Using Experiments to Improve Hispanic Voter Registration

Researched, analyzed, managed, and written with colleagues. Originally published July 2010 for the Analyst Institute, in collaboration with Atlantic Philanthropies, Rock the Vote, Women's Voices. Women Vote, Democracia, and the Campaign for Community Change.

The full report can be viewed here.

Broadband Initiatives: Enhancing Lives and Transforming Communities

Researched and written. Originally published November 2007 for the Alliance for Public Technology.

The full report can be viewed here.

The Withering of the Net

Originally published June 16, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

Discriminatory changes proposed in the way the underlying network of the Internet is managed could substantially limit the valuable innovation that has defined the Web’s existence. Lawrence Lessig, law professor at Stanford University and chair of the Creative Commons project, delivered this message at the Center for American Progress on Friday afternoon.

The recent debate over “net neutrality,” according to Lessig, is grounded in three legal principles developed over 22 years ago. These three core ideas at the foundation of the Internet are now threatened.

The first core idea came out of the break up of AT&T in the 1980s. During the process, the government made the physical infrastructure that enabled phone service “neutral.” Service providers could compete and innovate without suffering the competitive disadvantage of building a massive network. “Such infrastructure,” Lessig said, “should be regulated to be neutral and competitive.” The Internet operates under a similar model. Because access to the infrastructure of the Internet is open and non-discriminatory, an individual can publish a Web site as easily as a large corporation. However, major media companies are threatening open innovation by using copyrights to stunt the Betamax principle of minimal technological regulation, thereby raising the cost of innovation.

The second legal principle is government-designated open spectrum, which was developed in 1984. Rather than auctioning off all available spectrums for telecommunications, the government set aside a free access commons that anybody with the technological know-how could access. “This commons,” Lessig said, “built a neutral competitive platform on top of which innovation could occur.” That innovation lead to the wireless technology that is so important today. Unfortunately, the current administration has reversed the flow of open spectrum, shrinking the spectrum available for innovation by auctioning it off.

The third important principle in developing the function of the Internet came from the introduction of Sony’s Betamax technology. At issue was whether the developers of a technology, in this case a video recording machine, could be held responsible for illegal activities committed with the technology. The government settled on minimal regulation, deciding that as long as technology was capable of non-illegal uses, producers could not be held responsible. This encouraged technological innovation by removing the threat of liability. Yet currently there is a push from companies that own the Internet’s infrastructure to allow discrimination in access—charging different users different amounts for the same services. This will end net neutrality and introduce significant hurdles to innovation.

The harms of the movement to end net neutrality, according to Lessig, are significant. We might lose the competitive innovation that has been the overwhelming force behind the Internet. Describing the effects of a network where the owner cannot regulate content, Lessig says, “The right to innovate is held as common in this architecture.” These special conditions create a paradox where “less control over the right to innovate over this platform actually creates more innovation.” But the important political, social, and economic benefits provided by the Internet are threatened by restricted access.

One of the defining characteristic of the Internet as we know it is the “democratization of capacity,” said Lessig. Users of the Internet are not just passive consumers of content; they are active producers as well. He calls that effect “Read/Write” culture, as compared to a “Read Only” culture, where the production of content is concentrated in a few large companies. The threat to the Internet is the imposition of a “Read Only” environment, diminishing the core characteristic that has made the Internet so valuable in the first place. If preserved, Lessig said, “Read/Write will be massively bigger and more valuable to economic growth.”

Creating the conditions for competitive innovation is a difficult process, but in the development of the Internet it has been exceptionally successful. Now large companies are seeking to centralize control of the Internet, potentially fundamentally changing what has become an integral social institution. Progressive government involvement with appropriate minimal regulation, according to Lessig, will help to “minimize the power of the dead hand of the past to control the innovation of today.”

Focus on Jordan: Worker Rights, Human Rights, and Trade Relationships

Originally published June 27th, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

Jordan’s 2001 free trade agreement with the United States, hailed as a model combination of worker rights and economic development, has failed to improve labor conditions due to a lack of enforcement. The Center for American Progress hosted a panel of experts today to discuss this issue, focusing on a recently released Solidarity Center report titled “Justice for All: The Struggle for Worker Rights in Jordan.”

Thea Lee, policy director and international economist with the AFL-CIO, represented the Solidarity Center. Mazen al Ma’ayta, general secretary of the General Federation of Jordanian Trade Unions, joined her and provided a direct account of the labor situation in Jordan. Center for American Progress senior fellow Gene Sperling moderated the discussion, and the Center’s president, John D. Podesta, gave introductory remarks.

In his introduction, Podesta asserted that trade is an economic imperative. It is an indelible part of the global economy, and the terms of trade determine living standards around the world. The U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement (JFTA) was intended as a model for, in the words of Podesta, “ensuring that free trade is not an economic opportunity for some and an empty promise for many.”

JFTA is the first trade agreement to include enforceable provisions for workers’ rights, a groundbreaking step towards non-exploitative economic development. Yet working conditions have not improved in Jordan because those provisions have not been enforced. “The reality,” Sperling said, “is nowhere near the ideals.”

The significant economic development in Jordan has come at a heavy price. According to Ma’ayta, development has meant sweatshop factories with abhorrent conditions, including 100-hour work weeks, forced labor, child workers, and barriers to worker organization. Foreign migrant workers, desperate for jobs, are particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Conditions, according to Sperling, are “almost what you would consider human trafficking.”

According to Ma’ayta, “Workers will not enjoy full protections without being organized.” This must include the migrant worker population, particularly since Jordanians are being pushed out of jobs by foreigners that will work for less pay in worse conditions. Without improvements in organized labor, the benefits of foreign investment will bypass Jordanian workers.

The speakers emphasized that the JFTA is still a work in progress. There is a desire to make the agreement work, said Lee, but “We must hold governments accountable for the promises they made.” In the global scramble for cheaper goods, access to markets, and foreign investment, decent jobs are often neglected. If the JFTA is going to be a successful model for progressive globalization, Podesta said, “In addition to agreement, there must be commitment.”

