Commonweal Institute Blog

With the prospect of Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, it’s time to starting talking about reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in an honest, equal and balanced manner. According to Wikipedia:

Conservatives, in contrast, see attempts to revive the Doctrine as an attempt to silence conservative voices, noting that sectors of the media they believe to have a liberal bias (major newspapers, newsmagazines, evening newscasts of the broadcast networks) would not be touched by the Doctrine.

To be fair, in the past few months we have seen and heard a few peeps of reviving courage on the part of the mainstream media (with special kudos to Keith Olbermann for his outspoken courage), as they began to sense that things were not going too well for the Republicans.

However, a number of the newly elected Democrats are distinctly out of step with traditional Democratic values, and ran on fairly conservative platforms. This shouldn’t be surprising, as both they and their constituents have been bathed in rightwing messaging for decades. The Democrats in Congress, while moving into the majority, are still going to be constrained by public opinion. This means that they will be constrained by what the people can see and hear with the rightwing messaging machine still in place and major corporations still in control of our main media outlets.

If we want to see real change, we need to have public opinion on our side. Informed public opinion will depend on getting moderate and progressive voices heard widely in the nation’s marketplace of ideas. That’s why bringing back the Fairness Doctrine should be a top priority for the incoming Congress.

There is a lot of talk about "the center" and "centrists." Lots of people say the progressive blogs are on "the left."

To put this in perspective, when and where is the last time you heard anyone talk about nationalizing the oil companies? That would be a "leftist" proposal.

After all, the oil companies do not "own" the oil any more than anyone can own the air or the water. They are extracting OUR resource, under license from US to operate, and as corporations are granted limited liability by US. In exchange, they are supposed to be serving the public interest. A discussion about whether they are serving the public interest might involve questions about how much they are setting aside to cover the costs of putting carbon into the air, or to pay for research into transitioning away from fossil fuels a they start to run out, how much they pay their employees, and other ways that WE might benefit from allowing them to extract OUR resource. So obviously, they are not serving the public interest.

A broader discussion would ask whether we need to reform the corporate system into something that really does serve the public interest.

The fact is, "leftist" arguments are not even part of our national discussion. Without that perspective in the discussion, it can't really be said that there even is a "center," can there? And without ALL sides contributing to the marketplace of ideas, how can society arrive at solutions that incorporate the best ideas from all the different perspectives?

It is time to restore the Fairness Doctrine!

How many of you have heard of the Fairness Doctrine? Public broadcasters are licensed to use OUR airwaves. It used to be that in order to be licensed they were required to serve the public interest. One part of that public interest was to present a balanced view of different political viewpoints and to cover controversial issues of public importance. This "Fairness Doctrine" requirement was intended to protect the public from the possibility of moneyed interests buying up all of the information sources, leaving the public hearing only their viewpoint.

There was also a personal attack rule, which required stations to notify people or groups who were attacked on their broadcasts and give them the opportunity to respond on the air. And, candidates were given the opportunity to respond to attacks or endorsements of opponents.

Whew! The results of the elections are a bit of a relief. If you’re reading this blog, however, you likely agree that there is much yet to be done. One arena in which I’d like to contribute to making the progressive platform stronger is one of our Achilles heels; Foreign Policy. Progressives must get comfortable with talking about Foreign Policy solutions so as to lay this tired criticism to rest. This will be the focus of most of my posts here.

A while back I wrote a little piece on US Dollar exchange rate fluctuations. The aspect of that essay that I’d like to revisit today is the national debt tango the US is dancing with China. In a nutshell, America spends much more than it saves, much of it on Chinese goods. But we’re paying China with credit (treasury securities).

We’re happy with the arrangement because we can continue spending like carefree teenagers. China is happy with it because it keeps their exports cheap for the rest of the world and continues the red-hot growth in their economy.

What does this have to do with Progressive Foreign Policy solutions? I’ll continue in my next post.

As I was saying, American consumers love cheap Chinese goods. We love them so much that we’ve decided to pass the bill along to future generations. That ethical choice aside (for the moment anyway), let us think about what is in the common good with regards to China.

Ask yourself this question, “Will American consumers pay 25% more for a 3-pack of socks so that 200 sock factory jobs can be saved in the Midwest?” Though it pains me to say it, I maintain the answer is “No.” Knowing this and knowing how fused the US and Chinese economies are, it may make sense to rethink our feelings on China’s growth.

Rather than screaming about the Chinese threat or lamenting China as superpower, doesn’t it feel better to acknowledge that there are other countries that wish to be as influential on the world stage as the US is? This is where the Progressive solution enters into the picture; Is the world not big enough to share?

