The Next Generation of American Elites
by Zachary Kushel, Opinions Asst. Editor on April 13, 2010 in Opinion
Once upon a time, the best and the brightest graduates of our nation’s elite universities descended on Washington. Evan Thomas and Walter Isaacson’s 1986 book, The Wise Men: Six Friends and the World They Made, chronicles the intertwined lives and careers of six policymakers deemed integral to the development of the ‘American Century.’ The book describes an era where public service was deemed the best and most respectable game in town. An ethic existed within the upper-echelons of society that pushed honorable and noble men to spend their lives hoping to shape the future direction of the country – for the better.
Over the past 30 years, for a variety of reasons, this expectation disappeared. Rather than the bulk of Ivy League graduates descending on Pennsylvania Avenue – or Langley – to serve, many booked one-way tickets to Wall Street. This transformation is best illustrated by examining the change in the demographic makeup of junior Wall Street employees over the past few decades.
Prior to the late 1980s, Wall Street was a place where industrious individuals without much of an education or elite pedigree could get ahead through hard work and dedication. One could get a job at 20 running paper orders between traders and end up, at 35, running numbers – or, more accurately, a million-dollar trading portfolio. Yet, by the late 2000s, it was nearly impossible to be given a legitimate shot of advancement without holding a degree from a ‘targeted’ school.
This shift in the makeup and ethos of those on Wall Street has not been beneficial for the nation. While Washington lost out on lifetimes of service from talented Americans, irresponsible risk management by a small number of bankers over the past few years created economic pain for countless Americans and cast a cloud over the entire industry.
But perhaps the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression has provided America with a second chance. For today’s best and brightest, some of the allure of banking has vanished. Long-term salaries and bonuses are likely to be lower than in past years. The jobs seem less secure. The lifestyle is now deemed by many to be out-of-step with American values rather than quintessentially American.
The federal government must use this opportunity to make the case to the next generation of leaders to serve. We need the help. The civilian workforce of our government is rapidly aging, many government agencies suffer from low morale, and government work still has a negative connotation for too many capable Americans.
In 2008, Senator Tom Coburn released a report highlighting startling amounts of employee absenteeism in the federal government. Between 2001 and 2007, federal employees were absent without leave from their jobs for 19.6 million hours, or the equivalent of 2.5 million missed days of work. While the vast majority of federal employees are dedicated public servants, statistics like these perpetuate the negative stereotype of government work.
Some very smart people have talked about civil service reform, including some great thinkers at this institution. We must alter incentives for government workers and change the rigidity and archaic nature of the way the civil service does business. But this issue is not politically ripe – nobody appears to be leading the charge for reform from both the leadership and grassroots levels.
Sadly, in the interim, it does not appear that the government is taking advantage of the newest pool of young leaders. One MPP1 student applied for four different internships with the U.S. federal government for the coming summer and did not even receive an interview for any of the positions. It is difficult to believe that, with over two million civilian employees, the federal government could not make good use of every single Kennedy School student who expressed a desire to work this summer.
Do we think that this Kennedy School student – who has self-identified as someone who is interested in public service and was admitted to one of the most competitive schools in the entire world – is not qualified to add value to the government agency of his/her choice? Why do we not have a program that guarantees any HKS – or Wilson, SAIS, or Maxwell – student a job with the federal government upon graduation?
This student instead took a summer position working in the private sector, and it is possible that, if the internship goes well, he may never enter the government workforce. We are making it too difficult for those who want to serve this country to do so. Perhaps many of the challenges we face today as a nation could be better tackled if our culture and policies once again encouraged some of our most talented citizens to work in public service.
What Steele Should Have Said…
by Zachary Kushel, Opinions Asst. Editor on February 24, 2010 in Opinion
Three weeks ago today, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele addressed a packed house at the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum. His performance in the Q & A portion of the event was impressive, as he showed the crowd why he has the reputation for being a frank, tell-it-like-it-is provocateur. But his prepared remarks were less consequential; it was difficult to understand why he would use this opportunity to offer a broad view of the political landscape rather than attempt to tackle the ‘elephant’ in the room – that a Republican leader had a captive audience of mostly young Democrats.