The Terrorism Index: A Survey of the U.S. National Security Experts on the War on Terror

Originally published on June 28th, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

A new survey of U.S. foreign policy experts presents a surprising consensus that questions current policies and assumptions in the war on terror. The survey, conducted jointly by the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine, was presented today at a panel discussion.

Featured on the panel were survey participants Dr. Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit, and Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell and professor at the College of William & Mary. David Bosco, senior editor of Foreign Policy magazine, joined them along with moderator Joseph Cirincione.

The survey polled 116 foreign policy experts in the first installment of what is intended as a twice-yearly Terrorism Index. Survey participants came from a range of professional and ideological backgrounds, and the results were balanced to give equal weight to those who self-identified as conservative, liberal, and moderate.

The results of the survey provide surprising insights into how experts are viewing the war on terror’s progress. Most experts believe the U.S. is losing the war on terror and that the American people are becoming less safe. Establishing democratic governments in the Muslim world is not widely regarded as a key element in winning the war on terror, and there is a general dissatisfaction with the current effectiveness of government agencies in fighting terrorism.

Questions about current U.S. national security priorities indicate that the experts believe changes are needed. Securing weapons of mass destruction is regarded as more important than fighting terrorism generally. The majority favored increasing funds to the State Department, USAID, and other soft power agencies, while decreasing funding for the military. Most experts also believe that strengthening multilateral institutions should be a higher priority. According to Bosco, the survey tells the U.S. that the “remaining challenges are outside of the military realm.”

Drawing from the survey, the panel offered a variety of conclusions that lead to a spirited debate on national security. Wilkerson noted the “incredible discrepancy in resources” between the Department of Defense and Department of State, and said “that imbalance has perhaps caused some of the problems we are facing.” He emphasized that military force cannot be the first option for all foreign policy problems. “Bombs, bullets, and bayonets,” he said, “are not the answer to terrorism.”

Scheuer, while saying that, “We vastly underestimate the amount of killing left to do,” agreed with the idea that changes are needed in how the U.S. thinks about national security. Both experts said that the war in Iraq has made American security more difficult. “We’re the primary target,” Scheuer said, “because we’re in the way of what the enemy wants to do.” He advocated energy independence as key element in getting out of the way.

Scheuer did emphasize that “America has its future in its own hands,” but said that the security system right now is unsustainable and that changes need to be made. On that point, he seems to agree with the other national security experts surveyed. Wilkerson was certainly among that group. On our current course, he said, we are going to either “commit suicide as a democracy or spend ourselves to death.”

What Now in Iraq?

Originally published July 21, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

The rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq will not be easily improved, but to do so we must have a different plan from what currently exists. This message was delivered by a panel discussion of distinguished foreign policy experts held at the Center for American Progress.

Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus and Board Senior Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Lawrence Korb, Senior Fellow of the Center for American Progress, participated in the panel. Morton Halperin, also a Senior Fellow of the Center for American Progress, moderated. The panel was introduced by Center for American Progress President and CEO John Podesta.

In his introduction, Podesta highlighted the current security and reconstruction difficulties in Iraq, drawing particular attention to the recent upsurge in violence. Criticizing the “failure to plan a post-invasion success strategy,” he said that “mistakes in Iraq have served to strengthen our adversaries and make us less safe.” Those sentiments were supported by Halperin, who said “we’re hearing less about success and more about avoiding catastrophe.”

The question of what to do next was picked up by the panelists. Gelb found the administration’s current plan unacceptable. “It’s a policy that can’t win,” he said. “It can only lose slowly.” He cited the decision to end economic reconstruction funding at the end of this year, restrictions on democracy-building nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the decreased street presence of U.S. troops as evidence of a strategy by President Bush to not “lose on his watch.”

This assessment was echoed by Korb, who drew attention to Iraq’s negative impact on broader national security goals. “We’re not at war with terrorism,” he said. “Terrorism is a tactic= We’re at war with radical jihadists, and if you stay in Iraq you’re going to make it harder to win the war against radical jihadism.” Using Iran and Afghanistan as prime examples, Korb argued that we cannot afford to have so many military resources invested in Iraq. The U.S. presence in Iraq is actually counterproductive, he said, because we are providing ready recruiting incentives for Al Qaeda. Furthermore, the quality of people in the army is declining; manpower is stressed because there is “tremendous pressure on recruiters to meet their quotas in an unpopular war.”

Korb advocated strategic redeployment, which entails a set date for withdrawal and a redistribution of our military in the Middle East to better protect America. He said that a timetable will “give the Iraqis an incentive to do what they need to do” in making political arrangements and securing the country. A commitment to leave would also, according to Korb, “diffuse part of the insurgency” since “a lot of people are fighting our troops there because they don’t believe that we’re going to go.”

Gelb favored a U.S. role in crafting a better political solution before withdrawing troops. In building Iraqi anti-insurgent capability, he said, “the answer is not more arms and better training. The answer is a government that troops will fight and die for. The key is a political settlement.” It is his hope that by being a strong and active leader, the United States can help broker a decentralized power-sharing arrangement to accommodate Iraq’s diverse factions. Iraq, Gelb said, will “end up partitioned and decentralized either by war or by negotiations. We owe it to ourselves — we owe it to Iraqis — to figure out a compromise.”

The key to both positions were the questions of how effective an incentive a definitive date for U.S. withdrawal would be, and how active a role the United States should take in shaping the Iraqi government. Both panelists agreed that a new approach is badly needed if we are to have any chance of success. “Almost anything you do in Iraq,” Gelb said, “is going to be a long shot.” But no matter what the prospects, Korb emphasized that we must make hard decisions based on “what’s best for the United States and our security.”

Pulling Together: Re-Building Economic Security in the 21st Century

Originally published June 6th, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

On June 6^th the Center for American Progress hosted four economic experts for a panel discussing economic security in a modern context. Speaking on the panel were Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute; Paul Krugman, columnist for the New York Times and professor of economics at Princeton; Gene Sperling, former economic adviser to President Clinton and current senior fellow at the Center; and Louis Uchitelle, economics writer for the New York Times.

