It is rare that a decision by the South Dakota State Senate merits national attention. But there is simply no question that this week's vote by that chamber to ban abortion ought to be on the radar of every American who thinks that the right to choose is an issue. Certainly, opponents of reproductive rights recognize the significance; after the South Dakota vote, the Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the militantly anti-choice Christian Defense Coalition, said he saw the foundations of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision crumbling and announced that, "With several states waiting in the wings to ban abortion, momentum is clearly building nationwide to overturn Roe."
Mahoney's allies in South Dakota agree. "The momentum for a change in the national policy on abortion is going to come in the not-too-distant future," says Republican Representative Roger W. Hunt, who has spearheaded the drive to make South Dakota the first state to pass a broad ban on the prodecure since the Roe decision of 33 years ago.
There's a reason this fight is playing out in this state.
South Dakota is one of three states -- North Dakota and Mississippi are the others -- with only one abortion provider.
With an overwhelming 23-12 vote to make it a felony for doctors to perform abortions, the South Dakota Senate has joined the lower house of the legislature -- which backed the bill by a 47-to-22 margin -- to endorse a move that could force the shuttering of that state's last clinic.
The fight is not over. South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds, an anti-choice but somewhat sensible Republican, still must decide whether he wants to sign the bill. But the wide margins in favor of the ban in both houses of the legislature suggest that, even if Rounds determines that the measure goes to far, his veto could face an override threat.
If the South Dakota ban becomes law, it will face an aggressive challenge in the courts. But, as everyone is, by now, well aware, the courts have changed a great deal since the last time they weighed the basic question of whether women will have a right to make decisions with regard to the termination unwanted pregnancies.
Just how dramatically unwanted a pregnancy might be is of little concern to the South Dakota legislators who backed the ban. While a narrow exception was allowed for procedures that would save the life of a pregnant woman, the South Dakotans rejected amendments to the bill that would have provided exceptions in the case of rape or incest or serious threats to the health and well-being of the woman.
Representative Hunt was blunt about why he and other took a hard line: Providing protections in "special circumstances" -- such as cases where children are raped -- would have diluted the bill and muddied the push for a Supreme Court decision overturning Roe.
The court fights that may evolve over this particular measure are, in large measure, beyond the control of the great majority of Americans who support maintaining access to safe and legal birth control procedures. The failure of U.S. Senate Democrats and the handful of pro-choice Republicans in that chamber to filibuster the nomination of Justice Samuel Alito has created an opening that the anti-choice movement has for years been preparing -- on a meticulous state-by-state basis -- to exploit. The Supreme Court may still have a narrow pro-Roe majority, but that will only be known when and if a case involving the South Dakota law, or another one like it, is reviewed.
That does not mean, however, that supporters of reproductive rights have to stand by the sidelines and watch as the momentum builds to overturn Roe. As Nancy Keenan, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America notes, "When you see them have a ban that does not include exceptions for rape or incest or the health of the mother, you understand that elections do matter."
In 2006, 36 governships, including South Dakota's, will be up for election. Additionally, the vast majority of state legislative seats in the 50 states will be selected.
The fight over choice has often played out at the margins of our national politics, exploited by cynical strategists on both sides of the partisan aisle more as a tool to mobilize the passionate than to convince swing voters. Rarely, for instance, are television advertisements seen raising the issue on behalf or against a particular gubernatorial or legislative candidate. But the decision of the South Dakota Senate ought to change the equation for 2006, not merely in that state but nationwide. If ever there was a moment when the debate over reproductive rights was ready for the political primetime, this is it.
While there are plenty of important questions to discuss regarding port security in the United States, all of these issues were present before the Dubai World Ports (DP World) controversy.
People across the political spectrum are focusing on whether an Arab company operating commercial ports is a threat to our security. This focus is fueling anti-Arab and anti-Arab American sentiment while also obscuring the real issues at hand.
Laila Al-Qatami, spokeswoman for the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), reports in a phone interview that her inbox is full of emails telling Arabs to "stay away" and "we don't want your money in the U.S." And, Ms. Al-Qatami notes, "Those are the nice ones."
