A year ago, millions of voters across America flocked to the elections polls to elect Barack Obama as our nation’s president. I remember that night vividly, as it was a culmination of the longest American presidential campaign cycle in history. A campaign cycle in which a candidate, who was virtually unknown just 5 years before the election, inspired Americans to renew their Hope. He inspired Americans to renew their Hope in government, to renew their Hope in politics, to renew their Hope in each other and to renew their Hope in America.
I remember sitting in the war room for the Nevada State Democratic Party in Las Vegas analyzing exit polls and tabulating results from states across the country. The numbers coming in were indicating that this election would be won by our nominee, but having been fooled in the previous two election cycles, I waited frantically until I knew this victory was certain. As the results continued to move Obama closer to the victory margin, I ran from the war room to join my fellow Americans in celebration. I laughed, I shouted, and I even cried that night as I was so moved by what had just happened. As an American who has been fighting for civil rights and human rights for so long, and who was on the verge of losing all Hope in our country, that night changed so much for me.
That Americans were in need of Hope was no mystery. America was taken to the brink of ruin under failed leadership and governance by the previous presidential administration. The situation left Americans with not much else, but Hope. To summarize briefly, millions of Americans were without jobs or losing their job, millions of Americans lacked health insurance, our educational systems were underfunded, our infrastructure was literally collapsing, our financial systems collapsed, our auto industry collapsed, our energy sources are outdated and insufficient, and thousands of Americans were sacrificing their lives in the two wars overseas. There was not much left in America but Hope.
When the President was elected, the NY Times published a piece detailing the historic win of President Obama and noting:
The election of Mr. Obama amounted to a national catharsis — a repudiation of a historically unpopular Republican president and his economic and foreign policies, and an embrace of Mr. Obama’s call for a change in the direction and the tone of the country.
Despite this reality, Republicans leaders have been desperately attempting every method possible to prevent President Obama from moving America in a different direction. Engaged in what I call “Operation Obstruction,” they have stalled the President’s agenda to lift this country out of the ruins that he inherited. However, they have not prevented President Obama from enacting several significant pieces of legislation in his first year in office as reported in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.
Last week, Mr. Obama signed defense-policy legislation that included an unrelated measure widening federal hate-crimes laws to cover sexual orientation and gender identification -- 12 years after it was first introduced. The same legislation also tightened the rules of admissible evidence for military commissions, an issue that consumed Congress in debate in 2007 but received almost no attention this go-round.
Other new measures signed into law since the administration took office, all of which kicked up controversy in past congresses, make it easier for women to sue for equal pay, set aside land in the West from development, give the government the power to regulate tobacco and raise tobacco taxes to expand health insurance for children. Congress and the White House, in the new defense-policy bill, also killed weapons programs that have survived earlier attempts at termination, among them, the F-22 fighter jet, the VH-71 presidential helicopter and the Army's Future Combat System.
So what has all this obstruction accomplished for the Republicans? Not much. America is still largely where it was on election night a year ago.
If we look at the graph above, it shows that despite all the efforts of Republicans to persuade Americans to abandon their call for change, Americans remain committed to steering away from the failed policies of the previous administration. In short, America is still holding on to Hope.
The last few months have not been particularly good ones for Democrats. That's the bad news. The good news is there a clear roadmap for how they can use the coming months to get back on track, and it revolves around staying relentlessly focused on the economy and the struggle of every day people.
1) The Lack of Income Growth for Average Families is the Greatest Domestic Challenge Facing America Today. Depending on how you cut the data, American families have not seen their incomes rise in at least eight, and perhaps, ten years. Even in the Bush recovery, which was by many measures, robust, median incomes declined, poverty levels increased, debt loads exploded. The typical American family ended the Bush era making $1,000 less than at the beginning.
Basic economics tells us when productivity increases wages and incomes rise. When GDP expands, jobs are created at a certain rate. Neither of these events took place in the Bush era, leading us here at NDN to argue that there is a large structural change being brought about by globalization that is making it harder for the American economy to create jobs and raise the standard of living of every day people.
