Archive for April, 2010

P-Fix Highlights of the Week

Friday, April 30th, 2010
Elbert Ventura



Elbert Ventura is the managing editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. He formerly served as the managing editor of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Elbert Ventura

In case you missed them, here are Progressive Fix’s highlights from the past week:

  • “Confronting Iran: The Case for Targeted Sanctions,” Pirooz Hamvatan and Ali K.

Rather than heavy-handed sanctions, the Obama administration should consider restrictions that are more targeted, which would hit the ruling regime where it hurts, and increase the possibility of change from within. Read more…

  • “Kill All the Lawyers Entrepreneurs,” Dane Stangler

What is crystal clear…is that we could very well succeed in killing entrepreneurship if we don’t pay attention to what goes on in Washington. Read more…

  • “Labour’s Last Stand?” Will Marshall

Americans of course have no business mucking around in British elections. But if Gordon Brown does go down next week, we should recognize at least that we have lost a staunch friend and faithful ally. Read more…

  • “Postcard from Stockholm: Energy, Security and Social Democracy,” Jim Arkedis

My energy talks are designed to shed some light on the political framing of energy issues since Obama took office. Read more…

  • “Charlie Crist to Run ‘Outside’ Campaign. Will Voters Buy It?” Ed Kilgore

Crist’s gambit raises a lot of questions, most immediately about how many of his donors will ask for their money back, and how, exactly, he will negotiate the very difficult shoals of an independent candidacy in a state famous for its partisanship. Read more…

Evening Fix

Friday, April 30th, 2010
Elbert Ventura



Elbert Ventura is the managing editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. He formerly served as the managing editor of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Elbert Ventura

Some of the day’s best reads:

  • Ron Brownstein ponders the consequences of the GOP’s immigration stance: “In a nation that is more than one-third minority, nearly 90 percent of McCain’s votes in the 2008 presidential election came from whites. That exclusionary posture could expose the GOP to long-term political danger.”
  • John Avlon rejects Charlie Crist’s avowed centrism: “As an independent and a centrist, I should be a textbook supporter of Charlie Crist’s newly announced independent candidacy for U.S. Senate. But I’m not—because Charlie Crist confirms the worst stereotypes of a centrist.”
  • Joel Kotkin looks at the worst cities for jobs: “The decline in construction jobs has hit the Sunbelt states hardest; the manufacturing rollback has pummeled industrial areas such as the Great Lakes as well as large swaths of the more recently industrialized parts of the Southeast.”
  • Michael Levi challenges the myth that we can’t provide electricity to the world’s poor and fight climate change at the same time: “The extra emissions from raising those people to a basic ‘energy poverty line’ could be offset by a very small additional reduction in emissions from the world’s wealthiest people (about a 10% per person for the top billion emitters in 2030). That would seem to be the right thing to do.”
  • Geoff Styles hails the approval of Cape Wind and the move to green energy: “[I]n order to obtain a much larger portion of our energy diet from sources like onshore and offshore wind and solar power, projects like Cape Wind must go from being rarities to ubiquitous features of our seascapes and landscapes.”

Growing Food, Creating Jobs, Improving Health: Tom Colicchio to promote “Good Food, Good Jobs” initiative

Friday, April 30th, 2010
Steven Chlapecka



Steven K. Chlapecka is the director of public affairs for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Steven Chlapecka

MEDIA ADVISORY
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 30, 2010

Register for the event.

CONTACT:
Steven Chlapecka – schlapecka@ppionline.org, T: 202.525.3931

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Tom Colicchio will join the Progressive Policy Institute and FreshFarm Market on Wednesday, May 5 to promote a “Good Food, Good Jobs” initiative—a food jobs program—to fight hunger, foster economic growth and bolster employment.

With almost 49 million Americans living in households that can’t afford enough food, high food prices and skyrocketing unemployment have forced millions of families to choose less healthy, less expensive food. Affordable, nutritious food is key to fighting the chronic problems of hunger, malnutrition and obesity that face many communities throughout the United States. And innovative employment ideas are needed to get the nation back to work.  Joel Berg’s report for PPI on this topic argues that, just as the Obama Administration and Congress have supported  “green jobs,” they should launch a “Good Food, Good Jobs” initiative, quickly creating food jobs to boost the economy and improve public health.