Central to the panel’s remarks was the idea that the dynamism of a rapidly globalizing and increasingly competitive economy challenges the American belief in shared prosperity. Sperling said that the United States is a country that doesn’t want a perpetual underclass or a perpetual elite. “A growing middle class allows for the values of this country to flourish.” But according to the participants, most Americans are getting lost in today’s economic landscape.

Bernstein termed the conservative vision of the economy as “You’re On Your Own,” or YOYO. That economic paradigm has lead to individuals taking on an increasing share of financial risks that are relatively low on a societal level. “The Bush administration,” Bernstein said, “is shifting economic risks from corporations and government to individuals and families.” As an alternative model he proposed “We’re In This Together” (WITT), which believes in a role for the federal government in solving large scale economic problems.

The fundamental idea is that economic security on many issues is substantially increased by “risk pooling”, or spreading individual vulnerabilities over a large group by acting collectively, something that a national government is uniquely positioned to do. Krugman pointed out that in healthcare, retirement, and unemployment, individuals are facing gratuitous risk. On aggregate those economic policy areas are more stable compared to the risks individuals face, meaning a societal model would produce a better outcome.

Responding to traditional conservative economics, which holds that decreased exposure to risk reduces individual incentives, Bernstein said, “We cannot accept any of this incentive nonsense at face value. It’s an empirical question and it’s never that simple.” For example, Canada, with its universal health care system, has added manufacturing jobs while that sector had been severely hit in the United States because companies are freed from paying for expensive health insurance.

The effects of YOYO economics have been severe. Job insecurity has become a major issue with real physical and psychological harms to the economy, according to Uchitelle. “We have reversed a long and honorable rise in job security in this country,” he said. “Men and women who have been laid off don’t want to go back into challenging jobs.” The panelists agreed that education and retraining, while important, are far from the only solution. Sperling said that we must have a better employment adjustment system to ease the impact of economic transition. On that issue, according to him, “We are worse than any other developed country.”

The panelists agreed that full employment should be the goal of the economy rather than maximum growth. “All the benefits of growth are going to the top one, the top one-tenth, percent,” said Krugman. More active and intelligent public investment, an improved universal employee adjustment system, greater company accountability for the impact of layoffs, and pro-market policies like the Earned Income Tax credit are potential steps for creating a more progressive economy.

The alternative, according to Sperling, is an economic system that will entrench a permanent elite by eliminating taxes on capital and shifting the tax burden to wage earners whose jobs are increasingly insecure. “A better economic plan would prevent the most privileged Americans from paying lower taxes on their investments than typical families pay on their wages, while encouraging savings and wealth creation for struggling workers.”

Debt Matters

Originally published July 19, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

“In America it is patriotic to help the weak and vulnerable, to stand up for those in need.” That message was delivered by North Carolina democratic Gov. Mike Easley during Wednesday’s Debt Matters conference, hosted by the Center for American Progress.

Easley was the keynote speaker of a day-long event featuring numerous experts and panel discussions. The event, designed to raise the profile of household debt as a national political issue, was highlighted by the release of a new public opinion report on the problem of debt.

John Podesta, president and CEO of the Center, opened the conference by pointing to record levels of debt, a negative savings rate, and the far-reaching implications of a heavily indebted society. Americans, he said, need “a fair shot at a financial future,” a shot they are not currently getting.

Those sentiments were supported by Easley. “Debt,” he said, “is a symptom of a larger problem.” Individuals and families are carrying a greater financial burden, forcing people to borrow increasingly larger amounts of money to pay for important fundamental services, such as education and health care. “Today, the middle class is getting deeper and deeper into debt,” Easley said, “not because they’re over-consuming, but just because they’re trying to maintain their standard of living.”

As a result, the American dream of social mobility is harder to achieve. “The foundation is now getting kicked out,” Easley said, because people have to go deeply into debt just to maintain their current position. That has serious implications for the entire nation. Our large debt burden, the governor said, is preventing America from reaching its economic potential. “This is not just about economic prosperity, but about economic security… we need an extraordinarily efficient economy,” he said, to meet today’s global challenges.

Heavy debt disrupts core American values, such as economic growth and access to education. “We know the correlation between wealth and education is indisputable,” Easley said. But “it is difficult to build talent, knowledge, and skill when our people are swimming in a sea of debt.”

The new survey, co-sponsored by the Center for American Progress and conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and Public Opinion Strategies, showed that Americans think debt is a problem but don’t necessarily think of it as a political issue. “We’re looking at some very serious numbers,” said Anna Greenberg, vice president of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner. Eight in 10 Americans, from across the ideological spectrum, believe the debt problem is getting worse.

Debt is seen as a very personal problem, which is partly why it has not become much of a political issue. Bill McInturff, co-founder of Public Opinion Strategies, said “we want to help people in need, but we want to see people helping themselves.” Even still, the survey showed broad public support for better consumer protections and government education programs. McInturff, citing results that cut across party affiliation, believes that the right political leader can turn debt into an important issue. “There’s something we can do,” he said. “Our political system could address it,” but people aren’t aware of that.

Other experts throughout the day looked more specifically at a poorly understood but important issue. The hope is that through events, such as today’s conference, growing debt will not just be a social problem, but be a problem with solutions. “People need to know,” said Easley, “that if they work hard and play by the rules, they’ll have a chance to succeed.”

The Big Uneasy

Originally published Julu 20, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

What–if any–responsibilities do corporations have beyond their bottom lines? This important question was debated today at the Center for American Progress by two distinguished experts from the business world.

Susan Lee, Vice-President for Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress, introduced the event. Leo Hindery Jr., Managing partner of Intermedia Partners VII, and Fred Smith Jr., President of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, debated the issue, moderated by The Wall Street Journal Assistant Managing Editor Alan Murray.