The Bush Administration has jumped to the defense of DP World not because the company has operated internationally in Germany, Australia, and Hong Kong and is one of the 3 largest port operators in the world; nor because Dubai hosts more U.S. Navy ships than any other country in the region (which it does). And don't be fooled when the President offers this soundbite. "I want those who are questioning it to… explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard…."
The fact is, the administration is defending this deal because their guiding principle is one of maximizing corporate profits, as Harold Meyerson notes in the Washington Post yesterday.
Not surprisingly, the Bush administration has significant business ties to DP World. According to the New York Daily News, David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations, was named by Bush to direct the U.S. Maritime Administration just last month.
And Treasury Secretary John Snow, who headed the federal review of the deal, was Chairman of CSX which sold its international port operations to DP Word for $1.15 billion just one year before Mr. Snow joined the Bush cabinet.
So what are the real security issues we need to be talking about? As the Center For American Progress reports, how about the fact that in 2002 the Coast Guard estimated that it would cost $5.4 billion over 10 years to make the necessary improvements to the nation's ports, and last year only $175 million was appropriated to the program?
How about the fact that only 6 percent of the 9 million containers arriving in U.S. ports are physically inspected by customs agents?
When the President suddenly attempts to wax eloquent about prejudice against "a Middle Eastern company," let's not be fooled about his true motives or lose sight of the real issues. And let's make certain that we continue to issue a clarion call against destructive anti-Arab and anti-Arab American sentiment that threatens to take our nation even further backwards in our continuing struggle for civil and human rights.
I was never wild about the Band of Brothers idea, as Ari notes, and not just because it is such a male (and white) bunch of tired and dreary no-idea candidates. It's a gimmick. A militaristic gimmick. It says Daddy's back and he hates those commie pinko peaceniks just as much as you, patriotic red-blooded red-state America! What's next, Band of Preachers?
Tammy Duckworth is a great human-interest story, but that's not a reason to support her candidacy. Running her is an act of considerable cynicism-- but it seems to be working. Ari, I'm guessing you'd barely heard of her before a few weeks ago, and you're practically ready to support her. The centrist mantra is working it's magic: Already you're having trouble telling the difference between the candidate who walks the walk and has grassroots support, and the candidate who is basically a photo-op. Who says Duckworth is the more electable of the two, besides the pols who recruited her to run?
Duckworth wants to stay in Iraq, she's allied with the more conservative wing of the party, and she seems to have very little substantive to say about most issues. She' s trying to push out of the way a candidate who has a lot of support, more local roots, who ran an incredible race last time, and who has much better politics. I would trust Cegelis a thousand times over Duckworth to take progressive stands once elected, including on women's rights and abortion rights. Duckworth told the Washington Post she thinks abortion shouldn't be a federal issue. That's not exactly a ringing defense of abortion rights, since unfortunately it IS a federal issue.
If it's all the same to you whether the US stays in Iraq or not, if you think women candidates are fungible and it makes no difference that one has been part of progressive politics in the district for years while the other was trying to get into active combat because (according to the WashPost) she thought flying helicopters was cool, by all means, support Duckworth.
Maybe it's not surprising that media coverage of Larry Summers's resignation as Harvard University's President has focused on his personal style. After all, Summers--by most accounts--alienated many with a manner widely seen as bullying, arrogant, divisive. But, as my former colleague, longtime Russia watcher and ex-Nation blogger Matt Bivens reminds us, where's the media reporting on Summer's infamous World Bank memo and, of special interest to me, his role in Russian corruption during the Yeltsin years. After all, as Bivens describes below, these incidents illuminate Summers' character as much as his bully boy tactics as Harvard's soon-to-be-ex-President.
The infamous Summers Memorandum
At a time when he was the chief economist of the World Bank – a powerful post at what bills itself as the premier organization for assisting poor countries – Summers sent an internal memo to colleagues at the Bank arguing for shipping pollution to the Third World.
