CommunitarianParty.org

Looking back at change

2009-11-27T10:08:00.002-05:00

This is now 5 years old how much do you think things have changed?

this was taken form http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/B471.html

471. “Red State, Blue State, Light Meat, Dark Meat.” Forward (November 26, 2004).

As my students were packing to go home for Thanksgiving, I asked them what effect "Post-Election Stress Syndrome" was going to have on their holidays. Only two expected any troubles.

One explained that his parents were dyed-in-the-wool Republicans and that they would tease him mercilessly for having worked his tail off as a volunteer for the Kerry campaign in Pennsylvania. He, in turn, would resent their support of a president who was making him consider moving to Canada for the next four years, if not longer. "It's going to be a rough Thanksgiving," he concluded.

Another student said that his parents were even more liberal than he was and that the whole family was sure to spend the holiday despondent, bemoaning the fate of the nation and wondering — in the inimical words of the British tabloid The Daily Mirror — "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?" Above all, he both resented and was more than a bit envious of the few Republican students he knew who were oozing a deep sense of satisfaction as they prepared to go home and sit down to a meal of profound and all-around thanksgiving.

The other students demurred. One scoffed at the notion that politics were that important: "This holiday season isn't going to be any different from any other. We'll stuff our faces and watch football games until we're bleary-eyed. Stupid little lights will appear all over the place, mixed with plastic Santa Clauses, as we start the shop-till-you-drop Christmas season. The malls will be as full as they were last year, and the elevators will play the same tired tunes all over again. It all will be as familiar and comfortable as a well-worn pair of shoes."

No wonder, I said to myself, she is the best sociology student I have had in years.

I, too, believe that the holiday season will allow the healing to begin, to remind most Americans — all but the diehard liberals, of which there are surprisingly few outside of Manhattan, San Francisco and elite college campuses — that we are one nation, after all, and that we have much for which to be thankful. Most Americans will have an ample meal to sit down to, a roof over their head and the warmth of a properly heated home and of family members assembled from near and far — even if there are going to be the inevitable squabbles that mark such relationships.

Some families will avoid discussing politics altogether. Others will count it as a blessing that the elections were, by and large, fair and clean, recalling how concerned they were just a few weeks ago that the nation would face the trials of weeks of contested decisions, lawsuits, "Six Floridas," a loss of legitimacy of the democratic process and the possibility of becoming the world's laughingstock — all of which we were spared, for which much thanksgiving is due.

Indeed, the holiday season will serve well the partial reconciliation that has already begun. I say "partial" because not all Americans will be reconciled to four more years of President Bush or to the idea that they will have to share the same nation with 50 million people they consider religious bigots. Nor will the reconciliation of those who will calm down be complete. And Bush's next moves, both foreign and domestic, are likely to feed their remaining resentment.

However, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, nobody I know is packing. Most are pondering where the Democrats should go next, rather than giving up on politics or talking about supporting some kind of Ralph Nader next time around. The very fact that for the weeks to come, most Americans will be absorbed in doing the same things they having been doing for years during the Thanksgiving/Christmas season should remind us that the American society is a resilient one and that there is a full and rich life — even after an important election loss.

Reconciliation will be greatly eased by the fact that the divisions, the often repeated claims of polarization, were overblown to begin with. The notion that liberals occupy the two coasts and that the rest of nation is GOP land, or that there are states whose citizens hold to blue or red views, is a media artifact. Most blue states have many red citizens, and vice versa. True, in a winner-takes-all election, it looks as if New York has no upstate; as if New York City has no Staten Island; as if Orange County is not in California, or as if there are only Republicans in the Midwest and Mountain states.

However, a closer look shows that although many states were eventually called red or blue, Bush and John Kerry actually ran neck and neck in them, within a few percentage points of each other. Take Ohio, for example, which was called red with roughly 51% of the votes going to Bush and around 48.5%to Kerry; or New Hampshire, hailed blue with Kerry receiving about 50% of the votes and Bush 49%.

Moreover, most "red" people have some blue views and beliefs, and most "blue" people are far from fully blue. Elections, which force them to reduce all subtleties and nuances to one vote, make them look like one-dimensional creatures. A quick read of Morris Fiorina's "Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America" or of Alan Wolfe's "One Nation, After All," however, makes it clear that Americans are much more complex. It turns out that there are gay conservatives, pro-life Democrats, and so on and so on.

I do not seek to make light of the bitterness of the last election, fueled by, among other things, the injection of religious absolutes into politics. It is much easier to reach compromises on tax rates and expenditures for various social programs than on abortion, school prayer and litmus tests for Supreme Court judges. However, one should not make light either of the resiliency of the American society or of the legitimacy of its democratic polity — nor of the healing power of holidays we all share.

The Communitarian Network
2130 H Street, NW, Suite 703
Washington, DC 20052
202.994.6118
comnet@gwu.edu

Christian Democrats vowed to rule with the Free Democrats

2009-09-29T06:39:00.002-04:00

Sept. 28 (Bloomberg) -- "German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats vowed to rule with the Free Democrats in Schleswig-Holstein, potentially giving the two parties a majority in both the upper and lower houses of parliament."

for more info on Christian Democrats
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Union_(Germany)

for more info on Free Democrats
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Democratic_Party_(Germany)

Look at the party platforms and let me know how you think these two parties will influence each other.

Work Worth Doing???

2009-09-12T19:08:00.002-04:00

Is there any body out there? I have not been looking for material to post here because I'm not sure what it's accomplishing. If you like what you see here and at least it provokes you to think let me know.

Speech by CDI President Casini addressed to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI (IT)