In framing the debate, Murray describes “something very important going on in the world of corporations.” Tracing what he terms “the age of the CEO” in the 1990s through 9/11 and more recent scandals, Murray points to a growing discussion of how the power of corporations should be used in society.

Hindery, himself a former CEO, believes that corporations must be interested in more than just maximizing returns to shareholders. Citing customers, employees, and the larger community as other important factors, Hindery seeks to expand the understanding of a corporation’s purpose to “a vibrant, prosperous middle class, growing from the bottom-up, best for corporate America, and certainly best for the country.”

According to Hindery, long-term success and profitability come from “being equally responsible to multiple constituencies,” and not just to investors. He supports a government role in developing those responsibilities because “corporations are simply incapable of self-policing.” Hindery also emphasizes, citing his personal experience, that creative and hard-working executives can successfully run socially responsible businesses.

Smith challenges the idea that generating wealth is the social role of corporations, and that they should focus on what they do best. He points out that “a profitable corporation does have to look at the world it operates in,” he argues that additional social policy considerations can interfere with good business. “It’s hard enough to run a corporation,” he believes, without expecting executives to compare dollar values and moral values.

In describing the role of corporations in society, Smith points to their success in focusing on specific areas and improving society through that narrow work. “It’s a good idea that we have specialized institutions,” and in specialized areas corporations are especially good at “expanding wealth and knowledge.” Expecting corporations to solve broad social problems might be expecting them to do too much.

Smith also emphasizes the need for business to better define the public debate about their role in society. “They haven’t adequately explained to the world what their role is,” he claims. “We need to teach the rest of us to enjoy capitalism.” In his view the misunderstood function of corporations has inhibited needed investment and made it more difficult to craft good government business policy.

Both debaters agree that businesses should be profitable, should be competitive and should follow the law. While Hindery says he believes there is room for corporations to have broader concerns, Smith says he thinks business needs to “get over its guilty feelings about itself.”

No Mere Oversight

Originally published July 13, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

The Center for American Progress today releases a comprehensive study of congressional oversight of the U.S. Intelligence Community, "No Mere Oversight: Congressional Oversight of Intelligence is Broken," that delineates where Congress is failing in its oversight duties and how past congressional methods, ways and means of effective oversight could be revived to correct the problems. In the study, authors Denis McDonough, Mara Rudman and Peter Rundlet explore the history of congressional oversight of the Intelligence Community and then examine how past congressional experience could be drawn upon today by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to ensure effective intelligence gathering capabilities are the norm, not the exception.

After the catastrophic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and after more than three years (and counting) of lost American lives and treasure in Iraq partly because of faulty and misused intelligence, there’s no longer any doubt about the crucial importance to U.S. national security of obtaining robust, accurate, and objective intelligence. Every person in America has a stake in ensuring that our policymakers take actions based on the best available intelligence.

The collection, processing, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence is a very complicated process, made more difficult because it is necessarily conducted under a shroud of utmost secrecy. It is the job of the 17 executive branch agencies that make up the so called Intelligence Community to perform these functions, but Congress has an essential role to play with respect to ensuring that these agencies have the resources and guidance they need to do their job well and within the limitations of the laws and Constitution of the United States.

As Americans are learning every day, effective congressional oversight of U.S. intelligence agencies run by the executive branch is critical to protecting our national security as well as the values of freedom and openness on which our country was founded. Recent news headlines that the National Security Agency is collecting the phone records of tens of millions of Americans without the knowledge of key congressional committees underscores the need for Congress to serve as the American public’s watchdog in overseeing intelligence agencies.

Congress must ensure the U.S. Intelligence Community has the resources it needs to identify terrorist threats at home and abroad while also ensuring that intelligence operations are conducted consistent with the law and the Constitution. Alas, Congress today has been negligent on both scores — with profound implications for the safety and security of America. The consequences of faulty pre-Iraq war intelligence are mounting daily in the Middle East and around the world just as the United States must unite the world behind efforts to stop Iran from charging headlong into production of nuclear weapons material.

The United States & Colombia: What comes next?

Originally published July 18, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

Colombia has made great strides in recent years, and the special relationship it has with the United States must be updated to reflect the changing needs of a work still in progress. This was the largely agreed upon consensus of a distinguished panel of experts hosted by The Americas Project at the Center for American Progress today.

The Center was honored to welcome former Colombian president and former ambassador to the United States, Andrés Pastrana, who delivered the keynote address. Pastrana was introduced by John Podesta, president and chief executive officer of the Center for American Progress, and joined on the panel by Rep. Sam Farr (D_CA). Also on the panel were Isaac Lee, editor-in-chief for Page One Media; Nelson Cunningham, managing partner at Kissinger McLarty Associates; and Russell Crandall, professor of Political Science at Davidson College. Dan Restrepo, director of The Americas Project, moderated.

Pastrana broadly outlined the state of U.S.-Colombia relations, focusing on the strong mutual support relative to other South American countries and the progress made since the implementation of Plan Colombia in 2000. Recent free and fair elections, he said, show “the resilience and determination of the Colombian people” in the face of an often violent past. “Plan Colombia has produced many benefits,” Pastrana said, pointing to more professional and effective security forces, economic growth, and successes in combating the drug trade. “U.S. support has been a critical component,” he said, in Colombia’s improvement.

Making a point that was supported by the other panelists, Pastrana said that an important shift in the U.S.-Colombian relationship is needed. Colombia is the third highest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, and in the past that aid has been largely focused on security. This is important, as Pastrana pointed out, because without security, social progress cannot occur. But, he said, “we need to get more investment in the social side.” Pastrana also expressed hope that progress could be made this year on a free trade agreement, so that economic growth will allow Colombia to pay for its own development. “We don’t want aid,” he said, “we want trade.”

That assessment was echoed by Farr, although he was pessimistic about a free trade agreement being finalized this year. Cunningham agreed, pointing out that “we’re not where we thought we would be with a Colombian free trade agreement.” The hope was expressed that, when an agreement does eventually gather momentum, there will be bipartisan support for mutually beneficial trade.

