, been fully thought through.  And the contrast between the treatment of banks and the auto industry gets to the crux of what underlies at a very deep level our current economic malaise and long term prospects for recovery.

Further on this subject, the cover article in the current Harper's by Thomas Geoghegan, a Chicago lawyer, explores how both the financial and manufacturing crisis stem from a single cause, the elimination of contract rights and usury caps protecting people in recent years that have seen credit card rates jump from a few percent to 30% or more. Usury or excessively high interest rates, Geoghan points out, is something that societies have regulated since Biblical days for good reason.  Sky high interest rates simultaneously impoverish those at the bottom while monopolizing capital at the top in the pursuit of huge but inevitably unsustainable profits.  Echoing Kevin Phillips argument that  declining societies turn to finance as the only way to support--if temporarily--excessive consumption, Geoghan describes how the prospect of absurdly high returns siphoned capital from productive sectors leaving us doubly impoverished.  He writes:

Some people still think our financial collapse was the result of a technical glitch--a failure, say, to regulate derivatives... In fact, some New Deal-type regulation was actually intoduced in recent years...think of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  The problem was not that we "deregulated the new Deal" but that we deregulated a much older, even ancient set of laws.

The first of these were contract rights.  "As one company after another "reorganized" in Chapter 11 to shed contract rights, working people learned that it was not rational to count on those rights and guarantees, or even to think in these future-oriented ways.  No wonder people in our country began to live for the moment and take out loans and start running up debts.

And then we dismantled the most ancient of human laws, the law against usury, which had existed in some form in every civilization from the time of the Babylonian Empire to the end of Jimmy Carter's term, and which had been so taken for granted that no one ever even mentioned it to us in law school.  That's when we found out what happens when an advanced industial economy tries to function with no cap at all on interest rates.

Here's what happens: the financial sector bloats up.  With no law capping interest, the evil is not only that banks prey on the poor (they have always done so) but that capital gushes out of manufacturing and into banking.  When banks get 25 to 30 percent on credit cards, and 500 or more percent on payday loans, capital flees from honest pursuits like auto manufacturing.  ...  What is history, really, but a turf war between manufacturing, labor and the banks?  In the United Sates, we shrank manufacturing.  We got rid of labor.  Now it's just the banks. 

Geoghegan's unusually provocative article is worth a read.  More broadly it raises an important question.  Will the United States undertake real reform to strengthen contract rights, limit usury, downsize our financial sector and upsize our productive base.  This is an outstanding opportunity for meaningful reform to address the middle class impoverishment that, as NDN has long noted, lies at the root of our current crisis and whose reversal is also critical to our democracy.

Immigration reform remains at the forefront of voters' minds. Yesterday, immigration reform came up during Meet the Press and Al Punto, Univision's Spanish-language Sunday morning show.  

I.  Al Punto - The program began with an interview with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during which she made encouraging statements in regards to hemispheric relations and our bilateral relationship with Mexico.  However, when the subject of immigration came up, her message was mixed.

[Translation from Spanish voiceover]:
Jorge Ramos: Secretary Clinton, Immigration Reform - when will it come up in Congress?
HRC: Well it is certainly on President Obama's agenda, but because of the economic crisis there are many challenges we must address first...we feel that we have to wait.  Of course the U.S. economy recovery is very important to both the U.S. and Mexico, and we must address the economic challenges before we resolve strictly U.S. problems and shared issues like immigration.

Of course the President's primary focus should be the economic crisis.  But in truth, immigration reform should be a tool precisely to help get our economy back on track.  As the economy worsens, CIR would remove a trap door under the minimum wage. Fully 5 percent of the American workforce today is undocumented.  Bringing them under the protection of American law will allow them to be paid minimum wage, prevent exploitation by unscrupulous employers, allow them to unionize, and will relieve downward pressure on the wages of all Americans.  Moreover, putting the undocumented population on the road to citizenship will undoubtedly increase tax revenue and lift wages for all Americans in a time of economic crisis.  Revenue from fees and fines will be generated - as stated by the last Congressional Budget Office score that accompanied the CIR legislation that passed the Senate in 2006 - CIR would net "increased revenues by about $44 billion over the 2007-2016 period." 

