 |
The Program to Renew America: Policy Proposals in Critical Areas of National Interest |
 |
In thinking about our country’s situation, where we are headed, and what can be done to fix our obvious problems, it is time to go beyond the timid ideas of the current presidential hopefuls. We need more basic solutions, on the federal, state, and local levels.
The ill-conceived and horribly mismanaged war in Iraq must prompt us to reconsider foreign and military policy in general. At home, anyone who has ever had to fill out endless forms for medical insurance, let alone suffer the disasters that afflict the 46 million Americans without insurance, knows that numerous aspects of our health care policy are simply broken.
We have no serious energy policy. Poverty is increasing, not disappearing, and we have no policy on illegal immigration.
The middle class and the poor have lost considerable ground over the past several decades. It is appropriate, morally correct, and necessary to redistribute some of the astonishing wealth accumulated by the upper classes of the U.S. No one has the right to live in peace, security, and great wealth in this country while many citizens are denied health care, adequate schools, decent job opportunities, and even enough to eat.
The whole country will be better off if we begin to solve fundamental problems now. Let rich people be rich, but not disgustingly so. Let us raise the income and dignity of the lower and middle classes. Let us become a nation that truly works together to improve the situation for everyone. Let us become a force for world peace instead of a country that deals death to many thousands abroad.
The following ideas are not drawn from any particular side of politics; some are “liberal,†others “conservative.†Few of the notions here are especially original. The first principle of the Renewal Program is to avoid a commitment to any one ideology.
The author of this statement is not running for political office.
The Renewal Program is an interlocking set of proposals that, if adopted together, would go a great distance toward fixing America. But readers might also think of the Program as identifying goals toward which we can work; any forward movement on any of the issues would help the country.
The Renewal Program can be broken down into 15 separate policy groups. Navigation links are provided below for your convenience:
- Foreign Policy
- Terrorism and Security
- The Military
- Educational Policy
- Health
- Crime and Safety
- Immigration
- Agriculture and Farm Policy
- Tax Policy
- Economic Development
- Drugs
- Abortion
- Homosexuality
- Race and Social Policy
- The National Identity Card
_________________________________
Foreign Policy
Iraq:
The United States to withdraw quickly, within four months. For a settlement to have credibility in the Middle East, America should stay out of the negotiations. The United Nations, the Arab League, Russia, the European Union, Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Russia will formulate a plan to transfer Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds out of ethnically or religiously mixed areas to distinct autonomous regions; these will be separated by demilitarized zones patrolled by international forces. There are several precedents for such population shifts, for instance Greece/Turkey 1923.
Iraq will remain a federal state. If no agreement can be reached by the foreign parties on ethnic redistricting of the country, the U.S. will withdraw anyway.
Remaining in Iraq will only deepen the devastation there. The British-based Iraq Body Count project estimates that more than 55,000 civilian deaths occurred from the beginning of our invasion to early February 2007.; However, a recent study by Iraqi epidemiologists, working with researchers at Johns Hopkins University, estimates the toll at 655,000 “excess deaths‖ deaths beyond expected peacetime mortality.
According to the UN, Iraq has lost 40% of its middle class since March of 2003. Professors, teachers, engineers, lawyers, etc. have fled or been killed by one side or another. At least 2,500 Iraqi doctors have been slain since American forces arrived, with another 250 kidnapped. For a look at the physical destruction that has followed the invasion, turn on your television set–just not to Fox News. We have caused immense damage to Iraq in the name of installing democracy there.
The Renewal Program: America will not invade or attack another country in the absence of solid, indisputable proof that it has attacked us. In no case, except that of a direct attack on American forces or soil by the military of another country, will the U.S. use armed force abroad without the approval of the UN General Assembly and Security Council. The right to declare war rests with Congress, according to the Constitution; Congress must reassume the responsibility to declare war, which it has not done since December 1941. Congress will examine the evidence and report to the American people within 48 hours of an attack on us. War is too important to be left to the White House.
Our wars in the Philippines (1899-1902), Vietnam (1954-75), and now in Iraq, to give only several examples of foreign misadventures, have cost billions, resulted in the deaths of millions of people who had done us no harm, and have taken the lives or limbs of thousands of Americans.
“American values†or a sense of superiority in any respect cannot be exported, at the point of a gun or otherwise. U.S. foreign policy has long operated on the “mess with†principle–if it is there, we will mess with it–a guarantee of disaster. Interfering in the internal affairs of Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Congo/Zaire for decades after the early 1960s, to cite only a few examples, has facilitated repression and violence for the people of those countries and has increased hatred of the U.S.
If another country does attack the U.S., it will be obliterated by our forces.
Israel/Palestine:
The solution will not be easy, yet a way out of the decades-old fighting is possible. Who would have thought only a few years ago that the mutual terrorism of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland would end–and now it has.
Israel must exist as a contiguous state, but not in its present boundaries. As the Iraq Study Group Report (.pdf) indicated, Israel must trade land for peace. To go further in this logical direction, Israel must give up a considerable amount of territory to permit the creation of a Palestinian state, which will also constitute a contiguous region–in other words, no more enclaves or “settlements†of Jews or Palestinians.