Farr was more optimistic that support exists for a shift in aid. Colombia originally became an issue for Congress because of the war on drugs, he said, but in recent years there has been growing awareness that a more comprehensive approach would be more effective. “Colombia is in this very delicate transition right now,” he said, and successfully navigating that transition means “less support for the military and more support for the domestic agenda.”

Crandall added that, although targeted at the drug trade, Plan Colombia has been successful in improving the state of Colombia generally. The U.S. took risks, he said, in supporting Colombian security forces, and those risks seem to have paid off. He sees evidence that “engaged U.S. involvement assistance can make a difference.” But he also cautioned that, however important U.S. aid is, if Colombians “want to save their own country, they have to do it themselves.”

That will not be an easy task, despite an improved security situation. Lee, referring to the leftist rebel groups — the FARC and the ELN — that have caused so much disruption, said “they are contained, but the war is not over.” Pastrana added that even today “all Colombians are suffering violence.” While supporting the paramilitary demobilization process that is under way, Pastrana emphasized the need for transparency in that process, and was hopeful that national reconciliation could occur through a formal process. With continued support from the United States that adapts to changing needs, Colombia can continue to progress. “The challenges,” said Lee, “are the execution of Plan Colombia and the paramilitary process.”

Ending Child Poverty

Originally published June 15, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

Governments can effectively decrease child poverty by implementing progressive policies. This message was bought to the Center for American Progress on Wednesday by The Right Honorable John Hutton, M.P. and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in the United Kingdom.

Hutton joined Peter Edelman, professor of law at Georgetown University, on a panel entitled “Ending Child Poverty: The United Kingdom’s Commitment, the United States’ Challenge.” Using the example from Britain’s success in reducing child poverty by 17% since a government commitment to the problem in 1999, Hutton relayed strategies for success and lessons learned.

Both Hutton and Edelman agree that empowering families through work is critical for ending child poverty. Effective policies include raising the minimum wage, family tax credits, improving employment adjustment for those that lose their jobs, and increasing public investment in income equivalents like health care, child care, and housing. Implementing these policies within a framework of specifically defined targets helps to make them politically effective.

According to Hutton, the central issue is building the right incentives for work while also having a meaningful social safety net. “It’s a bad thing to have millions of people on welfare. It’s a sign of economic weakness.” It is a sign of economic strength, he said, to have full employment and a system that helps those that cannot help themselves.

Child poverty creates far-ranging consequences for society, and early intervention can prevent problems later in life. Hutton and Edelman cite education as a key area for breaking the long-term poverty cycle. Hutton noted the “important role of education in breaking down barriers to social mobility.” Ample data suggests that impoverished children are less likely to be successful in school, more likely to have low-paying jobs, and more likely to commit crimes. Tackling child poverty means developing solutions that involve all levels of government, according to Edelman. “This is not just a matter of federal responsibility, but the federal government is not doing enough.”

Hutton places child poverty within the larger context of globalization. Rapid changes in the global economy resonate throughout our societies, and we face a choice. “Do we want to progress together, grow together,” he asked, “or do we want to grow apart?” As the future character of the North Atlantic democracies is shaped, successfully tackling poverty is part of the answer. “We are a decent society,” said Hutton, “and poverty is an insult.”

Countering Pandemic Disease and Biological Terrorism

Originally published June 22, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

The United States must develop more systematic and comprehensive solutions to the biological security threats facing our nation. This refrain, heard from panelists at a Center for American Progress event today, built from a report on biosecurity released at the discussion.

Panelists included the co-authors of the report, Andrew Grotto, senior national security analyst at the Center, and Jonathan Tucker from the Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Joining them were Laura Segal, public affairs director at the Trust for America’s Health, and David Heyman from the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The threats of bioterrorism and epidemic disease share many common characteristics, and according to the panel, the United States needs to appreciate those commonalities in order to create a more efficient and effective crisis response plan. “Our ability to address biothreats must be comprehensive in nature,” Heyman said, and not dependent on “stovepipe” solutions that are localized, separate, and fragmented.

Current federal plans assume state and local capabilities that do not exist, according to Segal. “If a pandemic hit,” she said, “it would bankrupt the U.S. medical system.” The panel used the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as an example of how our current public health system is inadequately prepared for sudden shocks. With improved communication and cooperation across all levels, the situation would improve, but currently “there is no standard across systems” according to Heyman.

For biothreats, “the best defense,” Grotto said, “is a good public health system.” In the event of a crisis, hospitals and local health departments are the first line of defense. Right now a complicated system of diverse public and private institutions creates significant interoperability problems. The U.S. must develop synchronized federal, state, and local systems to create a truly comprehensive approach for diminishing biothreats.

The need for a comprehensive plan is important on an international level as well, because, as Heyman points out, “Bugs don’t know political boundaries.” Effectively implementing international health standards, especially in developing countries, is important to U.S. biosecurity. Effective international nonproliferation programs for biological weapons are also key. According to Tucker, research on dangerous pathogens is too open and widespread, and an international consensus on pathogen security is needed. Risks also exist from rogue scientists of former state-sponsored bioweapons programs.

Current policies are inadequate, relying on “a hope and pray attitude,” according to Segal. There is an over-reliance on a “one bug, one drug” approach that holds specific pharmaceuticals as a primary defense against biothreats. A “broad spectrum” comprehensive approach “could be more cost-effective,” especially because an improved public health system would better handle common diseases. Whether an epidemic disease or a terrorist attack, the possibility of a major health crisis means, said Heyman, “We have to take care of ourselves together.”

New News Out of Africa: Rethinking Media Coverage of Africa

Originally published June 30, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

With better media coverage, the United States and the world would realize that there is more to Africa than death, disease, disaster, and despair. Charlayne Hunter-Gault delivered that message in a discussion Friday at the Center for American Progress.

Hunter-Gault, an award winning journalist currently working for NPR, talked about her new book, New News Out of Africa, with Gayle Smith, senior fellow at the Center. Touching on a wide range of African issues, the event focused on the impact of how Africa is treated in the American media.

