Know thine enemy

Is Bill McKibben right to be angry with Obama? 37

17 Nov 2009 2:34 AM
by David Roberts
- Author Feed
Posted in
- Politics,
- Climate & Energy
Read More About
- Barack Obama,
- Bill McKibben,
- CEJAPA,
- filibuster,
- international politics,
- international treaties,
- Kerry-Boxer climate bill,
- Obama administration,
- Senate

In his latest column, Bill McKibben lays a wide range of sins at the feet of Barack Obama, accusing him of “fibbing and spinning” on climate change. He says Obama is “not particularly focused” on climate (while linking to coverage of an Obama speech dedicated to climate). He says that by putting health care ahead of climate change, Obama “guarantee[d] that health care would occupy most of the year.” He says that by focusing on green jobs and energy security rather than climate change, Obama has “left the door open for climate deniers to have a field day.” Obama’s administration is “spinning” by focusing on the still-common 450 ppm number for atmospheric CO2 rather than the 350 ppm favored by some activists and scientists.

I could not be more sincere when I say that I wish Obama were responsible for health care reform dragging on, for climate deniers and delayers, for the lack of ambition U.S. negotiators can promise the international community. If these things were a matter of Obama simply not trying hard enough, perhaps he could be persuaded to try harder. He’s a reasonable guy!

Alas, despite the far-reaching powers people tend to ascribe to the U.S. presidency in general and Obama specifically, it seems to me the real culprit is—yes, I’m going to say the same thing again, I’m boring!—the U.S. Senate.

Bill says Obama is using the Senate like Bush used China, as an excuse for delay. The analogy is apt insofar as China was out of Bush’s control and the Senate is out of Obama’s. But it’s inapt in that there’s plenty Bush could have done without China and he didn’t; there’s plenty Obama can do outside the Senate and he’s doing it. When it comes to matters under executive branch control, the progress over the last 10 months has been amazing—new fuel-economy rules, new enforcement of efficiency standards, EPA moving forward on CO2 regulations, energy standards and goals for all federal departments, tons of green stimulus money, national retrofit programs, delay of mining and drilling permits, sustained bi- and multi-lateral international climate diplomacy ... the list goes on. Obama is doing what a president can do—more than any president has ever done.

Ultimately, then, Bill’s beef comes down to Obama’s supposed refusal to “push the Senate as hard as [he] possibly can.” Tellingly, there are no details offered on what this pushing might involve, just some handwaving at “spending political capital.”

But how to push the Senate? That’s the most important question! Surely it deserves a little more attention.

Bill Clinton tried getting out ahead of Congress to prod it to action. He sent Gore to Kyoto promising ambitious action on climate. He handed Congress a health care reform bill that he (or rather his wife) had hashed out behind closed doors in the White House, ready to go.

Conservative Democrats bridled; they felt no loyalty to his agenda; they rejected the Kyoto treaty; they picked at the health bill and were happy to let it die.

Obama has been trying the opposite strategy. He is very carefully instructing his international negotiators not to promise anything that the Senate hasn’t already signed on to. (That means waiting for the Senate to pass a bill.) On both health care and clean energy, he has laid out a set of broad principles and let members of Congress work out their own bills, cheerleading occasionally from the sidelines. On health care, the progress has been impossibly slow, dragging out longer than anyone not totally cynical about the Senate could have predicted. But it’s been progress. On clean energy, the strategy worked like a charm with the House clean energy bill. Obama mostly let Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) handle it, with some crucial behind-the-scenes help. The administration strongly endorsed the bill when it passed. A roughly similar bill got to the Senate and raced through Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) progressive Environment and Public Works Committee.

And ... conservative Democrats bridled; they felt no loyalty to Obama’s agenda; they’re trash-talking Copenhagen; they’re picking at the clean energy bill and are happy to let it die. (See: Jim Webb.)

That’s two very different executive strategies that ran into similar wankery from conservative Senate Dems. Maybe our conclusion should be that the problem is conservative Senate Dems. Many such Dems come from states that voted for McCain and/or Bush. Obama has no leverage over them; support from Obama isn’t important or necessarily helpful for their electoral prospects. Unless they feel constrained by party discipline like their colleagues on the other side of the aisle, or God forbid feel the pull of conscience, they have no incentive to work to pass the progressive agenda Obama campaigned on. Nor do they have reason to accept any treaty his administration signs that goes beyond what they’ve already agreed to. Dems desperately need their votes, but they don’t desperately need other Dems, and there’s just very little in Obama’s arsenal with which to “push” them. The dysfunction of the Senate is structural; it’s not in Obama’s power to change, no matter how much he tries, no matter how much capital he spends.

