Jon Stewart: Enemy of Democracy?

A fellow named Richard Morin of the Washington Post recently wrote an article questioning whether Jon Stewart was "an enemy of democracy" because his show was too cynical.

Jon Stewart's show is the most informative outlet for "news" on television today. The fact is that television is entertainment even if the content is news. Jon Stewart at least admits that his show is inherently about entertainment and not about news and does a better job exploring issues in detail and cutting through the cable news crap than anyone else.

Now, as for those who are making young people cynical about politics....that is an entire different issue having nothing to do with Stewart.

Paul Gessing

Full Circle

Paul Gessing cites the iconoclastic Bruce Bartlett’s column that the Ds have become so shrill as to alienate the broad middle. Bartlett states:

From what I read on the blogs these days, most Democrats believe that their party's single biggest problem is that it is not tough enough. Their solution is to be ever more shrill and hysterical in attacking Republicans. As a Republican, I think this is wonderful. It just makes Democrats look like kooks, and forces moderates to vote Republican.

This is part of my point in my Let’s Be Careful Out There blog. Sure, Iraq II is being waged in – let’s call it – an “extra-constitutional” manner. All US wars since WWII have been so waged. I certainly see why someone would call all these wars “illegal,” but to me illegal is something someone gets put in jail for. Do we really – and plausibly – want to see Bush, Cheney, and all MCs who voted for the Iraq War Resolution in jail? Hmm, well, yes, they can do less damage there, but when engaging the mainstream, this notion I suspect sounds “shrill and hysterical.”

If we don’t communicate with people in terms that they understand, then we’re really not interested in communicating, are we?

-Robert Capozzi

Political Whores Needed?

Perhaps the libertarians and the greens could learn a little something from Bruce Bartlett's analysis of the historical shift of the balance of power from Democrats to Republicans.

Although I can't believe Bartlett is as enthusiastic as he sounds about the fact that Republicans basically have no principles at all at this point, his analysis of the need for "party people" and ideologues to form a big-tent within any successful political party is spot-on and in accordance with Carl Milsted's repeated calls for a moderate, eco-friendly third political party.

Paul Gessing

Let's Be Careful Out There

Richard A. Cheatham's Treason or Patriotism? here on The Free Liberal got me thinking, which is always a dangerous thing.

The column outlines the story of one First Lieutenant Ehren Watada, who is refusing to report for duty because he believes the War in Iraq is "illegal." To be clear, I was against the invasion of Iraq (both times) and I'd like to see us out of there soon. And scanning Lt. Watada's web site and news reports, I admire him. He believes that he should not report for a war he considers immoral, as do I.

But I cannot find why he finds it "illegal" and "unconstitutional." He believes it was based on "lies," which may well be correct, but he doesn't explain how he knows they were "lies" rather than based on faulty intelligence. Yes, there is no formal declaration of war, yet the President and Congress clearly authorized the invasion. Congress could snip the pursestrings on Shock, Awe and its Aftermath, yet they don't. Going to war without an actual declaration seems a very poor practice, yet is it "illegal"? Perhaps it is, but I don't see the clear case for it.

So, I ask my fellow anti-war colleagues: Do we really want to engage in the same sort of hyperbolic rhetoric as the pro-war side?

-Robert Capozzi

The WTC Memorial and Admissions Fees

New York politicians and city officials are wrangling over what to charge people who visit the proposed memorial at Ground Zero. State lawmakers won't fund any project requiring an admissions fee. I suppose they fear turning a gravesite into an amusement park. However, NYC officials are correct to point out that the city taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for a museum which people from all over the world will visit.

There is a solution which involves no required admissions fee and will also work to get the visiting public to pick up part of the cost. The museum could make clear that it cannot stay in operation without donations from visitors. The "suggested contribution" could be the same as the needed admissions fee. It seems reasonable that there will be some visitors who contribute more and some who contribute less. Given the national feeling towards what happened on September 11th, I predict that such a scheme would be just as good as an admissions fee. It might even work better. Further, the voluntary nature of the contribution would provide visitors a way of personally honoring those who died.