“We don’t know enough about Africa,” Smith said, because our current media coverage is reactionary and piecemeal, suffering from the “if it bleeds, it leads” syndrome. As a consequence, the American public has become apathetic to the continent. The perception, according to Hunter-Gault, is that if conditions never change than the issues are not a good investment of time, emotions, and money.

The lack of consistent media attention is obscuring important positive developments in Africa. The most interesting stories, for Hunter-Gault, are not Africa’s problems but the hope and heroism throughout the continent in the face of those problems. “Today there is a second wind of change blowing across Africa,” she said. Pointing to tentative but consistent democratic progress and a growing confidence that Africa can be active in improving itself, Hunter-Gault expressed hope that a more positive image of Africa in the media could emerge.

Hunter-Gault emphasized that understanding the day-to-day stories of Africa means abandoning preconceived notions. Reporters covering Africa should “try to portray people in ways that are recognizable” to Africans. To gain the right perspective, she said, “You have to go there to know there.” With that message, Hunter-Gault’s new book hopes to bring the right kind of media coverage to a dynamically growing continent.

Medicine and the Market: Equity v. Choice

Originally published June 6, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

Improvements in American health care cannot be made without addressing the fundamental assumptions that underpin our ideas about what health means. That conclusion was the product of a spirited panel discussion on the role of market forces in American health care, hosted on Thursday by the Progressive Bioethics Initiative at the Center for American Progress (CAP).

Panelist Daniel Callahan, Director of International Programs for the Hastings Center, led off the discussion by talking about his new book Medicine and the Market: Equity v. Choice, coauthored with Angela Wasunna. Joining him on the panel were Willis Goldbeck, consulting director for Global Public Health Policy and Government Affairs at UCB, and Jeanne Lambrew, Senior Fellow at CAP. Susan Lee, CAP Vice President for Economic Policy, moderated.

Callahan, whose book took a comparative look at different health care systems from around the world, found that the best systems had “universal health care with carefully introduced and carefully tested market practices.” Key to his understanding is moving past the false choice between markets and government involvement. A better way of framing the issue, according to Callahan, is to view market forces as a set of tools to achieve overall social goals. Under that conceptual model, the value of particular market forces can be tested against a higher standard of equitable access to quality health care.

Callahan pointed out that in many European countries, where universal care is held as a fundamental social value, health care systems are clearly effective. He listed lower costs, higher life expectancies, broad popular support, and quality of care at least equal to the U.S. as the advantages of a comprehensive, universal approach to health care.

By contrast, according to Goldbeck, “The U.S. does not have a system of health anything.” Goldbeck characterized the U.S. approach as a “medical care and repair model” that is fragmented and disjointed. Medical care, meaning specific responses to specific conditions, is emphasized at the expense of health, a broader concept incorporating prevention and overall well-being. Shifting the public discourse to that broader concept could facilitate progress on some substantial fundamental health issues facing the country. For example, distinguishing medical necessity from medical enhancement would enable us to draw some lines around what types of treatments the health system should and should not promote.

All panelists observed that America’s market-influenced emphasis on constantly improving medical technology — called the “infinity model” because it assumes no limit to useful medical progress — has raised the costs of health care across the board. While health care has improved as a result of technology, Callahan said, “The greater the improvement, the more we spend.” An increasingly expensive medical industry raises serious questions about equality of access and long-term sustainability. The basic issue is whether advancing high tech medicine is the best way to allocate limited health care resources that might be better spent on prevention or basic treatment.

Settling the questions will not be an easy task, according to Goldbeck. “We don’t know how to define basic health care,” he said, because we expect basic care to include coverage for every medical contingency. The panelists agreed that if the expectations of the health care system are going to change, the fundamental assumptions of health policy must also change. Lambrew, for one, is optimistic about the possibility for a positive shift. Pointing to growing calls for health coverage from businesses and encouraging developments on the state level, she said that the time for universal health care as a meaningful political issue “might be sooner than you think.”

Mexico's Presidential Election Results: What do they mean for the United States?

Originally published June 7, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

The close and contentious results of Mexico’s recent presidential election should help cast a spotlight on the importance of the United States’ relationship with its southern neighbor. The Americas Project at the Center for American Progress convened a panel of experts to discuss its impact and implications for U.S.-Mexico relations.

Jorge Castañeda, former Foreign Minister of Mexico, gave the keynote address that sparked a lively exchange. Panelists included Arturo Valenzuela, Director of the Center for Latin American Studies in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and James R. Jones, Co-Chairman of ManattJones Global Strategies and former Ambassador to Mexico. Joining them were Joy Olson, Executive Director of the Washington Office on Latin America, and Armando Guzmán, Washington bureau chief for TV Azteca. Dan Restrepo, head of The Americas Project at the Center, moderated the exchange.

Castañeda began by addressing the results of the election. “I don’t think there is any doubt,” he said, “nor should there be any doubt, that [Felipe] Calderón won,” an assessment echoed by the other panelists. He pointed to the already twice recounted votes and the strength of Mexico’s electoral system as reasons for considering the election results final. Valenzuela supported that assessment, calling Mexico’s electoral system “one of the best in the world.”

Castañeda used the controversy surrounding the election, particularly the protests of second-place candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador, to make a case for a fundamental change in Mexico’s political system. The other panelists supported him in his analysis. “The problem,” he said, “is not the size of the mandate. The problem is the nature of the institutions.” He pointed out the inherent tensions in a non-parliamentary system that has three parties, as well as the difficulties of a weak president working with a divisive legislature that has little institutional incentive to cooperate with the executive branch. Castañeda also observed the absence of a run-off system, which would help immensely in building national consensus in the face of such a split election. Most importantly, he emphasized that the outcomes of the official electoral system must be respected because building the rule of law is critical for Mexico’s future.

