Vol. 3 No. 2 (June 2004)
The Newsletter of the Commonweal Institute
www.commonwealinstitute.org
"
-- Henry Adams
Talking
Points: Resurrect the OTA!
Wit and Wisdom: A conservative mating cry
Eye on the Right I: No hatred left behind
Eye on the Right II: Tracking the forces of
darkness
Featured Article: "Reagan's Liberal
Legacy"
Check It Out: From the Magna Carta to the Earth
Charter
Quoted! Antonin Scalia on Christian forbearance
Happenings: Commonweal
Endorsements: Jim Hightower
Get
Involved: Spread the word; become a contributor
"(a) As technology
continues to change and expand rapidly, its applications are 1. large and
growing in scale; and 2. increasingly extensive, pervasive, and critical in
their impact, beneficial and adverse, on the natural and social environment.
(b) Therefore, it is essential that, to the fullest extent possible, the
consequences of technological applications be anticipated, understood, and
considered in determination of public policy on existing and emerging national
problems."
These
declarations defined the essential mission of the OTA and underlay its
institutional identity for over two decades.
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the OTA secured a reputation as a
non-partisan body capable of providing Congress with objective reports on a
variety of scientific and technological issues. This is not to say,
however, that there were no disputes over its findings, or no struggles over
its precise role and functioning. Most importantly, in its early years, the OTA
was shaped into an organization that responded to specific Congressional
requests for information rather than a more autonomous organization (as
envisioned by Daddario) that had a monitoring function and could influence
national technology policy more directly. The ongoing challenge for the OTA was
to avoid overtly controversial issues (as when it came under attack for
opposing the "Star Wars" missile program during the Reagan
Administration) while asserting its unique relevance as a conduit of expert
advice (and thus necessary in addition to the Congressional Research Service).
During these years, the relatively small OTA professional staff -- in
coordination with outside experts -- produced hundreds of reports on a wide
array of subjects. These subjects ranged from the relatively abstruse, such as
"The Safety, Efficacy, and Cost Effectiveness of Therapeutic
Apheresis" (July 1983), to the most pressing, such as "The Effects of
Nuclear War" (May 1979). By the early 1990s, the list of scientific
topics addressed by the OTA touched on most of the major social and foreign
policy issues of the era: weapons proliferation, HIV, sustainable development,
educational testing, genetic engineering, climate change, intellectual property
in a computerized world, and many more. The implications of these reports
frequently had political overtones, but the reports themselves represented a
very high level of scientific impartiality and expertise.
Then came the "Gingrich Revolution" of 1994, when Republicans
took control of both houses of Congress and began looking for ways to
"downsize" the federal government. The OTA quickly came into their
sights, even though its annual budget was only about $22 million, making it one
of the least expensive agencies on Capitol Hill. Despite the efforts of some
Congressmen from both sides of the aisle to save the OTA, it found itself with
too few friends and in 1995 fell victim to the budget-cutting zeal of its
Congressional critics.
There likely were also political motivations behind the OTA's demise. It is
probably not coincidence that in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a number of
its reports -- particularly those dealing with energy and the environment --
did not accord with dominant conservative ideology. The OTA's findings in such
reports as "Industrial Energy Efficiency" (August 1993), "Dioxin
Treatment Technologies" (November 1991), and "Replacing Gasoline:
Alternative Fuels for Light-Duty Vehicles" (September 1990) were based on
solid science, but they seemed to imply policies or courses of action that did
not sit well with conservative legislators, or with the oil, coal, and logging
industries.
Yet the elimination of the OTA was not simply an exercise in partisan politics.
Indeed, one of its strongest defenses came from Amo Houghton, a
Republican Representative from
"The agency offered sound principles for coping with, reaping the benefits
of, that technological change in industry, in the Federal Government, in the
work-place, and in our schools. The agency took on controversial subjects,
examining them objectively and comprehensively for our benefit. It helped us to
better understand complex technical issues by tailoring reports for legislative
users. It provided us with early warnings on technology's impacts and it
enabled us to better oversee the science and technology programs within the
Federal establishment."