When times were good, it was not the time for immigration reform; now that times are bad it is once again not time for immigration reform - so when is the "right" time?  We have seen this cyclical public debate about the "timing" of immigration reform occur in the 1960s, 1980s, and again in this decade. It is urgent for U.S. rule of law, it is urgent for the people who currently live in the shadows, it is urgent for the businesses that want to compete in a global economy, and it is urgent for both Democratic and Republican candidates in order to have a major legislative achievement this year, and to consolidate gains with the electorate - particularly Hispanic voters.  

II. Meet the Press - Immigration reform is an issue that is about right and wrong, and about achieving practical solutions versus status quo, but at this juncture, more than anything it is about past versus future.  A great deal of the resistance against immigration reform is actually rooted in a profound resistance against immigrants and against the changing face of America.  This new, 21st century demography of America is reflected in its electorate.  As he interviewed U.S. Sen. John McCain on Meet the Press (MTP) yesterday, David Gregory replayed a video from an earlier episode, during which Mike Murphy (Republican strategist) stated:

At the end of the day, here's the one statistic we all got to remember:  The country's changing.  Ronald Reagan won in 1980 with 51 percent of the vote.  We all worship Ronald Reagan. But if that election had been held with the current demographics of America today, Ronald Reagan would have gotten 47 percent of the vote.  The math is changing.  Anglo vote's 74 percent now, not 89.  And if we don't modernize conservatism, we're going to have a party of 25 percent of the vote going to Limbaugh rallies, enjoying every, every applause line, ripping the furniture up.  We're going to be in permanent minority status.

Gregory's questioning on immigration reform was linked precisely to the issue of how to modernize conservatism:

MR. GREGORY:  Given that, assuming you agree, how does conservatism modernize itself?  How does the party get back to power?

SEN. McCAIN:  The party of ideas, party of inclusiveness, outreach to other ethnic aspects of the American electorate; in my part of the country especially, Hispanic voters.  We have to recruit and elect Hispanics to office.  We have to welcome new ideas.  And there are-you know, a lot of people complain about divisions within the Republican Party.  That's good right now. Let's let a thousand flowers bloom.  Let's have different clashes of ideas, sharing the same principles and goals.....I have-I'm very optimistic about the future of the Republican Party if we do the right things.

MR. GREGORY:  Speaking about the Hispanic vote, would you like to work on immigration policy with this president?

SEN. McCAIN:  At any time I stand ready, but the president has to lead.  The, the administration has to lead with a proposal.

MR. GREGORY:  Do you think they have that proposal, want to do that?

SEN. McCAIN:  They have not come forward with one yet. They said that they are going to-I understand the president met with the Hispanic Caucus and he said he would have some forums and, and other things.

MR. GREGORY:  Right.

It's important to note that Sen. McCain stands ready to support the President's proposal on CIR, which means he would likely support the items outlined in the President's Immigration Agenda: interior and border enforcement, increasing the number of family visas, an improved system for future flow, and collaboration with immigrant-sending nations.  Without a doubt, Sen. McCain's support will be an integral part of any legislation if it is to pass in Congress. 

III. Press coverage in Mexico of HRC Visit - A piece in El Financiero, focuses solely on immigration: Tema Migratorio No Ha Sido Dejado de Lado: Clinton, "Immigration Issue Has Not Been Cast Aside: Clinton."

IV. Exodus in Rhode Island After 287(g) Agreement -  A news piece on Univision highlights the case of Rhode Island, were Governor Don Carcieri passed anti-immigrant ordinances and entered into a 287(g) agreement one year ago.  The effects are visible today, with much of the immigrant community reported to have moved south - but not south of the border.  As we've stated before, local enforcement does not serve to help deport individuals (while that is often the intention).  In this case, this "attrition" caused a loss in business to the locality, while immigrants moved to a different - more welcoming - state within the U.S. It is reported that many of the Hispanic immigrants in Rhode Island moved to North Carolina.  This is yet another example of how local and state immigration ordinances won't cut it - we need CIR in order to resolve the issues caused by the broken immigration system. 

V. Shifting the Focus of Enforcement - As Sam mentioned, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has delayed proposed immigration raids, asking that the raids be given closer scrutiny before being carried out.  This could signal a very much needed shift in policy, away from workplace raids as immigration enforcement.  