Jerusalem is a sacred city to three major religions. It must not be controlled by a single government. Jerusalem will be an international city administered by the United Nations.
The details of land and population transfer cannot be determined by Israel and the Palestinians; the boundaries must be worked out by a commission of the U.S., the UN, the European Union, the Arab League, and Russia. Since Israel was created by the UN, it can be altered by that organization. Should Israel or the Palestinians refuse the new settlement, they will be blockaded by an international force. No air, road, or ship traffic will be permitted to enter or leave the areas, and all assets of the resisting people abroad will be frozen. All parties to the agreement will guarantee the security of the new states and will impose temporary blockades on either should it permit incursions, attacks, or any efforts to undermine the other state.
The U.S. will end weapons deliveries to Israel and will renounce its special alliance with that state, at the same time guaranteeing the security of the country in its new form.
A “war†against terrorism is useless and counter-productive; it has been no more effective than wars on drugs and poverty. Every security officer represents productive labor lost elsewhere, use of taxpayers’ money, and interference in our rights to travel and privacy. Obviously we need counter-terrorism measures, but those must be applied in a sensible manner, especially in regard to the purchase of weapons or materials that might be used to inflict harm on the population.
But counter-terrorism cannot protect every stadium, port, or shopping center; the roots of terrorism must be addressed. It is partly the "mess-with" approach to foreign affairs that gives rise to terrorism against the United States. Globalization, which is hundreds of years old, has little or nothing to do with engendering terrorism. Globalization can be good or bad; ask people in the poorer countries to renounce Coca Cola, television, and the production of crops like coffee, and see what their attitude toward globalization will be then.
Robert Pape of the University of Chicago has conducted an extensive study of suicide bombers for the period 1980-2004. The most deadly terrorist group in the world, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, is not a product of Islamic fundamentalism. In fact, the Tigers are drawn from families of Hindu background. Their main objection to the government of Sri Lanka parallels the basic argument of many Palestinians: their territory is being occupied by the military and civilian authorities of another nationality. This problem is not easily decided–who has the right to hold any territory is often an open question–but by recognizing what the central issue is, we can address it and hope to resolve it. Meanwhile, in cases of occupation it is useless to identify one side as somehow morally superior to the other.
Terrorism rises and falls because of basic historical conditions; when those change, terrorism ends, as has happened in Northern Ireland. Attacking “terrorists†means killing many innocent people, creating more hatred and furthering the cycle of violence; this is the Israeli story, which we have replicated in Iraq. Our current pressure on the Pakistani government to cooperate in our war on terrorism threatens to destabilize that country.
The Renewal Program: America will not dictate policy to any other country nor interfere in anyone else's internal affairs. There is no excuse for terrorism but equally no excuse for avoiding the issues behind it. Our military and excessive diplomatic presence in Saudi Arabia and our close ties to Israel, for example, helped produce Bin Laden’s followers in the first place.
No government at any level in America may spy, tap a telephone line, or in any other way intrude in citizens’ private lives without a court order.
The Pentagon budget request to Congress for the fiscal year 2007 (which began October 1, 2006) was $463 billion. In addition, Congress has approved “supplemental funds†(.pdf) amounting to more than $400 billion over the past few years for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These fabulous sums, five times more than China spends each year and eleven times Russian expenditures, must be reduced if the American economy is to become more fair and to grow effectively. The Defense Department employs about 700,000 civilians, including the “private contractors†who help run the war in Iraq and who are not subject even to the usual rules of military conduct. Reducing the “defense budget,†which in reality is intended more to allow the projection of American military power abroad than to protect our country, can improve our defensive capabilities.
Our men and women in the military must never be asked to fulfill a fantasy of power held by a few in Washington. If war always involves the killing of civilians, that outcome is infinitely worse in a region whose people did not ask us to come. In Iraq, as in several earlier wars, we run the risk of justifying any action against innocent people simply because the executive branch of our government has decided to fight there. The moral health of our country is at stake.
With the Renewal Program, the United States government will concentrate on defending our soil and population, not on offensive operations abroad. The current 12 aircraft carriers, with another under construction, are extremely costly to build and operate. The last one commissioned, the Ronald Reagan, cost over $4.45 billion by the time it went into operation in 2003. Each carrier is accompanied at sea by an expensive flotilla. Under the Renewal program, the carrier groups will be reduced to 4 seaworthy craft; 2 will be at sea at any time, 2 in port. Remaining existing carriers to be mothballed.
The Renewal Program demands that we have no military bases abroad, instead of the 702 overseas bases that the U.S. currently owns or rents in about 130 countries. Once more, such bases are not useful for the defense of America; they are meant for the projection of American power overseas. Provisioning and refueling stations abroad for the greatly reduced fleet are possible.
The current missile-carrying submarine armada of about 70 craft to be maintained for their useful life, then replaced by smaller, quieter, diesel-powered boats (nuclear reactors must constantly be cooled on ships, which produces noise that can be tracked by another side’s vessels) capable of launching several nuclear missiles each. These subs plus aircraft capable of launching cruise missiles to targets thousands of miles away will be America’s defense force against foreign attack. Air bases around the perimeter of the U.S. will be retained, each with defensive fighters which can be launched at a moment’s notice to defend against an attack.
