The Nation

Debating Rangel's Draft

Congressman Charles Rangel announced earlier this month that he willpush to renew the military draft. Rangel argues, forcefully, that thedraft will spread the burden of war more equitably and force politicalleaders to think twice about starting wars. "There's no question in mymind that this president and this administration would never haveinvaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented tothe Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and theadministration thought that their kids from their communities would beplaced in harm's way."

The 18-term Representative, and incoming Chair of the powerful Ways andMeans Committee has already introduced a bill. Lawrence O'Donnell overat the Huffington Post has a strong piece supporting Rangel's move. Let hisbill come to a vote, O'Donnell insists. House Majority Leader NancyPelosi "should let the House debate the draft. Let the Republicans givespeeches listing all the good reasons why we should have a volunteerArmy. But let's hear Rangel's speech about how the burden of war is notfairly shared in this country. Let's get America thinking about exactlywho is being left in the line of fire in the war Americans have turnedagainst and know we can't win. Let's get America thinking about JohnKerry's line about Vietnam--who is going to be the last soldier to diefor a mistake? A real debate on the draft will do that. Don't worry, thebill has no chance of passing."

It all makes a lot of sense. But if you want to read a powerful counterto O'Donnell's take, check out Nation columnist Katha Pollitt'slucid column, "Do You Feel aDraft" from June 7, 2004.) " For many," Pollitt writes, "the draftsummons up ideals of valor, adulthood, public service andself-sacrifice--SHARED self-sacrifice. Those are all good things, butthe draft is still a bad idea."

Pollitt goes on to ask, "Given our ever more stratified and atomizedsociety, why expect the draft to be equal or fair?" And she deflates theargument that the draft will produce opposition to war.

It's Pollitt's larger point that progressive supporters of the draftshould think hard about. "Supporters of the draft are using it topromote indirectly politics we should champion openly and up front. It'sterrible that working class teenagers join the Army to get college fundsor job training or work--what kind of nation is this where Jessica Lynchhad to invade Iraq in order to fulfill her modest dream of becoming anelementary school teacher and Shoshanna Johnson has to be a cook on thebattlefield to qualify for a culinary job back home?"

We need to fight, at home, for a a society that is more just andfair--and not rely on the draft to level our obscenely unequal playingfield. (One place to start: fight for a real GI Bill--which made for amore equal America--not a renewal of the draft.)

A Republican Takes the Lead on Iraq

In radio and television interviews since the election, I have argued repeatedly that the November 7 vote did not just empower Democrats to do the right thing with regard to the Iraq debacle. It also freed up Republicans -- particularly Senate Republicans who have long been ill at ease with the neoconservative nonsense peddled by the Bush administration.

Now that the votes have been counted, the American people are ready for swift steps to extract U.S. forces from a no-win situation.

Yet, while Democratic leaders talk of "going slow," smart Republicans are recognizing the political opening and seizing it.

Case in point: Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel's opinion piece in Sunday's Washington Post.

Hagel has long been blunter than his Democratic colleagues about the disaster that the Iraq occupation has become for the U.S. The Nebraska Republican was making comparisons between the Vietnam War, in which he served, and the Iraq imbroglio months ago -- at a point when most Senate Democrats were holding their tongues.

Hagel has now taken the mightly leap of declaring that it is time to "form a bipartisan consensus to get out of Iraq."

"We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam," Hagel writes in the Post. "Honorable intentions are not policies and plans. Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. They will decide their fate and form of government.

While I might disagree with Hagel about the "honorable intentions" of the invasion and occupation, he gets no challenge from this quarter on his observations that the war has been "misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged" and that the Bush administration's approach has been characterized by "arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam."

Hagel is making precisely the case for withdrawal that Congressional Democrats should be offering at this point:

"The United States must begin planning for a phased troop withdrawal from Iraq. The cost of combat in Iraq in terms of American lives, dollars and world standing has been devastating. We've already spent more than $300 billion there to prosecute an almost four-year-old war and are still spending $8 billion per month. The United States has spent more than $500 billion on our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And our effort in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate, partly because we took our focus off the real terrorist threat, which was there, and not in Iraq," the Nebraskan argues. "We are destroying our force structure, which took 30 years to build. We've been funding this war dishonestly, mainly through supplemental appropriations, which minimizes responsible congressional oversight and allows the administration to duck tough questions in defending its policies. Congress has abdicated its oversight responsibility in the past four years."

Now, with a new Congress about to charge, Hagel writes, "It is not too late. The United States can still extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq."