That median incomes dropped during a robust economic recovery made the Bush recovery different from any other recovery in American history, and has made the current Great Recession different from other recessions. The American consumer was already in a very weakened state before the current recession, which is why the recession has been more virulent than many predicted, and why the coming "recovery" might be so anemic. The economy seems to be going through profound, structural change, making old economic models anachronistic. We are literally in a "new economy" now, one that is not well understood, and one that is confusing even the President's top advisers.
Simply put, getting people's incomes up is the most important domestic challenge facing those in power today. It is not surprising that other issues like health care, energy policy and climate change are being seen through a prism of "will this make my life, my economic struggle better today?" because so many families have been down so long, and things have gotten an awful lot worse this year. Regardless of what they hope to be graded on by the public, the basket of issues that will do more to determine the success of the President and his Party is both the belief that things are getting better, and the reality that they are for most people.
2) The Public Believes the Economy Is By Far and Away the Most Important Issue Facing the Nation Today. In poll after poll this year, the public has made it clear that the economy is their most important issue, with really nothing coming in a strong number two. The new Pew poll out this week maintains the basic ratio we have seen for months: mid 50s say the economy is number one; 20 percent of the American people say health care is their number one concern; and literally "zero" pick energy (see the chart to the right).
While one could mount an argument that one should not govern by polls, one can also ignore them at their own peril. The country wants their leaders focusing on what is their number one concern - their ability to make a living and provide for their families in a time of economic transformation - which also happens to be, in this case, the most important domestic issue facing the country.
My own belief is that one of the reasons the President and the Democrats have seen their poll numbers drop is that they have spent too much time talking about issues of lesser concern to people while the economy has gotten worse. There is a strong argument to be made that the President and the Democrats have taken their eye of the economic ball, and are paying a price for it. This doesn't mean the President shouldn't be talking about health care, climate change, education, immigration reform, but they must be addressed in ways that reflects both their perceived and actual importance; and as much as possible discussed in the context of long term and short term benefit for every day people and not abstract concepts like "recovery," "growth," "prosperity," which in this decade are things that have happened to other people.
We have long believed that the lack of a sufficient governmental response to the increasing struggle of every day people has been the central driver of the volatility in the American electorate in recent years (see here and here). Given the poll and economic data of recent months it is possible that the conditions which have created this volatility remains, and simply cannot be ignored for too long.
3) The Way Forward - Make The Struggle of Every Day People The Central Focus Of the National Debate. The great domestic challenge facing President Obama is to ensure that, in this new age of globalization and the "rise of the rest," the country sees not "growth" or "recovery" but prosperity that is broadly shared. Until incomes and wages are rising again, fostering broad-based prosperity has to be the central organizing principle of center-left politics. It is a job we should be anxious to take on given our philosophical heritage, and one that we simply must admit is a little harder and more complex than many have led us to believe.
Luckily, the President has been given three significant events in September to begin to make this rhetorical and governing turn - Labor Day next week, and the G20 and UN General Assembly meetings in late September. He can use this events to re-knit together his argument, weaving in health reform and energy/climate change (and we believe immigration reform too) along the way. For there is no broad-based prosperity in 21st century America without health care costs coming down (which has to happen to allow us to cover more people), and a successful transition to a low-carbon economy. Even though the Congressional committee and legislative process requires these to be separate conversations, in fact they are one conversation, one strategy for 21st century American success, one path forward for this mighty and great nation.
Vice President Biden's speech about the economy today is a very good start in this needed repositioning. But much more must be done. In a recent essay I wrote:
There have been calls from some quarters for a 2nd stimulus plan, an acknowledgment that what the first stimulus has not done enough to stop the current economic deterioration. This may be necessary, but I think what will need to be done is much more comprehensive than just a new stimulus plan. Future action could include a much more aggressive action against foreclosures, a more honest assessment of the health of our financial sector, an immediate capping of credit card rates and a rollback of actions taken by credit card issuers in the last few months, a speeding up of the 2010 stimulus spending, a completion of the Doha trade round and a much more aggressive G20 effort to produce a more successful global approach to the global recession, the quick passage of the President's community college proposal, enacting comprehensive immigration reform which will bring new revenues into the federal and state governments while removing some of the downward pressure on wages at the low end of the workforce, and recasting both the President's climate and health care initiatives as efforts which will help stop our downward slide and create future growth.