Currently, American forces possess about 5,000 nuclear warheads capable of reaching other countries across oceans or continents (“strategic†warheads). This number could destroy the entire world many times over; each warhead carries an average of 20 times the power of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II. The Renewal Program will reduce the number of warheads to 1,000 at first (which would leave another 1,000 “tactical†warheads on missiles or other platforms, mostly in Europe). Savings would be at least $14 billion a year (.pdf).
Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars program of missile defense, continued under every subsequent administration, has been ridiculed by scientists since its inception; the $11 billion spent on it yearly is an utter waste, since even today there are known ways of overwhelming projected systems of defense that have not even been developed yet. Although some ludicrous planned weapons, for example the Comanche helicopter, have actually been canceled in recent years, other extremely dubious systems are going forward, eating up immense sums. The Raptor fighter, for instance, built to defeat Soviet aircraft the Pentagon thought would be constructed but which never will be, must go.
About 1,000 feet long, a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier is a huge target that itself must be carefully defended. Such a ship is useful for pulverizing other countries. What America needs is a nimble air and sea fleet–small planes and boats–that cannot be easily located by an enemy but which can be built and deployed in large numbers in the United States itself.
A national service draft, for civilian and military personnel, will be reintroduced. At age 18, every male and female citizen or holder of permanent resident status will be liable for one year of service, either in the military or in a civilian capacity, for example as a hospital orderly or street cleaner. No exceptions for educational status or conscientious objectors will be permitted; objectors may serve in the civilian sector. Since basic military training now lasts six weeks, a year will be sufficient time in which to prepare soldiers, should they ever be needed in an actual war. Military recruits might be brought back for retraining with new weapons every few years.
Enlistment in the armed forces to continue as an option for those who wish a career in the military.
With federal support, each state will create a new, no-frills university. There will be no intercollegiate athletics, no cable tv, no single rooms, no extravagant recreation centers. Club sports will be encouraged. Top quality faculty will be hired to teach and do research, although science labs will be limited to teaching the basics of their subjects. Students will work to run the essential operations of the schools, for instance dining halls and grounds maintenance. With no fancy labs, no huge salaries for coaches or presidents who must constantly try to raise new funds, no expensive football team, total cost of higher education per year per student will be kept below $10,000.
The total price of education at all public universities across the country will be reduced to a maximum of $15,000 per year, with the injection of generous federal subsidies and loans. Since the cost of a high-quality college education will be kept low, families will be freed from the current vicious cycle, a frantic push to earn ever more money so that the kids can continue in school.
The federal government will enforce the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution by insuring that every public K-12 school in the country has adequate physical and educational facilities.
It is time to break the logjam that prevents America from joining the ranks of the world’s civilized, wealthy countries, which offer health insurance and care to all citizens. Our present system soaks up a great deal more of our national wealth than happens in other countries–about 16% of the U.S. gross domestic product in 2004, up from 9.1% in 1980–compared to 11.5% in Switzerland and 9.9% in Canada. Almost one-half of the world’s total spending on health care occurs in the United States.
Do you know where your health care dollars go? Edwin M. Crawford, chief executive officer of Caremark Rx, a “health care equipment and services company,†pulled in total compensation for 2005 of $77.9 million. His income from the company over the past five years was $93,563,000. But Crawford was not even number one in pay in his field; that honor went to Dr. William W. McGuire of UnitedHealth Group, who made $124.8 million in 2005 and $342.284 million over the past 5 years.
Yet the number of hospital beds per citizen has declined in recent years, to the point that we have about half as many per capita as Switzerland does. The U.S., according to the most recent figures available from the World Health Organization, has 2.56 doctors per 1,000 people, while Austria has 3.38 and Belgium 4.49. Physicians are located extremely unevenly across the U.S., effectively denying care to many people. America may have the best medical care anywhere for those who get sick and have good insurance, but we have one of the worst messes of any well-off country in terms of preventive care and coverage for the general population. We all pay for lost work days caused by poor health that might have been corrected at an early stage, for the damage done to children by inadequate prenatal care, and for the huge bureaucracies of the insurance and drug industries.
The current pathetic mess in our health care restricts the freedom of anyone below the upper class. Who does not know someone afraid to move to another place or take another job for fear of losing existing health insurance? How many stories have you heard of people who have put off going to the doctor because they can’t afford to, only to fall really ill later and end up in the extremely costly emergency wards?
These problems can be fixed by adopting a public health insurance program, requiring patients to show a valid national health card at any physician’s office or hospital. Optional private insurance plans will be available.
The French model, while hardly perfect, is widely considered to be the world’s most successful national health plan. Employers are required to contribute to a national fund, but every citizen except the poorest must also pay something each month. The French have complete choice of doctors and may also buy supplemental insurance. When they go to a doctor or hospital, they pay, but then they recover 75-80 % of the cost. Thus citizens do not regard the system as free care, nor, after recent reforms, are they inclined to abuse health services. In this plan, there is a balance between offering access to health care for all and maintaining choice, individual responsibility, and high quality. The French do not have the problem of long waits for care that has plagued the British National Health Service, for instance.