Democrats should be asking themselves: Why is a Republican taking the lead on the issue that played such a pivotal role in putting Democrats in charge of the House and Senate?

The honest answer is an unsettling one.

Right now, Hagel is sounding more realistic and responsible than most if not all of the Democrats who are positioning themselves for 2OO8 presidential runs. Indeed, with Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, the first senator to call for an withdrawal timeline, out of the running, Democrats could use a candidate who speaks as directly as does Hagel about the need to get out of Iraq. While it is true that Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who may or may not be running, is a Democrat who has started to make some of the right noises, Obama has not begun to equal the directness of Hagel's declaration that: "The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation -- regardless of our noble purpose."

This is not to say that Hagel, who entertains presidential ambitions of his own, should switch parties. He's still a domestic-policy conservative, and something of a hawk on foreign policy. Yet, he is the one saying that: "If the president fails to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy, America will pay a high price for this blunder -- one that we will have difficulty recovering from in the years ahead."

If they are outflanked by Republicans like Hagel on the central issue of our time, Democrats will also pay a high price. They will lose the popular support and the moral authority that their November 7 successes gave them. And Americans, who polls show are ready for rapid withdrawal, will give their support to the leaders who are willing to say not just that it is time to bring the troops home but also, as Hagel does, that it is time for the U.S. to radically alter its approach to the Middle East.

Would that the Democratic leadership would say, as Hagel admit, that, "America finds itself in a dangerous and isolated position in the world. We are perceived as a nation at war with Muslims. Unfortunately, that perception is gaining credibility in the Muslim world and for many years will complicate America's global credibility, purpose and leadership. This debilitating and dangerous perception must be reversed as the world seeks a new geopolitical, trade and economic center that will accommodate the interests of billions of people over the next 25 years. The world will continue to require realistic, clear-headed American leadership -- not an American divine mission."


John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism is being published this month by The New Press. "With The Genius of Impeachment," writes David Swanson, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, "John Nichols has produced a masterpiece that should be required reading in every high school and college in the United States." Studs Terkel says: "Never within my nonagenarian memory has the case for impeachment of Bush and his equally crooked confederates been so clearly and fervently offered as John Nichols has done in this book. They are after all our public SERVANTS who have rifled our savings, bled our young, and challenged our sanity. As Tom Paine said 200 years ago to another George, a royal tramp: 'Bugger off!' So should we say today. John Nichols has given us the history, the language and the arguments we will need to do so." The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com

A Progressive Beat

After progressive victories across the nation on Election Day – with winning candidates at the federal, state, and local levels, and on issues ranging from the minimum wage to tax policy – two things are clear: the American public is much more receptive to progressive ideas than suggested by the media, and the conservative movement is in disarray.

So it was disappointing on November 17th to read the New York Times recycling of an old story written time and again about the power of rightwing think tanks: "Policy institutes have been central to a national organizing strategy that has long won the right a reputation for savvy, and state-level versions are growing in number and clout."

Yes, it's true, rightwing think tanks have been effective through their ideological discipline and ample resources. But the progressive community recognizes the importance of defining issues and advancing a policy agenda, too. There is now a network of savvy progressive think tanks working at the state level – and they are winning. So here's a modest proposal: perhaps it's time for the paper of record to create a beat on the progressive movement.

"The other side gets way too much credit," says Michael Ettlinger, Director of the Economic Analysis and Research Network (EARN). "Basically they have one idea: lower taxes and eliminate government. People act like they've been able to take command of the American consciousness and that's just not true."

EARN has 47 groups in 36 states. The organization links local, state, and national groups that conduct research, develop and advocate for policy, mobilize public opinion and win state policy victories. EARN works on a range of issues, including minimum and living wages, workforce and economic development, Social Security, education, tax and budget, and health care. This year EARN is developing broad state-level economic agendas that will offer a well-crafted, well-framed, counterbalance to the "tax cuts are the answer to everything" policy of the right. (It has already generated such agendas in conjunction with the Fiscal Policy Institute in New York and the Bell Policy Center in Colorado.)

"I'll stack our groups up against the rightwing think tanks in terms of effective communication and influence any day," Ettlinger says. "We have to prove not only that government can work, but how it can work. And we do it well. You will hear legislators say they disagree with us, but our numbers are right. You won't hear them say that about the right's work--because the right is much more concerned about its mission than the truth."

