Communitarian Letter #28
Green the Public Square
The Mother of All Deals
The Free Market vs. Regulating
Congratulations!
Security First in Afghanistan
Export Security, Not Democracy
Upcoming Events
Good Reads
Endorsements
Feedback
Green the Public Square: comments and support requested!
A good debate has started as to the size of the stimulus package the economy badly needs, and above all regarding what it should include. I suggest that providing seed money for the greening of all public facilities—from military bases to prisons, from public schools to courts—should be included. I urge focusing on public facilities because these are much more amenable to guidance from the government, and one can expectmuch quicker results than in dealing with the private sector. Federal agencies can be turned around by executive order. For example, the military can be ordered by the commander in chief to proceed with greening forthwith. As far as greening is concerned, public facilities, to use a tired cliché, are the low-hanging fruit.
True, undoubtedly the private sector also must be involved, and on a great scale. However, many of the new initiatives involved will require Congressional hearings, be subject to pressures by various lobbies and ideological differences, and require rule making that can take many months; they also may well be subject to court challenges. Hence it is best to lead by greening the public sector.
President-elect Obama has already expressed support for greening the public square as part of his economic plan, stating that "...we will launch a massive effort to make public buildings more energy-efficient. Our government now pays the highest energy bill in the world. We need to change that. We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs."
Greening should be required of all federal facilities, of all corporations that receive a substantial amount of federal funds in grants or contracts (e.g., Halliburton and Boeing), and of all those who receive new funds from the stimulus package. Governors and mayors can play the same role in leading to the greening of all state and municipal facilities. Greening should be asked of the hundreds of thousands of not-for-profit organizations, such as the Gates, Ford, and Rockefeller foundations, that benefit from tax privileges.
Here follow illustrative examples of the measures that might be fostered:
- Discourage the use of private vehicles and encourage the use of public transportation by public employees as well as the “customers” of public facilities (e.g., introduce and/or increase parking fees in all areas controlled by public facilities, arrange for passenger vans to connect to mass transit, kiss and rides, and parking lots).
- Generate clean energy (e.g., introduce solar panels on public buildings; connect their grids to those of other public facilities to co-generate and share energy).
- Conserve energy (e.g., require all future vehicles purchased by public authorities to meet higher fuel efficiency standards; better insulate public buildings and cover them, where possible, with green roofs).
- Make new and existing public buildings “smart” (e.g., use computers to adjust heating or cooling levels and turn off lights and computers when not in use).
- Appoint an energy czar for each public facility, to be responsible for fostering greening in his or her facility.
- Create an annual energy audit to determine public savings and to identify additional measures that might be taken.
- Create a clearinghouse for public facilities to list measures and new ideas, and to acknowledge achievements.
- Federal investments in fixing roads, bridges, and highways should be made only as long as these projects set aside lanes for busses, passenger vans and, when practical, for bikes.
- Discourage unnecessary travel by increasing budgets for teleconferencing.
Unlike the much more encompassing and visionary program recently assembled by a coalition of leading environmental groups and issued to the Obama transition team (“Transition to Green”), most of the greening of the public square can be initiated by the executive branch in short order. Above all this can be done without raising taxes (e.g., on carbons), which in the current environment is not desirable. This is not to agitate against the much more comprehensive environmental goals laid out in “Transition to Green,” but to suggest that as the more expansive agenda works its way through Congress, great parts of the greening of the public square can be rushed along.
Environmentalists have already pointed out that green acts are winners to the fourth degree: they reduce our dependence on foreign oil; generate jobs at home; improve the climate; and stimulate our research and development, a major engine of a strong economy that is especially well-suited for the American place in the global economy. Greening the public square, I argue, adds an important fifth degree of service to the common good: it creates a powerful and reliable demand for new or improved green products by securing a mass market for them. After all, government investment in research and development is the way we got computers, the internet, microwave ovens, satellites, and commercial aviation technology. Take the example of energy-efficient vehicles. To develop such vehicles requires a major outlay. If there is no secure and sizable market for such vehicles, car manufacturers and investors will be reluctant to make such investments. If, however, manufacturers knew that all new vehicles purchased by millions of public entities in the future would be required to meet ever higher fuel efficiency standards, such investments would become much less risky. Moreover, such an ensured mass market would reduce the unit cost for the private sector.
There is no reason for the stimulus package to pay in full for the greening at hand. A substantial amount of seed money should suffice. The rest can be funded by special bonds to be paid off by the savings the various agencies will reap by greening their facilities. For instance, for every ten thousand dollar reduction they experience in their electricity bill, five thousand should go to pay off the greening costs, and the rest could be used by the agency involved as it deems fit.
In short, there is much to be gained from focusing on greening the public square. The main losers would be the adversaries who are confronting us from Latin America to Eastern Europe, drawing on the funds and political leverage which selling oil grants them. That is, such greening provides yet another “win”: more funds in our pockets, less in the hands of those who do not particularly care about our well being or that of people in other parts of the free world.