The terrible thing is that, now more than ever, we need the OTA. Today,
Americans live under an Administration that, as a routine matter, either
ignores science or prostitutes it to right-wing ideology. Most egregiously, the
empirical evidence that human activity is seriously contributing to global
warming is treated as inconclusive when it actually sustains an overwhelming
consensus in the scientific community. A similar disregard for science (in the
broadest sense of the word) characterizes the administration's approach to a
number of other issues as well: groundwater contamination, educational testing,
biodiversity, and tax policy, among others.
The broad point here -- regardless of who occupies the White House or which
party controls Congress -- is that the loss of the OTA is not just a loss
for progressives or for people opposed to global warming, but a loss for all
our elected leaders, for anyone committed to the importance of objective
science, and for the general public both here and abroad. At precisely the
moment when our society faces a number of important policy crossroads -- from
space exploration to the development of alternative energy sources -- the
Congress has badly compromised its ability to make informed decisions. It has,
moreover, shifted the balance of federal power toward the Presidency, and
reduced its ability to challenge the executive branch on matters of scientific
importance.
In both its legislative and its oversight capacities, Congress must have access
to the best information. The American people deserve a representative body that
is well-informed about the consequences, both positive and negative, of policy
actions involving science and technology. The Office of Technology Assessment
played a crucial role in this respect, and it placed a negligible strain on the
federal budget. Congress should restore the OTA immediately.
WIT AND WISDOM
"President Bush has been campaigning around the country and today the
crowd got so pumped up they started chanting, 'Four more wars, four more
wars'." -- Craig Kilborn
EYE ON THE RIGHT I
As they work on D.S.M.-V (the fifth edition of Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, the professional bible for psychologists and
psychiatrists), the tome's editors might want to consider including
"Pathological Hatred of Bill Clinton" as one of their standard
maladies.
In January of 2003, a small group of mad-dog Clinton haters led by Dick
Erickson and former New York Congressman John LeBoutillier announced plans to
build the "Counter
Clinton Library" in Little Rock, Arkansas, within walking distance of
the official Presidential Library that is due to open later this year. The
mission of this dismal doppelganger, according to the Counter Clinton Library
website, will be "setting the record straight about the Clintons' White
House years -- and about Hillary's certain campaign to become the next
President of the United States."
Dick Erickson and John LeBoutillier
In April of this year, the corporate entity behind the project, Counterlibe
Corp. of
The pitch for money is straight down the ultraconservative plate: "Our
Counter Clinton Library will be a permanent thorn in the side of the
Fortunately, there's a fine line between venom and silliness, and the C.C.L.
impresarios can't help drifting into the latter: "One of the Counter
Clinton Library's exhibitions will be the National Insecurity Hall in which we
detail -- often in the Clintons' own words and actions as captured on video --
their systematic destruction of our military and intelligence capability, their
hatred for the military uniform and flag of the United States, their cozying up
to Red China, their tolerance of 'leaking' Top Secret information to our
enemies -- and their total devotion to undermining America's superpower
status."
And how would such a production play in
Well -- maybe, maybe not. But the impeachment proceedings of 1998-1999
certainly illustrated the American public's distaste for the kind of bilious
negativism that seems to rise up from the bowels of the hard right.
More importantly, the very idea of their counter-library runs counter to the
essential spirit of commonality that makes a pluralistic democratic society
possible. It's the principle of loyal opposition that seems violated by
such efforts to demonize -- and to keep on demonizing after his return to
private life -- a public figure who has already generated more than his fair
share of animosity. We are, after all, all on the same team as Americans, and
though Bill Clinton's personal life is not above reproach, nor his policies
above debate, the same can be said of every President in the history of the
union. Presidential libraries are historical repositories and monuments of
respect. They represent a place where political divisions and personal wounds
can be understood in light of the broader cultural traditions and aspirations
that bind Americans together.