Tim McFeeley, Executive Director of the Center for Policy Alternatives (CPA), is optimistic about the progressive movement's growing infrastructure as well. "People recognize the need for players at the state level – including funders," McFeeley says. "We're way behind – conservatives have a 20 year head start – but we've made progress in the last two years. We have the resources and talent to do it even better [than the right], we just need the focus and ongoing commitment."

CPA works with legislators in all 50 states to advocate for progressive policymaking through leadership development (several of its fellows have gone onto Congress, including Senator-elect Jon Tester); policy tools that help legislators introduce and promote progressive initiatives; and networking between like-minded legislators to share information and develop strategies for success (nearly one in every four legislators in the nation has taken part in the CPA State Action Network).

McFeeley says there is a "seamless hand-off" between conservative think tanks and business lobbyists in state capitols who are advocating for little government and less taxes. In contrast, the progressive community faces the challenge of uniting its diverse forces.

"We have unions, gay rights advocates, civil rights lobbyists, environmentalists, etc.," McFeeley says. "But we're not working enough yet in a strategic, connected way. There is a sense that we have to get together still. So we're working on strategic partnerships with organizations that are on the ground locally – to get everyone in the same room."

McFeeley points to recent progressive victories in defeating Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) legislation – a gimmick designed to provide more tax breaks to wealthy corporations while forcing states to slash spending that benefits average residents. "We won, but there was a sense that we were playing defense," he says. "Now we are figuring out how to play offense."

Matt Singer, Communications Director for the Progressive States Network, also sees progressives addressing the need to transition to offense. "A lot of what we are doing, conservatives have been doing for 30 years with more resources," he says. "But we are on the ball now and things are happening quickly."

The Progressive States Network works with legislators, organizations, and think tanks across the country to craft new initiatives, develop coordination between legislators and advocates, and make sure "we're not reinventing the wheel in all fifty states."

In terms of strategy, Singer says progressives are much more savvy about choosing headline issues such as the minimum wage to lead campaigns for change. They strive to focus on policies that will change the way coalitions work in the United States (like same day voter registration and union card check legislation). And progressives don't shy away from wedge issues that fragment the opposition.

"There are a lot of good ideas out there," Singer says. "We just have to get them into the hands of the policymakers and help them win."

Ettlinger believes that as a result of the Democratic wave "kitchen-table" issues will start getting a lot of attention – from paid leave to the broken health care system to universal childcare to access to higher education. And new regional think tanks spearheaded by the Center for American Progress are emerging to help fight these battles as well.

Over the past decade, Nation contributing editor Joel Rogers has probably been the single most important advocate and architect of a progressive state policy presence [see, among other pieces, Nation, "Devolve This!"/"Cities: The Vital Core"/"Build the High Road Here"]. Director of the Wisconsin-based COWS, one of the earliest "think-and-do" tanks on progressive state policy, Rogers has been a moving force behind EARN, the Apollo Alliance, New Cities and other efforts to build national infrastructure for state work. His latest effort is the Commons Project, named after JR Commons, the Wisconsin progressive reformer of the early 20th century. This project will complement grassroots and legislative-focused efforts, while concentrating on providing policy support to progressive Governors and other state executives (Attorney Generals, Secretaries of State, Treasures, and others.)

"Absolutely there's a great opening for progressives in the states, and we're much better organized now to make something of it. Unlike many national leaders, Governors and other state executives can't afford ideology-driven policy," Rogers points out. "They need things that actually work. They've shown their willingness to try new ideas. It falls to progressives to supply more of them. That's a great invitation to offer practical alternatives that advance our values, and cohere as a majority agenda. The Right reinvented national government from the states. We can do the same."

If the New York Times, other mainstream media outlets, and more of the blogosphere started reporting on what's really going on in the progressive movement, especially at the state level, people might more readily envision a different and better world. After all, no one will cross Jordan until they see what is on the other side.

Media, Democracy and the FCC

In 2003, an unprecedented groundswell of popular opposition killed then-Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell's efforts to eliminate rules that limit the ability of one corporation to monopolize all the media outlets in a given place.

But, once again, media-industry lobbyists and their allies on the FCC are working to revise the rules on media ownership to allow a single corporation to own most, if not all, of the newspapers, radio and TV stations and Internet news and entertainment sites in your town. Last June, new FCC chairman Kevin Martin issued a draft policy proposal -- called a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making -- that kick-started Big Media's latest attempt to weaken the rules protecting local voices, vibrant competition and diverse viewpoints.