If anyone doubts that this is a reasonable strategy for providing the service, consider the plethora of blogs supported by user donations. Also consider the vast array of charitable organizations from churches and aid organizations, to think tanks and schools. Think about the amount of change handed out to the beggars on the streets everyday. The beggars wouldn't beg if anonymous passersby didn't regularly pay to keep their sense of dignity while strolling down the boulevard. For a cause which the visitor is emotionally involved in, there should be no question of her willingness to pay.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

More Peskiness

Norm Singleton makes excellent points here regarding my initial blog, That Pesky Section 8. First, I certainly don’t find loyalty to the Founders and Framers to be something we should necessarily aspire to. They did, after all, consider abolishing slavery in the US, and on this supremely large and important test, they failed.

Still, one can look past this major oversight and yet maintain great admiration for the Framers and what they tried to do with the Constitution. In many ways, I wish they’d been far more explicit in what the federal government cannot do than what it can. Even when the 4th Amendment is under assault as it is today, the Bill of Rights is – in many ways – the superior section of the Constitution. For those of us who adhere to the spirit of the Constitution and its desire to “secure the blessings of liberty,” itemizing what the feds are prohibited from doing seems to work better than making vague statements. In some ways, the first eight Amendments seem to have more staying power than nine and 10, which are non-specific.

Freedomistas, however, do need to read Article 1, Section 8 especially. There it states that Congress can do things like “regulate commerce with foreign nations” and “borrow money on the credit of the United States.” It, for me, strains credibility to say that, for instance, NAFTA or CAFTA are “unconstitutional” when such plain language exists in the text. Trade agreements and budget deficits may well be bad ideas, but unconstitutional they are not.

In a sense, the 10th Amendment’s: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people,” may well have been too weakly worded. The stronger language in the 1st Amendment – “Congress shall make no law…” – may have avoided many governmental oversteps throughout history. It’s hard to say how things might have been had the Framers anticipated just how large and intrusive government has gotten.

The good news is that, even with centuries of digging a deep hole, we can stop and fill it back in.

-Robert Capozzi

Government Goons Murder Puppies!

If this story doesn't make you oppose the drug war, then, well, maybe the fact that it ruins millions of human lives every year will convince you.

Paul Gessing

The Transitory Nature of Partisan Hacks

Thanks much to Norm Singleton for his post, "Who's Not Who on the Right" Too often, people want to be identified with who's hot at the moment regardless if those people are articulating coherent ideas, or lasting principles. No matter if they teach or deceive, as long as they sell, they seem to attract fauning admirers.

I thought this line of the New York Times article was especially telling:

"Newt came and went rather fast but didn't leave hard fingerprints," Mr. Buckley said. "The quote, unquote conservative politicians have a pretty short lifetime in encyclopedia usage.

The fact is, that many of our "leaders" are merely cheerleaders with whom everyone wants to sleep. You don't necessarily become popular by having the right idea or the correct solution.

The propensity to confuse the ideology of conservatism with support for whatever the Republican party does is a problem for members of the conservative movement, as well as America as a whole. Simply because there is overlap in some areas, does not mean that one must define the other. In fact, conservatism and Republicanism (in its partisan sense) are both amorphous entities and are composed of competing sections. To think that even one alone could define itself without contradiction is absurd, and even more so that one could define the other.

As individualist thinkers, we must not confuse the whole for its parts, nor the parts for the whole. And we should not delude ourselves that simply because there is similarity there is symmetry. Ideas must stand on their own merits. It is one thing to agree to be a part of team, compromising some values to further others, as a part of an overall strategy of achieving correct ends, and it is another to conflate the ends with the means. To say that Republicanism is the goal of conservativism is to undermine the latter for the former.

And I write all of this, not as a member of the conservative movement, but as a member of the libertarian movement -- a movement I believe desperately needs to move towards building a bigger tent with people who are not ideologically in line with all of the libertarian program. I hope that libertarians might be as sucessful as conservatives, but without losing the intellectual muster which libertarians have attained.

The libertarian problem today, is exactly the opposite of the conservatives. We are all ideology and no politics. I believe transpartisan thinking may hold some of the answers. The transpartisan vision is to meld ideology with utility, utopia with reality. We need to be able to see the values inherent in our opponent's position without abandoning our own rationality and our own principles.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Who's not who on the right

Capitol Hill Blue and The New York Times note that the Intercollegiate Studies Institute's new "Dictionary of Modern Conservatism" does not contains entries for such pillars of modern conservatism as Karl Rove and Tom Delay. It seems to have escaped the notice of the Times that prominence in the GOP does not necessary make one a pillar of conservatism. Unfortunately, many conservatives make the same mistake and this is responsible for many of the problems plaguing the conservative movement today.