WHO:               Tom Colicchio – Chef and Head Judge of Bravo’s Top Chef

Joel Berg – Executive Director, New York City Coalition Against Hunger, author of All You Can Eat: How Hungry is America? and former Coordinator of Community Food Security under the Clinton Administration at USDA

Ann Yonkers – Co-Director, FreshFarm Markets

WHAT:            Public event to promote policy proposal outlined in the Progressive Policy Institute report “Good Food, Good Jobs: Turning Food Deserts Into Jobs Oases” written by Berg.

WHEN:           5 p.m. Wednesday, May 5

WHERE:        Foggy Bottom FreshFarm Market, 2301 I St. NW, Washington, D.C. (Near 24th St. and New Hampshire Ave.)

MEDIA COVERAGE: The event is open to the media and individual interviews with speakers are available upon request. Media in attendance are required to register in advance of the event to Steven Chlapecka at schlapecka@ppionline.org.

For further questions, please contact Steven Chlapecka at schlapecka@ppionline.org, 202.525.3931 (office), 202.556.1752 (cell).

# # #

PPI Special Event: Good Food, Good Jobs with Tom Colicchio

Friday, April 30th, 2010
Steven Chlapecka



Steven K. Chlapecka is the director of public affairs for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Steven Chlapecka

Join the Progressive Policy Institute

as we present

Good Food, Good Jobs: Turning Food Deserts Into Jobs Oases

featuring Tom Colicchio

DATE:
Wednesday, May 5
5 p.m.
LOCATION:
Foggy Bottom FreshFarm Market
2301 I St. NW
(Near 24th St. and New Hampshire Ave.)
Washington, DC

RSVP to attend the event

Space is limited.
Seating is on a first-come, first-served basis and not guaranteed.

Tom Colicchio – Chef and Head Judge of Bravo’s “Top Chef”

Joel Berg – Executive Director, New York City Coalition Against Hunger, author of All You Can Eat: How Hungry is America? and former Coordinator of Community Food Security at USDA in the Clinton Administration

Ann Yonkers – Co-Director, FreshFarm Markets

RSVP to attend the event

Related Posts:

New Report Charts Food Hardship in Every District

Food as a Centerpiece of Public Policy

The Problem of Food Deserts

Facing the Hunger Problem

Kill All the Lawyers Entrepreneurs

Friday, April 30th, 2010
Dane Stangler



Dane Stangler is research manager at the Kauffman Foundation.

by Dane Stangler

On the heels of a severe recession, with stubbornly high unemployment and a still-sputtering recovery, economists and policy-makers are casting around for something — anything — that might jump-start economic growth and rapid job creation. One place we might expect them to look for ideas is our own economic history: Where have new jobs come from in the past? What is the pattern of recent economic recoveries?

As it turns out, job creation in the American economy comes disproportionately from new and young companies. Sluggish economic times, moreover, can be the cradle of entrepreneurship: Over half of the companies on the Fortune 500 were founded during a recession or bear market. Entrepreneurs are also responsible for introducing a large share of innovations that improve our standard of living.

One would think, then, that the conditions for job creation would be obvious: Avoid steps that would discourage new companies from starting and that would make it as difficult as possible for them to grow. But alas, one would be wrong. In recent weeks, we have seen signs that policy-makers and legislators still have no clue how to solve the jobs dilemma.

An Assault on Startups?

First, Bloomberg BusinessWeek reported last week that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is targeting the use of freelancers and “perma-temps” by many firms. At issue is the classification as freelancers of workers who remain on a company’s payroll months and even years, a violation of the tax code. Because such workers offer flexibility and help reduce costs, many companies that use them are young and small. As Nick Schulz pointed out, this “assault” on voluntary work arrangements might not be the best idea when we’re interested in encouraging job creation.

Data from the Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that the average size of new firms has been shrinking by about one or two employees for several years. On one hand, that’s a potentially worrisome trend as it suggests a Red Queen effect whereby we need to start more and more new companies just to generate a steady level of jobs. On the other hand, as the BusinessWeek story pointed out, this trend also indicates that more new and young companies are using flexible employment — freelancers, independent contractors, temporary workers — as a way to help boost their chances of survival and growth.