Note: Morley Winograd and Mike Hais, NDN Fellows, are co-authors of the critically acclaimed Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, & the Future of American Politics. Winograd and Hais also have a long history with Detroit and Michigan. Winograd lived there for 50 years and was Chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party from 1973 to 1979. Winograd later served in Washington, DC, as Senior Policy Advisor to Vice President Gore, during which time he witnessed the events described in the essay below. Prior to joining Frank N. Magid Associates in 1983, Hais was a political pollster for Democrats in Michigan and an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Detroit.

With President Barack Obama's expected annoucement later this morning, the current debate over whether to save our domestic auto industry has revealed some starkly different views about the future of manufacturing in America among economists, elected officials and corporate executives. There are many disagreements about solutions to the Big Three’s current financial difficulties, but the more fundamental debate is whether the industry  should bend to the will of the government’s and taxpayers' priorities or serve only the needs of the companies’ customers and their shareholders. 

Detroit had an opportunity -- nearly 10 years ago to the date -- to change. To understand the globalizing world around it, to understand that consumers' priorities and values -- especially those of the rising Millennial Generation -- were changing drastically. While some may think it's a leap to compare an overhaul of Detroit with an overhaul of the discredited Republican Party, the similarities are there:  

But when the government becomes a major stockholder in private enterprises, the brand becomes political. And as General Motors learned to its regret, when a company’s brand is as damaged as badly as the Republican Party’s is now, the chances of it prevailing in any debate about the automotive industry’s future is greatly diminished. Very aware of the public tsunami of anger over AIG bonuses, Wall Street excesses and public perception of corruption and lack of accountability, President Obama is not in a forgiving mood. He has made clear the domestic automobile industry has to be seen as a contributor in ending America’s dependence on foreign oil and improving our environment to secure his support. Almost exactly ten years since the debate at the Detroit airport, as a price for its financial support, the federal government will in fact be telling at least General Motors which vehicles to produce for its customers.  Given that arrangement, both parties to this newest partnership need to find “win-win” solutions for the industry’s future that match the optimism and civic spirit of the Millennial generation who will have to pay for the results of their decisions.

The last time the industry seriously engaged in such a debate was during the Clinton Administration and the companies’ failure to effectively respond to Vice President Al Gore’s offer to partner with them in producing more environmentally sensitive products gives substance to President Obama’s charge last week that their current difficulties were caused by executive “mismanagement” in the past.

Attempts to nudge Detroit into producing more fuel-efficient vehicles have been going on since the 1973-4 Arab Oil embargo, which led Congress to establish Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFÉ) standards for cars and light trucks. The original fuel efficiency target was for cars to meet an average of 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 1985. On Earth Day, 1992, candidate Bill Clinton proposed to raise that standard even further to 45 mpg if he were elected President.

When Al Gore was asked to join the ticket, auto industry executives, terrified at the prospect that the man who had called for the abolition of the internal combustion engine might become Vice President, implored the leadership of the United Automobile Workers (UAW) to meet with the candidates and bring them to their senses. The lobbying effort worked.  Clinton agreed to delay the adoption of higher CAFÉ standards until it could be proven that such goals were attainable. 

This formulation opened the door for what came to be known as the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles or PNGV.  Reluctantly supported by the Big Three, PNGV provided approximately a quarter of a billion dollars in government research funds to demonstrate the feasibility of producing a midsize sedan that could get 80 mpg. Often called “the moon shot of the 90s,” each car company was to make a prototype of such a vehicle by the politically convenient year of 2000 and begin mass production by 2004.  

After a few years of technological research, the partnership settled on the combination of a hybrid gasoline and electric powered propulsion system as the most promising approach. But by 1997, the car companies began to resist expending their resources to develop even a prototype for such a vehicle. Vice President Gore, who had been in charge of the  PNGV program since its inception, decided to meet with the Big Three CEOs to make sure they did not forget their  past commitments. The answer from Detroit was emphatic: profits were coming from SUVs and heavy-duty trucks, not cars. Gore countered that argument by offering to trade the administration’s support for tougher regulations on the permissible amount of sulfur content in the diesel fuels that would power some of the new hybrid SUVs, if the car companies would join in expanding the scope of the PNGV plan to include SUVs, the very product they said the marketplace was asking for. Gore suggested each company produce a concept SUV by 2002 and three production prototypes by 2006, capable of getting 80 mpg. He also suggested they advance the mass production goal for cars to 2002 by deploying a 60 mpg five passenger sedan in 2002 rather than waiting for an 80 mpg version in 2004. 