Re: the Pesky Section 8

Bob, Section 8 only grants Congress those powers "necessary and proper" for "carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States," so only those Congressional actions related to one of the powers explicitly granted the government are justified under Section 8's "necessary and proper" clause. Libertarians who uphold this interpretation are not relying on a flimsy catch-all argument but on a logical interpretation of the text.

More than loyalty to the Founder's intent is at stake in this debate. To say that the "necessary and proper" or "general welfare" clause of the Constitution allows the government to assume powers beyond those explicitly granted by the Constitution is to deny that the Constitution in any way limits the federal government's power beyond the specific prohibitions of the Bill of Rights.

Right Against War with Iran

Check out this event which is occuring Wednesday. If you are in the DC-area, you should consider attending. I will try to be there myself.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

The speakers include:

Chuck Pena (Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy):
"Refocusing the War on Terrorism"

Ivan Eland (Independent Institute)
“The United States Might Have to Accept a Nuclear Iran.”

Phil Giraldi (former CIA officer, contributing editor, The American Conservative):
"Iran: Same Bad Intelligence, Same Catastrophic Results"

Doug Bandow (Liberty Coalition):
"Another War: Another Attack on Civil Liberties"

When: Wednesday, June 21st 2006
Where: 122 Cannon House Office Building
Washington DC
Washington, D.C. 20015
Time: 2 p.m.-3 p.m.

If you have any questions please contact Michael D. Ostrolenk, Policy Fellow, Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy
at mostrolenk@terabolic.net

The Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy is a group of scholars, policy makers and concerned citizens united by our opposition to an American empire. The Coalition is dedicated to promoting an alternative vision for American national security strategy that is consistent with American traditions and values.

The Milsted Strategy

Carl Milsted's article, "Where the Votes Are," which was recently posted to FMNN, is worth reading for libertarians who are looking for a strategy that can transcend the old left-right dichotomy as well as the liberty-authority dimension of the Nolan Chart. The Nolan chart, along with the World's Smallest Political Quiz, plots an individual's preference for government action in an economic and a social dimension. Carl suggests libertarians need to consider values, not just actions.

He also points out that libertarians ought to not be so fearful of the left and its concerns.

Once upon a time, the term “liberal” referred to moderate libertarians. But in many respects, these classical liberals were also liberals in the modern sense. They were greatly concerned about wealth inequality. By the standards of their time, the classical liberals were in the upper left of my chart.

And he notes that classical liberals and libertarians have the tools they need to reach the left, if only they knew they had the tools.

Today, there is no mass political movement of the upper left. Most people do not realize that an upper-left agenda is even possible today. But it is. The ideas are out there, buried in writings which few liberals find pleasant: in middle chapters of the classical liberal canon, in books filled with improbable conspiracy theories, and in the Old Testament Law. Changing minds simply requires bringing these ideas into the foreground.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Cross-posted to my personal blog.

The Tree Climbing Actress

Thanks to Paul for pointing out the spectacle of Daryl Hannah climbing a tree to protest the destruction of a garden in Los Angeles. I'm sure the urban garden is lovely and maybe it SHOULD be preserved... But, there's a very simple way Daryl Hannah could remedy the situation without causing a conflict. She could buy it. If the garden visitors value the land more as a garden, more than the current owner values it as a warehouse, then they could demonstrate the strength of their preference by voting with dollars.

A similar situation happened in Northern Virginia some years ago, when a farm park in McLean was slated for development. Much outcry took place at government meetings, but the local residents didn't ante up. Evidently, the people who were lobbying to save the park were unhappy and there were undoubtedly others who would have benefited from the beauty and uniqueness of a park in the heart of suburbia. I think this is a tragedy.

But, it is mostly a tragedy caused by failing to see solutions beyond government mandate and collective decision.

We need people who are willing to not just scream and yell, but who will consistently work to preserve (and create) quality of life. Any group of concerned citizens could work together to achieve more pleasant and friendly neighborhoods. If citizens can't pay to save a open spaces individually, working with neighbors is way to build community and add even more value to the places we call home.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Hollywood Just Doesn't Get It

As we rapidly approach June 23rd, the one year anniversary of the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, this story made me pause and think about just how out of touch most Hollywood elites are with the rest of Americans.