In Summers' analysis, the cost of a person's premature death was measured by the loss of potential earned income. So if living next to a dioxin-emitting plant takes five years off the average life expectancy of a relatively well-paid American, that is far more significant an event than if a similar plant causes the same damage to, for example, the average African. "Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [less developed countries]?" Summers wrote. "The economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to it."
When the memo was outed by environmentalists, it provoked headlines around the world -- including the memorable "Save Planet Earth from Economists" in the Financial Times – and responses from many disgusted world leaders, including the Brazilian Cabinet minister who observed that Summers' argument was "perfectly logical but totally insane."
Summers responded that it had been an ironic exercise, a game to encourage more rigorous thinking at the bank. As Summers' political star rose – from the World Bank he became a Deputy Treasury Secretary under Clinton, then Treasury Secretary, and then President of Harvard – the "Summers memo" dogged his footsteps. When asked about it, Summers usually concedes a general error -- "when I make a mistake, it's a whopper" – and then refuses to discuss it further, or, worse, mumbles something oddly qualified – i.e., the memo's "sentiment" is "all wrong" even though there are "real issues about trade-offs between growth and the environment."
As the mThe New Yorker reported that a young economist working at the time for Summers was the *real* author; to hear Summers and his young protégé tell it, this was a heart-warming story about how Summers was a stand-up guy who was careless about what he signed. A few years later still, the story of the memo was that it had been "doctored" from a long half-joking critique of current economics into "a deliberate fraud and forgery to discredit Larry and the World Bank."
I'll leave it to you to decide whether Larry Summers is the kind of guy who would take the flak for 15 long years over a **doctored forgery. **
Summers & Russian Corruption
After the World Bank job and before the Harvard presidency, Summers was a Clinton man. At the Treasury Department, he was America's architect of economic policy toward Russia, at a time when that nation was struggling to emerge from its Soviet past, and looking to us for guidance.
Summers used his position to sing the praises of the so-called "energetic young reformers" – a phrase Boris Yeltsin helped coin that these days is rarely spoken in Russian circles except as a sarcastic insult.
Ten years ago, on the eve of Yeltsin's 1996 re-election, the Russian president disappeared from view and his most famous "young reformer," Anatoly Chubais, took the stage. Chubais had a few months earlier been publicly fired by Yeltsin – Yeltsin at that time had accused him, in so many words, of being on the take, of selling off Russia's oil fields and precious metal mines for kopecks in return for bribes. Now here was Chubais on TV again, apparently in charge of things – this came as a shock to many Russians. And as Yeltsin was heading in for risky heart by-pass surgery, he was promising, in not-so-veiled language, a Chubais-led junta if the surgery failed. (Did I mention that Chubais talked of ruling via a committee named "The Cheka"?)
This topped a year in which Chubais had been absolutely indifferent in public to the then-new-and-horrible war in Chechnya (and a few years later, Chubais would cry "treason" when responsible national figures dared question Vladimir Putin's reprise of Yeltsin's war). A year in which Russia's natural resources had been parceled out among friends, via openly-rigged "auctions." A year of political campaigning in which Chubais had met in the Kremlin with leading Russian newspaper editors and, according to Nezavisimaya Gazeta editor Vitaly Tretyakov, ordered them to do as they were told, because "if you don't, bones will crack."
None of this – not the flirtation with a Chubais-led Cheka, not the hijacking of the nation's wealth – worried Summers. When Yeltsin survived surgery and promoted Chubais back to a top government post, Summers enthused that Russia had just received her"economic dream team." (Perhaps Summers was thinking of shipping US toxic waste to Russia?)
While Clinton Administration official Summers praised the dream team, some of his good friends were working with it.
Andrei Shleifer – a young economist protégé of Summers' – ran a US-government-funded project to help Russia map its economic future. Under the auspices of the Harvard Institute for International Development, Shleifer and his American team advised Chubais and his Russian team on how to sell off the natural resource fields, how to set up capital and financial markets, etc.
