Other Campaigns Engage Youth

E.J. Dionne, Jr. documents favorable progress in political engagement among younger Americans. There's not much discussion of the relationship between issue-based activism and partisan political participation, but, given the seemingly high levels of campus advocacy at least, one might expect more responsive political candidates to successfully bring young activists into the electoral fold. Imagine, for example, what might happen if just a fraction of these young climate change activists became more directly involved in electoral politics [HT: Sam Raskin]. If we build a more decent and responsive political system, I'd bet we'd see the recent increases in youth political engagement sustain itself.

Spending to Save

When faced with attacks against increased public spending, progressives might consider arguing more forcefully, when the facts fit, that public spending often saves money--both public and private dollars. To ideologues on the right, that may seem counterintuitive or irrelevant, but for most of the rest of us, a persuasive case might be made to support critical public investments.

One area where a clear need for public expenditures exists is on suicide prevention. In the domestic arena, more and more evidence suggests that increased public health expenditures lead to lower suicide rates. When considering the value of a life and the pecuniary costs involved in a tragedy such as a suicide, it turns out that public health interventions can be more than merely cost-effective: they can generate significant savings.

Vouching for Farmers Markets

One of the obstacles to turning academic research into sensible policy is the combination of the inability of some policymakers to understand such research and the inability of some researchers to adequately translate their work into plain English. So, I'm going to try to highlight interesting new, policy-relevant research that has been summarized into plain English, or, in some instances, summarize such research myself.

To get things going, here's a nice, concise, if now dated, summary from the New York Times of a study that found that

"Vouchers that permit low-income women to shop at a local farmers’ market increase fruit and vegetable consumption in poor families..."

Not exactly a shocking finding, but there's more in the Times's brief explanation that's worth reading.

[HT: Shally Venugopal]

Withdrawing to Win

In yesterday's Boston Globe, my friend and former colleague Sean Duggan has concisely laid out a strategic case for beginning to withdraw American forces from Iraq.

AS THE DEBATE over supplemental funding for the war in Iraq plays out in Congress, a growing consensus on the need to adopt a policy of "strategic patience" has become accepted wisdom in the national debate. Proponents of this policy argue that solidifying recent security and political gains in Iraq is contingent upon the US military remaining in the country indefinitely. However, in order to truly capitalize on those gains, the United States must begin to withdraw its forces from Iraq.

Obama and Affirmative Action

I previously posted an entry on why I think Senator Obama would not repudiate race-based affirmative action in favor class-based affirmative (not that there is much good reason to pit these two ideas against each other). Turns out that, at least then, I was right. Of course, things could change.

[HT: Maire Daly]

The "soft bigotry of low expectations"

In his 2004 Republican nomination acceptance speech, President Bush challenged "the soft bigotry of low expectations" in many public schools. Hopefully he'll challenge the growing trend of relatively lower expectations for the length of life itself among those with lower socioeconomic status:

"New government research has found “large and growing” disparities in life expectancy for richer and poorer Americans, paralleling the growth of income inequality in the last two decades."

Affirmative Hope

Rick Kahlenberg has a thoughtful piece in Slate on how Obama could and should repudiate affirmative action based on race, thereby winning over white working-class voters. Rick, among others, seem to believe this is a very real possibility.

I've met Rick in passing, read some of his work, and am friends with one of his former research assistants. I disagree with Rick's attempts to pit race against class vis-a-vis affirmative action, but he is deeply committed to social justice and has contributed enormously to the debate on affirmative action and educational equity.

Yet, at a minimum, Obama seems to at least support affirmative action in response to historical discrimination and at higher education institutions, and I think Rick and others might be misunderstanding Senator Obama's views and rhetoric.

For example, Rick favorably cites Senator Obama's South Carolina victory speech:

So far, at a rhetorical level, Obama has been masterful in favoring a strong civil rights agenda while forcefully rejecting identity politics. In South Carolina, the crowd chanted "race doesn't matter," and Obama thundered: "I did not travel around this state and see a white South Carolina or a black South Carolina. I saw South Carolina."

Senator Obama is thoughtfully weaving an argument that our lives are mutually intertwined throughout both his speeches--including this one--and his policies. I think we take Senator Obama too literally when he makes this argument however. He is not actually colorblind. I have zero doubt that he saw racism and racialized disparities in South Carolina. Recall, for example, that he has said,

I self-identify as African American - that's how I'm treated and that's how I'm viewed. I'm proud of it.