Overhauling Mexico’s democratic institutions is important, Castañeda said, because without a better governance structure the crucial questions facing the country cannot begin to be answered effectively. Like the others on the panel, he said that poverty is the most pressing issue facing Mexico, but in the current system potential solutions are lost in a swirl of political infighting. “It’s not enough to do it with just good intentions,” Castañeda said. “The country cannot be governed under these circumstances.”

For the short term Castañeda said that, “Calderón’s victory will mean a great deal of continuity with U.S. relations.” For the long term, as the other panelists emphasized, the lessons for the U.S. to take away from the election point to a broader shift in U.S.-Mexican relations.

“The U.S. has vital interests with Mexico,” said Valenzuela, as evidenced by its status as the second largest trade partner and oil supplier. This election was the most recent step in what he called Mexico’s “complex and difficult transition” from a rural economy to an industrial power. Yet despite these forces at work, Valenzuela said, “We don’t think about Mexico strategically.” Rather than a comprehensive framework with Mexican stability and growth as a foundation, the U.S. tends to engage Mexico haphazardly over particular domestic and economic issues.

To that end, the panelists called for U.S. strategic interest in an improved, functional Mexico. Olson pointed out that the election controversy and López Obrador’s strong showing, along with elections in other Latin American countries, illustrate “incredibly divided societies” and the need for “hearing the voices of the people.” Poverty, it was agreed, should be a strategic priority for the U.S. because it is at the root of so many other issues, including immigration, trade, and political stability.

U.S. leadership in regional growth was emphasized by Jones. “Canada and the U.S. have a big obligation,” he said, “to have a serious development fund” that would be tied to needed political reforms. Observing that too many people in Mexico have not seen tangible benefits from free markets and democracy, many of whom voted for López Obrador, he said that “a system of hope has to be built in” if those economic and political institutions are going to succeed.

Political leadership and increased awareness are necessary to remaking U.S.-Mexico relations. Right now, as Guzman observed, “You don’t hear about Mexico at all,” except in regards to immigration issues. As the election reminded us, however, a broader and more comprehensive approach is needed for the U.S. to develop a strong and productive partnership with its neighbor.

Federalism, Democratic Values, and the Federal Marriage Amendment

Originally published June 5, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

This morning the Center for American Progress, in partnership with the Cato Institute, welcomed the perspectives of four legal experts on the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) up for vote in the Senate this week. The panelists were Dale Carpenter, law professor at the University of Minnesota; Louis Michael Seidman, law professor at Georgetown University; Bruce Fein, former Reagan administration legal aid and current Washington Times columnist; and Mark Agrast, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Carpenter, who recently released a report for the Cato Institute entitled “The Federal Marriage Amendment: Unnecessary, Anti-Federalist, and Anti-Democratic,” focused on the constitutional issues that FMA raises. He criticized FMA as superfluous, given that state legislatures are already addressing the issue from a variety of perspectives and that current legal structures make it unlikely that same sex marriages will be exported from one state to another.

All the panelists generally agreed that the proposed amendment is poorly conceived and inconsistent with core principles of American democracy. FMA would be the only amendment, aside from the repealed 18^th, to limit rather than expand individual rights. Additionally, it threatens federalism by imposing legal interpretations on state legislatures and courts, inhibiting the creativity of states in formulating policy and limiting states’ ability to be responsive to the desires of their citizens. Social policy, and family law in particular, has changed significantly throughout the history of the United States, and the prospect of enshrining a particular policy in the Constitution was greeted with skepticism.

Seidman provided more technical legal analysis of FMA and concluded that the framers of the amendment are either poor lawyers or are proposing the amendment with no intention of it successfully passing. If FMA were to pass, interpretative ambiguities in the language would give federal judges unprecedented power over domestic issues, namely the meaning of “marriage.” Further, it is not clear how FMA would interface with existing law, particularly the Massachusetts court ruling that guarantees all citizens of that state equal access to marriage. These potential problems lead Seidman to conclude that FMA is little more than a political move intended to rally support for the 2006 elections, a sentiment echoed by the other panelists.

The discussion also covered the more fundamental issue of judicial activism, which FMA is purportedly attempting to solve. Fein advocated a more carefully crafted amendment that would curtail judicial activism by specifically leaving the definition of marriage to legislative bodies. Both Seidman and Agrast thought it was important that courts maintain the current system of checks and balances with legislatures because on some issues, particularly regarding minorities, legislative action is not sufficient for necessary change.

While the panel disagreed on particular standards for judicial involvement, all agreed that legislative action is more appropriate than constitutional change or court decision. Since most state legislatures are already actively grappling with the issue of same sex marriage and there is a vigorous public debate, no justification could be seen for FMA except as a way of scoring easy political points.

The Good Fight: Can Liberals-And Only Liberals-Win the War on Terror?

Originally published June 20, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

Can liberals develop a more vigorous foreign policy that will resonate with American voters? Today the Center for American Progress hosted a panel to discuss that question.

The panel centered its comments on The Good Fight, a newly released book by Peter Beinart, editor-at-large of The New Republic and fellow at the Brookings Institution. William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and Jeffrey Goldberg, Washington correspondent for The New Yorker, joined Beinart on the panel. Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, moderated.

In Beinart’s analysis, liberals are able to debate particular policies but are less successful than conservatives at articulating first principles. By better understanding the history of liberal foreign policy, he believes that a “liberal story of how you protect America and make a better world” can be told.

The key to creating a liberal story in today’s global environment is to emphasize that “what happens inside other countries can threaten America,” and, according to Beinart, “America cannot do it alone.” We have neglected a legacy of building legitimacy through strong international institutions, leading to suspicion and distrust of America’s intentions. “Critical to American power,” Beinart said, “is American legitimacy.” This legitimate power is not inherent to our country, he argued, but the result of our own constant struggle to build a more democratic society. When we claim to have crossed a “democratic finish line,” said Beinart, where we hold other countries to increasingly stringent democratic standards while allowing our own to relax, our global legitimacy is threatened.