2009-07-28T07:06:00.002-04:00

taken from http://www.cdi-idc.com/dbimages/pdf/casini_discorso_papa_en.pdf

Your Holiness,
In the name of the Centrist Democrat International, I should like to
express my deepest gratitude for the extraordinary opportunity that you
have bestowed by receiving us here today in Castel Gandolfo.
We are imbued with a sincere yearning for freedom, and deeply
committed to defending the dignity of man, the right to life, and the rights
of the weak, be they women, children or ethnic and religious minorities, in
the face of all forms of repression and violence.
The more than one hundred political parties that we represent are
conscious that the times we live in are replete with incongruities.
In difficult areas of the world such as Asia, we are battling religious
fundamentalism in defence of the right of each and everyone to profess
their religious affiliations and beliefs, while fully respecting an effective
dialogue between religions.
In Africa, we are engaged in building a just society based on a
commitment to combating poverty and misery.
In Latin America, we fight a daily battle of resistance against
populist politics that offer facile and misleading solutions to the
exploitation of the weakest members of society.
Meanwhile, here in Europe, the most industrialised and advanced
area of the world, we seek to counter the insidious threat of relativism,
which, by equally subtle methods, seeks to subjugate the dignity of the
human person. The weakening of our sense of conscience, the absence of powerful
motivating ideals, the crisis of fundamental institutions such as the family,
the permanent threat to the right to life for all, from the moment of
conception to advanced old age, and the ascendancy of a science that
knows no ethics or boundaries and manipulates and humiliates man, are all
pieces in a mosaic that, were it ever completed, would spell out the
destruction of western civilisation.
As you reminded us in your writings, a misguided conception of
freedom currently prevails whereby people no longer accept moral
considerations that do not tally with their own calculations, with the result
that the unrestrained expansion of freedom ends up by destroying freedom
itself.
Holy Father, your living magisterium is a simple, yet also an intense
and clear reminder of the centrality of mankind and of the ethic of
responsibility, as well as the ultimate reference point for the Christian
identity.
In espousing these values, we today confirm our pledge to opposing
all policies that threaten mankind.
We know that the secularism of public institutions and States cannot
suppress the innate longing in humans for that which is religious. There is
no such thing as healthy secularism without God and religion!
In carrying out our actions, we find comfort and encouragement in
the testimony of the Catholic Church and, above all, in your teachings.
Your Holiness, through simplicity and powerful acts, you enjoin us
to be courageous.
This is a commitment we shall not forsake, and we ask you for your
support and look to your words to guide us in our political action.

Be Courageous, President Barack Obama

2009-06-25T16:31:00.000-04:00

The Westminster Confession of Faith

2009-06-08T16:30:00.000-04:00

Of the Civil Magistrate

I. God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers.[1]

II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto:[2] in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth;[3] so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.[4]

III. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;[5] yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.[6] For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.[7]

IV. It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates,[8] to honor their persons,[9] to pay them tribute or other dues,[10] to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience' sake.[11] Infidelity, or difference in religion, does not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them:[12] from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted,[13] much less has the Pope any power and jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoever.[14]

Delivery of Social Services through Faith-Based Organizations

2009-05-18T13:54:00.002-04:00

Excerpt taken from http://www.gwu.edu/~icps/faithb.html

The growing interest in the provision of public social services via faith-based organizations stems from several factors. First, some faith-based organizations have demonstrated dramatic success in curbing or alleviating social problems in particularly distressed communities. For example, the efforts of Reverend Eugene Rivers of the Azusa Christian Community in the Dorchester section of Boston have been credited with reducing the juvenile murder rate in that community to almost zero. Second, social science data has increasingly documented a strong inverse correlation between religious commitment and social pathologies. Beginning with Harvard economist Richard Freeman’s work on church attendance and juvenile delinquency, numerous studies have shown that religious commitment tends to lessen the tendency of both children and adults to engage in counterproductive behaviors, ranging from delinquency to addiction and violence. Third, dissatisfaction with the outcome of government programs has led both to reduction in federal welfare spending and increased pressure to enlist the help of faith- and community-based organizations in caring for the poor. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act included a "charitable choice" provision that permitted states to direct funds to faith-based organizations for childcare and other services aimed at helping welfare recipients return to work. Several states are taking advantage of these provisions.

The Debate

Advocates of enlisting faith-based organizations in the provision of public services point to anecdotal evidence of the success of faith-based programs. They argue that the dangers posed by the social problems such as drug addiction or teen homicide outweigh any threat to the separation of church and state posed by the use of faith-based organizations. They often argue that faith-based or religiously oriented approaches are inherently more effective than secular approaches in changing behavior.

Opponents argue that directing government funds, at either the federal or state level, to sectarian organizations raises serious separation issues. While organizations such as Catholic Charities and Lutheran Charities have long received large subsidies from the federal government, such traditional charities have pursued their efforts in a self-consciously nonsectarian manner. Critics argue that newer faith-based approaches, such as that embodied by Eugene Rivers program in Boston or Charles Colson’s Prison Fellowship, rely explicitly on proselytization as the means of effecting behavioral change. Subsidies to such organizations, according to critics, can amount to violations of the Constitution’s establishment clause because they involve the state directly in supporting the spread of particular religious views.

The Communitarian View

Communitarians emphasize the role of the community as a potent "third force" in shaping the conduct and quality of both individual and collective life. Communitarians argue that a healthy and strong community can frequently exert a deeper and more lasting influence on individual behavior than the state acting via law and law enforcement. The restoration of vitality and safety to beleaguered neighborhoods and cities usually requires a revitalization of the organic community institutions that enrich and order community life. Healthy families and churches and neighborhood communities and like institutions are the key to shaping the conduct of children in such a way that they will become productive adults.

For this reason, communitarians generally support a creative division of labor, which permits the state to channel resources to community organizations, including faith-based organizations, for the provision of services within a community. Community-based organizations, including church organizations, have a comparative advantage in dealing "close-up" with community members. Communitarians believe that safeguards need to be in place to protect the individual’s free exercise of religious rights under the Constitution. Social service should not be provided as a quid pro quo for religious adherence; secular alternatives should also be available. But for those individuals who choose them, faith-based alternatives have been shown to accomplish dramatic improvements in the quality of both individual and community life..

A division of labor that permits faith-based organizations to act as service providers observes the key communitarian principle of subsidiarity--which posits that no unit of society should perform functions more appropriately performed by a smaller entity. The neighborhood should not usurp the normal function of the family; the city the function of the neighborhood; the state the function of the city; or the federal government the function of the state. Similarly, the bureaucratic government should not usurp the immediate functions of the family and the church. Use of faith-based organizations as service providers--with proper Constitutional safeguards--permits common resources to be directed toward strengthening the community rather than enhancing the power of the state, often at the expense of community institutions.

Marriage and the Separation of Church and State

2009-04-21T11:06:00.002-04:00

Will you have this woman/man to be your wife/husband to live together according to God’s decree in the holy estate of marriage? Will you love her/him, comfort her/him, honor and keep her/him, in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others, faithfully keep to her/him alone, so long as you both shall live?

If you have answered I will to the question above in front of witnesses and you are a Christian, then you are married.

If you have said or have had said to you in front of witnesses "Behold, you are consecrated to me with this ring according to the laws of Moses and Israel" and you are Jewish, then you are married.

I could go on but the point is that there is no need for government to be in marriage. If a persons vows to the other are not enough we have contracts that can lend legal binding to an agreement. Marriage is for the couple their families their community and frequently their church not the state.

by Matthew Bartko

Government should stay out of any marriage

2009-04-21T11:00:00.000-04:00

Marshfield News Herald (Marshfield, Wisconsin)

Published Opinion.

