NDN

Cable news seems to be multiplying blatantly racist shows, as opposed to shutting them down.  By accident I happened to catch some of the new "Ed" show, 6pm time slot on MSNBC and was less than happy to see the man who almost had to resign for recommending the U.S. bomb Mecca - Tom Tancredo - on with him to discuss immigration reform of all things.  I mean, even Fox news no longer has Tancredo on.  Mind you, one thing is to have a healthy debate and someone on the show who opposes reform, but Tom Tancredo does not know healthy debate. He is no opponent of immigration, he is a proponent of hate and mass destruction.  Lest we forget his campaign ad equating immigrants and Hispanics with "Islamic terrorists."  On the bright side, bring him on - keep bringing on the Tancredos out there - there will be no better tool to pass CIR.  As Simon has said before, anti-immigrant positions don't deliver politically.  Hence Tancredo was at 1% favorability among  Republicans during his vie for his Party's nomination.   His anti-immigrant stance and hatred towards other cultures is not popular.  He did so poorly in the race for the Republican Presidential nomination and in his own district, that he didn't even attempt to run for re-election in 2008.  A post on Kos pretty much expresses the same reaction to seeing Tancredo on the air, re-posted below.  So we are left with the question? Is Ed going to be MSNBC's Lou Dobbs?  Don't networks want to report actual news stories, or riveting educational pieces as opposed to serving as a space for bigoted individuals to air their frustrations? 

Ed Schultz: Why Tancredo?
by ademption

Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 06:43:22 PM PDT
This diary is about the new Ed Schultz show on MSNBC called "The Ed Show" which airs at 6 pm EST in place of the 1600 Penn Ave hosted by David Schuster. I have watched the Ed Show since its inception and for the most part I've enjoyed it. The Ed Show's main focus is topics related to the middle class. For instance, one day he discussed the rising costs of healthcare and had Senator Wyden of Oregon to discuss his healthcare plan. Another day, he discussed the EFCA and had a union guy as a guest. On Wednesday, he talked with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on how to fix the education system. Until today, I liked Ed's topics and guests.

Unfortunately, today's show I think Big Ed may have jumped the shark with his invite of Tom Tancredo to appear on his show.

ademption's diary :: ::
Now I understand that immigration is a very divisive issue, even among Democrats. I also gather from today's show that Big Ed does not support comprehensive immigration reform like Obama. That's fine. We as progressives can't always agree on everything. I can understand Ed Schultz wanting to discuss the topic of immigration and even invite a guest that shares his viewpoint on the topic. But I cannot accept his choice of guest to discuss the issue tonight.

Tom Tancredo was the absolute wrong choice to discuss immigration. I can't understand why a professed progressive like Ed Schultz would give a divisive figure like Tancredo a platform for his show. Does Big Ed recall his insane remarks about bombing Mecca? His likening Miami, Florida to be a third world country? Tom Tancredo is so radioactive that even he and Karl Rove had a falling out. That is how much of a cretin that Tancredo is. I am absolutely flabbergasted that Tancredo was even invited on a so called progressive show. I don't even think that Fox News has Tancredo on the air anymore. Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't even heard about Tancredo since the Republican primaries in 2007. I thought that he had fallen off the face of the earth until I watched the Ed show today.

I know that the Ed Show has gotten really decent ratings in his first week on MSNBC. But I don't think that having Tom Tancredo on his show helps. I am so offended by Ed Schultz having Tancredo appear as a guest that I am seriously considering not watching the show ever again. And again, I like the show. But having Tancredo appear really touched a nerve. I'm not only writing my concerns on Dailykos, but I'm going to let MSNBC know as well.

For those who watched Big Ed during his regular timeslot at 6 pm or his guest stint on Countdown at 8 pm EST, do you think it was appropriate for Ed Schultz to invite Tom Tancredo to appear on his show?

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.