Where was Hannah when Susette Kelo and her neighbors when they were evicted by the city of New London recently? How about a little righteous outrage over the fact that any of us can now have our homes taken away from us for any reason, by some government bureacrat?

No, instead, we have actress Daryl Hannah sitting in a tree to stop the owner of the land on which an urban garden has been located. Worse, Hannah and her cadre of anti-property rights activists are only making it less likely that land owners will allow others to use their land on a temporary basis because when the time comes that they do need it back, the property owner is in for nothing but ingratitude and trouble.

Paul Gessing

Thinking Out Loud About “Regime Change”

Painful as it is, I’ve in recent years been slogging through various neoconservative journal offerings, trying to understand their point of view. Often long and ponderous, and tinged with paranoia, neocons pretty consistently make the case that “we are in a war with Islamofascism.”

And you know what, I think they are somewhat correct. That is, there have been enough terrorist attacks over, say, the past 20 years that convince me that these aren’t simply random incidents. There seem to be some rather angry jihadists plotting or doing violent acts, not only in the US with 9/11, but in Spain, the UK, and even Denmark and Canada.

Whether the jihadists coordinate their actions seems highly inconclusive. Whether bin Laden’s al Qaeda Network is somehow orchestrating these actions seems unclear, but probably unlikely. I don’t believe the neocons think so, either.

Rather, they seem to want to somehow “civilize” the Middle East, where the jihadists generally all have ties. By bringing about “regime change,” the money and resources for the jihadists will dry up.

Progressives and hard-core libertarians seem to respond, No, the undemocratic regimes in the Middle East are not the problem. The problem is imperialistic US (and, apparently, Western) foreign policy. Stop these policies, apologize for past transgressions, and the jihadists will stop their campaign of violence.

I think that summarizes it fairly, but perhaps not.

If correct, neither of these approaches seems reasonable. The situation has simply gone too far. Flying airliners into non-military buildings is, IMO, over-the-top heinous, so the US is justified in occupying Afghanistan, the once-hotbed of al Qaeda training camps. The vicious targeting of civilians in New York, London, and Madrid is simply unacceptable behavior. Western nations simply can’t let these sorts of acts stand.

Regime change, however, is equally over the top. It’s not our business, it’s unprecedented, and it’s more than likely to create more jihadists, not less. Neocon grandiosity on the subject makes the Cold War seem tame. Then, the US was simply trying to stop the spread of Communism. For the US to forcibly change all the governments in a large region of the world sounds to me like the babblings of Dr. Strangelove.

Progressives and hard-core libertarians do have a point, though. The US should tactfully extricate from the Middle East. Meddling is not our business. And what would it hurt to take responsibility for the CIA-inspired coup in Iran in 1953? Installing the Shah was not justified in any way.

“Blaming America First” seems inappropriate, but taking some responsibility could well reduce tensions.

Regardless of where things shake out, it seems the US will need to exhibit eternal vigilance for perhaps generations. The temptation to over-react, as I believe the neocons do, will be with us, as will the temptation to be overwhelmed by guilt for what has been done.

I humbly submit that, rather than drawing up complex scenarios that – time and again rarely work out – we adopt a far more modest modus operandi: Do the next right thing.

-Robert Capozzi

Don't Quote Me on that...

Sometimes political folks are afraid to quote from, or acknowledge ideas from people who are perceived to be on the other side. We fear that we will be associated with their entire image and philosophy if we even agree with a single truth they utter. I wrote previously on this subject here. It seems clear that a systematic refusal to say any good things about the other side leads to the ugliest kind of partisanship which we see in politics so much today -- opposition based upon anger and blame rather than any kind of coherent principle.

Casey Lartigue, notes a different aspect of the same problem on his aptly named blog, " What Would You Say If You Weren't Afraid?" He notes the problem of fearing to say a particular truth because of who might agree. Instead of fearing who we quote, we may also fear who will quote us.

Lartigue uses the example of black politicos not wanting certain white politicos to appropriate their words:

In 1993 Washington Post columnist William Raspberry wrote a column about readers concerned about conservatives occasionally quoting from his writings. Raspberry began the column with a question from a reader, frantically calling him: "Did you know that Rush Limbaugh has been talking about your column on the radio?" The caller was really concerned because Limbaugh had favorably quoted a Raspberry column on former president Clinton's stance on gays in the military.