Just last week the CEO of a young firm explained to me how he and his co-founder opened up their office space some time ago to anyone who wanted to come in and write software for them on a temporary basis. Some of those who did became full-time employees, while others ended up starting their own companies in the same office. It’s difficult to predict what effect the IRS action will have on new and young companies, but it seems safe to say that it won’t be the job creation elixir for which policy-makers are searching.

Another recent, admittedly less worrisome development was the appearance in the financial reform bill of some provisions that likely would have suppressed startup activity. One provision required startups that raised funding to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission and then wait four months for review. Another hiked the monetary thresholds for “angel investors” — wealthy individuals who play an increasingly important role in financing new companies — which could have worked to prohibit much startup financing.

The anti-startup and anti-angel provisions have since been watered down, but remain testaments to how easily and quietly we might kill the golden goose in this country. Who sits down and asks, How can I depress entrepreneurship today?

Entrepreneurship Essential to Any Recovery

These recent episodes take place against a backdrop of an apparently anti-startup zeitgeist taking shape. An impressionistic gaze at the landscape reveals an increasing tendency for policy-makers to focus on things large and well-established, even as our economy and society are driven more and more by the new and small.

One indication of this is well-known: The rush to bail out some of the biggest and oldest companies in the economy sent the wrong message to potential entrepreneurs. There was a compelling rationale to the actions to save General Motors and Chrysler, just as there was one to pour money into banks and other financial institutions. But the composite signal was perverse: bigger and older are better. The largest banks in the country now have a bigger market share than they did prior to the recession, and these aren’t necessarily the primary sources of financing for new and young businesses. The zeitgeist was expressed quite succinctly in the BusinessWeek story: “It’s easier and quicker to audit smaller businesses.” So there you go — ease trumps dynamism.

New companies and the jobs and innovations they generate are not silver-bullet solutions. Yet economic recovery surely won’t happen, or be as strong, without them. Entrepreneurship in the U.S. has been remarkably resilient for about 30 years, with a surprisingly steady level and rate of firm formation. While encouraging the formation and growth of more startups is clearly something that would boost economic growth, it’s not entirely clear how we might go about doing that. What is crystal clear, however, is that we could very well succeed in killing entrepreneurship if we don’t pay attention to what goes on in Washington.

Charlie Crist to Run “Outsider” Campaign. Will Voters Buy It?

Friday, April 30th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

The big news this week was the much-telegraphed announcement yesterday by Florida Gov. Charlie Crist that he will abandon the Republican senatorial primary (where he was in danger of being trounced by Marco Rubio) and instead re-file as an independent candidate in that race.

Crist’s gambit raises a lot of questions, most immediately about how many of his donors will ask for their money back, and how, exactly, he will negotiate the very difficult shoals of an independent candidacy in a state famous for its partisanship. The instant GOP blowback was intense, as Jonathan Martin of Politico reported:

Immediately after he gave his speech, his campaign manager and two press aides resigned. His mail vendor and media consultant also indicated that they would not remain with him as he pursued a third-party bid.

In Washington, the very GOP senators who had anointed him as the party’s favorite last year castigated him as an untrustworthy opportunist and demanded that he return their contributions and those of other Republicans.

Crist appears determined to run an “outsider” campaign, which will be somewhat difficult for an incumbent governor and former darling of the national GOP establishment. The first post-announcement three-way polls will be very interesting.

While it was completely overshadowed by the Crist drama, the Florida senatorial race was also roiled by reports that billionaire investor Jeff Greene, who bet against the housing bubble and won big, will enter the Democratic primary against U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, who had been focused on the general election. Greene is apparently being advised by the eccentric duo of Joe Trippi and Doug Schoen.

The other trend worth watching this week was the sudden dilemma posed to Republican candidates for various offices across the country by Arizona’s new immigration law, which among other things, authorized law enforcement officers to demand proof of citizenship from anyone “reasonably suspected” of being in the country illegally. While virtually all Republicans have defended the Arizona action as an indictment of the failure of the federal government to “protect the borders,” the specific law has struck sparks, particularly among candidates in highly competitive Republican primaries.