These are some thoughts on how to re-engage the economic conversation but many other people also have great ideas on what to do now that the specter of a true global depression has been averted, and we have the luxury of talking about what to do next. Which is why NDN is launching a new series of discussions on the global and American economies. We begin next week with Dr Jagdish Bhagwati and Dr. Rob Shapiro. Keep checking back on our site for the next events in this important new series based in Washington, DC but also webcast for anyone to watch no matter where they are.
The bottom line - the recent decline in the President's poll numbers are reversible. The key is for he and his Party to make the struggle of every day people their number one rhetorical and governing concern. A "new economy" is emerging in America, and it is not has been kind to most Americans. Getting incomes and wages up in this new economy of the 21st century is in fact the most important dmoestic challenge facing the country, and one the American people are demanding a new national strategy for. This fall is the time for the President to make it clear to the American people that he understands their concerns, has a strategy to ensure their success in this new economy, and will make their success the central organizing principle of his Administration until prosperity is once again broadly shared.
In yesterday's New York Times, conservative columnist Ross Douthat accuses President Obama of "pushing a blue-state agenda during a recession that’s exposed some of the blue-state model’s weaknesses, and some of the red-state model’s strengths."
Asking readers to consider California, which he places against the stellar conservative governance of Texas, Douthat notes:
California, always liberalism's favorite laboratory, was passing global-warming legislation, pouring billions into stem-cell research, and seemed to be negotiating its way toward universal health care.
(his link points to a Time article about Arnold Schwarzenegger's work in this area, who, last I checked, has an R and a 28 percent in state approval rating next to his name)
While California is undoubtedly a national leader in trends of all stripes, understanding the legacy of California governance as being "liberalism's favorite laboratory," couldn't be more wrong. The reasons for California's epic struggles lie, not in the "always liberalism" that Douthat sees, but instead in the Ronald Reagan conservative tax revolt coming home to roost.
In contrast to, say, California's efforts on energy policy, which research shows have created prosperity in the state over the last generation, the tax revolt defining Proposition 13 destroyed a top notch public schools system and, more recently, rendered the state bankrupt. The 1978 ballot initiative, which capped property taxes and mandated a 2/3 rule for the state legislature to pass a budget, has created a structural shortfall in the state budget and a political inability for legislators to craft a solution -- but Douthat doesn't see fit to mention it.
Conservatives love to argue that California has incredibly high tax rates, and, in the case of some specific taxes, that's true. But that's only because Proposition 13 so drastically lowered property taxes as to necessitate raising taxes to compensate for lost revenue. As Ezra Klein, in discussing Robert Samuelson's op-ed on California (which, like Douthat's piece, conspicuously fails to mention Prop 13), notes this morning:
Total state and local taxes take up 11.73 percent of the average Californian's income. The national average is 11.23 percent. And it's been like that for many years:
Far from being "always" liberal, California's electoral votes were supposed to be safe for Reagan's Republicans, giving them a generational lock on the White House. Here again, California was ahead of the nation, this time in discovering that conservatives couldn't govern and is now as deep blue as the Pacific Ocean.
Now that the nation has learned its lesson from eight years of red-state governance under Douthat's vaunted Texas leadership, America followed California, this time for the better, in overwhelmingly rejecting failed conservative governance. Blue-staters (a lot of folks these days) have only had six months on the job after eight years of botched "red-state" governance. It will be a lot longer than that if conservatives like Douthat can't even figure out where they went wrong; Proposition 13 was certainly one of the first places.
Update: Ezra Klein just blogged on Douthat's column as well. He does a nice job taking down the argument that Texas is a good model for anything and the broader red-blue frame that Douthat tries to use.
