Columbia University

This year’s World Economic Forum, where the financial and political elite of the developed world come together to casually discuss international business developments, probably should not have been held. True, the proceedings were tinged with dismay and a precarious mood as the world’s “best and brightest” were left bereft of ideas of how to fix the mess they created. But with so many suffering from the decisions of capitalism’s leaders, it seemed almost callous to host a conference of fine food and luxurious living amidst the wreckage. Unsurprisingly, there were protests, which eventually turned violent. I am ambiguous as to whether or not I stand with the rioters, since violence is so often destructive to productive ends. Nevertheless, the riots in Geneva reveal the very real and understandable anger with the global financial system and its elite. If the World Economic Forum is to serve a purpose, besides patting the incompetent and myopic business decision-makers on the back, then next year’s summit should have a new batch of leaders who have not failed the citizens of the world so severely. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/davos/7863684.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/business/2009/davos/7862980.stm

Columbia University

This summer found me in Copenhagen, Denmark, studying human rights in Europe. To be frank this a very strange place. It combines the feel of harsh urban viking existence (manifested primarily in heavy drinking and few hours of darkness) with the communal, idyllic atmosphere of a 17th century New England settlement. In many ways Denmark is the advanced, embodiment of social democracy that Western Europe strives to achieve. But in all too many ways it clings to archaic notions of citizenship that foster xenophobia and inhibit integration of immigrants to Danish society. The US could learn much from this strange little place, as could Denmark from the lessons of American history.

Up until the late 1990s and early 21^st century, there were no evident problems in Denmark. Even today, Denmark is annually ranked the happiest country and Copenhagen the happiest city in the world. In large part this is due to the Scandinavian Social Model. This paradigm is defined by high taxation and social spending combined with free market forces, creating a system that values both economic egalitarianism and development. The welfare state is present at every age guaranteeing a high standard of living and economic security. The result is that Denmark today has an unemployment rate under 2% and growth rates around 2%. 

This type of governmental paternalism is considered an anathema in the United States, repudiated as contrary to economic freedom and growth. Yet Denmark, according to the IMF, has a higher per capita GDP than the US, as does Finland, Norway and Iceland all of which also follow the Scandinavian model. Though much of these statistics are due to high oil prices that have benefited the Scandinavian oil industry (though the US too has an oil industry of its own, though high oil prices seem to only help oil companies), the Danish economic model presents damning challenges to supposed orthodoxies of the American way of life. While Danes tolerate 60% tax rate for the highest earners and 35% for medium earners (Denmark has the highest income tax rate in the world), they view this not as government intrusion but as social investment. In return for high taxes, the Danish people receive a well-functioning health care system, available and high wage public sector employment, a well functioning pension system and even allowances for students in universities. The latter program, coupled with free tuition at all Danish universities, has resulted in an abundance of highly-educated workers that make the Danish economy very specialized and profitable. The result of all this is that nearly every Danish citizen in the labor market is employed and lives an upper-middle class lifestyle. The efficacy of the welfare system was evident upon a trip I made to the “inner-city” of Copenhagen, which closely resembled a Florida retirement community with some graffiti. In these many ways, the Scandinavian social welfare model presents a formidable challenge to the comparatively laissez-faire American model. 

In areas of social life besides the economy the Danish approach is far more humanistic. A good example is the prison system. The Danish penal code focuses on rehabilitation and ensuring convicts can re-integrate to society rather than the prison as a form of penitence and punishment. This approach has led to seemingly bizarre punishments, such as “life sentences” that cannot exceed 15 years in prison. But aren’t these weak penalties insufficient in deterring criminals from plundering and murdering? Actually Denmark has far fewer people in prison and much lower recidivism rates than does the US, the remaining industrialized nation that uses the death penalty. Denmark, which also tightly restricts gun ownership, has very few murders each year and has a noticeable absence of school shootings, killing sprees and murder in general. In many ways, the Danish humanism that pervades the economy is evident in these prisons. I was fortunate enough to witness this when I visited the Vridsloselille State Prison, where the prison wardens tried to teach the convicts social skills and crafts so they could more easily integrate back into society upon release.

Denmark is also a model of environmental stewardship. In fact, it is the only European nation to be completely independent of foreign oil and even exports excess energy abroad. Nearly one fifth of their energy comes from large wind turbines (anyone flying over Denmark would notice them) and in 2005 the government began investing $1 billion to enhance solar, tidal and fuel-cell technology. Additionally, though cars are widely used, most Copenhageners rely on bicycles for day-to-day travel. This is in part due to a 105% tax on cars and high gas taxes, but also due to very accommodating bike lanes. Cities across the US should begin replicating this system of bike transit for a number of reasons. Foremost is the reduction of smog and pollution as well as traffic that bike transit provides. However, mass use of bikes has also made Denmark a noticeable healthy country, with very few overweight people. This may seem like a insignificant point but if US cities and suburbs began installing bike lanes surely the number of obese workers would decrease, which could save millions in health care costs. In everything from health care to bikes, Denmark vindicates its title as the happiest place in the world.