The Renewal Program, based largely on the French plan, will shift a considerable degree of health care to preventive medicine, including to prenatal care. Medical education will be expanded, and national scholarships will be provided for students who pledge to spend 5 years of service in rural areas or inner cities, where currently care is often extremely hard to find. Medical school will be streamlined, so that students are accepted directly from high school, as in many European systems, for six years of training. America must also stop the shameful practice of raiding other countries, especially poor ones like India and the Philippines, for doctors and nurses.
The national service draft can help to identify troubled youth and to provide emotional and occupational counseling for them. Good performance in the year in service can override and expunge minor juvenile crime records.
Production of ammunition of all kinds for firearms to be sharply reduced and strictly controlled. No manufacture of hollow-point, armor piercing, or other bullets inappropriate for hunting or target shooting will be allowed. Purchase of ammunition will be limited to a few selected stores across the country; purchasers will be liable and accountable for every bullet they acquire. Failure to account for the ammunition will result in loss of firearms and driving privileges.
The slaughter in April of 32 people at Virginia Tech, by a gunman using two handguns that he quickly and easily reloaded as he pumped up to three shots into each victim, is only the latest episode of mass murder. We can stop these events.
Ultimately, the British example should be followed in this regard: those who wish to shoot may do so in special clubs or the countryside, in controlled situations on specified territory. Again, shooters must account for each bullet or shell.
First, we must decide what the real problem is. Is it security and crime? Is it loss of jobs for American citizens? Is it somehow the demeaning of citizenship? Is it control of our borders?
The first and basic principle regarding immigration is that the country must operate on the rule of law. Present policy does not do that. A national identity card, which could be the same as the national health card, is essential to monitoring the right to be in this country.
It is absurd to contemplate rounding up and deporting the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the U.S. Even if we could do that, many of them have children born in this country who are citizens. We must have a policy that allows hard-working people, who pay taxes but often receive few benefits, to stay legally in America.
The Renewal Program: immigration and border patrol officials will work at crossing points to be sure that everyone entering the U.S. has either a valid national identity card, an American passport, or legal permission to work in this country. Employers may apply to hire immigrants for specific jobs, for example harvesting crops. The resources now being devoted to militarizing our southern boundary must be redirected to permit searches of job sites. Anyone found working illegally will be incarcerated for several months and put to work cleaning up America’s cities.
But such a program can only be effective in conjunction with two other policies: first, guaranteed health and income protection for American citizens. With decent pay for all jobs held by Americans, the need for illegal immigrant labor would greatly diminish. Second, foreign aid to Mexico, given to small-scale coops and enterprises, above all in the countryside. Following the Costa Rican model, Mexico can develop organic farming, eco-tourism, and rural manufacturing.
The Office of Management and the Budget estimated that in 2005, subsidies to American farmers amounted to about $26 billion. But this money does not typically go to small family farmers. In 2003, the most recent year for which aggregate statistics are available, the top 10 percent of all subsidy recipients received 68 percent of the money; the top 5 percent of recipients got 55 percent. Riceland Foods of Stuttgart, Arkansas, was the greatest beneficiary, taking $68.9 million in subsidies in 2003 for producing rice, soybeans, wheat, and corn.
Farm subsidies represent a transfer of money from the manufacturing and service sectors to agriculture, above all to large agro-businesses. The price of food for everyone is kept artificially high. Agricultural subsidies are therefore inherently unfair to those who pay for them, and they are unfair to Third World producers who cannot compete in the global marketplace against farmers supported by public money in the First World. African cotton growers, for instance, cannot compete against subsidized operations in the U.S. Meanwhile, cotton is among the crops most harmful to the environment; run-off of chemical fertilizers and pesticides from cotton farms is destroying the Gulf of Mexico. Finally, the producers of corn sweeteners are paid by our government to provide each and every American with the stuff that makes us fat and unhealthy in our daily burgers and soft drinks. It is time to end a policy that is literally killing us.
Subsidies for agriculture are paid today in every “advanced†country from Britain to Australia; in large measure, this is a social and not an economic policy. That is, governments want to keep people on the land. If an area like Montana, North Dakota, or Saskatchewan is left entirely to the mercies of the market, it will be empty of people within a few years.
The Renewal Program: build high-speed rail lines from selected cities, for example Chicago and Minneapolis, into the countryside, with branch lines into farming areas. Workers could be transported overnight, or overnight plus a day’s ride, to work on farms. They would be well paid–perhaps $60,000 a year to begin with– while living in simple single rooms for two weeks at a time, then rotating back to the city for another two weeks while the alternate crew arrives. Generous benefits, including education, vacations, child care, health, insurance, and pensions, could be afforded easily from the savings on the military budget and from reducing existing farm subsidies. Financial aid could be given to people who wish to live on the land. Meanwhile, Americans could be put to work constructing the new rail lines. An experimental program could begin for a year from Chicago.
A flat tax at each income level to be adopted. 13% would be the minimum tax for those with, say, incomes of between $30,000 (with no children) and $60,000. From there to $120,000, 15%, and so forth. Income above $300,000 a year will be taxed at the rate of 50%. Death and estate taxes: 20%. Capital gains: 20%. This relatively low rate for capital gains will be offset by the new income tax rates.