Raspberry cited another example or two. He was being told the same kind of thing that La Shawn Barber and many other blacks are being told: "I shouldn't say such things in print lest I provide ammunition for those who don't like us."

This is completely wrong as Lartigue notes:

There's an old saying that an idea isn't responsible for who believes in it. It would seem to make sense that the same would be true of people--a writer or speaker isn't responsible for the people who agree with him (or her). If you've got an opinion, why would you hold it back because of who could agree with you? And if that person changes his mind, are you supposed to change yours, too?

Henry George would be proud. "He who sees the truth, let him proclaim it, without asking who is for it or who is against it."

I'm sure Mr. Lartigue won't change his opinions one bit now that I've quoted him.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Goldberg and the Desperate Non Sequitur

Everyone is, of course, entitled to his or her own opinion. Even when they are hateful. Even ignorant. And, I suppose, even when their xenophobia gets pointed at, of all people, the Canadians.

Neocon, boy wonder Jonah Goldberg tests the bounds of decent discourse with this offering in the LA Times. Reading it – even with the open-est of minds – may well lead one to wonder whether neocon Kool Aid is spiked with LSD. That’s how daft this otherwise learned lad sounds to this observer.

In what I hope is at least partially tongue-in-cheek, Goldberg first suggests that the US bomb Canada. He moves on to suggest instead that the Canadian prime minister be beheaded by Islamic terrorists.

The LA Times – one of the nation’s most important newspapers – chose to run this Goldbergian pearl:

“[Canada] bravely contributed to the war in Afghanistan, where 2,300 troops still serve, but refused to join the effort in Iraq, believing that jihadists would honor such fine distinctions.”

Unsourced, but one wonders: Maybe Canada was, for instance, un-persuaded that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Could it be that our neighbors to the North didn't buy the notion that Iraq posed an imminent threat, to Canadians or to anyone else. It seems kudos are in order for the Canadians, rather than Goldberg’s wrath.

And then, for a textbook definition of the non-sequitur, Goldberg thought this might be a helpful addition to the collective consciousness:

“The frog who carried the scorpion on his back in Aesop's fable was nice. It didn't make the scorpion's sting any less poisonous.

“Indeed, there's good reason to believe that niceness is part of the problem, not the solution. Many Canadians (and Americans and Europeans) cling to a deep-seated belief that more multiculturalism, more interfaith dialogue, more "understanding," more Western apologies, more acceptance of Sharia, more "niceness" will fix the problem.”

Yes, well, now I understand. “Niceness” is bad. Being respectful? Bad. Dialogue? Unforgivable!

But methinks I see the crux of the problem in Goldberg World. He sees “scorpions” (he’d likely refer to them as Islamofascists), and imagines that nations that don’t endeavor to kill the scorpions are somehow enabling them. Imagine young Goldberg in the schoolyard. Across the way, he sees a bully. Young Goldberg attempts to enlist his playmates to roust the bully, but they turn him down. They’d rather just avoid the bully.

Incensed, young Goldberg starts screaming hysterically at his (now former) friends that they are appeasers, even in league with the bully. Don’t they understand that there will never be peace in the playground unless and until they see the bully’s head split open on the pavement?

Canada, Mr. Goldberg, is no frog. They are not carrying the scorpion Islamfascists on their backs. They are, instead, acting like adults, wary – surely – of a small band of crazed extremists, but judiciously using force when it’s appropriate and just.

Is this lesson that hard to learn?

-Robert Capozzi

Bob Capozzi, Senior Editor

Our frequent readers may notice some slight changes to The Free Liberal website this morning. On the masthead on the homepage, we now have a new Senior Editor at The Free Liberal. Joining the original Senior Editors, Paul Gessing, Carl Milsted, and Michael Ostrolenk, who helped found this publication nearly 3 years ago, is Robert Capozzi.

Bob joined The Free Liberal team early last year, and he began writing articles for us and attending our regular social hour. He quickly jumped into the role of one of the most reliable editors both of his own work and of others' work. I eventually asked him if I could call him Associate Editor and pass more editing responsibilities his way. He has taken on more and more of these important tasks and for nearly half a year has been managing the daily content presented on FreeLiberal.com.