Steele told a rousing story about debating Al Sharpton at an African-American church in Detroit during the 2004 election cycle. He indicated that, while most left the church with their opinion unchanged, they appreciated his vociferous and unapologetic defense of his principles. Unfortunately, Steele failed to heed the lessons of this story in his remarks.
While the speech may have served as an effective installment in the HKS leadership series, Steele missed an important opportunity. Kennedy students deserved to hear a passionate appeal from the head of this country’s Republican party. They desperately needed the sales pitch. They needed to have their own biases challenged. They ought to have been told that, under Steele’s leadership, the party was changing and that they were being actively courted in the wake of the empty promises made by President Change.
Yes, such an attempt was likely to be futile – but it did not even appear that Steele was seeking converts. Instead, he seemed resigned to the fact that those in the audience had their minds made up. In the spirit of not offering criticism without proposing an alternative, here is an excerpt of the speech he should have given:
One of the most dangerous facets of our current political environment is the prevalence of these litmus tests. Do you believe that there ought to be specific, make-or-break criteria that determine your support for an individual? Do you think that such a test should be applied to nominees for the Supreme Court, to candidates for public office, or to applicants seeking private sector jobs?
I would assume that your answer would be no. I would assume that, as Harvard students, you would tend to approach the world in a more nuanced way. You would prefer to take a holistic approach, to weigh potential merits and pitfalls of specific traits, and make a final determination after such a process. To do otherwise, to generalize, would not be prudent.
So, then, if we agree that litmus tests are undesirable and even un-American, allow me to pose a question: what litmus tests have you applied to the Republican Party that have precluded you from seriously examining the party as a home? What litmus test did you impose on me tonight before I even began speaking that convinced yourself to oppose me regardless of what I had to say?
I’ll bet that many of you here have been identifying as Democrats simply by default after imposing some sort of litmus test on the Republican Party. Possibly because of a particular social issue, because of the difficulties of a particular war, or, dare I say, because it’s fashionable right now to be for change, however ambiguous it may be.
So I want to introduce you tonight to some of my friends. I want you to meet Mark Kirk and Mike Castle, both of whom will be elected as U.S. Senators in November, while representing so-called ‘blue states.’ And yes, both are – like new Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, former Governor Tom Ridge, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and countless other Republicans before them – pro-choice and loyal, life-long Republicans.
But your party lacks ethnic diversity, you might say next. Well, I represent a party this evening that has selected an African-American, a White-American, a Hispanic-American, and a Jewish-American as its last four Chairmen. I urge you to contrast this with the DNC Chairmen of the past decade.
I also want to introduce you to Edward Brooke. In 1966, Senator Brooke became the first African-American elected to the United States Senate since Reconstruction. Brooke represented this great state, Massachusetts, for twelve distinguished years in the senate. And yes, Senator Edward Brooke was a Republican.
As David Frum recently pointed out, the GOP endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment in every one of its party platforms from 1940 through 1976. It was Richard Nixon that founded the EPA and signed more environmental legislation than any other president in U.S. history.
So I urge you, for the first time, to take a serious look at us. Please, turn to your classmates and friends who are Republicans and ask them why they are members of the GOP. I guarantee you that the answers you get back will be as diverse as this institution that I am privileged to speak at today. But I can also attest that there are common goals that unite all of us.
We are for free trade and free markets coupled with common-sense regulation. We are for fiscal responsibility and for the government and individuals living within their means. We are for protecting this country through a strong national defense. We are for trusting the power of the individual entrepreneur over the power of a government bureaucrat. We are for state and local government control wherever possible. We are for government getting off the backs of individuals.
I am leading the party of Abraham Lincoln back to its roots, where conservatives, moderates, and liberals feel welcome in the party. Yes, in recent years the party has strayed from many of these ideals, and I will be the first to admit that. But what made us great once before will make us great once again. Political parties are not static institutions. They shift to reflect the views and wants of its members, of the people. So, please, come join us and help shape our direction, help us install a better future for America, come be a part of our movement. Thank You.
To Lead or Not To Lead…
by Zachary Kushel, Opinions Asst. Editor on February 10, 2010 in Opinion
While many Kennedy School students were touring the developing world, sipping piña coladas in a tropical setting, or working to earn some much needed rent money, I had the good fortune of completing Professor Heifetz’s Leadership on the Line workshop over winter break. The two-week long course prompted for many students an introspective journey into the inner dimensions of one’s soul.