Now the battle is on. Martin, a far more savvy politician than his predecessor, is keenly aware that Powell was roundly criticized in 2003 for trying to ram through radical regulatory changes with virtually no public input. So he has opened up the decision-making process somewhat and permitted hearings on the proposed policies nationwide. But Martin and the two Republican members of the commission have restricted their involvement to six public meetings, while pro-regulation commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein have hit the road to chair additional sessions. (The next official hearing with all five commissioners takes place on December 11 in Nashville, TN.)

On November 30, the Seattle Public Library will host a 6:00pm public hearing on media ownership with FCC Commissioners Copps and Adelstein. The hearing will help the FCC gather public comment as it considers revising its media-ownership rules. This is Seattle's opportunity to weigh in on an issue critical to our culture and our democracy.

And everyone can weigh in by clicking here to file a public comment with the FCC registering your opposition to the lifting of the current media-ownership rules. (The final deadline for comment is December 21.) Also, check out the ReclaimTheMedia site for background on the FCC, for ways you can get involved in the fight for local and non-corporate media and for directions to the Seattle library.

Backdoor Diplomacy in Iraq

On Thanksgiving eve, writer and activist Tom Hayden posted an explosive article at Huffington Post about what may be elements of the US's secret diplomatic exit strategy from Iraq. Hayden details a possible endgame strategy--including reports of US officials having contacted Sunni nationalist insurgents to explore a cease-fire and replacement of the Iraqi Al-Maliki government with an interim one. He also alleges that in October Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice appealed to the Gulf Cooperation Council to serve as intermediaries between the US and armed Sunni resistance groups [not Al Qaeda].

Such contacts, Hayden also makes clear, "may be nothing more than 'probes'--in the historic spirit of divide-and-conquer, before escalating the Iraq war in a Baghdad offensive....Yet Americans who voted in the November election because of a deep belief that a change of government in Washington might end the war have a right to know their votes counted." Confronted with an escalating humanitarian disaster in Iraq and increasingly horrific sectarian violence, it appears the US may be offering significant concessions without its citizens knowing.

"It is wild," Hayden wrote in an email Friday afternoon. "Bush-Rice-Maliki to Amman, Cheney to Saudi Arabia. The Iraq Study Group preparing its conclusions, the Pentagon preparing proposals of its own. Is it all just a reshuffling after the November elections, and in response to the devastating casualty levels in Iraq? Can the Democrats cohere around a proposal of their own? Or should we expect it all to go on, behind masks of diplomacy and management of our perceptions?"

As his latest article reveals, there is a quickening interest in US dialogue with the insurgents and the Iranians, a course opposed fiercely by some in Washington and Baghdad. The American public deserves to know what's going on, but if history is any guide, we'll likely be the last to know.

Click here to read Hayden's article detailing the secret story of a possible US retreat from Iraq and check out Hayden's follow-up on documents showing there have been secret talks between the US and the armed Iraqi insurgency.

Political "News" Replaced By Political Ads

When Franklin Roosevelt and the first New Deal Congress faced the question of how best to organize broadcasting on the public airwaves, they enacted the federal Communications Act of 1934. That law brought into the modern age the principle that had underpinned the "freedom of the press" protection in the first amendment to the Constitution: that a competitive and responsible media was essential to the healthy functioning of a democracy.

Though the airwaves belonged to the people, private owners would be allowed to broadcast on particular frequencies. Ownership would be diverse, competition would be encouraged and all who used the people's airwaves would be required to do so in the public interest.

Over the ensuing decades, the radio and television airwaves have been colonized by ever more powerful corporate interests. Media conglomerates have used their economic power – a power obtained through their exploitation of the people's airwaves – to hire lobbyists and secure ever more favorable federal rules and regulations. Slowly, the civic and democratic values that were intended to guide broadcasting have been replaced by commercial and entertainment values.

The duty to inform the public about the political processes of the Republic, which once was considered the essential responsibility of the recipient of a broadcast license, has been abandoned. The amount of news coverage of state and local elections is in decline, while television stations cede the political discussion to paid advertising.

How bad has the circumstance become?

In the month before this year's mid-term elections, local television news viewers received dramatically more information about the candidates and their campaigns from paid political advertisements than from news coverage, a just-completed University of Wisconsin-Madison NewsLab study concludes.

Local newscasts in seven Midwest markets aired 4 minutes, 24 seconds of paid political ads during the typical 30-minute broadcast while dedicating an average of 1 minute, 43 seconds to election news coverage.