Beinart concluded by presenting two principles for a strong liberal foreign policy. First, legitimacy is power and “international institutions are the vehicles for making American power legitimate.” Through strong institutions, governments can be held to a higher standard. Second, “economic opportunity is key to the spread of freedom.” People turn away from democracy for social and economic reasons, and understanding those reasons is important in moving towards democratic governance.

Kristol, in response, noted the similarities he saw between Beinart’s ideas and the neoconservative movement. He also questioned the relevance of principles. “At the end of the day,” he said, “foreign policy is about real choices in the real world.” Using specific examples, he looked at recent U.S. history and concluded that it is better to “err on the side of action instead of inaction” because often there is not enough time to fit threats into an intellectual framework. For Kristol, our national interest comes first. “Legitimacy,” he said, “is helpful to power, but power is power.”

Goldberg added a perspective on the domestic and electoral implications of a stronger liberal foreign policy. He emphasized how important it is “to meet the American people where they are.” After traveling the country researching Democratic politicians in conservative states, Goldberg said that a lot of frustration with American foreign policy stems from the execution rather than the basic idea. The biggest danger to foreign policy of any ideology, he said, is from “world fatigue” and isolationist backlash.

The panelists agreed that with the international character of the threats facing our country, the costs of a withdrawn United States could be substantial. Beinart’s belief is that a stronger liberal foreign policy can quell backlash and strengthen America at home and abroad.

Ending Child Poverty

Originally published June 15, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

Governments can effectively decrease child poverty by implementing progressive policies. This message was bought to the Center for American Progress on Wednesday by The Right Honorable John Hutton, M.P. and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in the United Kingdom.

Hutton joined Peter Edelman, professor of law at Georgetown University, on a panel entitled “Ending Child Poverty: The United Kingdom’s Commitment, the United States’ Challenge.” Using the example from Britain’s success in reducing child poverty by 17% since a government commitment to the problem in 1999, Hutton relayed strategies for success and lessons learned.

Both Hutton and Edelman agree that empowering families through work is critical for ending child poverty. Effective policies include raising the minimum wage, family tax credits, improving employment adjustment for those that lose their jobs, and increasing public investment in income equivalents like health care, child care, and housing. Implementing these policies within a framework of specifically defined targets helps to make them politically effective.

According to Hutton, the central issue is building the right incentives for work while also having a meaningful social safety net. “It’s a bad thing to have millions of people on welfare. It’s a sign of economic weakness.” It is a sign of economic strength, he said, to have full employment and a system that helps those that cannot help themselves.

Child poverty creates far-ranging consequences for society, and early intervention can prevent problems later in life. Hutton and Edelman cite education as a key area for breaking the long-term poverty cycle. Hutton noted the “important role of education in breaking down barriers to social mobility.” Ample data suggests that impoverished children are less likely to be successful in school, more likely to have low-paying jobs, and more likely to commit crimes. Tackling child poverty means developing solutions that involve all levels of government, according to Edelman. “This is not just a matter of federal responsibility, but the federal government is not doing enough.”

Hutton places child poverty within the larger context of globalization. Rapid changes in the global economy resonate throughout our societies, and we face a choice. “Do we want to progress together, grow together,” he asked, “or do we want to grow apart?” As the future character of the North Atlantic democracies is shaped, successfully tackling poverty is part of the answer. “We are a decent society,” said Hutton, “and poverty is an insult.”

The Great Debate

Originally published July 17, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

In navigating the complex issue of “net neutrality,” the government should protect consumers’ rights amid a rapidly changing and dynamic Internet. Two experts agreed on that much Monday during a panel discussion hosted by the Center for American Progress, but they disagreed on how to do that without stifling innovation.

Bringing together two of the Internet’s founding figures, the Center welcomed Vint Cerf, Vice-President of Google; and Dave Farber, Distinguished Career Professor of Computer Science and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University. Carl Malamud, the Center’s Chief Technology Officer, moderated.

Cerf began by quickly surveying the history of net neutrality. From its inception, the Internet has been open to any kind of application or content provider, and those providers could be accessed by any Internet user over a neutral network. “People didn’t have to get permission” to try new ideas, said Cerf, which “helped to stimulate and sustain innovation.”

In a competitive and innovation-rich environment, Internet Service Providers acted as neutral facilitators between content providers and consumers. Consumers paid carrier companies to access the Web, but once they got there they could tap into the full range of content. The recent shift to broadband Internet service, though, creates “a significantly different environment,” according to Cerf.

Compared to the age of dial-up connections, consumers have fewer broadband service carriers to choose from. It is, said Cerf, “at best a duopoly, and half the time not even that much.” Those broadband companies are pushing for the ability to charge content providers, in addition to consumers, who use their networks. The danger is that discrimination will result based on one’s ability to pay, meaning the Internet will no longer be neutral for creative innovation. Instead it will be biased toward big businesses that can afford space on a high-speed Internet. Such a model “will seriously inhibit innovation on the network,” particularly if consumers have no choice in Internet access.

Farber, while largely agreeing with Cerf on the dangers of monopolistic broadband carriers, cautioned against uninformed government interference in a rapidly changing field. We must, he said, “make sure we don’t prejudge the path technology takes.” Concerned about the unintended consequences of hastily conceived legislation, Faber said that there are “plenty of mechanisms in place to solve and to change bad actions on the part of a carrier.” He and Cerf both mentioned the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Department of Justice as the primary regulators of the Internet.

Cerf, though, was skeptical of the effectiveness of those agencies in managing abusive behavior. Regulation tends to be too reactive and case-specific. In the absence of market competition, he favors legally prohibiting broadband carriers from access discrimination. Otherwise, the ability of consumers to access Internet content may be compromised. “What’s worse than a regulated monopoly?” he asked in reference to broadband carriers. “An unregulated monopoly.”

Both Farber and Cerf agreed that the issues surrounding the Internet need to be better understood in Congress before any decisions are made. Right now, the policy debate is convoluted and reduced to slogans. If legislation is needed to protect the consumer, they said, “it needs to be unambiguous and actionable.”