Vol. 1 No. 6 October 2002

Uncommon Denominator

The Newsletter of the Commonweal Institute
www.commonwealinstitute.org


"War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement."
-- James Madison

* In Montana, in response to sky-high energy costs, consumer advocates and the Montana Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) have gathered enough signatures to qualify Initiative 145, which would allow the state to buy and operate the state's privately operated hydroelectric dams. Good luck. They're being outspent 46-to-1 by out-of-state power companies.

* In Arizona, as of August 21, seven organizations had raised over $19 million to promote ballot initiatives - compared to about $6 million raised by 40 candidates for state office.

Such numbers seem to provide confirmation of Thomas Goebel's grim assessment of the historical legacy of the rise of ballot initiatives and referenda: "Direct democracy proved unable to create a government that could withstand the influence of wealth and corporate power in America. A reform idea steeped in the tradition of American anti-monopoloy sentiment created a set of tools highly adaptable to corporate interests and political strategies."

Despair not, however. The best response at a grass-roots level is to stay well informed and keep careful track of which measures on the ballot serve which interests. Reading the fine print takes a little extra time, but the most important piece of information is usually the array of funders behind any particular initiative - beneath the pleasant-sounding rhetoric used to describe a measure, the hard dollars reveal what's really at stake. It's also crucial to encourage friends, family, and neighbors to make sure they actually vote on all this stuff. Consider getting together with a group of friends and neighbors just before the election to go over the sample ballot - who's backing each measure and who stands to benefit, regardless of what the TV and radio ads proclaim. Money may lubricate the machinery, but individual votes still matter in the end.

Ultimately, our society, or individual states, may decide to reform the initiative process to make it more truly democratic. In the meantime, it's up to us to try to reclaim the promise of direct democracy from the forces of corporate and ideological conservatism.

Two good sources of reliable information about ballot initiatives are the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center (a progressive site) and the non-partisan Initiative and Referendum Institute.


WIT AND WISDOM

"What was left unclear...is what will happen after Saddam is gone. Democracy seems unlikely, so the hope is that Saddam will be replaced by a more pliable leader, someone we can work with to keep the country under control, maintain regional balance of power. Someone sympathetic, secular, someone like, oh . . . 1982 Saddam." -- Jon Stewart


QUOTED!

"Lucky me. I hit the trifecta." - George W. Bush to Budget Director Mitch Daniels, as quoted in the Miami Herald, Nov. 29, 2001. Bush had promised during the presidential campaign to avoid tapping Social Security except in cases of war, recession, or a national emergency.


EYE ON THE RIGHT

On Oct. 7, in Cincinnati, President Bush delivered his second major public address (the first was to the United Nations) outlining the administration's case for "disarming" Iraq - with the unilateral "application" of military force, if necessary. The speech was notable for two related reasons: its rhetorical simplicity (designed to appeal to the American public) and its deliberate avoidance of the more sweeping ideological goals involved in such an effort (ditto).

This is about protecting the American people and the global community, we are told, by defanging or deposing a homicidal dictator. It is about self-defense rather than aggression. It is about the rule of law and the relevance of the United Nations. It is about giving our children and grandchildren a safer world.

All of these claims are central to the administration's case, and each, to some degree, has merit (although the fundamental threat to American interests still seems to arise from the political climate in the Middle East rather than weapons of mass destruction). Yet - as a few commentators have begun to point out - behind this rationale, and behind the scenes, a highly focused and determined ideological agenda is at work, an agenda about extending and solidifying America's global cultural and military dominance.

What has taken place is that the center of gravity in conservative foreign policy has shifted - away from the isolationism of Pat Buchanan (which was never that influential anyway), away from the prudent multilateralism of Henry Kissinger, Richard Lugar, or the elder George Bush, and toward an unabashedly assertive internationalism (which its detractors have likened to Roman imperialism). The theorists and proponents of this ascendant globalist ideology are a relatively small cadre of high-powered academics holding either political influence or political office or both, and yet generally unknown to the American public. They include: Paul Wolfowitz (Undersecretary of Defense), Eliot Cohen (a member of Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board), Stephen Cambone (heard of the D.O.D.'s Office of Program, Analysis, and Evaluation), John Bolton (Undersecretary of State), I. Lewis Libby (Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff), and Dov Zakheim (D.O.D. Comptroller), Donald Kagan (professor of classics at Yale and author, most recently, of While America Sleeps: Self-Delusion, Military Weakness and the Threat to Peace Today) and William Kristol and Robert Kagan (co-founders of Project for the New American Century). Our current foreign policy owes more to these men than to Secretary of State Colin Powell or even George W. Bush himself.