For additional postings on the recent auto industry bailout and other topic please visit
Please email your comments, suggestions, and indications of support to .
The mother of all deals
Among all the difficult choices and severe challenges President Obama will face on January 20th and in the months and years to follow, there is one very attractive change that is relatively easy to bring about. The major reason I am wildly optimistic about a US/Russia deal is that it can be based on a principle that underlies many, if not all, great deals: There are concessions that Russia can make for us that we care about deeply—and that they do not. And there are concessions Russia dearly wants—but about which we do not care nearly as much.
Before I quickly list the main elements of such a master deal I should note that it requires dropping the remaining vestiges of the neocon fantasy (a) that we can democratize the world and that only countries that embrace our kind of regime are reliable partners in peace, and (b) that we are a superpower which is so rich and omnipotent that we do not need to set priorities and can gain even things that are low on our wish list.
What does the United States want most from Russia? That it stop supplying Iran with nuclear plants and uranium and that it join us and the Europeans in a joint drive to convince Iran to come clean with regard to its nuclear military program. And—that Russia accelerate the Cooperative Threat Reduction Initiative, our joint project to ensure that the small nuclear bombs Russia has in great numbers (the bombs most suitable for terrorists) and the materials from which such bombs can be made will be better protected or rendered inoperative, and that their contents will be blended down. Russia has no profound reason to refuse to help us on these two fronts. Indeed, it has its own misgivings about facing a Muslim nation armed with nukes or terrorists with such weapons—only it does not feel nearly as threatened by these prospects as we are.
What does Russia most want from the United States? That we not put the instruments of “Star Wars” (our missile defense system) close to its borders and that we not surround it with NATO allies. Putting missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic is one of those far out ideas of the Bush Administration that we cannot pay for anyhow, it is unlikely to work, and it can be located in other areas. And although we may wish to see Georgia and the Ukraine in NATO (some even want to make Russia a member!), we can defer this invitation, say, for ten years without breaking out in sweat or tears or feeling any other great sense of loss.
No Drama Obama has shown so far a keen sense for making moves that keep the voters in rapture. See his rapid fire cabinet appointments, which have stretched out over a fair number of news cycles. See the way he plans to introduce a grand stimulus package on his first day in office, and has invited the Pentagon to prepare an Iraqi pullout, all before the first week of his presidency is completed. Striking a major deal with Russia, a country which following 1990 had worked quite well with the United States but has recently turned into an obstructionist opponent to our foreign policy, would fit well into Obama’s first 100 days. Indeed, there is little that would make the much more difficult moves in the Middle East easier than first taking care of Iran’s nuclear program. This in turn requires finding a way to work with Russia.
Hillary: Get your heavy coat ready. It is freezing in Moscow in January, but you can bring Russia in from the cold.
Originally posted by Amitai Etzioni on the Huffington Post,here.
The Free Market vs. Regulating
Challenge: The Magazine of Economic Affairs introduces our upcoming article on market regulation as follows: “The noted communitarian, Amitai Etizioni, has the splendid talent of putting things simply and being definitive at the same time. This elegant essay on the value of regulations tell us more about this high-priority issue than many a detailed analysis does.”
To read the full article, see the January 2009 issue!
Congratulations!
Congratulations to Cem Ozdemir, recently elected co-leader of the German Green Party. Mr. Ozdemir isthe first ethnic Turk to hold such a party leadership position in Germany, and isa staunch communitarian.
Security First in Afghanistan
Washington Post columnist David Ignatuis recently wrote a piece on Afghanistan that echoes our own thoughts. He writes, “What will destroy that country's experiment in democracy isn't the Taliban or other insurgent groups, but the lawlessness and corruption that have been allowed to fester under the government of President Hamid Karzai.” Later, he quotes Saad Mohseni, who says “The resurgence of the Taliban is a result of the public's hunger for law and order.”
The article can be found here.
Export Security, Not Democracy
By Jonathan Rauch,National Journal
"'Six years after September 11,' wrote Krauthammer, 'there is still no remotely plausible alternative to the Bush Doctrine for ultimately changing the culture from which jihadism arises.'
If that ever was true, it ceased to be as of last summer. That was when Amitai Etzioni published an important book called Security First: For a Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy..."
To read the rest of this review visit
Upcoming Events
"A neo-communitarian approach: Policy implications for Asian societies."
Key note presentation at the opening dinner
Asian Social Protection in Comparative Perspective, a Conference
January 7, 2009
LeeKuanYewSchool of Public Policy
NationalUniversity of Singapore
Singapore
“Neo Communitarianism”
January 9, 2009
3:30-5:30 pm
Asia Research Institute
Singapore
Association of American Law Schools Annual Meeting
January 6-10, 2009
San Diego, California
Law and Communitarian Studies Section: “Community as a ‘Third Force’ in Domestic and International Relations”
For more information, contact Professor Linda C. McClain at .