In Nevada, for example, the front-runner in the gubernatorial race, Brian Sandoval, who happens to be both a Latino and suspected by hard-core conservatives of being a moderate squish, instantly endorsed the Arizona law. His main opponent, incumbent Jim Gibbons, who has been running as the true conservative candidate, demurred, arguing that Nevada didn’t need that sort of law because it wasn’t a border state. And a third candidate who is trying to outflank Gibbons on the right, Mike Montandon, not only endorsed the Arizona initiative but called profiling by law enforcement officers — the main concern many have had with the Arizona law — absolutely essential.

The furor over the Arizona initiative has not been confined to the West. It may, in fact, have its greatest impact on Republicans in the Deep South, where Hispanic immigration has been visible enough to upset conservatives, but has not yet created a significant voting bloc. Almost immediately after the enactment of the Arizona law, Alabama Republican gubernatorial candidate Tim James, who is struggling to overcome Judge Roy Moore as the Christian conservative candidate in that race, launched an ad attacking his own state’s practice of offering drivers’ tests in languages other than English.

Next door in Georgia, gubernatorial candidate Nathan Deal, who recently resigned from the U.S. House on the heels of an ethics investigation, publicly called for enactment of an Arizona-style immigration system in his own state. And in South Carolina, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, who earlier compared subsidized school lunch beneficiaries to “stray animals,” harnessed the Arizona controversy to his own distinctive message in the gubernatorial race by suggesting that immigrants wouldn’t be coming to the Palmetto State if lazy welfare bums were willing to work.

It’s an easy guess that immigration fever will spread in highly competitive southern Republican primaries, and perhaps elsewhere. In general, cultural issues can be expected to pop up where candidates are trying to distinguish themselves in a Republican Party that’s now monolithically — even radically — conservative on economic and fiscal issues.

Poll Watch

In polling news, there were two big national surveys released this week, one by the Washington Post/ABC News, and the other by Pew. The WaPo/ABC poll had some good news for Democrats:

The public trusts Democrats more than Republicans to handle the major problems facing the country by a double-digit margin, giving Democrats a bigger lead than they held two months ago, when Congress was engaged in the long endgame over divisive health-care legislation. A majority continues to see Obama as “just about right” ideologically, despite repeated GOP efforts to define the president as outside the mainstream.

Those polled also say they trust Obama over Republicans in Congress to deal with the economy, health care and, by a large margin, financial regulatory reform. And the president continues to get positive marks on his overall job performance, with, for the first time since the fall, a majority of independents approving.

Pew (PDF), on the other hand, found Republicans drawing even with Democrats on five of six major issues (the exception being energy policy). Go figure.

Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs every Monday and Friday.

Evening Fix

Thursday, April 29th, 2010
Elbert Ventura



Elbert Ventura is the managing editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. He formerly served as the managing editor of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Elbert Ventura

Some of the day’s best reads:

  • Truman Fellow Rob Diamond testified to the House subcommittee on energy and the environment on the importance of clean energy policies: “The bottom line is this — we must put America in control of its energy future.”
  • James Traub reflects on his experience teaching a class on U.S. foreign policy in Abu Dhabi: “If American moralism struck them as arrogant, its tradition of liberal conception — the sense that the world is malleable rather than merely manageable — seemed to them naïve. They were default realists: Hans Morgenthau, though hard for them to parse, was more their cup of tea than Lyndon Johnson.”
  • Jonathan Martin thinks the GOP base is sick of insiders: “It’s not just that Crist has veered from party orthodoxy, though that’s part of it. Rather, he and his fellow endangered GOP centrists have been tagged as insiders at a time when voters are disgusted by Washington specifically and incumbents generally.”
  • Norm Ornstein smacks down Newt Gingrich: “Gingrich’s comeback used a set of pointed examples to prove that Barack Obama presides over a ‘secular-socialist machine’ and is ‘the most radical president in American history.’ Using Gingrich’s examples, I thought of a whole fraternity of former presidents who could say, ‘We are all socialist machine presidents now.’”
  • Dane Stangler assails what seems to be a brewing “war on entrepreneurs”: “[I]t seems as if someone has declared a war on startups. Which is, in other words, a war on job creation and economic growth.”