While the above conveys a virtual utopia, there are serious problems hidden beneath the Danish system. Denmark is able to achieve such remarkable achievements in quality of life in large part because it is a small, homogenous country with a robust social compact between its members. However, ever since the 1980s and 90s, the growing immigrant population has posed serious challenges to what this social compact is, and who is included in it. Today, Danish immigrants have an unemployment rate 8.3% higher than ethnic Danes, face virtually no protection against discrimination and face a political threat in the form of the far right-wing Danish People’s Party. For these immigrants, many of whom fled the worst humanitarian crises in the world, Danish society has been far from the idyllic portrait Denmark prides itself on.

While the Scandinavian social model is the cause of Denmark’s high standard of living, it is also the root of Denmark’s integration conundrum. Since the benefits of being a Danish citizen are so high the barriers faced in reaching citizenship are especially stringent. A glaring example are the refugee camps set up around Denmark. These camps house people who have ended up in Denmark by chance because often they are smuggled out of war zones and humanitarian crises and have no idea where they will end up. They end up in Denmark, and are placed in these camps where they cannot work, live on a small, fixed income and must learn sufficient Danish to earn naturalization, not citizenship. Worst of all, the many children in these refugee camps cannot go to Danish schools (where they would likely integrate best) and are imprisoned in the walls of the camp, growing older without any real education. These policies have a purposeful intention- to dissuade refugees from coming to Denmark. Right-wing politicians in Denmark are quite explicit that the country has no obligation to these refugees and all too often refuses to help them.

But even for immigrants that have obtained citizenship and are employed, integration into Danish society proves difficult. Of course the obvious case in point is the Danish cartoon controversy in which Denmark’s most circulated newspaper printed illustrations that almost any Muslim would find offensive. The cartoons were evidence of social stigmas against Muslim and Arab immigrants, too often considered not integratable simply because of their background. But there is also political barriers being implemented towards immigrant integration. An example is the impending headscarf ban that the Danish People’s Party (DPP) is lobbying in Parliament for. Even though Danish judges and most of Danish civil society have agreed that a Muslim judge wearing a headscarf is not an impediment to being a fair arbiter of the law, the DPP wants to implement a ban on the headscarf for all judges. The ostensible purpose is to give the tried person a sense of impartiality, but the ban would amount to nothing more than a violation of the freedom to practice one’s religion. In my opinion, a more sinister rationale underlies the ban- perhaps the DPP does not want any Arab or Muslim immigrant in such a high position as a judge, a profession with considerable prestige. Perhaps they feel this is a job solely for white Danes. If this seems conspiratorial, one must realize that up until very recently Denmark was an exclusively white country with no immigrants at all. The US was not so far ahead of Denmark today when Irish, Italian and other Catholic immigrant groups (to say nothing of African Americans) began entering the US labor market.

In fact, if there is anything that Denmark can learn from the US, it is how to be a more multicultural society. The US is by no means a racially egalitarian society, but it has also learned to become a nation of immigrants and respecting of diversity. The US has effective affirmative action programs that bring many minority students into higher education and the professional class. The US has a working anti-discrimination legal framework that protects minorities against flagrant abuses. America has a thriving civil society that embraces cultural and ethnic differences. And the United States currently has a black American, arguably the most oppressed group in US history, as an extremely electable candidate for president. America has a long way to go in race relations and equal opportunity under the law, but surely a homogenous nation such as Denmark can learn a lesson or two from American multiculturalism.

The many examples and issues discussed here is not to argue that America should adopt the Scandinavian model of citizenship or that Denmark should embrace American pluralism. Each nation has distinct histories that require distinct remedies. However, both countries should observe the practices of the other, see what works, what does not and implement them in order to make both more just, equitable and inclusive societies. Part of globalization is the reality that every nation faces similar problems, and if we look towards one another for possible solutions, maybe the world would work a little better  

Aaron Welt

Columbia University 

It is an exciting time to be a young, progressive politically active person this election year. The rhetoric of change, the electoral games and the seemingly unending coverage is truly dizzying. This excitement has driven some in respectable liberal columns to exhort the very death of the modern conservative movement. Though it may be wishful thinking, this election could be the rebirth of progressive power in American politics.

            I will confine this prediction to the economic and foreign policy realms of decision-making, because Christian social conservatism is still very much a palpable force. However, the platform of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, John McCain delineates the exhausted state of the American conservatism.  