But, perhaps even more important than all of his other fine work, have been his intellectual contributions to this project. Bob has helped define what we are as an organization -- what a "Free Liberal" is to the outside world. He has challenged many people's thinking, and often the thinking of other members of The Free Liberal team. We are stronger for it. And so, once again, we recognize his impact by naming him Senior Editor.

Consider taking a moment to review some of Bob's writings at The Free Liberal.

Martha Revisited: Why the Stewart Case Needs a Second Look

Media Review: Thomas Woods’ Revisionist Revelation

In Defense of John Lennon

And also take a look at his extensive list of Free For All blog entries.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

That Pesky Section 8

Many freedomistas like to base their opposition to various and sundry government programs on the fact that they believe such activity is "unconstitutional." While I almost always join them in their opposition, I frequently don't agree with their grounds.

See, if you actually READ the text of the Constitution, it's hard to conclude that there's little that Congress can't do, aside from what they specifically can't do in the Bill of Rights. Heretical, you say?

Well, Article I, Section 8 makes my point. This is quite a list of things Congress CAN do, topped off by this passage:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

A truck can easily drive through this language.

Those who are quick to brand things "unconstitutional" then fall back on the notion of "original intent." Fair enough. Show us where the convention opined on their intent, and perhaps that should be considered.

No, instead, we get pointed to ex parte comments made well before or after by individual Framers. Their case gets reedier and thinner. Most of the time, we have absolutely no idea what the intent was. Yes, of course, the Framers were for constraining and restricting government generally, but the specifics were left to future generations. We've dropped the ball. We should pick it up. But I suggest we do so on the merits, not the flimsy, catch-all "unconstitutional" argument.

-Robert Capozzi

Ann Coulter is insane

I wouldn't give Ann Coulter the time of day if she stopped me on the street and her hateful drivel normally doesn't rise above the noise of Bill O'Reilly and the rest of conservative punditry to raise my hackles. But, when she attacks a group of 9/11 widows and calls them "witches" for calling for the 9/11 Commission and supporting the Democratic Party, she is just showing how nasty and irrational some on the right have become.

The fact that the "witches" comment was made not in an off-the-cuff comment on the radio or to the newsmedia, but in her new book, is yet another sign that Coulter needs treatment.

Ayn Rand Greeting Cards

I first saw Garry Myers' Ayn Rand Greeting Cards five years ago. Finally, they have been published and Carl Milsted and his wife Suelinda have added some graphics to bring them to life. Check them out at: the Libertarian Reform Caucus website.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Purple Transpartisans

All of a sudden, there seems to be a movement that provides some heft for transpartisanship. Called Unity08, this is a group of Rs and Ds who believe that our politics are suboptimal. It appears that Unity08 is targeting the centrist and independent vote with a rather modest proposal that they should nominate an R and a D for Pres and VP in 08.

So far, so good.

Much goodness in how they frame issues, IMO. There are "Crucial Issues – on which America’s future safety and welfare depend; and Important Issues – which, while vital to some, will not, in our judgment, determine the fate or future of the United States."

Yes, well, of course. Some perspective and proportion seems called for in times when special interests set the agenda.

But, then, the Unityists start to lose me.

"Crucial Issues include: Global terrorism, our national debt, our dependence on foreign oil, the emergence of India and China as strategic competitors and/or allies, nuclear proliferation, global climate change, the corruption of Washington’s lobbying system, the education of our young, the health care of all, and the disappearance of the American Dream for so many of our people."

I will be interested to see what they mean by these terms. Global terrorism IS a concern, but what would Unity do about it? Is the issue "national debt," or is it runaway spending? Is the issue foreign oil dependence, or is it dependence on a substance that is carcinogenic, regardless of origin? Nuclear proliferation seems awfully bad, but what is the appropriate response? Maybe there is global climate change, but, again, what's the appropriate response? Lobbying isn't a "system" near as I can tell, but the question is why have we allowed special interests to hijack our civil society? Health care, same question. And, frankly, what ever WAS the "American Dream" and have we really lost it? By many measures, Americans are largely better off than ever before.

Still, some nice sentiments coming from the Unity crowd. My biggest concern is that they are elevating pop interpretations of what ails our politics, and buying into porous analysis. I hope they can take it to the next level, where things get real interesting.

-Robert Capozzi