Crapshoot

Thursday, April 29th, 2010
Ed Kilgore



Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

Where is it most painful to be a highly visible incumbent politician at this particular moment in U.S. history? Perhaps it’s California, where current economic and budgetary discontents are compounding a growing public fury over chronically dysfunctional state government and an imprisoning constitution. Maybe it’s Florida, that fading Sunbelt powerhouse full of simmering regional and ethnic rivalries, whose perma-tanned governor has struggled to make up his mind which political party he belongs to.

But you couldn’t go far wrong by selecting Nevada, a state that shares Florida’s disastrous economic dependence on real-estate speculation and tourism — Nevada currently sports the second-highest unemployment rate in the nation, 13.4 percent, trailing only Michigan — and the special disappointment of being, for many residents, a Paradise Lost. The state’s own demographic and ideological diversity also rivals Florida’s, home as it is to a rapidly growing Latino population (which made up 15 percent of the electorate in 2008), plenty of extremely conservative Mormons, powerful and politically active labor unions, a libertarian heritage of legalized vice and a Republican Party moving so quickly to the right that you can barely keep up with it.

Moreover, Nevada’s three top elected officials are currently Sen. Harry Reid (D), Sen. John Ensign (R) and Gov. Jim Gibbons (R). Reid, the majority leader of the U.S. Senate and never terribly popular back home, has looked like a sitting duck for over a year. Ensign, once considered a rising conservative star, has been exposed as a sanctimonious hypocrite over the course of a particularly sordid adultery-and-cronyism scandal, in which a group of mysterious evangelical allies operating out of a compound on C Street in Washington, known variously as The Family or The Fellowship, were caught unsuccessfully trying to clean up his act or cover it up. Gibbons has had his own, somewhat more cartoonish series of sex scandals – although maybe they were just “relationship scandals,” if you buy his claim that he hasn’t had sex since the mid-’90s.

Luckily for him, Ensign is not up for reelection until 2012. Unluckily enough, Harry Reid is up for reelection in 2010, and, seeing as his son, Clark County (Las Vegas) Commission Chairman Rory Reid, is the frontrunner for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, you’d think that Nevada Republicans would have a straight, clean shot at a sweep that dethrones the Reid dynasty. But it’s hardly that simple, thanks to Byzantine and fractious Republican primaries for both the Senate and the governorship (where Jim Gibbons is still a formidable candidate), the existence of an independent Tea Party ballot line and the always important factors of money and organization, where Democrats have a distinct advantage. Just six weeks before Primary Day, you’d have to say that handicapping Nevada’s political races is something of a crapshoot.

Dating all the way back to November 2008, Harry Reid’s “favorable” rating in Nevada polls has been wallowing monotonously in the high 30s and low 40s, deadly territory for an extremely well-known incumbent, and particularly for a national party leader who claims to be able to represent his state’s values and bring home the bacon as well. The difficulty that Republicans have experienced in recruiting a top-tier Senate candidate has newspapers hesitating to dust off obituaries to Reid’s Senate career. But in head-to-head polls with his most likely GOP opponents, Reid has persistently trailed all of them, sometimes by double digits, and almost never gaining much more than 40 percent of the vote.

After striking out in its attempts to recruit a strong candidate such as former Rep. Jon Porter, Republicans have on hand a field of three major candidates: casino owner, former state senator, party chairwoman, and ex-beauty queen Sue Lowden; realtor and famous-basketball-playing-son-of-famous-basketball-coach Danny Tarkanian; and right-wing grassroots favorite Sharron Angle. Until very lately, Lowden looked to be consolidating a strong lead for the nomination. Despite a somewhat moderate image (particularly on social issues), she won endorsements from national conservative figures like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and benefited from the general impression that she was far and away the most electable of available Republicans.