            Economically, John McCain could not be more out of touch. As the economy is facing the precipice of recession and homeowners and workers scramble for some government assistance, McCain’s proposal is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. I’m no economist, in fact I’m not even majoring in economics, but the math here is simple. While a family facing foreclosure needs assistance of thousands, possibly tens of thousands of dollars to pay back to banks and rehabilitate their ability to get credit, the Bush tax cuts gave an average of a few hundred dollars to middle and low income Americans. So as the American economy plummets to almost certain recession, McCain’s policy basis is one that proved only mildly effective in the last recession and has led to the largest deficit in US history (in the midst of a war which he is committed to fighting for a century more, but more on that later). McCain’s health care policy focuses on allowing “our companies to effectively compete around the world.” This makes sense considering McCain’s proposal to make the corporate tax rate 25% from 35%, but ignores the obvious fact that American corporations can’t “effectively compete” because in other countries the government carries the burden of health care costs. With the ensuing recession and health care crisis, McCain offers banal, ineffective proposals that have proven disastrous since Reagan first took office.

            Of course McCain’s trump card is cutting pork out of the US budget. But in reality this is naïve and potentially harmful. First, according to Jared Bernstein at the American Prospect, removing all those add-on programs from the federal budget amounts to $20-60 billion, which Bernstein points out is a few months of US involvement in Iraq. Additionally, while a lot of pork barrel spending is unnecessary and corrupt, many good programs would die if McCain had his way with them. (I myself took part in high school programs funded by “pork” which were very meaningful and more useful than many functions the government currently partakes in). Cutting pork sounds cool and masculine, but is potentially very foolish.

            Finally, the wayward child of the Adams Family of conservatism (neo-conservatism) is truly a death-nail in the coffin Reagan-Bush I-Bush II era conservatism. The War in Iraq is undoubtedly the worst foreign policy decision since Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1965. As polls show more Iraqis wanting the US to leave “immediately” rather than stay John McCain has offered American “blood and treasure” for the next hundred years. He jokingly plays with the idea of invading Iran, an irresponsible and infeasible plan. American involvement in Iraq will not end in 2008, but the neo-conservative influence on American foreign policy almost assuredly will.   

            The McCain nomination is the embodiment of modern conservatism and its infeasibility in the contemporary world. He is small government even in post-Katrina America. He is internationally pugnacious, even while the US needs to rebuild its stature amongst its allies and engage the world community to tackle serious problems, such as genocide and terrorism. He is socially conservative (i.e. intolerant) even as the GLBT community becomes proudly visible in American life and other new groups, such as Latinos and blacks, become interwoven into middle class American affluence. It may not seem so at times, but the times are a changin’. This election year will prove a vital test for the conservative movement, one I believe they won’t pass, and all for the better. 

In the President’s last State of the Union address, he mentioned the necessity for the government to “trust” in the capabilities of its citizens. The government must have trust in citizens’ to make wise decisions, get their own healthcare, finance their own homes and be more or less self-sufficient. What is Bush getting at when he is telling the American people that he trusts them? Essentially, that they are on their own.

Bush’s emphasis on trust in his last State of the Union is indicative of his domestic legacy, a decrease of government presence in being a fair arbiter in the economy (even with the size of government remaining unchanged). The latest examples of this mentality are the trumped up stimulus package, bereft of actual assistance to families hit by foreclosures and loss of employment. It was also manifested in President Bush’s perverse (I think the adjective is warranted) veto of expanded SCHIP health insurance to lower income children. As brazen examples such as these show, trust is merely a purposeful misnomer for a ruthless abhorrence of welfare programs. “Trust,” for this presidency, looks more like dereliction.

Healthy relationships are built on mutual trust, and there is no reason for the American people to trust the people in charge. We were supposed to have faith that our president after 9/11 would guide a sensible foreign policy, that invading Iraq was a legitimate national interests because of its mature weapons program and that the occupation of this nation would not last long. At home, taxpayers and citizens should be safe in the assumption that if a natural disaster occurs, the government has appointed competent, experienced people ready to rescue innocent civilians and fellow citizens in a mien expected of an industrialized country. As the people of New Orleans, and generally the American public, you cannot trust the current Administration.

The next president must restore this trust, beginning with passing comprehensive reform of elections, so the American people know their new leader is not tied to special interest. And further, trust will be restored by acting competently and professionally, with a realization of accountability. It is sad that such stipulations must be asserted, but the American people have lost trust in their government. 

       As Christmas and the rhetoric of the Iowa Primaries descend on the collective senses of America, it would appear as if the US is indeed a Christian nation. Mike Huckabee has credited his rise in the polls to a higher power, John McCain has deemed the US a “Christian Nation,” and Mitt Romney must prove to the Republican base that he is Christian enough. The Democrats, too, toe the faith line in an awkward political- theological summersault. It may well be that today’s political reality requires a candidate to discuss their faith (de facto Christianity), but to the harm of democracy, civil rights and the true spirit of America is unacceptable.