Five years after its launch, Shleifer's project collapsed amid corruption allegations. It quicklybecame public -- thanks to whistleblowers in Russia -- that even as they were providing "disinterested advice" to Russia, Shleifer, his lieutenant Jonathan Hay, and both men's wives had been making direct investments to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars in these same projects. Perhaps most damningly, to quote a US government press release on the matter, "Shleifer and Hay participated in the launching and/or financing of Russia's first licensed mutual fund, which was started by Elizabeth Hebert, Hay's then girlfriend, now wife, and (b) Russia's first licensed mutual fund depository, the First Russian Specialized Depository ('FRSD'), which was started by Hebert's business partner and provided support services to the mutual fund."
In 2004, Shleifer & Co. lost a case brought by the US Justice Department against them and against their employer, Harvard University: the Justice Department accused them of violating conflict-of-interest provisions in their contracts. The original 98-page complaint asserted that Shleifer and his lieutenant arranged for the US government to pay hefty salaries to people who worked on their personal side business projects, and who rarely showed up for their ostensible government jobs "other than to collect their pay or for the free lunches."
It was an ironic coincidence that Summers technically joined old pal Shleifer in the docket: In the interim he had become President of Harvard and so was listed among the accused. (For an excellent account of the beating Harvard took in this trial at the hands of baffled and indignant ordinary American jurors, click here.)
In July 2005, Harvard and Shleifer finally settled the case. Harvard agreed to pay $26.5 million, Shleifer $2 million. Shleifer defiantly insisted to the end that he had done nothing wrong. Or, rather, that it had not been wrong of him to invest up, down, left and right in the same games he was being handsomely paid with US government funds to referee. Summers, and Harvard stood by throughout. And now Summers and Shleifer will, apparently, be teaching econ together next year at Harvard.
Larry Summers resigned. Alan Dershowitz called it an "academic coup d'etat" engineered by the "radical, hard-left element" at Harvard. He worried the PC-cops would end academic freedom and raised the specter of '60s, European-style student uprisings. But Sam pointed out that if the Crimson take to the barricades, it would be in defense of the administration, and I didn't even know Harvard had a radical, hard-left element!
Confused and seeking guidance, I bought David Horowitz's The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. It's $27.95 that will go to frontpagemag.com, but I couldn't resist. After I got over my disappointment at not making the cut -- alright, so I'm not exactly a professor yet, but I'm the kind of guy who picks up People's "Fifty Most Beautiful" issue and wonders how come the editors lost my headshot again -- I thumbed through the volume and here's the good news. The Nation is well represented. We got Stanley Aronowitz (CUNY), David Cole (Georgetown), Juan Cole (Michigan), Michael Eric Dyson (UPenn), Richard Falk (Princeton), Eric Foner (Columbia), Tom Hayden (Occidental), Robert McChesney (Illinois), and last but not least, the deadly Victor Navasky (Columbia). Vic's main assault seems to be disseminating "The Nation's far-left agendas throughout the American education system." There's also something in there about Vic and "other apologists for Communism" being complicit in the deaths of 100 million innocent people, but Horowitz glosses right over it to get to the pernicious RadioNation offense now airing on "forty college radio stations"! Yikes!
(I wish I could report that Victor had in fact colonized the minds of undergrads everywhere, but alas, when I tell students I used to work at The Nation the response I usually get is: "Oh really, which one?")
I can't figure out why mad law professor Patricia Williams didn't make the grade, but don't worry women are well represented on the Horowitz honor roll: Lisa Anderson (Columbia), bell hooks (CUNY), Mari Matsuda (Georgetown), Eve Sedgwick (CUNY), Bernardine Dohrn (Northwestern), Angela Davis (UC Santa Cruz) and Kathleen Cleaver (Emory) among others.
Anyway, Harvard doesn't have a single academic on Horowitz's list. Nonetheless, using the Summer's presidency as a case study and methodological "yardstick," Horowitz concludes that there are 25,000-30,000 radical professors at American universities who teach over 3 million students a year. Getting rid of these folks is Horowitz's version of "academic freedom," and he's launched a raft of bills and conferences through Students for Academic Freedom.
Between Horowitz's campaign and Dershowitz's vision of purges driven by the "radical, hard-left," the bodycount in the academy could get pretty high. Maybe, just maybe, if I keep my head down, don't say anything controversial, political or interesting, I'll land a tenure-track job. Then I can finally kick back and enjoy my "academic freedom."