The difference between Clinton’s flamboyant rhetorical pushing and Obama’s relatively laid-back style is this: Obama’s still has a chance to work. However frustrating it may be to activists who want bigger words, bolder promises, and faster action, the fact remains that the Dems are within reach of passing a health care reform bill and have at least laid out a path to passing a clean energy bill and ratifying a binding international climate treaty in 2010. It’s too early to deem Obama’s leadership a failure.

Yes: political realities can be changed. The kind of broad grassroots movement that Bill McKibben himself has been so instrumental in creating can shift the tectonic plates. But a crucial step in that process is to accurately identify what and who is blocking progress. It’s not Obama who deserves the ire of the 350 army. It’s Max Baucus (D-Mont.). It’s Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). It’s Jim Webb (D-Vir.). It’s Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). It’s the filibuster! These targets are harder to reach and in many ways less satisfying to battle, but they are the real locus of delay and inaction.

Comments

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Flynnternet Posted 6:21 am
17 Nov 2009
I don't think I could agree with you more.
Permalink
1. Catmoves Posted 2:32 pm
  17 Nov 2009
  I don't think I could agree with you less.
  Taking a shot at Bill McKibben is not going to do a single thing to get BO to focus on the issue.
  Using a balky Congress to defend The One? Oh, shame on you.
  
  Here's some points:
  1. B. Obama in the leader of the Democrat Party.
  2. Both houses of the Congress are controlled by Democrat votes.
  3. The leader of the party needs, then, to lead the party.
  4. Having basically ignored this issue during the "honeymoon" period, our leader has failed his chance to be really effective where climate change is concerned.
  5. He seems even less interested now.
  
  You also state: "He (Bill McKibben) says Obama is 'not particularly focused' on climate (while linking to coverage of an Obama speech dedicated to climate)."
  May I point out that one more speech from B. Obama is no longer likely to interest the American public? I've seen it written in more than one place. The public is giving him his due as an orator, but the grade is F as far as being able to get action from a recalcitrant Congress.
  Making excuses is not really anything like making progress, now is it?
  Permalink
Bill McKibben Posted 8:57 am
17 Nov 2009
David, you'll be happy to know 350.org is working with others to mount a series of vigils outside Senatorial offices in this country on the weekend of Dec. 12, and at consulates and embassies overseas. Your point about the Senate is of course correct, but that doesn't make it the only point. Obama is a great communicator and he has not been turning it loose on climate in any way; his team has been unwilling to bring up the latest science; and it strikes me as useful to keep some pressure on him to make the whole thing a priority.
By the way, some of us both write about this stuff and organize about it. Why don't you coordinate a vigil outside your senator's office--or help make one happen outside Max Baucus's. We could definitely use your help!
Permalink
1. laservisor Posted 7:19 pm
  17 Nov 2009
  350.org's strategy is right on target. Vigils outside local Senate and HR offices will be at least as important, if not more, than a massive march in Washington. Congressional politics is still far more locally rather than nationally focused, which is what seems to be responsible for the weak polity at the national level. A bunch of carefully orchestrated county and state-level campaigns can build momentum faster than anything else, as the health-care lobbyists seem to have recognized quite well.
  Permalink
Ted Glick Posted 9:04 am
17 Nov 2009
I made this same comment in response to Dave's original assertion that the filibuster was the cause of all (or most) of our problems on Capitol Hill.

No. Wrong. There is no filibuster in the House, where coal state Democrats wreaked their havoc on the legislation-writing process, leading to a very problematic climate bill.

Ted Glick
Permalink
1. David Roberts Posted 11:00 am
  17 Nov 2009
  Ted, your point doesn't prove what you seem to think it proves. The House bill basically came out at the median ideological point of the Democratic caucus. Waxman made the concessions he had to make to get it passed. The result doesn't please you or I, but it's a fairly democratic representation of where the country stands right now. Oh, and it *passed*.
  
  The Senate does not represent the country in a democratic way; rural and low-population states are over-represented. And the bill there will need far MORE than a majority to pass. The combination of those two facts means that the resulting bill will be far to the right of the median -- far, far worse than the House bill -- and for all that, it may not pass at all.
  