            The reality of American secularism is so often obfuscated that it is hard to realize the fact that it is because America’s embrace of religious tolerance that America is where it is today. Though often disputed, the creators of our Constitution came from an Enlightenment, deist tradition and the First Amendment was meant to establish secularism. Millions of immigrants have come to this country for religious freedom (my family included) and have established businesses, built schools, temples and bestowed invaluable cultural benefits. Today, American ingenuity and innovation has transformed the world because of our historic belief in progress through science. Yes the spirit of the historical American is religious, and overwhelmingly Christian, but his Christian ideals have not been where he finds the solutions to America’s problems, but in the values established in 1776. Essentially, we would not be where we were today if America truly was “a Christian Nation.”

            True, it has always been that politicians in America discuss faith, and therefore what we see today is not a new attack on American secularism. But there have been overtures it may be. There is the obvious link between the rise of evangelical political action from the 1980s and regressive policies with respect to gay rights, abortion (now illegal in South Dakota), stem cell research and calls for intelligent design in public schools. It is instances like these where religious politicking is no longer acceptable pragmatism, but irrational policy prescriptions that make life worse for many Americans. The idea of creating a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage has been flirted with. I would strongly admonish all in the progressive community to not take this suggestion lightly, because if intolerance such as this is not confronted even in its infancy, than a loud few may tarnish America’s founding document. When George Bush uses the first of his few vetoes in office to block stem cell research, which is widely accepted as one of the most promising fields of medicine, the payback to the religious right for political support becomes a malignant burden on the medical community and the health of Americans. No doubt we heard Bush give this veto promise on some campaign stop or in a meeting with James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, William Donahue or any other of these superficial, vacuous “religious” leaders, but it was not confronted and today Americans suffer because of this.

            There is no policy I can recommend for religious encroachment into politics. If it is part of the nature of American political life, no mandate from Washington can correct this. But for those listening with secular ears, American principles do need defending. The extant political rhetoric is not conducive to a free, tolerant society and if we do not confront it we will surely regret it. We cannot allow America to be touted a “Christian nation,” but a “free nation.” The founders may have agreed with the Sermon on the Mount, but their gift to us are the values of 1776, “the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness,” to Christian and non-Christians alike.       

A report coming out last Wednesday dealt an immense blow to the cultural conservative abstinence only policy. The report said that birth rates of teenagers ages 15-19 rose 3% in 2006, the first increase since 1991. There may be several reasons why teen pregnancy has risen, but one is no doubt the failure of abstinence only education that has been adopted in public schools around the nation. Like so many other policies promoted by social conservatives, abstinence only education is a naïve and scientifically unfounded policy with, as the report demonstrates, tragic results.

The US has long had the highest teen birth rates in the industrialized world, which has begged a formation of sound policy. The conservative response has been a Christian mission to salvage some degree of “morality” in the otherwise secular, scientific public education system (except for maybe recent Intelligent Design encroachment). The Bush Administration offers tens of millions of dollars to states whose sex education programs promote abstinence till marriage and condemn contraceptives as unreliable or ineffective. And the result has been disastrous. Thousands of teenagers deprived of proper education have been unconvinced to wait till marriage resulting in the first increase of teen mother pregnancies in 15 years. Additionally, unmarried motherhood has increased, now standing at 38.5% of all births in the US (NY Times, “Teenage Birth Rate Rises for First Time Since ’91,” 12/6/07). Early pregnancy’s has many harmful effects on young and/or unwed mothers, such as diminution of educational opportunities, the financial burden and the mental stress of child rearing on a not yet fully mature mind,  and is often detrimental to the well being of the mother and the infant.

So should there be a change of sex education policy? No, we are told by Heritage Foundation senior researcher Robert Rector, because these young mothers ostensibly know of contraception but actually want to become pregnant. Sadly, this is typical of social conservative thinking, arguing that these individuals lack the proper choice making and responsibility to wait till marriage, and abstinence only education works except for the helpless few (an almost Calvinist approach to sex education). The reality is too many teenagers in America are subjected to non-sense and are told that contraceptives are not effective, that the morning after pill can is akin to abortion (such as this law in Kansas http://www.siecus.org/policy/states/2006/mandates/KS.html) and other unproven, fundamentalist claptrap. The point of sex education is for kids to be taught how to make proper decisions, not how to be moral, upright Christians. Sex education is also meant to eliminate such unnecessary scourges in our society such as teen pregnancy and teen abortion. But the only way this will happen is through sound science, policy and education. Contraceptives work (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/58065.php), and the naïve Christian fundamentalist who want to run our schools have to step out of the Dark Ages and allow teens the sex education that would reign in the unacceptable rate of teen pregnancy in this country.