No American citizen, nor anyone else working in the U.S., shall be exempt from paying the flat tax rate.
A national value added and sales tax, like that used in some 150 countries around the world, of 10%, with exemptions for families below the poverty line, would be adopted. Revenue from the national value added tax will be shared 50/50 with the states, according to the population of each.
The federal government to support basic research, especially into energy conservation and sources, health, the hard sciences, and applied technology, at a high level.
Ethanol as a replacement for gasoline is inefficient and ultimately costly to taxpayers. Ethanol, made from corn grown with government subsidies, has much less inherent energy value (BTUs or calories) than gasoline. That is, it takes a lot more ethanol fuel to travel the same distance than gasoline will now take you. Ethanol requires a lot of heat to produce, and current ethanol plants often burn coal, adding to the greenhouse effect. Compressed natural gas, which results in few emissions, is a better path for automobile fuel. Wind, water, solar energy, even methane produced from “cooking†manure are more renewable sources of energy.
The Renewal Program calls for a national economic development board to review all applications for factory construction and to determine where federal tax or other incentives might be applied, in order to end the wasteful practice of states competing against each other in doling out large subsidies for new plants. This competition has resulted in massive state pay outs, which above all allow politicians to say they have created jobs in their areas. Here is a grotesque example of the results, chosen from a parade of sad stories: in 2004-05 Florida’s state government alone, an investigation by the St. Petersburg Times shows, probably spent more than $900 million in incentives to private companies. AT&T was one beneficiary of such largesse when it threatened to move a plant to Spain. After handouts from Florida, employment at AT&T factories in the state did climb–for a while–from 890 in 1995 to 1,869 in March 2000. But by 2004 the number of workers had dropped to about 600, and the plant was scheduled for closing unless a buyer appeared.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court decided in May 2006 that the Interstate Commerce Clause allows states to give tax incentives for businesses–as opposed to the view that only the federal government can do that–public pressure on the courts for a more rational approach to economic development could result in a new decision. After all, the 6th Federal Court of Appeals held the opposite of the Supreme Court.
High-speed trains, to match the efforts of the French and Japanese, whose trains now regularly travel at 200 miles an hour or more, can do an immense amount to reduce congestion in the air and on the roads between our cities. Imagine being able to board a train in the heart of New York and riding comfortably overnight to downtown Denver. Contrast that idea to the increasing delays in air travel, not to mention the misery of getting to and from airports. For the money spent on one aircraft carrier, we can begin to build high-speed trains–and put people to work doing it.
The federal government will fund research on emission-free vehicles. Rental car companies will be required to switch to super-efficient and clean cars within five years. Electric cars are possible now; GM built more than 1,000 of them starting in 1996. They got rave reviews from drivers, but the company stopped the program in 2002.
Wages for many jobs must go up, a lot. Home health care workers, for example, now usually earn between $7 and $10 an hour. Their pay should go to $20 or more. The minimum wage should be set, now, at $15 an hour, which would make work much more attractive, would pump much more money through the American economy, and would confer dignity on a great many more workers. Any job that is physically difficult to do, hazardous, dependent on considerable skill, education, or experience, or intermittent, must be well compensated.
American culture now puts more weight on being tough, cool, and menacing–video games like Grand Theft Auto set the standard–than on working. Let the value of skilled labor in particular be highly rewarded, with exhibitions, prizes, high pay, and visibility for work well done. America’s technicians and skilled craftspeople must receive as much publicity as the quarterback and the cheerleader.
The outrageous pay of American chief executives must be curbed. Why in the world should E. Neville Isdell of Coca-Cola, which sells itself, take in $32,335,424 in total compensation in 2006, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission (but a mere $26,260,912 according to the AFL-CIO’s calculation method)?
America’s biggest compensation package in 2004 went to Terry S. Semel of Yahoo. He earned $230.6 million–that is $230,600,000. Do you Yahoo?
Forbes magazine reported in 2005 that, “The heads of America's 500 biggest companies received an aggregate 54% pay raise last year. As a group, their total compensation amounted to $5.1 billion, versus $3.3 billion in fiscal 2003.†Forbes almost cheerfully admits that executive pay often has little to do with a company’s performance.
Why shouldn’t the head of a major corporation be satisfied with, say, $1 million a year after all taxes? How do these people even spend all the money they make?
In Europe, compensation for CEOs has traditionally been much less than in the U.S.; although European executives have seen their pay packages go up considerably in recent years, there is mounting public pressure to keep salaries and stock options at a morally acceptable level. Americans can do the same, and more.
To state the perfectly obvious, criminal penalties for certain kinds of street drugs do not work. They are absolutely counter-productive, just as Prohibition of alcohol was. Abuse of prescription drugs is surging upward and threatens to become as harmful to society as the number one killer and lubricant of violence, alcohol. Marijuana and cocaine must be decriminalized, regulated, and taxed. The minimum age for purchase shall be 18. People addicted to any drug–legal, prescription, or street–will be identified by the health care system and treated for their addiction. If they are gainfully employed, they will not be hampered from working in any way. States should mandate that people under age 18 who abuse drugs shall not be permitted to drive, but will be put to work cleaning, painting, and fixing our towns.