“The Duty to Protect”
January 22, 2009
2:30pm
Hebrew University
Israel
For more information, contactPiki Ish-Shalom,
“The conflict between rights and the common good”
January 22, 2009
7:00 pm
Mishkenot Sha’ananim
Jerusalem
For more information contact Meirav Jones at the ShalemCenter,
International Studies Associating 50th Annual Convention
February 15-18, 2009
New York City, New York
“Exploring Possibilities and Problems in Comprehensive Global Integration”
Sunday, February 15, 2:15pm
Roundtable Chair:
Luis Cabrera, University of Birmingham
Roundtable Participants:
Brooke Ackerly, VanderbiltUniversity
ChristineKeating, OhioStateUniversity
Amitai Etzioni, GeorgeWashingtonUniversity
“Foreign Policy for the New Administration”
Monday, February 16, 12:15pm
Roundtable Chair:
Amitai Etzioni, GeorgeWashingtonUniversity
Roundtable Participants:
Jason M.K. Lyall, PrincetonUniversity
Aaron Friedberg, PrincetonUniversity
Vali Nasr, FletcherSchool, TuftsUniversity
Laslie Gelb, Council on Foreign Relations
Good Reads
We are delighted to note that the book Law and the Long War by Benjamin Wittes, a previous editor of the Responsive Community Quarterly, was on best book lists issued for the holidays by the Washington Post and the Economist.
Hope College Professor David Myers’ new book, A Friendly Letter to Skeptics and Atheists: Musings on Why God is Good and Faith Isn’t Evil helps bridge the skeptic and believers and suggests how faith can be reasonable, science affirming, hopeful, and humane.
Cathie Jo Martin and Kathleen Thelen argue that big government facilitates social solidarity rather than driving a wedge between low-skilled workers is this World Politics (October 2007) piece: “The State and Coordinated Capitalism:Contributions of the Public
Sector to Social Solidarity in Postindustrial Societies.”
Additionally, Professors Martin argues that employers exhibit greater support for welfare state programs when these are imbibed with social democratic values rather than neo-liberal ones in another piece in World Politics: “Reinventing Welfare Regimes: Employers and the Implementation ofActive Social Policy”
Amitai Etzioni’s article “Toward a Progressive Approach to Homeland Security” was published in Democracy and Security (Volume 4, Issue 2, 2008); “Reconstruction: A Damaging Fantasy?” was published in Military Review (November-December 2008); and “Die Türkei – Nagelprobe für den Westen,” as published inInternationale Politik und Gesselschaft (4/2008).
Endorsements
The Responsive Communitarian Platform can be found here. We invite all people who agree to endorse it here.
J. Matthew Melton
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
LeeUniversity
Cleveland, TN
Ronny Shtarkshall
The BraunSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine
The HebrewUniversity and Hadassah Medical Organization
Damema Spragens
Lawrence, MA
Suzanne Simmons
Lyons, CO
Anthony Galli
Glastonbury
CT
Sharon Toji
Irvine, CA
The Diversity Within Unity Platform is here. We invite all people who agree to endorse it by sending an email to with the subject “endorse DWU.”
Feedback
The following are responses to “Ethics for Lawyers?” The original question can be found here.
I have not seen the Abrams article, but my understanding of the code of ethics is that a lawyer has an ethical obligation not to present evidence known to be untrue. Of course there is also an obligation to present evidence in the way most favorable to the client's case, and I don't doubt that some lawyers let that obligation (or an excessive desire to please the client) lead them into crossing over the boundary between zealous advocacy and presenting false evidence. But the basic rule is straightforward -- you cannot present evidence you know to be untrue. Indeed, if the client insists on it, you must withdraw from the representation.
Walter Slocombe
While I was excited as I started to read your article “Raise the bar for lawyers”, my excitement was quickly crushed. You missed the much bigger picture. Calling defense lawyers criminal is like calling Fox News biased while ignoring the stronger (and mostly ignored) bias of every other (liberal) news outlet. You are irresponsibly missing the much, much bigger crime: the way in which prosecutors work and the whole legal system is run.
Defense lawyers have an immediate disadvantage, as most do not believe them from day one. The prosecutorial lawyers have far more advantages on their side. First of all, most people believe them. They have judges; the media, where the defendant is vilified, even before the jury is selected, guaranteeing a biased jury; even jurors already in their pocket. What happens when a witness for the prosecution (like a police officer) lies under oath? Absolutely nothing! People, including the jurors, tell themselves, well, they weren’t truthful on that point, but everything else they say is true (until they’re caught telling more lies, but then only those statements aren’t true). What happens when a witness for the defense lies? At best, everything they have said and will say is ignored, thought to be lies. At worse, they are charged with perjury. How does that allow for a fair and just legal system?