NDN had major essays run in several publications this week. First off, NDN fellows Morley Winograd and Mike Hais had an ideas piece published in Politico, entitled "A New Generation Shapes a New Era." Here's an excerpt:

...Meanwhile, outside the Beltway, America’s demography is steadily and quietly changing in a way that will fundamentally reshape the country for decades to come. A new generation, the millennial generation (born between 1982 and 2003), is coming of age to make over or realign U.S. politics. The approximately 95 million millennials compose the largest American generation in history. There are now about 17 million more millennials alive than there are baby boomers (born between 1946 and 1964), previously the largest generation, and 27 million more millennials than members of generation X (born between 1965 and 1981), the relatively small generation between the boomers and the millennials.

While about 4.5 million millennials have reached voting age every year since 2000, the generation didn’t enter the electorate in large enough numbers to make a real difference until 2008. And make a difference it did. Millennials were decisive in securing the Democratic presidential nomination for Obama. In November, millennials supported Obama over John McCain by a greater-than-2-to-1 ratio, accounting for 80 percent of Obama’s popular vote margin and turning what would have been a squeaker into a decisive victory.

But the 2008 election was barely the tip of the millennial iceberg. Important as they were a year ago, not even half (41 percent) of millennials were eligible to vote, and they accounted for less than one-fifth (17 percent) of the voting-age population in 2008. A bare majority of millennials will be eligible in 2010. Close to two-thirds of them (61 percent), representing a quarter of the electorate, will be able to vote when Obama runs for reelection in 2012. By 2016, eight in 10 millennials will be eligible to vote, and they will account for 30 percent of the electorate. In 2020, when virtually all millennials will be old enough to vote, they will account for more than one-third of the electorate (36 percent). With numbers like these, the millennial generation will be in position to dominate U.S. elections and politics for decades to come...

Morley and Mike were also featured in the front-page story of Saturday's The Globe and Mail (Saturday is the Canadian equivalent of the Sunday paper here). From the Globe and Mail piece:

...The key to this debate may lie in a statistic. There are now more millennials than boomers. To be precise, there are 17 million more people born between 1982 and 2003 living in the United States than there are people who were born between 1946 and 1964. There are 27 million more millennials than there are Gen-Xers, the generation in between. The millennials constitute the largest generation in American history.

Millennials identify as Democrats over Republicans by 55 to 30 per cent; in one poll 80 per cent identified with Mr. Obama, and only 10 per cent identified generically with Republicans.

The boomers, who were raised to believe in ideals — hence the culture wars of the past 50 years — taught their children civic responsibility, says Morley Winograd, co-author of Millennial Makeover, a book that explores the phenomenon.

In the last election, millennials constituted 17 per cent of the electorate. In 2012 they will make up 25 per cent. By 2020, they will make up 36 per cent of the electorate, and will be the dominant demographic for decades to come.

"As long as they hold on to these more politically progressive ideas, which generations tend to hold onto throughout their lives — it's not true that they get more conservative as they get old — it obviously bodes well not just for Democratic politics but for activist government in economic matters, though not in social issues," he says, "which is the reverse of what we've seen."

Morley and Mike also appeared in The Hill talking about Obama's plans for the auto industry.

Next, Rob had a big piece published this week in Roll Call, "The Economy Will Force Quick Action on Climate Change." Here's an excerpt, though the whole essay is really worth reading:

...But with everyone’s attention now fixed on our economic crisis, this process can be accelerated. And as President Barack Obama has suggested many times, rebuilding the economy and dealing with climate change need not be mutually exclusive, if we enact the proper policies.

The proper approach here is a straightforward one.

First, enact a carbon-based tax to move people and firms to prefer and choose less-carbon-intensive fuels and technologies. Second, as we change the relative prices of different forms of energy based on their effects on the climate, protect people’s incomes and the overall economy by returning all or virtually all of the revenues through payroll tax cuts or lump-sum payments to households.

Third, use the certainty of a substantial tax on carbon, along with additional subsidies, to promote the development of new climate-friendly fuels and technologies that can capture a new and fast-growing global market.

Rob was quoted in the Houston Chronicle on climate change as well.

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. 

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.