  Just because you don't like either one doesn't mean the situations in the House and Senate are parallel.
  Permalink
Sam Penrose Posted 10:10 am
17 Nov 2009
I started calling my Senators to ask how they felt about changing the rules to be more majoritarian, and learned 2 things:

1) Email to the national office via their online forms is recommended approach.

2) Phrasing the question is not so easy and probably matters. Here’s what I came up with:

“Currently most major legislation requires the support of 60 senators. Does the Senator support changing Senate rules to allow a simple majority of Senators to better implement their agenda?”

Suggestions for improving this language would be awesome. Also, how about surfing to your Senators’ sites at (lastname).senate.gov and putting the question to them?
Permalink
neosapiens Posted 10:56 am
17 Nov 2009
What's desperately needed is a sustained national dialog where the denier talking points are thoroughly demolished and the facts presented in a way that will shake people up, touch their hearts, and get them really, really angry. Once the self-serving lies are thoroughly exposed and there's nowhere to hide, lawmakers will be more amenable to serving the needs of the people who voted for them instead of the big-money corporate interests that have been gumming up the works. This is something where the president could choose to lead, or at least to support a sustained a vigorous campaign to inform the public. Until the president stands up and leads, every effort to address the nation's most urgent problems will continue to be hijacked in the senate and used to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to line the pockets of well-heeled contributors to a few key senators.
Permalink
joowan1 Posted 10:58 am
17 Nov 2009
As an environmental advocate I'm tired of seeing group's like McKibben's and Greenpeace do mostly press actions. Photo petitions,civil disobedience, and days of action are good, but are out of sight, and out of mind for most people within days of these events. How about spending more of your resources on getting something more concrete done instead of trying to get as much publicity as possible? As we've all seen, those tactics just aren't that effective.
Permalink
paroneanu Posted 11:21 am
17 Nov 2009
@JOOWAN1 I'm not sure that you've taken a look at 350.org -- what CNN has called the "Most widespread political action in history" that took place in 5200 places all over the world on October 24 of this year. It took a year of organizing, and helped build a concrete movement all around the world. I would argue that it was a movement-building effort rather than a publicity stunt.

Nevertheless, what do you suggest as a "concrete" way to move forward?
Permalink
1. joowan1 Posted 12:40 pm
  17 Nov 2009
  Many people have been building this concrete movement for years, it wasn't just 350 that did it.
  
  What I'm saying is where's the help for local people on the ground starting green businesses and green training programs from 350, or would they rather just take pictures of them and send them to Congressmen and women in the form of a photo petition?
  
  How about helping people write and pass Legislation on a state and city level that makes their goals more concrete and longterm?
  
  Movement building is only half the battle, we need help from national/international organizations like these who say they speak for the people, but aren't actually doing anything productive and long-term on the ground level.
  Permalink
jhenn Posted 11:32 am
17 Nov 2009
I think there's little disagreement that the block to progress is in Congress, so let's get into that question that Dave poses of what's the best way to push them.

The point that Bill and many others are making (see Greenpeace's banner hang on Mt. Rushmore for example) is that Obama needs to step up is public campaigning for a strong clean energy and climate bill. I agree that he's doing some work behind the scenes, but without the President's vocal leadership there is no way we'll get a climate bill that's anywhere close to what science says is necessary.

Let's not forget what we're talking about here: a complete rewiring of the US economy that puts our country on a war time footing to simultaneously take on poverty and pollution. That's not something that Congress is capable of legislating. That kind of action takes leadership along with laws.

And that's where Obama isn't doing his part. Contrast these two scenes. Scene one, Obama making a major speech on the levees of New Orleans to announce a new Clean Energy Jobs Corps designed to get America off fossil fuels and stop the climate crisis. Scene two, Obama sitting at a palace in Singapore guarded by barbed wire and issuing statements designed to undercut progress on an international climate treaty.

That second scene happened on Monday, when Obama did more to deflate hopes for action at Copenhagen then any nay-saying Congressman could ever accomplished.

But that first scene is what we desperately need. Obama's greatest moments have come when he's been put on the ropes (think Rev. Wright and the race speech in Philadelphia). It's not easy taking on someone we worked so hard for -- I also went door to door for Obama in New Hampshire, South Carolina, New Mexico, and Nevada -- but sometimes it's necessary.