For me, the course was not only reflective in nature but thought provoking. When it was finished, I was still not convinced whether the exercise was one of complete genius or utter folly. However, I did leave with many unanswered questions that I could use to torment myself with over the coming semester.
Is it ever justifiable to shy away from leadership? When is it okay to simply walk away, determining that the costs of sticking your neck out are not worth the benefits? How do you separate your true inner-self from the various roles that you inhabit and the multitude of hats that you wear on different occasions? How selfless is too selfless, and how selfish is too selfish?
In our study of public policy and administration, too seldom is there discussion regarding tradeoffs that inevitably come with careers grappling with some of the world’s toughest, migraine-inducing issues. The greater the import of your work, the more public scrutiny you will be subjected to. The more senior your position, the less amount of time you will have to call your own.
While on paper you may hold a position of great power, the substantial responsibilities that you will have to your various constituencies will leave you virtually powerless to control your own time commitments. Who really aspires to that? Are the supposed benefits to the masses really worth the personal costs?
When we observe corporate executives or senior government officials leaving their posts in order to ‘spend more time with their family,’ many of us scoff at the notion, assuming that making such a statement is simply a pretense for a forced resignation. But how many of these individuals actually resign for this reason? And of those who don’t resign, how many probably should?
It is very easy to have your entire life consumed by a demanding mission, by the pursuit of a goal, and by serving a cause greater than one’s self interest. Given your presence here at the Kennedy School, it is likely that you believe that there is nothing nobler than serving such a cause. But where does the line get drawn? What personal cost is too high a cost to pay?
In recent weeks, many individuals – some of whom we know – have dropped everything in their lives to head to Haiti to work around-the-clock for the relief efforts. In a similar manner, others dedicated their lives after Katrina, the Asian tsunami, and 9/11.
While this appears on the surface to be the ultimate act of service, perhaps some of these individuals neglected their families by leaving. Perhaps, in serving thousands abroad, a few were perishing back at home. Perhaps some of them should not have gone. Perhaps the interests of strangers should not have taken precedence over those closest to them.
In the coming years, we all will be faced with difficult decisions and will try to strike a balance between our personal and professional lives. Many of us are faced with these difficult decisions today, having to choose course schedules around family commitments and miss school events to raise children.
But for a multitude of reasons, we all have difficulty in discussing these issues openly. Females worry that their discussion of the topic will lead to them being perceived as less committed and reliable than their male counterparts. Yet, as difficult as it is for women, it is even still more difficult for men – they feel that they are likely to be labeled as unmanly and weak for discussing the very same dilemma. Despite these difficulties, choices about what type of personal life one wants to lead must weigh heavily in our professional lives.
When we arrived here at the Kennedy School, the administration assured us, over and over again, that the admission’s committee does not make mistakes and that we were admitted here for good reason. But such rhetoric only feeds into the expectations game of what it means to be a Kennedy graduate. If you ultimately make the decision to avoid public life to focus on your efforts at home, does that not make you unsuccessful by HKS standards? And should you care even if it does?
Us Harvard-types are generally uncomfortable walking out of a classroom pondering how to evaluate one’s life, how to view success, and, even, the meaning of life – after all, why are we paying all of this money if our courses can’t provide us with any answers?
But we should know better than that. Using society’s measuring stick or that of your peers and colleagues is a fool’s errand. We know we have to figure this out for ourselves, to chart our own course, to determine how best to steer our own ship.
Happy sailing…
HKS Hierarchy and the (Un)answered Question
by Zachary Kushel, Opinions Asst. Editor on December 6, 2009 in Opinion
As Kennedy School students, we all should recognize how fortunate we are to study at such an intellectually rich institution. But respect and appreciation for our school must never yield to acquiescence, complacency, and blind faith. While it is wise to take counsel from our professors and at times defer to the administration, we also have a duty to remain vigilant and actively work to ensure our experience here meets our needs. After all, we are paying customers, and the product being sold is incredibly expensive.
The HKS curriculum does not set out to produce a chorus of ‘yes-men.’ Instead, this school seeks to churn out future leaders critical of power and the status quo and encourages its students to never take ‘no’ for an answer. In this spirit, it is essential to now pose an important question in this forum: how much of a priority is the student experience to this administration?