Ford’s Peter Pestillo and his UAW ally, Steve Yokich, quickly replied, “no way.” Pestillo maintained, “We need much more time than that to make them cost competitive.”  Not all of the auto executives were blind to the challenge. General Motors’ Vice-Chairman, Harry Pearce had been the driving force behind GM’s ill-fated EV1 electric car experiment. And William Clay “Bill” Ford, Jr., great grandson of the company’s founder and Chairman of its Board of Directors envisioned building  a 21st century version of the Model T that would be environmentally friendly as well as inexpensive. Gore asked the companies to respond to his suggestions by September 1998, the fifth anniversary of PNGV.  

But it wasn’t until May of 1999, that the auto company CEOs joined the Vice President to settle the issue of SUVs and PNGV.  Gore began the meeting, held in a back room at the Detroit airport, by suggesting that developing these products could enhance the industry’s image as well as each company’s individual brands.  Ford's Pestillo asked for still more time to consider the idea: “While we love the progress we are making in PNGV as it’s currently constituted, it’s not yet clear to us that the technologies we have been working on apply to the design of an SUV.”  But Pearce used the platform (basic body design) issue raised by Ford to make Gore’s point. He sketched a future auto industry where the line between cars and trucks would not be as clear, describing what we know today as “crossovers”.  It might therefore be wrong, he suggested, for PNGV to be limited to just one platform. 

Gore took the opening and suggested the companies think about what such an announcement might mean to the industry’s image and their individual brands. “It’s not just the substance of the issue you need to consider. You also need to think about the symbolism of the decision. Putting SUVs into the PNGV project would change the public’s perception of where you are going in the future.”  When Pestillo attempted to return to his original arguments, he was overridden on the spot.  GM said, “If you will include lean burn technology (for diesel SUV’s) into the project that might work.” Gore responded, “Let’s work on this as a package.”

Recognizing the breakthrough they had just achieved, the participants began to think about what the future might look like if they formed a true partnership -- not too dissimilar from what is being contemplated now under the terms of the automotive industry loan. Gore said he would put his personal reputation behind such an agreement, which the press would think of as a “Nixon goes to China” event, garnering the auto industry a great deal of positive press. 

But when it came time for the true test of their commitment to this new partnership, the autos blinked. The Vice President suggested they sign off on a press release, conveniently drawn up before the meeting started, announcing the inclusion of SUVs in an expanded PNGV project. The CEOs argued for a less definitive announcement stating that they would address the issue of highly fuel efficient SUVs within the context of the PNGV partnership, but not commit to any specific goals for their production. This less-than-definitive agreement barely made it to page B4 of the Wall Street Journal the next day and was generally ignored by the public the participants were hoping to impress.

Unfortunately for America, General Motors then decided to go in almost the opposite direction. Rick Wagoner, who became General Motors' CEO in June 2000, chose to pursue an SUV-centered strategy that won big profits for a brief period. Since then, however, GM stock has plunged 95%, from $60 per share to just under $4 today. General Motors, which has lost $70 billion since 2005, has seen its market share cut in half.  Seven years after the fateful auto summit with Al Gore, when asked what decision he most regretted, Wagoner told Motor Trend magazine, “ending the EV1 electric car program and not putting the right resources into PNGV. It didn’t affect profitability but it did affect image.” [emphasis added].

His lack of commitment to the type of automobile industry that PNGV envisioned ultimately led to his downfall with the Obama Administration now demanding his resignation as part their plan to save GM.

The importance of a company’s public image or brand value has never been greater than in this new civic era, where the lines between democratic decision-making and private sector planning are becoming increasingly blurred. The organizing cry of Boomer feminists was “the personal is political.”