The broader objective in their plans for Iraq is nothing so mundane as protecting oil supplies, although that is a component of the game-plan. The objective is multifold: to serve as a warning to other "rogue" states; to establish a greater American presence in the region; and, if the tea leaves spell what they seem to spell, to use "regime change" in Iraq as the leading edge of a broader political reconfiguration of the Middle East - defined by American values and interests and engineered by American power. Like the British a century ago, the neo-conservatives envision an era when the sun will never set on America's global presence. A paranoid interpretation? Just consult "Rebuilding America's Defenses," a 2000 report of Project for the New American Century, which has become a virtual blueprint for Bush administration policy.

Whatever one might think of these aims, it's a deeply troubling fact that the political establishment has not even begun to open a full and honest discussion about the implications of what amounts to an imperialist undertaking. Conservative pundits such as Frank Gaffney and Richard Perle keep coming back to the theme that preventive war has a long and noble geopolitical history, but it has never been part of the American tradition. And the American people need to be aware if their government, under the guise of "preemptive action," is embarking upon a world-shaping, and world-shaking, enterprise. In a democratic country, withholding vital knowledge from the public will only reinforce concerns about the imperialist impulses stalking the corridors of power. Americans need to ask themselves, "Is this the kind of country we want to be?"


CHECK IT OUT

It's easy to forget, but important to remember, that the American conservative movement does not have a monopoly on religiously or spiritually motivated social activism. While the Christian Right has consistently tried to paint anybody to the left of Ronald Reagan as a kind of unwashed mob of amoral decadents, there are plenty of progressive faith groups out there fighting the good fight. You won't see them on Sunday morning television, but they are highly active.

Mark Twain, who knew a thing or two about the conservative side of the American character, had this to say about exclusionary religious attitudes: "That's the charm of heaven - there's all kinds here - which wouldn't be the case if you let the preachers tell it . . . When the Deity builds a heaven, it is built right, and on a liberal plan."

For our readers who may be seeking to link up with other faithful people also interested in progressive causes, you might want to check out the following:

The Interfaith Alliance is a non-partisan, clergy-led grassroots organization dedicated to promoting the healing role of faith in civic life and to challenging intolerance and extremism.

The Amos Partnership derives its mission from the prophet who held social justice as one of the highest values of the Jewish tradition.

Sojourners is a left-of-center Christian group that proclaims and practices the biblical call to integrate spiritual renewal and social justice.

Pagan Unity Campaign unifies the many diverse branches of Paganism in America and strives to protect religious freedom for all.

NobleCauses is a resource for Hindus to find activist information on health care, disaster relief, women's issues, animal welfare, the environment, and other noble causes.

The Buddhist Peace Fellowship promotes a socially engaged Buddhism that links Buddhist teachings with progressive social change.

The American Islamic Congress calls on American Muslims to take the lead in building tolerance and fostering a respect for human rights and social justice.

The Unitarian Universalist Association is a liberal religious organization that focuses on preserving civil liberties, gay rights, and other progressive causes.

"To the Editor:

We all know that Sept. 11 created a boom in the sale of American flags and flag decals. There's nothing wrong with that. What bothers me is that so many of these flags appear on S.U.V.s. Why? Because the gas it takes to power all those S.U.V.s is against our national interest. First, our country's demand for petroleum has corrupted our foreign policy in the Middle East, which we have come to view as a giant gas station. That's a recruiting bonanza for militant Islamic organizations, which accuse the United States of supporting autocratic regimes over the regular people. Second, the air pollution created by S.U.V.s is bad for our environment and the health of ourselves and our children. Ironically, S.U.V.s are also less safe for their drivers and for others on the road, so their use may add to the overall burden of health care costs on our society (not to mention the cost in lives).

Americans applaud when the administration talks about "energy indepedence" but the best way to get there is for everybody to take responsibility and do their own part. We're now looking at a "preemptive" war against Iraq. How about a patriotic campaign against the consumptive habits that are already posing a threat to our national security?"