Here's one more vote for tough love.
Permalink
Sam Penrose Posted 11:41 am
17 Nov 2009
One more point: Obama promised "Change we can believe in." Voters may have been foolish to think he meant what he said, but only because he fooled them. I don't recall a lot of Obama speeches about how dependent his agenda was on the Senate.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:06 pm
17 Nov 2009
Has the dysfunctional US government become irrelevant to the future of humanity? I am more than disappointed by Obama's silence.
Permalink
neosapiens Posted 12:17 pm
17 Nov 2009
There is another possible reason for the President's approach: in the short run he's stuck with dealing with the senators we have, and he's afraid that a more aggressive approach will just make them dig their heels in so deeply that nothing legislative will be able to be accomplished. We're talking about an exclusive club of people with vast egos, parochial viewpoints, little accountability, where each and every one of them has veto power over legislative action because of the 60-vote requirement to close debate. In the absence of a major groundswell of public anger, the President may not have many options.
Permalink
1. David Roberts Posted 12:59 pm
  17 Nov 2009
  Yes, you've nailed it.
  Permalink
Sam Penrose Posted 12:20 pm
17 Nov 2009
@neosapiens: so let's focus on DOING something about that.
Permalink
Glenn Hurowitz Posted 1:00 pm
17 Nov 2009
It would be great if Obama did more arm twisting and making speeches in favor of clean energy jobs. And there is lots he can do that he's not doing. Every senator wants something, and I haven't seen much evidence that Obama is willing to punish senators who don't give him what HE wants.

But Obama doesn't need to make dramatic statements. He just needs to be clearer about what he's pushing for in regulation under the Clean Air Act. He really just has to say one sentence: "My administration will use its regulatory authority through the Clean Air Act and other mechanisms to achieve emissions reductions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. I'm happy to sign a climate bill that provides more flexibility to US companies than regulation, but if that doesn't happen, we're going to do everything we can to switch America to a clean energy jobs economy as quickly as possible." Then, the burden is on the polluters to pass a bill. Game over. Hell, he could even have EPA administrator Lisa Jackson say it. More: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090511/radford?rel=hp_currently
Permalink
skitters Posted 1:52 pm
17 Nov 2009
Cap-and-trade are hurting any attempt to pass legislation in congress. That's why the Alexander/Webb bill could be the one that people are going to have to compromise on. Without a global price on carbon, its quite foolish to limit your nation to cap-and-trade policies.
http://envirogy.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/putting-the-eggs-in-the-nuclear-basket/
Permalink
John Deans Posted 5:33 pm
17 Nov 2009
David, I agree with many of your points, though perhaps not as much as I agree with Bill McKibben. One of your sentences struck me to the bone: "On clean energy, the strategy worked like a charm with the House clean energy bill." I have to say this is a gross misinterpretation of the bill that came out of the house. There is very little support for clean energy in ACES, but has tens of billions provided to the coal industry in the form of CCS research money, financing for "ccs ready" coal plants, free pollution permits, and 2 billion tons worth of pollution offsets. Though I agree that it is an energy bill, not a climate bill, saying that this strategy worked like a charm is overstepping the boundaries of hyperbole. I live in Raleigh, NC and Obama came riding through to champion health care reform, as he did all over the country. Where was he 6-8 months ago when Congress was considering and voting on climate legislation? He has not done all he can do as a President, and we need him to be a leader on this issue. If the strategy was to get a bill that protects the climate, only the coal industry was charmed.
Permalink
jayohara Posted 6:41 pm
17 Nov 2009
This is instructive. We have to hear this argument again and again. Let us identify this type of thinking as the "DC Mentality" which says that political reality is set, and that we need to negotiate a way to get what we want given political reality.

Actually, if Obama is smart (which I think he is), he WANTS us to get a little impatient with him. The way to get what we want is to change political reality. How do we do that? By organizing a movement that is capable of exerting pressure on decision makers. A movement that is powerful enough to (in the paraphrase of LBJ) go out and make Obama do it.

Bill isn't therefore attacking Obama, quite the opposite - he's doing what's necessary to allow Obama to do the right thing. By changing political reality - by amassing our forces of the people against the vested fossil fuel interests - we create the space for The Changeinator to start putting this on the front burner.