But then, at a local candidate forum in early April, Lowden touted the idea that individuals should barter for health services as an alternative to Obamacare, making the particular mistake of mentioning the “olden days” practice of trading chickens for doctor visits. After Jay Leno and others started bagging on her for promoting “chickens for checkups,” Lowden made the puzzling decision to defend her statement — repeatedly — instead of brushing it off and moving on. Now the whole meme has gone very viral. There hasn’t been a Senate primary poll since this all happened, but Tarkanian and Angle — and for that matter, Harry Reid — have to be encouraged by all the laughter at Lowden.

Meanwhile, in the governor’s race, the Republicans’ frontrunner is former Attorney General Brian Sandoval, is struggling nearly as much as Lowden. The perpetually unpopular incumbent, Jim Gibbons, is playing every ideological angle to win re-nomination. Falling back on his traditional popularity among hard-core conservatives, Gibbons has boosted his anemic approval ratings by championing legal challenges to the new federal health reform legislation, and is accusing Sandoval — who has taken the supreme risk of refusing demands to take Grover Norquist’s no-tax-increase pledge — of being a moderate squish. Democrats, figuring that Gibbons is a much easier mark, have been running attack ads on Sandoval that echo conservative criticisms.

A late twist has been the reaction of Nevada Republicans to the draconian Arizona legislation requiring law-enforcement officials to demand proof of citizenship from people who raise “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country illegally. Sandoval, who is Latino, immediately endorsed the Arizona law, indicating where he thinks his own political bread is buttered. Gibbons took a different tack, arguing that Nevada’s non-border location makes such tactics unnecessary. The third major candidate, former North Las Vegas Mayor Mike Montandon, who is trying to undercut Gibbons from the right, drew cheers during a recent candidates’ debate for taking the following position:

“Why are we answering questions on whether illegal immigration should be legal,” Montandon said. “I support what Arizona did absolutely.”

He added that he supports profiling, calling it the single greatest tool of law enforcement.

That ought to go over well with minority voters, eh?

Aside from the particular dynamics of the senatorial and gubernatorial races, Republicans are uneasily aware that they don’t match up well with Democrats in terms of money or campaign infrastructure. As one reporter put it last month:

The state party itself evoked laughter among several prominent Republicans I spoke to last week.

“There’s a whole lot of unproductive activity going on over there without any rhyme or reason,” said a Republican source, before unfurling a string of unsolicited insults at party leadership.

A key question would seem to be, “Where are the adults?” Can’t someone put a heavy hand on the shoulder of a top-tier candidate and say, “We need you,” or clear the field of primary challengers, or tell Ensign it’s time to step aside?

“That’s usually the role of the head of party,” another Republican source said. “But who is the head of the party? Yeah, there’s your answer.”

Meanwhile, the massive organizing efforts that Democrats put into the 2008 Nevada caucuses and general election are still bearing fruit, their impact sustained by Harry Reid’s campaign cash. Reid’s various campaign committees donated $660,000 – serious money in this relatively small state — to the Nevada Democratic Party in 2009 alone. By the end of March, he had raised over $16 million for his re-election (with an ultimate goal of $25 million) and, after a lot of early spending, still had over $9 million in cash on hand.

By contrast, Reid’s two likeliest general election opponents, Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian, who still have to expend themselves in a June primary slugfest, each had just over one quarter-million in the bank at the end of March. Both have some personal money to throw in, but not enough to keep up with Reid’s cash machine.

There are those who look at Nevada and conclude that nothing can save Harry Reid (or his son), not money, not organization, not a scattered and vulnerable Republican Party, not Latino outrage at GOP immigrant-bashing, not chickens-for-checkups, not a third-party candidate, and not even the possibility of a GOP ticket led by Jim Gibbons. It is, after all, a bad year to be an incumbent, much less a Democratic incumbent, much less the Democratic leader of the U.S. Senate. But add all of these factors together, in a year when Nevada Republicans are committing one unforced error after another, and almost anything could happen. Republicans probably shouldn’t bet the farm on victory.

This item is cross-posted at the New Republic.

Labour’s Last Stand?

Thursday, April 29th, 2010
Will Marshall



Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

Things look grim for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Heading into tonight’s third and final debate, his Labour Party trails not only the Conservatives, but even the Liberal Democrats, who usually finish a distant third. London odds-makers don’t give much for Brown’s chances of pulling off a Harry Truman-like upset.