Next to that ideal, the Counter Clinton Library would stand as a festering
sore. It's time to let it go. What's next? Hangings in effigy? Advance tickets
to urinate on a mock-up of Bill Clinton's grave? One hesitates, even in jest,
to raise the idea.
EYE ON THE RIGHT II
How do they do it? How does a political bloc representing minority opinion on a
range of issues -- health care, the environment, civil rights, taxes, education
-- come to dominate American political debate? How came the far right to be
sitting in the national saddle?
The immediate answer is that they shout louder than everybody else and are more
aggressive in promoting their agenda. Behind that answer, however, lies a simple
reality: Hard cash, flowing steadily, makes it all possible. No surprise, this.
Ecce homo democraticus.
Yet the scale and influence of the conservative cash-and-communications machine
should give us all pause. (Click here to
see the Commonweal Institute's archive of materials on the Right's history and
operations). Now, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy
(NCRP) has released a new report detailing the role of private foundations in
funding right-wing political activities. The "Axis of Ideology"
report, which expands on NCRP's 1997 and 1999 research reports on conservative
philanthropy, examines 79 foundations and their grants to 350
public-policy-oriented nonprofit organizations between 1999 and 2001.
The findings are sobering. NCRP has reported some of them as follows:
"From 1999 through 2001, the 79 conservative
foundations made more than $252 million in grants to nonprofit public policy
organizations. (NCRP's 1997 study profiled only 12 conservative foundation
grantmakers).
The top conservative foundation givers were the Sara Scaife Foundation ($44.8
million), the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation ($38.9 million), the John M.
Olin Foundation ($17.4 million), the Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation ($13
million), and the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation ($12.2 million).
Multi-issue public policy think tanks got 46% of the grants, followed by 10%
for education-oriented policy centers and 10% for conservative policy centers
devoted to legal advocacy.
The largest recipient locales for conservative foundation public policy
grantmaking, in rank order, were the
The 10 largest recipients of conservative foundation grants between 1999 and
2001, in rank order, were the Heritage Foundation, the Intercollegiate Studies
Institute, George Mason University (the Mercatus Center), the American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Hillsdale College, Citizens
for a Sound Economy Foundation, Judicial Watch, the Free Congress Research and
Education Foundation, the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, and
the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
The conservative foundations continue to be extremely focused in their
grantmaking, concentrating on building and sustaining a small group of
grantees, through commitments of long-term core operating grants.
Unlike most foundations, these conservative foundations are confident and
aggressive in making grants available to nonprofits that will actively lobby
lawmakers, challenge laws and regulations in the courts, and broadcast
conservative ideas and ideologies.
A core group of foundation and grantee leaders serve on several foundation and
grantee boards of directors, and contribute millions of dollars to Republican
candidates for public office."
A summary of the report is
available at www.ncrp.org. For questions about the report, or to order a copy,
contact Naomi T. Tacuyan. For more
information on NCRP, visit www.ncrp.org or
call (202) 387-9177.
FEATURED ARTICLE
The following is an excerpt from "Reagan's Liberal Legacy: What the new
literature on the Gipper won't tell you," by Joshua Green, which
appeared in the January/February 2003 edition of Washington Monthly.
"A sober review of Reagan's presidency doesn't yield the seamlessly
conservative record being peddled today. Federal government expanded on his
watch. The conservative desire to outlaw abortion was never seriously pursued.
Reagan broke with the hardliners in his administration and compromised with the
Soviets on arms control. His assault on entitlements never materialized;
instead he saved Social Security in 1983. And he repeatedly ignored the
fundamental conservative dogma that taxes should never be raised.
"All of this has been airbrushed from the new literature of Reagan. But as
any balanced account must make clear, Reagan acceded to political compromises
as all presidents do once in office--and on many occasions did so willingly. In
fact, however often unintentionally, many of his actions as president wound up
facilitating liberal objectives. What this clamor of adulation is seeking to deny
is that beyond his conservative legacy, Ronald Reagan has bequeathed a liberal
one."