One would hope that the answer would be ‘pretty damn high.’ Yet, it is doubtful that this would be the response offered by many of you. Instead, it is likely one would hear complaints, many of them detailed in these pages over the course of this semester, about a lack of attention paid to student concerns.
Early praise should be given to KSSG President David Baumwoll MPP ’10 and his team, who have identified many of the issues that could be improved upon and have been working extremely hard to better student life at HKS. While the administration has largely been responsive to his efforts and displayed a willingness to work with and seek input from students, the length of Baumwoll’s recent Accountability Report distributed to the student body shows just how far the pendulum has swung away from students in recent years.
Second-year students, like those in previous classes, enjoyed ‘shopping days’ for courses so much that the administration decided to do away with them without formally consulting KSSG. They were replaced with scheduled sessions of ‘course previews’ that were so lambasted by the student body that they will be continued for the spring term.
The administration’s solution to the problem of already deficient student space was to take away even more room for students to make office space for an academic center. While the reasons and timeline that went into this decision have still have not been adequately explained, one can only hope that a donor was not accommodated at the expense of 1,000 students.
While the school has not gone paperless, the administration decided to eliminate mailboxes this academic year, managing to upset both green activists and radical students who might have the arcane desire to receive flyers, graded exams, newspapers, or course materials at some point during the semester.
This year, MPP1s were welcomed to the school with the logical decision to schedule an MPP1 core, required course to meet during the coveted 11:40 – 1:00 time slot on Tuesdays and Thursdays. This has effectively guaranteed a conflict with an entire category of events at the school.
Any MPP1 that came to the Kennedy School to focus on press, politics, and public policy or business and government, seeking to learn from some great visiting practitioners on these topics, has been unable to do so – the Shorenstein Center & Mossavar-Rahmani Center brown-bag lunches conflict with this core requirement. Clearly, had the student experience been a factor in scheduling, a core course would not have been put in that slot. One can only hope that the scheduling desires of faculty did not take precedence over the interests of students in this respect.
Now, activists in the MPP1 class, in coordination with the MPP1 class representatives, are lobbying the administration given their unilateral decision to schedule exemption exams for the spring core courses during the last week of this term’s classes – as if students were not busy enough with class work, other core requirements, and a host of extracurricular activities during that same period.
The exams are designed, the administration concedes, so that it is simply not possible to pass without sufficient preparation. Students are therefore left with two unappealing options: retool their Thanksgiving holiday break to prepare for up to three exams at the expense of time spent with one’s family, or spend the next semester taking courses already mastered in their undergraduate and professional careers.
Adhering to the current plan provides no tangible benefit for students; one can only hope that, by the time of this piece’s publication, greater sense has prevailed and the exams are moved back to January, when they were offered last year. But at a school where the registrar sends threatening emails to students promising to drop them from courses without a response from the student in sixty minutes, this author remains skeptical.
What is needed is for each and every one of you to get involved – here. Before saving the world, we need to start by rescuing the student experience at this institution by using our own voice at our own school. The KSSG could use you to serve in one of many advisory capacities that the administration has opened up to us.
If we do not take advantage of such offers, the administration will stop asking for our opinion. Where they have yet to ask for our opinion, we need to begin to offer it in an organized, intelligent manner. Only then will any of us have legitimacy walking out of here with a diploma and being able to truly make the case that, while here, we acted as constructive agents of change.
Seniority System Blues…
by Zachary Kushel, Opinions Asst. Editor on November 11, 2009 in Opinion
Americans take pride in the supposed ability of the U.S. constitution to hold elected officials accountable to the people. Every two years in November, voters have the ability to select new members for every seat in the U.S. House of Representatives and one-third of the seats in the U.S Senate. By design, the system is set up, like in every democracy, to ensure that lawmakers accurately represent the constituents that vote them into office.
Yet, in reality, entrenched internal norms of Congress adversely impact the ability of elections to lead to real change. While the votes of new members of Congress are technically equal to those of veteran members, the relative power of new members within the rigid hierarchy of Congress’ committee system is hampered by their junior status.
As we have been constantly reminded throughout the recent debate on health care reform, the committee structure places a large amount of power in the hands of committee chairmen. Entire policy initiatives and sectors of the economy are not left to the consideration of the entire deliberative bodies. Instead, they are at the discretion of an individual member elected by a small minority of the country’s voters.