August 9, 2003.

Editor:

Lately, homosexual marriages have been a subject of much unnecessary controversy. The simple solution to the gay marriage conflict is to privatize marriage. This would put gay relationships on the same footing as straight ones, without implying official government sanction. No one's private life would have official government sanction - exactly as it should be.

In the last century government intruded upon the marriage contract, among much else. The modern mistake is to think that important things must be planned, sponsored, reviewed, or licensed by the government. Let's get the government out of marriage and allow individuals to make their own marriage contracts.

Marriage is an important institution. But it's only because marriage is wedded to the state that it causes a political debate and social friction. Should the state force employers to provide "benefits" to gay spouses? No, but neither should the state force employers to provide benefits to heterosexual spouses.

Both taxes and adoption are state-related activities. If there were no income tax, the issue of filing taxes jointly would be moot. Given that we have an income tax, there's no reason why the government can't treat all kinds of families the same, without resorting to legally sanctioning "marriage." Similarly, there's no reason why state-controlled adoptions can't treat gay partners the same as heterosexual ones.

The institutions of marriage and family are actually made stronger in an environment of freedom where each marriage or family decides for themselves the parameters of their relationships.

Aaron Biterman
Brookfield

The Role of Government Chart

2009-04-15T18:52:00.002-04:00

Ideal
Very little government responsibility.	A lot of personal responsibility. Responsibility for themselves, their communities, and their nation. (this would require lots of charity and voluntarism)
How We Are
Some government responsibility.	Some personal responsibility.
Where We Are Heading
A lot of government responsibility. Responsibility for individuals, communities, and the nation. (this would require lots of taxes and bureaucracy)	Very little personal responsibility.

an excerpt from The Pope's Easter Message

2009-04-12T23:59:00.002-04:00

taken from http://blog.beliefnet.com/viamedia/2009/04/urbi-et-orbi.html

"If it is true that death no longer has power over man and over the world, there still remain very many, in fact too many signs of its former dominion. Even if through Easter, Christ has destroyed the root of evil, he still wants the assistance of men and women in every time and place who help him to affirm his victory using his own weapons: the weapons of justice and truth, mercy, forgiveness and love. This is the message which, during my recent Apostolic Visit to Cameroon and Angola, I wanted to convey to the entire African continent, where I was welcomed with such great enthusiasm and readiness to listen. Africa suffers disproportionately from the cruel and unending conflicts, often forgotten, that are causing so much bloodshed and destruction in several of her nations, and from the growing number of her sons and daughters who fall prey to hunger, poverty and disease. I shall repeat the same message emphatically in the Holy Land, to which I shall have the joy of travelling in a few weeks from now. Reconciliation - difficult, but indispensable - is a precondition for a future of overall security and peaceful coexistence, and it can only be achieved through renewed, persevering and sincere efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My thoughts move outwards from the Holy Land to neighbouring countries, to the Middle East, to the whole world. At a time of world food shortage, of financial turmoil, of old and new forms of poverty, of disturbing climate change, of violence and deprivation which force many to leave their homelands in search of a less precarious form of existence, of the ever-present threat of terrorism, of growing fears over the future, it is urgent to rediscover grounds for hope. Let no one draw back from this peaceful battle that has been launched by Christ's Resurrection. For as I said earlier, Christ is looking for men and women who will help him to affirm his victory using his own weapons: the weapons of justice and truth, mercy, forgiveness and love.Resurrectio Domini, spes nostra! The resurrection of Christ is our hope! This the Church proclaims today with joy. She announces the hope that is now firm and invincible because God has raised Jesus Christ from the dead. She communicates the hope that she carries in her heart and wishes to share with all people in every place, especially where Christians suffer persecution because of their faith and their commitment to justice and peace. She invokes the hope that can call forth the courage to do good, even when it costs, especially when it costs. Today the Church sings "the day that the Lord has made", and she summons people to joy. Today the Church calls in prayer upon Mary, Star of Hope, asking her to guide humanity towards the safe haven of salvation which is the heart of Christ, the paschal Victim, the Lamb who has "redeemed the world", the Innocent one who has "reconciled us sinners with the Father". To him, our victorious King, to him who is crucified and risen, we sing out with joy our Alleluia!"

MORE ON THE CENTRIST DEMOCRAT INTERNATIONAL

2009-03-24T17:26:00.001-04:00

Taken from http://www.cdi-idc.com/subpagina.php?hoofdmenuID=1&submenuID=1

The Christian Democrat and People's Parties International was founded in 1961 under the name Christian Democrat World Union (CDWU). It stemmed from the "Nouvelles Equipes Internationales" (New International Teams), the organisation that was the predecessor of the European Union of Christian Democrats (EUCD), from the Christian Democrat Organisation of America (ODCA) and the Christian Democrat Union of Central Europe (CDUCE). In 1999, it adopted its present name.

The evolution of the international system since 1989, the end of the East-West confrontation which dominated the international scene since the end of World War II, as well as the appearance of new independent states, the struggle for democracy and the conditions of globalisation at the dawn of this new millennium, offer the peoples of the world new opportunities and new challenges for coexistence, both in national and international communities, so that they may live in peace, freedom, justice and solidarity.

The Christian Democrat and People’s Parties International federates the political parties and organisations based on the principles of Christian or integral humanism, that is, a humanism open to transcendency and committed to brotherhood. This implies on the part of these parties and organisations:

1. the irrevocable recognition of the dignity of every person, irrespective of sex, age, colour, economic, social or cultural status or personal convictions;

2. the recognition and promotion of the individual rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and complementary treaties;

3. the orientation of their policy in accordance with the fundamental values of the ethic of Christian or integral humanism, particularly the values of truth, freedom, personal responsibility, justice and solidarity;

4. the search for peace through the aforementioned values;

5. the recognition and assertion of the social nature of human beings, who live as members of the multiple communities, particularly the family, upon which human society is built;

6. the attainment of the common good as the objective of political society and the guiding principle of public power;

7. the recognition and defence of democracy as the sole form of political organisation of nations guaranteeing the participation of all in public life, particularly through free, secret, general and regular elections offering the possibility of alternation, within the framework of the rule of law, which ensures constitutional balance between State bodies;

8. the pursuit of sustainable human development with a view to satisfying the material, cultural and spiritual needs of the individual, the family and society whilst respecting their freedom and the natural environment, the resources of which must be preserved and renewed;

9. the recognition, particularly in the economic area, of the necessity to reconcile the private interests of the individual with those of others and of society as a whole, through measures based on the principles of subsidiarity, solidarity and justice, by means of a social and ecological market economy;

10. the promotion of forms of community organisation and participation that contribute, as of civil society, to development based on equity;

11. for optimal attainment of all the aforementioned, the adoption and maintenance of a centrist position, from which to pursue a policy that is as inclusive as possible and that introduces whatever changes may be required in society with the highest level of progress achievable fo all peoples through dialogue and consensus.