Here in Massachusetts a group of students are leading campaign called "The Leadership Campaign" for 100% Clean Electricity in the next decade - the sort of WWII mobilization that we'll need to make this happen. They've been camping out on Boston Common every week, lobbying, organizing, and they just had a very productive meeting with the Governor today.

So as the stickers on the green hard hats say, let's "Get To Work!"
Permalink
Ben Lieberman Posted 7:55 pm
17 Nov 2009
On this topic Bill is wrong.
It was never a secret that health care was going to come first, and yes it has been a long, hard slog, and achieving health care for all Americans is still going to be hard.

The Obama adminsitration has already taken unprecdented steps to tackle global warming via the EPA, but legistlation is still necessary, and yes the Senate is an incredibly arcane, cumbersome, slow-moving and obstructionist, and un-representative body that probably should not exist.

With all due respect, the key is to win support for pricing carbon--without first gaining support for that principle it does not matter what target you set 350-450 or any other number--you will miss them all.

The 350 events showed a lot of effort, and I enjoyed hearing Bill's mother speak at the event in Concord Massachusetts, but there was also a usual-suspects feel to the event. What wuld be an effective means to sway swing Senators on this issue? Will vigils prove effective?

This is the first real chance we have had to begin to tackle this threat. Insulting the President who has already done more than any other on this issue is a huge mistake. Use of words such as "fibbing" only serves to marginilize environmentalists.
Permalink
1. splashy Posted 5:24 am
  18 Nov 2009
  I'm wondering if one of the reasons for achieving health care for all is to make it possible for more people to start new businesses in the green fields.
  
  There are many people that could do a world of good for the environment if they only could make sure at the same time that they and their families had their health issues covered. That's why so many work for the big businesses, when they would rather start their own companies.
  
  That's also why so many big businesses LIKE having the health care club to hold over the heads of their most valued employees. It makes for less competition for them, the ability to exploit the talents of many employees, and fosters more loyalty from their employees even when they abuse and use them.
  
  So, maybe getting health care fixed will go a long way toward getting everything else fixed.
  Permalink
tweetingdonal Posted 8:13 pm
17 Nov 2009
Despite all the opinions above, I don't see anything pointing to the truly responsible. All the talk of President Obama, the Senate, the House, the Judiciary, the Media...

The responsibility for American behaviour rests with us, the American people. It is our job to become informed, to grasp the situation at hand, and tell our REPRESENTATIVES that we want them to act. I guarantee the folks on the Hill or at 1600 Pennsylvania will listen if the people say, "fix it or be voted out".

All the BlameStorming does not good. Get the people behind you... the rest must follow.
Permalink
1. jayohara Posted 8:45 pm
  17 Nov 2009
  wait, wait, isn't that what I was saying?
  
  Right On TWEETINGDONAL!
  Permalink
David Roberts Posted 1:11 am
18 Nov 2009
Here's Mike Tomasky saying something very similar:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2009/nov/17/obama-administration-congress
Permalink
Tim Burrows Posted 3:54 am
18 Nov 2009
I think we would all agree that in terms of climate change responses, clean energy is necessary but not sufficient. As much as it is important to get clean energy legislation in place to support basic R&D on renewables etc, surely the focus should be on getting the right legislation in place to get an appropriate price on carbon so that the market is able to make the right decisions?

In my view there is a massive underinvestment in energy efficiency right now. Why? Because energy is artificially cheap. Once a carbon price is in place, businesses will analyse their internal cost of abatement (see http://www.northmoregordon.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63:getting-your-greenhouse-in-order&catid=39:ideas&Itemid=58) and make the right decisions. As long as the government continues to throw money at renewables in preference to genuine least-cost emissions reduction alternatives, society will be paying an unnecessary price for emissions reductions.
Permalink
splashy Posted 5:12 am
18 Nov 2009
I also couldn't agree with you more. It's obvious to anyone that is paying attention that the Senate is the real stick in the mud when it comes to getting things done. My Senators are some of the culprits, which annoys me to no end. I keep harassing them about it - so far no luck, but hopefully more and more will do the same until they change their stance on these things.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:12 am
18 Nov 2009
Good take on Obama strategy. How it eventually works out on healthcare should predict how climate change legislation will fare. Will we be forced to buy insurance from the "death panel" crew at mega-opolist insurance corporations or will we have an affordable public option?