Both Democrats and Republicans allow their party caucuses to determine each committee chairman by a vote of the caucus. But rather than initiating true competition and vigorous internal debate about the merits of potential candidates, both parties instead defer to seniority. As a general rule of thumb, they simply allow the most senior member of the party on that committee to, by default, serve as its chairman.
As might be expected, the direct impact of this procedure is that many of the most powerful individuals in Congress also tend to be the oldest. Senator Robert Byrd, 91, served as Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee until earlier this year. When he finally relinquished his post, he was replaced by 85-year-old Senator Daniel Inouye. The excruciating pace that is required in the modern legislative process makes fulfilling the duties of a committee chairman extremely difficult for young members, let alone for members in their eighties and nineties.
The Appropriations Committee maintains control over virtually all discretionary spending in the U.S. The chairman has some ability to direct or hold-up funding as he/she may deem appropriate, despite what the congressionally approved budget resolution may call for. It is difficult to make the argument that, in 2009, the ideal individuals to hold this position would be a man elected during the Eisenhower Administration and a Medal of Honor recipient from World War II.
The late Senator Strom Thurmond served as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee until 1999, when he was 96-years-old. Would you prefer a 96-year-old to oversee our nation’s military simply by default? Is there any other industry where individuals of such advanced age could serve in positions of such great power? The inevitable result is that staff end up running more than just the day-to-day operations of the committee. In cases where members are absent or ill, the staff director essentially functions as a de-facto-chairman, sometimes for months at a time. These unelected individuals, who few of us have heard of and are subject to limited public scrutiny, hold power over large portions of domestic and even foreign policy.
The seniority system also rewards with power those individuals who are furthest insulated from the electorate. These are most often members who were first elected many years ago and hail from districts or states where the party balance sways heavily in one direction. Safe seats fail to ensure that the actions of these chairmen are scrutinized in regularly competitive elections.
The result is an incestuous status quo under the facade of a seniority system. This must be abandoned. We should allow for the proper functioning of the current process whereby true, internal party caucus elections ought to be held. The successful challenge by Congressman Henry Waxman against fellow Congressman John Dingell this past fall for the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee was a model for future selections. The House Democratic caucus wanted climate change to be at the forefront of the committee’s agenda and elected a better-equipped – and more junior – member to advance such an agenda.
The election of President Obama proved that age and experience are both overrated factors for the majority of Americans. Age should itself neither be a factor nor a disqualifier in determining a chairmanship. There should be true competition for these positions. If a party caucus feels that a 90-year-old is the most qualified and capable individual to serve as a chairman, and express this view via their votes, then the 90-year-old should be awarded the position without hesitation. But such scrutiny must take place, as longevity does not necessarily equate to quality. Selecting committee chairmen more likely to advance the interests of the electorate may go a long way in improving Congress’ still-anemic approval ratings.
Settle Down, My Friends…
by Zachary Kushel, Opinions Asst. Editor on October 27, 2009 in Opinion
As a self-proclaimed guru on all worldly matters whose influential bimonthly column is undoubtedly read by every student and faculty member, I feel it is now important for me, in the spirit of public service, to impart some advice that will improve your experience here at the Kennedy School.
Please, for the betterment not just of yourself but also for all of those around you, do not take this institution and your time here too seriously. Enjoy yourself, live loose, learn as much as you can, and have a good time, because the ride is almost over. The real world beckons, and we are painfully close to being back in it – for the next fifty years.
So I have a challenge to issue to the students of the Kennedy School. In class, many of you have criticized school systems and programs that ‘teach to the test.’ You claim that this does not properly educate our youth for the challenges that lay ahead and simply prepares them for an exam instead of instructing them to gain knowledge in a manner that can be applied in the real world.
In that spirit, I call on all Kennedy School students to stop ‘studying to the test.’ That’s right. Rather than spending your time studying what you believe will be tested to ensure a good grade, spend your time studying whatever it is you want to study. Maximize your personal growth, not your grade. Use your courses as a guide, not as a handbook to be executed. Focus on learning what it is you are interested in learning, not what someone else is trying to convince you is important.