I know, I know, something doesn’t sit right. What about nucular proliferation and Taiwan? I agree, there are complications to be ironed out. But it is a first step. I shall continue with a gigantic second step next time.

So if we allow ourselves to accept that the world is big enough to share, this simplifies our world to a refreshing extent with regards to North Korea.

When China supplies upwards of 50% of North Korea’s heating oil requirements, it tends to create a fair amount of leverage (halfway down the page here). China cuts off heating oil to the DPRK and all of a sudden there is compliance with China’s wishes. China held a repeat performance in September with the same successful result.

Prescription after the jump…

Ok, hands up, who is already familiar with the J Curve?

The J Curve is a refreshingly handy, simple, and (I would maintain) progressive method of understanding how countries fit into the global puzzle. Imagine a graph with political and economic stability on the vertical axis and political and economic openness on the horizontal axis.

For those visual learners, view the graph and continue reading below.

In the post, Right Wing News: Conservative Capitalism Vs. Liberal Socialism, John Hawkins responds to a post of mine about sick pay. I had written,

"There is a move to require companies to pay for sick days. Conservatives say this is "Socialism." If basic human rights is "Socialism" then I guess I'm a Socialist! How about you?
In Europe people get several weeks paid vacation each year - by law. They get generous pensions and fully-paid health care for everyone.
What sorts of things should we, the people, require of the companies we, through the laws we pass, allow to operate? Who is our economy FOR?"

"It is not the job of a company to provide benefits for society or health care or sick days or anything else. It's the job of a company to make a profit for its owners and in the process of doing so, it will create things like jobs, taxes, health care for workers, value for its customers, and other such things that are beneficial to society."

So whose job IS it to provide for higher wages and health care? It is OUR job - the people - through OUR laws and regulations. WE are the ones who have dropped the ball on higher wages and health care. WE tell companies what to do - or the system doesn't work. If WE, through our government, require ALL companies to pay higher wages and provide health care that levels the playing field for Wal-Mart's competition with Target.

The neocons, continuing to focus their attention on what they see as the threat posed by Islam, have a new tactic to advance their clash-of-civilizations model. The Ethics and Public Policy Center, which describes itself in a cover letter as "D.C.'s premier institute dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy," is now distributing free copies of "Islamic Imperialism: A History" by Efraim Karsh of King's College, London--just in time for the Christmas season. Targets of these free books are "tens of thousands of .... Americans in positions of responsibility and influence." EPPC is backed by the usual funders of conservative movement organizations, such as the Bradley, Koch, Olin, Smith Richardson, and Sarah Scaife Foundations. Perhaps George W. Bush is waiting to come out with his new policy on Iraq until EPPC and its ilk have been given more time to stir up anti-Islamic sentiment among policy and media influentials. Watch for similar tactics on multiple fronts in coming weeks.

After 9/11, the American public voted for conservatives because they believed they would do a better job in fighting the terrorists. And they believed the hype that conservatives care about the troops while liberals and progressives don't. But by 2006, the growing catastrophe in Iraq, along with the abandonment of New Orleans and the obvious stench of corruption that was afflicting the conservatives in power, woke enough people up to make a change in both the House and the Senate.

Yet we are just starting to understand the full extent of corruption that was unleashed under Bush and the banner of Conservative ideology. Every day there is another more outrageous and enraging story that is peeling back the secrecy to expose the truly obscene level that these guys will go to in enriching their friends and cronies on our blood and our treasure. The Walter Reed story puts to bed for once and for all any idea that Bush and the depraved people he has put in power can ever be thought to "support the troops." In fact, this story proves that for Bush and his fellow travelers, the troops are yet another set of suckers to prey on.

Because of the incredible reporting by Dana Priest and her colleague, Anne Hull, everyone knows that the conditions our wounded vets are having to endure at Walter Reed are deplorable. Finally this story is getting the exposure it needs.

But what we need now are stories that connect the dots to show that it is the Conservative ideology that is responsible for the situation at Walter Reed and not just incompetence. Conservatives preach the gospel of the market place and how government can never do anything as well as the private sector. And when they get their hands on the government, they privatize every aspect they can by handing out contracts to their friends who are waiting for their chance to feed at the trough. No need to provide services for the contracts when there isn't any oversight.

The Bush Administration is about to let a drug company sell one of our few remaining effective antibiotics for use on livestock. This is so the drug company can make higher profits. They do not care that this decision could kill a LOT of us.

Here is what is going on: These days people don't think of infections as serious, not to mention potentially fatal. This is because we have antibiotics to kill the germs. But throughout human history bacteria were one of the biggest - if not the biggest - causes of death. All the way up until the discovery of penicillin - less than 100 years ago - people used to die from things as simple as a cut getting infected.