The paragraph from above bears repeating: 

But when the government becomes a major stockholder in private enterprises, the brand becomes political. And as General Motors learned to its regret, when a company’s brand is as damaged as badly as the Republican Party’s is now, the chances of it prevailing in any debate about the automotive industry’s future is greatly diminished. Very aware of the public tsunami of anger over AIG bonuses, Wall Street excesses and public perception of corruption and lack of accountability, President Obama is not in a forgiving mood. He has made clear the domestic automobile industry has to be seen as a contributor in ending America’s dependence on foreign oil and improving our environment to secure his support. Almost exactly ten years since the debate at the Detroit airport, as a price for its financial support, the federal government will in fact be telling at least General Motors which vehicles to produce for its customers.  Given that arrangement, both parties to this newest partnership need to find “win-win” solutions for the industry’s future that match the optimism and civic spirit of the Millennial generation who will have to pay for the results of their decisions.

Miami - My trip to Chile for the Progressive Goverance Conference was my first trip outside the US since Barack Obama's Inaugration.  I was eager to assess the perception of America in these early days after the terrible Bush Presidency.   I offer some initial impressions from my layover in Miami on the way back to DC: 

The Rest Has Risen, and Want a Seat at the Table - From the end of World War II on America's principal export was our governing model, which I characterize as a committment to democracy, free markets,personal liberty and the rule of law.  With the exception of the Middle East, most regions, governments and people of the world are in the process of adapting some version of this model, of course with varying degrees of success.  The embrace of this model, and what might even be called modernity itself, has helped dozens of countries in eastern Europe and the developing world achieve remarkable growth and societal stability and progress.  To paraphrase Fareed Zakaria, we are witnessing a dramatic rise of the rest, something that FDR and Truman I'm sure dreamed of when they constructed the global architecture that has been so instrumental in ushering in this new era.  And for any American who has traveled to these rising regions in recent years it is an exciting thing to behold.  

But this also means-- and I'm not sure American policy elites have really come to terms with this-- that the management of this global architecture is going to have to change to accomodate these new rising powers.  This sentiment is often voiced in policy circles, but how we actually change organizations like the UN, the World Bank and the IMF - and even make meetings like the G20 less a photo-op and more an actual exchange of ideas among diverse peers - is going to be a true test of America and the Obama Administration.  The days of US-European global leadership are over, and the longer global institutions maintain these overt or implicit arrangements, the less relevant these institutions will be to the rising nations who want - and deserve - a seat at the global table.  

Exporting Chaos -The global financial and economic crisis will end up hastening this new  day in global relations.  What I heard in Chile again and again was that the crisis was an Anglo-American export.  That due to our own recklessness, economic hardship had been exported to a rapidly improving world.  For Americans, this sentiment coming on the heels of Bush's unilateralist foreign policy, leaving many to wonder why our great nation which had for so long exported stability, prosperity and modernity was now in the business of exporting chaos.

Prior to my trip to Chile I had assumed that the American people's utter repudiation of the Republican Party, and their choice of a young inspiring leader would help America regain its proper place as the indispensible nation, the moral, economic and political leader of the world.  But now I am not so sure.  First I'm not so sure the rising powers of the world want to return to a world with a paramount sole superpower.  Their goal is to create a much more multi-polar, distributed and arguably democratic set of power arrangements.  This line of thinking may believe that for America to strongly re-assert itself now could very well block the necessary changes which can result in giving these rising powers a bigger seat at the table, gaining the respect and recognition they want and deserve.  

Second, I think many countries, while admiring of our new President, have a right to wonder about what has happened to that old and virtuous America of previous eras.  The America of this past decade has been a blundering reckless superpower, launching a wildly aggressive invasion of another nation, condoning torture, borrowing and spending imprudently, blocking meaningful action on climate change and now exporting a global economic crisis that is doing significant harm to virtually every society in the world.   The performance of America in the Bush era has rightly given many in the world pause, and there simply is no interest in having that America return to power.  At the G20 and the Summit of the Americas, Barack Obama will confront this new global reality, rising powers deeply skeptical of what America has become, hopeful perhaps about this new President, but no longer content to simply blindly accept the Pax Americana that has governed the world for over 60 years.  

At the end of WWII the American government adopted a strategy to defeat totalitarianism and help the decimated and developing world prosper.  We are today seeing the triumph of that strategy, as an overwhelming majority of nations have chosen a modern path and have seen their people lift themselves up.  But now that they have, a great deal of imagination and hard work will be required to design the next series of strategies to help us manage the affairs of the world, building upon what has been a remarkable era of global progress.  That era will almost certainly see a decrease in American power, something that will be terribly difficult for this nation to accept.  Add this new set of daunting global realities to the already significant set of challenges inherited by our remarkable new President, Barack Obama.