This translates outside the classroom. It is a shame that so many accomplished individuals with incredible experiences come through this institution to speak and we do not have the time to hear from them. There are only so many hours in the day so there are inevitable tradeoffs, but you should always make your decisions based on logical reasoning.
Five years from now, will you remember solving problem set number six or hearing a speech given by a world leader? Will you get more value out of reading the eleventh case study of your course or going to lunch with three classmates who you may not know so well?
Five years from now, you will forget 75 percent of what you learned in the classroom, but your classmates will be engaged in an incredibly diverse array of activities all over the world. The relationships built now will last you a lifetime; knowledge can be fickle, and what you learn through a sense of compulsion rather than out of strong desire is likely to be the knowledge that is soon forgotten.
If you find yourself stressed, take a step back. We’re already at Harvard. Relax. The hardest part was getting in. Don’t worry if you don’t get a ticket to a Forum event. If it is that important to you, you can watch it online, in real-time or on-demand. If you are unwilling to do that, it is probably not that important to you!
If you don’t get the courses you bid for, I’m sure there are fifteen others that you would find fascinating to take. Don’t stress about summer jobs. Do you really lack the self-confidence that you will be able to find work after completing this degree?
Maintain your sense of humor – if you did not have one before enrolling, there is no better time to find one. Be sure to make fun of the moderator every time you hear the three rules while attending a Forum event. Consistently come up with new fourth rules you would like to hear; at the moment, I’m leaning toward the abolition of one through three or making the utterance of one through three a treasonous offense. By the way, did you know the Forum is one of the preeminent venues to speak at not just in Massachusetts or in the U.S. but also in the world? Just making sure you fully comprehended this….
Most of all, couple this experience with something you love. It will only make your time here more enjoyable and productive. If you like to play soccer, don’t substitute schoolwork for your time spent on the field. If you like to drink, then I would suggest you become a regular at a local bar. Your time spent here should be about you growing as a person and, most of all, enjoying yourself.
What you take away from here is up to you. For some, it may be little more than what you learn inside of the classroom and your requirements, which is a shame. Yet there is so much more to this institution, and to life. It’s now time to let your mind grow, and not in the sense of cramming for an exam. Please, don’t study to the test, study to live your life. It’s a lot more important…and enjoyable.
Cap and Tax Me Higher
by Zachary Kushel, Opinions Asst. Editor on October 19, 2009 in Opinion
The debate over ‘cap and trade’ legislation is featuring the tired refrain of two competing camps that have dominated disputes over the environment for the past forty years.
On one side are the environmental purists, those who see the issue so clearly that they simply cannot understand how anyone with good intentions could oppose regulations to safeguard the planet. After all, how can someone put a price tag on sustainability? Juxtaposing the purists are those who feel there is a direct tradeoff between environmental regulation and economic growth. Given the current fragile state of the world economy, they hope this rationale can give cover to anyone seeking to oppose the bill.
The reality of the current discussion appears to lean toward the purists. Human beings are reliant on a clean planet for survival, but historically have been willing to put a price tag on a tolerable level of pollution. Yet, to the American public, the current balance appears to be undesirable. A 2007 Fox News poll shows that 82 percent of Americans believe in global warming. If left unchecked, global climate change is likely to have disastrous consequences for the entire world.
Lawmakers’ expected hesitation in supporting legislation that could paint them as job killers should therefore be less of a factor than usual given current public opinion. The fact that both candidates in the previous presidential election supported the concept of ‘cap and trade’ provides further support for enacting legislation.
But partisan politics, dumbed down debate, and lack of leadership in both parties are likely to derail any proposed solution to combating climate change. Republicans appear determined to oppose a free-market answer to a pressing problem that 82 percent of the American people believe exists. At the same time, Democrats have antagonized Republicans by structuring the Waxman-Markey bill, which passed the U.S. House in June, in a manner that imposes a heavy financial burden.
Rather than giving nearly all of the permits away as proposed by the bipartisan McCain-Lieberman series of “Climate Stewardship Acts” introduced in 2003, 2005, and 2007, Waxman-Markey calls for the sale of 70 percent of the permits. This has caused support from Republicans to plummet as conservatives view this structure as tantamount to a giant tax increase on the American consumer.