Shortly after Katha raised complaints about the largely male composition of the Band of Brothers--the veterans running for Congress as Dems in 2006--the Washington Post ran a front page story on Tammy Duckworth, a 37-year-old soldier who lost both legs while serving in Iraq and is now running for an open Congressional seat in suburban Chicago long held by Rep. Henry Hyde.
It's an amazing, remarkable story. Unfortunately, the politics of the race complicates things. In 2004, Democrat Christine Cegelis, a businesswoman and single mother, unexpectedly took 44 percent of the vote against Hyde with virtually no establishment support, becoming a favorite of grassroots groups like Howard Dean's Democracy for America (DFA). Cegelis planned to run again, but Illinois politicians Rahm Emanuel, Dick Durbin and Barack Obama recruited Tammy Duckworth, who became an instant media favorite. Now two women are vying to replace an old white man.
Both Duckworth and Cegelis opposed the Iraq war, but Cegelis wants a timetable for withdrawing US troops while Duckworth believes they should stay. Both say they strongly support abortion rights and have lined up union backing. Duckworth is favored by the DCCC and Emily's List. Cegelis has won endorsements from DFA and Progressive Democrats of America. Though Cegelis has more political experience, she's the outsider in the race.
Cegelis certainly seems the more progressive of the two. But Duckworth has the more compelling narrative in a red district that is turning blue. So I'm torn. Cockburn has already weighed in. Katha, who would you pick?
In the moment of executive excess, when abuses of the powers of the presidency and -- thanks to Dick Cheney's contributions to the crisis -- the vice presidency are so threatening to the Republic, it is important to remember that this is not a new fight. Cheney was the prime defender of the "right" of the executive branch to disregard Congress and the Constitution during the Iran-Contra scandal of the late 1980s, contributing a chilling dissent to the bipartisan Congressional report that accused the Reagan administration of "secrecy, deception and disdain for the law."
In that dissent, the man who then represented Wyoming in the House chastised Congress for "abusing its power" by seeking to limit the ability of the president and his aides to spend money as they chose in support of the Nicaraguan Contras. "Congress must recognize that effective foreign policy requires, and the Constitution mandates, the President to be the country's foreign policy leader," argued Cheney, it what remains one of history's most dramatic misreads of the Constitutional mandates with regard to the Constitutional system of checks and balances.
This messianic faith that the executive branch is above the law, which Cheney first spelled out as a member of Congress, has only hardened during his tenure as the most powerful vice president in history. Now, with the war in Iraq fully degenerated into quagmire and with the "war on terror" being used as an excuse for everything from warrantless wiretapping to extension of the Patriot Act, the Cheney doctrine infects the body politic as a cancer so widespread that is raises honest concern about the health and future of the American experiment.
It is important to recall, however, that the dangers inherent in Cheney's views were diagnosed almost two decades ago, in the aftermath of the Iran-Contra debacle.
Historian Theodore Draper, who has died at age 93, penned a brilliant assessment of the specific scandal and the broader concern, A Very Thin Line: The Iran-Contra Affairs (Hill & Wang: 1991) which used congressional testimony and private depositions to explain the controversy that erupted after it was revealed that the Reagan administration had set up an entirely illegal scheme to sell arms to Iranian fundmentalists in order to raise money that funded Contra terrorism against the Nicaraguan government and people. The title of the book refers to what Draper saw as "a very thin line (separating) the legitimate from the illegitimate exercise of power in our government."
To Draper's view, the Iran-Contra scandal was "symptomatic of a far deeper disorder in the American body politic" -- a malady characterized by the misguided view that the United States can or should disregard the system of checks and balances in order to create "a president almighty in foreign policy."
Draper warned us well about that "deeper disorder. Unfortunately, his was a warning unheeded. Now, as we struggle with its deadly ramifications, we would do well to return to Draper's text -- not merely to honor a visionary historian who saw both the past and the future, but to arm ourselves for the fight over whether this country will be governed by the rule of law or the rule of Cheney.