More on Health Care Reform

2009-03-10T01:20:00.000-04:00

taken from http://www.verticalpoliticsinstitute.com/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Issues.View&Issue_id=9d92b651-cfcc-4a4a-83c3-b43aea91fc11

THE BIG PICTURE
The health care system in this country is irrevocably broken, in part because it is only a "health care" system, not a "health" system. We do not need universal health care mandated by federal edict or funded through ever-higher taxes. We do need to get serious about preventive health care instead of chasing more and more dollars to treat chronic disease, which currently gobbles up 80% of our health care costs, and yet is often avoidable. The result is that we'll be able to deliver better care where and when it's needed.
We must advocate policies that will encourage the private sector to seek innovative ways to bring down costs and improve the free market for health care services. We have to change a system that happily pays $30,000 for a diabetic to have his foot amputated, but won't pay for the shoes that would save his foot.
WHAT WE CAN DO
We can make health care more affordable by reforming medical liability; adopting electronic record keeping; making health insurance more portable from one job to another; expanding health savings accounts to everyone, not just those with high deductibles; and making health insurance tax deductible for individuals and families as it now is for businesses. Low income families should get tax credits instead of deductions. We don't need all the government controls that would inevitably come with universal health care. Americans must have more control of their health care options, not less.
We need to utilize the states as laboratories for new market-based approaches, and our next President should encourage those efforts. He should work with the private sector, Congress, health care providers, and other concerned parties to lead a complete overhaul of our health care system, not more of the same, paid for by Uncle Sam at the expense of hard-working families.
Health care spending is now about $2 trillion a year, which is close to $7,000 for each one of us. It consumes about 17% of our gross domestic product, easily surpassing the few European nations where spending is close to 10% and far higher than any other country in the world. If we reduced our out-of-control health care costs from 17% to 11%, we'd save $700 billion a year, which is about twice our annual national deficit.
Our health care system is making our businesses non-competitive in the global economy. General Motors spends more on health care than it does on steel, $1,500 per car. Starbucks spends more on health care than it does on coffee beans. We have an employer-based system from the 1940's, a system devised not because it was the best way to provide health care, but as a way around World War II wage-and-price controls. Costs have skyrocketed because the party paying for the health care - the employer - and the party using the health care - the employee - are not the same. It is human nature to consume more of something that is essentially free.
Workers complain that their wages are stagnant, but businesses reply that their total compensation costs are rising significantly because they are paying so much more for health care. Health care costs are adversely affecting your paycheck, even if you're healthy. Some Americans are afraid to change jobs or start their own businesses because they're afraid of losing their health insurance. It is time to recognize that jobs don't need health insurance, people do, and to ease the burden on our businesses. Our employer-based system has outlived its usefulness, but the answer is a consumer-based system, not socialized medicine.

Core Values in Health-Care Reform

2009-03-10T01:14:00.000-04:00

taken from http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/Health2.html

Health-care reform is upon us. We urge that core values other than curbing costs and ensuring universal access be given due consideration. We all favor saving money; indeed, controlling health-care costs should allow the nation to provide more health services and higher quality care. We also strongly favor the inclusion of all Americans in our health-care system. However, we are deeply concerned that many of the reform efforts currently under review will unwittingly undermine the culture of care in their pursuit of savings and access.
We rise to speak for the moral commitments, the social and institutional arrangements that are essential to maintain both the trust between patients and health-care professionals, and the professional commitments of health-care personnel. Let us not turn the health-care community into a health industry; let us take the steps necessary to sustain and nourish the care in health care. Specifically, we raise a communitarian voice for:
. sustaining the balance between individual rights and social responsibilities, especially regarding that which we must do on our own, and for others, and that which we can legitimately expect from others in the way of health care. As a matter of simple justice, we believe that it is legitimate to ask one and all to make a contribution to the commons and not simply seek more from the commons.
. the need to protect the moral integrity and unique character of the health-care system. In particular, we warn against the intrusion of commercialism and the managerial imperative. Unless health-care reforms are carefully crafted, they may undermine a system which is far from flawless but treats millions every year--with a great deal of care.
. the imperative of providing coverage for and crafting a health system in which preventing disease and promoting health are an integral part of the plan, not afterthoughts.
. the imperative of reforming other aspects of American society to reduce the burdens on our health-care system. We must not treat health care as the social garbage can into which we deposit the ill consequences of our nations problems, and expect it readily to absorb the costs.
. the moral justification for cutting administrative waste, defensive medicine, lavish promotions and excessive profits before we begin rationing beneficial and humane health services.
. the priority of serving children, that vulnerable group of society which has no vote, has no political muscle and represents the future of the nation.
. and, the social responsibilities of health-care professionals, who ought to raise their moral voice to alert and counsel the society within which they work.
Only by attending to these signal areas, as we attempt to provide every American with decent health care, will we ensure that our health-care system will sustain rather than lose the culture of care and the moral values and institutional arrangements that sustain it.

to read more visit http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/Health2.html