Law enforcement officials must be on the watch at all times for the misuse of the most harmful drugs–above all for alcohol. There must be strict accountability for prescription drugs, especially those given to children.
Is not your business if you are not pregnant. No one likes abortion; therefore let us push forward to develop longer-lasting contraception for males and females, make the morning-after pill widely available, and improve sex education.
Is also only the business of consenting adults. However, there are important issues at stake for society in homosexual partnerships, for example visitation rights and decision-making when one partner falls ill. The Renewal Program allows, for the time being, legal, civil unions across the country for homosexuals and heterosexuals. These unions will be based on carefully drawn contracts. Traditional marriage will of course remain an option for those who want it.
Where race has been identified as directly linked to poor performance in schools, it may be addressed as a separate category. A new program in Ossining, New York, for example, focuses on African American boys as young as five to help them develop skills and habits that will keep them in school–and out of jail. Such programs are worthwhile for everyone, if they can help redress a situation in which more young black men are in jail than in universities.
But in general America must begin to face its social problems. Well-off, educated people from any minority group and their children cannot be given special treatment of any sort, positive or negative, simply because of their skin color or ethnicity, except in programs like the Ossining experiment. To be poor and a member of any minority population, however, does present particular problems, and extra help can be given in those circumstances.
The Renewal Program proposes a national talent search among all lower-class children, whatever their race or background. The goal is to identify kids with promise in any area of activity, from sports to science to cooking and beyond. Children selected by local panels of experts in education will be given special tutoring and support through high school, then will do their year of national service, then will be granted scholarships to study at the no-frills universities or in technical programs. Upon graduation, they will return to their original communities to serve as teachers and counselors at the new minimum wage for two years.
Meanwhile, the reduced cost of higher education will mean that more people from the lower classes can attend college. The new minimum wage will help ensure that anyone who works will live decently. With vastly improved conditions in the cities, pressure to use drugs in order to get some pleasure out of life will ease a great deal.
The idea of a national form of identification scares many Americans, but it has not hurt individual freedom in Britain, Germany, or many other countries. At present our own government spies widely on us, and the airlines can decide whether any person is on the “no fly†list.
As a check on the power of the federal government and to avoid possible abuses by it of a national identity system, each state shall create a board to handle protests from citizens. These boards shall act within two weeks of receiving any complaint related to travel, health care, identity theft, or government surveillance conducted without a warrant, and shall have the power to reinstate in good standing anyone whose rights have been violated. The courts may handle protests of decisions by these boards.
It is time for Americans to become more of a nation concerned with each other and the fate of the whole country. The depth and breadth of our problems require transferring some power to the federal government–pollution, for example, does not respect state boundaries–but the people must be wary of all government and must make sure that adequate and effective means of protest against abuses exist.
What do You Think?
The Program to Renew America is just a set of ideas, maybe dreams (but dreams do come true sometimes). What is most important is that people across the country need to draw on their own experiences and move past the relentless caution of the politicians.
Written by Dr. Robert W. Thurston, Professor of History, Miami University. Contact him at thurstrw@gmail.com.
Of course specifics will vary as opinions do, but this is exactly the sort of manifesto we should be able to find on each and every candidate's web page; what's wrong with the country, why they feel that way, how they aim to change it, and the means by which they'd arrive at that change. Instead we get ambiguities, with the occasional concrete stance on a big name topic like abortion or gay marriage.
Of course these statements wouldn't be etched in tablets of Ten Commandmant stone — people are allowed to have changes of heart, people are allowed to be swayed from their positions — but take a stand, have an open mind, and let the force of ideas and argument win the day, not secret, political machinations removed from the people's view. So long as politicians fail to lay out their ideas in a coherent form, our elected officials avoid true accountability.
I happen to agree ideologically with much of this piece, but would sincerely like to read something I didn't so closely identify with; something from the pen of a Giuliani, Clinton, McCain or Obama perhaps.
I couldn't agree more Lance. Finding clear statement on where the candidates stand isn't an easy task. Some of them (like Hillary Clinton) don't even have a list off issues anywhere on their websites. Why? Because they are too timid to come out and take a stand on issues that really matter. I would love to hear some real discussion on questions that don't usually get asked in America. Like "Does terrorism have a political root?" and "Why are the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer and why don't we treat this as a moral issue, not an economic one?"
People need to ask their representatives at all levels to take on some of the serious structural flaws in the American system.
Although many of your ideas are sound, I completely disagree with several of your coments.
Firstly, Grand Theft Auto and similar video games do _not_ lead the way to a culture that promotes being cool over hard work. This is a Hillary Clinton comment, and I would expect something better from someone attempting to promote _real_ ideas over politico-jabber. The idea of being cool has been around for thousands of years, spanning across cultures and time. GTA is an alternate reality meant to take hard-working 30-somethings like myself away for a short time, and maybe relieve some stess. I bring this out mostly because I'm attending school for video game development, and games are getting the same b.s. blame that rap music, rock music, hippies, marijuana, and black people has been handed: "Oh no, the sky is falling, this is the end of society."
Also, ethanol fuel from corn is in fact more expensive and inefficient to produce. However, ethanol from sugar is not. In fact, Brazil produces ethanol at the equivelent of $25 per barrel, less than half of the cost of oil at this time.