This morning on the NDN Blog and the Huffington Post, Simon laid out an argument, to which he urged me to respond, concluding that, due to the rapidly changing nature of the global landscape, the “rise of the rest,” and the ability of America’s very unique new president to speak directly to the world’s peoples, Barack Obama will not be able to be a realist, and will instead have to base his foreign policy on the politics of global aspiration.
Simon’s argument is powerful, and the points he makes about the changing global landscape are on the mark. Obama does indeed have a unique ability to communicate to the world’s peoples, both from a personal and technological standpoint, that is unparalleled. But if Obama is not a realist, what is he?
I would argue that he is certainly not a foreign policy liberal and certainly not a neo-liberal (indisputably the ideological predecessor to neo-conservatism). We will not see an emphasis on democracy promotion as a panacea, and I doubt very much that Obama advisers will be heard calling America “the indispensible nation.”
Rather, much like his domestic policy, Obama’s foreign policy defies labels.
In his almost six months in office, Obama has crafted a middle road, one that has America’s interests at heart, but defines American interests more broadly. It rejects the easily caricatured cynical realism of Kissinger and the narrow realism of Scowcroft/Baker. As Simon argues, he embraces the so called “rise of the rest,” which is not necessarily contrary to American interests – more markets for our goods, greater stability, and fewer failed states all work in our favor.
While Obama often speaks about ideals, we have not seen him subordinate them to interests. In this, Obama has already been the consummate realist – avoiding Carter-esque handwringing about human rights in China, rebuffing Israel – our democratic ally – on settlements, and, most recently, offering very cautious comments on Iran that have sought to avoid pro-democracy pontificating, while still noting that self-determination is a universal value.
The moment that Obama faces and the challenges that come with it, from terrorism, to global poverty, to the rise of new powers, demand this middle road that Obama is walking. America will use diplomacy, alleviate poverty, disease, and strife, and build international institutions all because these serve the American interests that Obama will redefine. He can talk about values, but it will come with the historical knowledge that some of our most disastrous foreign policy moments have come out of liberalism, and that blindly insisting on liberal ideals will, in many cases, backfire.
I’d imagine that, over the next few years, we will find that Obama’s foreign policy will be something that looks like a realism of a more liberal variety, just as Obama’s brand of pragmatism is progressive. And just as a term like pragmatic progressive barely serves as a good descriptor of the Obama domestic policy, nor will whatever term emerges like “liberal realist” be a good descriptor of Obama’s foreign policy. Suffice it to say that the great challenge for this man, in this moment, is to bring America closer to the rest of the world, and the world closer to America, than either has been in a long time – in a manner that serves America’s interests. And he might just be able to do it.
The results of last week’s European election, when combined with the ongoing slide of Gordon Brown’s Labour government, add up to odd to a puzzle. In America this feels like a progressive moment, as Simon outlined in his new presentation. Just as the injuries of industrialisation boosted social reform in the early part of the 20th century, so two decades of over-confidence in the power of markets in the era of globalisation seemed decisively rejected by the 2008 election, and the economic crisis which followed. With the Republicans in a mess, and Obama boldly making the case for universal health care yesterday, the progressive post-crisis bounce seems almost natural. But in Europe—where the recession is, if anything, worse than in America—the right are doing just fine.
Judging by results it would really be fairer to say the right was booming. Silvio Berlusconi won handily in Italy, despite his marital problems. Incumbent conservative government’s in France and Germany more than held their own. While the mainstream centre-left parties tanked in third place or worse, the extreme right made gains too, from the neo-fascist British National Party to the Dutch Party of Freedom. And no one seems to better encompass all this than Britain’s battered Brown, leading a once impregnable Labour party into poll ratings in the teens. Just as capitalism is questioned more deeply than at any time in a generation, Britain will almost certainly elect a conservative Government next year.