The germs have been fighting back. They build up resistance to the drugs we use against them, and over time the drugs stop working. This is the reason doctors tell people to be sure to take ALL of the antibiotics in a prescription even if they start to feel better -- you need to kill ALL of the germs or the ones that survive develop resistance. The other reason is that drugs are given to livestock because they help them get fatter quicker. Over time, through simple evolution and natural selection, the germs become resistant to the antibiotics and we all are put at risk. One after another the antibiotics have become nearly useless. In fact, we only have a few effective antibiotics left.

Think about what would happen if germs get a chance to build resistance to the few remaining effective antibiotics. Now read this news story:

It hardly seems possible. Our country has gone through four flawed national election cycles—2000, 2002, 2004, 2006—and still hasn’t managed to correct the systemic problems plaguing our election system. Is this a democracy, if one cannot have confidence that one’s vote will count? Why is this not a central issue for everyone who is actively involved in politics? Why don’t we hear more about it in the media?

Naomi Klein's new book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, promises to become a major tool in the fight against rampant privatization and conservative decimation of the public sphere--but only if enough people read it and talk about its ideas. Those interested in progressive social change should consider the possibility that natural shocks or social disruptions might also provide opportunities to rectify system dysfunctions and inequities, and move communities or countries in directions that may be more positive for their well-being in the long term.

Anyone with political awareness and a mind for science must be aware of the extraordinary degree to which scientists and scientific thought have been marginalized by the Bush administration. Check “science” and “Bush administration” on Google , and you’ll get nearly 1.8 million hits. The topic has been covered in the media with such titles as “Scientists and Bush Administration at Odds”, “Scientists: Bush Distorts Science”, “The Junk Science of George W. Bush”, and “Bush Misuses Science Data, Report Says.”

Having a science background myself (medicine and public health), I was excited to hear from my brother, Richard Alden, about the growing demand for presidential candidates to participate in a public debate on science and technology.

Natasha and Jill (OrangeClouds115) moderated a wonderful panel today called A Recipe for Change. The topic was how do we find a way to have healthier food and what are the obstacles from getting that. The panelists were great and covered a broad range of interests and knowledge.

Mark Winne, author of Closing the Food Gap talked about the connection to hunger and poverty and the problem of how terrible, cheap food is undermining the health of our country. One of the real problems for so many poor communities are food deserts, communities where the closest grocery store is up to 20 miles away while KFC is on the neighborhood corner. One other issue he talked about was how often policies that are handed down by the bureaucrats are too heavy-handed. A few years ago there was an E Coli scare that arose around apple cider. The proposal from the bureaucrats would have put most of the small farmers that produced apple cider out of business so in his state they worked with the state agricultural council and came up with a much better solution: providing education for cider makers so they could manufacture cider with better and cleaner practices. Working with the agriculture councils can be a good way to influence farming policies in the state.

Michele Simon is a public health attorney and author of Appetite for Profit. She explained how food corporations have been controlling the message about food and are trying to convince the public and government that they should not be regulated. However, voluntary self-regulation doesn't work and it is essential that our politicians do not believe that they can ignore this problem. And she says that we need to realize the problem is not that people aren't making the right choices because of some "personal failure." Instead of blaming people for bad decisions we need to make clear how the corporatization of food has created the systemic problems that have created our current problems. Finally, she noted that people today have access to much better and healthier food, but it isn't available for many people and it is a moral obligation to make sure everyone has the same good access to nutritious and healthy food.

Judith McGeary is an organic farmer outside of Austin and someone who has proven that you can make a living as an organic farmer. She debunked the lie that organic farming practices cannot feed the world. In fact, organic farming practices actually is more productive and more nutritious than the current petroleum based agriculture. She encouraged people to learn about and use CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture) to find better locally grown food and to encourage local farming.

Margaret Krome who leads the Michael Fields Agriculture Institute talked about food policy and how we need to use the farm bill to support better food policy. Natasha had met Margaret last year when she was working as an intern with the Institute and was blogging about her experience in the Congressional Farm Committee meetings. Margaret talked about how they were able to get some long needed policy changes and money in the last farm bill. And she noted that we need to continue to be involved in what's happening in Congress and let our representatives know what we need them to do. She told us that we need to know in regards to farm policy many of the programs hit all states, but when contacting someone about farm policy in the government, it often is much better to have the contact be local, but because it is local you can influence the outcome. Finally, she asks us to provide feedback about what are the critical focus areas they should prioritize first - because they can't cover everything and they would like to make sure they cover the right things.

It was a very informative and educational session which left me with much food for thought.

BTW: Natasha and Jill announced that they have launched a new blog called LaVidaLocavore to talk about food issues. Check it out here.