Yet, lost in this partisan bickering is the fact that ‘cap and trade’ simply does not do enough to alter the incentive structure for the major players in the U.S. economy. Opponents of the bill are accurate when they equate Waxman-Markey to a tax hike. But rather than denying the claim, proponents of the legislation should embrace this truth and strengthen the bill by actually including tax provisions that properly incentivize the U.S. economy to shift away from the use of fossil fuels.
The law of supply and demand dictates which types of energy sources are consumed. Cash is king, and where there is more supply, there is a lower price, and hence more consumption. Oil, natural gas, and coal continue to dominate consumption because they are most plentiful and thus cheapest.
Rather than debating a ‘cap and trade’ system, legislators ought to propose long-term solutions to the problem. Moving toward renewable energy sources is a desirable and necessary transition given the limited supply of and pollution caused by fossil fuels. Opponents of a current shift criticize renewable sources as money pits that are not yet scalable. This claim is accurate, but only because the government has not properly incentivized the transition.
To conceptualize what role the government could play in fostering such a movement, consider the impact a federal $4 per gallon tax on gasoline – coupled with a decision to subsidize, dollar for dollar, Research & Development into alternative energies – would have on the private sector. Many who had been reluctant to invest in this industry given cheap gas prices and a high uncertainty level within the regulatory environment would rush to take advantage of this new market.
It’s now time for the federal government to put in place an incentive structure that allows the private sector to solve one of the most pressing public policy problems of this generation. America needs to decide if she will go all-in in this fight or simply fold her cards. Playing out a bad hand, such as what the Waxman-Markey legislation suggests, is simply not worth the economic cost given the minimal gains one can hope to attain. America must be bold, and bold often means unpopular in short-run political terms. It’s a shame we simply don’t have such leaders in Congress.
A Post-Partisan President?
by Zachary Kushel, Opinions Asst. Editor on September 30, 2009 in Opinion
Nothing has become more ubiquitous in American politics than pundits making baseless predictions about the future. Democratic ‘experts’ determined that the Clinton machine would simply be too much for Barack Obama to overcome. Just over six months before John McCain all but clinched his party’s nomination for president, ‘expert’ Charlie Cook proclaimed that, “…McCain’s campaign is over.” In 2005, ‘expert’ Dick Morris published an entire book entitled, “Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race.”
After November’s election, pundits fell in love with a new fallacy: the election of Barack Obama represented a shift toward a post-partisan America exemplified by his ability to garner support from scores of Independents and Republicans. Commentators contrasted his campaign rhetoric with the divisive last eight years and lauded his Inaugural Address in which he called for “…an end to the petty grievances and false promises…that for far too long have strangled our politics.”
Such assertions were laughable. What does it even mean to be post-partisan? Given his position as the leader of the Democratic Party, it was not logically possible for Obama to be post-partisan when, by definition, he was a partisan. He was elected as a Democrat, would continue to lead the Democrats, and would therefore govern as a Democrat.
This point was codified just two days after his election with the appointment of Rahm Emanuel to serve as his Chief of Staff. Emanuel – a feisty, partisan, and effective operative from the Clinton years and respected congressman and Democratic strategist during his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives – was a great pick to help the president push his ambitious agenda through the tricky corridors of Capitol Hill. But post-partisan it was not. With a fresh mandate from the American people, President Obama had the ability to select a deputy who would not draw the ire of Republicans. Instead, he chose someone who could ease relations with fellow Democrats, choosing partisan efficiency over bipartisan symbolism.
His first big legislative push, the stimulus bill, was an opportunity to pass legislation without regard to party politics. The handling of this issue would set the tone for his presidency. Yet, to avoid conflict with members of the Democratic caucus, the President deferred to the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, allowing party leaders in Congress to write the bill.
As could be expected, the bill did not win Republican support. While both parties recognized the need to pass a stimulus package, the Democratic-written bill contained a large amount of pork for narrow interests of specific members of Congress. A bill stripped of this pork could have won Republican support, but Obama’s desire to avoid antagonizing members of his own party caused him to sign a bill that could have been vastly improved.
Defenders of the President argue that Republicans are obstructionist and are seeking to derail Obama’s agenda for purely political reasons. While this may hold true for a select few members of the party, the vast majority of Republicans take their duty seriously and seek to advocate on behalf of their constituents each and every day. It is not helpful to the debate to impute the motives of the opposition.