Obviously he understands quite clearly that people are treated differently based on their race.

But note that he didn't deny that; not in South Carolina or anywhere else. In his South Carolina victory speech, he said he didn't see a "Black South Carolina" or a "White South Carolina." He sees one South Carolina. And he's right. But that doesn't mean he didn't notice racial disparities--though he might well "see" absolute and individual disadvantages first and relative and group inequities second.

His supporters who chanted "race doesn't matter" at his victory speech are also right in a sense that requires some explanation. Do they believe that racial profiling doesn't exist? I would doubt that. But if you or I are told by someone, "I can't vote for Barack because he's black," we might reasonably say "Race doesn't matter." It's not that we believe that statement in a universal sense, or even in the sense of it actually not mattering, but more in the aspirational sense of "Barack's race shouldn't matter to you when you consider voting for him." My sense is that supporters in South Carolina at his victory speech were essentially responding to attempts to divide us, instead chanting in support of Obama's view that we are one people, one nation, and we are our brother's keeper, as he likes to say. Sen. Obama seems to argue that our sense of community should not stop at our profession, our town, or our race, but rather that we need a renewed sense of belonging to an American community if we are to successfully tackle the daunting challenges we face. And I for one absolutely agree.

It's also worth bringing up a fantastic speech Senator Obama delivered at Howard University last fall with a focus on race and class, which included this paragraph:

Like Katrina did with poverty, Jena exposed glaring inequities in our justice system that were around long before that schoolyard fight broke out. It reminds us of the fact that we have a system that locks away too many young, first-time, non-violent offenders for the better part of their lives - a decision that's made not by a judge in a courtroom, but by politicians in Washington. It reminds us that we have certain sentences that are based less on the kind of crime you commit than on what you look like and where you come from. It reminds us that we have a Justice Department whose idea of prosecuting civil rights violations is trying to rollback affirmative action programs at our college and universities; a Justice Department whose idea of prosecuting voting rights violations is to look for voting fraud in black and Latino communities where it doesn't exist.

I have to wonder if Rick or many others who believe Barack opposes or might oppose consideration of race in the interest or racial equity have actually read or heard this speech.

I wouldn't hold my breath on Senator Obama repudiating affirmative action that considers race. And as far as class-based affirmative action goes, I've yet to hear of any liberal or progressive opposed to it. I'm all for it. It's a puzzling question as to why it should replace race-based affirmative action though. My sense is that Senator Obama understands these false choices, whether around immigration, affirmative action, or the criminal justice system.

It seems to me that race doesn't matter to Obama in the sense that he cares about people of all races equally, which means that a criminal justice system that condemns huge swaths of a race to indefinite disadvantage must be changed at the same time that an economic system that devastates the communities of another race must also be transformed.

I for one will be stunned if Senator Obama essentially says to the white working class, "Your problems in accessing college can be partially addressed by eliminating race-based preferences and substituting class-based preferences." Doesn't it seem like expanding Pell Grants, controlling college costs, increasing high school graduation rates, etc... (all essentially effective efforts with universal appeal) would be more up his ally? But who knows;? I could be wrong.

[UPDATE: The New York Times has a nice piece out today on Obama and race.]
[UPDATE II: The Chronicle of Higher Education has a Q and A with Obama from last year up on its website, and it includes some of the Senator's thoughts on affirmative action.]

Ticking up

Ben Zipperer and John Schmitt of the Center for Economic and Policy Research note that new data from the Bureau Labor Statistics shows a tiny (not necessarily statistically significant) increase in the unionization rate for the first time in a quarter century. (HT: Ezra Klein)

Obama's Governing Strategy

Now here [subscription required] is a must-read from Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic, who has hardly been a strong supporter of Sen. Obama. Looking at Sen. Obama's time in the Illinois legislature, Cohn highlights Sen. Obama's commitment to and success in moving Illinois towards universal health coverage, in part by undermining conservative arguments. While Cohn notes that despite Obama's best efforts, Illinois still does not have universal health coverage, he argues that Obama's inclusive politics---including engagement with health insurance companies and negotiation with Republicans--did accomplish many of the goals health reform advocates hoped for. Cohn sums up the broader point well: "it would...be foolish to suspect that Obama equates compromise with capitulation." And John Bouman of the Sargent Shriver Center on Poverty Law in Chicago, warns naysayers:

"Do not conclude that he does not have firm principled bottom lines--he does...He doesn't compromise for the sake of it or because he's beaten. The talent is to achieve consensus on a good compromise and then push it through."