Even the miniscule amount of attention that was paid to electioneering by the news departments of local television stations in markets spread across some of the key battleground states of the Midwest was warped. According to the analysis, "most of the news coverage of elections on early and late-evening broadcasts was devoted to campaign strategy and polling, which outpaced reporting on policy issues by a margin of more than three to one (65 percent to 17 percent)."

What makes these figures all the more troubling is the fact that, while local television stations are clearly failing to provide adequate coverage of the most basic functions of democracy, they continue to be the primary source of information for voters. In other words, the great majority of citizens who rely on television news for the healthy diet of information that is needed in order to cast informed votes are being starved by station owners who are more interested in collecting revenues from political advertisers than in meeting the responsibilities of a broadcast license holder.

How should citizens respond? There are two necessary actions:

1.) The data gathered by the UW researchers should be employed in broader efforts by citizen groups to challenge the renewal of broadcast licenses for communications corporations that are failing to serve the communities in which they own stations. These challenges are legitimate and they should be pursued aggressively. For more information, visit www.freepress.net

2.) Federal and state legislators should take up proposals to require commercial television and radio stations to provide free air time to all serious candidates as a means to counter the influence of commercials and, hopefully, to energize the news coverage of campaigns. For more on this, visit the website of the national campaign, endorsed by Walter Chronkite and others, visit www.freeairtime.org and www.campaignlegalcenter.org


John Nichols is the co-founder with Robert W. McChesney of Free Press, the national media reform network. Nichols and McChesney are the co-authors of many books on media policy, including Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy, which is just out in paperback from The New Press.

Can We Feed the World? Absolutely

It is Thanksgiving Day, a moment when Americans celebrate the abundance of our harvest.

There is much to be thankful for. Most, though certainly not all, Americans will be well fed this day.

We enjoy the gift of residence in a land that is far more wealthy, far more productive and far more secure than most.

How ought we to say thanks?

By answering responsibly and realistically to calls for help from those living in lands that are neither so wealthy, nor so productive, nor so secure as our own.

For the past five years, the most visible contribution of the United States to the rest of the world has been chaos. No matter what one thinks of the reasons for going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. has engaged in those endeavors ineptly. And, in so doing, a country that has the power to do immense good has instead been saddled with the image of a bullying incompetent.

That needs to change, not merely for the good of regions that are currently experiencing unnecessary conflict but for the good of the United States.

Simply put, this country needs to improve its image.

Where to begin?

The best place to start is by getting serious about ending hunger on the planet.

Is it possible to end hunger?


"Food supply is not the central issue in reducing hunger," explains Craig Jenkins, a professor of sociology and political science at Ohio State University who has conducted groundbreaking research into the question of whether it is possible to feed the world. "Hunger is largely a political issue."

Jenkins and his colleagues conducted a groundbreaking study of hunger in 53 developing nations with populations of more than 1 million that identified the role that internal war and violence, political repression, high levels of arms trade and population pressures play in locking great masses of people into poverty.

According to Jenkins, the key to reducing hunger throughout the world involves the recognition that challenge is more than just one of agricultural and economic development.

"Hunger is also a distributional problem, and the obstacles to improved distribution are primarily political," says the professor. "Conflict regulation, violence prevention, the reduction of international arms trade, and the protection of civil and political rights should be central to policies that address hunger."

So where should an American, duly inspired by the seasonal spirit, send a check?

While there are many good groups working smart on hunger issues, here are a couple of recommendations:

* The American Friends Service Committee: More than any other group working in the international sector, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning AFSC has long recognized the need to address issues of violence, discrimination and economic injustice in order to address hunger and poverty. Their work on the ground in Africa and the Middle East has been especially sensitive and effective. Especially impressive is their Wage Peace Campaign, which highlights the economic and social costs of war and violence, and their Africa: Life Over Debt campaign, which among other things brings together religious and environmental groups to address the connections between debt relief, poverty, and climate change. To learn more about AFSC, visit the group's website at www.afsc.org or call 1-888-588-2372

* Stop Hunger Now: Established in 1998, in alliance with a program array of groups ranging from Rotary International to the Islamic Relief Agency and Wisconsin/Nicaragua Partners, Stop Hunger Now works to provide the maximum amount of food and life saving aid to the maximum number of the most poor and hungry throughout the world in the most rapid, efficient and effective manner. Their programs are innovative and varied, ranging from traditional emergency relief initiatives that respond to crisis situations to so-called "Seeds Programs," which supply people in areas of chronic drought and famine the necessary resources to rebuild their lives, to micro-credit loan programs that help impoverished women climb out of destitution by funding partner organizations that provide low-interest, revolving loans to empower women to start their own businesses. To a greater extent than many other groups, Stop Hunger Now has figured out how to work around the political barriers that slow down the process of delivering aid and that make it hard for people living in poverty to improve their circumstances. You can learn more about Stop Hunger Now by visiting the group's website at www.stophungernow.org or by calling: 1-888-501-8440.