CDI Manifesto

2009-02-23T21:50:00.003-05:00

taken from http://www.cdi-idc.com/

The Centrist Democrat International on the side of the citizen
In a changing world, where the interdependence between West and East and North and
South is increasing, the Centrist Democrat view of society offers each person the
prospect of being able to thrive as an individual with specific talents, alongside other
individuals in the society. Centrist Democrats have clear answers to the new challenges
facing the international community. Placing themselves alongside the citizen, they are
building a world which also offers prospects to future generations.
The Centrist Democrat International (CDI) stands for the goals of Centrist Democrat
and related People's Parties and movements all over the world. As an international
organisation, the CDI supports the worldwide establishment of a free but socially
responsible market economy, which is the expression of the christian democratic ideal
for the shaping of our society.
The Centrist Democrat International sets out the following basic principles:
The fondamental values of Christian Democratic thinking, i.e. freedom and
responsibility, basic equality for all, justice, solidarité and subsidiarity, are the
keystones of a society in which individuals can thrive in coexistence with others. These
values hold out to the individual now and also to future generations the prospect of a
better world.
The recognition of fondamental human rights is the basis for building a society in which
individuals are able to fulfil themselves. Any attacks upon these rights must be opposed.
The nuclear family is the cornerstone of society, since it provides the best conditions for
the developments of the individual's personality. We must mobilise all available means
to ensure that the family is able to remain the environment in wich our children, the
adults of tomorrow, can grow into responsible people.
Poverty is a form of injustice. The international community must make strenous efforts
to abolish it. It is incombent on the developed countries
to help the less developed. We
must create the requisite conditions to enable countries to achieve their own
development. There is a need for a new set of development aid policies which will also
guarantee the personal safety of the aid providers.
Centrist Democrat and People's Parties, which place a high value on the principle of
solidarity, believe that economic policies must go hand in hand with a set of social
policies which will guarantee the weaker members of society the right to equal
opportunities for self-development. This concept of common responsibility also implies
the duty to integrate and support the disadvantaged in our societies.
Each society develops on the basis of the human resources available to it. Hence CDI
regards it as a priority to develop and support education and education systems.
Human beings ought to live in harmony with nature. CDI attaches great importance to
the development of a world environment policy designed to prevent problems and to
avoid shifting problems on to the less developed countries. Social development must not
lead to environmental damage. The present generation bears the responsibility for
managing our Earth properly and passing it on intact to future generations.
CDI is convinced of the need for cooperative links between countries. They support the
concept of federalism, in the spirit of genuine subsidiarity, and promote the idea of
regional cooperation agreements all over the world. In line with this process of
regionalisation, they strongly support mutual
cooperation between regional entities with
the goal of reducing the discrepancies between the various regions of the world.
The blueprint for cooperation on which the CDI is working is based upon a firm resolve
to establish peace and security across the world's borders. That is why the CDI is calling
for the setting up of efficient structures capable of guaranteeing peace and security.
They are convinced that the United Nations Organisation has a vital task to perform,
together with regional peace-keeping
organisations, in maintaining peace and
guaranteeing security. Dialogue and negotiation in all their forms in use in civil society
must take first priority in order to avert conflicts. In this respect, the process of
disarmament must be taken further, and
the international arms trade must be
discouraged.
In order to initiate, stimulate, and nourish the process of consultation among those who
share our view as to how society ought to develop, the CDI wishes to set up a strong
world organisation for the Centrist Democratic movement. The Centrist Democrat
International, with its President and Permanent Secretariat, must steer this organisation,
support the Member Parties and promote mutual consultation and agreement between
them.

WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT MEANS

2009-02-09T00:48:00.000-05:00

taken from http://www.verticalpoliticsinstitute.com/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Issues.View&Issue_id=fffe61d4-fc59-4970-a349-5edb944ce3f9

The words of the Second Amendment are really pretty simple: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Yet, this has been one of the most hotly debated Amendments in our history. The Second Amendment is primarily about tyranny and
self-defense, not hunting. The Founding Fathers wanted us to be able to defend ourselves from our own government, if need be, and from all threats to our lives and property. Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. Gun control should never be based on geography.

Our Founding Fathers, having endured the tyranny of the British Empire, wanted to guarantee our God-given liberties. They devised our three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. But they were still concerned that the system could fail, and that we might someday face a new tyranny from our own government. They wanted us to be able to defend ourselves, and that's why they gave us the Second Amendment. They knew that a government facing an armed populace was less likely to take away our rights, while a disarmed population wouldn't have much hope. As Ronald Reagan reminded us, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." Without our Second Amendment rights, all of our other rights aren't inalienable, they're just "on loan" from the government.

THE CONTROVERSY

Frequently politicians who favor gun control say that it doesn't affect hunting. But the truth is, the Second Amendment isn't really about hunting. It's about tyranny and self-defense. The Founding Fathers weren't worried about our being able to bag a duck or a deer, they were worried about our keeping our fundamental freedoms. Criminals will always find a way to get guns. By disarming our law-abiding citizens, we take away the strongest deterrent to violent criminals - the uncertainty that they don't know who is helpless and who is armed. Our law enforcement officials can't be everywhere, all the time. Lawfully-armed citizens back them up and prevent robberies, rapes, and the murder of innocents. Right after Katrina, with law enforcement non-existent, many victims were able to protect their lives, their homes, and their precious supplies of food and water only because they were armed.

Some politicians believe gun control should be determined geographically, but Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. Your Second Amendment rights don't change when you change your address. Gun manufacturers must be protected from frivolous law suits. Rights must be given to law enforcement officials, such as permitting them to carry concealed handguns.

A major controversy about the right to bear arms is whether that should include assault weapons. Should Americans be allowed to have them? The answer is a resounding Yes!! Americans ought to be allowed to have anything they want to have, as long as they're law abiding, legal citizens. The Second Amendment was not put in our constitution for hunting.

Sanctity of Life

2009-01-30T00:34:00.002-05:00

taken from http://www.verticalpoliticsinstitute.com

WHEN LIFE BEGINS

Life does begin at the point of conception. We should protect human life, the foundation of our civilization. It defines us as much as anything does, as to how we treat and how we even view another human life, as to whether it has intrinsic value or worth or whether it does not. Those of us who are pro life believe that we must do everything possible to protect that life, because protection of life is the centerpiece of what makes us unique as Americans. We value the life of one as if it's the life of all. That's why we search non-stop for that missing Boy Scout, or that missing young mother. That's why we search for the 13 miners in Sago, West Virginia after a mine explosion, or the hikers on Mount Hood. We value life and it is part of what separates us from the Islamic jihadists who celebrate death. They have a culture of death. We have a culture of life.

The clear science of when life begins is "When the male sperm and female egg join, a new and unique life form is created." Not at birth or viability, or when a lawyer says so. This happens at conception. This life is either human or something else. Science irrefutably would declare that the life which is starting from that moment is human. It's not a parrot, squirrel, or dolphin. It will never become a tree-it can only become a human. It has the entire DNA sequence that it will have for the rest of its life right then. In days it will begin to take on increasingly observable human characteristics and form, but at conception, it is biologically human.

A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO EXIST

If this life is human, then the only issue left is whether this human life falls under the notion that it has a fundamental right of existence or not. If not, it is because we as a culture have decided that some human lives are simply not worth living. If we can decide that about an innocent and unborn baby, we can also decide it on the basis of less absolute criteria than that. If we make that choice (and this is all about "CHOICE," isn't it?) then someone may decide that a terminally ill person is not a life worth living. Maybe a severely disabled child is a life not worth living; what about a person with a limited IQ?

Some might say that's absurd--that an educated and enlightened society would never be so audacious as to begin to terminate life based on such arbitrary excuses? Well, Germany fell into just such a moral chasm in the 1930s. The murder of six million Jews, and millions of others, was justified because of their religion and millions of others were murdered because of their politics. Germany was not a primitive, superstitious culture. It was filled with those deemed to be intelligent and enlightened. But in the end, the truly good people were overwhelmed by the truly evil people.

THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE - FROM CONCEPTION TO DEATH

At the core of our society is the sanctity of human life. It is rooted in who we are as a culture and as a civilization. And should we turn our back on this fundamental truth, we have turned our back on the very essence and foundation of who we are as a people. We should always err on the side of life. We as a society believe life is precious. As Christians we believe that God is the creator and instigator of life.

At the heart of our belief in life is the understanding that if we are indeed equal all of us have intrinsic worth, and no one has more than another. But those of us who are pro life must recognize some fundamental facts. Life begins at conception but it doesn't end at birth. If we're really pro-life we have to be concerned about more than just the gestation period. Real pro-life people need to be concerned about affordable housing, safe neighborhoods, access to a college education. Every child deserves a quality education, first-rate health care, decent housing in a safe neighborhood, and clean air and drinking water. Every child deserves the opportunity to discover and use his God-given gifts and talents. That is what pro-life has to mean.

The issue of right to life is an issue of principle and conviction. If we value each other as human beings and believe that everybody has equal worth, and that that intrinsic value is not affected by net worth, or ancestry, or last name, or job description, or ability, or disability, then the issue of the sanctity of human life is far bigger than just being anti-abortion. Those of us who believe so strongly in the sanctity of life recognize that we became involved in politics because of our strong pro-life convictions. It's about being pro-life and exercising that deep conviction held by our founding fathers that all of us are equal and no one is more equal than another, recognizing that once we ever decide that some people are more equal or less equal than others, then we start moving that line, and it may include us some day. Every human being has value. Every decision we make should always be on the side of life without equivocation.

Obama is back!

2009-01-20T14:22:00.001-05:00

taken from http://blog.amitaietzioni.org/2008/05/obama-is-back.html

For a while, on the long and torturous campaign trail, Obama seemed to focus excessively on the easier side of communitarianism: that we are all one; the hope and joy of togetherness. However, during his recent Wesleyan speech he revived the other half of his message: the call for service for the common good, a much more demanding subject.

For a time, we heard a lot of “we are not from red states, not from blue states, but from the United States.” We were invited to join the feel-good politics sprinkled liberally with the holy water of hope which has no cost.

In The Audacity of Hope, written before Obama declared his bid for the presidency, he was more mindful of the other half of the communitarian message, that we should “ground our politics in the notion of a common good.” He wrote, “We value the imperatives of family and the cross-generational obligations that family implies…We value patriotism and the obligations of citizenship, a sense of duty and sacrifice on behalf of our nation.”

On the campaign trail many of these profound insights faded. We heard painless declarations, such as “Our prosperity can and must be the tide that lifts every boat…we rise or fall as one nation,” and such undemanding observations as “…too often, we lose our sense of common destiny; [the] understanding that we are all tied together.”

The nation is upon hard times. Its coffers are empty; creditors are at the gate; the military is exhausted and depleted; the regard in which America is held overseas is at an all time low; and major economic and security challenges pile up like so many storm clouds. The nation demands a prolonged period of restoration, one in which merely replenishing all that was squandered will entail raising taxes and keeping new expenditures on a tight leash. In plain English— restoration means sacrifices and a commitment to serve, to give rather than just to take.

At Wesleyan, Obama re-embraced this theme. He told the graduating class—and the rest of us— about the days in which he first served as a community organizer in Chicago: “…I had worked for weeks on this project. We waited and waited for people to show up, and finally, a group of older people walked into the hall. And they sat down. And a little old lady raised her hand and asked, ‘Is this where the bingo game is?’”

He continued, “It wasn't easy, but eventually, we made progress. Day by day, block by block, we brought the community together, and registered new voters, and we set up after school programs, and fought for new jobs, and helped people live lives with some measure of dignity.”

Better yet, he introduced a new note, one of great import: “I also began to realize that I wasn't just helping other people. Through service, I found a community that embraced me; citizenship that was meaningful; the direction that I'd been seeking. Through service, I discovered how my own improbable story fit in to the larger story of America.”

If you want to read more, go here, but the main point is clear: unless we all put our shoulders to the wheel, America with be stuck in the rut that it is in now. Right on, Obama.

Declaration of Principles agreed by IDU founders, London 1983.

2009-01-19T19:06:00.001-05:00

taken from http://www.idu.org/principle.aspx

HAVING REGARD to their common convictions that democratic societies provide individuals throughout the world with the best conditions for political liberty, personal freedom, equality of opportunity and economic development under the rule of law; and therefore

BEING COMMITTED to advancing the social and political values on which democratic societies are founded, including the basic personal freedoms and human rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; in particular, the right of free speech, organisation, assembly and non-violent dissent; the right to free elections and the freedom to organise effective parliamentary opposition to government; the right to a free and independent media; the right to religious belief; equality before the law; and individual opportunity and prosperity;

HAVING REGARD to their common beliefs in an open society, where power is dispersed widely amongst free institutions, dedicated to creating conditions that will enable each individual to reach his full potential and to carry out his responsibilities to his fellow man; and where the central task of government is to serve the individual and to safeguard and promote individual freedom; and equally

STRESSING the moral commitments of a free and open society, supporting the institution of the family as its fundamental social and cohesive force, as well as social responsibility towards the weak and less fortunate, particularly by encouraging self-help and individual enterprise and choice in the provision of services;

BEING DEDICATED to a society of individuals working together in partnership for the common good;

HAVING REGARD to their common views that political democracy and private property are inseparable components of individual liberty and that the socially-oriented market economy provides the best means of creating the wealth and material prosperity to meet the legitimate aspirations of individuals, and of tackling social evils such as unemployment and inflation;

BELIEVING that this is the most effective and beneficial way of providing individual initiative and enterprise, responsible economic development, employment opportunities, low taxation and consumer choice;

HAVING REGARD to the threats posed by the extreme Left and the extreme Right;

REJECTING any form of totalitarianism, which brings so much suffering and restricts so many freedoms today;

HAVING REGARD to the important global tasks which render necessary and desirable a closer and efficient collaboration of their parties, inspired by their common conviction;

PLEDGING THEMSELVES to work towards ever-closer co-operation among all the peoples of democratic nations, while recognising the right of each individual nation to preserve its identity and to safeguard its vital interests, to use their influence and above all their political values for the greater good of the world, especially by promoting the mutual responsibilities of all nations for global economic development;

DECLARE their dedication to a just and lasting peace and freedom throughout the world; and

FURTHER DECLARE that the cause of peace will be advanced by adherence to the principles expressed in this Declaration; and in

ACTIVELY INVITING other parties to subscribe to them;

AGREE to create a working association in pursuance of their common beliefs, hereinafter referred to as the INTERNATIONAL DEMOCRAT UNION.