So what’s going on? If, as Simon wrote this morning we’re in a hole dug “by years of reckless, ideological and impractical conservative government”, why vote them back in? This week Paul Krugman dubbed Brown Gordon the Unlucky: it was just his bad fortune to be caught standing when the financial music stopped. Just as Bush is blamed in America, so progressives are in Britain. But that doesn’t explain why Brown has suffered while incumbent European conservatives prosper. One might, instead, make the case that 90s-style centre-leftism of the Clinton / Blair mould was too enamoured of the failed market system to deserve credit now. Certainly this was anti-Clintonite case underlay much of the crowing this week over the defeat of Terry Mcaullife in Virginia.
But better, I think, to focus on three points. First, European voters are angry, confused about the cause of their current predicament, and unwilling to believe that the traditional remedies of the left will fix it. Second, they haven’t made much connection between the crisis, the ideology that caused it, and the parties which most closely reflect that ideology in government. For this one should blame the parties of the centre-left themselves, for failing to make the case clearly. Third, in tough time, outsiders are feared: Europe just voted for a range of parties whose central policy is protecting insiders against immigrants.
It’s a combustible mix, with warnings for America. Economic recovery has pushed other priorities down the list, but these European elections certainly warn of the dangers of letting immigration worries fester. The dismal Bush inheritance, meanwhile, has allowed Obama to make a clear link between the recession and his predecessor. But it’s not a memory that will hold forever. European voters, normally more left wing than in the US, didn’t seem inclined to give any post-crisis electoral gift to tired progressives. Nor might American voters in 2010, or 2012. In this, Krugman was right. Obama was partly lucky to pick up the batton at the right time. The lesson of last week is he’ll have to fight doggedly to keep it.
In March, NDN proudly hosted the first "Preview to the Summit of the Americas," in Washington, D.C. At the event, moderated by Mr. Nelson Cunningham, we gained valuable insight from our distinguished panelists.
Our keynote speaker, U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, has been a long-time friend of NDN's and inspired what has developed into the Latin America Policy Initiative at NDN, founded on a core principle: as stated by Sen. Menendez, "In the age of globalization, we are inextricably linked to the rest of the world – and to no people are we more closely connected than to our neighbors in Latin America." Below, an excerpt of Sen. Menendez's remarks at the "Preview to the Summit of the Americas":
[The Summit of the Americas] meeting isn’t just an opportunity to tackle our common challenges — it’s another chance to be reminded how connected we all are. Those of us who advocate strong cooperation across borders always have the challenge of explaining to a taxpayer in New Jersey why they might be asked to support a program in Nuevo Leon. The Summit is going to help the entire region remember why...Giving greater mutual focus to institution-building, cross-border development and democracy is a strategy meant to improve the quality of life of our citizens. But maybe above all, finding that focus represents an opportunity to build a new trust between us, to substitute unnecessary tension for a new bond of hope.
As we reflect on the Summit that just passed, we would like to recap the event and share the ideas presented by our rich panel. Please access the video of each speaker:
It's interesting, Fox news did not carry President Obama's important
address this morning in France. However, we are interested in a story Fox did run yesterday that - in no uncertain terms - attempts to undermine findings by the current and previous administration in regards to the traffic of guns from the U.S. to Mexico, alleging that such traffic is a myth.
FNC 4/2/2009 2:52:43 PM: ...90% of the illegal
weapons used in drug violence in mexico come from the united states --
a lot of people said this. it is not true....where are these things
coming from? >> you cannot buy a lot of these military-style
weapons in a pawnshop and take them to mexico. people cannot just buy
these guns in the united states. a lot of these guns coming from
guatemala and the mexican military...for example, these two rifles are
a semi-automatic version that can be legally purchased in the u.s. this
is a fully automatic gun that can only be bought with permission from
the federal government. this is the kind of gun people just cannot buy.
that is a fully automatic weapons....