That sounds to me like a prescription for an ailing political system in need of bold progressive reforms.

Enemies and Naivete

Recently, my friend, fellow Obama supporter, and Obama staffer, Amrit Mehra passed along this LA Times piece by Jonah Goldberg of the National Review. As Amrit put it, this piece "encapsulates [Sen.] Clinton's underlying argument against Obama," i.e. that change doesn't happen by bringing people together, but rather by fighting it out. There is something to be said for this adversarial strategy for solving our country's problems, but, I believe, there is more to be said for Obama's "theory of change," especially in light of where we are as a country today and the nuance of Obama's politics of inclusion. Read Godlberg's brief piece, and then my response below...

I am not sure Sen. Obama or his supporters (including me) are right about our theory of change, but I do know that unlike Goldberg's argument implying that Democrats and Republicans are enemies (e.g. by comparing them to Superman and Lex Luthor), we are not. Being opposed to each other, even if consistently and passionately, does not make enemies of the two major parties. Even if Goldberg is correct that "Democracy is about disagreement, not agreement," surely democracy is also about compromise and inclusion, not rigid ideology and division.

At a practical level, 55 percent of the Senate, the House, or the electorate does not deliver universal health coverage, solve climate change, or intervene in Darfur. One might sensibly respond, "Well, that's why you have to fight it out and win elections." I couldn't agree more. But governing and winning elections, contrary to what Karl Rove might have you think, are probably not best tackled the same way. Throughout his campaign, Sen. Obama has been articulating how he hopes to govern. That said, Is there any evidence that Obama's message undermines the ability to pick up more Democratic seats? Not only would Sen. Obama possibly be the strongest Democratic nominee, but recent endorsements from Democratic Senators and Governors and purple and purplish red States suggest that Sen. Obama could begin in earnest to build an expanded majority in Congress. He is not merely relying on working with Republicans and Independents elected to Congress. He is also relying on working with Republicans and Independents throughout the country to, among other things, elect Democrats.

I have to wonder, as Mark Schmitt has suggested, if people taking Sen. Obama too literally. Does anybody really believe that Sen. Obama hopes to get 80 percent of the vote? On the other hand, how easily we have forgotten the decades past when Democrats amassed massive "working majorities," to use the term Obama is now utilizing, reflecting his genuine understanding of what is and isn't possible, and what it takes to achieve bold political change. Those historic Congressional majorities included some Republican and significant Independent support to create much of the progressive change we take for granted today. At the end of the day though, as Sen. Obama surely understands much better than critics give him credit for, those were, at their core, Democratic majorities. None of this is to suggest Sen. Obama is more partisan than Sen. Clinton or Sen. Edwards. Rather his strategy is to fundamentally undermine the ability of Republicans to hold on to the non-ideological allies in the middle who they need so dearly. That a move towards that great tradition of Democratic governance seems so naïve to many older Americans, and inspiring to many younger Americans suggests to me, in part, that many younger Americans, with some hope, are actually the ones who truly understand the scale of the problems facing America, while many older Americans fail to see how paralyzing today's politics has become vis-a-vis the great challenges of our time.

[I should note that I genuinely believe that Sen. Clinton and Sen. Edwards would each be an exceptional president, but I have volunteered for and contributed to the campaign of Sen. Obama.]

Inflation and Eating Healthy

A New York Times blog post summarizes a recent study finding that healthy food is more expensive than unhealthy food--not a surprising conclusion considering the high rates of obesity among lower-income populations. What was particularly interesting in this study is the finding that high-calorie, energy-dense, unhealthy food tends to rise in price more slowly than low-calorie, nutrient-rich foods. (Hat Tip: Shally Venugopal)

Obama suggests free-rider solution...

Sen. Obama, for whose campaign I volunteered from 27 December through the Iowa Caucuses, has stepped forward vis-a-vis the likely problem of young, health folks, free-riding under his proposed health care plan, with a suggestion of penalties against those who do not sign-up for insurance until they need care. Even Paul Krugman is amenable to this proposal.