Criminal Justice

2009-01-14T18:57:00.000-05:00

taken from http://www.gwu.edu/~icps/crime.html

Thinking about criminal justice has undergone a major transformation over the past decade. At the core of the shift has been a rediscovery of the importance of community. "Community policing" has become the byword of police departments in numerous cities big and small. Many observers argue that these new police methods--which, among other things, emphasize the importance of order in public spaces and rely on stronger cooperation between police and neighborhood communities--bear at least part of the responsibility for the recent significant declines in crime.

Communitarians have long stressed the importance of the community as a powerful "third force" operating in the middle terrain between the individual and the government. Community norms can often be more effective than laws in regulating conduct. Indeed, without the support of the community’s "moral voice," laws and law enforcement can often be unavailing. Transforming a high-crime neighborhood into a livable community usually requires more than police action. The community itself must will a change.

The concept of community policing grew out of an important article by political scientists James Q. Wilson and George Kelling called "Broken Windows" (see below). In recent years communitarian-oriented sociologists and political scientists have contributed to the development of a broader concept of "community justice," which integrates insights from criminology with communitarian themes. An important collection of essays on the emerging concept of community justice was edited by David R. Karp, formerly of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies and now an assistant professor of sociology at Skidmore College.

Thumbnail Sketch of the FairTax

2009-01-11T02:14:00.003-05:00

taken from http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_basics_thumbnail

The FairTax proposal is a comprehensive plan to replace federal income and payroll taxes, including personal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security/Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes. The FairTax proposal integrates such features as a progressive national retail sales tax, dollar-for-dollar revenue replacement, and a rebate to ensure that no American pays such federal taxes up to the poverty level. Included in the FairTax Plan is the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. The FairTax allows Americans to keep 100 percent of their paychecks (minus any state income taxes), ends corporate taxes and compliance costs hidden in the retail cost of goods and services, and fully funds the federal government while fulfilling the promise of Social Security and Medicare.

Americans take home their whole paychecks.
Not only do more Americans have jobs, but they also take home 100 percent of their paychecks (except where state income taxes apply). No federal income taxes or payroll taxes are withheld from paychecks, pensions, or Social Security checks.

The prebate makes the FairTax progressive.
To ensure no American pays tax on necessities, the FairTax Plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate (prebate) for every registered household to cover the consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This, along with several other features, is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, lowers the tax burden on most, while making the overall rate progressive. However, the FairTax is progressive based on lifestyle/spending choices, rather than simply punishing those taxpayers who are successful. Do you see how much freer life is with the FairTax instead of the income tax?

No tax on used goods. The amount you pay to fund the government is totally visible.
With the FairTax you are only taxed once on any good or service. If you choose to buy used goods − used car, used home, used appliances − you do not pay the FairTax. If, as a business owner or farmer, you buy something for strictly business purposes (not for personal consumption), you pay no consumption tax. The FairTax is charged just as state sales taxes are today. When you decide what to buy and how much to spend, you see exactly how much you are contributing to the government with each purchase.

Retail prices no longer hide corporate taxes or compliance costs, which together drive up costs for those who can least afford to pay.
Did you know that income taxes and the cost of complying with them currently make up 20 percent or more of all retail prices? It’s true. According to Dr. Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University, hidden income taxes are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for everything you buy. If competition does not allow prices to rise, corporations lower labor costs, again hurting those who can least afford to lose their jobs. Finally, if prices are as high as competition allows and labor costs are as low as practical, profits/dividends to shareholders are driven down, thereby hurting retirement savings for moms-and-pops and pension funds invested in Corporate America. With the FairTax, the sham of corporate taxation ends, competition drives prices down, more people in America have jobs, and retirement/pension funds see improved performance.

The income tax exports our jobs, rather than our products. The FairTax brings jobs home.
Most importantly, the FairTax does not burden U.S. exports the way the current income tax system does. The FairTax removes the cost of corporate taxes and compliance costs from the cost of U.S. exports, putting U.S. exports on a level playing field with foreign competitors. Lower prices sharply increase demand for U.S. exports, thereby increasing job creation in U.S. manufacturing sectors. At home, imports are subject to the same FairTax rate as domestically produced goods. Not only does the FairTax put U.S. products sold here on the same tax footing as foreign imports, but the dramatic lowering of compliance costs in comparison to other countries’ value-added taxes also gives U.S. products a definitive pricing advantage which foreign tax systems cannot match.

The FairTax strategy is revenue neutral: Neither raise nor lower taxes so consumer costs remain stable.
The FairTax pays for all current government operations, including Social Security and Medicare. Government revenues are more stable and predictable than with the federal income tax because consumption is a more constant revenue base than is income.

If you were in a 23-percent income tax bracket, the federal government would take $23 out of your paycheck for every $100 you made. With the FairTax, if the federal government gets $23 out of every $100 spent in America, the same total revenue is delivered to the federal government. This is revenue neutrality. So, instead of paycheck-earning Americans paying 7.65 percent of their paychecks in Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes, plus an average of 18 percent of their paychecks in federal income tax, for a total of about 25.65 percent, consumers in America pay only $23 out of every $100. Or about 30 percent at the cash register when they elect to spend on new goods or services for their own personal consumption. And this tax is collected only on spending above the federal poverty level, providing important progressivity.

Tax criminals don’t make criminals out of honest taxpayers.
Today, the IRS will admit to 16 percent noncompliance with the code. FairTax.org will be generous and simply take the position that this is likely a conservative estimate of the underground economy. However, this does not take into account the criminal/drug/porn economy, which equally conservative estimates put at one trillion dollars of untaxed activity. The FairTax does tax this -- criminals love to flash that cash at retail -- while continuing to provide the federal penalties so effective in bringing such miscreants to justice. The substantial decrease in points of compliance -- from every wage earner, investor, and retiree, down to only retailers -- also allows enforcement to concentrate on following the money to criminal activity, rather than making potential criminals out of every taxpayer struggling to decipher the current code.

What is the FairTax Plan?
The FairTax Plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue replacement, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment. This nonpartisan legislation (HR 25/S 1025) abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities. The IRS is disbanded and defunded. The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

What is Americans For Fair Taxation (FairTax.org)?
FairTax.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, grassroots organization solely dedicated to replacing the current tax system. The organization has hundreds of thousands of members and volunteers nationwide. Its plan supports sound economic research, education of citizens and community leaders, and grassroots mobilization efforts. For more information visit the Web page: www.FairTax.org or call 1-800-FAIRTAX.