@Tim
I think Grand Theft Auto and similar entertainment outlets aren't really attacked here, just indicative of a larger problem. American culture does glorify what is cool over what is good sometimes. I'm not arguing for censorship, but a realignment of our values, especially where the government is concerned, it good.
It is so frustrating to have the capability to make changes and to change America for the better but to lack the political will to create the change we all need to see.
Immigration, the War in Iraq, Poverty, Healthcare, The Environment, The economy. These are all issues that have possible solutions yet our politicians are too stuck in the mud with partisan politics to find and accomplish the best solutions.
I would like to see more politicians in Washington taking these concerns seriously and working together to create feasible solutions.
I applaud Dr. Thurston and his ability to cut through the partisan mumbo-jumbo that keeps America from achieving its potential.
Candidates should have a set of points outline the issues that they plan to campaign on. Dennis Kucinich, for instance, has one of these lists that is practical and has seen support by introduction of legislation in the House.
As for the above, these are ideas we have seen before but they are far from simple. To simply say that the US Army would withdraw from most of its foreign bases and reverse years of neoimperialist build up with nothing short of revolution is unrealistic. I don't want to be a cynic, but there are far too many US interests abroad to see any kind of reduction in US foreign policy, a policy that has had its hand in every region since the end of the second World War.
I also take issue with the race policy, and policies on immigration and the National ID card. African-Americans and other minorities are far from being given equal opportunities than whites. By the very virtue of being black in American society, one is an objective condition that is structurally disadvantaging. As for immigration, what's really needed — if the government would really want to stop the mass influx of immigrants — is to get rid of free trade agreements that put those countries at economic disadvantage. That means getting rid of NAFTA, CAFTA, and similar agreements. For example, the corn fiasco in Mexico.
This list, though, is an interesting project in policy, and some proposals are reminiscent of an exercise of the Rawlsian original position. But it's not enough to take a politically liberal viewpoint in these cases. The market will not fix itself because the market is a broken thing that leaves everything up to chance.
Excellent piece. And I agree wholeheartedly with Lance - this is just the kind of measured, informed policy outline that every candidate (in any office, regardless of its scope) should have posted on their website where anyone can access it.
The strongarm approach to securing Israel makes me a little nervous, and although I agree that CEOs make salaries that are far too exorbitant, I'm not sure exactly how to enforce a curbing therein. But aside from that pretty much everything you've listed here sounds like a good idea to me. I just wish I was reading this from someone who's running for office.
in answer to Alex; It's not necessarily essential that we get rid of NAFTA and CAFT (though that is one potential avenue), but a restructuring of the deals could go a long way towards stabilizing latin american society. Right now they can't compete with our coddled farmer's goods. If that playing field were leveled, the FTAs could potentially be a boost to their economies. Coupled with a rethinking of our aid (currently focused on furthering our own interests, and strengthening militaries that will work as proxies for our interest), shifting it towards social justice, education, formal infrastructure, etc, we could be looking at a reshaped continent in a decade or two.
As far as people in DC's feelings towards illegal immigration, i would imagine there’s a good number who do not sincerely want to stop it. Besides the relatively negligible security risk posed by people streaming across the mexican border, the majority of people against illegal immigrants seem to be xenophobes far below the political ruling class. If there were an honest discourse in DC I imagine they'd be talking of the advantages in having a stream of cheap, easily exploitable labor pouring in.
that being said, the ID cards have got me leary too. Nothing the government has done suggests they'd handle the responsibility entailed in centralizing all our information in one place.
As far as changing foreign policy, the only revolution that would require is a change in the public's mind state. If the people decided our government should be looking inward, not outward, and resist the inevitable propaganda campagin that would follow, the government would eventually have to comply. It's much easier said than done, true, especially considering the idea isn't allowed the light of day anywhere near DC, but that doesn't mean one should balk at voicing it. It's too easy, and too dismissive, to shout down potent ideas for being impractical in the present.
Now for an attempt to reply to several of the comments: I don't mind Grand Theft Auto, but I am concerned that it represents an ideal of how to live to many people. What I would like to see is promotion of alternate modes of being cool that don't involve violence or lavish life styles. Let the marketplace compete in this regard, but with the idea that people and institutions can be advocates for work and achievement.
"Cool" is not a constant; the concept has changed a great deal over time. No one was ever cooler than Lord Byron, who did not represent himself as a car (carriage) thief.
On the military bases abroad, let's bear in mind that they are a fairly recent development, tied overwhelmingly to the Cold War, itself to a great extent a construct developed in Washington. The Cold War is over, the bases are obsolete (if they ever had a purpose), and so they can be rethought. Let's add more history: who would have predicted in 1913 that Britain would ever give up its bases around the world, or that after doing so Britain would be better able to defend itself and would have a much higher standard of living at home (albeit still with grave problems)?
We all need a radical solution to the Palestinian/Israeli problem. The whole mess has been unworkable from 1948 to the present. I want to see terrorism against Israelis decrease. I want Israel out of its nearly 60-year war with Arabs. In the long run, Israel cannot hold out as it is presently constituted.