If the pollsters and bookies are right, the May 6 election could end a remarkable, 13-year run in power by the “New Labour” tandem of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. But in Britain, electoral victory is denominated in parliamentary seats, not popular votes. The Lib Dems’ unexpected rise, behind a breakout performance by party leader Nicholas Clegg in the first debate, has scrambled the race in ways that make a variety of untoward outcomes possible, if not probable.

Many observers are predicting a hung parliament if the Lib Dems win enough seats to deprive either of their opponents a majority. This would trigger intense efforts by Labour and the Tories to woo the Lib Dems into a coalition government. In any case, however, the result likely would be curtains for Gordon Brown.

Tonight’s debate is probably his last chance to reverse Labour’s slumping prospects. It’s on the economy, which would ordinarily be Brown’s forte, but Britain’s economy also has been hammered by the financial crisis. It’s also true that Labour governments, under pressure from traditional constituencies and the unreconstructed “Old Labour” left, spent heavily on public services. Now those services will likely face draconian cuts as the next government grapples with ways to whittle down a huge (by British standards) $236 billion deficit.

But the dismal economic picture isn’t Labour’s only problem. Public worries about immigration also have roiled the race. Brown stumbled yesterday when he was caught on tape calling one voter who expressed such qualms a “bigoted woman.” He then compounded the gaffe by going to her house to apologize, ensuring that the incident dominated campaign coverage.

If the episode underscored Brown’s lack of political touch, it ought to be said in fairness that 13 years is a long time for any party to hold power in Britain. Clegg has bolted from obscurity by tapping into the inchoate desire for “change” that another newcomer, Barack Obama, tapped so effectively here in 2008.

If this really is Labour’s last stand, it’s worth recalling a few things about its significance for U.S. progressives. First, “New Labour” was a joint, Blair-Brown project that borrowed heavily from Bill Clinton’s New Democrat innovation. In a similar fashion, they helped Labour cast off old socialist dogma and revive itself as a modernizing force not only in Britain but in center-left politics generally.

Not the least of New Labour’s achievements was a long economic boom whose chief architect, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, was none other than Gordon Brown. Unlike France and Germany, Britain enjoyed robust growth rates and low unemployment. It also depoliticized monetary policy, created new incentives for work, kept labor markets flexible and encouraged innovation and trade.

Finally, Blair and Brown were, and remain, sturdy friends of the United States. Blair stood with America after 9/11, was a forthright critic of the kind of fashionable anti-Americanism in which Clegg indulges, and risked his career by supporting the Iraq war. Brown likewise has firmly backed President Obama’s counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, despite mounting pressures within his own party and a war-weary public to bring British troops home.

Americans of course have no business mucking around in British elections. But if Gordon Brown does go down next week, we should recognize at least that we have lost a staunch friend and faithful ally.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pasokphotos/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

Postcard from Stockholm: Energy, Security and Social Democracy

Thursday, April 29th, 2010
Jim Arkedis



Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

For the last three days, I’ve been running around Stockholm giving what seems to be 27 lectures on energy security and/or President Obama’s foreign policy. I’ve spoken at think tanks, the American Embassy (twice!), with MPs, corporate executives, and the guy who wrote the definitive Swedish book about the Obama campaign (“Are you going to have it translated into English?” I asked naively. “Well, I looked on Amazon,” he responded, “and there are already 637 English language books on Obama’s campaign. So I think I’ll start with Danish instead.”) It has been a whirlwind tour thus far but should slow down a bit toward the weekend, which would allow me to enjoy a few days with some good friends in Stockholm.

My energy talks are designed to shed some light on the political framing of energy issues since Obama took office. Since only six out of 10 Americans believe there is solid scientific evidence that the earth is warming, I talk a lot about the $400 tank of gas in Afghanistan and energy independence from power thugs like Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez. As a matter of fact, if you’d like the basic gist of a good chunk of my talk, just read this post.