For more information, check out the Research Papers

Assemblies of God Perspectives on Social Issues

2009-01-14T18:25:00.003-05:00

links taken from http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/topic_index.cfm

The following statements are based upon Assemblies of God common understanding of scriptural teaching.

Abortion: Sanctity of Human Life Including Abortion and Euthanasia, Abuse, Alcohol, Tobacco & Drugs, Balancing Relationships and Responsibilities, Capital Punishment, Civil Disobedience, Counseling and Psychology, Environmental Protection, Family - A Biblical Institution, Feminism and Appropriate Roles for Women, Financial Practices & Credit, Governments and Political Parties, Immigration, Law: Law and Crime, Poverty: The Poor, Racism, War and Conscientious Objectors

Episcopal Social Involvement

2009-01-11T02:11:00.000-05:00

taken from http://www.episcopalchurch.org/advocacy.htm

The focus of the Advocacy Center is domestic and international peace and justice, giving a voice to the voiceless. The following mission areas serve under advocacy:

Our Mission Areas

Public Policy Network

Advocacy Resources (coming soon)

Free Trade Is Anything but Fair, and Lousy Economics Besides

2009-01-08T05:41:00.000-05:00

taken from http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/B448.html

"Free trade" is God's gift to modern economies, and for a politician to support "fair trade" is tantamount to worshiping graven images.

Dick Gephardt, who dared to touch the free-trade icon, was burned at the stake. John Edwards, who questioned free trade, failed as a candidate, while John F. Kerry, who dances around this issue as if it were gay marriage, now has beaten the Democratic pack. Moreover, when President Bush protected U.S. steel from ruinous competition, he was dumped on as if he were a labor Neanderthal.

But politics aside, is free trade really good economics? Free trade would be all that it was promised to be if we lived in a world in which not just jobs but also goods, people and capital freely flowed from one country to another. In such a never-never land, indeed, everyone would do what he was best at, and we all would be richer for it. Unfortunately, when one country lowers its trade barriers and other countries don't lower theirs as much — making for freer, but not free, trade — who gets what becomes extremely murky. And that is the world in which we find ourselves today.

U.S. corporations love to move their plants and our jobs to other countries — countries that sometimes block our products and services from entering. As we lowered our trade barriers, a good part of our car and television manufacturing was done in Japan. But for decades Japan prevented our financial institutions from serving its citizens, and its corporate culture of keiretsu (close business relationships) still hampers the work of these institutions. American construction companies can bid all they want for public works in the huge Japanese market, but a cabal of Japanese firms decides whose turn it is to submit the lowest bid this time, and somehow it very rarely turns out to be a foreign company. Scores of countries block the import of what we are best at producing: low-cost food.

Many free-market champions believe we should export lowbrow jobs but do the "creative" stuff ourselves, thus keeping our hands clean and our wages high. This notion assumes that God has anointed the United States to be the creator while the rest of the world has been chosen to do the menial work. Perhaps no one told the rest of the world. Israelis and Finns, for instance, are not exactly laggards. Indian engineers and Chinese computer programmers are rapidly bridging the creativity gap. Moreover, the U.S. has a range of talent distribution. What will our less-talented workers do if they are not gifted enough to make "Finding Nemo" or if there are not enough "creative" jobs to go around? Will they move — or be moved — to the nations where their jobs were outsourced, as free-trade theory calls for?

If Americans are not to follow their jobs to Third World countries, they will need to be retrained and relocated within our borders, a transition that, even when it works, generates high adjustment costs.

Every time we pare down an industry because its labor can be performed more cheaply overseas — say, most recently reading X-rays — those who used to work in it here either need to be retrained to do something else or live off unemployment or welfare. Such transitions also entail, as studies have shown, a significant increase in mental illness, suicides and family breakdowns, all hefty human and social costs. Economists tend to ignore all these public costs, which end up in the laps of taxpayers, when they tell people how wonderful it is that they can buy T-shirts at Wal-Mart at a discount.

Organized labor's claim that free trade involves a race to the bottom is valid. As flight attendants and grocery workers recently discovered, the pressure is on to reduce benefits, job security and the wages given to new employees and possibly to old ones.

Remaining competitive in a world in which billions of workers are paid about a dollar a day and have no benefits, and in which corporations need not worry about environmental costs, requires us to drastically lower our own standard of living.

Economists argue that eventually other countries will raise their living standards (as South Korea and Taiwan already are doing) and then we will all compete on equal footing. But there are two ways to get there: lower our standards until the rest of the world catches up or insist that we compete freely only with those countries where companies give their workers a basic basket of benefits and elementary environmental protection. This is what is referred to as "fair trade."

Americans should have the opportunity to vote in November on which form of trade they prefer: the mismanaged variety (masquerading as free trade) or fair trade. They will have this opportunity only if one of the political parties has the civic courage to lift the fog in which economists, big business and naive liberals have shrouded this whole sordid business. Then fair trade will not only be sound economics for America but also good politics.

Amitai Etzioni, a professor of sociology at the George Washington University, is the author most recently of "My Brother's Keeper: A Memoir and a Message" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).

Hindu Social Issues

2009-01-08T01:52:00.001-05:00

taken from http://hinduism.iskcon.com/lifestyle/903.htm

Poverty

The affluent world often perceives a simple, rural life as abject poverty, and a sign of social retardation. Hindus traditionally considered it virtuous to voluntarily accept an uncomplicated life for spiritual purposes. With different views on wealth, poverty and success, the West is prone to hastily dismiss India's socio-religious practices as backward and irrelevant. Nonetheless, poverty remains a real problem in many areas.

The role of women

Hindu texts stress the importance of stable family ties and valuing and protecting women. Nonetheless, there has been – and there still is – wide abuse. Despite this, the tradition largely rejects the post-modern notion that social justice is achieved simply through promoting material equality.

Child marriage

Texts recommend marriage at an early age, particularly for girls in order to protect their chastity. Sexual transgression is considered particularly detrimental to spiritual life. Many so-called child marriages were actually a form of betrothal and marriage was not consummated until the wife was of age.

Sati

Sati was voluntarily performed on the basis of overwhelming affection for the partner and a desire to follow him into the next life. Hindu texts forbid its performance in Kali-yuga, the present age.

Polygamy

Polygamy was made illegal in 1952. It was previously considered essential for a limited number of responsible and qualified men to redress the gender imbalance in a society where practically all women were supposed to get married and significant numbers of men remained celibate.

The dowry system

The dowry system was originally a sign of affection by the father for his daughter. The dowry remained the wife's personal property, not that of her husband or his family. This system has been abused by unscrupulous in-laws who terrorise and even murder those brides who don't provide a sufficient dowry.