NDN is pleased to announce that U.S. Rep. Adam Smith will be speaking at "The G-20 Summit and Beyond: Challenges Facing the Global Economy" this Wednesday, April 1 at NDN. Smith sits on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, chairs the New Democrat Coalition Trade Task Force, and is a leading voice in Congress on international economic policy.

More on the event:

Amidst a Great Recession that has deepened and spread since the G-20 last met in November here in Washington, the leaders of the G-20 nations are now preparing for their April 2 summit in London. The stakes include growing threats of protectionism, resistance by many governments to stimulate their economies, the pitfalls in trying to unravel trillions of dollars in bad assets, prospects of political instability created by the deep downturn as well as the future of the international economic institutions.

With many calling for unprecedented global cooperation to address both the crisis and other, longer-term challenges such as climate change, the G-20 leaders face a very difficult and crowded agenda.

Please join the NDN Globalization Initiative on April 1, the day before the talks in London, for a preview of the G-20 summit and the challenges that world leaders will need to tackle during this Great Recession. This event, to be held at NDN’s offices -- just one block from the White House -- will feature U.S. Rep. Adam Smith, NDN Globalization Initiative Chair Dr. Robert Shapiro and Dr. Moisés Naím, the Editor-in-Chief of Foreign Policy magazine. NDN President Simon Rosenberg will moderate the discussion.

The event, which will be held at NDN, 729 15th St., NW, 1st FL, will start at 12 p.m., with lunch beginning at 11:30 a.m.

The G-20 forum also will be Web cast live at http://www.ndnblog.org/livecast starting at 12:15 p.m. ET.

To RSVP, please click here.

We're looking forward to seeing you on April 1 at NDN or via live Web cast.

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.  

With the unveiling of the Treasury's new plan to rid banks of toxic assets, the economy once again topped the news this week, and NDN was right in the thick of it. Dr. Rob Shapiro, chair of our Globalization Initiative, was featured in a national Associated Press story about President Obama's economic policy. From the AP piece:

Rob Shapiro, a former economic adviser to President Bill Clinton, said the question for the administration is how far it can push the sense of urgency before the public, and by extension Congress, becomes wary of the cost and perceives government intervention as intrusion.

"The hardest problem that they face, and consequently the country," said Shapiro, of NDN, a think tank formerly known as the New Democratic Network, "is the separation between what might be economically necessary and what is politically acceptable."

Rob was also quoted in an excellent story in the Christian Science Monitor about the Geithner plan:

“The only thing that matters here is the judgment of the president,” says Robert Shapiro, who served President Bill Clinton as undersecretary of Commerce for economic affairs, now at NDN, a left-leaning think tank in Washington.

Obama’s own job performance is now tethered closely to the success of his Treasury secretary. He selected Geithner, after all, and has endorsed his latest rescue plans.

For Geithner’s part, his job security hinges on how well his plans work in the months ahead, Mr. Shapiro says.

The Obama administration, however, confronts a risk related to Geithner’s policies, he adds: “The larger issue is whether the administration either has been or will be too deferential to Wall Street.”

Simon and NDN Fellow Morley Winograd were quoted in Talking Points Memo on Obama's virtual town hall last week (which I also wrote about here). Morley and Mike were quoted in a Forbes article about the need for a new WPA. From the Forbes piece:  

Tapping the energies of this new "millennial" generation--those now entering their teens and early 20s--would make enormous sense both for economic and social reasons.

Not only do they need work, but also, as their chroniclers, authors Morley Winograd and Mike Hais have demonstrated, many share an interest in community-building in ways reminiscent of the last "civic generation" in the 1930s.

In contrast, the current stimulus, rather than inspiring a new generation, has focused on bailing out failed corporations, few of which will generate much employment. Many of the "new" jobs will be going to the already entitled: highly paid, big-pension-collecting, unionized government workers and well-educated people working in federal and university laboratories.

Our Preview of the Summit of the Americas last Thursday was featured in the Panamanian paper Hora Cero - check it out. Finally, check out this video of Simon from this year's Progressive Governance Conference in Chile:

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.