Unfortunately, everything else contradicts these contentions:
"Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally
smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of
police officers, soldiers and civilians." "I feel very strongly we
have a co-responsibility," Clinton told reporters, adding: "Our
insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability
to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to
arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and
civilians." Criminals are outgunning law enforcement officials, she
said, referring to guns and military-style equipment such as
night-vision goggles and body armor that the cartels are smuggling from
the U.S. Clearly, what we have been doing has not worked and it is
unfair for our incapacity ... to be creating a situation where people
are holding the Mexican government and people responsible," she said.
"That's not right."
2. According to estimates by both Mexican and U.S. law enforcement officials, 90 percent of the assault weapons and other guns used by Mexican drug cartels are coming from the United States, fueling drug-related violence.
3. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)says it has traced up to 95 percent of guns seized at scenes of drug violence in Mexico to U.S.commercial sources. "These weapons are increasingly higher-powered, including .50 caliber Barrett rifles and ammunition that can pierce the armor of Mexican soldiers and police." "A year ago, we never saw those guns going south into Mexico," said Tom Mangan, a spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "Now we refer to it as one of the weapons of choice."
4. Based on data from government sources in 2008, the U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS) found:
The State Department (under the Bush administration) also
estimated 90% of cocaine entering the United States transits Mexico. In
the United States, wholesale illicit drug sale earnings estimates range
from $13.6 to $48.4 billion annually.9As a result of their dominance of
the U.S. illicit drug market, Mexican cartels are the leading wholesale
launderers of drug money from the United States. Mexican and Colombian
trafficking organizations annually smuggle an estimated $8.3 to $24.9
billion in drug proceeds into Mexico for laundering. In October 2007
the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy reported that
the Mexican government's increased pressure on cartels coincided with
cocaine shortages in 37 U.S. cities and a 24% increase in the retail
price of cocaine during the second quarter of 2007.
Mexican authorities seized more than twice the amount of cocaine in
2007 than it did in 2006 and over $200 million in cash from a
methamphetamine precursor operation.
Although Mexican drug cartels, or drug trafficking organizations, have
existed for quite some time, they have become more powerful since the
demise of Colombia's Cali and Medellín cartels in the 1990s. Mexican
drug cartels now dominate the wholesale illicit drug market in the
United States.
Additionally,a high-ranking member of the Mexican armed forces has
stated that the military has to be involved in fighting drug
traffickers because the police force cannot compete with the type of
heavy weaponry that the drug cartels are now using.
5. Organizations have also written on the topic: in State of Siege: Drug-Related Violence and Corruption in Mexico, Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) called for reducing arms trafficking into Mexico by requiring background checks for all U.S. gun purchases and limiting the number of weapon and ammunition purchases to prevent the re-sale and trafficking of weapons legally purchased in the United States to Mexican cartels.
Michael Shifter, of the Inter-American Dialogue, also calls for renewed focus on demand reduction and reduction in arms trafficking from the United States and calls for increased multilateral efforts.
Arms purchased here or otherwise acquired and smuggled
into Mexico equip the cartels with anti-tank weapons, military hand
grenades, and high powered sniper rifles. International smuggling also
equips the cartels with high-tech equipment such as night-vision
goggles, electronic intercept capabilities, encrypted communications
and helicopters. In addition, some of the groups, such as the "Los
Zetas" (former military who have become the enforcement arm of the Gulf
Cartel), have received specialized training in weapons and tactics.
Municipal and state police, and even the military, are ill equipped to
confront such well armed and trained forces.
6. A prime example of the trade on the U.S. side - George Iknadosian, owner of X-Caliber gun store in Arizona, was arrested on charges of knowingly selling guns to traffickers smuggling arms into Mexico. Prosecutors alleged more than 700 high-powered rifles were sold to purchasers whom 47-year-old Iknadosian knew were acting as so-called straw buyers for Mexican customers. "We had a direct pipeline from Iknadosian to the Sinaloa cartel," said Thomas Mangan, a spokesman for ATF. It was reported that during one transaction, Iknadosian went so far as to advise an informant, recommending that he break the sales up into batches and never carry more than two weapons in a car because, "if you got pulled over, two is no biggie." While the case against Iknadosian did not advance on nuanced grounds, most recently, a Texas man who purchased more than 70 guns from licensed dealers in southern Texas and smuggled them to Mexico was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
So while Mexico is right to take responsibility for its part in the drug violence, the problem will not be resolved by looking solely to Mexico, or solely to the U.S. Undoubtedly, this challenge is a shared responsibility, and any campaign to undermine the authority or credibility of our governments does not help strengthen the Mexican
state nor the U.S.