Bipartisanship. Other than "stimulus" or "bailout," perhaps no word has been written or spoken more often by politicians and pundits alike in Washington since the inauguration of Barack Obama. Commentators have generally characterized President Obama's attempts to engage Republicans as almost completely unsuccessful, while Republicans have derided his efforts as charming but ineffective, especially in light of the more partisan approach of his party’s Congressional leadership. Liberals such as Thomas Frank dismissed bipartisanship as a "silly Beltway obsession," calling it "the most cynical stance possible."

For his part, the President told columnist E.J. Dionne that the almost complete rejection of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act by congressional Republicans reflected a combination of genuine "core differences between Democrats and Republicans" and an opportunistic attempt to "enforce conformity" and "reinvigorate their base." Obama then outlined the limits of his good will in a phrase sure to be repeated as the debate continues: "You know, I'm an eternal optimist. That doesn't mean I'm a sap."

While some of this is just typical Washington politics, there is more to the argument over bipartisanship than mere gamesmanship. American politics has moved to a new era, one in which basic public attitudes toward government and the norms by which political activity is conducted and judged have been altered sharply and profoundly. Spurred as always by the emergence of a large and dynamic new generation, this makeover or realignment has changed almost everything about American politics, including the very meaning and practice of "bipartisanship."

The most striking evidence of just how much things have changed was the extraordinary exchange between the President, congressional leaders from both houses and parties, and leaders from the private sector, both business and labor, at the White House Summit on "Fiscal Sustainability." The entire event was deliberately choreographed by President Obama to be demonstrably bipartisan and televised for the public to see. The dialogue between the President and Members of Congress suggested some principles of an approach to governing that can best be described as "positive partisanship." It is the way in which bipartisanship will be exercised in the new civic era that began with the election and inauguration of Barack Obama. The President himself summarized how this new approach should work, responding to U.S. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who asked him to take the lead in telling Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats to be inclusive in their approach to developing legislation: "I do agree that the majority has an obligation to try and be as inclusive as they can, but the minority has to be constructive in return. The minority has to come up with their own ideas and not just want to blow things up." Exactly.

In the 40-year long "idealist" era that just ended, bipartisanship reflected the circumstances of a nation dominated by the unflinchingly ideological and profoundly fractured Baby Boomer Generation. Within the electorate, and especially among Boomers, there were approximately an equal number of Republicans and Democrats and, at times, more independents than either. Voters were almost always sharply divided along the demographic lines of gender and ethnicity. In 14 of the 20 Congresses during the era, different parties controlled the presidency and at least one house of Congress, something favored by the American public in attitude surveys throughout the period. As a result, major alterations in public policy were rare and institutional gridlock was the rule rather than the exception.

Historically, in previous idealist eras, "bipartisanship" meant seeking the lowest common denominator to bridge the differences between ideological extremes. During most of the idealist era between the election of Andrew Jackson in 1828 and Abraham Lincoln in 1860, attempts to find a literal mathematical midpoint between the slave states and free states were the rule. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 divided the territory acquired in the Louisiana Purchase into free states north of latitude 36° 30' and slave states south of that line. Later, new states entered the Union in pairs, one slave and one free state at a time. A Whig politician, Henry Clay, gained the nickname "the Great Compromiser" for his efforts to achieve those middle ground solutions.

In the idealist era that has just ended, political leaders, especially Democrats, were often forced to return to the bipartisan model of that earlier era. Bill Clinton, certainly the more successful of the two Democrats elected to the presidency between 1968 and 2004, often pursued an approach of "triangulation" between the ideological liberals of his own party and the conservatives of the opposition Republicans. "Centrist" Democratic groups (the very term obviously implying middle ground positioning) sought a "Third Way" between the ideological and partisan ends of the political spectrum. Party liberals often excoriated Clinton and the "centrist" Democrats for their ideological impurity. But the efforts to seek midpoint bipartisan policies made sense in a politically divided idealist era, especially one in which the opposition party held the presidency most of the time and divided government was the norm.