John Nichols's book The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Most Powerful Vice President in American History (The New Press) is available nationwide at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com. Publisher's Weekly describes it as "a Fahrenheit 9/11 for Cheney" and Esquire magazine says it "reveals the inner Cheney."
In 2004, the Bush-Cheney campaign asked conservative activists to send them their church membership directories for political organizing purposes. Although most religious leaders condemned the tactic, some rightwing evangelicals jumped on board.
Clergy reportedly attended GOP-led sessions on how to talk about the election from the pulpit without violating laws regarding tax-exempt institutions. There were requests for church volunteer coordinators to distribute information and speak for the campaign. A group associated with Pat Robertson worked with more than 45,000 churches to help Bush-Cheney win. And churches set up "moral action teams" to get Christian right voters to the polls.
Now the North Carolina Republican Party has once again ripped this page from the Rove Playbook for the 2006 mid-term elections.
Last week, the state party sent out an email asking registered Republicans to furnish it with "as many church directories as you can…in an effort to fully register, educate, and energize North Carolina's congregations," according to Alan Cooperman of the Washington Post.
Party officials claim that they are only engaging in voter registration efforts. But as Rev. Welton Gaddy, President of The Interfaith Alliance, said, "No one bought that defense during the 2004 elections and we won't buy it in 2006 either."
Rev. Robert Prince III, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Waynesville, NC, stated in the Asheville Citizen-Times, "I find it disturbing. I don't think it's a good idea…because of church-state type issues." Two local pastors, according to the Greensboro News & Record, also objected to the state GOP's practice. Rev. Ken Massey of the city's First Baptist Church said the request was "encroaching on sacred territory."
Mainstream religious leaders and most Americans understand the vital role that separation of church and state plays in protecting our plurality and freedom of religion. But don't count on those like North Carolina's Republican Party to catch on any time soon. After all, it is increasingly clear that Rovean Republicans' commitment to the Constitution is little more than a matter of political expedience.
It's getting rather macabre up in San Quentin's death chamber. For two nights in a row convicted killer Michael Morales was scheduled to die by lethal injection. Two times he didn't.
His Monday night date with death was postponed at the last moment when two anesthesiologists walked out, stating ethical concerns. They could not in good conscience, they said, carry out their task of monitoring the execution because they didn't trust the integrity of the lethal dosage system. They feared that Morales might not die quickly and painlessly and that it would fall upon them to re-awaken the prisoner and prepare him for a second jolt.
After Monday night's snafu, Morales was re-scheduled to be killed late Tuesday night. California state officials then proposed he be executed with a massive dose of just sodium pentathol, a drug that causes death in 30 to 45 minutes instead of the usual 11 minutes it takes when a three-chemical load is used.
Matters got further complicated when, two hours before Tuesday's execution, a Federal judge imposed new conditions to ward off a botched and painful procedure. He ordered that a licensed medical professional would have to directly inject the barbiturate into Morales' vein.
But then the state attorney general's office halted the whole grim show when it said that this was not a recognized medical procedure and no medical professional would be ordered to comply.
Bottom line: Morales' execution has been put off at least until May when a two-day court hearing is scheduled. What a moment this would be for a vigorous anti-death penalty movement to surge upward in California. But this is an election year and political courage is running as short as compassion.
Francis Fukuyama's 1992 book The End of History was arguably the most influential post-Cold War neoconservative tract. But for some time Fukuyama's been uneasy with his fellow neocons, mostly because of the Iraq war. In a big New York Times Magazine article this week, Fukuyama makes the break once and for all:
Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.
The neocons over-reliance on military power, egotistical brand of American exceptionalism and go-it-alone bravado are all contributing factors Fukuyama cites. His essay brings to mind Ronald Reagan's famous rejoinder:
I didn't leave the Democratic Party. It left me.
But as our colleague David Corn notes, Fukuyama should've known what he was getting into. He did, after all, sign a letter from the Project for a New American Century a week after 9/11 advocating for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein:
It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a "safe zone" in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.
A little history can be a dangerous thing.