I caught some of his townhall from Strasbourg this morning - carried live on CNN and MSNBC but not Fox of course - and our President was simply amazing. He was good as I've ever seen him, connecting with the audience, offering complex thoughtful answers to tough challenges. And Barack seemed to be happy to be in front of people rather than as he said stuck in hotel rooms. The crowd was wildly excited, applauding him in ways few politicians ever hear. In many ways this event is how our President best demonstrates his power, and the power of the American ideal. For any European watching and wondering whether it is a new day, they can only have concluded that is a new day indeed.
It was an inspiring way to start the day, and I was, for the entire time I watched, as deeply proud of being an American as I have been in many many years.
And it feels like on this trip our young, new President has begun the transformation from President of the United States to the paramount leader of the world's peoples. His ability to find common ground, to talk of our common aspirations, to make it clear that we are all in this together, is a message, delivered by this particular messenger, which the people of the world are very ready to hear.
If as Fareed Zakaria has argued, the defining geopolitical event of this era is the "rise of the rest," and as Brzezinski has argued rising standards of living throughout the world are creating a "global political awakening," what we may have seen today is the first global leader of this new rising era to emerge; one who can speak in universal themes; one who can through modern media speak directly to these aspiring people - more numerous and in more nations than any time in all of human history - of the world, transcending faction, race and nation, speaking of our universal common aspirations as people no matter where they live. The ability for this particular man, at this particular moment in history, to lay out such a convincing case for the universal dignity and common aspiration of all men and women across the world is allowing to speak directly to this global political awakening, and emerge as the leader not of the nations of the world, but much more importantly, its people.
Immigration reform remains at the forefront of voters' minds. Yesterday, immigration reform came up during Meet the Press and Al Punto, Univision's Spanish-language Sunday morning show.
I. Al Punto - The program began with an interview with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during which she made encouraging statements in regards to hemispheric relations and our bilateral relationship with Mexico. However, when the subject of immigration came up, her message was mixed.
[Translation from Spanish voiceover]: Jorge Ramos: Secretary Clinton, Immigration Reform - when will it come up in Congress? HRC: Well it is certainly on President Obama's agenda, but because of the economic crisis there are many challenges we must address first...we feel that we have to wait. Of course the U.S. economy recovery is very important to both the U.S. and Mexico, and we must address the economic challenges before we resolve strictly U.S. problems and shared issues like immigration.
Of course the President's primary focus should be the economic crisis. But in truth, immigration reform should be a tool precisely to help get our economy back on track. As the economy worsens, CIR would remove a trap door under the minimum wage. Fully 5 percent of the American workforce today is undocumented. Bringing them under the protection of American law will allow them to be paid minimum wage, prevent exploitation by unscrupulous employers, allow them to unionize, and will relieve downward pressure on the wages of all Americans. Moreover, putting the undocumented population on the road to citizenship will undoubtedly increase tax revenue and lift wages for all Americans in a time of economic crisis. Revenue from fees and fines will be generated - as stated by the last Congressional Budget Office score that accompanied the CIR legislation that passed the Senate in 2006 - CIR would net "increased revenues by about $44 billion over the 2007-2016 period."
When times were good, it was not the time for immigration reform; now that times are bad it is once again not time for immigration reform - so when is the "right" time? We have seen this cyclical public debate about the "timing" of immigration reform occur in the 1960s, 1980s, and again in this decade. It is urgent for U.S. rule of law, it is urgent for the people who currently live in the shadows, it is urgent for the businesses that want to compete in a global economy, and it is urgent for both Democratic and Republican candidates in order to have a major legislative achievement this year, and to consolidate gains with the electorate - particularly Hispanic voters.