Click
here to read the whole article. For a more negative interpretation of the
Gipper's legacy, see "Planet Reagan," by
William Rivers Pitt.
CHECK IT OUT
At the risk of sounding overly dramatic, one might say that much of modern
human history can be charted by a handful of texts whose ideas have
reverberated far beyond the time and place of their writing. These documents --
including the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Geneva
Conventions -- enshrine principles that have powerfully shaped the course of
social development, in the West and elsewhere. Reality always lags behind the
theory, of course, but the ideas have nonetheless amply proved their longevity
and their force.
Can we now add the Earth Charter to that list of ur-texts? Only time
will tell, but that's presumably what the document's drafters, the Earth
Charter Initiative, have in mind. This deeply idealistic document, the fruit of
years of international consultations, is "a declaration of fundamental
principles for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the
21st century." What distinguishes the Earth Charter from previous efforts
to define certain values and practices is not only that it universalizes the
ideals of peace and justice, but that it takes into consideration the central
importance of the natural environment. Its vision of a better world is one in
which harmony among cultures, and harmony between humankind and nature, are
part and parcel of the same moral and political undertaking.
The first paragraph of the preamble of the Earth Charter reads: "We stand
at a critical moment in Earth's history, a time when humanity must choose its
future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the
future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must
recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life
forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We
must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on
respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of
peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth,
declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life,
and to future generations."
The Earth Charter Initiative is currently working to garner support for the
Charter, both financial and otherwise, while undertaking a variety of
educational and policy projects designed to bring its principles to life.
Information about the Earth Charter and about how to participate is available
at the organization's website.
Check it out.
QUOTED!
"Devout Christians are destined to be regarded as fools in modern society.
We are fools for Christ's sake. We must pray for courage to endure the scorn of
the sophisticated world." -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia,
in a speech at the Mississippi College School of Law (April 9, 1996), quoted in
James Dobson's "Was America a Christian Nation?" (1996)
HAPPENINGS
Commonweal Institute Spins Off Commonweal
New Commonweal Institute Fellow -- We are proud to welcome Laurie
Spivak as a new Fellow. Ms. Spivak manages the UCLA Center for Civil
Society, a research center devoted to the study of civil society, philanthropy,
and nonprofit and grassroots organizations and movements. Previously, as a
consultant with a strategic marketing and communications firm working on public-interest
campaigns and the Ford Foundation Corporate Involvement Initiative, she advised
national nonprofit organizations on marketing, communications, and public
relations. Ms. Spivak is a 2000-2001 U.S.-U.K. Fulbright Scholar, and holds
master's degrees from the London School of Economics and Political Science and
the UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research. She has also served on
numerous nonprofit boards and committees and is currently a commissioner on the
Los Angeles County Community Action Board. Two of her recent articles are
available online -- "How the Democrats
Were Betamaxed" and "Building the
Countermovement".
ENDORSEMENTS
"It's always good to put your brain in gear before you put your mouth in
motion. The folks at the Commonweal Institute do the heavy mental lifting so
agitators like me can arm ourselves on the front lines of the ideological
battles taking place every day in
GET INVOLVED
If you agree with Jim Hightower (see above), there are a number of ways you can
help the Commonweal Institute achieve its goals.
Right now, as you read, you can simply forward the Uncommon Denominator
to friends and family who might be interested in learning about the Commonweal
Institute. Getting the word out is crucial.
You can also join our network of donors building the Commonweal
Institute. Your tax-deductible contribution is vital to making the Commonweal
Institute an effective organization. $100 would help so much! Even a
contribution of $10 or $20 will make a difference because there are so many
moderates and progressives. You can also make donations to the Votergate film
project or Commonweal
© 2004 The Commonweal Institute
To subscribe to this free e-newsletter, send an email to: subscribe-news@commonwealinstitute.org.
If you no longer wish to receive the Uncommon Denominator, send an email
to: unsubscribe-news@commonwealinstitute.org.
Privacy Policy: The Commonweal Institute does not share subscriber email
addresses with any other organization or individuals.