As for NAFTA and CAFTA, I would very much have preferred to see open trading zones within Latin America but without US participation. I don't have much experience in the region, but a visit to Nicaragua convinced me that effective transportation and capital investment are needed there above all. The municipal government of Managua gets about $2 per resident per year in tax revenue. I.e., it has no money to fix anything. I can't give specifics about what to do in the region beyond agreeing that the US needs to reduce ag subsidies (already part of the Renewal Program)and that we should be directing a good deal more foreign aid to help develop manufacturing and tourism in Latin America (and Africa, etc.).
I don't see a good or even a practical alternative now to a national id card, since there are already so many ways that governments at various levels track us. We do need many checks on abuses of such a card. Again, national ids have not hurt freedom in Europe.
I agree that many of my ideas are unrealistic–for now. But in 1840 the idea of abolishing slavery was unrealistic. In 1937 the notion of an African American playing major league baseball was absurd to most white people. As the Renewal Program indicated, who thought in the 1980s-90s that a solution to terrorism in Northern Ireland could appear?
Finally, on race. It is interesting, useful, and important to consider how often past African American leaders like Frederick Douglass, Kelly Miller, Mary Church Terrell, and W. E. B. Du Bois wrote about social class and race in conjunction. A number of historians of the American South have written recently that race and class are overlapping, sometimes the same categories. Class trumps race in many instances. There is much more that separates Oprah or Henry Louis Gates Jr. from poor black kids in the ghetto than unites them. To be sure, there is a powerful cultural pull on young African Americans (a la Grand Theft Auto) that denigrates academic success. This is why various programs developed within the black community, e.g. at Shaker Heights High School outside Cleveland, attempt to offer different models of dress, behavior, and achievement. However, I think that in general it does not help questions of race to concentrate on race as a designation. Poor black kids need ways to deal with rats, gangs, schools in horrible condition, missing fathers, and so on. Middle class African Americans have much different concerns. There are hungry white and Hispanic kids in this country, too, and the suicide and alcoholism rates among some groups of Indians (who often don't like the term Native American) are very high.
Having said all that, I literally cannot imagine the stupid remarks, indignities, and suspicion that black people regularly endure in America. All that would gall me horribly, were I black. But the situation in that regard has improved immensely; just take a look at any major white Southern newspaper for any day in the early 20th century. So much is left to do, but I am convinced that the way forward is to devote attention and resources to social problems, which plague us across racial lines.
I think this is more a part of the human condition. All cultures glorified the cool, over what is actually good. Partially, this is due to "good" being considered an issue of morality, or amorality. A large chunk of my entire belief structure is based on this tenet: If it doesn't affect you, you have no right to tell me what to do, and how to live. So much of what people might consider "not good", really has no bearing on their lives whatsoever (see also: homosexuality).
Cool could be defined in many terms, such as famous, powerful, rich, confident, etc. Many charismatic leaders from all over the world and spanning all of time could be considered "cool": Caesar, Henry VIII, Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, Cleopatra, etc. Would you consider any of them "good"?
And Dr. Thurston, I still have to question your use of Grand Theft Auto. Have you played the game, or have you just looked at press clippings and quotes dispensed by politicians looking to be elected? If you play the game yourself, listen to the radio ads and how much of the game is presented, you'll find that it actually spends a lot of time pointing out hypocracy within our system, from all sides of the spectrum. Also, there are several iteration of the game, and only two actually star a black character. It's not about being a car thief, that's just a convenient way to get around town (it is a game, after all). In fact, that particular game (GTA: San Andreas) spends time examining the downfall of the neighborhood due to the influx of crack and other drugs, and the placement of money over family in the gangland system.
If you want to show a game that shows a poweful negative pull on young African-Americans, look at EA's "NBA Baller" series, which is a giant ad for "Sports = Bling".
If you want a target of "cool" over "good", target Paris Hilton.
I think where the government is concerned, and where government money comes into play, all efforts should be directed to promoting the "good" over the cool, if they don't intersect. That said, I agree with your statement that if it doesn't affect you, you have no right to tell me what to do. If we as a country would stop worrying about what other people do in their bedrooms and what religion they subscribe to we would be a lot better off.
It is heartening to see an informed person, other than a politician, to take the time and effort to try to improve our United States society and the other societies we affect with our policies.
What is sad it that there may be only a few dozen or a few hundred people that will read Dr. Thurston's treatise. There are over 600 thousand people in every one of the 435 congressional districts in the country. Dr. Thurston's congressional district happens to be the Ohio 8th District where Majority/Minority Leader John Boehner has been holding forth since 1990.
People will remember Boehner as the congressman who in 1995 was found to be handing out checks from the tobacco industry on the floor of The House of Representatives while the House was debating tobacco legislation. As a successor to Tom DeLay, Boehner's performance has been no less illustrious in promoting tax cuts for the oil industry, finance company interest hikes for students and his own permanent home for any special interest that wants to divert chinese financed federal tax money to the interests of those who make campaign contributions.
In the past three elections, Boehner's share of his majority vote has been steadily shrinking. People like Dr. Thurston should think about forming a campaign to eject Boehner from his district and give a fighting chance to the people of this country rather than just the corporations.
Of course, that depends on more than just a few hundred people reading this paper in this typical congressional district with more than 600,000 people.