II. Meet the Press - Immigration reform is an issue that is about right and wrong, and about achieving practical solutions versus status quo, but at this juncture, more than anything it is about past versus future. A great deal of the resistance against immigration reform is actually rooted in a profound resistance against immigrants and against the changing face of America. This new, 21st century demography of America is reflected in its electorate. As he interviewed U.S. Sen. John McCain on Meet the Press (MTP) yesterday, David Gregory replayed a video from an earlier episode, during which Mike Murphy (Republican strategist) stated:
At the end of the day, here's the one statistic we all got to remember: The country's changing. Ronald Reagan won in 1980 with 51 percent of the vote. We all worship Ronald Reagan. But if that election had been held with the current demographics of America today, Ronald Reagan would have gotten 47 percent of the vote. The math is changing. Anglo vote's 74 percent now, not 89. And if we don't modernize conservatism, we're going to have a party of 25 percent of the vote going to Limbaugh rallies, enjoying every, every applause line, ripping the furniture up. We're going to be in permanent minority status.
Gregory's questioning on immigration reform was linked precisely to the issue of how to modernize conservatism:
MR. GREGORY: Given that, assuming you agree, how does conservatism modernize itself? How does the party get back to power?
SEN. McCAIN: The party of ideas, party of inclusiveness, outreach to other ethnic aspects of the American electorate; in my part of the country especially, Hispanic voters. We have to recruit and elect Hispanics to office. We have to welcome new ideas. And there are-you know, a lot of people complain about divisions within the Republican Party. That's good right now. Let's let a thousand flowers bloom. Let's have different clashes of ideas, sharing the same principles and goals.....I have-I'm very optimistic about the future of the Republican Party if we do the right things.
MR. GREGORY: Speaking about the Hispanic vote, would you like to work on immigration policy with this president?
SEN. McCAIN: At any time I stand ready, but the president has to lead. The, the administration has to lead with a proposal.
MR. GREGORY: Do you think they have that proposal, want to do that?
SEN. McCAIN: They have not come forward with one yet. They said that they are going to-I understand the president met with the Hispanic Caucus and he said he would have some forums and, and other things.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
It's important to note that Sen. McCain stands ready to support the President's proposal on CIR, which means he would likely support the items outlined in the President's Immigration Agenda: interior and border enforcement, increasing the number of family visas, an improved system for future flow, and collaboration with immigrant-sending nations. Without a doubt, Sen. McCain's support will be an integral part of any legislation if it is to pass in Congress.
III. Press coverage in Mexico of HRC Visit - A piece in El Financiero, focuses solely on immigration: Tema Migratorio No Ha Sido Dejado de Lado: Clinton,"Immigration Issue Has Not Been Cast Aside: Clinton."
IV. Exodus in Rhode Island After 287(g) Agreement - A news piece on Univision highlights the case of Rhode Island, were Governor Don Carcieri passed anti-immigrant ordinances and entered into a 287(g) agreement one year ago. The effects are visible today, with much of the immigrant community reported to have moved south - but not south of the border. As we've stated before, local enforcement does not serve to help deport individuals (while that is often the intention). In this case, this "attrition" caused a loss in business to the locality, while immigrants moved to a different - more welcoming - state within the U.S. It is reported that many of the Hispanic immigrants in Rhode Island moved to North Carolina. This is yet another example of how local and state immigration ordinances won't cut it - we need CIR in order to resolve the issues caused by the broken immigration system.
V. Shifting the Focus of Enforcement - As Sam mentioned, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has delayed proposed immigration raids, asking that the raids be given closer scrutiny before being carried out. This could signal a very much needed shift in policy, away from workplace raids as immigration enforcement.
While one could mount an argument that one should not govern by polls, one can also ignore them at their own peril. The country wants their leaders focusing on what is their number one concern - their ability to make a living and provide for their families in a time of economic transformation - which also happens to be, in this case, the most important domestic issue facing the country. 
Some Rights Reserved 2008 - Present, NDN.