But beyond gasoline and warzones, I’m also banging the drum about nuclear power, a power source that PPI has long supported even as the left keeps it at arms-length, and that is a critical component of America’s drive towards energy independence. I’ve been telling the story of Barack Obama’s embrace of nuclear power in the State of the Union, which was closely followed by a trip down to Georgia to announce the first construction of a nuclear plant in the U.S. in about 25 years.

Why does all this matter to Sweden? Sweden is facing a general election this September. The Red-Green Coalition of Social Democrats and the Green Party is currently in opposition but stands a good chance of beating the incumbent center-right coalition. And that, in a sense, would be a return to normalcy in this social-democratic mecca. I don’t have the numbers of the top of my head, but only about 15 of the last 90 years haven’t seen a Social Democrat in the PM’s office.

And while SD party leader Mona Salin may get there, it will be with significant help from the Greens. The Greens stand to rocket up from 5 percent last election to near 10-15 percent this year. And guess what? They hate nuclear power, falsely believing that it is unsafe and dangerous. Just yesterday, the coalition presented a plan that would tax “excessive profits” of energy companies, including nuclear.

Political insiders here think energy could be one of the more contentious issues within the Red-Green coalition. In the article I cite above, note how the Green Party spokeswoman says that her faction had to compromise, which implies that the Social Dems were resistant to higher energy taxes. But giving the Greens’ increasing appeal, their policy carried the day.

Penalizing nuclear power isn’t natural for the Social Dems — in the ‘60s and ‘70s, they led the charge to build Sweden’s 10 reactors that today produce nearly 50 percent of its power. Indeed, Sweden draws 90 percent of its power from hydro and nuclear, meaning that nearly all of its power is from non-carbon sources. It is an unfortunate about-face to propose taxing an energy source that is established, clean, and safe.

And that’s where I come in — an American progressive who can talk about creative ways to frame energy issues, and use Barack Obama’s nuclear story to give Swedish Social Dems a few reasons not to turn their backs on power sources that they once endorsed and that continue to make sense.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tobin/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

Miami Herald: Bidding war could erupt for independent Sen. Crist

Thursday, April 29th, 2010
Steven Chlapecka



Steven K. Chlapecka is the director of public affairs for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Steven Chlapecka

Will Marshall in the Miami Herald:

Given the acrimony — former Vice President Dick Cheney last week endorsed rival Marco Rubio and warned Crist that an independent bid would only benefit the Democrats — some speculate an independent Crist might consider a flirtation with Democrats who would welcome a convert, especially one representing a key presidential battleground state.

“They could offer him not only decent committee assignments but real power,” said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

Cape Wind a Win for the Clean Energy Economy

Thursday, April 29th, 2010
Mike Signer



Mike Signer is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Mike Signer

In recent months, we at PPI have been doing our level best to call the nation’s attention to a bright green section of the map in the northeast, where Massachusetts is leading the way on virtually every front of environmental regulation and the building of a clean economy. Yesterday, Massachusetts found itself leading the way yet again, as the Obama administration announced the approval of the Cape Wind project, an offshore wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod.

We at PPI weren’t surprised. We had heard the inside word on the progress of the Cape Wind project in a meeting we held several weeks ago with several dozen New England business leaders, energy entrepreneurs and activists, featuring Ian Bowles, Massachuetts’ pathbreaking secretary of energy and environment. As Bowles told the crowd in early March, Cape Wind had passed most of its regulatory and litigation hurdles, and the administration was likely to support it.

Bowles was an unqualified supporter of the project, which promises — over a quixotic range of objections from various local NIMBY opponents — to provide a highly promising clean source of energy for Massachusetts. Cape Wind is rated to produce up to 468 megawatts of wind power, with average production of be 170 megawatts — almost 75 percent of the 230 megawatt average demand for Cape Cod and the Islands of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket.

Now that it’s a go, Cape Wind will become a pilot project for the nation and for President Obama’s push for a clean energy economy, a broad, innovative agenda that encompasses (among others) wind power, nuclear energy and myriad efficiency projects that will gain us millions of “negawatts.” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s announcement of the administration’s support for Cape Wind is another chapter in this still-being-written book about the nation’s future — whose pages open, fittingly, where our history begins, in Massachusetts.