"Freedom, Brotherhood, and Justice…”

Sixty-five years ago, in that tense passage after the worst of the Great Depression began to ease but before the bombings at Pearl Harbor drew this country into the wars of Europe and Asia, Franklin Roosevelt penned the most remarkable of Thanksgiving Proclamations.

Unlike most of his predecessors and successors, including the current occupant of the Oval Office, Roosevelt saw the writing of the annual statement as something more than a perfunctory task. Each of the 32nd president's dozen Thanksgiving Proclamations was unique, and as his tenure progressed, Roosevelt used them to express the values of the New Deal and the internationalist struggle against fascism.

Though Roosevelt's proclamations retained a spiritual character, he deemphasized explicitly Christian references in favor of a more universalist approach, which recognized the contributions of different religious groupings within the United States and abroad. He also added inclusive language, which he and his aides hoped would be read as an encouragement to overcome racial and ethnic divisions.

Roosevelt's finest proclamation, that of Thanksgiving Day, 1941, was an appeal for "the establishment on earth of freedom, brotherhood, and justice…"

It read:


I, FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, President of the United States of America, do hereby designate and set aside Thursday, the twentieth day of November 1941, as a day to be observed in giving thanks to the Heavenly Source of our earthly blessings.

Our beloved country is free and strong. Our moral and physical defenses against the forces of threatened aggression are mounting daily in magnitude and effectiveness.

In the interest of our own future, we are sending succor at increasing pace to those peoples abroad who are bravely defending their homes and their precious liberties against annihilation.

We have not lost our faith in the spiritual dignity of man, our proud belief in the right of all people to live out their lives in freedom and with equal treatment. The love of democracy still burns brightly in our hearts.

We are grateful to the Father of us all for the innumerable daily manifestations of His beneficent mercy in affairs both public and private, for the bounties of the harvest, for opportunities to labor and to serve, and for the continuation of those homely joys and satisfactions which enrich our lives.

Let us ask the Divine Blessing on our decision and determination to protect our way of life against the forces of evil and slavery which seek in these days to encompass us.

On the day appointed for this purpose, let us reflect at our homes or places of worship on the goodness of God and, in giving thanks, let us ray for a speedy end to strife and the establishment on earth of freedom, brotherhood, and justice for enduring time.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States of America to be affixed.

DONE at the City of Washington this 8th day of November, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and forty-one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and sixty-sixth.


As we take up the homely joys and satisfactions of this Thanksgiving, there is much to celebrate. Americans have used their franchise to temper a regal presidency, and the prospect of a more realistic and humane future appears to be in the offering. But the favorable result of one election ought not blind us to the reality that this nation has for too long deferred the essential work of "the establishment on earth of freedom, brotherhood, and justice." Even a chastened President Bush will not be inclined to guide us toward that task. Thankfully, President Roosevelt prods us still, across the expanse of history, to embrace the better angels of our nature and to seek the America -- and the world -- that should be.


John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism is being published this month by The New Press. "With The Genius of Impeachment," writes David Swanson, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, "John Nichols has produced a masterpiece that should be required reading in every high school and college in the United States." Studs Terkel says: "Never within my nonagenarian memory has the case for impeachment of Bush and his equally crooked confederates been so clearly and fervently offered as John Nichols has done in this book. They are after all our public SERVANTS who have rifled our savings, bled our young, and challenged our sanity. As Tom Paine said 200 years ago to another George, a royal tramp: 'Bugger off!' So should we say today. John Nichols has given us the history, the language and the arguments we will need to do so." The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com

Moral Consequences of the Occupation

It may be an old saw, but it remains true: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And this, ultimately, is why occupation is so pernicious. The occupier is at once all powerful, able to arrest and berate the occupied at will, but also powerless, for he knows that his security and safety are largely outside his control. He knows he is hated.

The result is this .

There's a lot of talk about the mounting toll in Iraq: in blood , in treasure , in the lives of innocent Iraqis. But one of war's darkest legacies is the moral corrosion it inflicts on those who wage it. The longer we stay in Iraq, the worse it will get.

Next time that little boy will be wielding a rock. Later, a bomb.