What we should be angry about is the lack of action on computer modeling of the interaction of a distributed renewable generation and storage smart grid with our present central "dumb" fossil and nuclear powered grid. Different possible transition paths need to be explored and explained to policymakers and the public.

Then maybe political choices could be made with intelligence behind them, instead of lobbyist cash? Where should incentives go to encourage the best possible transition for the climate and the economy?

Assume cost trends in renewable energy will be going down with mass production and that the price of fuel based energy will go up. As fossil and nuclear power industries are forced to accept the cost of the messes they have made, and are continuing to make, the price will rise even faster than inflation in oil, natural gas, and coal based energy.

The effect of price spikes in oil and natural gas due to international conflagrations and storms and market manipulation should be considered too. Super computers are designed for these complicated simulations afterall, and we the people did pay for them (secretary Cho's old lab, Lawrence Livermore for instance). So what's the holdup?

We want better rhetorical ammunition to fight the denier/delayer corporate lobbyist astroturfers. Step aside please coal and nuke lobbyists, we the people need some cutting edge technology applied to the new energy economy roll out and the all important political decisions involving subsidy diversion from fossil and nuclear power to renewables.

The planned "communist" economy of China is beating US capitalists. Time for some planning of our own.
Permalink
HealthyHiker Posted 11:06 am
18 Nov 2009
More effort needs to be placed in our communities on organizing around our Congress members' social, economic and environmental policies. We also must replace existing Congress members with leaders who place environmental preservation on the top of their priority list.
Permalink
Mike Tidwell Posted 2:35 pm
18 Nov 2009
I hear ya, David. But McKibben has it right about Obama. We'll never get a strong climate bill unless the President makes climate a priority at least on par with health care. And, contrary to your post, Obama DID have a specific climate plan at one point: during the presidential campaign. The plan would have been very popular with voters had he fought for it upon taking office. See my Grist post today calling for a second look at candidate Obama's 2008 "cap-and-rebate" plan:

http://www.grist.org/member/view-all/posts/1675

Mike
Permalink
Earthgal Posted 5:01 pm
18 Nov 2009
Neosapiens and Jhenn - Yes!
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:52 pm
18 Nov 2009
David- I agree with you- I think what Bill is doing with 350.org is great but I don't see how Obama latching onto to 350 will have big gains politically- the green jobs and security are probably better political narratives right now- and he made a decision to go with healthcare first- once we get it I think we'll realize that it was worth it. All of the focus from then on will be on jobs and climate legislation fits in nicely with that if we can make the green jobs case. Obama is not perfect but he's also not a magician- there are serious structural issues with the Senate and we have a Republican Party that is for all practical purposes completely insane- very difficult environment in which to do anything, especially big things.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:53 pm
18 Nov 2009
David- I agree with you- I think what Bill is doing with 350.org is great but I don't see how Obama latching onto to 350 will have big gains politically- the green jobs and security are probably better political narratives right now- and he made a decision to go with healthcare first- once we get it I think we'll realize that it was worth it. All of the focus from then on will be on jobs and climate legislation fits in nicely with that if we can make the green jobs case. Obama is not perfect but he's also not a magician- there are serious structural issues with the Senate and we have a Republican Party that is for all practical purposes completely insane- very difficult environment in which to do anything, especially big things.
Permalink
dave shukla Posted 7:11 am
21 Nov 2009
These are the conversations one looks forward to in the days to come...

The "Change We Can Believe In" is that which ordinary people participate in bringing about. Simple.

Dave Shukla
Permalink
johnpdeever Posted 9:17 am
24 Nov 2009
David, I'm no expert on this, but I wonder if you remembered a Harper's magazine cover story from back in 2004 on "the case for abolishing the U.S. Senate" http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/05/0080035
Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor! Why not register?

Viewed

Commented

Is Bill McKibben right to be angry with Obama? 37

17 Nov 2009 2:34 AM
by David Roberts

Posted in

Read More About

Related Stories

Add a Comment

Sections

Columns

The Fine Print

Is Bill McKibben right to be angry with Obama? 37

17 Nov 2009 2:34 AM by David Roberts

Posted in

Read More About

Related Stories

Comments View as Flat

Add a Comment

Posts With the Mosts

Recent Comments by ...

Sections

Columns

The Fine Print

17 Nov 2009 2:34 AM
by David Roberts