The only way to have true post-partisanship in Washington would be to elect an Independent candidate for President, one not beholden to the interests and pressures of either party. Such a scenario could provide the ultimate test of this country’s ingrained two-party system. But would a president without a party be able to govern?
Students of history could cite the difficult terms of Presidents John Tyler and Andrew Johnson, who both struggled to accomplish their goals due to their ambiguous party status. Perhaps, nearly 150 years later, it is time to give it another shot. What could an engaging, charismatic leader such as Barack Obama accomplish as president if he did not have the shackles of the Democratic Party hampering his every move? What could he be advocating if he did not have to worry about earning his party’s nomination again in 2012?
To the President, I would offer this advice: resign from the Democratic Party. Only then will you be able to live up to the rhetoric of your campaign and act as the president of all of the American people, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike. Then, we can fairly judge you on your promise to unite this country and put the politics of old behind.
If you are not willing to do that, then please bring your rhetoric in line with your governance. Acknowledge who got you here and that yes you, like those before you, do what is necessary to accomplish your goals in the partisan political environment that is Washington. Begin to push through your legislative agenda using force, if necessary. Elections have consequences, and it is about time you started using your mandate.
More From Our Citizens…
by Zachary Kushel, Opinions Asst. Editor on September 16, 2009 in Opinion
Throughout the 2008 Election Cycle, I had the opportunity to travel around the country working for a candidate running for President of the United States. The most common question I received from the diverse group of citizens that I met shocked me: “What is your candidate going to do for me?”
The foundation of this institution that we are all now privileged to attend focuses on a credo polar opposite to this attitude. Why has JFK’s call to public service been abandoned by so many in 2009? Why are we, by studying at a school of public service, embarking on our careers with a different mindset than most of our peers? When did most Americans begin to care more about what government could provide for them rather than what they could contribute to their country? Joe DiMaggio, where has our sense of nationalism gone?
June 6th marked the sixty-fifth anniversary of D-Day. It is difficult to argue with the assertion that those who fought World War II, both in the military and in domestic capacities, truly made up the “Greatest Generation.” As I reflected about the sacrifices that these men and women made, and recalled countless discussions with my grandfather who served honorably during that period, I could not help but wonder what would be the defining, uniting experience of our generation. Would the “Me Generation” ever unite behind a singular cause as the “Greatest Generation” did?
Today, the burden of American security is borne by too few of our citizens. It is time we required more from young Americans and made mandatory a term of national service upon graduation from high school. Rather than require military service, young Americans should have the option to serve in a capacity that includes infrastructure works programs, civic education, community organizing, and other service capacities.
A national service program would improve our military, better our infrastructure, make our citizens more informed, and strengthen our communities. Participants in the program would have this common experience shape their view of their nation, better understand themselves as Americans, and gain a newfound perspective on their fellow Americans.
A recent Pew survey indicated that 57% of Americans have never moved from the state in which they were born, and amongst those, 37% have never left their hometown. In a country of nearly 300 million people and 50 states, is it any wonder individuals lack nationalistic spirit when they have had such limited contact with anyone outside of a five-mile radius?
Perhaps part of the reason we have this kind of political discourse is because we don’t understand each other. Maybe our politics would be more civil if liberals from Boston knew conservatives from Birmingham, or if sons of farmers from Nebraska worked alongside sons of Arab immigrants from Detroit.
In the past election, both President Obama and Senator McCain were strong supporters of expanded national service and inspired many to engage in public service, but neither went so far as to propose a mandatory term. The realities of modern partisan politics inhibit even discussion of such a program at the highest levels of our government.
On one side, an ultra-conservative element is rabidly opposed to any expansion of national service. It is led by the likes of Glenn Beck, who has painted national service expansion as part of the “march of socialism.” The left contributes to the inability to build a coalition behind this issue, exposing itself to this type of sensationalist criticism by supporting only select forms of service. The Vietnam-era legacy of prohibiting ROTC on most Ivy-League campuses continues. Proponents of service lose legitimacy when they paint one form of service as superior to another.
Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, should unite behind this issue for the betterment of the nation. In an increasingly regionally distinct country, a mandatory term of service is the only way to link all young Americans, to give them a common experience. Then it will no longer be those fighting our wars and volunteering for domestic service giving back; it will be all of us. And we will be a better nation and a more united people because of it.