But in 2008, America moved to a new political era and everything changed, including the meaning of bipartisanship, as the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression pushed the country into another civic era. In this environment, the American public, which had preferred divided government during the previous idealist era, now endorses unified government. A CNN survey conducted immediately after the 2008 general election indicated that a clear majority (59%) favored the idea of the Democrats controlling both elective branches of the federal government. Only 38 percent said that one-party rule was a bad idea. The public used a clearly civic era rationale to explain its changed attitude, telling Wall Street Journal pollsters that when the same party controls both the presidency and Congress, "it will end gridlock in Washington and things will get done." A recent CBS/New York Times survey confirmed the desire for decisive action across the institutional lines of a newly unified government. A clear majority (56%) wants President Obama to pursue the policies he promised in the campaign rather than working in a bipartisan way with Republicans (39%). By contrast, an even larger majority (79%) wants congressional Republicans to work in a bipartisan way with the President rather than sticking to Republican policies.

Faced with the need to deal with the deep national crisis that triggered the birth of the civic era, the majority of Americans no longer have the time or tolerance for the partisan and ideological rancor that fractured the political process and produced gridlock in the previous idealist era. If nothing else, the public expects calm, courteous, and polite discussion that focuses more on possible solutions and less on defining differences and distinctions. That tone was exemplified by the President as he conducted the Q&A with the Summit participants -- listening carefully to what they had to say, agreeing or disagreeing with some comments but always in a civil, and in some cases self-deprecating, way that made it impossible for the participants to engage in their usual hot-button rhetoric.

Beyond demanding a new tone in political discourse, the public is also expressing its desire for decisive action with the majority party, currently the Democrats, having primary responsibility for governing. At the Summit, the President underlined some of the philosophical differences between the parties when discussing the question of individual tax rates or levels of overall revenue. But he made clear by his control of the session what he had told some Republicans earlier: "We won." He acknowledged both that the electorate had asked Democrats to take the lead in developing and implementing policies to deal with the major issues facing the nation and that he wanted the Republicans to play a role in finding the answers so long as they participated in a "constructive" fashion.

This offer to engage puts the GOP in a quandary. It can choose to retain its ideological purity and hope to avoid blame if Democratic decisions turn out to be ineffective or harmful, but in doing so it is denying itself any role policymaking during Obama’s presidency. Furthermore, such posturing is already creating an image in the public’s mind of Republicans being too political and obstructionist.

Alternatively, the GOP can resurrect the "Ev and Charlie Show" from the days of Lyndon Johnson when those two Republican congressional leaders participated in the policymaking process as a junior partner. If the Republicans choose this approach, they may leave themselves open to charges, similar to those leveled by Newt Gingrich at Republican congressional leaders when he first arrived in Congress, that they are a pale "me too" reflection of the Democrats, without any guiding principles of their own. But the approach does produce results. In the 1960s, Everett Dirksen and Charles Halleck collaborated with LBJ to provide the crucial votes on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The decisive support of Republican Senators Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter for the recently enacted economic recovery act may be an unofficial and limited reflection of this approach early in the new civic era.

Overall, however, the GOP seems inclined to avoid collaborating with Democrats in order to stay true to its idealist era ideology. While that may well promote party unity and discipline, from the perspective of enhancing the Republican brand, it seems to be a major error.

In  a recent Daily Kos survey, clear majorities had favorable opinions of the President (67%) and the Democratic Party (53%). Favorable attitudes toward congressional Democrats (44%), Speaker Nancy Pelosi (39%), and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (34%) were not nearly as high. But, the favorable ratings received by the Democrats were substantially above those given to the Republican Party (27%), congressional Republicans (17%), John Boehner (13%), and Mitch McConnell (19%). Moreover, since the first of the year, favorable ratings of the Democratic leaders and the Democratic Party have remained stable or even increased, while those of the Republicans have declined.

In 2008, the American people chose the Democratic Party to take the lead in confronting and resolving the grave problems facing the nation. They are expecting a decisive, civic-oriented response from President Obama. The Republican Party is left with the options of either joining the struggle or being left behind. Ultimately, both parties behavior will be shaped and judged by a new definition of what it means to exercise positive partisanship in a new era.